It's Not Too Early--Prepare Now to Vote All Incumbents Out of Offi

[Keukasmallies]

There are a lot of articles beginning to show up, like the one linked below, speaking to an outbreak of the restless frustration among our fellow citizens. It's clearly time to send the current crop of elected officials, on all levels, down the road so we can try out a new set and see how they do. For example, let's focus on electing more women to public office; many among the current male crop of elected officials are simply unresponsive to the electorate.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...tors_picks=true

[Koko78]

Only problem is that everyone hates all of the representatives, except theirs.

[keepthefaith]

The electorate IMO is every bit as much the problem as are those that are elected. The poorly informed + those that vote for politicians who promise them special benefits by far out number the rest.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Only problem is that everyone hates all of the representatives, except theirs.

 

It goes something like...vote the bums out...except my guy he brings home the bacon.

 

Which is exactly the problem. Corrupt politicians just whore themselves out to buy votes and will bankrupt the country to do it.

 

You cannot win a political fight against Santa Claus even though your right you will still be wrong. And the medis will love to point out how you want to cut entitlement s or services etc...regardless of how bad a program it is ince people have it its not going awsy. We're too stupid for our own good.

[DC Tom]

You cannot win a political fight against Santa Claus

 

I could if the fat bastard didn't give so many kickbacks to the coal industry.

[TPS]

The electorate IMO is every bit as much the problem as are those that are elected. The poorly informed due to ideology+ those that vote for politicians who promise them special benefits by far out number the rest.

Fixed to include the PPP majority...

[keepthefaith]

Fixed to include the PPP majority...

 

I truly believe that if you assembled a large crowd made up of 50% republicans and 50% democrats and gave fact based presentations on immigration, entitlement spending, federal budgets, treasury policy, the ACA, and foreign policy - the majority (60% or more) of the crowd would leave thinking that the best solutions to the big issues are mostly ideas supported by conservatives.

[Tiberius]

I truly believe that if you assembled a large crowd made up of 50% republicans and 50% democrats and gave fact based presentations on immigration, entitlement spending, federal budgets, treasury policy, the ACA, and foreign policy - the majority (60% or more) of the crowd would leave thinking that the best solutions to the big issues are mostly ideas supported by conservatives.

 

 

I'm sure you do believe that. That just tells me you don't think very deeply at all. You think most people would say cut my medicare, social security, reduce the ability of people to be health care, close the military base around my town so the rich can keep more of their money?

[3rdnlng]

I'm sure you do believe that. That just tells me you don't think very deeply at all. You think most people would say cut my medicare, social security, reduce the ability of people to be health care, close the military base around my town so the rich can keep more of their money?

 

At the very least, I think there should be a surcharge on the terminally incoherent.

[Tiberius]

At the very least, I think there should be a surcharge on the terminally incoherent.

 

Ha! Good one

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm sure you do believe that. That just tells me you don't think very deeply at all. You think most people would say cut my medicare, social security, reduce the ability of people to be health care, close the military base around my town so the rich can keep more of their money?

Perhaps you'd like to consider responding to what people actually say, rather than responding to what DailyKOS tells you people say.

 

Also, how do your reduce (or increase, for that matter) the ability of people to be health care?

[Tiberius]

Perhaps you'd like to consider responding to what people actually say, rather than responding to what DailyKOS tells you people say.

 

Also, how do your reduce (or increase, for that matter) the ability of people to be health care?

 

I did respond. People would not and do not love Conservative ideas 60% of the time. A lot of people say they like Conservative principles because as sound bites it sounds nice, but not in reality you a-hole

[TakeYouToTasker]

I did respond. People would not and do not love Conservative ideas 60% of the time. A lot of people say they like Conservative principles because as sound bites it sounds nice, but not in reality you a-hole

No, you didn't respond to what was said, you created a strawman, and unfurled your list of Soros approved talking points.

 

He said that people, largely, don't view more government and higher taxes as the solution to their problems. You hurled back, "YOU WANT TO STARVE GRANDMA!!!!"

 

Same old tired rhetoric.

Edited December 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

No, you didn't respond to what was said, you created a strawman, and unfurled your list of Soros approved talking points.

 

He said that people, largely, don't view more government and higher taxes as the solution to their problems. You hurled back, "YOU WANT TO STARVE GRANDMA!!!!"

 

Same old tired rhetoric.

Ok Mr. 1%. Why don't Conservatives win more elections then if their ideas of cutting and slashing and unredistributing of income is so great? Where is the the 60% majority??

[TPS]

Ok Mr. 1%. Why don't Conservatives win more elections then if their ideas of cutting and slashing and unredistributing of income is so great? Where is the the 60% majority??

That's an easy one, they vote for dems because the dems give them $. Unlike the 1% who vote for the reps because they give them $.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ok Mr. 1%. Why don't Conservatives win more elections then if their ideas of cutting and slashing and unredistributing of income is so great? Where is the the 60% majority??

First of all, knock it off with the hyperbole and the continuation of the Soros approved talking points. Cutting and slashing is the political language of the left, used as perjorative. No one suggests going at the budget with an axe. They suggest: A) actually having a budget, B) reforming redundant and wasteful departments and spending, C) the dismantling or reforming of failed and legacy legislation. As to "unredistributing"... that's a laughably absurd term. You doubled up on confounding prefixes... and it's hilarious.

 

Now, moving on, why don't conservatives win more elections?

