Why do elections have consequences when Republicans get a majority

[upi402]

But when we give the Democrats the White House, Senate, and House - we get a shrug and an "ain't it a shame" head shake?
:shrug:

The Repukes know they have one shot at a majority in the House after a Democratic clean-sweep backlash. Yet they act like they rule the earth. Dems act hapless even when they have it all - and take absolute necessities off the table before they even START to negotiate.

I don't know whether to:rant: or QQ

[BzaDem]

1. The vast majority of the Democratic party approves of the good and significant consequences of the

2008 election. The vast majority approves of the Stimulus, HCR, FinReg, DADT repeal, etc.

Will there always be a few Democrats who don't think we went far enough or who otherwise don't approve? Sure. The same was true for some Republicans under Bush -- they were outraged that the tax cuts weren't higher (due to Senate opposition), that they didn't open up ANWR for drilling, that Social Security wasn't privatized, etc. They wonder why elections always seem to have consequences for Democrats but not Republicans.

To pretend there were no consequences is to ignore reality (just as it would be to a Republican who claimed there were no consequences to Bush's election).

[upi402]

4. "To pretend there were no consequences is to ignore reality "

and;
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." - Twain

Imagine a Democrat just 30 years ago who would take investigating war crimes off the table, and hand over our treasury to the banksters who ran our economy into the ditch.

Ignoring reality? ...Pretending?:rofl:

[Scuba]

5. +1

[Hannah Bell]

6. +100. really sick of dino admins. really sick of people who make the

argument that being strangled to death slowly by someone who all the while keeps telling you how much he hates to do it is preferrable to being strangled quickly by someone who admits he wants to kill you.

when people know they're facing an enemy, at least they'll fight.

[BzaDem]

10. But you keep assuming that there will eventually be a President that you won't see as

"strangling you."

Until you finally see otherwise, you will continue to think that there is something to be gained by enabling the greater of two evils.

[Hannah Bell]

11. whereas you don't mind being strangled as long at the strangler has a "D" after his name.

death is the sure end of strangulation no matter whether it comes quickly or slower.

[BzaDem]

13. But why do you think your opinion about you being "strangled" is relevant?

Do you actually think that at some point in your life, there will be an American government that you don't think will be "strangling" you?

[BzaDem]

9. Actually, if you are actually claiming Carter or Mondale or Dukakis would have prosecuted a

previous administration for doing things similar to what Bush did, then the Twain quote applies far more to your post than you may think.

Someone in this conversation is indeed ignoring reality. But it isn't me. As I said, there will always be a few people in both parties that think everyone else is the problem (rather than their own expectations). This has not only been true for the entirety of our nation's political history, but is equally true in all other modern democracies.

[RandySF]

2. They think, or want us to think

that their right to rule comes from God, whether they hold the majority or not.

[CommonSensePLZ]

3. THIS is why I don't support the idea of "mandates"

They'll turn on you and eventually the people will think the opposite of what you believe is needed... is needed. One year Obama was needed to bring on his brand of CHANGE and HOPE, now the people thought the Tea Party was the right way to go. People will eventually believe ANY stupid extreme if it sounds convenient enough. A very bad, but apt, example is dun-dun-DUN~ Hitler.

If only people were mature enough that we could just look for the best solutions for us all instead of engaging in fear, mind and power games. C'est la vie.

[HughBeaumont]

7. They're "Democrats", not progressives. Too many Max Baucuses, not enough Sherrod Browns.

Majority are still on board with Laissez-fail.

Majority are still on board with WealthCare.

Majority still think "Peace through Strength" instead of the other way around.

The majority of Democrats are just plain and simple afraid of being labeled as "Commies". Our "Liberal Media" has a lot to do with that - it's like the arch-Conservative's "Sixth Man".

Money out of politics. Money separated from the political process. Otherwise, our voting choices are "Republican", "Theocrat Reaganite Loon", "Wasted Vote".

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Because Democrats win when they get the popular vote,, but the next election

is always determined by campaign donations. And, maybe, just maybe, they all know that some swing states are crooked.

[ljm2002]

12. Because the ruling elites aren't working for the population as a whole...

...they are working for those that pay them.

They play "good cop / bad cop", and anytime you say a Democrat should fight, there are a dozen people to chime in and say "But that would make our side just like their side, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?" In the meantime, the screwing of the middle class and the poor continues unabated, and both sides line their pockets, and life goes on.

We really need to recognize it.