Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Nov. 2, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
My conclusion, after reading David Brooks’ column Wednesday, “Our crystal ball sees either stasis or reform,” is that we should elect Mitt Romney president because we can count on Democrats to have the interests of the country at heart and will compromise. We should not re-elect President Barack Obama because we can count on the Republicans to remain intransigent so nothing will be accomplished. Did I get that right?
When the democrats had control of the house, senate and the presidency in 2009 & 2010 passing an $867 billion dollar stimulus that they claimed would lower our unemployment rate by now to under 6% but didn't then the only political strategy left is to claim obstruction. What concerned Americans at the beginning of Obama's term in office is the same as now, jobs, the economy and debt/deficit spending. Specifically, Americans are concerned about the pace of recovery which is the slowest compared to the last 10 recoveries. At this point of recovery we should see between 62%-64% of Americans employed. Under Obama, he started his term in office with 58.3% of the population working but now has only 58.7%, which is a decline. The 23 million Americans who are unemployed/ under-employed should be on all of our minds when we go to the polls. Should we continue a slow job growth rate that doesn't even keep pace with new entrants into the job force or do we go with a candidate who better understands the economy, business and job creation? It's time to make our choice.
http://bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
"Under Obama, he started his term in office with 58.3% of the population working but now has only 58.7%, which is a decline."
Typo correction: Obama started with 59.3% of the population working but now has only 58.7%, which is a decline.
Kevin lament "My conclusion, after reading David Brooks' column Wednesday, "Our crystal ball sees either stasis or reform,".......Did I get that right?"
Well NO
Kevin you made it up
Obama steadfastly refused to work with Republicans after he and Reid and Pelosi took TOOK CONTROL.
Romney will reach out to Harry Reid who is the guy sitting on bills in the Senate
Obama never needed the Republicans never listened to Conservatives and never cared about the views of Conservatives
The House under Speaker Boehner passed a plethora of bills that went to the Senate and stalled under dirty harry. If democrats retain control of the Senate after November 6, the same will still happen. President Obama and his administration complain about the "do nothing" House. The stalled Senate, under Majority Leader Harry Reid wins the award for it. For all time!
CarmineD
Wow! Must be news from a parallel universe. As usual,
"Wow! Must be news from a parallel universe. As usual,"
The Wall Street Journal: "Harry Reid's Graveyard." Monday, October 29, 2012. Read it.
CarmineD
Great post Carmine. As usual the Dems do not see the do nothing Senate under Reid. They don't realize that thier guy has not passed a budget. He has not done his job. Not to worry the article you post won't be read. If it was they'd actually made an attemt to school themselves on current issues
instead of watching Eva Longoria complain how there's a war on women.
Kevin - I think you got that right.
Romney's so-called "bipartisan" strategy he supposedly demonstrated while governing Massachusetts included vetoing 800 bills and having almost all overridden by the Legislature. Some were overridden unanimously. In fairness Mitt did inspire some bipartisan action in the Legislature to override his vetos.
Apparently the voters of Massachusetts do not share Romney's fond memories of his tenure as Governor. Presidential poll at the end of October was Obama 59% - Romney 40%.
CarmineD
Wow! The Wall Street Journal, under the same corporate umbrella as FAUX NEWS, as an unbiased news source. You gotta be kidding!
Oh I already did before I posted at 4:42 and as usual you interpretation of it is based on your own skewed frame of reference. Oh well.
David Brooks recognizes what I hope most Americans realize. For the first two years of his Presidency, the President could have passed a good deal of what he talked about during his campaign. He didn't, which disappointed many on the left. Instead he passed a poorly executed (by Congress) stimulus bill. He did not lead, but outsourced the execution of a very big and important expenditure to Congress. He did the very same thing with the ACA. He did not lead and we got poor legislation in an area that needed reform.
When Americans looked at what had been done in the first two years, they reacted by electing many R's to Congress. Most of those elected felt (mistakenly) that they had a mandate to oppose most of what the President proposed. The Senate, under Harry Reid took the stance of opposing most anything the House proposed. RESULT: A stalled economy and gridlock.
The problem could be addressed by voting out most incumbents in Congress (both House and Senate) but that's not going to happen. If President Obama is re-elected with only slight changes to Congress, we are going to get the status quo, which is gridlock.
President Obama has shown little inclination to compromise and neither has the House or Senate.
Brooks is saying that Romney 'might' be the moderate he now claims to be and 'might' be able get the R's in the House and the D's in the Senate to compromise. He might also be wrong.... but we've seen for at least two years, virtually total gridlock... with each side blaming the other...while the truth is that both sides are responsible. That may be ok with both parties, but it isn't ok with me and it should not be ok with most Americans.
Michael
In answer to the letter writer...Yes. The comments by right wing posters are just the usual babbling.
'The House under Speaker Boehner passed a plethora of bills that went to the Senate and stalled under dirty harry'
The bills contained provisions that cut funding for programs like Obamacare. Boehner knew full well the bills would never pass the Senate.
If you really want to know about Republican obstructionism take a look at this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22...
"The comments by right wing posters are just the usual babbling."............ However, had it not been for Caribou Barbie's "babbling" and her relentless perseverance getting 70 democrat Congressman FIRED in the 2010 midterm elections Congress and the President would still be stuck on stupid. Caribou Barbie accomplished more for America in two years than President Obama has as President in four years and Senator for two. Harry Reid is the KING of obstructionism.
Harry Reid is rewritten the book on obstructionism from Congress to power plants, immigration reform and even I-15.
Enjoyed the letter, Mr. Wilcoxon. Totally agree. I don't want to reward the Tea/Republican Party for ANYTHING.
I just want to vote every single one of them out of power for what they have done to damage this country in the past two years. And all indications show if they retain even the slightest bit of power, they intend to continue to suck the lifeblood out of this country. Til there's nothing left.
To prove my point, the Tea/Republican Party majority in the House of Representatives has been the direct cause for why this 112th Congress has been certified to be useless, incompetent and only contributes to absolutely nothing being accomplished these past two years. Their approval rating has fluctuated between nine and 17 percent approval rating. Let's flip that. That means that at different times, just about anywhere between 83-91 percent of the American people think they are not doing their job. And I guarantee their approval rating went up only because of one thing happening: They went on recess and couldn't directly screw up something else.
You vote these bums back into power, how do you expect a different result?
I'll answer that. You can't. It'll be the same ole same ole block this, obstruct that, fillibuster that, just say no, no, no, SCREAM NOOOOOO!
Enough.
Get out there and vote, people. THIS is the time when you have a say in Government.
"Massachussets is for Obama 59% to 40%" and that means, what? That a state that consistently puts in office dopes like Michael Dukakis, weirdos like Barney Frank & "Lady Killers" like Ted Kennedy is loony enough to want to keep Osama Obama in office speaks louder than any thing else I can think of. And, don't kid yourself, what Frank & Kennedy did affected far more than just their moronic state voters. It affected us all. Frank, along with Chris Dodd, created the housing "bubble" that has nearly brought down the entire U.S. economy with the use of their powers as chairmen of the Senate & House banking committes. Kennedy, the alcoholic, skirt-chasing, cowardly killer of Mary Jo Kopechkne, pursued an agenda so perverse as to be unbelievable in a country founded on individual liberty and freedom and he was lauded for it as being "The Lion of the Senate." BS! This is what we face in Tuesday's election as we try to restore the honor, dignity and essence of what the Founders of our country intended. We must rid ourselves of Osama Obama and his fellow travelers or pay the consequences. And they will be shocking if the guy with the "Cheshire Cat" grin is reelected!
Check Harry Reids in-box for "obstructionism".
The re-election numbers for the President are compelling.
Mitt Romney campaign supporters will travel to the battle state going to the polling site to challenge voters who do not produce an ID. Any type of intervention from a private citizen to hinder a registered voter from voting is illegal.
Steps are being taken to counter any type illegal hindering of voters at the polls. The Justice Department has been notified, and the Sec. of State in the targeted State polling areas have be notified and are under the spot light to do their jobs.
If, and this is a big "IF", if voters are not hindered by illegal tactics from Republicans and Mitt Romney supporters, the President will win this election by 6 to 8 points.
Responsible people with legal authority are monitoring for illegal activity at the polls and will take immediate action on anyone who attempts to hindered a register voter from voting.
Longtimevegan,
I will be surprised if either of these guys can win this election by 6 to 8 points. It could happen of course, but it seems unlikely. I hope that the guy who wins does so by a wide enough margin that the other side will gracefully accept the results.
Michael
For those of you who have an illness, with or without insurance. Why would you vote against The Affordable Care Act? Better known as Obama Care, named by Rep. Michelle Bachman.
Why would you vote against the ACA when you, a person with short or long term illness, would be "at risk" of losing your current heath care because of limits on liability, or pre-existing condition, or just because the insurance company calculates your costing to much because of your illness!
Why would you vote against the The Affordable Care Act? Why?
Well, some might be saying, I didn't vote against the ACA. I was not in congress. I didn't have a say on what is in the ACA, and/or I don't know what is in the ACA!
So, why would you vote against something you don't know about? Or something you know about, or something you know little about?
