Voter Suppression?

[lilpixieofterror]

I hate both parties.

So do I. Both of them are more interested in getting themselves more power than in helping America. Jimmy though, seems to thrive on the democrat propaganda.

[Cow Poke]

I hate both parties.

I don't hate either, but I only love them barely enough to get into Heaven.


(then, again, it's good to hate evil!)

[Darth Xena]

He does. I used to be pretty staunch Republican but no longer. I am still a registered Republican so I can vote in the primaries - but for all intents and purposes I more closely align with Libertarian

[Darth Xena]

I don't hate either, but I only love them barely enough to get into Heaven.


(then, again, it's good to hate evil!)

We really need one or more parties.

[JimL]

They do? Than go right ahead and point out a single time where a Democrat has ended subsidizing wealth corporations or are you too stupid to figure out that Democrats are also rich and thus want to do things to support the rich as much as possible. Isn't it interesting that despite having both houses and the presidency for two years, they didn't end subsidizing to the wealthy nor did they do much of anything to end all the loops holes that the rich enjoy in order to get around paying taxes? Wow, they have you drinking that kool-aid 24/7. Don't they.

Democrats brought it to to the floor for a vote didn't they Lilpix, and guess who blocked it. Yeah, you guessed it. Had Republicans voted yea along with almost every Democrat then 20 billion in corporate welfare would be ended. So, you can rationalize all you want, but facts is facts, Republicans voted to continue corporate welfare, Democrats voted to end it.

Yeah, right into the pockets of all those rich people.

Yeah, as well as into the pockets of people that continue to have jobs because of that spending.

Yeah and spending money at their stores and on their products doesn't fatten their offshore bank accounts nor make these fat cats richer.

Sure it does, and nobody is against people getting rich. Funny how thats all you see in the argument.

Yeah, the same entitlements that the Democrats did nothing to end when they controlled the house and the presidency for two years. If they really cared about the poor, why did they end these entitlements to the rich Jimmy or are you still too stupid to figure out that the rich have the democrats in their pockets as much as you accuse them of having the republicans in their pockets?

As above lilpix, they brought it to the floor and the Republicans blocked it. That must be the fault of the Democrats, right?

And apparently, there is no rich democrats that want these programs to continue and try to fool stupid people, such as you, into voting for them.

I never said there weren't any did I, but as a party the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to end 20 billion dollars in corporate welfare and Republicans voted to continue it while preaching how the so called entitlements, the safety net has to be cut. Facts is facts lilpix, live with it.

And remember people, Jimmy doesn't believe rich democrats exist and doesn't ask himself why the democrats are not doing anything to end these programs that he says are so bad and evil. So, how does that Kool-Aid taste?

Right Lilpix, talk about hearing only what you want to hear. Geesh!

[Cow Poke]

We really need one or more parties.

I agree, but the system is rigged for them to fail.

[lilpixieofterror]

Democrats brought it to to the floor for a vote didn't they Lilpix, and guess who blocked it. Yeah, you guessed it. Had Republicans voted yea along with almost every Democrat then 20 billion in corporate welfare would be ended. So, you can rationalize all you want, but facts is facts, Republicans voted to continue corporate welfare, Democrats voted to end it.

Really Jimmy? They were able to pass the Affordable Health Care Act without a single republican vote, so they could have passed anything they wanted by and there would have been doing the republicans could have done to stop them. Yet, did they do that? Keep drinking that Kool-Aid down because you don't seem to understand that things do not add up. If they were able to pass a bill, without a single republican vote, they could have done that one too, again without a single republican vote. Why didn't they do it Jimmy?

Yeah, as well as into the pockets of people that continue to have jobs because of that spending.

Yep because remember... giving rich people money is wrong when the government does it, but it appears that giving it to people who will go give their money to more rich people is ok. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense...

Sure it does, and nobody is against people getting rich. Funny how thats all you see in the argument.

Another non answer. Figures... How does that Kool-Aid taste? Is it at least a good favor?

As above lilpix, they brought it to the floor and the Republicans blocked it. That must be the fault of the Democrats, right?

