• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What can we all do?

deacdiggler

deacdiggler

"Well known member"
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
23,978
Reaction score
12,101
I think its safe to assume that most Americans are fed up with congress as a whole. I have been wondering: would you be willing to vote out every single incumbent in the next election, even if it means voting for someone that you disagree with? I think I would, if it was truly a movement that people embraced. Honestly, is a republican who is preoccupied with keeping his job and generally acting like a dumbfuck really that much more unpalatable to me than a democrat who isn't embedded in washington? And this democrat would know that we are willing to kick them all out.

Assuming this was in the general election, the house would swing to the democrats, but without any of the ones that are currently there. It would be 225 democrats you have never heard of.

Alternatively let's do it at the primaries. Then you can vote your heart in the general election without voting for an incumbent.

I'm sure this would never go anywhere but I'm on board with it if it does.
 
DeacDiggler said:
I think its safe to assume that most Americans are fed up with congress as a whole. I have been wondering: would you be willing to vote out every single incumbent in the next election, even if it means voting for someone that you disagree with? I think I would, if it was truly a movement that people embraced. Honestly, is a republican who is preoccupied with keeping his job and generally acting like a dumbfuck really that much more unpalatable to me than a democrat who isn't embedded in washington? And this democrat would know that we are willing to kick them all out.

Assuming this was in the general election, the house would swing to the democrats, but without any of the ones that are currently there. It would be 225 democrats you have never heard of.

Alternatively let's do it at the primaries. Then you can vote your heart in the general election without voting for an incumbent.

I'm sure this would never go anywhere but I'm on board with it if it does.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that. I have been trying to vote Virginia Foxx out of office for years. She's untouchable in the NC 5th.
 
I don't want to vote out all the incumbents. I want to vote out every single Republican I can. It's not even about individual Republicans at this point either, it's that the leadership cannot be trusted. They can't have the majority anywhere.

ETA: Realistically if people aren't going to full-scale stop voting for Republicans, moderate Republicans need to come out in force in the primaries and start quelling this Tea Party movement. If the GOP can put some reasonable candidates out there in a lot of districts, they may be able to start turning the tide on the idiocy that has crept into the party. Furthermore there needs to be a Speaker with a set of balls if the GOP is going to keep the House, which they will because of gerrymandered districts.

I don't even know if the Dems can win the House back the way the districts are broken up at this point. I mean I'm sure they mathematically can, but I don't know if they can flip enough seats at this point to take over in 2014.
 
Last edited:
toilet-llqq-001.jpg
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't want to vote out all the incumbents. I want to vote out every single Republican I can. It's not even about individual Republicans at this point either, it's that the leadership cannot be trusted. They can't have the majority anywhere.
Click to expand...

And that right there is the problem. Our current issue is not simply a discrete problem that arose over the past few weeks due to the fault of one side. It is a colossal meltdown arising from the past 13 years of unqualified candidates and absurd programs. Blaming one side and forgiving the other just fuels the ongoing fire of ineptitude. For any improvement to actually be made (and I mean actual improvement, not just a lower level of suck), they all need to go. Every single member of the Legislative and Executive branches should be voted out and, ideally, deported.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
And that right there is the problem. Our current issue is not simply a discrete problem that arose over the past few weeks due to the fault of one side. It is a colossal meltdown arising from the past 13 years of unqualified candidates and absurd programs. Blaming one side and forgiving the other just fuels the ongoing fire of ineptitude. For any improvement to actually be made (and I mean actual improvement, not just a lower level of suck), they all need to go. Every single member of the Legislative and Executive branches should be voted out and, ideally, deported.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a meltdown, but only one party in the past month has been responsible for a government shutdown that cost the country upwards of $20 billion. Only one party has an extreme wing who wants to send America back to colonial times both socially and fiscally. Only one party put the country on the brink of disaster with the debt ceiling by trying to defund a law that has cleared all branches of government.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
And that right there is the problem. Our current issue is not simply a discrete problem that arose over the past few weeks due to the fault of one side. It is a colossal meltdown arising from the past 13 years of unqualified candidates and absurd programs. Blaming one side and forgiving the other just fuels the ongoing fire of ineptitude. For any improvement to actually be made (and I mean actual improvement, not just a lower level of suck), they all need to go. Every single member of the Legislative and Executive branches should be voted out and, ideally, deported.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the gumption that swept in the TP Reps in 2010. OUTSIDERS! MAVERICKS! Save us!
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
And that right there is the problem. Our current issue is not simply a discrete problem that arose over the past few weeks due to the fault of one side. It is a colossal meltdown arising from the past 13 years of unqualified candidates and absurd programs. Blaming one side and forgiving the other just fuels the ongoing fire of ineptitude. For any improvement to actually be made (and I mean actual improvement, not just a lower level of suck), they all need to go. Every single member of the Legislative and Executive branches should be voted out and, ideally, deported.
Click to expand...

