Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 28
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?Page 4 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)


I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off, just letting it all fall down.

Some people go to jail, ~ the ones that have the most to lose ~ "DO" ~

and everyone rebuild from the ashes.


I, for one, don't think the system can be fixed. It's going to crash within my lifetime, and I'll be there to piss on its grave when it does.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 29
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 12/3/2009 7:12:54 PM

the law of the marketplace dictates that cheaper products of equivalent quality will always win.


Almost true. Substitute "perceived value" for quality. That is why organics have a niche, even though they are, in most cases, more expensive. The organics consumer perceives organics to be of higher value (healthier, more environmental, etc.) and thus is willing to pay more.

It's called value adding - quite common in the marketplace among food products.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 30
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 12/4/2009 11:52:39 PM


Almost true. Substitute "perceived value" for quality. That is why organics have a niche, even though they are, in most cases, more expensive. The organics consumer perceives organics to be of higher value (healthier, more environmental, etc.) and thus is willing to pay more.

It's called value adding - quite common in the marketplace among food products.


I used to work for a company that was all about increasing "perceived value" and therefore increasing price, but didn't care at all about increasing actual quality (because it generally meant increasing costs).
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 12/6/2009 4:24:28 AM

Don't you think the apathy of the American public is responsible for what's going on in Congress?
That's a reasonable question and an understandable characterization but I believe it's a mischaracterization.

If anything, you see a massive surge in people who are not apathetic but, instead, are rising up to restore what has, historically, been a center-right nation based on conservative values.

So, instead of attributing it to "apathy", I think it would be more accurate to portray non-involvement to "inertia"... for many years, people had been comfortable enough with the pendulum-like swings of the political process.

Just like the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 9/11 "woke a sleeping giant"... after every war ends, the "era of peace" is really just a "return to trance"... we are able to turn more of our attention back to those things about which we are really more passionate and become fixated on those things. And, if we are passionate about nothing, then we go back to focusing on survival...

...but, despite copious complaints in forums and on tv, I still wouldn't chalk non-involvement up to apathy.

Thanks for asking, thanks for listening,
Eric
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 33
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 2/14/2010 3:07:53 AM
The biggest problem is not really even the people, its the Senate.

If it weren't for the filibuster, then people would see the results of their vote quicker... Congress would be more nimble.

If instead of needing 60 votes to do anything of consequence, the Senate could settle things by a majority vote and results would come quicker. Right now, what people are most frustrated with is not really parties... its gridlock. The gridlock is historical in nature. Perhaps no other government has been as indecisive as the US government, and its all because of a rule called the filibuster... not a constitutional institution either, but just a Senate tradition...

If the Senate was anything like the old boy "deliberative" body it used to be, this would be a radical suggestion... but with the 24 hour new cycle and a more fast moving economic and security situation, the last thing our less-than-statesmanly Senate needs is more time to divide up pork spending and make compromise... what they need is incentive to cooperate... and a simple majority vote would end the tyranny of the minority in the Senate forever.

People tend not to care about electing a representative if some "great deliberative body" has rules that trump their will... rules like the filibuster...
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 35
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 2/14/2010 3:44:19 PM
Without constitutional reform, there never will be any viable 3rd or 4th or 5th or any other type of party... Our constitution weakened parties in value... its more about individual candidates... which is a big part of why we have apathy imo...

No 3rd party has a chance of taking power, all 3rd parties have a chance to do is upset the balance of power in favor of whoever they oppose...

so guess what you do when you support the TEA party? You strengthen Democrats. The same goes when someone votes libertarian because they are liberal but want less government spending... they only weaken the republican vote. Overall though, if there is no third party, the liberal vote suffers, because the churches and gun enthusiasts are ever-paranoid and will always turn out en-mass to support their regressive causes.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 40
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 2/15/2010 2:32:04 PM
Your vote is essentially irrelevant because this whole county is going Democrat either way because of the way this overall system is set up here. That's another part of why I am not a fan of the electoral college with the "winner-takes-all" system.
The Founding Fathers originally envisioned a model where the President was elected by the legislature rather than popular vote as a means to protect the States' interests (fearing large states would run roughshod over smaller states) and because they didn't trust the motivations of simple majority voting (tyranny of the majority). The electoral college was the compromise which was THOUGHT to be unlikely to produce a winner, thereby requiring Congress to choose the President.