Considering that the democrats were able to pass a ACA, without republican support, yeah it is their fault, but you seem too stupid to figure that little part out. If they were able to pass the ACA, without republican support, they could have passed anything they wanted. Yet, they didn't. Why didn't they do that Jimmy or are you going to continue to ignore that little fact?

I never said there weren't any did I, but as a party the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to end 20 billion dollars in corporate welfare and Republicans voted to continue it while preaching how the so called entitlements, the safety net has to be cut. Facts is facts lilpix, live with it.

And yet... they managed to be able to pass the ACA, without any Republican support. You really want the rest of us to believe this load of garbage Jimmy? They had two years to pass anything they wanted, but they choose to pass the ACA instead. In that two years, did they do anything to end giving companies billions of dollars or did they do nothing, but try to get stupid people (such as you) to seriously believe this nonsense. They were clearly able to pass one bill, without republican support, so why didn't the pass more Jimmy? Have you figured it out yet? They don't want it to end either; they just want to fool you into thinking they want it to end so you'll keep giving them their votes.

Right Lilpix, talk about hearing only what you want to hear. Geesh!

So sayeth the same person who can't figure out that the democrats were able to pass a bill, without republican support, so they should have been able to pass anything they wanted. Why did they do it, for the two years they could have Jimmy? Oh, let me guess, you didn't think this though before you posted, huh?

[seer]

It's what they tax and spend on that differentiates between the two. Republicans spend your tax dollars by subsidizing the wealthy corporations.

What BS Jim. Do Democrats support farm subsidies? So called "green energy." And the Dem's don't care about the needy Jim, they don't care about getting people off the government dole - because the more people they have depending on government, the more people there are to keep them in power. It is all about control James.


And who else benefits from things like food stamps Jim, that is right - corporations...

[phank]

I agree, but the system is rigged for them to fail.

This is true, and was very carefully considered when the nation was formed. When you have single-member districts, where the winner takes all, it can be difficult to support two parties, much less more.

In many European nations, they have what's called proportional representation, where a whole big slate of candidates representing many different interests all run "at large", and the top vote-getters are the winners. So you have liberals and conservatives and libertarians and communists and vegetarians and environmentalists and so on and on and on, all running for office. The result is quite often a legislature where no single party has a majority or even close. To get anything passed, the goal is to form a coalition of overlapping interests. Sometimes the vegetarian votes with the communist, and sometimes he votes with the social conservatives.

What's not clear is whether the resulting government does an overall better job than the single-member-district governments.

[phank]

That is what happens when you assume those who happen to generally agree with you, are saints and those who don't are evil masterminds plotting world domination. I guess Jimmy and Phank didn't hear that Democrats tried to get votes thrown out from military member stationed over seas and a court order made them have to count them. Democrats and Republicans alike have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

There is no question that currently there are differences of emphasis between the parties (for a long time, people complained that the two parties were peas in a pod, tweedledum and tweedledee). Those whose goals more closely align with what you think is best are not necessarily saints at all, they could be axe-murderers, but their goals still come closer to yours. Lincoln said that John Brown was "the wrongest right man he ever knew." That is, Lincoln shared Brown's ultimate goals, but thought that Brown followed the worst possible path to get there.

Efforts to make it more difficult for people to vote are generally something I disapprove of, whether it be Republicans trying to create hurdles for minorities, or Democrats creating hurdles for soldiers. But it's not rocket science to understand that the reason Democrats tried to disallow military votes is, those votes tend to be heavily Republican. The reason the Republicans have pushed the "voter ID" laws is, those hurdles discourage votes that tend to be heavily Democrat. In both cases, the goal is to reduce the number of votes for the opposing party. And I find both cases reprehensible.

[rogue06]

We really need one or more parties.

Party at CPs!

Oh wait. You meant political parties












Political party at CP's!

[Cow Poke]

Party at CPs!

Oh wait. You meant political parties












Political party at CP's!

I shall kill the fatted calf! (And round up some pigs from the neighbors!)

[JimL]

Really Jimmy? They were able to pass the Affordable Health Care Act without a single republican vote, so they could have passed anything they wanted by and there would have been doing the republicans could have done to stop them. Yet, did they do that? Keep drinking that Kool-Aid down because you don't seem to understand that things do not add up. If they were able to pass a bill, without a single republican vote, they could have done that one too, again without a single republican vote. Why didn't they do it Jimmy?

