Bitcoin Forum

If President Obama suffered a “shellacking” in the 2010 elections, then what he endured Tuesday night was nothing short of a  vicious gangland beatdown the likes of which have rarely been seen before in the history of electoral politics.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/5/hurt-america-faces-most-dangerous-two-years-150-ye/





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :D ;D :D

I don't see how replacing democrats with republicans can be considered a good thing, they are two cheeks of the same backside that both sell their principles (or lack thereof) to the highest bidder.

I rather have a republican slower moving destructive steam locomotive train than a democrat high speed destructive bullet train controlled by an analphabet engineer...

I'd rather not have the train derailing in the first place. People celebrating the 'republican victory' today are part of the problem.

The lesser evil is still evil. Stop voting for evil.

I don't quite know what you are referring to here, but the premise of your argument is silly. You are saying that you would prefer the republicans because they are not quite as bad as the democrats (although that's debatable). This is a false choice between bad and badder and I don't understand why you would be happy because a slightly less evil party (again, debatable) wins more seats. You can barely get a cigarette paper between them and rather than settling for second worst, you should be campaigning for real change to the political system rather than accepting the false choice between two puppets.

Wise words.

Bah. 

The number of totally disgusting things associated with Obama cannot be morally equalized with this perverse logic.

Bengazi.
Fast and Furious.
IRS targeting of conservative groups.

Thousands more scandals and lies.  Thousands.

But that is not the point we are making, just because the democrats are corrupt is not a reason to vote for an equally corrupt party. After all, it's not as if the republicans haven't had more than their share of corrupt politicians, remember the last republican president, a tyrant and war criminal that was responsible for the deaths of millions of people based on a pack of lies. Let's not forget, he wasn't even fairly elected, he got fewer votes than Al Gore but still became president, some democracy.

the US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

Obama has lost nearly 70 House seats since taking office

President Obama has lost nearly 70 seats in the House since taking office and more seats in midterm elections than any president since Harry Truman.

Democrats have suffered a net loss of at least 69 House seats since 2008, with the possibility that Republicans could pick up even more seats as the final 2014 midterm races are called.

Senate Democrats have not fared much better, losing a net of at least 13 seats since Obama took office.

Midterm elections have been brutal for congressional Democrats in the Obama era. The party lost at least 77 seats in the midterms in 2010 and 2014, though they gained back eight seats in 2012.

Obama has already surpassed President Dwight Eisenhower’s tally of 66 midterm losses in the House, according to data published by the Rothenberg Political Report. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman both lost more House seats during their midterm years.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/223047-obama-has-lost-nearly-70-house-seats-since-taking-office#.VFpogWq_2cM.twitter

Republicans, Conservatives. Please do remember as you are urged to act in a ‘bipartisan way’, what you have been called.

Here’s a list, compiled by Louisiana Mom since 2009, of names used for Republicans and Conservatives by Democrats and media:

Enemy, paranoid, greedy, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, fear-mongering, racist, sexist, bigot, birther, redneck, homophobic, xenophobic, global-warming denialists, anti-science, Neanderthal, barbarian, terrorist, hobbits, member of the Flat Earth Society, Nazi, bully, Yosemite Sam hillbilly, beer-toting, pot belly, church going, small-minded, whack-job, Evangelical, gun nuts, wing nut, knuckle-dragger, clueless, Teabaggers, narrow-minded, evil, redneck freaks, judgmental, backwards, sick, anti-intellectualist, slut-shaming, slimebuckets, forced-birther, neocons, Zionist, neo-Confederate, wild nasty hard-right fringe, extremist, sewer rats, wacko birds, bitter clingers, misogynist, you suck, Obamaphobic, chirper, white nativist, crazies, creepy azz cracka, unpatriotic, white grievance, dumb, cracker, white devils, rabid, squealing political pigs, anarchist, fanatics, extortionists, lemmings, gangsters, murderers, banana republicans, fakers, ideological crusader, Cruzites, anti-government idealoges, fraud, Taliban, arsonist, suicide bombers, suicidal lemmings, spoiled children, hostage takers, overlords, Jihadist, blowhard, religious fanatic, freedom fiend, kidnappers, Jesus freaks, dangerous, troglodyte, from the Planet of the Apes, resurrection of the Confederacy, lemmings with suicide vests, anarchy gang, idiots, wife abusers, frightened white people, right-wing loonies, tea-hadist, tea-tards, segregationist, freaking retarded, morally disgusting, Confederate flag-waving, breeders, Robert E. Lee lovers, Southern white radicals, losers, violent rapist, blathering idiots, climate change deniers, way crazy, racist killers, rabid animals, Cro-magnon, cave dwellers, narrow-minded, toddler, headless chicken brigade, monkeys, morons, virus, teapub, Christofascists, healthcare repealers, gun-crazed, wide-eyed creatures, bed-wetting kidult, climate fool, Trotskyite radicalists, Dixiecrats, willfully ignorant fucksticks, anti-Obama, Huns, nutcases, pseudo-militia of gun-toting nutcases, lunatic, and radical terrorist

http://weaselzippers.us/204592-republicans-remember-this-when-democrats-now-urge-bipartisanship/

That doesn't change the fact that George Bush got fewer votes than Al Gore yet still became president, so rather than being stupid and pedantic, how about actually arguing a point of principle or are you incapable of that. As for your rambling list of what democrats have called republicans, so what, what is your point? You also conveniently left a list of names from republicans to democrats. It would seem you are here just as another puppet and mouthpiece for republicans rather than actually debating on principle.

What's your point here? Accept the lesser evil because you have no choice, but feel good about how marginally less bad your guys is over Obama? I agree with the other guy, stop voting for evil. You know why the country is so messed up? Because both republicans and democrats know you don't have a choice. You get pissed at the asshats running the country, then you vote the lesser asshat into office. Then when he screws up, you put the first idiot back in charge. Then you play stupid games like "my idiot is less dumb than your idiot." And you feel good about that? That's your victory?

No wonder the two party system can't be broken. You're too busy celebrating your small "victories" rather than demanding better options.

What's your point here? Accept the lesser evil because you have no choice, but feel good about how marginally less bad your guys is over Obama? I agree with the other guy, stop voting for evil. You know why the country is so messed up? Because both republicans and democrats know you don't have a choice. You get pissed at the asshats running the country, then you vote the lesser asshat into office. Then when he screws up, you put the first idiot back in charge. Then you play stupid games like "my idiot is less dumb than your idiot." And you feel good about that? That's your victory?

No wonder the two party system can't be broken. You're too busy celebrating your small "victories" rather than demanding better options.
[/quote]

Well said, at least there are some sane people on here capable of thinking for themselves, I'm not even from the U.S and it angers me how some people in the U.S just blindly follow a party regardless of what they stand for just because they are not the other party, what a total farce.

I took two parts of your quote a little out of context, but I just wanted to put them side by side for emphasis.

I believe he/she meant to say No wonder the two party system CAN be broken as a counter argument...

Well you want my opinion?  It is not that what you are saying is untrue, but neither is what I said untrue.  Neither are they mutually exclusive.

You've just seen massive voting AGAINST OBAMA, and it was being taken out on Democrats, because he was associated with them. 

The reasons for this is the incipient fascism and totalitarian nature of his actions.

People do not want his vision of America.

It's always been like that. They just put to power the party who looks better for the public and they continue doing their game while covering it up with some sugar. It's the same in every country where people are stupid enough (https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Infographics/perils_slides_infographic-index-of-ignorance-12_lightbox.jpg). So let's just stop saying its because of the system and because of politicians, we are the weak link here.

How is it ignorant to have a self-preservation instinct and not wage a civil war where you will almost certainly bleed, regardless of the result of tyrants vs liberators?

Given that Obama has been trying to destroy the separation of powers, given that he has hundreds of times taken action that is constitutionally the domain of Congress, given the Stasi like intimidation atmosphere he has fostered with his abuse of the IRS as a political tool, I think he was doing nothing but aiming to destroy the two party system.

Babble about "both parties are the same, both parties are just as corrupt" completely ignored that the people (from all parties) have just stood up and said...

"No, Mr. Obama, you are not a king."

But the next two years will be extremely dangerous.

Nope, I meant it like I wrote it. The two party system can't be broken because no matter how terribly both parties run the country, they've passed laws making it nearly impossible for any other party to get on the ballot. Then they trick the population into short term thinking and pissing matches between the two parties so that you never consider any other options as viable.

As long as there are only two parties, they don't have to convince you they're a good candidate. They just have to convince you the other candidate is worse. That's why you see so many god damn negative attack ads about the opponent and hardly any positive ads about their own candidate. They're not trying to sell you on themselves, it's easier to sell you against the other guy and then the only guy left to vote for is your guy.

Democratic rhetoric: The Republicans are so terrible, you have to elect us to stop them from destroying this country.
Republican rhetoric: The Democrats are so terrible, you have to elect us to stop them from destroying this country.

Meanwhile, both parties ignore all third parties and exclude them from debates, refuse to participate in any debate where a third party candidate is present, and write laws that make unwieldy signature requirements to get a candidate on the ballot. And once those requirements are met, dems/repubs ALWAYS sue in court to challenge the validity of the signatures to force the small parties to use up their very limited funds defending against the lawsuit, just to stay on the ballot, where the large parties can easily afford the expense of the lawsuit.

No, I very much meant what I said when I said "No wonder the two party system can't be broken." And a large part of that assessment was that we Americans are too stupid to know better, because we're content to have our arguments about which of the two politicians is 'omg, like, rly rly the most terrible! I have to make sure that guy, like, totally doesn't win!'

Oh please! The people stood up to 'Obama's fascism' and said 'we won't tolerate your king-like power grabs' by returning to power the other party that was doing this stuff right before Obama? Remember what a 'tyrant' George Bush was? The fact that you consider returning to power the other party of unlimited government a victory for limited government is a sign of how messed up the collective American mindset is. You're celebrating a not-victory, but you're convinced it's very meaningful and symbolic. In reality, nothing has changed, and nothing will change. The two-party system cannot be broken by voting in the two-party system.

yeah, every couple of years the USA switches from A to B and B to A
i guess the powerfull people in US dont care about that.

Obama Flashback: ‘If you don’t like my policies, go out there and win an election.’


The following clip is from October 17, 2013. The government shutdown, during which Obama’s government had locked veterans out of their own memorials and shut down self-sufficient businesses in national parks, had just ended.

President Obama reacted by challenging his opponents to win elections.

And we responded: Challenge accepted!

The 2014 midterms saw Republicans capture the Senate, take over the entire government of the state of Nevada, and sweep Democrats out of state legislatures across the country. The GOP victory is so sweeping that it may damage Democrats for years, even decades, to come — according to the leftists at Vox.

On October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”

Obama’s threat to carry out a unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens threatens the system that he claimed to defend just over a year ago. And he is well aware of that.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/obama-flashback-if-you-dont-like-my-policies-go-out-there-and-win-an-election/

I guess they did that. Too bad Republicans are the only other choice.

A "choice" implies a meaningful distinction other than just a name. They're both sides of a 2-dimensional, tyrannical coin right now.

If a non-Libertarian party were to convert or be infiltrated to create a party majority with libertarian beliefs, then there would be a meaningful distinction between parties, of tyrants vs liberators.

basically all political parties are the same, seeking power for their hegemony, no friends or foes in politics but that there is a lasting interest, in politics a lot of interest at stake, sometimes in one day and the other day they were friends they are hostile, between democrat and republican are a couple of similarities include:
1. They want to strengthen their hegemony in America
2. They want to control the world's energy, such as petroleum
3. always use want to interfere in the internal affairs of others
4. related to the interests of foreign affairs, they always interfere internal security of other countries
5. raise the issue of terrorism as a major issue the world
6. ISIS raises the issue as a major issue the world today
7. make Israel as their eternal friend, and always supports the entire decision israel in palestine
8. the senate controlled entirely by Jews

so the real America, too much controlled by Jews ...  ::)

Joooooooooooos And the Illuminati

https://i.imgur.com/EDP9J94.jpg

Yeah, I should have put "choice" in quotes. I don't believe the parties are very distinguishable.

What?  It's the Jews?  I thought it was the Joes.  All this time I've been worried about everyone named Joe Smith or Joe Schepshag or Joe Hesus and what is this?

Look, I don't doubt you know your stuff, but seriously here.  It's the Joes, man.

Some, like DhaniBoy here has been led to believe Joe is short for Jewseph. He would be right, supposely. Here is the proof:

https://i.imgur.com/9XJdPhM.jpg

 ;D

too late  :(

Very interesting.  I was just joking around, but your facts are indisputable.

Wait a moment....

LOL...

While both parties are somewhat similar as neither party wants to have any kind of radical changes to the US they are different on many issues and there are also many public officials that do not affiliate with either party

On the biggest issues, I don't see much difference. Pro-war, anti-privacy, pro-Big Government, pro-deficit spending. Also, not many lawmakers on the national level that do not affiliate with either party. If you can name 5 Congressmen (out of 535!) who aren't Democrats or Republicans, I'd consider that a lot!

Bernie Sanders calls himself an "independent" doesn't he? Even though he mostly sides with democrats. I guess that would leave four more...