*Interesting aside: In the Kennedy/Nixon election, several southern states attempted to use this states' interests aspect of the electoral college to continue to impose their brand of "tyranny of the majority". They had hoped, by placing unpledged electors, to be able to defeat Kennedy and avoid any further desegregation. A case where the intent of the Founding Fathers was used in an attempt to create exactly the situation they had hoped to avoid.*

The thing about "winner takes all" is... the U.S., with it's presidential system HAS to be "winner-take-all", you simply can't operate a presidential system in any other way, even popular plurality vote would entail "winner-take-all"... going straight popular vote would have made little difference overall, historically speaking (ONLY 4 elections have ever resulted in a President who won the popular vote but not the electoral vote and the only one where popular-over-electoral vote would have resulted in a huge historical difference is the 2000 election. Harrison/Cleveland, Hayes/Tilden, or even Adams/Jackson, would not likely have resulted in any huge alteration of US history but Bush/Gore unquestionably would have)... to change it from the current "winner-take-all" system for President, the US would either have to move to the South African model (president is determined by the vote of the legislature), a semi-presidential model like France (where executive power is divided between legislature and the presidency) or a parliamentary republic where the President has little to no executive power... you simply can't have an effective presidential system based on anything other than a plurality voting system (which, technically, is what the electoral college is, they are just not necessarily bound to vote according to their State's popular vote), a proportional voting system would not work (unless you want to go with the old Roman 'triumvirat' model and we know how well that worked out)...

The biggest problems lie in the U.S. presidential system itself rather than the means by which the president is elected... it creates a "feast or famine" situation, particularly in recent decades... where the President, as head of gov't, typically "feasts" when his party has unquestioned control of the legislatures or "starves" when that unquestioned control is absent... Presidential systems also have an extremely strong tendancy to devolve towards totalitarianism...

*aside:

Have a look at this list of nations with a presidential republic system and see if you can find more than a bare few such countries that have never devolved towards totalitarianism during their history as presidential republics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#Republics_with_a_presidential_system_of_government*

The real answer, if the goal is to keep the current presidential system, is to change the method of electing Congress... to move from a plurality electoral system (one rep/district) to a proportional electoral system (multiple reps/district) while leaving the presidential electoral process on a plurality basis based on apportioned districts... This would enhance the representation of the minority vote, allow for greater opportunity to elect "third party/independant" candidates and force a greater level of bi-partisanship (more co-operation and compromise would be required to secure congressional votes) while while evening out the partisan "feast or famine" situations...

If that is indeed what you're talking about then you're right, we should give much more scrutiny to those selections.

Judges should NEVER be chosen based on public popularity contests... only on the basis of their knowledge of jurisprudence and ability to rule according to the letter, spirit and intent of the law... public perceptions of jurisprudence and criminal justice are far to often based on vengence and vigilantism with little to no understanding of fundamental legal principles or criminology/sociology/psychology.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 42
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 2/15/2010 3:38:44 PM

I agree. But in a sense this was what I was getting at. I often wonder if at some point, perhaps not in our lifetimes, the US could or would change to a type of system like either a semi-presidential or a parliamentary republic. A complete systemic change, as I said. I imagine it is not very realistic, but , one never knows.

Far too many Americans are far too convinced that "the American way" is God-given and superior to anything else in the world (even when that "American way" involved racial oppression in the pre-Civil Rights Acts era) and not only shouldn't be changed but should also be "taught to" (read: forced upon) the rest of the world for such a major rework to ever happen...

I would suppose that there is a far better chance of moving to a proportional representation electoral system for Congress (assuming the corporations can be kept out of the debate or at least to a minimum) than a complete rework of the entire system... Proportional representation would fundamentally alter the way "business" is conducted in the capital, requiring reps to consult, co-operate and compromise, not just with reps from other parties or other states, but also with other reps from the same district in a way that would be far more representative of the concerns of the ENTIRE district rather than just those of the bare majority or with the biggest bullhorn... they wouldn't just have to work gain the support of other reps from different districts/states, they would also have to work gain the support of other reps from the SAME district...

