Mid-Term Elections 2010: The Latest

[August1991]

Don't get me wrong I am not arguing that the US is not a Democracy I am saying, because Burma is terrible that does not make anyone else more an Democracy.

I think you miss my point, punked.

First, have you noticed that there are fewer whacko dictatorships in the world? The Suhartos, Ceauşescus, Zhivkovs of this world no longer seem to exist. It's hard to be a dictatorship tourist in 2010. In 1970, a tourist had many choice destinations. Now, there's Burma, North Korea and maybe Cuba or Venezuela.

Second, democracy is democracy. How do you define it? I define it when State power passes peacefully between opponents - for example, when Carter gave power to Reagan, or Bush Jnr handed power to Obama.

----

Once again, sorry for the thread hijack/diversion.

Edited October 5, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

No, it's a good argument.

Punked, go and live in a real dictatorship for awhile and come back and post here. You can try Burma or North Korea, if you can get a visa. (Thank God for America: Truman, Korea, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Vietnam, Reagan - and many ordinary Americans who went to farflung places. Thanks to all of them, there are not many dictatorships around the world nowadays.)

So, a visit to Burma (or Cuba on a bad day) is a trip down memory lane to what much of the

the world used to be like.

----

Sorry for the thread hijack/rant.

The US has installed more dictators than it has removed:

Pinnochet

Hussein

Ngo Dinh Diem

Ngo Dinh Nhu (so much for Vietnam)

Shah of Iran (leading to the Iranian revoluton and causing US trouble today)

Soekarno

Aristide

Indeed, if you look at the history of dictators it has installed, it's usually to gain access to foreign markets. In otherwords, US policy has never really cared about the removal of authoritarianism. It's been all about the green.

Edited October 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

The US has installed more dictators than it has removed:

Pinnochet

Hussein

Ngo Dinh Diem

Ngo Dinh Nhu (so much for Vietnam)

Shah of Iran (leading to the Iranian revoluton and causing US trouble today)

Soekarno

Aristide

Yea...Canada had nothing to do with installing or removing Aristide...LOL!

[nicky10013]

I think you miss my point, punked.

First, have you noticed that there are fewer whacko dictatorships in the world? The Suhartos, Ceauşescus, Zhivkovs of this world no longer seem to exist. It's hard to be a dictatorship tourist in 2010. In 1970, a tourist had many choice destinations. Now, there's Burma, North Korea and maybe Cuba or Venezuela.

Second, democracy is democracy. How do you define it? I define it when State power passes peacefully between opponents - for example, when Carter gave power to Reagan, or Bush Jnr handed power to Obama.

----

Once again, sorry for the thread hijack/diversion.

The US isn't responsible for the collapse of dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

[August1991]

The US has installed more dictators than it has removed:

Pinnochet

Hussein

Ngo Dinh Diem

Ngo Dinh Nhu (so much for Vietnam)

Shah of Iran (leading to the Iranian revoluton and causing US trouble today)

Soekarno

Aristide

Indeed, if you look at the history of dictators it has installed, it's usually to gain access to foreign markets. In otherwords, US policy has never really cared about the removal of authoritarianism. It's been all about the green.

Nicky, you miss my point.

Between 1950 and 2010, there are fewer places for Westerners to travel and look at the horrible conditions- whether political repression or dire poverty. There are fewer dictatorship countries available for political tourist tours.

Pinochet? When were you born?

Nowadays, you can only go to North Korea or Cuba. Somalia, Iran. That's it. (I'm waiting for an American leftist, say Michael Moore, to go to Dubai or Riyadh and report on the status of women.)

The US isn't responsible for the collapse of dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

Huh?

Nicky, what about the young men who died in Vietnam?