A responsible person, one who takes his or her duties in a responsible way as a US Citizen, would research and learn about the most important Health Bills past by the US Congress in American History!
Mitt Romney said he would repeal the ACA on day one! He said repeal, on day one!
That means, for those that are sick with long term illness, or considered uninsured by insurance companies, or who have pre-existing conditions, or who's current health insurance exceeds the cap of liability limit,....you could be at an extremely high risk of being dropped or labeled uninsured.
In short, you could either lose your current insurance or be denied insurance, or be dropped if either of the above fits your current situation.
If the Affordable Care Act is repealed as Mitt Romney said he would do, if he becomes president on day one, you are at a high risk of not being insured are losing your insurance depending on your health situation.
The Affordable Care Act prevent insurance companies from dropping your insurance or being denied insurance!
So the larger question to those who fit any of situations, or description listed above, why would you vote against your own interest? Again, many might say, I am not voting against my interest.
Well, if your voting for Mitt Romney, your voting against your health interest. Your voting against care that could prevent an illness, or care that can save your life!
Think about that for a moment. Think hard.
If you have suicidal thoughts, or care not about yourself, please think of family members or friends who need Health care and those who currently do not have insurance.
Bruce Springsteen said it best, "We Take Of Our Own, Where Even This Flag Flown."
President Obama win re-election by 6 to 8 points.
Michael
I agree with your 8:39 post. The last thing we need is a replay of the 2000 election and the Presidency being decided by a Supreme Court 5-4 vote.
Jim
Michael, your right in having your conclusion.
The margin I continue to post are extremely optimistic. I use a calculation that considers many things outside the National Polling. My conclusion are from the numbers in a matrix from the data collected.
You are also correct in saying we need either candidate to win by a convincing margin. This country needs healing from areas not being discuss by the either party. A margin of 6 to 8 points is a healing margin.
See Michael, we agree on something.
As with all Americans, in the end we will agree. I am optimistic we will see a convincing agreement on who will be our President at the end of the day on November 6, 2012.
Respectfully;
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
"CarmineD
Wow! The Wall Street Journal, under the same corporate umbrella as FAUX NEWS, as an unbiased news source. You gotta be kidding!"
That's what they make factcheck for. Keeps the parties and political leanings truthful [for the most part].
CarmineD
President Obama leads by 2 to 3 points in Ohio where the election will be decided. Along with Ohio, Penn and Michigan round out the Rust Belt Big Three that will carry the president to victory and a second term.
Republicans should prepare themselves for a the disappointment to come. Besides the presidential race, GOPers came into this election cycle with a good chance to win control of the Senate -- but then, as usual, they stepped in it and nominated teaparty candidates such as Akin in Missouri and Mourdock in Indiana. Those bible thumpers, full of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, started talking about legitimate rape-related topics then poof!, just like that two easy pickups in red states were botched big time.
We need a name for the republican tendency to self-immolate and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- (Crazy Angle Syndrome?) -- because it's become a crippling disease for their party.
SOMETIMES IT'S BEST THAT POLITICAL STALEMATES HOLD
Everything that Michael Casler has ever said about the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House not working together for the best interests of America is true.
But, there is a side to the issue of political stalemate that is positive. If the Tea Party Republicans had their political way, we would most likely see an end to Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. The list would carry on, such as, the disappearance of labor unions, women's rights, public broadcasting, the national park system, and welfare programs. I'm sure I've forgot to mention other necessary agencies and programs.
But, I do agree with Republicans that government should be more accountable, smaller, leaner, more efficient and effective. However, besides that of overlapping operations, I don't believe in elimination of most government programs and agencies. So far, impasse has forestalled any action on bills that would end the programs I listed above. So, I am therefore, at least a partial supporter of political stalemate.
The Tea Party mentality has infected a lot of politicians. While these extremists remain a formidable opponent of moderation and compromise, I can only hope the gridlock will continue to hold.
Its not looking good for the flim-flam man, Romney. The American public is starting to see him for the congenital liar that he really is. They also realize that they have the choice between a solid president who has done a good job over the last four years and a bulls****er. Obama is coming on strong in these last few days, and will easily take Nevada and probabaly wind up with 290+ EV's, and if he wins Florida, way over 300 EV's.
Here, from the Senator that Nevada just can't do without I personally believe that Harry is the single biggest obstacle in Nevada's recovery.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/insi...
Bradley,
Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you. However, we are in debt, and it isn't a static debt. It increases every second of everyday. One of these seconds, that ever increasing debt is going to reach a point where it will begin affecting every single American who isn't very wealthy in ways we will not like.
We cannot afford continued gridlock. As I said, one solution would be to throw everyone out of Congress but that isn't going to happen.
Each party has gone on a 'war' footing and they have done a terrific job in moving most Americans onto the same 'war' footing. There is 'nothing' good about the other side and your are either 'for' us or 'against' us. That is why we have people claiming that if one side is in control, government will control everything and we'll all go socialist. The other side claims that if the we put the opposite side in charge, the EPA and most other government agencies will be abolished tomorrow and the seas will run black with oil.
Their are some Americans (I don't know how many) that haven't gone to the 'dark' side with either party and know the nightmare scenarios preached by both sides are highly unlikely under our system of government.
I did not sleep through my government and political science courses like too many others did, so I KNOW and UNDERSTAND how my government works. I KNOW that unless most of Congress and the President were avowed Socialists, we are not going socialist. I also know that unless most of Congress and the President were all Gordon Gekko clones, only in real life, that all government agencies are not going to be abolished.
I also KNOW that at some point, no matter how big we are, if we continue to borrow and print money, our currency will be de-stabilized and our economy will begin to function so poorly that our society will collapse. I don't know where that point is, but I feel we are nearing it.
Therefore, although in other times and circumstances, stalemate was and is ok and even advantageous, this not one of those times.
Michael
Comment removed by moderator. Inappropriate
With an average annual expense to pay Congressional salaries and allowances of $812 million a year, it is time that Congress stop acting like toddlers throwing partisan tantrums, and start doing some bipartisan compromising, passing some major legislation like budgets and the jobs bill.
We, the taxpayers, are not paying Congress to work for Grover Norquist by obstructing progress!
Wasting $812 million a year for little to nothing should send everyone into the streets, in my opinion!
The media's definition of bipartisanship is Republicans compromising. Not the other way around. Since when did the media get to define bipartisanship and since when did the american people stop using their heads to think!
Here's part of a comment here, with it reversed. This could never happen right? It could never be the other way around right?
If, and this is a big "IF", if voters are not hindered by illegal tactics from Democrats and Barack Obama supporters, Mitt Romney will win this election by 6 to 8 points.
We have a history of bipartisanship as a guide, and the media only to the extent they report on real bipartisanship.
That means both parties have to find where compromise is possible. It means both parties get some and give up some.
However, in all that, it is the people that must be the focus, everyone.
Right now, anything is possible for good and for bad by both parties. It is the nature of partisanship.
IF the public was practicing good citizenship, all would be far better informed, and function in a way that they were the one's telling their representatives what they want and would be heard.
As long as our representatives belong to lobbyists, and other big money special interests, we the public are subjected to paying for nothing good on our behalf.
We will only have a chance if we can get our representatives back to actually representing us.
The system is broken and nothing will change as long as it remains broken.
The same goes for Presidents.
The electorate gets what it puts into the process and system.
Sign that Obama is about to win handily: The voter suppressing RepubliCons are now trying to deligitimize the vote by saying that machines have been tampered with and are not properly recording Romney votes. Of course the fact that Diebold is owned by staunch RepubliCons and one of the heads of the company that provides the machines to Ohio used to work at Bain Capital doesn't matter one bit. Fact Based? Of course not, they are RepubliCons, they live in fact-free fantasy world.
In reply to Michael Casler; I read your post of 11:26 AM and get your message loud and clear. I agree with every word that you wrote.
However, with the millions of Americans that are in great need, more than ever since the Great Depression, I don't have it in my heart to support the cut of programs and services that many of our people truly need. I also believe that cutting some other government agencies concerning environment, food chain, and healthcare would only put our population at more risk than they are now. I can't endorse, and believe in all these cuts and still respect myself as an honorable person who cares deeply about humanity.
However, recently, in these same discussion rooms I blew a literary gasket when I discovered President Obama not only reneged on his original campaign promise to repeal and or withdraw from NAFTA, he has in fact recently signed NAFTA styled treaties with other countries! I can't believe he has done this!!!
To be fair, I've read all the politically biased "fact checks" on NAFTA. I still, have to reasonably conclude from the evidence presented that Obama is just as guilty for the state of our economy as the Republican "outsourcing fanatics" are.
I cannot possibly in good faith vote for either one of these two candidates for President. They have both lied and deceived the American people.
If political gridlock is the only way to keep truly needy Americans even partially afloat, then I will ride with the political snarl-ups until the most severe consequences come that you spoke of in your above commentary.
Michael, I would love to lace up my old Marine Corps "jungle boots" once again and kick every one of these politicians in their rumps until they have fallen off their "self-serving" curbs and down to our diminishing level of living. But, we both know this isn't going to happen.
