The American people have spoken...

[ATM]

...but how do you think it will be interpreted by our rulers?


IMO, they were given not only the overwhelming consent of the voters (including the implied consent of those who chose not to vote) but an absolute mandate to keep the system as it is.

The people will tolerate nothing more than a coin toss between no more than two parties. Any deviation from a coin toss would be unacceptable.

We will not only tolerate this, we demanded it.

I'm not interested in the message you wanted to send with your individual vote or lack thereof (in this thread). I'm more interested in how you think these numbers will be used to shape and define the next round of political manipulations.

What new levels of atrocity have we assured the establishment insiders we are ready to embrace?

 

[miguel]

+1 gridlock.

-1 "retaining" the CEO.

 

[teddy12b]

All I wanted to see in this election was that the libertarian party was growing in number. I was hoping that the effect it would have would be to reshape one or both of the other two parties.

 

[Denny347]

Maine, Maryland, and Washington joined Mass, Conn, Iowa, Vermont, DC, New Hampshire, and NY for equal marriage. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana, and WI just elected their first open gay woman senator. America HAS spoken. It's very encouraging.

 

[Stschil]

Maine, Maryland, and Washington joined Mass, Conn, Iowa, Vermont, DC, New Hampshire, and NY for equal marriage. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana, and WI just elected their first open gay woman senator. America HAS spoken. It's very encouraging.

Yup, won't be much longer.....

I'd better get to work. The chickens will need a place to roost when they get home.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Maine, Maryland, and Washington joined Mass, Conn, Iowa, Vermont, DC, New Hampshire, and NY for equal marriage. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana, and WI just elected their first open gay woman senator. America HAS spoken. It's very encouraging.

This is being embraced by many that the Republican Party needs to shift further to the Left because to appeal to the more moderate voters. Bigger government from both parties is the result.

 

[hornadylnl]

This is being embraced by many that the Republican Party needs to shift further to the Left because to appeal to the more moderate voters. Bigger government from both parties is the result.

True, if political ideology only followed a single axis.

 

[printcraft]

This is being embraced by many that the Republican Party needs to shift further to the Left because to appeal to the more moderate voters. Bigger government from both parties is the result.

Nobody will ever win again on a smaller government, do more for yourself, personal responsibility platform with the current demographic of the United States.

I quitting early, all you workers can carry my ass.

 

[Trooper]

A few thoughts.

The country is still split 50-50. No one has 60%. While the evangelicals are about 20% (60 million), they need to plant churches in the northeast if they ever want influence. And most values voters (conservatives, libertarians, evangelicals) have been marginalized by the establishment politicians.

It was clear in 2008 that Obama was allowing people to write their expectations on him. With great expectations comes great disappointment. By 2016 Obama will be more hated than George Bush, especially by democrats. In fact he may well destroy the democrats as a party.

We are going to be weaker as a nation. Our tax rate will go up (wonder if it will be as high as it was in the 1960s when it was 98%). Energy is going to cost more. We may see it unprofitable to use trucks to haul goods. Factories will continue to shut down. And we will see a very smaller military. If we can justify disbanding the military then it is justified that there is no need for private firearms.

I wonder if the grandchildren of the Babyboomers will curse them for the destruction that they have created.

 

[MbMinx]

I'd love to see a re-birth of the centrists and the moderates. Extremism in most any form is ugly to me. I believe in personal responsibility AND government responsibility. I don't support communism and I don't believe that a "truly free market" will solve all our problems. I believe I have the right to bear arms AND make decisions about my own body. I believe in separation of church and state and that I do not have the right to force anyone else to live by my religious beliefs. I think that both parties in the two-party system are partially right and partially wrong, and that third (or more)-parties could help bridge the gaps between.

I wish that everyone in Washington (and the state-house) could put party-line ideology aside long enough to say "hey, that's not a bad idea! What do you think about this?"

 

[Trooper]

I'd love to see a re-birth of the centrists and the moderates. Extremism in most any form is ugly to me. I believe in personal responsibility AND government responsibility. I don't support communism and I don't believe that a "truly free market" will solve all our problems. I believe I have the right to bear arms AND make decisions about my own body. I believe in separation of church and state and that I do not have the right to force anyone else to live by my religious beliefs. I think that both parties in the two-party system are partially right and partially wrong, and that third (or more)-parties could help bridge the gaps between.

I wish that everyone in Washington (and the state-house) could put party-line ideology aside long enough to say "hey, that's not a bad idea! What do you think about this?"

Then you want a one party system (republicrat) made up of only establishment politicians who believe in nothing thus can be pressed to day anything.

 

[firehawk1]

I believe in separation of church and state and that I do not have the right to force anyone else to live by my religious beliefs.

Don't know of anyone that has said anything different.

 

[MbMinx]

Don't know of anyone that has said anything different.

Except the Right-wing, the Tea-partiers and the Religious Right.
Actually, if we could get religion and "values" out of politics, I'd be happy with that. Then we could concentrate on real issues like the economy and foreign policy.

 

[Trooper]

Except the Right-wing, the Tea-partiers and the Religious Right.
Actually, if we could get religion and "values" out of politics, I'd be happy with that. Then we could concentrate on real issues like the economy and foreign policy.

So we need to get rid of ideas (values) like freedom, gun ownership, individualism as well?

 

[Trooper]

I'd love to see a re-birth of the centrists and the moderates. Extremism in most any form is ugly to me. I believe in personal responsibility AND government responsibility. I don't support communism and I don't believe that a "truly free market" will solve all our problems. I believe I have the right to bear arms AND make decisions about my own body. I believe in separation of church and state and that I do not have the right to force anyone else to live by my religious beliefs. I think that both parties in the two-party system are partially right and partially wrong, and that third (or more)-parties could help bridge the gaps between.

I wish that everyone in Washington (and the state-house) could put party-line ideology aside long enough to say "hey, that's not a bad idea! What do you think about this?"

I thought, given the comments by the libertarians, that both parties were in agreement already. Just two teams fighting for power.

As for religion, shouldn't the government be able to suppress religion as the Soviets did? Or just execute christians and jews as they did during the French Revolution?

 

[MbMinx]

OK, You got me. I should have said "morality"
Ideas that support my rights, responsibilities and freedoms are good in my world-view.
Ideas that deny my rights, responsibilities and freedoms are bad in my world-view.
Except for those that benefit greater society as a whole, then some of those are OK too.

No, I was NOT on the high school debate team. Actually, I usually lose to my 12-year-old.

 

[MbMinx]

I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religion privately as they see fit. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force their religious beliefs onto anyone else.
There's no need for suppression or execution. Go to church if you want. Worship at home. Commune in the park. That's fine. But don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs. Contraception against your belief? Don't use it. But don't try to keep it from me. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to marry a gay man? Then don't. Personal choice. Not religiously based laws.

 

[Trooper]

I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religion privately as they see fit. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force their religious beliefs onto anyone else.
There's no need for suppression or execution. Go to church if you want. Worship at home. Commune in the park. That's fine. But don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs. Contraception against your belief? Don't use it. But don't try to keep it from me. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to marry a gay man? Then don't. Personal choice. Not religiously based laws.

So that means that is ok to do goddess worship to include sacrificing infants to the goddess? Or using abortion as a sacriment?

What about all of those religious things banned like murder, rape, theft, lying? Should those laws be gotten rid of as well due to their religious nature?

 

[Birds Away]

I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religion privately as they see fit. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force their religious beliefs onto anyone else.
There's no need for suppression or execution. Go to church if you want. Worship at home. Commune in the park. That's fine. But don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs. Contraception against your belief? Don't use it. But don't try to keep it from me. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to marry a gay man? Then don't. Personal choice. Not religiously based laws.

That's fine. Can we have some moderation? Aborting a baby that has already been partially born and is completely viable is not abortion in my book. You can call that a moral judgement if you choose. Although I personally do not like abortion I understand that I should not force that opinion on others. So couldn't we meet in the middle somewhere? Does it have to be all abortions all the time?

 

[MbMinx]

In moderation, the decision is primarily left up to the woman, her doctor and her spiritual advisor. That said, I don't agree with aborting viable (capable of life outside the womb) fetuses in most cases. I don't disagree with some restrictions. But I find myself swinging further and further to the fringe in reaction to the other fringe, which tells me that I should never have the option to abort for any reason at all.

Maybe that's why I don't like extremism. It pushes me toward extremism as a reaction and that's not really true to my real beliefs.