The Elephant Revolution

Regardless of what they can or can not do. It's a testament to the stupidity of average Americans. Hurr Durr, let's vote the people who couldn't solve the problems out and replace them with the people who caused the problems in the first place.

Oh, by the way. Obama's agenda is by no means "radical", it's far, far too moderate and corporation-friendly. He just keeps trying for impossible compromises when what he needs to do is make the case to the American people for his policies, and he hasn't done that. The right wing spin machine will continue to distort and confuse the issues, and make even the most conservative legislation (the romneycare healthcare bill for example), into a marxist plot to kill old people.

Oh, by the way. Obama's agenda is by no means "radical", it's far, far too moderate and corporation-friendly. He just keeps trying for impossible compromises when what he needs to do is make the case to the American people for his policies, and he hasn't done that. The right wing spin machine will continue to distort and confuse the issues, and make even the most conservative legislation (the romneycare healthcare bill for example), into a marxist plot to kill old people.

First, the policies of Republicans after 2001 were for the most part, similar to Democratic ones. Republicans raised taxes, increased spending and enlarged the size of government to levels higher than under Bill Clinton in the 90's. Right now, no arguments will come from credible conservatives that George Bush didn't harm the economy. He did, because he was an establishment, country club republican with as much a penchant for spending as any democrat practically. There might have been a few exceptions, but that's generally the case.

As for "radical", yes it is radical for this country. While socialism may not be radical to you, it remains a fact that the President of the United States of America is indeed surrounded by avowed marxists, socialists and other radical organization. The "right wing spin" machine as you put it, rarely makes these claims themselves, but rather they show these people in their own words, admitting to their political ideologies. I don't understand how the democratic party can be so co-opted by these radicals, when the biggest losers in the midterms this year, were moderate democrats. So not only has the democratic party been hi jacked, but it's more center left officials have been removed from power. It's even more left than it was two years ago at this point.

The alleged character of those around him does nothing to detract from the fact that his policies have been more right wing than, say, Nixon. He is an idealistic moderate, not an avowed socialist or Marxist.

The modern republican party is still trotting out the same ridiculous economic principals of the establishment republicans of old. Namely that you can tax cut the nation into prosperity. Their policies are identical, they have no ideas to solve the big issues facing the nation beyond "cut taxes on the rich, hope for the best" and "deregulation==good (What subprime mortgage crisis?)". They have no intention of tackling the deficit or else they would end the top 1% tax cuts. They have no intention of cutting the ballooning military spending which threatens us far more than Al Queda (Not that the pansy modern day democrats would ever think of trying to cut it either, mind you, but if you want to get serious about deficit reduction without raising taxes, there's where to cut).

They have no new ideas, they just have louder old ideas.

The alleged character of those around him does nothing to detract from the fact that his policies have been more right wing than, say, Nixon. He is an idealistic moderate, not an avowed socialist or Marxist.

The modern republican party is still trotting out the same ridiculous economic principals of the establishment republicans of old. Namely that you can tax cut the nation into prosperity. Their policies are identical, they have no ideas to solve the big issues facing the nation beyond "cut taxes on the rich, hope for the best" and "deregulation==good (What subprime mortgage crisis?)". They have no intention of tackling the deficit or else they would end the top 1% tax cuts. They have no intention of cutting the ballooning military spending which threatens us far more than Al Queda (Not that the pansy modern day democrats would ever think of trying to cut it either, mind you, but if you want to get serious about deficit reduction without raising taxes, there's where to cut).

They have no new ideas, they just have louder old ideas.

He's been co-opted by the marxists around him. I truly do not believe he is a radical, however it is no secret that his administration is filled with mostly radicals similar to Van Jones in scope. The president does nothing alone, and the democratic legislative branch and the white house have moved this country to the left in a significant shift within the last 21 months. I would argue that Nixon wasn't as left as Obama and that's a rationalization of the trillions of dollars that have been spent with TARP/Stimulus and Obamacare spending. Unfortunately, I think most Americans don't understand the truth about Barrack Obama and the louder voices are the nut jobs that think the Tea Party are racists and fascists.