When many people are recklessly casting their votes for these unethical retches, they are in essence, driving through heavy fog at high speeds not even realizing the fatal financial cliff is almost right in front of them. Everyone else can do what they like. I'm not voting for any of these politically worthless, self-serving villains.
"When many people are recklessly casting their votes for these unethical retches [both candidates], they are in essence, driving through heavy fog at high speeds not even realizing the fatal financial cliff is almost right in front of them." - BChap
How much more so are those who blindly vote a straight party ticket without doing any research at all on individuals? Even my wife, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and proud socialist, perked up at the Sun's endorsement of Heck in CD3 and said she would have to look into just how bad the Democrat must be in that race for that to happen.
Neither major party has a platform that I can accept in its entirety, and certainly neither has a complete slate of candidates that I find acceptable. As of right now I plan on voting NOTA for President, Heller for Senate, and Titus for CD1.
There is something to be said for the idea that the less Congress can accomplish, the less harm they can do to us.
From reading the constant barrage of the same right wing rhetoric over the last 6 months or so, I have come the conclusion that even if all the worst things happen that they fear from a second Obama term, the country and planet will still be better off than if they get their agenda in place...
I thank the right wing posters for helping me so much in deciding which party would be the better choice for our future.. keep up the good work!
Obama2012
Bradley,
I respect the way you feel and share your concerns about our most vulnerable and programs they depend upon. It would be morally wrong to just end programs quickly and let the chips fall where they may.
That said, if nothing is done, the day will come when all the programs for the truly needy and everyone else will end because the countries money has been debased to a point where they just cannot be supported.
Congress, as it always has been is the key player. Without direction and a President who leads and asks for the people's support, Congress will march us right into financial oblivion.
One of our Presidents is going to have to realize that he or she cannot effect the changes necessary without Congress enacting them. Since it isn't going to be popular and is going to be painful to do what is necessary, Congress will not do them until pushed. The President, alone, simply cannot force Congress to do much of anything under our system. The President, with the strong support from most Americans, can force Congress to compromise and act. But the President must call out all of Congress (both sides) and then ask the American people to help him force, yes force Congress to their their jobs.
I didn't vote for President Obama but I was nonetheless proud that we could and did elect a black man as President. I also realized he had been elected with the greatest popular mandate since John F. Kennedy, plus he had control of Congress. I hoped that he would use that mandate to go to the American people, level with them about where we were, come up with a bold plan, sell it to the American people and then ask their support in putting pressure on Congress to compromise and do the jobs we elected them to do.
It was a lot to ask. Reach across the aisle to people like Mitch McConnell, who said his job number one was to make Obama a one term President (what an idiotic comment from another one of these numnuts we keep re-electing). Talk to Nancy Pelosi and say 'Nancy, I know you've waited years to be able to enact your dreamed of proposals but they are going to have to wait until we solve the nation's grave problems.
As it turned out, it was too much to ask or hope for. I think President Obama is a decent man, but he was ill prepared for the role he was thrust into. He did not use his mandate to rally the American people to a grand cause and use their power to force both sides of Congress to compromise. He made some attempts at compromise and was rebuffed. Then he did as Nancy Pelosi and many of the far left wanted. He used his power in Congress to force things through, over R's objections. When he lost the majority in the House in 2010, he had a chance to do a Clinton and move to the center and rally Americans for a grand cause. He did not do it... and here we are.
I am not saying Romney would or will do any better, but we need someone that leads.
Michael
Michael,
I think it is safe to say that throughout President Obama's term the real leader of the Democratic Party has been Harry Reid for all intents and purposes. To be fair, I doubt Romney would have much better luck reining in the House Republicans that Obama has had with Reid.
Boftx,
I don't have a great deal of faith that Romney can get Congress to compromise and do their jobs either.
But let me use a baseball analogy. If I have an inexperienced hitter that is batting 150 and we are in game number 155, and I have another hitter to try, I'm going to try him.
He may be better and he may be the same and he may even be worse, but we cannot afford not to try him.
Michael
Michael,
Agreed, but unfortunately Reid isn't up for election this year. And thanks to those three moron Republican Senate candidates there is little chance that Obama will have a fully Republican Congress like Clinton did when he got the most done.
In reply to Michael Casler; in the 2008 presidential primaries the best overall qualified individual for President of the United States was John McCain. I wouldn't have dared to support McCain because he wanted NAFTA to remain in effect so that Canada would remain our military partner in Afghanistan. Although McCain had a great deal of experience and wisdom, I could see his leadership would be an outright travesty to the economic recovery of our country.
Then there was Hillary Clinton. I thought overall, she was the best qualified Democrat for the presidential nomination. However, she would not commit to repealing or withdrawing from NAFTA.
Then there was Barack Obama who opposed NAFTA and even scorned Clinton in Democratic debates because she was in favor of NAFTA.
Again, I supported Obama simply because of his pledge to either repeal or withdraw from NAFTA. We now know this was all one big lie. The evidence of my research is clear; the majority of Congress was all ready to do the right thing in eliminating NAFTA. Ever since this economically traitorous act on the part of Obama, the halls of Congress have been in virtual chaotic gridlock with the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. As a side note, with NAFTA keeping our economy in the tank, just where did Obama think the money was going to come from to support "ObamaCare"? Yes, I see clearly now, at the expense of the already near broke middle-class American.
Now, back to the NAFTA issue. Obama turned his back on not only his own political party politicians, but the middle-class worker, and the overall recovery of the U.S. economy.
If anyone has a hard time believing this, even Hoffa Jr. and his unions have sternly opposed NAFTA. And through all this, now that we know the truth, Democratic voters in this discussion forum are still going to support Obama!!! Even more unbelievable, now, most recently, Obama has signed more NAFTA styled trade agreements with other countries. This is just unforgiveable, yes, just absolutely unforgiveable Michael. Talk about obstructionism! This is the absolute height of it!!!
And by the way, the middle-class residents of Staten Island in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy had to go on national television and beg FEMA for help. Just more proof the middle-class means nothing to our government.
And one more thing, if anyone thinks the unemployment rate would now be 7.9% or worse in America had NAFTA been repealed, I have a section of bridge I'd like to sell you that runs from Oahu to Los Angeles, California.
WOW Bradley,
I will be leaving soon. The last couple of days have been a real shocker for me. I am sorry that you had negative interactions with some of the Democrats in this discussion room. I tried to reach out to you; perhaps I could have done a better job. Because you ignored me. Maybe if I had read all of the comments, I would have seen what was going on and definitely would have come to your defense.
I wish you all the best. I loved reading our stories about your life.
All the best to you always.
Michael Casler said:
"I will be surprised if either of these guys can win this election by 6 to 8 points. It could happen of course, but it seems unlikely. I hope that the guy who wins does so by a wide enough margin that the other side will gracefully accept the results."
Sorry Michael but your logic (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling it logic...) leaves a lot to be desired....
The margin of victory has absolutely NOTHING to do with the defeated party gracefully accepting the results...
History does not validate that belief!
How did you come up with that nonsense?
Keep in mind that Obama won 68% of the electoral vote in 2008 & the GOP wasn't graceful in any form shape or fashion... The GOP was very angry over the selection of Obama...
I would call 68% of the electoral vote as pretty significant, wouldn't you?
Remember what the minority leader of the Senate said the main goal of the GOP was? This came immediately after Obama was sworn in as president.
To paraphrase McConnell, he said the "main objective of the GOP is to make sure that Obama is a one term president."
The GOP then worked 24/7 to block any and all legislation that Obama pushed for... They weren't gracious and they weren't about to work with the other side of the aisle....
If Obama wins, look for pretty much the same approach by the Republicans....
Wow! I'm surprised and disappointed with your statement!
Perhaps I've been giving you way too much credit?
Bradley,
Two points to your above comment.
One. I agree that Hillary was much the better candidate and supported her in the primary. If you read the link I posted earlier today, it says that Hillary and then Sen. Obama were both opposed to NAFTA and were in something of a pissing contest over who was more opposed. Hillary was NOT in favor of it, and even former President Clinton has said it was a mistake for him to enhance it.
Two. I agree with you that NAFTA and similar trade agreements are not good. But what is even more disturbing is that Obama's action with regard to the South Korean trade agreement (KORUS FTA) is not an isolated incident. In that case, he ignored objections from the AFL-CIO and several other groups in favor of the UAW. In a similar vein, he once again ignored labor objections and listened instead to the smaller environmentalist groups in regard to the Keystone pipeline.
On a broader note, given the reports of the Chicago memo to Canadian entities and later refusal to act on NAFTA, followed by his open mic comments to the Russians, it is difficult to think of Obama as being any more trustworthy than any other politician. Those are two clear examples of saying one thing to the American people while telling a foreign government it is just a dog and pony show for the masses. (Sounds a bit like a 47% comment when you think about it.)
On a broader note still, Obama has kept in place, and even strengthened, some of the more unpopular policies first put in place by former President George W. Bush. (To be fair, you and I might be in disagreement over the virtues of the Patriot Act.) Obama has been Bush Lite in some ways.
I would extend your observation and objection to a more general level than just the one issue. That is why I can not support Obama for a second term any more than I can support Romney for a first. Neither one represents any change.