Girl you are thick sometimes, you use the fact that the Democrats were able to pass the ACA, a.k.a. ObamaCare, a health care policy targeted to help the uninsured to be able to afford getting insured as an argument that Democrats don't care about the poor and needy. Brilliant! They also got this done by fighting tooth and nail against Republicans who gave it there all in trying to block it. The same for the stimulus, Chip, Veterans assistance, Equal pay for Women etc etc. They also had a lot more on their agenda, they inherited an economic disaster and still got more legislation passed, even with the obstructionism, than any Congrees in decades. And I know you on the obstructionist side like to think that the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for 2 years but they didn't, they had it for 7 months. So, they had a lot on their plate, and little time to get it done, they can't do everything, but the fact remains that when they did bring ending Corporate subsidies to the floor, Dems voted to end those subsidies and the GOP blocked it, voting instead to continue the corporate welfare. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid, you don't need to drink it lilpix, you just pour it for others to drink.

Yep because remember... giving rich people money is wrong when the government does it, but it appears that giving it to people who will go give their money to more rich people is ok. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense...

Great thought process lilpix. Entitlements, like stimulus legislation in times of economic crisis, not only help the people recieving them, they help to stimulate the economy by that money going directly back into the economy helping both business's as well as employment.

Another non answer. Figures... How does that Kool-Aid taste? Is it at least a good favor?

How is it a non answer stupid? "I said sure it does". Keep pouring that Kool-Aid lilpix!

Considering that the democrats were able to pass a ACA, without republican support, yeah it is their fault, but you seem too stupid to figure that little part out. If they were able to pass the ACA, without republican support, they could have passed anything they wanted. Yet, they didn't. Why didn't they do that Jimmy or are you going to continue to ignore that little fact?

There you go again. They can't do everything in 7 months lilpix, particularly with the state of the economy and the corporate backed Republicans efforts to stymie them at every turn. But the fact remains, no matter how much you try to dismiss it, the Dems did try to end Corporate welfare and the GOP stopped them. Just can't get yourself to admit that can you?

And yet... they managed to be able to pass the ACA, without any Republican support. You really want the rest of us to believe this load of garbage Jimmy? They had two years to pass anything they wanted, but they choose to pass the ACA instead. In that two years, did they do anything to end giving companies billions of dollars or did they do nothing, but try to get stupid people (such as you) to seriously believe this nonsense. They were clearly able to pass one bill, without republican support, so why didn't the pass more Jimmy? Have you figured it out yet? They don't want it to end either; they just want to fool you into thinking they want it to end so you'll keep giving them their votes.

Are you a robot lilpix? The Dems helped the poor with the ACA, so why couldn't they do everything they wanted as soon as they wanted? Geesh! such a pathetic argument.

So sayeth the same person who can't figure out that the democrats were able to pass a bill, without republican support, so they should have been able to pass anything they wanted. Why did they do it, for the two years they could have Jimmy? Oh, let me guess, you didn't think this though before you posted, huh?

Apparently you don't think through anything you say lilpix, because your argument is so obviously foolish and thoughtless.

[seer]

There you go again. They can't do everything in 7 months lilpix, particularly with the state of the economy and the corporate backed Republicans efforts to stymie them at every turn. But the fact remains, no matter how much you try to dismiss it, the Dems did try to end Corporate welfare and the GOP stopped them. Just can't get yourself to admit that can you?

Let's see, under Clinton the Dems had both houses and the Oval Office for two full years. Under Obama the Dems had both houses and the Oval Office for two full years. They could have easily ended all Corporate welfare if they wanted - the point is Jim, they really don't want to. They give it lip service both nothing more. Really James - talk about drinking the Kool Aid, the liberals are just as beholden to corporations as are the Republicans.

[Cow Poke]

Let's see, under Clinton the Dems had both houses and the Oval Office for two full years. Under Obama the Dems had both houses and the Oval Office for two full years. They could have easily ended all Corporate welfare if they wanted - the point is Jim, they really don't want to. They give it lip service both nothing more. Really James - talk about drinking the Kool Aid, the liberals are just as beholden to corporations as are the Republicans.

Yeah!