The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[GILSAN]

Democracy at work... the Democratic Party way


DNC votes to restore Jerusalem and God to the Democratic Party 2012 platform

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles asked for a 2/3 voice vote on the amendments. Here's what he said:

"The matter requires a 2/3 vote in the affirmative."

All of those delegates in favor say AYE:
AAAAAAAAYE

All those delegates opposed say NO:
NOOOOOOOOO

Villaraigosa: (looking a bit surprised) :O "In the opinion of the.... Let me do that again:"

All of those delegates in favor say AYE:
AAAAAAAAYE

All those delegates opposed say NO:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Villaraigosa: (very confused) I... umm.... I guess... I'll do that one more time:

All of those delegates in favor say AYE:
AAAAAAAAYE

All those delegates opposed say NO:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Villaraigosa: (now assured he had heard correctly) :D "In the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of the motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen."

Like Bill Clinton said: It's really simple; it's called mathematics, stupid! :gl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cncbOEoQbOg#!

 

[JB Lions]

Democracy at work... the Democratic Party way


DNC votes to restore Jerusalem and God to the Democratic Party 2012 platform

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles asked for a 2/3 voice vote on the amendments. Here's what he said:

"The matter requires a 2/3 vote in the affirmative."

All of those delegates in favor say AYE:
AAAAAAAAYE

All those delegates opposed say NO:
NOOOOOOOOO

Villaraigosa: (looking a bit surprised) :O "In the opinion of the.... Let me do that again:"

All of those delegates in favor say AYE:
AAAAAAAAYE

All those delegates opposed say NO:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Villaraigosa: (very confused) I... umm.... I guess... I'll do that one more time:

All of those delegates in favor say AYE:
AAAAAAAAYE

All those delegates opposed say NO:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Villaraigosa: (now assured he had heard correctly) :D "In the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of the motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen."

Like Bill Clinton said: It's really simple; it's called mathematics, stupid! :gl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cncbOEoQbOg#!

Nobody really cares about that.

 

[GILSAN]

Nobody really cares about that.

True, by the noise levels of the NO's it's obvious the Democrats don't care about God or Jerusalem.

 

[RaiderGirl]

I saw this on Fox Business yesterday, Tony was using the teleprompter to when asking for the vote, and this is from a person who said he's done this before in the State Capital. LOL. What a FOOL.

And they knock Clint Eastwood for speaking, who by the way did NOT use a teleprompter, he winged it all the way through in front of a live crowd of 50,000 people, and I think he did a great job.. Totally unscripted which is what the convention needed.

I think the last time Obama's teleprompter was turned off, he sounded like a stuttering buffoon.

Back to Villaraigosa, I don't think a day goes by here in So. Cal that Tony doesn't get ripped by local radio, he's probably the biggest clown the city of LA has ever had, The man get's little respect here, you'll never see Tony wearing a short sleeve shirt because rumor has it he's a ex gang member with tats from his neck down to his arms. YES, Here in LA, we elect people NOT according to IQ, background or experience, but rather what ethnicity you are and what your last name is.

Like Rep "Loretta Sanchez" who legally changed her last name from "Brixey" to Sanchez so she could appeal to the Hispanic vote.

The Democrats? They could not of chosen a better fool than Villaraigosa to represent their party, he's fits in so well.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------

True, by the noise levels of the NO's it's obvious the Democrats don't care about God or Jerusalem.

Exactly, and I think if the Romney campaign and super pacs play it right, it's going to really hurt the Dems.

 

[JB Lions]

"True, by the noise levels of the NO's it's obvious the Democrats don't care about God or Jerusalem."

They care, they just don't drape themselves in it to pander to the right for votes.

"Totally unscripted which is what the convention needed."

You needed people remembering Clint more than Romney/Ryan? Ok.

It's pretty obvious after watching both DNC > RNC.

And we have debates coming up.

"Exactly, and I think if the Romney campaign and super pacs play it right, it's going to really hurt the Dems."