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

JFK Edited October 5, 2010 by August1991

[sharkman]

Well, we'll see how things set up in November, but I feel that the predictions of a number of analysts, that the Tea Party would ultimately be more toxic to the GOP than the Democrats, is coming true. The Republican supporters here and elsewhere love to talk a yarn about how the Tea Party is taking Washington to task, but what it's really doing is making Democrats, at least in some races, maybe enough to make a difference, more competitive than if more moderate, or at least sensible Republicans had been in the running.

The biggest fear the GOP has at this point, from what I understand, is that a lot of Republican voters may not be willing to hold their noses in some of these races and may stay at home, whereas Democrat voters will have every reason to show up at the polls.

That's quite a prediction. I suppose there are analysts that are calling for everything from a Dem wipe out to a Tea Party spanking of the GOP, but maybe history can give a little perspective:

Presidents with approval ratings below 50% at midterm time see their party suffer substantial losses in its congressional membership, regardless of how much explaining and blaming the president attempts in the campaign leading up to what becomes, in effect, a referendum on the president.

And since Democrats currently hold substantial majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, they have substantially more seats to lose.

The Los Angeles Times is hardly a conservative cheerleader, but only time will tell. Obama does seem a little concerned though.

Edited October 5, 2010 by sharkman

[bloodyminded]

Nicky, what about the young men who died in Vietnam?

Most young men who died in Vietnam were innocent Vietnamese civilians.

Oh...you meant the young men who matter.....

As Carter said, "The destruction was mutual."

That's funny.

Edited October 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Most young men who died in Vietnam were innocent Vietnamese civilians.

Really? Civilians?

As Carter said, "The destruction was mutual."

Can't wait for Carter's quotable quotes to be published!

[Shakeyhands]

Yowsers.... what a damning piece of film.

[Shady]

Actually, Republicans have released a pledge to enact if they're elected to the majority in the house again. Part of the pledge is to place spending at 2008 levels. Another part of the pledge is to take all unused TARP and stimulus money and apply it to the deficit, cutting it by hundreds of billions of dollars.

So far, Democrats haven't stated anything their going to do if they remain in power. Except the status quo. Oh, and raising taxes in January. I'm sure that'll be great for the economy.

[Shady]

Mid-terms elections are looking good so far, GOP is looking like they're going to pick up the following Senate seats.:

Nevada

Indiana

Arkansas

Colorado

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

Illinois

With very good shots at picking up California, Washington, and Connecticut.

In terms of house seats, Republicans are also looking pretty good. So far Real Clear Politics has the house at 207 for Republicans, 190 for Democrats, and 38 seats toss ups.

Looks like the American public's had enough of European socialism. Heck, even Europe has. They're all cutting spending, cutting taxes and balancing budgets.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Shady

[ToadBrother]

Looks like the American public's had enough of European socialism. Heck, even Europe has. They're all cutting spending, cutting taxes and balancing budgets.

Because the working poor getting health care is so awful.

[Shady]

Because the working poor getting health care is so awful.

Getting health care or being forced to purchase health care?

[ToadBrother]

Getting health care or being forced to purchase health care?

I wonder how much you'd laugh if you were in that segment of the population.

[Shady]

I wonder how much you'd laugh if you were in that segment of the population.

You mean the segment of people already eligible for health care programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (children's health insurance program)?

If you don't mean that population, then I'd be kind of annoyed having the government force me into buying private health insurance or face jail time or fines.

[ToadBrother]

You mean the segment of people already eligible for health care programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (children's health insurance program)?

If you don't mean that population, then I'd be kind of annoyed having the government force me into buying private health insurance or face jail time or fines.

I'm talking about the 40 million+ that aren't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States

[nicky10013]

Nicky, you miss my point.

Between 1950 and 2010, there are fewer places for Westerners to travel and look at the horrible conditions- whether political repression or dire poverty. There are fewer dictatorship countries available for political tourist tours.

Pinochet? When were you born?

Nowadays, you can only go to North Korea or Cuba. Somalia, Iran. That's it. (I'm waiting for an American leftist, say Michael Moore, to go to Dubai or Riyadh and report on the status of women.)

