. . . that is, if somebody like Cruz or Perry or Gohmert were to get the Pub presidential nomination and mobilize the Tea Party/RW base, and if somebody like Warren or Sanders or Kucinich were to get the Dem nom and mobilize the progressive/LW base . . . I'm pretty sure the progressive would win.
If Americans were ever offered a real choice between LW and RW . . .
- Thread starter KingOrfeo
- Start date
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
real Americas would stay to the right, why because real America's are not lazy assholes like you, kingofAssTards
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
KO is pretty crazy.
A lot of Americans are angry about the NSA surveillance state. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
A lot of Americans are angry about income/wealth inequality. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
A lot of Americans are angry about the rich always getting their political way. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
A lot of Americans are dissatisfied with the ACA because it's not single-payer UHC, there's no public option, and the health insurers had a hand in drafting it. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
A lot of Americans are angry about income/wealth inequality. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
A lot of Americans are angry about the rich always getting their political way. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
A lot of Americans are dissatisfied with the ACA because it's not single-payer UHC, there's no public option, and the health insurers had a hand in drafting it. Only a left-progressive POTUS will ever do anything about that.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
this is what obama wants to do to you
of course, in the name of islamic love
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/pilot-cage-ISIS.jpg
of course, in the name of islamic love
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/pilot-cage-ISIS.jpg
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
A lot of Americans missed their opportunity last November. Take a look at the election results again.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
No they wont.....they will look at all those fucking zeros and commas and say "Ok, what do you want me to do?" just like everyone else.
Until we deal with that Bush x.0 will continue indefinitely.
Call me naïve, but I don't think the likes of Warren, Sanders and Kucinich can be bought. Not with money, anyway. Have we ever had a POTUS that could be? I don't think even Nixon or LBJ (while POTUS, at least) could be. You'd have to find some other leverage, and you pretty much have to be Congress to find one that works on a POTUS.
So? How would you deal with it?
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
Barack Obama won reelection, but the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 deserve to be seen as referendums against him. He has not been the post racial, transitional leader he wanted to be, and many people hoped he would be.
The Democratic nominee in 2016 will be running on Obama's record, whether or not he or she wants to. Unless things change dramatically for the better in the economy and in foreign policy Obama will be somewhat of an embarrassment in 2016, the way Bush II was in 2008.
If there are black ghetto riots this summer and next summer the Republicans will win with anyone, even Sarah Palin.
I doubt that there is much of a progressive base to mobilize.
The Democrats need a straight arrow. This would be someone like Bill Clinton, without the womanizing, and with a good military record. He would be a church going, faithful husband who distinguished himself in the Gulf War, and/or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He would probably be from the South, and from humble origins, like Bill Clinton. He could be a liberal, especially on economic issues, but he would need to be someone a white filling station attendant in rural Alabama would feel comfortable with.
Unfortunately, the Democrats do not have anyone like that.
Last edited:
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
They are angry, but they blame it on the administration that has been in power for over six years.
I doubt that many people actually favor wealth distribution. America is seen as a meritocracy and, generally speaking, people realize they can prosper through hard work, intelligence and a little luck. There are almost no Socialists, except in the tiny state of VT.
The rich do not always get their political way and I believe most people are aware of that.
People are dissatisfied with Obamacare because it goes too far, not because it doesn't go far enough.
We have had a "left-progressive" POTUS for over six years now.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You're right it might not be cash money directly. And sometimes they are done without greed as a motivator. But looking at the last 15 years? Man..that is getting to be a rarer and rarer thing.
I think majority of Obama's 180 flips from his campaign promises were because the opposition simply has so much money and power he knows better than to try and undermine. He wanted to survive his trips to Dallas TX.
Huge question mane....but summed up I think it would revolve around restructuring and revamping our electoral/political processes and structures to better suit the needs of a 50 state 330 million person nation. Time to take 1789 horse drawn wagon and trade it in for 2015 F350 Supa Crew ya know what I'm sayin?
The details should be left to the best and brightest I suppose....because the current situations is our gov, legislative process, politicians and even SCOTUS Justices are totally up for purchace to the highest bidders. It's pretty fucking broken...until that gets fixed everything else is just jerk dicking about.
I think the whole things going to have to shit the bed before it happens though...it's going to be an ugly fucking wake up call be gawd knows we need it.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
They are angry, but they blame it on the administration that has been in power for over six years.
I doubt that many people actually favor wealth distribution. America is seen as a meritocracy and, generally speaking, people realize they can prosper through hard work, intelligence and a little luck. There are almost no Socialists, except in the tiny state of VT. You must not have know about the west coast of the US...
The rich do not always get their political way and I believe most people are aware of that. Just most of the time
People are dissatisfied with Obamacare because it goes too far, not because it doesn't go far enough.
Uhhh no....it's not a matter of how far it went (not even sure what the fuck that means) it's a matter of we paid a grip and got fucked for it. Something they don't have an issue with when everyone is getting their medical needs taken care of. Unlike ACA which does nothing of the sort, just upgraded our 4 star meal price for mighty dog dinner to a 5 star price for a can of Alpo...mmm I can taste the value
At least with UHC everyone gets a cheese burger....and it only cost 2 star prices.
That's because you're a loony partisan hack.....in the real world the US isn't quite as scorch the earth Republican as you.
The pro war on drugs, pro war in the middle east for fun and games, pro corporate dictated HC scam, Pro Spying NSA, POTUS we have had for over six years is about as left progressive as Romney was a staunch conservative.