On the other hand, A change in leadership in the Senate might be worthwhile, whether it be by the Democrats replacing Reid with Schumer, or the Republicans taking control.
boftx continues to believe a few things that simply won't happen and if they did happen, the out come would not be what he thinks would happen...
Confused? Allow me to explain....
As long as the Democrats control the Senate Harry Reid will be the majority leader. A huge majority of the Democrats in the Senate have tremendous respect and admiration for Harry...
They have watched Harry masterfully run the Senate and stop the Republicans time after time when the GOP has tried to pass legislation that was not in the best interest of the nation as a whole....
Harry has been a huge nightmare for the Republicans. Even as the minority leader, Harry had the Republicans talking to themselves and wondering what they might do in order to get their extreme right-wing agenda in place...
In other words, they had no answer for Harry and more times than not, no real plan of attack. Obamacare could not have been passed with out Harry skillful leadership. Members of the Democrat Party are very much aware of that....
Harry isn't going any place......look for Harry to continue to be the majority leader of the Senate.
I find it interesting that there's 23 Senate Democrat seats up for re-election this time around and it looks as the Democrats will win all of them, and maintain control of the Senate....
In other words, the Republicans are failing big time to gain inroads in the Senate.
As someone who has lived in Nevada for 35+ years, I have come to greatly respect the job that Harry Reid has done in Washington. I always get a real chuckle out of the "Reid haters" who know very little about Harry but they believe all the extreme right-wing propaganda that's out there concerning the Senator from Searchlight...
Thank you Harry Reid for all that you have done for the Silver State.
boftx & Michael,
I won't claim to be all knowledgeable about NAFTA, so I won't claim knowledge at all.
However, I have some questions for you both, based on the premise that NAFTA, and other trade agreements cause job loss in the US to outsourcing, depressed wage growth, export/import imbalances, and the fact that more trade agreements are supported by both candidates for President, through multiple Administrations of both parties. None repeal the agreements.
Are they now a fact of life in the US economy? They appear to be working for some forms of business or there would be an effort to end them. Someone is profiting. Who would that be?
If trade agreements are a global reality now, is that not an indication that a change must be made in the economic realities in our country?
If that is the case, should we not be developing a different competitive economic engine, and focusing on development of the means, technical, industrial, and in higher skill levels?
If jobs and industry are moving to cheap labor sources, are we sure that we want the American worker to compete with cheap labor elsewhere, or do we want to advance to a higher level of development, including our labor force?
If we choose to advance, should we not invest in serious advancement in our education system at all levels? Discipline? Expectation?
It seems to me that if we don't make the necessary investments for the future in people, we are going nowhere but down.
Just a few thoughts that come to mind. Thank you for your thoughts on my questions, realizing I am thinking beyond the immediate problems with NAFTA. I appreciate your responses.
In reply to "Boftx"; you're wrong, Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. You only have semantically type evidence in the nature of political hogwash to support the contrary.
As reported by the Huffington Post on Ms. Clinton's view on NAFTA
"The whole time that she was first lady," said Robert Shapiro, the undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton White House years, "she, like everybody else... [Was] not supposed to deviate from the position of the administration. There is no freedom of speech in there, and that certainly applies to a first lady. On the 2008 campaign trail, Clinton has been free of those shackles. And, on many occasions, she has expressed misgivings about NAFTA; although usually she qualifies her statements by saying she supports the underlying idea."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14...
Ms. Clinton, like Obama has proven herself to be just another two-faced low-life politician. Facts are facts, no exceptions!!!
boftx & Michael,
Some more thoughts/questions.
With increasing global trade agreements coming about, if we cancelled NAFTA, for example, and it brought jobs back to the US workers, how would they compete with still cheaper production in countries utilizing cheap labor?
Would it require US worker wage reductions to sell via exports to other countries who could make their own agreements after we repealed NAFTA or any other trade agreement?
I don't understand how that would benefit American workers now.
All of this seems to be a race for cheaper labor, products/services and higher profits. It never ends in a global market with global competition.
Is there an objective global evaluation of the state of country's advancement which propels them forward? If yes, where are we positioned?
I'm getting a big laugh from all these once "high-flying know it all" Obama supporters. Look at their comments now; sounds like "damage control" operations are in full swing.
And what was it one Obama commentator from the "All Comments" section recently told me? He said, "BChap, I will hold your feet to the fire in your commentaries".
Wow!!! My feet sure have no feelings of heat. In fact my toes have that cool easy feeling!!!
But, don't sweat it "Dumbocrats", you're now on equal footing with the greed and ignorance of the Republicans.
Not surprising, in the end, us Independents have won the entire debate cycle. We have surely beyond any shadow of a doubt defeated and proved what both Republicans and Democrats are all about. Enjoy your swims of desperation in your seas of poisonous phony and inept solutions.
However, the sad truth for America is, there is nobody that is trustworthy and honorable to vote for President of the United States.
peacelily,
The idea behind the so-called "free trade agreements" is that two trading partners will have little or no barriers (i.e. tariffs) on goods they exchange. In theory this will lead to more exports for us. The truth is that we, the US, usually pay a significantly higher tariff on goods we export compared to what we impose on imported goods.
Look up the terms of the South Korea agreement (KORUS FTA) that was started by Bush and renegotiated by President Obama.
Under the current terms, Korea will pay a 2 and 1/2% tariff on cars exported to the US, and the US will pay a 4% tariff on cars exported to South Korea (down from what was 8%.) Both tariffs will disappear after five years. But let's be honest, why should S. Korea pay a significantly lower tariff than what they impose on us? Their cars are already much lower priced than ours to begin with thanks to cheap labor.
Also, part of the inducement to get the deal done was for us to drop our desire for lower tariffs and fewer restrictions (quotas) on exported beef to them.
NAFTA was even worse. It allows companies here to bring in sub-assemblies from Mexico and Canada with no import tariffs for final assembly. The problem is that Mexico has essentially NO import restrictions from China or other countries with very low cost of labor. Sub-assemblies are imported by Mexico then shipped into the US without any tariffs being imposed.
At first that sounds good. But what happens is that companies that manufacture the sub-assemblies offshore sell the goods to the domestic arm at a relatively high price and keep the profits essentially tax-free in the foreign division thanks to our tax code.
That is how GE has managed to avoid any tax liability on tens of millions of dollars of profit.
This is what the OTC calls "fair trade." I call it male bovine manure.
peacelily,
With regard to us developing higher skill levels, you have to keep in mind that even though we might invent something here, i.e. the iPhone, it will be manufactured overseas, and the technology is immediately known to the host country to adapt (steal)and compete with.
The end result is that there are very few jobs that can not be off-shored.
peacelily,
One more thing. Do a little research into H1B visas and then ask yourself what would happen to the salaries of people working at Microsoft if Bill Gates is successful in his effort to have ALL annual limits on the number of H1B visa issued removed.
El_Lobo,
Thank you for confirming that Harry Reid is a master obstructionist. :)
After all, he invented the practice of having a single member present to call a session to order and then immediately adjourn every third day to prevent a recess appointment (which President Obama eventually ignored.)
Thank you very much for all your interesting comments. Sounds like we are lost, boftx!
I know about H1B visas because the same applies to doctors.
Btw, I found an old video tonight that is a bit off the NAFTA topic, but still with ramifications for our country's economy.
It is like being trapped in a freaking global web!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
peacelily,
We are not lost, but we need leaders who fully understand the ramifications of having us entangled in the WTO instead of truly putting the US first.
Yes, it is a global economy, and it always has been. Our leaders (and citizens) need to understand that our international competitors have little incentive to look out for our best interests. "Free trade" is a myth when it comes to international trade.
Obama in the past has already shown how he truly feels about Nevada. He's giving you lip service and telling you folks what you want to hear to get another term, which he does not deserve. Obama is bad for Nevada.
Kevin........
The bottom line is still the same.
Even with GOP obstructionism, PRESIDENT OBAMA dug
our economy out of the HUGE HOLE that
bush/cheney/republican policy caused.
And PRESIDENT OBAMA has us on the correct path
forward.
We can't afford going backward to the romney/ryan
bush/cheney horrible republican policies,
PERIOD!
AND WE'RE NOT!
FOUR MORE YEARS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
Particularly galling that two people whining incessantly about "obstructionist" Harry Reid were both proud Sharron Angle voters in 2010.
Angle's role in our own Legislature was Obstructionist-In-Chief, and she would have had unprecedented power in the Senate to place secret holds on nominations and bills.
Her strict, unforgiving ideology would have guaranteed LESS cooperation and bipartisanship in the Senate.
And those whiners? They voted for her, and they voted for a more polarized Senate.
"...unprecedented power in the Senate to place secret holds on nominations and bills."
Really? Do you really mean to say that Angle could have done something that no other Senator could and does do? That sounds like a bit of a stretch.
As I mentioned earlier, it might be a good thing to have Congress locked up more often than not. As Will Rogers put it: "So when all the yielding and objections is over, the other Senator said, "I object to the remarks of a professional joker being put into the Congressional Record." Taking a dig at me, see? They didn't want any outside fellow contributing. Well, he had me wrong. Compared to them I'm an amateur, and the thing about my jokes is that they don't hurt anybody. You can say they're not funny or they're terrible or they're good or whatever it is, but they don't do no harm. But with Congress -- every time they make a joke it's a law. And every time they make a law it's a joke."