There are fewer countries with dire poverty? That's insane. Second, the transition to democracy has occured in Eastern Europe but hardly anywhere else. Even in Eastern Europe, countries like Russia and Georgia have fallen back into authoritarianism. Belarus is still run by a dictator who has been in power since the end of the USSR. There are dictatorships across central Asia and pretty much all of South East Asia lives under authoritarian rule.

You made the point that there is less authoritarianism today. You're right because of countries like East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania all moving to democracy and none of these countries were dictatorships. The USSR under Stalin was but dictatorship never returned after his death in 1953. As for the rest of the world, it's remained largely static.

What I disputed is you directly attributing the "rise of democracy" to Washington as you did a few posts before. Washington had nothing to do with Eastern Europe. It was all Gorbachev.

As for Pinochet, the CIA directed coup that brought him to power happened in 1973. Pretty much directly in the middle of your timeline. Like I said, the US is responsible for far more authoritarianism than it is democracy. Iraq will bear that out as well.

Huh?

Nicky, what about the young men who died in Vietnam?

JFK

Vietnam is still controlled by the Communist Party. Some success.

Edited October 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm talking about the 40 million+ that aren't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States

Do you mean health insurance or actual health care? 40 million are not without health care. Retirees are beginning to lose their insurance as ObamaCare kicks in because it is cheaper to pay the fines and reirect people to HSAs.

[bloodyminded]

Really? Civilians?

Yep. Really. Civilians.

Astonishing though it may be, there were other people involved beyond Evil Commies and Brave Troops.

Can't wait for Carter's quotable quotes to be published!

Oh, no worry, his bit of disgusting moral relativism on this point is already public record.

Edited October 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[punked]

Mid-terms elections are looking good so far, GOP is looking like they're going to pick up the following Senate seats.:

Nevada

Indiana

Arkansas

Colorado

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

Illinois

With very good shots at picking up California, Washington, and Connecticut.

In terms of house seats, Republicans are also looking pretty good. So far Real Clear Politics has the house at 207 for Republicans, 190 for Democrats, and 38 seats toss ups.

Looks like the American public's had enough of European socialism. Heck, even Europe has. They're all cutting spending, cutting taxes and balancing budgets.

I think you are dreaming about NV,WV, and Il. Pen is still up in the air as well. Most of the seats you name are actually very very competitive. Sorry. It does not "look like" they will pick those up. There is a chance they will pick those up. Shady lies and lies and lies.

[Shady]

I think you are dreaming about NV,WV, and Il. Pen is still up in the air as well. Most of the seats you name are actually very very competitive. Sorry. It does not "look like" they will pick those up. There is a chance they will pick those up. Shady lies and lies and lies.

Well, I agree with you about NV, it's still a toss up. But the Republican in WV has seen his lead grow. IL is still a toss up too. But Pennsylvania shows the Republican up by like 7. So it's leaning Republican. Anyways, all of those seats would be Republican pick ups.

[Shady]

LOL! Looks like the Dems are bringing their 'A' games for the political home stretch.

[punked]

LOL! Looks like the Dems are bringing their 'A' games for the political home stretch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In the same thread I post a clip of 10-20 republicans that can't name one thing they would cut. Shady says that disqualifies someone to be in office. Can't buy this type of crazy.

[Pliny]

Yep. Really. Civilians.

Astonishing though it may be, there were other people involved beyond Evil Commies and Brave Troops.

Did the Evil Commies or the Brave Troops kill more civilians?

[bloodyminded]

Did the Evil Commies or the Brave Troops kill more civilians?

An interesting question in a purely academic sense, but without moral weight.

Indeed, the question is a form of apologetics, meant to divert attention away from the crimes of us and our allies and focus it on those of official enemies.

Far more interesting is the more moral question: how many do we and our allies kill? A more important question, by an order of magnitude.