Also, I dislike how you can conservative ideology into misnomers and fallacious one liners. "Tax Cutting into prosperity" is an inappropriate representation of the conservative platform. It would be best served with "not spending money faster than we can print it". How does that suit you? Conservatism is more about being fiscally responsible with our money, that is given to the federal and state governments, by us. It's not so much about cutting taxes, but that is a big deal to conservatives. I think most conservatives realize that it's time to lessen taxation, yes, but it's more important to be frugal with the money we have and to let certain institutions fail as opposed to spending billions in bailout packages. That has contrasted sharply to the traditional "establishment" republicans you're claiming these newcomers are. The traditional GOP died in 2006, and it was buried in 2008. The new party is that of the Tea Party or derivatives thereof, and to claim they have no new ideas, is ignorance of the facts. The new GOP represents as close to a libertarian ideology than it ever has since this nation's founding.

EDIT: I also like how you attributed our men and women in uniform to a danger to their own countrymen. Do elaborate on that theory. I'm interested to see how the armed forces of the country are worse than over 3,000 deaths at the hands of muslim extremists.

In my opinion the pundits and many people are over thinking it. I'm hearing things on television and written online that because there the Dems are the majority in the senate and that the GOP is the majority in the house that the American people want a dead locked congress. Or that they want Obama to be more moderate, etc etc. In most cases voters weighed the results of the incumbent against the vision and ability the challenger had to offer. This year the economy is bad and so people voted against the party in power. There isn't some change in beliefs of the people from 2008, and there is no specific for desire for any complicated dead lock scheme.

It means a rabbit in every pot!

It means more crazies should be running this place.

In my opinion the pundits and many people are over thinking it. I'm hearing things on television and written online that because there the Dems are the majority in the senate and that the GOP is the majority in the house that the American people want a dead locked congress. Or that they want Obama to be more moderate, etc etc. In most cases voters weighed the results of the incumbent against the vision and ability the challenger had to offer. This year the economy is bad and so people voted against the party in power. There isn't some change in beliefs of the people from 2008, and there is no specific for desire for any complicated dead lock scheme.

Actually, if anything, this election has shown a return to normalcy in American politics. Traditionally, America works best under a divided government. The elections of 2006 and 2008 were aberrations to that historical fact. What we saw is a return to the normal state of affairs in the US.

Actually, if anything, this election has shown a return to normalcy in American politics. Traditionally, America works best under a divided government.

You can't possibly be serious, nothing is going to get done because of the filibuster. We are going to have nothing but deadlock, until the house tries to shut down government (which they have talked about doing), at which point things will get even worse for everyone. The filibuster has destroyed the ability of the senate to compromise. There will be no meaningful legislation, things will stagnate.

You can't possibly be serious, nothing is going to get done because of the filibuster. We are going to have nothing but deadlock, until the house tries to shut down government (which they have talked about doing), at which point things will get even worse for everyone. The filibuster has destroyed the ability of the senate to compromise. There will be no meaningful legislation, things will stagnate.

I am deadly serious. With the threat of the filibuster, that means that democrats will either have to moderate, or face the fact that they will be unable to push their agenda through. If you look at history, this country has usually had a divided government and that minus a few hiccups, that's generally how we operate. Divided government doesn't cause stalemate. It forces both parties to come to the center and work together. We saw with Bush, and now with Obama, that when either party retains full control over both chambers and the white house, bad things happen.

He's been co-opted by the marxists around him. I truly do not believe he is a radical, however it is no secret that his administration is filled with mostly radicals similar to Van Jones in scope. The president does nothing alone, and the democratic legislative branch and the white house have moved this country to the left in a significant shift within the last 21 months. I would argue that Nixon wasn't as left as Obama and that's a rationalization of the trillions of dollars that have been spent with TARP/Stimulus and Obamacare spending. Unfortunately, I think most Americans don't understand the truth about Barrack Obama and the louder voices are the nut jobs that think the Tea Party are racists and fascists.

You do realize that the bank bailouts was bush's gig? Obama can be blamed for continuing it, and doing it with no strings attached, but the bailouts certainly was not a socialist thing, there were a protectionist thing. "Obamacare" or as it more accurately can be called "Rommneycare", is just that, another republican policy. Obama has not been pushing the country left, the country has been on a downward slope to the right for a long time now, and it's only getting more pronounced, as a moderate like him is being lambasted by the likes of fox news and co.

Also, I dislike how you can conservative ideology into misnomers and fallacious one liners. "Tax Cutting into prosperity" is an inappropriate representation of the conservative platform. It would be best served with "not spending money faster than we can print it"....