Harry Reid has already promised not to cooperate if Romney is elected.Reid is such a pleasent little guy.
Peacelily,
NAFTA and trade agreements like it are only a part of the reason we have employment troubles here. To try to make it THE reason is to take a complex problem and look for a simple solution.
Our people like and buy inexpensive goods and services and those are provided by other nations. That is a large problem. If we erect trade barriers, we could reduce that but we'd be hit with retaliation, which would hurt our exporters and that would reduce employment in that area.
There are many nations that enact policies that work to keep certain American products and services out of their countries. We do little about that and we should do more. We also allow China and other nations to steal our intellectual property. We fight it but our efforts are ineffectual.
We are going to have to change our economy to one that creates higher paying employment but everyone wants this to happen overnight and it just isn't going to. Just as the loss of employment here happened over decades, the changes we must make will also take time to happen. It is just one more reason that it is imperative that we deal with the deficits and debt.
Congress is again the main problem. Very powerful forces use money and lobbyists to manipulate Congress into passing legislation that is good for them and bad for the country as a whole and this includes poorly written trade agreements. Until we reform how money is necessary to maintain a congressional seat and how lobbying is done, we will continue to have these problems.
Michael
@BChap,
"And by the way, the middle-class residents of Staten Island in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy had to go on national television and beg FEMA for help. Just more proof the middle-class means nothing to our government." (Bradley Chapline)
The state affected must initiate the action. The President made it clear, that FEMA is ready to assist all those who need help. First, the Governor of the state must ask for help. That's how it works.
The government, under President Obamam loves the middle class, and is fighting to help the middle class rebuild economically. The number one priority is getting the middle class back to work. Education is the key!
El_Lobo,
I like your counter arguments. Challenging and direct. Plus you have done your homework in a lot of areas. Good stuff my friend. Keep it coming!
A friendly reminder,
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
Kepi said:
"WOW Bradley,
I will be leaving soon. The last couple of days have been a real shocker for me. I am sorry that you had negative interactions with some of the Democrats in this discussion room. I tried to reach out to you; perhaps I could have done a better job."
I say:
Where are you going?
You are one of the best commentators on the internets, hate to see you go.
Regarding the Bradley situation, he got in peoples faces and was unpleasant first, and he is a big boy who will wind up being OK.
If we hurt his tender little feelings he should get out of the kitchen, his recipe tasted awful and needed to be told about it.
I tried to reach out to him too, he called it propaganda.
If you do go elsewhere, please have a peaceful, blessed life.
What an absolute put-on!!! A Democratic Obama voter says; "Regarding the Bradley situation, he got in people's faces and was unpleasant first, and he is a big boy who will wind up being OK. If we hurt his tender little feelings he should get out of the kitchen, his recipe tasted awful and needed to be told about it."
Most of these Obama supporters aren't even smart enough to realize that their President has been proven to be a two-faced back-stabbing political fool.
Yeah right, I get real upset and teary-eyed every time I politically expose and crush my opponents in a debate. At least "PeaceLily", (a strong Obama supporter) finally admitted to "Boftx" above by saying about Obama and his economically traitorous support for NAFTA, "Thank you very much for all your interesting comments. Sounds like we are lost, boftx!" And, Kepi, (another strong Obama supporter) realized and was stunned at the revelations I made about Obama and his unyielding NAFTA support that is detrimental to the economy and the middle-class. She left the discussion forum.
In comparison to the rest, these were two of the logical Obama supporters. As for the remaining group of the extremist Obama supporters in this discussion forum, no surprise that they are clutching on to a political thread of propagandist statements. Yep, how true that is for what is pathetically left in these discussion rooms of the so-called politically strong-armed laborer styled Obama political supporters!!!
Longtimevegan your comments about the Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) are right on. And since we're talking about Republican obstructionism let's look at what the Republicans did in response to Obamacare.
In response to the passage of Obamacare,a bunch of Republican Attorney Generals got together and FILED A LAWSUIT to block Obamacare. They took the law suit ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. Ridiculous!
When I think of all the Republican politicians,and how they spent so much time and effort to block health insurance and health care for poor and working Americans,the word 'heartless' comes to mind.
In an editorial for the Washington Post,Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein wrote:
'We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges'
'Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/l...
The most heinous and egregious example of Republican obstructionism occurred last year when Republicans in Congress,led by John Boehner,refused to raise the debt ceiling. This caused the United States to lose it's AAA credit rating. Boehner is threatening to do the same thing at the end of this year:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/boehner_...
The actions of Boehner and the Republicans in Congress are reckless,immature and irresponsible.
In reply to "Jumbo"; no question, your assessment of Republicans are "spot on".
However, we have all known from day one of Obama's inauguration as President, he has been an outright anti-capitalist.
As previously stated, many times over, Obama reneged on his campaign promise to repeal or withdraw the United States from NAFTA in which is a proven detrimental to the American economy and middle-class jobs.
My, my, my! Obama doesn't even make a good Socialist / Communist!!!
Bradley,
I hope you keep commenting. What we badly need on both sides, is many more people willing to find fault with 'their' side and willing to see some 'good' with the other side.
Conservative's positions on many social issues are very out of sync with today's society. If they want to remain viable in the future, they need to compromise on these positions. (I can see Conservatives frothing at the mouth as I say that)
Progressives need to realize there are still many Americans who may not be part of an organized religion, but are very uncomfortable when government forces people of faith to participate in doing things that violate their faith. (like it or not, people of faith will be with us and disrespecting them will not change that)
Most of all, each side needs to realize and admit that 'their' elected representatives (especially in Congress) are no more immune to the money and lobbyists provided by powerful interests to get legislation they favor than representatives on the 'other' side. The 'people' are not the real problem; the system is. Since that is so, a solution, as proposed by each party, which is...vote all 'our' guys in, is no solution at all. It is instead, an insurance policy for the status quo.
We must stop buying the absolute nonsense, put out by both major parties, that the problem is that too many of us vote for the 'wrong' party. NO, the problem is that we have a broken Congressional system, and when representatives we elect do an absolutely horrible job, we re-elect a good many of them over and over again.
I am always told we cannot send people in Congress home because they are long serving and powerful and benefit our state where a new person would not have any of that. While that is true, and I can certainly understand giving support to an incumbent when the other candidate stinks, that attitude completely ignores the other side of the equation.
These long serving members are cemented in to this corrupted Congressional system and will NEVER work to change it. In fact, we are rewarding them for keeping the system in place by re-electing them, over and over again.
We have to stop buying the bull, stop rewarding these people and do what we can to force a change in the system.
Michael
In reply to Michael Casler; well said in your commentary of 8:53 AM.
When it comes to American politics of both the modern day Republican and Democratic political parties, they are both effective roadblocks of deodorant reaching their armpits.
The fact that both the Republicans and Democrats "stink to the high heavens" has clearly been established at different intervals time and time again in these Las Vegas Sun discussion rooms.
Here again, the only Americans who can see through the political party "smoke screens" are the Americans who have intelligently determined through long and contentious debates that there are no candidates presently running for office in this Election whose sole interest is the best interests of our country.
My "no vote" in this Election is my protest to available candidates who have the absolute utter lack of integrity, loyalty, faithfulness, devotion, allegiance and fidelity in the oaths that these gluttons of power and greed disregard as they become our elected public servants.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
BCHAP IS A SUPERB POLITICAL FLIP-FLOPPER
In reply to "Jeff From Vegas"; thank you for your post at 9:55 AM.
I've always admitted that I'm a much better and more consistent "foot soldier" than I am a politician.
My political "flip-flopping" began decades ago when I went to Marine Corps basic training at Parris Island, South Carolina. This is where one of the recruits in our platoon asked our Senior Drill Instructor if we would be afforded the opportunity to vote in that particular upcoming Election. Of course, it would have been through "absentee ballots". Our Drill Instructor advised us recruits that, of course, we had a right to vote, but that a good foot soldier makes a confused voter and a horrible politician. Was he ever right!!!
I despised Richard Nixon as President. Although I liked Nixon when he sent Kissinger to bring forth peace from the Yom Kippur War while we reopened the shipping lanes in the mined Suez Canal that eased the oil embargo placed against the United States. I despised former President Gerald Ford for concocting the worst and most unnecessary military action in modern U.S. history. That would be the "Mayaguez Operation". I despised Jimmy Carter when he was President for attempting unsuccessfully to disband the United States Marine Corps. However, I liked President Carter when he signed an Executive Order ordering all U.S. ships to pick up and provide safe haven for distressed Vietnamese refugees on the high seas. I once again despised President Carter for giving a hero's welcome home to Marines who were released early as hostages in the Iranian's U.S. Embassy takeover. A Marine NEVER leaves fellow Marines or other Americans back in the hands of the enemy. I liked Ronald Reagan because he loved Marines. I despised Reagan when he made Marines part of a peace keeping multi-national force in Lebanon where 241 Marines were killed by suicide bombers. I loved Reagan when he crafted the birth of the greatest weapons defense system ever, his "Star Defense Initiative".
