According to Wiki: Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real. Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, auditory hallucinations, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and inactivity. Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the person's reported experiences.
I don't think there is a better description of American voters than this definition here. Note, I did not say all Americans, just those who vote. When the Republicans were slaughtered in the Bush mid terms, (lost 6 senate and 30 house seats) I rambled here or elsewhere that Democrats would be making a huge mistake if they believed that they had just received a mandate for anything other than NOT BEING BUSH. Pretty much the entire country, including conservatives, were dissatisfied with Bush despite the fact they pretty much felt the same way two years prior and reelected him anyway. Voter turnout explains some of this, but as the definition above, IMO, tells the real story.
Obama is not popular and his 46% approval rating shows that. There is reason for all to find some dissatisfaction with him and that's fair enough. But here is where the unicorn and fairy stuff starts. American's largely have their heads up their ass when it comes to understanding how legislation comes about and they have their heads even further up their ass when it comes to realizing that their personal beliefs are not reflected by the party they frequently vote for. While 52% disapproved of Obama, 80% were unhappy with congress, yet, they gave them a majority in both houses even when polling suggested that quite a few senate races were actually close. Kansas may be one of the most Schizo states out there that has rewarded both an idiot governor who destroyed their finances with tax cuts and an equally clueless senator. It doesn't seem to me that we are really voting for performance here. At the least, seemingly not for performance that honestly makes a damn bit of difference in the life of the voter.
So while 80% of voters are displeased with congress, the doubled down to give Republicans and every bigger majority. In several states where a Republican senator or congressman won, there were also ballots to increase minimum wage, legalize pot and also decide if a fetus should have the rights of a born human being. Generally, voters responded one way toward the issues, and then elected a Republican anyway who clearly was opposite them on the issues. Democrats ran away from Obama at a time when things have improved substantially for Americans after a horrible economic meltdown, and Republicans have regained control of both houses for literally doing nothing. I realize, that some purists here believe that a broken government is best. Setting that aside, I remain baffled that 80% of voters could be displeased with congress but not displeased with the party that controls it.
Like the Republicans in 06, I'm sure we will see endless babble about what this means. Plenty will thump their chests that Republicans have a mandate to stop Obama from............ what i'm not sure. Stop him from not signing the legislation that was never presented to him? Life will go on, little will change. Reince punk ass is already proclaiming they will destroy Obama, Ted Cruz is already bringing up Benghazi and McConnell is trying to say they will work together. Life goes on for our schizophrenia.
Here in Florida we just had a race for Governor between two bad candidates. Neither one had an approval rating over 20%, but they were the only "major party" choices. Scott, the Republican won with less than 50% of the vote. You see, the problem is, most of our candidates have very low approval ratings (for Congress it is around 10%, maybe lower) but, we feel like we must vote or be disenfranchised. Maybe the whole system is schitzoid.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the definition above, the system is schitzoid to me in that so many people are willing to completely embrace fantasy when they vote.
DeleteS&P up 145% during this administration. 4 million plus jobs added. Gun sales are throbbing and no FEDERAL restrictions have been implemented. Millions have gained access to insurance. (http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obamas-numbers-july-2014-update/) There has been little progress on things that are important to me, including reducing our debt, but structurally, the country is much stronger in shit that matters to everyday people.
In terms of governance, Obama has taken fewer vacation days than Bush did, he's issued about 100 FEWER executive orders to date, and he's used fewer recess appointments than his predecessor did. Under Boehnor, this congress has been the least productive in history and literally ran away from Washington before the elections in order to not have to make a statement on anything. And of course, there is the number of filibusters that have occurred to back up McConnells pledge to make Obama a one term president.
I feel totally disenfranchised for the simple fact I see poll after poll of what American's say they want that completely contradicts the way they vote. I personally don't give a shit where some politician goes to church, who they've slept with, or what they've done prior to running for office. What I do want is a willingness to govern coupled with a belief that compromise is not a crime.
The likely hood of Mc Connell working with Obama is as likely as Obama working with Boehner.
DeleteLOL
The interesting thing is in most issues concerning raising taxes went down in flames yet we retain The Hick for governor who proposed 1 billion in tax increases 2 years ago.
Oh the irony.
Max has written well and has put onto paper a problem not often mentioned. Voter disapproval and apathy translated into Pavlovian reactions at the ballot box. It is a bit like saying "a pox on both their houses" then spending the intervening time until the next election bitching at what the government is or is not doing.
DeleteCompulsory voting is not the answer to this particular problem but I believe political engagement at a much earlier age may sow the seeds of interest and involvement in adult life. I have spoken to Americans here in Aust and they display an almost total ignorance of your political history. They all know of Washington and Jefferson and occasionally someone can dredge Adams from the recess of his/her mind. Ask about French influence on the revolution, the Louisiana Purchase and Munroe or even the Presidency of Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) and there is a deathly silence.