That would actually backfire. People get tired of all that. There are real issues at hand. When polled, people could really care less that Romney is a Mormon, even tho people in his party in the Christian Right, calls his religion a cult and worse things. All the religious stuff just plays to the right, not the independents who you need to win.

 

[RaiderGirl]

They care, they just don't drape themselves in it to pander to the right for votes.

Including the word "God" in a convention platform is "Draping themselves" in it?

Your kidding me right?

Every Democratic convention in history has had the word "God" in it's platform, and we should note that Democrats have been using it LESS and LESS in ever convention, It's instances like this that Democratic voters say to themselves "This is not my party", "It's not the party I remember"

Liberal ideas and philosophies that are at odds with mainstream America, so they switch to Independent.

Obama did the same thing with Gay Marriage, alienating millions of Democratic voters, they may or may not vote for Mitt as a result, but what it will do is keep a large number of religious Democrats at home come election day

I think the only thing missing at this convention was NAMBLA, maybe well see them in 2016 at the DNC.

Keep up the good work

 

[JB Lions]

"Including the word "God" in a convention platform is "Draping themselves" in it?"

Talking about the right, they overdo it.

"Every Democratic convention in history has had the word "God" in it's platform, and we should note that Democrats have been using it LESS and LESS in ever convention, It's instances like this that Democratic voters say to themselves "This is not my party", "It's not the party I remember" Liberal ideas and philosophies that are at odds with mainstream America, so they switch to Independent."

You realize they put it back, right? And mainstream/independents tend to go Democrat, because they don't have crazy stuff in their platform like being against abortion, even in cases of rape/incest, even your VP going along with bills like "Mr. Ryan boasts of being "pro-life" but he voted for a law that critics understandably labeled the "Let Women Die Act." The bill would have given hospitals the right to refuse to perform an abortion even if it was necessary to save a woman's life."

Those aren't views for normal people.

"Obama did the same thing with Gay Marriage, alienating millions of Democratic voters, they may or may not vote for Mitt as a result, but what it will do is keep a large number of religious Democrats at home come election day."

Not really. Most people aren't going to vote based on a single issue like that. The only ones that really have a problem with it, generally don't vote Democrat in the first place. And it's stuff we went over already. America is slowing moving to the middle/left on social issues, just have to check the polls on that. You're stuck with the rigid right. You'll never win another election again, unless you find a moderate in the party with some Political Balls and gets with the rest of the country, the mainstream, on these social issues. This anti-gay, anti-woman's rights stuff, basically anti-rights stuff is not going to get too far anymore. It's old and tired, and America is leaving you behind.

Again, what I went over already. You just have to look at who you picked to be your candidate. You picked the most moderate of what you had available. The guy who had Obamacare before Obama. The guy who really is for a woman's right, but flip flopped to fool you guys into getting your votes. You didn't pick the "pray the gay away" Bachmann. Didn't pick the condoms let people do things out of the sexual norm, anti-birth control Santorum. You know, the crazy candidates you have that normal people can't relate too. You picked the moderate. That's your only glimmer of hope. Tells me the people in the party might be ready to move to the mainstream. But what to do with all those crazy right wingers?

Clinton did pretty good with the fact checks:

"Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out."

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

 

[eyedomainous]

Back to Villaraigosa, ... you'll never see Tony wearing a short sleeve shirt because rumor has it he's a ex gang member with tats from his neck down to his arms. YES, Here in LA, we elect people NOT according to IQ, background or experience, but rather what ethnicity you are and what your last name is.

Like Rep "Loretta Sanchez" who legally changed her last name from "Brixey" to Sanchez so she could appeal to the Hispanic vote.

Loretta Sanchez is her maiden name, and the name she began her political career under. She married and used her married name 'Loretta Sanchez-Brixey' as a republican candidate. She changed parties, and ran for office under her maiden name. Last I checked she still is Mrs. Brixey.