So, you see "Jeff FromVegas", I've had a "flip-flopping" love-hate relationship with every President (except Ford, whom there was nothing I liked about him) ever elected in my adult years. This is why, my Senior Drill Instructor advised us recruits to never get involved with politics.
Everyone knows the saying from the Marine Corps movie, "A Few Good Men"; "Unit, Corps, God, Country". You can believe it's true. "Once a Marine, always a Marine"! Those are the priorities in life the Marine Corps gave me from the moment I became a Marine; and it will last until I go to my grave.
If this makes me a political flip-flopper, people will just have to deal with me on that level. I'll never change, and the Marine Corps would never expect me to.
Bradley,
Just remember this - On Sunday, remember to set your clocks back one hour, then on Tuesday, try not to set the clock back 50 years - and we will all be better off.
Then you can be on your way...
Bradley,
I was not a Marine or even in the armed forces, but I salute you anyway. Jeff and so many others just find it extremely difficult to criticize 'their' side. Our present situation should tell us all that 'our' side is none too good. Jeff and the others have decided to vote and picked a candidate... and I never have a problem with that. I also honor your decision to not pick either guy.
You and I will disagree on many things but I can usually have a debate with you 'because' you are open enough to admit mistakes made by the side closest to your views. Without that, real debate is not possible and without real debate, compromise is not possible.
Look at our country, our parties, our politicians and our citizens and the close-mindedness is breathtaking... and sad.
With Jeff and others, a debate is impossible and so would compromise be. I don't understand what it is that keeps so many people from being able to support a candidate or a party and still be able to see and be willing to admit where the candidate or party is wrong and where the opposite side may actually have a better idea.
Doing so doesn't change your support, your vote or anything else. It just means that you have an open mind and look at all information instead of just what is convenient.
If we cannot change that.... well, let me put it this way... as I got older I never liked it...but today...in some ways I am glad I am almost 60... because if this is the future...I hope I don't have to live in it for too long.
Michael
In reply to "Jeff From Vegas"; thanks for the reminder.
But, please don't forget to remind Obama that the forgotten middle-class would like him to turn back the clocks prior to when NAFTA was forced upon and to the detriment of the backbone of America. The blue-collar working class!!!
Jeff,
Let me stipulate that I believe Mitt Romney has changed positions in this campaign. You call Bradley a flip flopper because he has changed somewhat on his support and actually criticized the candidate of your choice. Oh my!
President Obama was against a health care insurance mandate as candidate Obama but for one as President. Gitmo 'had' to be closed said candidate Obama, but he kept it open as President Obama. Candidate Obama said we must leave Afghanistan immediately but President Obama approved 30 thousand more troops for a surge. I could go on.
People change their minds for a variety of reasons (some good, some not so good) and since we are not mind readers, we can only 'guess' at the reasons.
My logic told me President Obama would not do everything he said he'd do in his campaign and I was right. Should Romney become President, the same will be true of him. Let's face it, electing a President is a crap shoot, since we can't force the person to do as he said he would.
Bradley is 'open' enough to take in new information and let it affect his view. I suspect the same is true of President Obama and would be true of a President Romney. I actually like people who can change their minds and would not want a person that could not change their mind.
You really need to be a little more circumspect when throwing around the word flip flopper regarding those who take in new information and then change what they said in the past.
Michael
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Jumbo,
I think I have said this before, but I need to say it again.
Thank you for your comments.
Revised:
In reply to Michael Casler; another great commentary by you that spells out the short-comings of the typical American voter.
Michael, I don't think even Clint Eastwood prefers to talk to an "empty chair". Democrats show themselves to be here on stage, however the chair of intelligence and practicality when it comes to the wretched economic effects of NAFTA is in fact, still empty.
The radical extremist republican mis-administration of bush/cheney with their narrow minded ideology of totally unregulated capitalism gave the green list to their corrupt corporate cronies in the Financial sector of our economy and they went all in on the "Housing Fraud Buble." When that Bubble burst, it created the almost financial market collapse.
Part of the results can be found at:
"Republicans push the country toward precipice with stance on debt ceiling"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/2011/jul/19/r......
The irresponsible republicans are primarily responsible for the Great Recession but have not been willing to help President Obama and the Democrats fix the economic mess. They have adopted a strategy of obstruction and sabotage the economy to prevent a full recovery, just so they could blame President Obama. That is, if they can fool over 50% of the voters as they did in 2000, 2004, and 2010.
"McConnell's Own Words on Senate Gridlock"
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_11/McC......
"Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/......
"Why unemployment should be 6.8%, not 7.8%"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gongl......
"Republicans Filibuster everything, Romney blames Obama for not working with Congress"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/......
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vidi,
Welcome back, you were missed!!!! Good timing! Right On. Great post! Hope to see more!!!!!
In reply to "VidiVeritas"; a very good post. You mirror everything I have been saying about Republicans for a good length of time in the Las Vegas Sun discussion rooms.
However, you seemed to have passed on the issue of why President Obama would renege on his campaign promise to repeal and or withdraw from NAFTA, especially when it caused millions of skilled "blue collar" job losses and has played a side-by side instrumental part with Republican ideologies in driving the U.S. economy into the tank, and holding it there. Wouldn't one of practicality as a Democratic President activate all his political options in repealing NAFTA? Obama was handed on a "golden platter" a bill sponsored by predominately Democrats in Congress to repeal NAFTA, and Obama shunned this proposal.
You see, Democrats don't look good on this issue and they have no defense for it. If you say that NAFTA is good for the economy, provide accurate information and relevant informative links to back your stance. I'll save you a lot of wasted research time. There isn't any such information that would substantiate. See "boftx's " comments on this issue for details.
Why are Democrats, Obama supporters in this discussion room continually avoiding this issue with NAFTA? Give me one good logical reason why Obama would flip-flop and support NAFTA, like he is some sort of a Republican? Give me one good bottom-line reason how NAFTA would be a good ingredient for the U.S. economy and the "blue-collar" workforce?
I'm anxious to hear your reply. Because, if you should miraculously have a credible reply, you shall be putting yourself at odds with the labor leader and the General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, James Hoffa Jr.
I am for a growing economy and a stable middle-class / blue-collar workforce. With all this having been said, I'm even more shocked to discover that Obama has recently signed more NAFTA styled trade agreements with other foreign countries. Again, this is not supported by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I ask again, why would Obama do this?
You seem intelligent "VidiVeritas". Will you provide me with legitimate and truthful answers? Thank you.
"Really? Do you really mean to say that Angle could have done something that no other Senator could and does do?"
Really? No other Senator could or does put anonymous holds on legislation and bills? You're surprisingly ignorant of senate rules, Jim.
"Under Senate rules, a single senator is allowed to anonymously keep a bill from advancing toward a vote with what is called a "secret hold.""
"Under the Senate's arcane rules, any individual senator can anonymously block votes on nominees for any reason, from principled ideals to political extortion. "
"And when things are running smoothly, the system works quite well. When they're not, though, that creates the opportunity for a single senator to block legislation from the floor simply by objecting to a unanimous consent request. One objection is obviously all it takes to destroy unanimity, and without that, the bill can't come to the floor for debate."
Try again, Jim.
Reid temporarily suspended secret holds in 2011, but the practice has a long, storied history in the Senate. And, given that you opposed returning Senator Reid to the Senate, where he suspended the holds, had Angle been elected in 2010, as you voted, she would have had the power to object to unanimous consent.
In reality, anonymous holds are still in practice... and was done just a month ago.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
The more you know...
In approximately 72 hours it will all be over...
It's anyone's guess on who is going to win the White House, but for all practical purposes, the "hay is in the barn."
I get this gut feeling that the GOP is currently in a panic mode......don't you?
The latest hurricane (Sandy) actually hurt the Romney campaign & helped the Obama campaign....
Obama has been criticized by the GOP as a man who is not a leader, but his actions during Hurricane Sandy shows the exact opposite.....
New Jersey Republican governor, Chris Christie, has not been agreeing with the members of his party who portray Obama as a weak & ineffective leader. Just a day or so ago, Governor Christie gave Obama very high marks when it comes to leadership.
I got another robo call from a Republican fund raiser this afternoon and maybe it's my imagination but the caller sounded like a sailor who had fallen over board and was desperately yelling for help...
"Help me....help me....help me........I need your support (Money)" We need to raise 800,000 dollars before mid-night."
I listened to the entire call and then politely hung-up!
President Obama is leading in over half of the swing states & if that lead holds, look for Obama to be re-elected......maybe by a 60-80 electoral vote margin...
Are you listening Carmine?
Most American truly like Obama and they can clearly see that he has their best interests at heart....
Many Americans are not so sure about Mitt Romney, however...
His constant flip-flopping and his many lies have a lot of people questioning his sincerity and his true motives...
We all know that "mittens" can create jobs in places like China but he hasn't convinced many Americans that he can & will create jobs here at home....
We're at least half-way home when it comes to putting this recession behind us. Let's give President Obama a chance to finish the job he started....
Vote for Obama on November 6th.......
Just as I expected; I asked for legitimate and truthful answers as to why Obama has helped to place a stranglehold on the American economic recovery and the middle-class workforce by supporting, endorsing and expanding NAFTA. And what is provided? Of course, either no answer, or Democratic political messages and propaganda that rise to the level of a Nikita Khrushchev regime.
I never would have thought, in America, I would live to see this day where the two choices for President of the United States are a "Republican Snake", and a "Democratic Remora". It's no better at the state and local elections. There is just more snakes and remoras. Examples that would be characteristic of this are, Heller vs. Berkeley, Tarkanian vs. Horsford, and so forth and so on.
Here I was really counting on this one Obama supporter in this discussion room to hold true to his previous pledge of, "holding my feet to the fire" on my commentaries. However, that promise that seemingly fizzled out. I was looking forward to getting his replies and or excuses on why Obama has been a political turncoat to the economic recovery and middle-class blue collar workers by supporting and expanding NAFTA. But, I would have to assume he either has no answers, or he considers drafting phony propaganda political messages is more of a priority.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
michael Casler says:
"With Jeff and others, a debate is impossible and so would compromise be. I don't understand what it is that keeps so many people from being able to support a candidate or a party and still be able to see and be willing to admit where the candidate or party is wrong and where the opposite side may actually have a better idea."
The problem with your theory is that I am above both parties, have little use for either of them I support who is closest to right.
You are correct in saying both sides need to give a bit, but the republicans of 2008, 2010, and 2012 are Al Qaeda in suits and the dems are of the people.
You think you guys are just a little off kilter, I think you guys are treasonous.
You have miles to traverse and many sins to atone for, once you are there, I will be happy to talk - until then , keep moping about, You mope pretty well, for a moper.
Michael Casler; I really laughed when I read this Obama supporter write the following, (referring to Christian Conservatives who are capitalists); "You have miles to traverse and many sins to atone for."
I have more than my share of political differences with Republicans. However, it is absurd for any liberal to insinuate that Christian Conservatives who are capitalists should base their economic policies or traits of entrepreneurship on the accounts of Jesus who died roughly 2000 years ago.
Talk about new heights of Democratic "obstructionism" and turning the clocks back in time!!!
No, Kevin, YOU try again. You specifically said that Angle would have had "unprecedented power." She would have nothing of the sort, only that which any Senator is entitled to.
Your response wasn't even close.
Also, Michael, this same Obama supporter says that, "Democrats are of the people."
If this is so, why are Democrats supporting Obama who has refused to repeal and or withdraw our membership from NAFTA? It doesn't make sense for liberals to back a President when the realities of NAFTA benefit out-sourcing businesses and tumbles the skilled middle-class employment of blue collar workers in America.
I'm still waiting for one of these liberals in this discussion forum to explain. I have to assume that I shouldn't hold my breath on this!!!
Mr. Chapline:
Didn't NAFTA start somewhere in the 90's? All this time you were a vocal and staunch supporter of Obama. I must have missed some of your posts. Why now?
In my case, having no inkling on how presidential decisions are or must be made, I admitted that it is way beyond the purview of a peon like me. I did not base my choice on Obama's failures and successes. It was a simple look at their core beliefs.
That was it. Made my life easier.
Bradley,
Do not hold your breath for either side to admit their party is not for the people. They just don't get it.
We would not be where we all our if the people we elect to office did what was best for the country, instead of what is required of them to get the money and support of powerful interests so they can retain office.
It is foolish to believe all this carnage, that continues election after election, is the result of only one side. Hopefully, one day, more people will realize this.
Michael
Nancy,
What you 'believe' are the core beliefs of each candidate can be used in your decision, but it should not be the only or main criteria.
What Bradley is saying is that in his opinion, NAFTA is not good and should be repealed. Candidate Obama said he believed this as well. When he became President, he not only did not repeal NAFTA, he signed additional trade deals like NAFTA. To Bradley, when NAFTA started is unimportant.
I pointed out to Jeff several areas where President Obama said one thing in the campaign and did another as President. Jeff did not address this but eliminates Romney from consideration for changing his positions (which he has done). This is backward logic: Make a decision and then ignore anything that might put your decision into question and embrace anything that validates your decision.
With decision making like that, it's no wonder we are in a mess.
Michael
Btadley....Bradley.....
What are we going to do with you? The more you talk, the more it appears that you're a very confused poster...
Obama is our best hope for the middle class. Romney says he cares about the middle class but that's only a campaign ploy....
What has Romney ever done for the middle class? His 47% statement behind closed doors clearly points out that "mittens" could care less about America's middle class....
Actually, "mittens" has great destain for the middle class. He considers them "moochers" and people who refuse to be responsible for themselves....
Bradley, you refuse to believe that Romney is nothing more than a "fat cat"........a man who has NO idea or concept of what the middle class is all about...
He can identify with the "fat cats" but has not a clue about the rest of us...
Yet, you still sing the praises of Mitt Romney.....unbelievable!
Yep, I have seen where you say that your not going to vote for Obama or Romney on November 6th, but that's just talk...
You will never admit it but Romney has your vote in his back pocket!
Yes, I continue to hold your "feet to the fire."
Remember what Harry Truman always said......."If it gets too hot, then get out of the kitchen."
Michael Casler said:
"Nancy
What you 'believe' are the core beliefs of each candidate can be used in your decision, but it should not be the only or main criteria."
Hmmmmmm.........what's Casler actually saying? Is he trying to tell Nancy how to vote? How to make her decision?
I wonder if Casler has given any thought to the millions of right-wingers out there who always vote on a single "wedge issue" or two?
The GOP couldn't survive politically with out it's huge base of "wedge issues voters."
I wonder why I haven't seen Casler go down that road? Uncharted territory? A black hole for MIchael?
Bradley, in a tone deaf series of posts has ragged on like this:
"If this is so, why are Democrats supporting Obama who has refused to repeal and or withdraw our membership from NAFTA? It doesn't make sense for liberals to back a President when the realities of NAFTA benefit out-sourcing businesses and tumbles the skilled middle-class employment of blue collar workers in America."
I say:
It is, to a lot of Obama supporters, a huge let down that Obama is in reality a staunch free trader. He likely always has been. Some Obama supporters like me are forced to accept it because we have no alternative.
I would like to see a 25% tariff on all imports with that money used to pay off the debt.
It is a sort of front end VAT.
Obama might support it, Romney never would, and to me the whole reason to vote Obama is the SCOTUS anyway.
Here is where we are now:
"Approximately 96 percent of U.S. merchandise imports are industrial (non-agricultural) goods. The United States currently has a trade-weighted average import tariff rate of 2.0 percent on industrial goods. One-half of all industrial goods entering the United States enter duty free."
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/industr...
Michael:
There is no way for us to know how and why decisions are made by those in power. I have no defense if I questioned those decisions. We, of course, have a better idea (in our minds), but not knowing the myriad of circumstances surrounding each issue, we cannot, literally influence those decisions. We should know this by now.
So, in the same token, I place my trust on people who in my gut would make decisions for the benefit of the larger segment of the populace, not just a few. That is all I need to go on. That is what is real to me. That is how I keep my life simple.
Any change I want to make, I begin with myself then work on those I have influence over. My message to those I teach is simple: Learn Respect, Responsibility, and Resilience - the corresponding three to the academic 3Rs.
Here's my educational philosophy: Children are like droplets of rain. Droplets make a puddle. As each droplet falls, the puddle gets bigger and bigger. One day the puddle will encompass lakes, rivers, and oceans and will meld into one big push for change. My power to effect change lies in each droplet.
El Lobo:
Regarding the "wedge issue" voters. I went to church last night because Saturday is the Sabbath and that is what the Bible says is expected of me.
The pastor, wanting to be part of the "vote republican" club said to base your vote "Biblically" on the issue of abortion, same sex marriage, then he threw in a new wrinkle telling "People of Color" it was OK to vote against someone of their own race. That they would not be being traitors if they vote for a white guy.
The preacher is Mexican.
A sad lot the Christian leadership in America has become. They trade righteousness for power.
Romney's most bizarre claim? That Obama shouldn't be re-elected because flying on Air Force One has made him out of touch with ordinary Americans:
'Years of flying around on Air Force One, surrounded by an adoring staff of true believers telling you what a great job you are doing -- well, that might be enough to make you a little out of touch'
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/politics/g...
Isn't flying around on Air Force One exactly what Romney would be doing if he were elected President? And doesn't Romney's personal fortune of $190 million make HIM out of touch with ordinary Americans?
Freeman,
I do not agree with your political position, but if you are reading this, I hope all is okay with you. :)
@Jumbo,
"Longtimevegan your comments about the Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) are right on. And since we're talking about Republican obstructionism let's look at what the Republicans did in response to Obamacare.) (Jumbo)
Jumbo, your entire post tells the truth about how the Republicans have blocked the President from helping Americans. The Republicans say they are blocking the President, but they are blocking Americans. The Presidency represents America. If your blocking the President, your blocking Americans.
This should not be the results of democracy!
Democracy, in the end, helps the people through our representatives. We are in the process of changing representing who we believe will help the people.
Again, in the end, Democracy helps the people.
Good post Jumbo, good information. Keep it coming.
"Jeff From Vegas" says, "It is, to a lot of Obama supporters, a huge let down that Obama is in reality a staunch free trader. He likely always has been. Some Obama supporters like me are forced to accept it because we have no alternative."
In reply; you do have alternatives. One of which is a NO vote for both presidential candidates. The second alternative is to become involved forming new political party. I just posted my thoughts on this:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov...
"El_Lobo" writes, "Obama is our best hope for the middle class."
In reply, is that so? Well, you tell that to the extreme scores of middle-class Americans who have lost their jobs and everything they have earned due to Obama turn-coating and just not only endorsing NAFTA, but signing more extensions of NAFTA styled agreements with other foreign countries.
I guess for you, El_Lobo, a no vote for President is not possible. You're doing all your writing from the comfort of your home. Many other former middle-class Americans are not that lucky.
>"You can't possibly hold my feet to the fire when all you have in your hand is ice". B. Chapline<
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
Where is the logic of registering to vote and then refusing to vote for any candidate on the ballot?
How is your voice being heard, or how is your protest with log or making a difference? This sounds stupid. This is stupid!
This is the actions of an irresponsible voter, a citizen who takes for granted a duty one must perform to preserve and protect a expanding democracy.
Jeff, your right. One who does this is just being a dupe!
In reply to the Judas Iscariot type individual; I'm just an old foot soldier that cares about the working class American. You might adopt some of the same principals; maybe your self-centered and deep anger issues would subside a great deal.
The only ones in this entire discussion room who are STUPID are those who cast a vote a "Obuma". Nothing like feeding the tiger, whom politically speaking, will sooner or later eat you alive economically and financially. Now that's STUPIDITY !!!
Nancy,
You seem to be a philosophical person who is drawn to big ideas and overall themes. I am, by nature, practical and as logical as a human being can ever be (we all are illogical at times because we are human beings). I feel there is a place for both types of persons in this world.
In some situations, I'd prefer to have the philosophical person. In others, I'd prefer the practical, logical person.
I'm not going to agree with you on much I think, but you have your right to see things as you do.
When you taught, I hope you placed as much emphasis on reading, writing and arithmetic as you did on Respect, Responsibility, and Resilience. I studied to be a teacher and worked as a teaching assistant in elementary schools and I saw way too little of the former and way too much of the latter (a good balance of both would have been better).
Respect, Responsibility and Resilience are good qualities and ones to be encouraged, but when most Americans cannot locate Iran on a map, can't correctly name the vice president, have zero idea about how their own government is organized and operates, they are easy dupes for whatever malarkey our two political parties pass off as the 'truth'.
I don't have any words to express how dangerous that is.
Michael
Bradley,
Way to hang in there against the attacks. I still think Obama will likely be re-elected so all the people piling on you will be happy. Then maybe they will stop attacking you. If Romney should win, look for more vitriol directed your way.
As I have said, disagreeing is healthy and good. We all make value judgments in our heads. I have opinions about the intelligence and knowledge of some of the letter writers to the Sun that I am sure are as bad as what they have toward me... and many have often expressed to me. The difference is that I keep those thoughts and opinions in my head. I remain respectful because I know that is the right thing to do and I want to keep the discussion going.
Perhaps some day, the people attacking you will take that option too.
Michael
Michael: you must have missed the phrase .... Corresponding to the academic 3Rs. If you have been trained as a teacher, you must have heard of integration and differentiation of instruction.
Unless you are directly involved with those who make decisions, there is not much you can do. All we do here is talk, talk, talk, and we have been doing it for years, yet nothing really has changed. In fact, it seems to get worst. Politics is not a vehicle for change because people are corrupt. What need to change are individuals. It may not happen in our lifetime, bur slowly, the pendulum will begin to swing.
Good luck.
@BChap,
"The only ones in this entire discussion room who are STUPID are those who cast a vote a "Obuma"." (Bradley Chapline)
Mr. Chapline, the stupidity comes into play when an informed person registers to vote and then refuses to vote. In addition to being stupid, it's being irresponsible.
If one registers to vote, one can reasonable assume one knows what one is doing and what it means to register to vote.
Taking this literally, it's called being stupid, or being irresponsible, take your pick. Either one, does not justify not voting if your an informed registered voters. As most of commentators on the Sun editorials claim to be.
If a person is not going to vote, that person should not register to vote.
Referencing the title article main point.......
.....Being an informed person on the issues...registering to vote, and then refusing to vote is a form of obstructionism?
Obstructionism does not protect an expanding democracy. Obstructionism in the face of threatening challenges to the foundation of democracy can result in revolution.
Democracy is not threaten by the Tea Party or citizens expressing change, but by Big money from sources not known, hiding within the corporations under US laws. This is the real threat, this will threaten democracy, this is the obstruction we are faced with, this is the challenge.
However, this can be fixed legally, and by the people. We start first by being informed. Next, being organized, then we choose reasonable responsible people to represent the majority interest (not the 1%) and we change rulings like Citizens United. That's how one fights Obstructionism.
This the reason why one votes. Be responsible, vote!
BChap (Bradley Chapline) Nov. 4, 2012 9:31 a.m.
COMMENTED:
The only ones in this entire discussion room who are STUPID are those who cast a vote a "Obuma". Nothing like feeding the tiger, whom politically speaking, will sooner or later eat you alive economically and financially. Now that's STUPIDITY !!!
*******************************
Bradley,
You have a lot of nerve, but in one respect, you are correct. The people like me who support President Obama were foolish to trust and believe that you had flipped from a hardcore TEAbagger to an Obama supporter. Although, I will not say we were stupid, we just believed you and did not realize that we would be sucker punched later on down the road.
So, what is the deal here, were you playing a little game of chess? Were we all pawns in your chess game? You should be ashamed of yourself, but you probably will not be; because I will bet you think you are the smart one and we are the dummies. First, you get the Teabaggers to trust you and believe that you are on their team. Then, you drop them like a hot potato a slither over to the Obama supports and convinced us all that you supported Obama. Have you ever heard the snake story? Well, it ends something like; well you knew I was a snake when you brought me in.
Then, you learn a little bit about NAFTA, which I noticed you never commented on when there was a letter to the editor: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/oct...
I know you do not give a S@#$, but I am very disappointed in your comments and the messages lately. You flip-flop just like your heroes; you fit right in with the TEAbaggers.
And you go off and flip-flop over what began as a single issue and has evolved into a full on attack!
So you go on and do whatever you do and let that SINGLE ISSUE continue to dictate your mean-spirited; uncalled for comments.
Don't you dare tell me I do not have to read your comments! You have just insulted everyone who believed you and bought into your BS (caveat emptor).
@Kepi,
Please do not be disappointed. For those that change position and cannot support any current or previous position, they earn the label posted below:
""So from now on, it can be reasonably assumed when reading anything you post, be it in your words or from a source you reference, your just providing information that you like, and not necessarily true and clear information, or not information you truly believe, or information you can explain.""
Kepi, you can change all the words "You" and place the name of the party you what to reference. In short, the commentator is a Bullsh__er.
@Longtimevegan,
You are absolutely correct! Thank you for your comment; I appreciate it.
Have a look:
The 100th day of the Romney administration
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/en...
The President's plan to streamline government in support of American business
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/en...
How to wreck your campaign's credibility, Romney-style
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/en...
"You specifically said that Angle would have had "unprecedented power." She would have nothing of the sort, only that which any Senator is entitled to."
Has she ever had that much power before? No, thus she would wield unprecedented power. You know you've lost the argument when you devolve into the grammar police, Jim.
I notice you never refuted my main point: you and Casler whine about bipartisanship and cooperation yet gladly voted for and were major cheerleaders for the most partisan candidate to run for Senate in Nevada history.
You voted to give her the ability and power to block nominations and legislation, which both you and I know she would have done. Given her history in the Nevada Legislature, I have NO DOUBT she would have abused that privilege to an UNPRECEDENTED degree.
Class dismissed.
In reply to Michael Casler; it's all okay Michael. I admit, I should have known long before this close to the election that Obama supported NAFTA from the beginning on his presidency. It was stupid of me to just assume all along that the reason NAFTA was not repealed was because Obama did not have the political support. Boy was I wrong on that! As I was a staunch supporter of Obama, I felt as his supporter, he betrayed my trust in him.
These people can hate on me all they want. It doesn't really affect me to any great extent. To me, there is more to life than being a fixed political pawn. When it comes to voting in any election, if you have two choices for President, and neither one meets personal expectations, why force yourself to still pick one of the two candidates? I don't know about everybody else, but I think I deserve better than that. So the only viable option for me is to not vote for either one.
Michael, political pawns have absolutely no idea they are just being used as political pawns. Based on this premise, their words have little if any credibility with me.
Kevin Sandoval,
Who are you responding to on your post on Nov 4, 2012 at 3:07pm?
Nancy,
"Politics is not a vehicle for change because people are corrupt. What need to change are individuals. It may not happen in our lifetime, bur slowly, the pendulum will begin to swing."
You hit the nail on the head! However, I would hope it would be an evolution, rather than the pendulum, since it can keep on swinging. ;-)