OK people...

[imported_Counts]

It does not matter in polatics at this point becouse neather side REALLY want to fix anything.

Think about it IF a Republacan did do something to "STOP" late term abortions then in the next election what would he have to "Fire up the base".........If a Democrat is elected You are equaly as unlikly to see any REAL movement toward lowering fule cost or IMHO toward Unaversal health care becouse those to issues are better for them unresolved

[1inStripes]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Counts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It does not matter in polatics at this point becouse neather side REALLY want to fix anything.

Think about it IF a Republacan did do something to "STOP" late term abortions then in the next election what would he have to "Fire up the base".........If a Democrat is elected You are equaly as unlikly to see any REAL movement toward lowering fule cost or IMHO toward Unaversal health care becouse those to issues are better for them unresolved </div></div>

I believe we have a winner.

[neutral88]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Counts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It does not matter in polatics at this point becouse neather side REALLY want to fix anything.

Think about it IF a Republacan did do something to "STOP" late term abortions then in the next election what would he have to "Fire up the base".........If a Democrat is elected You are equaly as unlikly to see any REAL movement toward lowering fule cost or IMHO toward Unaversal health care becouse those to issues are better for them unresolved </div></div>


exactly...

some of those things are great campaigning tools, but not so easy to get passed, or keep passed...

They couldn't afford to even do half the stuff they talk about...

[centennialdawg]

The Graham-Rudman-Hollings act of 1987 would have required a balanced budget when certain "markers" were met, but it was declared unconstitutional later. This would have put spending restraints on social services. I might add that it was a democrat who first challenged the act and got it heard in the Supreme court. Abortion rights are just that. Rights of the woman to decide what is best in her life. Government needs to stay out of that, a point of the Republican platform that they need to heed and not change.

I will tell you this, there are organizations that are federally funded which I don't agree with such as the NAACP AND THE ACLU, just to mention a few. We should not think strictly republican, democrat, or whatever, but think of how we can help our country.

[NotSoSilentBob]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My blame lies with the system...most notably the 2000 election where the popular vote didn't name the winner... </div></div>

The 'popular vote' has never been used to elect the POTUS.

[centennialdawg]

The Preamble of the Constitution states:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Seems to me that this, which puts it in simple form, is all that is needed to make sure our country and its people are taken care of. It is just that I think that democrats, as well as republicans have forgotten about it along with a few of us.

[TheBeast]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My blame lies with the system...most notably the 2000 election where the popular vote didn't name the winner... </div></div>

The 'popular vote' has never been used to elect the POTUS. </div></div>

Don't start bringin in facts.

[centennialdawg]

You are right on that, but it is us, the people, who vote on how our individual state electors are to vote. They are bound by each individual state's constitution to vote this way.

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: centennialdawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is just that I think that democrats, as well as republicans have forgotten about it along with a few of us.</div></div>

...and instead are more concerned with which political party is better, and also what buzz topic we should discuss/argue today.

Which was my original point--if politicians and the majority of citizens remembered what the true spirit of things was supposed to be, to take care of and strengthen our own country, not to micromanage it, then we'd be a lot better off.

Instead...we have the cluster-u-kno-whut we have today.

[burton2019]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheBeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My blame lies with the system...most notably the 2000 election where the popular vote didn't name the winner... </div></div>

The 'popular vote' has never been used to elect the POTUS. </div></div>

Don't start bringin in facts. </div></div>




hahaha