Both are merely pithy slogans, true conservatism is nether of those things. True conservatives would take a hard look and point to specific places where funding can be cut, where more income can be raised. The republican party isn't conservative in the past, and the new one isn't any more conservative. On election day republicans spoke of vague across the board cuts (except the sacred cow of military spending, of course), they spoke of eliminating discretionary spending (which is an utterly tiny part of the federal budget, relatively speaking). They have no solid ideas, just more slogans. The budget needs to be balanced, yes, but it won't be the republicans who do it. Taxes have to be put back to reasonable levels, and military spending must be reigned in.

EDIT: I also like how you attributed our men and women in uniform to a danger to their own countrymen. Do elaborate on that theory. I'm interested to see how the armed forces of the country are worse than over 3,000 deaths at the hands of muslim extremists.

You dare twist my words to suggest that our soldiers are a threat to us? Such a profound lack of class is unbecoming of one who attempts to preach from the high ground. I said no such thing, what I said was that military spending is out of control. There is no possible way that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been worth it. 9/11 was a tragedy, there is no denying it, but far more dire are the long term consequences for not only our budget deficit, the scores of dead Iraqi civilians, the lives of our troops shattered, and our loss of standing in the world. The wars did us no good, period.

You can't possibly be serious, nothing is going to get done because of the filibuster. We are going to have nothing but deadlock, until the house tries to shut down government (which they have talked about doing), at which point things will get even worse for everyone. The filibuster has destroyed the ability of the senate to compromise. There will be no meaningful legislation, things will stagnate.

Well, all the controversial stuff won't happen. However, the more apolitical legislation, and stuff that isn't has controversial will be able to go though. Don't expect any movement on abortion, but you may get important non-flashy stuff done like tweaking a bad regulation, simplifying a tax code, fixing a problem with VA hospitals, etc etc.

I am deadly serious. With the threat of the filibuster, that means that democrats will either have to moderate, or face the fact that they will be unable to push their agenda through. If you look at history, this country has usually had a divided government and that minus a few hiccups, that's generally how we operate. Divided government doesn't cause stalemate. It forces both parties to come to the center and work together. We saw with Bush, and now with Obama, that when either party retains full control over both chambers and the white house, bad things happen.

That's be a good argument if not for the fact that the republicans have ran on a platform of no compromise, and they are not interested in governing. They are interested in politics, and nothing more. You won't see anything of value that does not favor corporations or the wealthy coming out of congress, (if you see anything at all). The senate has never been a bastion of liberalism anyway, so your worries about the senate democrats needing to be dragged right are unfounded. It's the republicans who are the obstacle to bipartisanship, always have been.

Well, all the controversial stuff won't happen. However, the more apolitical legislation, and stuff that isn't has controversial will be able to go though. Don't expect any movement on abortion, but you may get important non-flashy stuff done like tweaking a bad regulation, simplifying a tax code, fixing a problem with VA hospitals, etc etc.

No, there is no unity to be had, period. For christsakes, the 9/11 early responders healthcare bill failed.

That's be a good argument if not for the fact that the republicans have ran on a platform of no compromise, and they are not interested in governing. They are interested in politics, and nothing more. You won't see anything of value that does not favor corporations or the wealthy coming out of congress, (if you see anything at all). The senate has never been a bastion of liberalism anyway, so your worries about the senate democrats needing to be dragged right are unfounded. It's the republicans who are the obstacle to bipartisanship, always have been.

First, I apologize about the statement regarding the military. I misunderstood you, and It lead me to believe in what I wrote, but I digress. I didn't mean to insult your patriotism or belief that our men and women do good works around the world, and defend our rights at home.

I really see no point in continuing this discussion. You obviously drink the kool aide enough to realize that no matter what I say, it's not going to change your mind. The facts are available to the American people, and it's unfortunate that reasonable democrats are consistently being co-opted by radical marxists and fabian socialists, hellbent on destroying this great nation.

I really see no point in continuing this discussion. You obviously drink the kool aide enough to realize that no matter what I say, it's not going to change your mind. The facts are available to the American people, and it's unfortunate that reasonable democrats are consistently being co-opted by radical marxists and fabian socialists, hellbent on destroying this great nation.

You could at least stick to your memes, I don't support Obama enough to be kool-aide drinker, I have plenty of legitimate criticisms of him.

