Cancel the Midterms

[UncleBeer 244]

The NYTimes says we should cancel the midterms. I guess they're not liking the polling so much.

Cancel the Midterms

By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.

There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The NYTimes says we should cancel the midterms. I guess they're not liking the polling so much.

Maybe Obama will erase them with an executive order. Constitution. Bhhaaa who needs it

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Maybe Obama will erase them with an executive order. Constitution. Bhhaaa who needs it

MINO.

[UncleBeer 244]

Maybe Obama will erase them with an executive order. Constitution. Bhhaaa who needs it

Ugghh: don't think they're not considering it over there. His disrespect for the Constitution and "rule of law" seems to be boundless. "Pen + phone" and all that jive.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Ugghh: don't think they're not considering it over there. His disrespect for the Constitution and "rule of law" seems to be boundless. "Pen + phone" and all that jive.

Neither party gives a ratsass about the constitution. It was the republicans that gave us the damn Patriot Act. You need to quit kidding yourself.

You are voting for tweedledee or tweedledum. If one or the other makes you feel better then great, but the difference between the two is in your head.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

You are voting for tweedledee or tweedledum.

How about Tweedledum or Tweedledumber?

[Dakine10 5,452]

How about Tweedledum or Tweedledumber?

It's sounds good, but it's kind of misleading. It makes one party sound dumber than the other when they are really pretty much equal in that regard.

[UncleBeer 244]

Neither party gives a ratsass about the constitution. It was the republicans that gave us the damn Patriot Act. You need to quit kidding yourself.

Alright: one fine example (which O'bama has actually made FAR worse; ever hear of the tapping of AP sources?) Here are ten examples in return, and these all happened only in 2013.

You are voting for tweedledee or tweedledum. If one or the other makes you feel better then great, but the difference between the two is in your head.

What are the choices then: not vote and let the 47% of people who vote only for "free stuff" decide the country's fate? Not an option. The answer certainly isn't to become cynical, throw up one's hands and complain that "they're all the same", because they're not.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Alright: one fine example (which O'bama has actually made FAR worse; ever hear of the tapping of AP sources?) Here are ten examples in return, and these all happened only in 2013.

What are the choices then: not vote and let the 47% of people who vote only for

decide the country's fate? Not an option. The answer certainly isn't to become cynical, throw up one's hands and complain that "they're all the same", because they're not.

What are going to do when Obama's out of office? Fall on the sword?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Alright: one fine example (which O'bama has actually made FAR worse; ever hear of the tapping of AP sources?) Here are ten examples in return, and these all happened only in 2013.

What are the choices then: not vote and let the 47% of people who vote only for "free stuff" decide the country's fate? Not an option. The answer certainly isn't to become cynical, throw up one's hands and complain that "they're all the same", because they're not.

You don't have to be cynical, but understand that whatever differences in ideals and intentions that any given candidate has, they are going to go out the door when they get elected. Everyone runs nowaday's on changing Washington. Our system can't change without bringing the hurt. Politicians who don't understand that beforehand will learn it after.

Free stuff, spending cuts, war mongers, voter fraud. This is rhetoric. It keeps the masses busy so the Democrat or Republican in the white house can play the role. The role doesn't change, just the rhetoric.

[UncleBeer 244]

You don't have to be cynical, but understand that whatever differences in ideals and intentions that any given candidate has, they are going to go out the door when they get elected. change, just the rhetoric.

O'bama's already said he'll remain in Washington after his second term. It's 'unprecedented', and not a great idea for reasons outlined in the link. It's fair to speculate he'll be commenting every evening on newscasts, essentially undercutting the new president and supposedly 'defending his legacy'.

Everyone runs nowaday's on changing Washington. Our system can't change without bringing the hurt. Politicians who don't understand that beforehand will learn it after.

Hopefully "change" should be positive, and there should be a public mandate behind it. Right? Can we agree on that much? You'd have to be a hard-bitten ideologue to say that O'bama's "fundamental transformation" of the US has been positive, and the polls clearly reflect the unpopularity of all his major policy initiatives.

Free stuff, spending cuts, war mongers, voter fraud. This is rhetoric. It keeps the masses busy so the Democrat or Republican in the white house can play the role.

You're back to "they're all the same". They may "all lie" (so do all humans at some point); but politicians (and people) lie to different extents: the amount, frequency, and seriousness of their lies. Consider how often this preznit has wiped his patoot on the Constitution . There's really no comparing him to previous executives.

[Teddy B 17,251]

MINO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Depending on the day of the week - the criticisms of Obama seem to vary between him having achieved nothing and having 'fundamentally transformed' the US for the worse.

I wonder why that breadth of opinion exists - it's clearly got to be one or the other.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Depending on the day of the week - the criticisms of Obama seem to vary between him having achieved nothing and having 'fundamentally transformed' the US for the worse.

I wonder why that breadth of opinion exists - it's clearly got to be one or the other.

I think the proper way to look at it is like this. He's achieved a lot, but none of it good, and he has fundamentally transformed the US in a very negative and un-murikan way. Does that help?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

What are going to do when Obama's out of office? Fall on the sword?

No if we get a Repub the sides will switch

The Libs in here will be screaming bloody murder because he is doing the same things Obama did

The Conservatives will be screaming, how dare you talk about the POTUS that way.