On the other hand there is almost universal recall of events of the civil war, not the political events but the military skirmishes and battles which so decimated the youth of your country. Perhaps it was here that the American belief in direct action by force of arms if necessary was born. As a sympathizer to the Republican ethos I should be pleased at the result of this weeks election; sadly however I am becoming too cynical and I can see nothing but problems for your nation in the years ahead. We have weasel words from Pres.O and the new Leader in the Hill where he surveys total domination by his party. Will the Repubs now try to roll back Obamacare and will some of the more extreme Repubs bring on an impeachment agenda?
Perhaps what you need is another Tip O’Neil or a moderate leader who could put country before party, but that I am afraid is a pipe dream. What now of the decision HRC has to make quite soon, will she be gun shy given yesterdays results? Two major battles leading to a possible second defeat may be a step too far for such a lady. In conclusion, does anyone have a contribution as to the changes, if any, likely in the latest enquiry over the Benghazi affair? Seems to me there is a bit more political mileage available to the Repubs in this affair. Mileage unfortunately is not government and I think this may be the only aim of the enquiry.
There you go,
Cheers friends from Aussie.
Will there be an effort to repeal the ACA, most certainly.
DeleteWill it go anywhere, certainly not.
Is there room for compromise, absolutely, can we get there, No way.
The lines are drawn and have been by O when he marginalized the republican party in 2009. Should it be that way? No it shouldn't but we are talking about people with ego's.
A Tip O'Neil would be great however you must have a Reagan to compromise with as there is no compromise from Obama. My way or the highway reigns supreme. Read his speech and you understand his are but words for the press, actions will not match the words.
Could Obama be impeached? Yes as there are grounds. It will never happen as the impact from citizens would never allow it to go forwards.
An even bigger point King, is that there is a plain dissatisfaction for most everything in this country. One thing I have never really disagreed with conservatives about is the concept that if you are perpetually given a lot of benefits for little work, you are disincentivized to work hard and you eventually come to believe you deserve even more than you already have. Strangely, however, conservatives in this country seems to believe this can only happen to those on welfare while I, on the other hand, believe it happens to everyone at every station in life, including the ultra wealthy who have received enormous gain from government policy that has directly punished those economically beneath them.
DeleteDespite the wealth this country possesses, it does not seem that many are happy. No matter what station an individual is in life, the perception seems to be that they deserve more. This country has been extremely blessed and rather than inspiring more hard work and gratitude, it has inspired a sense of entitlement. Would understanding history better really change this? I don't know but I'm inclined to believe it would not. In my opinion, there are two major themes in the select piece of our history that you mention. One theme is the philosophical, creator endowed stuff, and the other theme is the brutally simple theme our founding fathers did not like kissing the ass of some joker wearing a crown.
My mother, who has sadly become the epitome a screeching conservative can never name a single thing that Obama has done that has negatively impacted her. Further, she seldom cannot even correctly trace a particular action to Obama. Nonetheless, she believes he has somehow destroyed America. For what it's worth, she doesn't know a damn bit about the history you remind us of. Coincidence? As for your questions, about what the Republicans will do, I think they will basically keep doing what they have done, which is nothing.
Respectfully Lou, I remain baffled by the belief that Obama somehow marginalized the Republican party and that he is so divisive. The Republican party was bounced by the voters and when Obama subsequently passes bills that all Republicans hate, (just as Bush did the opposite), suddenly Obama is the most divisive man ever to become POTUS. So I guess that even when the electorate tells a party to take a hike, they still deserve a 100% equal part in shaping legislation?
ReplyDeleteSo I take it that when a party like the democrats are in the minority as they are to day they should sit in the back of the bus and just keep quiet.
DeleteIs that what this country has come to?
Divisive? Corporate jet owners, the GOP, Bankers, Big oil, Pharma, the insurance industry, anyone who disagrees with him. That's the way we want to run this country?
Every single group on your list there has received enormous subsidies from the government. Banker, big oil, pharma and the insurance industry have done fabulously under the Obama administration. And again, it was the voters who marginalized the GOP by giving the Democrats all three houses. I don't know Lou, if you can show me how any of those groups have been TRULY harmed by Obama, I'd be interested to hear about it.
DeleteHere is what I believe legislating should look like. Basically, the legislation should reflect the makeup of the houses. At a near 2:1 majority in the congress, I don't expect Boehnor to look for support from Democrats. That said, it bothers me that Boehnor is adhering to the Hastert Rule that stipulates you cannot pass a bill unless it can pass solely on votes from one party. There have been several bills that would not pass with a Republican majority but that likely would have passed with bipartisan support and Boehnor did not let those bills go through because he was afraid of his problem child Tea Party caucus.
In the Senate, which isn't affected by gerrymandering, it's much closer to 50-50 and I think the senate leader and minority leader should just let the votes happen and let the Senators figure out compromise for themselves. McAsshole has refused to let this happen, and he has done so far in excess of what Reid ever did. If Reid now returns the favor, I'm not gonna cry for McAsshole, despite the fact I think it's wrong.
As for the White House, Obama was elected twice and just like Bush, he has the right to veto what he doesn't agree with, especially when it does not reflect what he believes is a majority view of the country. The congress is a very partisan body comprised of members who have very narrow interests for their district. The Senate has a bit wider view, and the POTUS should be focused on nothing BUT the entire country. If Obama vetos blatantly partisan legislation and both the other houses can override that, I have no problem with accepting that the override is the will of the people
So because they have received subsidies, that allows the government to demonize them?
DeleteIf the government doesn't want to give breaks to a specific industry isn't the normal way to change the LAW? But that would require bipartisanship which is nothing but a word today. It isn't about being harmed, it's about divisive government. How does the American people react when O touts those damn corporate jet owners?
As to Boehner, is that any different from how Harry Reid was running the Senate? Not allowing bills that he or the president disagrees with not to hit the floor?
Remember the Senate is a state wide election by popular vote. The House was designed to represent all the people. Less populated places have a voice in government as was intended. The needs of people in the cities are far different from the farm area, the country area and smaller cities and villages. the Senate is dominated by the city vote unless something happens as did in the last election.
Last time I checked, the president was elected by the people to represent the people. Not just what he wants. It's pretty clear the people didn't want the ACA yet they pushed it through, to bad. This is what our government has become, a place for personal agenda's. That's both sides of the isle. What's different between the Reagan administration, Clinton administration and the Obama administration. Compromise. It's been done in the past and isn't done today. Someone has to start. With Clinton he reached across the isle and crafted legislation acceptable to all. Where's the reach today? What I heard is if Congress does not give me what I want, I will use executive orders. That's great for 2 years. the day after they can become null and void.
On important issues isn't it the responsibility of our government provide solutions? Immigration is the perfect example. The R's say, ok security first. Obama says bite me, amnesty or I will issue it via executive order. And you wonder what's wrong with conservatives.
Those same groups have been demonized by plenty of people. No different than the endless demonizing of the poor who allegedly eat steak and lobster five times a week on food stamps.
DeleteI'm done with this, it's a waste of time. Hope you are enjoying fall.
That's one way to end the conversation.
DeleteWe are convinced of opposite premises here. There is no presentation I could make that would change your mind on this, and there is nothing you could show me that would make me believe that in today's political environment, Obama is a ruthless and divisive monster. You asked about the difference in all the other presidents and neglected to say that the entire country was different. Today, as you can see from posts by people like William here, compromise is NOT expected let alone accepted. So, you and I going round and round on a point where neither can be swayed doesn't seem productive. Sometimes I think people should be able to just agree to disagree and move on to things they do agree on.
DeleteIt's pretty simple Max.
DeleteDe-fund Obamacare.
Cut the balls from Dodd Frank.
Neuter the IRA (De-fund)
Neuter the EPA (De-fund)
Impeach Obama.
A pretty simple two years work.
Not with Lou Max not with Lou. he talks of Obama and my way or the highway and he knows what he talks of because he practices it. Otherwise he name calls gets mad throws a fit quits posting except anonymously. It's you have to agree with me or you are and idiot attitude that he packs around.
DeleteBeen a bit busy Rick. Work and all and it's out of state. But you believe what you want. Want a few photo's? I'll send you a few.
DeleteSorry you believe I post as Anonymous as you like in so many thing are wrong.
My way or the highway?
DeletePresident Obama repeated Sunday that he intends to change U.S. immigration law through executive action, over Republican leaders’ repeated requests to wait and dire warnings about the consequences of sidestepping Congress.
ReplyDeleteOctober 21, 2014 Poll Finding
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2014
In the final Kaiser Health Tracking Poll before the 2014 midterm elections in November, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) continues to be just one of several issues on voters’ minds. Less than 1 in 10 registered voters identify the ACA as the most important issue to their vote, ranking behind the economy, dissatisfaction with government, education and the situation in Iraq and Syria. With the ACA’s second open enrollment period approaching, the poll also finds the uninsured are not yet tuned in. About 9 in 10 of the uninsured are unaware of when the next open enrollment period begins, two thirds say they know “only a little” or “nothing at all” about the marketplaces, and just over half are unaware of financial assistance available.
The supremes have decided to take up a case regarding the federal subsidy and this has potential to shred the whole thing. Republicans have vowed from day to never support the ACA and have worked tirelessly to undue it and if they can do it now after taking the senate back, I'm sure that in their empty heads it will be almost like erasing the entire presidency of Barack Obama.
DeleteIt was a very poorly written law. It's a matter of time until it resides in the dust bin of history. Just like Obama's experimental term.
DeleteFads have a way of ending up that way.
As Roberts gave O a pass the first time around, I would not be surprised to see him do it again. If he can rename a fee a tax and pass it he can certainly say it was the intent of the law.
DeleteAn interesting decision, is intent the same as written?
As you can clearly tell I could give a rats ass about the ACA. It either lives or dies and isn't worth the time trying to demonize or defend it.
DeleteJust get it over with and defund it. The House should just get it over with as the first order of business in January followed by the Senate directly thereafter.
DeleteThousands of pages of lawyer bullshit.
Nancy Pelosi ' s plastic surgeon "intended" for her to look 25. How did that work out?
Once you establish an entitlement program, people begin to receive FREE, it's not so easy to just end it.
DeleteThe people paying the bill are happy, the people getting free, not so much.