It is not the "radical marxists" who are destroying this great nation, it's the corporate interests and the epidemic of greed which you can trace the vast majority of the of the problems in this country to. The invisible hand of the free market is choking the middle and lower classes, and republicans are not going to do anything to stop it. Far from a living wage the minimum wage now stands merely as a concession from a bygone era for capitalists to point to as an example of the lower classes getting their fair share. In reality the minimum wage is by no means a living wage, the lower class has to work more and more jobs just to make ends meet. Things are only going to get worse for the middle and lower classes who will probably never realize they have no real power, and that the corporate interests took over a long time ago, and will only become more entrenched with the Citizens United decision, as they use their nigh unlimited funds to sway America away from unprofitable policies and politicians. But fine, buy into the sound bites, you're certainly not alone in that.

Comrade AFK 47 needs to meet a few actual Marxists. Once he does he'll be clinging to Obama's policies for dear life.

It's hard to take video footage of people's own words out of context. I suppose we should simply ignore the Van Jones characters out there. Afterall, he was taken completely out of context.

Further, spare me the liberal diatribe of corporate greed. Corporations and banks got just as much support from democrats, as republicans. Even after the white wool of "main street" was pulled over the eyes of voters. I support candidates, not parties. I voted for a democrat in this election, because he supported what I thought was best.

If this debate has taught me one thing, it's that partisan politics is the real enemy. The sooner Obama can see this, the easier it will be for congress to get back to work.

If this debate has taught me one thing, it's that partisan politics is the real enemy. The sooner Obama can see this, the easier it will be for congress to get back to work.

I think I've made my point, but just wanted to stop by for a 'lol' at this comment. Because if there was one thing Obama has been 'raging' against (in an extremely passive, moderate way) it's the partisan strife getting in the way of making America better.

Must be why he took a swipe at the supposed NON PARTISAN supreme court when they made a ruling he did not agree with, during his sotu address. Also why democrats held closed door meetings and locked conservatives out, during the healthcare drafting earlier this year.

Do try to take credit where credit is due folks. Afterall, we wouldn't be here, in this era of "Change", if not for you!

Must be why he took a swipe at the supposed NON PARTISAN supreme court when they made a ruling he did not agree with, during his sotu address. Also why democrats held closed door meetings and locked conservatives out, during the healthcare drafting earlier this year.

Do try to take credit where credit is due folks. Afterall, we wouldn't be here, in this era of "Change", if not for you!

The Supreme Court hasn't been non-partisan since the 1930s when Roosevelt stuffed it with liberals, although admittedly it didn't become a major problem until the 80s.

Aside from that, Citizens United was criticised by law Academics, he was at perfect liberty to disagree with it too. The democrats probably held meetings behind closed doors because they wanted to push their legislative agenda, more news at 11.

I really see no point in continuing this discussion. You obviously drink the kool aide enough to realize that no matter what I say, it's not going to change your mind. The facts are available to the American people, and it's unfortunate that reasonable democrats are consistently being co-opted by radical marxists and fabian socialists, hellbent on destroying this great nation.

I find it rather bizarre that you criticise someone for 'drinking the kool aide' and refusing to see past the spin, and then turning around and claiming democrats are controlled by radical marxists. It is even more ironic when you consider your next point I quoted below, when you claim that non-partisan discussion is needed. You've said that on the one hand, democrats should ignore their more radical fringe, but on the other, people from across the political spectrum should sit down together and discuss issues.

If this debate has taught me one thing, it's that partisan politics is the real enemy. The sooner Obama can see this, the easier it will be for congress to get back to work.

Partisan politics is a misplaced ideal americans have, it wont solve anything. One of the main reasons Obama has been criticised is for his comprising. Non-partisan politics is nothing but compromise. Unless you actually subscribe to those ridiculous pluralist theories about 'whatever causes public discourse is good for the nation' then I don't understand why you would think non-partisan politics would lead to anything but a weak, slow decision making process.

If you really believe that Bansky, I'm sorry. You've made me a sad panda

Why do Americans think Socialisme is the mother of all evil? Really, it makes me sick when I hear "Obama is a filthy socialist!" from the Republican side and "No, OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST" from the Democratic side. Trying to make it sound that Socialisme is the cancer of welfare.

There is nothing wrong with Socialisme. It does not equal to giving lazy bums free money. It's about being solidary and social with the weaker groups in society. There is nothing wrong with giving everyone access to affordable health care. There is nothing wrong with giving unemployed people that have worked their whole life a little bit of money so they can survive. There is nothing wrong to take care of the elderly or sick people.