A women does not lose her cultural, family, or individual identity because she marries.

At some point you should try a little dignity, but... that would require some integrity.

 

[RaiderGirl]

You realize they put it back, right?

Yes, and the only reason they put it back was because of the backlash they were receiving, What's more interesting is it was put back against the will of the people who were in attendance, reminding us of what Democrats did when they passed ObamaCare against the will of the people.

Like I said before, what's really important is the message this sent to Religious Democrats, It's bad enough their backing a party of irresponsible progressive ideas that have all failed costing us $5.4 Trillion dollars and 6 Million job losses in the last 3 1/2 years, Bad enough they approve of late term abortion and gay marriage, but to remove "God"?

This must be part of the "Change" we were promised, A change that will help deliver the Presidency to Mitt Romney.

NOT a big Romney fan, I like Ryan more than I do Romney.. But the choice couldn't be more clear between the two, If you want 4 more years of the last 4 years, then by all means vote for Obama, he's your guy.

If you want the opposite, Private sector job growth, Economic growth, Less spending, a Balanced budget, paying down the National debt, bringing our fiscal house in order so our Children aren't burdened with this enormous DEBT when they grow older, then VOTE ROMNEY/RYAN.

Clinton did pretty good with the fact checks:

I'm not surprised.. It's really not that hard to deceive an audience when you use crafty language, Attorney's like Clinton and Obama are masters at it, He did almost the same thing in his speech as he did when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that Woman"

Carefully selected language to pass the fact checkers.. I listened to it and paid particular attention to the words he used, they were very well thought out and well delivered. It will be interesting to see how many people were FOOLED by it. I was NOT.

 

[JB Lions]

"Like I said before, what's really important is the message this sent to Religious Democrats, It's bad enough their backing a party of irresponsible progressive ideas that have all failed costing us $5.4 Trillion dollars and 6 Million job losses in the last 3 1/2 years, Bad enough they approve of late term abortion and gay marriage, but to remove "God"?"

Uh, maybe if they R stopped being obstructionists, we can get some things done. A reasonable person knows it's going to take longer than 3.5 years to fix that kind of mess. And the economy has done better when we had a D as president. We would have been worse off is McCain/Palin was in office, because McCain would have gotten us into more conflicts, that weren't paid for. It's funny some of your views, against gay marriage, but ok with prostitution. Are you an unreasonable person that actually thought you can change the worst economy since the Great Depression in 3.5 years?

"Carefully selected language to pass the fact checkers.. I listened to it and paid particular attention to the words he used, they were very well thought out and well delivered. It will be interesting to see how many people were FOOLED by it. I was NOT."

What's missing is you taking the fact checkers apart. They go after both parties equally and are on point. Feel free to go over it and tell everybody what they got wrong. If you can.

 

[RaiderGirl]

Loretta Sanchez is her maiden name, and the name she began her political career under.

The point is she went BACK to her maiden name in her 1996 run for congress after she LOST her run for City Council in 1994 using her married name, The name change was clearly done to appeal to the Hispanic vote, the ILLEGAL vote... If Voter ID were to ever pass in So.Cal, she'd lose in the next election.

And she also changed parties, she WAS a moderate Republican, then jumped parties to better her chances of winning, Not much different than changing her name, ANYTHING to WIN... NO morals, no conviction, just another politician serving herself rather than the people who elected her.

And it appears Villaraigosa had the Tattoo on his right arm removed, a tattoo that read; "Born to Raise Hell."

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/201...gosa-democratic-convention.html#storylink=cpy

Laughable but yet predictable this idiot would be up for a position in the Obama cabinet.

 

[eyedomainous]

... Not much different than changing her name, ANYTHING to WIN... NO morals, no conviction, just another politician serving herself rather than the people...

That would be like someone changing their name to Raider Girl to coat-tail off of the popularity of that character within (a huge) pop culture.

No, wait... Ms. Sanchez would also have to use an attractive picture of a popular Hispanic actress, like Eva Longoria, on political posts, to REALLY be guilty of serving herself rather than the people of the culture.

 

[DU]

The point is she went BACK to her maiden name in her 1996 run for congress after she LOST her run for City Council in 1994 using her married name, The name change was clearly done to appeal to the Hispanic vote, the ILLEGAL vote...

Please take your racial stereotype bullshit somewhere else. There are plenty more LEGAL hispanics than illegal.

At least Rubio has been selected as the Republican media darling on merit alone.

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

And she also changed parties, she WAS a moderate Republican, then jumped parties to better her chances of winning, Not much different than changing her name, ANYTHING to WIN... NO morals, no conviction, just another politician serving herself rather than the people who elected her.

I understand - all Romney has changed is from a suit into a pair of uncomfortable looking jeans.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"because of the backlash they were receiving"
Amazing, both sides changing clothes, names, and editing in order to get more votes. I am sure they are doing it because it is their real name, clothes they like, words that they stand behind. Nobody would do anything or not just because of a "backlash" or fear of one. I am sure only one side would EVER change things due to a feared backlash. The difference between the two parties is becoming clearer and clearer.

 

[GILSAN]

Please take your racial stereotype bullshit somewhere else. There are plenty more LEGAL hispanics than illegal.

Racism...Racism... :zzz: For a moment I thought MSNBC's Chris Matthews had joined this thread, then I realized it was Sir Defaultuser :red:

 

[DU]

Racism...Racism... :zzz: For a moment I thought MSNBC's Chris Matthews had joined this thread, then I realized it was Sir Defaultuser :red:

I called it racial stereotyping - I should have called it ethnic stereotyping, my apologies.

Unless, of course, you have a different way to describe the generalization of a population in a negative context?

 

[GILSAN]

I called it racial stereotyping - I should have called it ethnic stereotyping, my apologies.

Unless, of course, you have a different way to describe the generalization of a population in a negative context?

Fair enough. My interpretation of what Raider Girl was saying is different to yours. She was getting the point across about a politician without scruples who will use every trick in the book to get elected. (An illness most politicians have nowadays)

From what I understand California does NOT have a voter ID law which could make it more prone to voter fraud and lets face it, California does have a very large illegal Latino immigrant population.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/au...ernstrom-vote-photo-i.d.-suppression-20120812

 

[DU]

Fair enough. My interpretation of what Raider Girl was saying is different to yours. She was getting the point across about a politician without scruples who will use every trick in the book to get elected.

I read it and paid particular attention to the words she used. It will be interesting to see how many people were FOOLED by them. I was NOT.

 

[verbster]

From what I understand California does NOT have a voter ID law which could make it more prone to voter fraud and lets face it, California does have a very large illegal Latino immigrant population.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/au...ernstrom-vote-photo-i.d.-suppression-20120812

Are you saying the two are connected? That a large illegal Latino population is "prone" to voter fraud? If so, can you show any verified statistics of major voting fraud attributed to illegal Latinos, that are above and beyond any other statistical fraudulent votes? Or are you making a non-issue into a diversionary scare tactic like what has been done in Arizona and Pennsylvania where voter ID legislation was passed on the premise of "a significant and growing form of voter fraud" when there was no evidence of voter fraud in the first place: “In a stipulation agreement signed [in early July], state officials [in Pennsylvania] conceded that they had no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud, or even any reason to believe that such crimes would occur with more frequency if a voter ID law wasn’t in effect.”

Do you not see how someone might believe your statement was divisive at best and outright racist at worst?

 

[GILSAN]

Do you not see how someone might believe your statement was divisive at best and outright racist at worst?

Racist... Racist... Racist.... Here we go again; another Chris Mathews parrot. Seems like it's impossible to have a political discussion without being accused of being a racist.

Why didn't you or the others accuse sanfran of being a racist, after he talked sbout the White Trash Convention in Florida! several times some posts back?