Last edited:
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
In 2012, Obama, the incumbent, outspent Romney by about 50%. Which candidate are you saying had a massive amount of money?
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
In 2012, Obama, the incumbent, outspent Romney by about 50%. Which candidate are you saying had a massive amount of money?
See you've already started in with the partisan bullshit...who ever said I supported Obamas campaign ethics?
I clearly don't as I openly called the whole system broken.....But partisan bat shit somehow got you to see "Obama has great campaign ethics"....did you forget your pills this morning or are you just fucking insane with random uncontrollable FOX outrage at anyone not saying "YEA FUCK OBAMA" 24/7?
I think they shouldn't be allowed to spend that shit. They should be forced onto PBS/CSPAN because strictly forbidden from taking money for the purpose of political campaigning and earn no more than the national median household income (42k/year last I checked) and blow their 30k a year clothing budgets out of their ass's....fuck them they should be the epitome of SERVANTS. Not fucking La Cosa Nostra...
Last edited:
mark_j
It's a mad mad world
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Posts
- 5,718
Doubt it.. They kind of like it otherwise it would have been repealed when the Dems held both houses..
Not really.. most only pay lip service to the issue...
The left is PART of the problem as well... so that is never going to change.
They couldn't sell that lemon the first time... you think they can do it now?
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
See you've already started in with the partisan bullshit...who ever said I supported Obamas campaign ethics?
But partisan bat shit somehow got you to see "Obama has great campaign ethics"....did you forget your pills this morning or are you just fucking insane with random uncontrollable FOX outrage at anyone not saying "YEA FUCK OBAMA" 24/7?
I have never said, nor have I ever implied that Obama had any kind of ethics at all. As far as I am concerned, he is the biggest liar of any POTUS in my lifetime.
I'm not all that partisan. In the 2016 election, I might vote GOP and I might vote Dem., depending on whom is nominated. If both major candidates suck, I might vote Libertarian or I might write in Mickey Mouse.
When I say there are almost no Socialists, I mean as a percentage of voters. Even in CA, they get no more than 1% of the vote, and that's probably higher than in most states.
If you think Obama is not a leftist, I shudder to think about whom you think is.
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
For years there has been considerable support for higher taxes on the rich.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++taxes+++rich
There is also considerable support in the United States for socialism, although socialism is still a minority persuasion.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++socialism
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
I may be wrong, but I believe most of that support is for closing loopholes that enable the rich to shelter income or avoid paying tax on certain kinds of income.
There is some support, but not much, for Socialism. In the 2012 gubernatorial election, even in the very liberal state of CA, the Socialist candidate received only 1.2% of the vote. http://www.liberationnews.org/california-socialist-campaigns-receive-more-than-200000-votes-2/
And this is a Socialist paper so, if they are lying, it will be exaggerating the
percentage.
ETA: Something else I find interesting in this same link. The Socialist candidate for insurance commissioner, who is calling for the end of health insurance companies, received only 5.4% of the votes. I believe this can be seen, in California at least, as a referendum on the idea of single payer, because that is what would have to replace the insurance companies.
Last edited:
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Barack Obama won reelection, but the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 deserve to be seen as referendums against him. He has not been the post racial, transitional leader he wanted to be, and many people hoped he would be.
The Democratic nominee in 2016 will be running on Obama's record, whether or not he or she wants to. Unless things change dramatically for the better in the economy and in foreign policy Obama will be somewhat of an embarrassment in 2016, the way Bush II was in 2008.
If there are black ghetto riots this summer and next summer the Republicans will win with anyone, even Sarah Palin.
I doubt that there is much of a progressive base to mobilize.
The Democrats need a straight arrow. This would be someone like Bill Clinton, without the womanizing, and with a good military record. He would be a church going, faithful husband who distinguished himself in the Gulf War, and/or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He would probably be from the South, and from humble origins, like Bill Clinton. He could be a liberal, especially on economic issues, but he would need to be someone a white filling station attendant in rural Alabama would feel comfortable with.
Unfortunately, the Democrats do not have anyone like that.
They have Jim Webb. And they'll go with Bob Dole, I mean Hillary, to guarantee a loss.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Life is a constant tug o war tween Ma's fat tit and stalking the wild hot dog all over the fruited plain.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Uh hua
http://i.imgur.com/DOqLXrt.gif
Yea and neither is vette, 4est, miles, confritrain or any of the other teahaddist on this board LOL
I'll buy that when you're not in here bobbing GOP knob on the reg. or at least willing to admit Obama is about as far left as Romney is right.
Read above.
I thought they were only in VT??
If you think Obama is not a leftist, I shudder to think about whom you think is.
Riddle me this slick shit, what has he done that is so far leftist??
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Polldaddy? LMAO..
He'll get crushed if he makes it past the primaries. His economic record in Wisconsin will destroy him.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1146583
Although I doubt he'll survive the primaries. His own competitors will decimate him on his record before the Democratic nominee ever gets a chance.
Last edited:
He has proven to be a "post-racial" leader -- at least, the particular interests of AAs have proven to be no great priority for his Admin apart from occasional rhetorical forays -- and what's this "transitional" bullshit -- transition from what to what?
What matters is that Obama has not proven to be the revolutionary left-progressive many people hoped he would be. And they mostly stayed home in 2014 -- that's a referendum against Obama for not being progressive enough. A real LW candidacy would mobilize them.
Similar threads
