Barbara Boxer (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 07:56:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Barbara Boxer (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Barbara Boxer  (Read 7390 times)
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« on: April 26, 2005, 01:27:07 PM »

She said in January that since 48% of Americans voted for Kerry they deserve a say in politics even though they are far left.

Uh . . . they did have a say in politics.  They voted for Kerry.  Unfortunately for them, he lost.  However, how did the other candidates they voted for (House, Senate, state level, etc) fair? 

I think she needs to go back and review how elections work.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2005, 02:08:24 PM »

Uh . . . they did have a say in politics.  They voted for Kerry. 

That doesn't mean that Senate Democrats should roll over and play dead.

No, it shouldn't.  However, sitting back and refusing to comprimise (this goes for both Democrats and Republican's alike) isn't a option either.  The role of the House and the Senate is to work for the betterment of the nation, not the betterment of themselves or their parties.  This is why nothing gets done while our debt rises and Social Security goes bankrupt.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2005, 02:55:52 PM »

[This is why nothing gets done while our debt rises and Social Security goes bankrupt.

Republicans control the House and the Senate and thus, get to control the agenda. Democrats don't even get to have their legislation be debated on the Senate floor. Senators like Boxer opposing the truly bad legislation and nominees is a good thing.

If stuff isn't getting done, it's the Republicans fault. Their social security privatization plan does nothing to fix the problem. Why should Democrats support it? The American public hates it and it's a bad idea.

As for the national debt, huge tax cuts and increased spending is agian the fault of Republicans.

That's the downfall of a two-party dominated system.  Unless there is a supermajority, things get stalled in Congress.  This goes back to my basis that Congress fails the nation since they put themselves and their party first rather than the public whom they are elected to represent. 

No one is saying they have to support privatization of Social security.  However, they have not offered up any other ideas to save it.  And why should they?  They are not effected by SS if it fails, since they have their own plan.  Outside of raising taxes or the eligibility age, or decreasing benefit dollars, no other real plan has surfaced other than privatization.  They've had 20 years to figure this out and have done nothing. 

Of course, the old saying holds true:  If pro = good, and con = bad. then what is the opposite of Progress?  Congress.  Smiley  *grumbles*
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2005, 01:03:20 PM »

I'm not sure moderate is a compliment for him coming from you, considering your views on some other issues.  If you considered him far right, then maybe he'd be a moderate.  But if you call him a moderate, it's a pretty safe bet that he's far left.

Mainstream establishment liberalism is the moderate political position.

... for the left.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.