There would also likely be a dramatic increase in voter turn-out and participation as all those who simply don't bother now, because they think their vote is a "throw-away" in their district, realize they can still gain some representation...
 Secondhand_Lion
Joined: 11/10/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 2/22/2010 12:35:40 PM
^^^^^would you buy naive or ignorant?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 48
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/20/2010 11:10:08 PM


However, reforms of Congress appear unlikely. There doesn't appear to be any significant momentum at this time behind efforts to change the rules that govern passing legislation or Congress's need to constantly campaign and fundraise. With an election year beginning, it's also unlikely that congressional leaders will begin to see eye to eye more often on major legislation.


Maybe we could start by repealing the 17th Amendment. Previously senators were elected by the State Legislature. The 17th changed that so that senators were elected by popular vote. I think this would go a long way towards eliminating big money from senatorial races.
 calisto04
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 49
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/23/2010 10:13:58 AM

Don't you think the apathy of the American public is responsible for what's going on in Congress?
No, the apathy of the American public is a result of poisonous lies coming from the Republicans who have never been able to accept the fact that we have a "minority" man as President and he's not only smart and educated and articulate, he honestly wants what's right for America.
 calisto04
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 52
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/23/2010 3:56:49 PM
I don't think I've ever heard any political party (other than this time around with our current administration) say they are going to do anything to cause the President to fail.

I'm afraid that's a first.

And that's what makes this all very different. The Republicans are sore losers and they made it clear when the Democrats won the election (in spite of all the "birthers" and "truthers" and "racists" and "bigots") and Obama was elected that they would do whatever it takes to make him fail and I have the impression they do not care if the country fails while they are busy throwing their temper tantrums.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 54
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/25/2010 11:19:42 AM

Politics used to be a rather noble profession, up until about twenty years ago.
(52)

Really? Nixon was noble? The red-baiting of the 1950's was noble?

In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson's camp said that John Adams had a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

John Adams' people said that Jefferson was “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

Read about it at http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/18612. American politics has always been a knock-down, drag-out, mud-slinging affair. Even between our Founding Fathers.
 calisto04
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 56
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/26/2010 8:11:51 PM

If I remember correctly the "truthers" were against the Republican's last administration. The "truthers' were the ones saying that the previous administration lied about the everything concerning the Afghanistan and Iraq war...Yet these liberal radicals supposively voted and are against the current administration. That's an interesting concept.
Could it be there are other "truthers" a person could be referring to?

http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/14/frank-gaffney-obama-truther
Frank Gaffney, Obama Truther

David Weigel | October 14, 2008

Neoconservative pundit Frank Gaffney, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense, has bid adieu to polite society with this column on "the Jihadist vote."

Another question yet to be resolved is whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii.

What evidence? We have a newspaper announcement of Obama's birth in Hawaii from 1961, and we have a Hawaiian certificate of live birth. Obama did have Kenyan citizenship until he turned 21; as the son of Barack Obama, Sr, it was automatic. And it did not negate his American citizenship.


And here is a book for the resident Obama bashers. I haven't read it yet and have no intention of doing so, but it occurs to me after reading the title that Obama bashers and haters might have a heyday on it.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28344
The Case Against Barack Obama
The Definitive Source for the Reality Behind the Rhetoric

The Truth About Barack Obama: What Every American Needs to Know
by Ross Kaminsky
09/02/2008


That's just an example of the "truthers" I'm referring to.

Maybe my information is a little more recent than the "truthers" of the 9/11 era?

Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?

I don't think I've ever heard any political party (other than this time around with our current administration) say they are going to do anything to cause the President to fail.

I'm afraid that's a first.
People are sick of the madness. And there is true madness.

Just look at all the brick-throwing and death threats. I can't remember such madness before. The Republicans and Tea Baggers are truly going mad.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 58
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/26/2010 10:43:44 PM
You know, I actually did a Google news search on this guy to see if you were reporting the facts. This is the very first story that came up:

Cincinnati's conservative groups and religious leaders are denouncing a loosely planned protest outside of Congressman Steve Driehaus' West Price Hill home on Sunday.

Driehaus is one of about 10 House Democrats who have reported death threats in the wake of his recent favorable vote on health-care reform.

Who actually called for the protest is unclear, but an online posting in The Enquirer's reader comment section listed the freshman congressman's home address. Since then, the conservative online newsletter that generally assails most elected officials and members of the media, the Whistleblower, has continued to rally the anti-reform troops to Driehaus' house on Sunday.

In an edition slated for Saturday, the author, Jim Schifrin, who goes by the nom de plum Charles Foster Kane, posted an aerial photo of the congressman's neighborhood and even offered suggestions for parking and take-out food.

Efforts to reach Schifrin were not successful Friday.

So the wingnuts are now targeting the homes and families of legislators who actually feel that sick people shouldn't lose coverage or their homes because they get sick. But you keep trying to pretend that it goes both ways.

You're just covering up for a culture of hate and terrorism that is now integrated into the GOP.
 cupani67
Joined: 12/29/2009
Msg: 60
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/27/2010 8:44:33 AM

How about Cantor lies? Not misreported....

Not even his office.

Were his Threat EMails spam for knock off Viagra?


Cantor only got into the picture to try to make the real threats look fake. Believe it or not he even inserted the "Jew" word in order to add some spice to it.

So, the anti-Republicans, anti-Semites (Democrats) are picking on him just like the Republicans and Tea Baggers are threatening the Democrats. Only his loud screams were all for nothing. No one targeted him for anything political or religious.

It's behavior like that that makes people apathetic about politics. They are sick of the lies and misrepresentation.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 62
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:19:25 AM
So where is the retraction on rock through Rep. Steve Driehaus' Cincinnati office window incident. This is an incident that could not have happen, and went viral in the media and blogs when first reported.
It has yet to be retracted or corrected.

Why is it their responsibility to "retract"... ? THEY didn't misrepresent it... THEY reported it accurately as shown below, unlike Cantor, who HIMSELF misrepresented it...

If a reporter "screwed up" his facts, it's the reporters problem yet YOU want to blame it on Driehaus' people who DID represent it correctly...

Protesters have been demonstrating at Driehaus’s Ohio home, said Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the anti-abortion Democrat who joined Stupak in voting for the health bill. A rock was thrown through a window of the Hamilton County Democratic Party headquarters in Cincinnati on March 21, and a death threat was phoned in to Driehaus’s Washington office a day later, Mulvey said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/house-democrats-receive-threats-after-health-vote-correct-.html

Cantor's f*ck-up was CANTOR'S F*CK-UP, not some random reporter's... The misrepresentation of Driehaus' incident WAS NOT Driehaus OR his people...

So what is your point... ? Exactly (asked as if it weren't already clear)... ?
 calisto04
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 63
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:27:24 AM

Like I have said I do not condone it but someone needs to stop over reporting and when there are errors take care of them...
Then why do some continue to copy and paste all the fake reports they can find in a huge effort to make this administration look as bad as possible.

That is exactly why Americans are so apathetic. They're tired of people trying to sway their beliefs with all the lies.

What's so difficult with just telling the truth.

The truth is, the Republicans lost the 2008 election to a smart, articulate black man (okay 1/2 black) with a plan to actually do something to improve the state of our country, And the racist bigoted Republicans have become such sore losers that instead of working with what they consider a deplorable situation, they have decided that placing the country in further jeopardy is the answer. They have decided to pack up their toys and go home. They have become not only "the party of NO" but also "the party of DO NOTHING".

The Americans are really getting sick of it all.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 65
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/27/2010 6:47:51 PM
Well, I know I'm going back some. But I have to respond to your response to my response yesterday (?)

Like I have said I do not condone it but someone needs to stop over reporting and when there are errors take care of them...
The rock through a Cincinnati 30th floor office window is a bit impossible. It was reported in several papers and went viral on several liberal forums, prior to someone on a conservative blog realizing a day or two later that Driehaus' Cincinnati office was on the 30th floor.

What is interesting is how soon some have forgotten about other demonstrations, rock throwing incidents and threats
There have been many demonstrations at politicians homes, doctors homes and etc...
What about ACORN and their demonstrations at the CEOs of the AIG and threats; is this the culture of hate and terrorism being referred to ...

Busload of Crazies to Tour Homes of AIG Executives This Weekend 3/20/09 And just who are Connecticut Working Families? Why a couple of mouse clicks would tell any interested journalist that they were ‘founded’ by none other than ACORN. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/acorn-behind-protests-at-aig-ct-homes


Protesters pay visit to AIG executives' lavish homes http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/22/protesters_pay_visit_to_aig_executives_lavish_homes/


Often when our last president would go home to his ranch people would demonstrate just as close as security would let them. One anti Iraq group of demonstrators did it for several weeks, with Al Sharpton giving a speech on one of the weekends ....

There was even a rock thrown through one of George Walker Bush's campaign offices, with equipment stolen; is this the culture of hate and terrorism being referred to..

'Peace Mom' Continues Iraq War Protest at Bush Ranch
KYW 1060 | August 16, 2005
Undaunted by counter rallies and even a neighbor's gunshot blasts into the air, a woman whose son died in Iraq said she will continue her anti-war demonstration near President Bush's ranch for three more weeks.
"We can't give up, no matter hard it gets," Cindy Sheehan said Sunday, more than a week after she started the protest in memory of her 24-year-old son Casey.
Sheehan's makeshift campsite along the road leading to the ranch has grown to more than 100, and hundreds more have stopped by to show their support.
On Sunday, as about 60 in Sheehan's group held a religious service, neighbor Larry Mattlage fired his shotgun twice into the air. Sheriff's deputies and Secret Service agents rushed to his house but did not arrest him.
"I ain't threatening nobody, and I ain't pointing a gun at nobody," Mattlage said. "This is Texas."
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/sheehan_peace_mom_continues_protest.htm


3 computers stolen from Bush's Bellevue campaign office
Saturday, October 02, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
By David Postman and Ashley Bach
Seattle Times staff reporters
KEN LAMBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES
A large rock was thrown through the window of Bush-Cheney Washington state headquarters in Bellevue. Three laptops belonging to key campaign workers were taken.
BELLEVUE — Three computers loaded with confidential campaign plans were reported stolen early yesterday in a burglary at President Bush's Washington state campaign headquarters.
Someone threw a rock through a window of the campaign's office in a suburban business park, taking laptops [belonging to key campaign workers from the desk of the Bush campaign's state director, Bellevue police and Republican Party officials said. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002052153_breakin02m.html

First you say that people upset with AIG are targeting Republicans. While I might agree with you, there isn't yet a formal connection between the white collar criminals and the GOP. It's people pissed at AIG for their part in nearly toppling the US economy and blackmailing the nation into bailing them out. Sure, they're Republicans - heck, only a Republican has the chutzpa to demand welfare for themselves while decrying it for others. But it's supposed to be a secret - you're not supposed to say it.

Then you compare a woman whose son was killed by Bush who held a peaceful protest to terrorists targeting legislators who want to save lives. Cindy Sheehan never threatened anybody.

Finally (and this is my fave) you cite a story about laptops stolen in 2004. See, I live in the Northwest. I remember that it turned out that this was a dirty trick played by Republicans to divert attention from something or other.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 68
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 3/28/2010 10:02:51 AM

Now the story about a rock being thrown through Driehaus' Cincinnati office window that is still out there. Now give me a break, a rock through a window on the 30th floor of a building..
Except for a few blogs, radio talk shows (I've been told, did not personally hear them myself) the story about a rock through Rep. Steve Driehaus' Cincinnati office window still stands. Now give me a break, a rock through a window on the 30th floor of a building..

Except... and you keep ignoring this... Neither Dreihaus NOR his spokesman said that a rock was thrown through a 30th floor window...

I will repost this since it was, apparently, not understood the first time:

Protesters have been demonstrating at Driehaus’s Ohio home, said Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the anti-abortion Democrat who joined Stupak in voting for the health bill. A rock was thrown through a window of the Hamilton County Democratic Party headquarters in Cincinnati on March 21, and a death threat was phoned in to Driehaus’s Washington office a day later, Mulvey said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/house-democrats-receive-threats-after-health-vote-correct-.html


Again, neither Dreihaus nor his spokesman made that claim... Cantor, however, did... So, of course it is Cantor's responsibility to correct HIS LIE... It is NOT Dreihaus' responsibility to correct his own CORRECT statement...

Interesting what information crops up when one investigates the stories

Interesting how the same misinformation keeps getting repeated when one claims to be impartial and to have "investigated" the story...
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 70
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 4/10/2010 6:02:25 PM

So the wingnuts are now targeting the homes and families of legislators who actually feel that sick people shouldn't lose coverage or their homes because they get sick.


What's going to happen to the people who can't afford to buy health insurance? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the insurance companies can still drop your coverage if you don't pay the premiums.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 72
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 4/10/2010 8:24:10 PM

No wonder people are so apathetic about politics, the vast majority who said no to this mess, even after it was passed still got their but handed to them by their representative.

Think about the Democratic constituents whose representative voted against their wishes or took bribes to vote against their wishes.

First, I think you use the phrase "vast majority" too loosely, but that is no surprise. Second, ours is not a direct democracy, where everything is done by direct vote and the simple majority of the populace's will. There is nothing unprecedented about how this reform was accomplished. They say there are two things you should never watch being made: sausage and legislation.

What it shows, to the chagrin of his opponents, is that Obama has learned how to flex his presidential muscle. Like any literal muscle, it gets stronger when successfully flexed.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 73
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 4/10/2010 8:24:56 PM

Republicans Passed Civil Rights Legislation when Democrat KKK members tried to block it.

Uh, uh... Nope... Sorry... Wrong... No cigar for you...

The following are the vote total breakdowns for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 152-96
* Republican Party: 138-34

Cloture in the Senate:

* Democratic Party: 44-23
* Republican Party: 27-6

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-21
* Republican Party: 27-6

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91
* Republican Party: 136-35

Even if the Repub's had refused to cast 1 single vote the bill still would have passed on the Democratic vote alone... This claim of the Repub's taking credit for it is utter BS... Nothing but blatant revisionism... But, as they have demonstrated so far, it's what they do best... Besides just saying no...

Here is another really good little tidbit... EVERY Southern Repub voted against it... Every swingin' one of 'em... At least some Southern Dems had the balls to vote for it, too bad the Repub's can't say the same...

It's certainly easy to see why so many are apathetic about Repub politics...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 74
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 4/11/2010 8:48:14 AM
A minimum of 50 votes in the senate are required for bill passage.
Using your own figures -

Ummm... NO... Wrong.... No cigar for you...

A passing vote requires a majority of VOTES CAST... NOT a majority of ALL SEATS in the Senate... As long as there is QUORUM... Quorum in the Senate is 51 members... Therefore, as few as 26 votes would be sufficient to pass if the Senate is exactly at quorum... There were 67 Dems present (well above quorum)... 46 Dems voted "yea"... So, even if every Repub had been absent or abstained from voting the bill still would have passed...

All questions are to be decided on the Senate floor by simple majority vote unless a constitutional provision or Senate rule or precedent provides otherwise. A simple majority vote is defined as at least 50% plus one of the Senators voting, provided that a quorum is present.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26%2A2D4QLO9%0A

I DEFY you to show where the rules or Constitution say that a bill MUST have a majority of ALL SEATS rather than just a majority of VOTES CAST for passage... It truly is incredible what little accurate and factual knowledge some of the most die-hard "Constitutionalists" have about these things...

Note that the Southern Democrats voted 95% AGAINST the bill.

And note that 100% of Southern Repubs in BOTH the House and the Senate voted against...

OTOH 81% of the Republicans voted FOR the bill. The most opposition to the bill came from racist Southern Democrats.

That STILL doesn't translate into "the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act"... And, again, I will point out that the MAJORITY of Dems voted in favor... enough to pass it even if all Repubs were absent or abstained... The same CANNOT be said for the Senate Repubs as they didn't have enough members to even reach quorum... THEY couldn't have passed it without the Dems even if every swinging one voted in favour...

Perhaps it is less a case of apathy than an unwillingness to comprehend the process... and simply assume it works the way they imagine...
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 75
Why are the majority of Americans so apathetic in politics?
Posted: 4/11/2010 9:56:38 AM
The Civil Rights Act and all of it's predecessors were proposed by Democrats. The opposition to movement on civil rights since attempts to pass anti-lynching laws (!?!) in the 30's was spearheaded by Democrats.

Both parties have a mixed history on the issue. There are good, noble people who tried to do the right thing who were both Republicans and Democrats. But every attempt was filibustered by powerful Southern Democrats and every attempt at cloture was defeated by an alliance of Southern Democrats and Western Republicans. The Southern Democrats didn't have enough votes on their own to defeat cloture motions - Western Republicans joined with them every time the issue came up.

It's also worth noting that good, noble people like Di*ck Russell were on the wrong side on this issue. He was the most respected Senator in Washington and could always be counted on to read every bill and give a fair assessment of both sides to anyone who asked him. He ended MacArthur mania by showing the man's ignorance of broad issues; he counselled patience in dealing with McCarthy, knowing he would implode. He was a great Senator in many, many ways, but he was also the general in charge of the opposition to any movement on Civil Rights. As a metaphor for America, he stands as a good example of the mixed history of the nation on this issue. Good and bad embodied in one man.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >