+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Have you voted yet? (/showthread.php?tid=6006)
Have you voted yet? - Great Rumbler - 2nd November 2010
I did. Straight Tea Party ballot.
![[Image: deal.gif]](http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k33/GreatRumbler/deal.gif)
Have you voted yet? - EdenMaster - 2nd November 2010
Yep, I did my civic doodie.
Achievement Unlocked! Insignificant Contribution: Be one vote among hundreds of thousands.
Have you voted yet? - Dark Jaguar - 2nd November 2010
The "Tea Party" isn't even recognized here, at least not on the ballot.
Have you voted yet? - A Black Falcon - 2nd November 2010
The "Tea Party", for the most part, are Republicans conning people into voting for more Bush-style policies, under a pathetic and bizarrely successful guise of "change" because somehow Obama isn't a superhero and hasn't gotten us 100% of the way out of the recession yet, just partway. That's not good enough, so of course everything he has done is a total failure!
Initially the Tea Party wasn't entirely Republican just conservative and opposed to the policies of both parties (Democrats more, but Republicans too in spending), but the Republican party has almost entirely co-opted it.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 2nd November 2010
^Falcon is exactly right. The original TEA Party started under the ideas of the great Ron Paul. It's main purpose was to support freedom, get rid of the Federal Reserve, end wars, etc. Over time, neocons puppets like Palin took it over and destroyed its message to the core.
Oh, and I did not vote. Anyone that thinks that these morons are going to be able to change anything are living in a freaking fantasy land. I haven't any of these so-called "TEA Party" members talk about things like ending the Federal Reserve, stopping our interventionist foreign policy, etc. Besides, based on what's coming in terms of economic disaster, no tie wearing politician can possibly save us. Democrat or Republican--until people who represent something different manifest themselves, the faulty left-right paradigm will continue.
Btw, Falcon, if you take some time to do some research, you'll realize that the cult of Barry Sotero is finished.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 2nd November 2010
EDIT: Rand Paul won in KY. I hope and pray that he's his father's son. The fact that he's been meeting with neocons worries me extremely. Here's to hoping that he doesn't taint his dad's legacy.
Have you voted yet? - A Black Falcon - 2nd November 2010
So you're not on board with Palin 2012, I take it? :p
As for this election, looks like Republicans win the House, Democrats the Senate. Two years of no-progress gridlock here we come... I just wonder if the Republicans will follow through on their "shut down the government", etc. threats... you know, because those worked so well against Clinton... (oh wait, it didn't)
Also, in this state, the very conservative Paul LePage is still probably the likely one to win Governor of Maine, but independent Elliot Cutler's been leading so far... but as more of northern (very rural, more conservative) Maine comes in, LePage gradually goes up.
If there'd only been just ONE non-extremist right candidate LePage would lose hands down, but no, Cutler had to get into the race and spend huge amounts of his own money on his candidacy, he ruined things for the Democrats. Seriously, I've probably seen like four Cutler ads for every one I've seen for anyone else, and this applies to web ads too, not just TV. If LePage ends up winning, it'll be because of Cutler (he's too centrist to win as a Democrat and knew it, so just LePage/Cutler wouldn't be an option). If would be surprising if he manages to actually win, but even so, he shouldn't have been in to begin with... and he's the only reason why it's competitive at all. I still expect LePage to catch up eventually though, he led pretty much every poll...
I will, of course, be thrilled if Cutler actually wins, though. It'd mean no LePage administration, which would be so disastrous... he's from the so-called "Tea Party" wing of the Republican party, and that means massive cuts to education, more of his angry yelling at Obama (he said during the campaign what he'd say to Obama... LePage has a temper.), etc. Not fun.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 2nd November 2010
I love it when progressives say that no Federal Government means no progress. Perhaps reading Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty is in order, yes? The States are fully capable of handling themselves, thank you.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 2nd November 2010
"So you're not on board with Palin 2012, I take it?"
Good God, no! I would never support that stupid pig. "True Conservative" my ass.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 2nd November 2010
Looks like Reid is back in the Senate. That means another moron is back. And I'm not talking about a minor one, either. He's as stupid as stupid gets. I mean, Angle is a moron, too, but that doesn't mean Reid is perfect. Ugh. Screw them all.
Have you voted yet? - A Black Falcon - 2nd November 2010
Unreadphilosophy Wrote:I love it when progressives say that no Federal Government means no progress. Perhaps reading Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty is in order, yes? The States are fully capable of handling themselves, thank you.
State government is not the solution to everything, there are a lot of things that only the federal government can do.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 2nd November 2010
Such as...?
Have you voted yet? - Dark Jaguar - 3rd November 2010
Coordinating the states, for example.
Have you voted yet? - Unreadphilosophy - 3rd November 2010
^That's not an example.
Ah, nothing gives me more pleasure early in the morning than listening to progressives cry and whine over the fact that Rand, a man who supports the Constitution, won the election. It always amazes me at just how uninformed people are.
Have you voted yet? - A Black Falcon - 3rd November 2010
What it currently does, for starters.
Have you voted yet? - Fittisize - 3rd November 2010
Isn't an Executive presiding over the states constitutionally mandated, anyways? I read that for a short time after America became a country it didn't even have an executive branch and essentially functioned as 13 separate republics, a notion which was eliminated because nothing could ever be accomplished under such clusterfuckage. Weren't several of the Founding Fathers tea-partiers are so fond of dressing up as ardent Federalists who campaigned hard for a powerful executive branch with dominion over the states?
Have you voted yet? - A Black Falcon - 3rd November 2010
Yes. Some did oppose the constitution, though, because they didn't want a strong federal government, but the majority supported it, and all of the states voted for the constitution -- though sometimes narrowly.
Of course from the beginning in the South one big issue was slavery, they didn't want a strong federal government that might take away their right to own other people... but the Southern states ended up passing the Constitution anyway, so they did accept at least some federal oversight was needed.
On the other hand, some anti-federalists opposed the constitution because there was no guarantee of rights -- the Bill of Rights isn't in the Constitution, it was added later. There was enough of a protest about the lacking guarantee of rights that Madison and co. eventually had to promise that the first thing they'd do was pass one, because otherwise enough states wouldn't pass the Constitution. On this issue they were right, those rights were badly needed...
Still though, yes, the issue of how big the government should be has been one of the biggest issues in American political debate since the beginning, and obviously still is. Government has expanded a lot over the years, to cover more things, but we're still constantly arguing about how big it should get. It definitely gets annoying sometimes, there are things we need so badly (like universal health care) but probably never will have because of it. I mean, being skeptical is good, the government most certainly is not all good (spying on the American people, illegal wiretapping, invading other countries for bad reasons, etc.), but the idea that somehow we should be scared of and hate the government isn't something that makes any sense to me, particularly when you compare that to the atrocious record of American big business (the Republicans' chief constituents) when not properly regulated!
Have you voted yet? - alien space marine - 3rd November 2010
Unreadphilosophy Wrote:EDIT: Rand Paul won in KY. I hope and pray that he's his father's son. The fact that he's been meeting with neocons worries me extremely. Here's to hoping that he doesn't taint his dad's legacy.
So you don't approve of his campaign worker curb stomping a moveon.org protester in the neck? They may have had the right to apprehend her since she bolted at Paul pushing through the crowds like an assassin , But they had no business pinning her to the ground removing her whig and of course the aforementioned.
Have you voted yet? - alien space marine - 3rd November 2010
Fittisize Wrote:Isn't an Executive presiding over the states constitutionally mandated, anyways? I read that for a short time after America became a country it didn't even have an executive branch and essentially functioned as 13 separate republics, a notion which was eliminated because nothing could ever be accomplished under such clusterfuckage. Weren't several of the Founding Fathers tea-partiers are so fond of dressing up as ardent Federalists who campaigned hard for a powerful executive branch with dominion over the states?President Adams one of the guys who co-wrote the constitution founded and lead the american federalist party (which went defunct in 1830)