FOR the headline alone I am bringing this over.
BUT---- it gets better!
CK_John (6,973 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025745481
Maybe we should stop calling our opponents "stupid" since they are "kicking our butts
all over the lot".
The GOP voter sees the person on the ballot as just an avatar for RNC central.
They have tied up Congress, control over 30 states that is far from stupid.
RobertEarl (8,194 posts)
3. The republicans bought it
Bought the best government money can buy.
They own the media, the voting machines and the hate machines.
They appeal to the stupid, the lazy and the ass-kissers who are afraid to think for themselves and those are the majority of the country. Half of them vote and the other half don't.
The 1/3 who always vote for the Democratic Party are without a doubt the smarter third. They can not be bought.
Rex (47,257 posts)
2. But they are stupid, that is one of the key points. The people that they vote for
control the mass media and huge amounts of Corporate America. A main point, is keeping them stupid or uninformed if you want to use a nicer term. The GOP owns a huge amount of this country, they've been buying it since the Reagan Era. For sure, a lot of them are very very smart - cruel, vindictive and petty too.
If we ever want to change the status quo, we have to take back control over Congress.
They are stupid and the GOP wants to keep them that way and expand the number of uniformed individuals. It totally works to their advantage as well as to Corporate Americas advantage and you know this
Live and Learn (3,540 posts)
4. It is pretty simple, the party is led by psychopaths leading the ignorant. nt
world wide wally (1,119 posts)
16. Okay. Voters ARE stupid but the Republicans have even made Democratic candidates turn on
Obama. That was the best trick of all!
Unfortunately, these same Dem candidates are going to have their asses handed to them for just that reason
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251382708
chowder66 (1,398 posts)
19. Their only focus is winning and control (mainly for the top 10%)... therefore
they are unable to enact good legislation and ideas for the rest of us (provably). That abusive/obsessive focus is screwing the rest of us over year after year. And while it works for the most part, it is still very damaging as a whole.
Democrats focus on the 90% and legislation that benefits the majority and have to step in and enact just enough legislation as they can to mitigate the Republicans constant damage. That kind of governing is a crapshoot for everyone except that upper echelon that the Republicans are in bed with.
Democrats focus and task is much larger than the Republicans, covering the welfare of 90% of 300 million people and which mostly does effect the upper 10% positively.
They (R's) conserve their energy/ideas to zero in on winning and everything that can get them there. Greased palms and people in position are making it work for them but again, their lack of focus once in position or in session shows they don't know how to govern at all.
Many voters hear what they want or the "bravado" and think, yeah, that's my guy/gal. When that guy/gal gets in they don't bother to find out how incompetent they really are. And even if the facts are presented, constituents tend to ignore it or miss it completely.
We (D's) need a political win-machine at every level/ a branch that allows our elected officials to perform at their highest levels up on the hill.
We have pieces of it.... but it isn't fully up to par yet...or so it seems.
AngryAmish (21,599 posts)
25. Pat Buchanan had it right.
Honestly, he did.
There is a cultural war in the US. Always has been, always will be. Right now, we are on the losing end election wise, winning side culturally wise.
It is Roundheads v Cavaliers, and we are Roundheads. Roundheads founded Harvard and settled in the northeast. Cavaliers moved to the south, and brought the scots-irish with them .
We had a civil war and we will have another one within the next 40 years. It will take an assassination of a President plus a changing of the filibuster rule. (There is a reason why changing the filibuster rule drives Senators nuts (.
Cromwell was a roundhead. Charlies I and II were cavaliers, btw. English Civil War teams. Not too sure what the angry roundhead was trying to say.
MADem (105,615 posts)
27. They aren't "kicking" anything. They game the system. They stop people from voting. They lie.
They cheat. They bribe. They steal. They smear. They insinuate. They use the dirtiest tactics known to humankind.
That's pretty stupid behavior, because it involves the subversion of democracy.
They couldn't win an honest contest in most districts. They don't know how to be honest.
No no no. I want to go back to the whole ECW thingy.
England's many Puritans and Presbyterians were almost invariably Roundhead supporters, as were many smaller religious groups such as the Independents. However many Roundheads were Church of England, as were many Cavaliers.
During the war and for a time afterwards Roundhead was a term of derision[3]—in the New Model Army it was a punishable offence to call a fellow soldier a Roundhead.[4] This contrasted with the term Cavalier to describe supporters of the Royalist cause. Cavalier also started out as a pejorative term—the first proponents used it to compare members of the Royalist party with Spanish Caballeros who had abused Dutch Protestants during the reign of Elizabeth I—but unlike Roundhead, Cavalier was embraced by those who were the target of the epithet and used by them to describe themselves.
Roundhead remained in use to describe those with republican tendencies up until the Exclusion Bill crisis of 1678–1681; the term was then superseded by Whig, initially another term with pejorative connotations. Likewise during the Exclusion Bill crisis, the term Cavalier was replaced with Tory, a term introduced by the opponents of the Tories, and also initially a pejorative term.
Thus, a roundhead was and is a conservative republican... as is the case most of the time, the DUmpmonkie was wrong.
Here endeth the lesson.
Dutch508, circa 1665