I'd be in favor of bringing back tarring and feathering politicians who piss us off.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I agree that it's a meltdown, but only one party in the past month has been responsible for a government shutdown that cost the country upwards of $20 billion. Only one party has an extreme wing who wants to send America back to colonial times both socially and fiscally. Only one party put the country on the brink of disaster with the debt ceiling by trying to defund a law that has cleared all branches of government.
Click to expand...

No, both parties are at fault. One party enacted awful programs directly leading to the election of said extreme wing in the other party. That wing was never there prior those programs. The Dems' actions in 2008 and 2009 are the reason for the Tea Party.

It's like your article that you linked on the sports board. Wellman can't absolve himself of blame from [Redacted] when he is the reason [Redacted] is there. You need to get rid of both to fix the problem.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, both parties are at fault. One party enacted awful programs directly leading to the election of said extreme wing in the other party. That wing was never there prior those programs. The Dems' actions in 2008 and 2009 are the reason for the Tea Party.

It's like your article that you linked on the sports board. Wellman can't absolve himself of blame from [Redacted] when he is the reason [Redacted] is there. You need to get rid of both to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

Heretic.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Wasn't that the gumption that swept in the TP Reps in 2010. OUTSIDERS! MAVERICKS! Save us!
Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't mean the decision to remove them was wrong, it just means better choices on replacements should have been made. Just because Bzz sucks beyond belief doesn't mean it was wrong to let Dino go. We just should have made a better decision on the replacement.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How can you possibly disagree with that? Why else do they exist?
Click to expand...

Because upper class white people want to force their moral values on the rest of the country. The timing of the movement may have been partially based on Democrats but the large population of old white people were just waiting for something like this so they could try to take over Washington politics. This faction of the GOP has existed for a long time, it just manifested itself when Obama was elected - for obvious reasons which don't need to be explicitly spelled out
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Wasn't that the gumption that swept in the TP Reps in 2010. OUTSIDERS! MAVERICKS! Save us!
Click to expand...

Yep. The Tea Party gained power specifically by primarying Republican incumbents and blinding voting out Democrat incumbents.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Because upper class white people want to force their moral values on the rest of the country. The timing of the movement may have been partially based on Democrats but the large population of old white people were just waiting for something like this so they could try to take over Washington politics. This faction of the GOP has existed for a long time, it just manifested itself when Obama was elected - for obvious reasons which don't need to be explicitly spelled out
Click to expand...

Yesterday they were ignorant, provincial hermits, today they are condescending elitists set to paternalistically impose their values on others! Two groups in one, but always racist, hoo-ray!

Did people not know the Obama was black when they elected him in 2008? They must've discovered it after the inauguration but in time to vote for the Tea Party in 2010. I suppose we have no choice but to completely rule out the possibility that the Tea Party uprising and seizure of control of the House in 2010 was a reaction to the persistently unpopular health care legislation, right? Is hyper-delayed onset but massively acute racism the only conceivable explanation in your worldview? Do you suppose that a majority of American voters had a Saneff-like road to Damascus conversion after January 2009 to discover that the President they just elected is, in fact, black after all?

I seem to recall the world being a) well aware that the President was indeed African-American and b) absolutely infatuated with him despite our collective, monolithic racism that you guys are always sure explains all contemporary dissent. He won a Nobel Peace Prize based upon a criteria that, as far as I can tell, only two people on Earth didn't meet (that is, not being "George Bush") [Drone wars and spying later, you think they'd like to have a do-over?] People loved Obama---yes, even the hated, old white people you rail against---until he started governing.

"What can we all do?" Start being honest about the fact that both sides are at fault.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
Because upper class white people want to force their moral values on the rest of the country. The timing of the movement may have been partially based on Democrats but the large population of old white people were just waiting for something like this so they could try to take over Washington politics. This faction of the GOP has existed for a long time, it just manifested itself when Obama was elected - for obvious reasons which don't need to be explicitly spelled out
Click to expand...

The tea party was about fiscal restraint, not moral values.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Because upper class white people want to force their moral values on the rest of the country. The timing of the movement may have been partially based on Democrats but the large population of old white people were just waiting for something like this so they could try to take over Washington politics. This faction of the GOP has existed for a long time, it just manifested itself when Obama was elected - for obvious reasons which don't need to be explicitly spelled out
Click to expand...

So you're saying that, had there been no Stimulus and Obamacare, the Tea Party would have still come into formidable existence? Seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top