 

Several reasons:

 

For starters, our two party system of government works, more than anything, to marginalize new ideas and perpetuate the status quo. Don't get me wrong; party shift can happen, but it take massive amounts of social activism, and it takes a long time to take hold within the parties, as a lack of term limits, and a local love of incumbents works to incrementalize change. There is currently no fiscally conservative party involved in major US politics as a result of this.

 

Additionally, those congressional members who are fiscally conservative all too often get bogged down with foolish social issues which distracts from their important economic goals. Economics are far over the head of the average low information voter; but abortion, gay marraige, and OMG!!!RACISM!!! play well in those demographics. Fiscal conservatives need to drop the social issues and focus on what's important.

 

Lastly, I'd also like to point out that, if you are referring to Republicans rather than conservatives, that the R's hold the House, have held the Presidency for 5 of the last 9 terms, held the Senate until 2006, and Republican appointees hold the majority to the USSC. You may also care to note that out of 50 state Governors, 30 are Republican.

Edited December 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

First of all, knock it off with the hyperbole and the continuation of the Soros approved talking points. Cutting and slashing is the political language of the left, used as perjorative. No one suggests going at the budget with an axe. They suggest: A) actually having a budget, B) reforming redundant and wasteful departments and spending, C) the dismantling or reforming of failed and legacy legislation. As to "unredistributing"... that's a laughably absurd term. You doubled up on confounding prefixes... and it's hilarious.

 

Now, moving on, why don't conservatives win more elections?

 

Several reasons:

 

For starters, our two party system of government works, more than anything, to marginalize new ideas and perpetuate the status quo. Don't get me wrong; party shift can happen, but it take massive amounts of social activism, and it take a long time to take hold within the parties, and a lack of term limits, and a local love of incumbents works to incrementalize change. There is currently no fiscally conservative party involved in major US politics as a result of this.

 

Additionally, those congressional members who are fiscally conservative all too often get bogged down with foolish social issues which distracts from their important economic goals. Economics are far over the head of the average low information voter; but abortion, gay marraige, and OMG!!!RACISM!!! play well in those demographics. Fiscal conservatives need to drop the social issues and focus on what's important.

 

Lastly, I'd also like to point out that, if you are referring to Republicans rather than conservatives, that the R's hold the House, have held the Presidency for 5 of the last 9 terms, held the Senate until 2006, and Republican appointees hold the majority to the USSC. You may also care to note that out of 50 state Governors, 30 are Republican.

 

So this is why you want to put Gator in a concentration camp?

[Tiberius]

 

 

So this is why you want to put Gator in a concentration camp?

 

No, Joyboy is the Nazi, TYTT is the Confederate

 

 

First of all, knock it off with the hyperbole and the continuation of the Soros approved talking points. Cutting and slashing is the political language of the left, used as perjorative. No one suggests going at the budget with an axe. They suggest: A) actually having a budget, B) reforming redundant and wasteful departments and spending, C) the dismantling or reforming of failed and legacy legislation. As to "unredistributing"... that's a laughably absurd term. You doubled up on confounding prefixes... and it's

For starters, our two party system of government works, more than anything, to marginalize new ideas and perpetuate the status quo. Don't get me wrong; party shift can happen, but it take and focus on what's important.

 

 

See, this is exactly why you Conservatives don't win 60% of the votes, you can't really even say what you will cut, you are like Rick Perry in the debates, ugh ugh, I forgot what I was going to cut...

 

And that's exactly why Conservatives need the social issues, they can't win at all on economic issues. The very wealth could give a **** about average people having jobs, they just want to keep as much of a share of the national wealth as possible and so they latched onto the crazies and nut bags and racists to have a say in government.

[BillsFanM.D.]

 

Additionally, those congressional members who are fiscally conservative all too often get bogged down with foolish social issues which distracts from their important economic goals. Economics are far over the head of the average low information voter; but abortion, gay marraige, and OMG!!!RACISM!!! play well in those demographics. Fiscal conservatives need to drop the social issues and focus on what's important.

 

One of the most succinct and, in my opinion, accurate posts I've seen here in a while. I do value a lot of what the 'conservatives' believe socially; but I also recognize it as being used mostly as political fodder. All the 'red meat' for both parties is bit over the top. Let's get the house in order fiscally...or there will be no house.

[TakeYouToTasker]

No, Joyboy is the Nazi, TYTT is the Confederate

What purpose does this serve?

 

See, this is exactly why you Conservatives don't win 60% of the votes, you can't really even say what you will cut, you are like Rick Perry in the debates, ugh ugh, I forgot what I was going to cut...

Hardly. If you were able to follow along in the conversation, and understand the things that you yourself asked, you would note that you asked why conservative don't win elections. You did not, at any point, ask me to go through the budget (which we don't have) with a fine tooth comb; demonstrating how and where I would reform. Furthermore, had you, and by you I mean you very specifically, asked me to do that, I would not have, because you don't reciprocate, and refuse to back your own positions with sources or data, much less show your own work. Finally, you just said that all conservative ideas involved "cutting and slashing" the budget (which we don't have), and then followed that up by stating that conservatives have no idea what they would actually cut or how. Which is it?

 

And that's exactly why Conservatives need the social issues, they can't win at all on economic issues. The very wealth could give a **** about average people having jobs, they just want to keep as much of a share of the national wealth as possible and so they latched onto the crazies and nut bags and racists to have a say in government.

This is laughably untrue. All you need to look at is charitable giving rates, foundations, tax receipts, etc. to know the absurdity of this statement.

Edited December 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker