Vote Early and Vote Often!

But before you do think back, the only time the Clinton Administration worked was when it had a Republican Congress.

The only time the Bush administration didn't work is when it had a Democratic congress.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. For the first six, the economy was fine.
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.2-4.7%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + 5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. Since then: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) Gasoline has been over $4 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 6.1% (as of 10/08. It was only 4.7% in 2006 at the end of the Republican Congress and it trended downward to 4.4% for about a year until the Democratic policies really got into full swing); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12+ TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping; 5) over 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ 7) Car sales are at or near record lows.

 $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT!

REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE.

NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS TO GIVE HIM FREE REIN!!!! Brrrrr, that's scary!

JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU OR YOUR POCKETBOOK CAN STAND?

Remember that back in 1960 'Change' got us a welfare state that has single handedly done more damage to America than anything since the Civil War.

I for one, cannot berkeleying wait until this whole mess is done with, just so that the off-topic board can resume it's normally scheduled programming.

EastCoastMojo wrote: I for one, cannot berkeleying wait until this whole mess is done with, just so that the off-topic board can resume it's normally scheduled programming.

+1

ME TOOOO!!!!

I voted early, now all I have to do is figure out how to vote often. Not that even that will do much good in the overall scheme of things. When a state that is smaller than many cities in my state has nearly as much impact as my whole state it says my vote doesn't count for much.

So much for equality.

carguy123 wrote: I voted early, now all I have to do is figure out how to vote often.

Call ACORN. I think they can hook you up.

carguy123 wrote: ME TOOOO!!!! I voted early, now all I have to do is figure out how to vote often. Not that even that will do much good in the overall scheme of things. When a state that is smaller than many cities in my state has nearly as much impact as my whole state it says my vote doesn't count for much. So much for equality.

So your state should have more sway because it's larger? That doesn't sound like equality.

Let's face it, none of OUR votes count, it's the electoral college that decides the next president. It is an imperfect system, but it's the one we have.

Frankly, both the Republicans and the Democrats are spending about 5x more money than the government should be.

carguy123 wrote: But before you do think back, the only time the Clinton Administration worked was when it had a Republican Congress. The only time the Bush administration didn't work is when it had a Democratic congress. George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. For the first six, the economy was fine. 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.2-4.7%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + 5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!... But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. Since then: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) Gasoline has been over $4 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 6.1% (as of 10/08. It was only 4.7% in 2006 at the end of the Republican Congress and it trended downward to 4.4% for about a year until the Democratic policies really got into full swing); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12+ TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping; 5) over 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ 7) Car sales are at or near record lows. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE. NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS TO GIVE HIM FREE REIN!!!! Brrrrr, that's scary! JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU OR YOUR POCKETBOOK CAN STAND? Remember that back in 1960 'Change' got us a welfare state that has single handedly done more damage to America than anything since the Civil War.

There are actually two flaws to the Republican talking points you are repeating here.

1. The Democratic congress that we have had in the last two years does not have the 60 votes in the Senate that it takes to overturn a filibuster or the 2/3 majority required to overturn a veto from President Bush so they really haven't been able to do much of anything to either help or hurt the situation.

2. Most of the problems you are citing took more that two years to create, and were created by legislators and lobbyists from both politcal parties, some apolitical people who just got greedy and a bunch of middle class average joes who simply borrowed more money than they could afford to pay back in order to live beyond thier means.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

billy3esq wrote:

carguy123 wrote: I voted early, now all I have to do is figure out how to vote often.

Call ACORN. I think they can hook you up.

Only if you show up to vote the second time in a Mickey Mouse costume.

EastCoastMojo wrote:

carguy123 wrote: ME TOOOO!!!! I voted early, now all I have to do is figure out how to vote often. Not that even that will do much good in the overall scheme of things. When a state that is smaller than many cities in my state has nearly as much impact as my whole state it says my vote doesn't count for much. So much for equality.

So your state should have more sway because it's larger? That doesn't sound like equality.

So you're thinking that the votes of a few hundred thousand people should have more impact than the vote of several million?

You said smaller, you did not say anything about population density. Besides, Texas is second only to California in the number of electoral votes that you have, so I would argue that "your vote" carries quite a bit of weight as it is. I said it is not a perfect system, but it is the system we have. It doesn't mean that your vote counts less than mine or vice versa, as our actual votes don't elect the president. Electors vote for the Prez & Vice Prez.

Linky

Each State is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives. The number of electors for a State is based on the number of members in the House of Representatives who represent the State, plus two for the State's Senators. A State's Congressional delegation is determined by the State's population.

Linky

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule where voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific presidential and vice presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. The two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. U.S. presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous elections (50 states plus the District of Columbia), rather than a single national election.

Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a presidential election and still win that election. This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000. Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote; however, no proposal has ever successfully passed both houses.

billy3esq wrote:

carguy123 wrote: I voted early, now all I have to do is figure out how to vote often.

Call ACORN. I think they can hook you up.

But, I thought they were guilty of voter registration fraud (bad), but not voter fraud (badder). They may have registered Mickey Mouse, but can he actually show up and vote?

Joey

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

FWIW

Let me get this straight: Everything good that happened during the eight years of the Clinton administration was due to Bush Sr.'s term, but everything bad that happened in the last two years was due to the Democratic congress that has been in power at the same time?

neon4891 wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/ FWIW

That is fun to play around with

MitchellC wrote: Let me get this straight: Everything good that happened during the eight years of the Clinton administration was due to Bush Sr.'s term, but everything bad that happened in the last two years was due to the Democratic congress that has been in power at the same time?

So that's harder to believe that ANYTHING Clinton did, except Monica, was good?

Actually if you'll reread the first post I said that the only time Clinton's reign (of terror) worked was after he had a Republican Congress and, check your facts, the only time the Bush admin slipped was after he got a Democratic Congress.

I am actually a "pocket Democrat" as well. Up until Bush Sr. I always voted Democratic, but I had lived long enough to see the results of some of my Democratic votes and I wanted a "change" so I voted Rep. Actually I see that I am more of a Libertarian, but since that's a wasted vote I vote Rep, usually.

As many have pointed out the Pres has limited power, it is Congress that matters and for most of my years on earth we have had a Democratic controlled Congress. What was it the 90's before we had a Republican Congress since 1953?

Yes, people it is way overdue for a CHANGE.

The biggest problem (and arguably the biggest virtue) of the past 2 years or so with a Democratic congress is that they haven't done jack squat. I can't think of one single thing they've actually done. Of course, it's difficult when a president goes from having the lowest record of vetoes ever to the highest. But still, they're a bunch of spineless wonders, and I'm not sure sure how one can blame much on them, when they haven't DONE anything.

For whatever it's worth though, I REALLY hope the Democrats don't get that supermajority.

The biggest problem (and I am a Republican by choice) is that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

Causing in various degrees: distrust in our leadership, money by the billions to be funneled into a war we didn't need, oil pricing to soar, the economy to suffer.....and so

Around here, people are currently big fans of the electoral college. Why? Because it means that a little podunk town in Colorado is important. Colorado's a swing state, and the western slope of Colorado is what determines the swing - and Grand Junction is the largest population center on the western slope. We've had Obama and Palin come through here.

Still can't wait for it to be over, though. I'd vote if they'd let me.

I think if there had been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they would have used them on us, so I am glad it turned out there were none.

Yup, he was a lot more talk than action, but look how much dictatorship time it bought him. Everyone was afraid that he really did have WMD.

Things don't happen instantly like that they are years in the making. Bush's early success was due to Clinton, his late failure is due to his own failures at being a conservative, yet playing one on TV.

Hi East Coast Mojo,

Of course there were WMD’s…have you forgotten the mass graves in Iraq filled with people that died from them? Have you also forgotten the months upon months where Hussein violated his agreements to allow UN inspections?

As I recall, you manage a bicycle shop…what would you suspect if you were consistently coming up short on a specific type of product and you discovered that one of your employees had an on-going EBay auction selling that exact item and every time you went around the employee, they quickly closed a door and gave you some excuse for why you had to wait before entering.

The fundamental principles between world politics and the bike shop analogy are identical and I believe the conclusions President Bush drew are identical to those that you’d draw.

Having said this, I’d like to take the analogy one step further by suggesting that although the bike shop employee (Hussein) had in fact stolen in the past, the quantity and quality of the heist was pretty trivial but in an effort to impress his co-workers (leaders of neighboring countries) he pretending to be far more successful than he was; bragging, posturing, creating the illusion that he was up to something, etc. Unfortunately, the employee underestimated the extent to which you (President Bush) wanted to fire him (invade Iraq) and that labor law protections would soon be greatly curtailed due to changes in public sentiment (9/11).

Hi Rx Reven',

I understand your analogy, and I appreciate your viewpoint, but I have to ask one thing of you.

Please don't ever draw a parallel between me and George Bush.

Any suspicion that I might have that a fellow employee is stealing from the company is just that. Suspicion. And that alone does not give me the right to invade his home looking for the proof.

I have not forgotten any of the senseless loss of life that this war has brought. I don't suspect any of us will for a long while.