What The Progressive Are Saying About Democracy

Dammy

Dammy

Member
Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,487
Reaction score
31
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics...ru=MGU3YjMxNDdlN2UyMjM2MTNhZGZjNDE2MjE2NjE2Nj

In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.
Click to expand...


Gee, I can't see him saying that if there was a Conservative in the White House, can you?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/n...s-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/

I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the
Raleigh News & Observer​
. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.​
Click to expand...
​

Sure does look like the Progressives know this next election is going to be even more ugly then the 2010 election. ​
 
There are a few dems on this very site who will probably agree with this. Scary, isn't it?
 
Very sad. If our nation is to be representative of the people we need people to vote and elections to continue. Along with this we need to ensure the fairest system possible. This will likely mean removing Diebold and other automatic machines that haven't been tested and back to a paper ballot and manual count. It might take longer but we have nearly 2 months to decide the election before swearing in. We can manually count in that time.
 
Dammy said:
Gee, I can't see him saying that if there was a Conservative in the White House, can you?
Click to expand...

Did you wilfully fail to listen and/or read what you quoted? Suspend Congressional elections for a couple of years to let the law makers get on with making decisions without playing partisan election politics. And who, currently, holds the balance of power in the Congress? Come on. If elections were suspended for Congress who would get to hold on to that power?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Did you wilfully fail to listen and/or read what you quoted? Suspend Congressional elections for a couple of years to let the law makers get on with making decisions without playing partisan election politics. And who, currently, holds the balance of power in the Congress? Come on. If elections were suspended for Congress who would get to hold on to that power?
Click to expand...

It's split been the Democrats and GOP with a Progressive Democrat in the White House.

Oh, BTW, Gov Perdue is still squirming: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-remark-strikes.html
 
A Progressive Democrat in the White House? I'm sorry I thought Obama was running unopposed. As such there's no way for a true Progressive to take the White House.
 
Dammy said:
It's split been the Democrats and GOP with a Progressive Democrat in the White House.
Click to expand...
Bzzt. The White House is not the Congress and the split isn't 50-50. You know who has the majority, we all do.
 
Dammy said:
Oh, BTW, Gov Perdue is still squirming: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-remark-strikes.html
Click to expand...

Goes off script, eh? That's a good thing, but I can understand why the establishment doesn't like it. If politicians just went off talking about what they think instead of just parroting the talking points from the party memo it could end up in... I don't know, dangerous things, maybe, like debates and open exchange of ideas. In other words - anarchy!!!! :eek:
 
faethor said:
As such there's no way for a true Progressive to take the White House.
Click to expand...

images
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Bzzt. The White House is not the Congress and the split isn't 50-50. You know who has the majority, we all do.
Click to expand...

Since your a Canadian, let me explain it to you. There are two branches that bring a law into being. First is Congress which is split up into two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. House of Representatives is controlled by the GOP while the Senate is control by the Democrats. Both have to agree on a Bill which is then sent to the White House for the President to either sign it into law or veto it. That is a three ring circus, the Congress is split evening but the White House is Democrat. That means the GOP that controls the House of Representatives has to appease not only the Democrat Senate but the Democrat President as well, or the bill will not pass.
 
faethor said:
A Progressive Democrat in the White House? I'm sorry I thought Obama was running unopposed. As such there's no way for a true Progressive to take the White House.
Click to expand...

As much as I don't blame you not wanting to be associated with such a complete failure, he is the best the Progressives could have offered as their nominee. You have to admit, he did sign in Obamacare, rewarded unions with massive amounts of tax payer's money and hired massive amounts of new government employees to create even more regulations that stab at the heart of capitalism while bringing the US to it's knees in massive new debt spending that the likes have never been heard of before. Four more years of Obama will seal our fate, if he hasn't already done so.
 
Dammy said:
he is the best the Progressives could have offered as their nominee.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but this doesn't make him a Progressive. He's more progressive than McCain. Overall his policies are very centrist.

have to admit, he did sign in Obamacare,
Click to expand...
Well nothing is called Obamacare. But, yes he did sign new healthcare legislation. The CBO projects a net savings versus not passing it. And healthcare remains one of the growth and hiring sectors. Along with covering more Americans. All good things IMO. Had he been a progressive he would have signed, or at least discussed, single payer. He didn't bother.

The rewarded unions with massive amounts of tax payer's money and hired massive amounts of new government employees
Click to expand...
There has been pay raises and hiring. Not sure who raised pay more as certainly Bush raised union workers salaries. GWB increased gov worker count much more than Obama.

to create even more regulations that stab at the heart of capitalism while bringing the US to it's knees in massive new debt spending that the likes have never been heard of before.
Click to expand...
Definitely not true as laid out here. GWB increased the budget by over $5Trillion. Obama is still around $2Trillon. The massive amount is still lead by GWB.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/spending-bush-vs-obama

Remember the Republicans told us how deficits were a good thing and this gave them the drive to spend the surplus left by that evil progressive Clinton. You have to admit that Clinton's 11% increase the gov was not good but far, far better than GWB's 104% increase.

HINT: insert a 'per year' in there so you can at least get a statistic to favor your bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top