Do you think President Obama and the other top D leaders know we are upset?

[LiberalLoner]

I just wonder if they "hear" us at all or if they are completely insulated. What do you all think, please?

I am actually kind of surprised at the...I would call it almost an explosion of frustration, maybe...expressed here and I'm sure in other places. I'm seeing some of that on MSNBC too, with some of the caucus leaders.

I know this is just idle wondering on my part, but I do wonder if President Obama is aware of the frustration out there about this.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Yes

[ananda]

2. Yes, but they obviously don't think we matter.

nt

[YvonneCa]

59. Some of them...

...do:

http://current.com/shows/countdown/

[LiberalLoner]

6. Thank you. I probably should have posted this as a poll, that would have been better I think. I

guess partly I'm also trying to gauge if my fellow DU'ers feel they are being heard by the top leadership. I'm curious about that too.

[peace frog]

15. but they don't care what we think of them

A good callous for a Dem politician to develop. Teabaggers, as sociopaths, come by it naturally.

[YvonneCa]

57. I agree. If not, Al Gore and...

...KO just made it louder:

http://current.com/shows/countdown/

[Horse with no Name]

3. Better question is do they CARE? I think they know and I think they don't care.

They got theirs. Their rich benefactors have theirs...we don't matter.

[ewagner]

13. Agree

They are pretty convinced we have "nowhere else to go"....we won't vote for a repub or a teanderthal so we're left with what the "party" gives us.....Reid, Hoyer and Obama....(Pelosi will fight like hell if they take her off the leash!!!)

[LiberalEsto]

16. "teanderthal"

love it!

:rofl:

[LiberalLoner]

19. Me too! :) n/t

[DainBramaged]

33. teanderthal, credit to you for a great moniker for those thugs

[ewagner]

102. can't claim it...

picked it up here on DU!

[treestar]

42. Who are you including in "they" most of the middle class?

Who do you define as "the rich?"

This thread is pathetic! As though the Presidency is some sort of Daddy and we are tearful that Daddy doesn't care about us. Or a husband or some such thing.

We are adults and we don't worry about what the WH cares about us personally! We look at the overall political situation.

[LiberalLoner]

46. What it comes down to for me is this: Does the political system respond to our needs and

wishes or only the needs and wishes of corporations and billionaires? Is the system broke? Can we fix it, if it is currently broke?

And...how many people here currently feel it's broke?

[treestar]

67. Of course it responds to our needs and wishes!

It can only do so in terms of voting majorities! Each of us controls our own vote but can't expect ourselves to be "cared about" or our political position to be "cared about" especially when they know that it is one of many. We see tea partiers fooling people.

What wishes of billionaires? There would be no tax other than sales taxes if they were so cared about so much more than their individual votes (they often whine they are few in number, so they can't get what they want! And why they claim to be the "job creators" in order to get ordinary people to vote their way).

We can't sit here and cry the President does not care about us! And he probably does! We need to help support progressive candidates, not wait for the President to do it. The President isn't there to do it all. Just run the executive branch as well as possible and decide what to veto. People put this obsessional, emotional complex onto him.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. Of course it doesn't respond to the needs and wishes

of the people. Yes the system, political and economic, is broken and won't EVER be put back to being responsive to the people. If it ever WAS truly responsive to the people. What's happening now is that they don't even PRETEND that it's a responsive system anymore.

[LiberalLoner]

76. I just keep thinking, if over 80% of the people want taxes raised on the rich instead

of entitlement "reform" and still the politicians don't do that....is the will of the people really being done?

[loyalsister]

89. Poll sampling does not translate into actual votes

Poll sampling is not a demand. It is a cluster of responses using a methodology that is less than reliable.
Politicians know how flawed they are. The fact that the media treats them as fact doesn't make it so. It only serves to further entrench opinions and create more of the conflict that drives 24\7 cable news.

Forming lobby groups that are civil and knowledgeable with actual evidence is a step toward actual influence. You can't go in quoting polls and expect to be taken seriously.

[LiberalLoner]

90. Thank you! Didn't think about that. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

70. Yep that's my take. They know, but don't give a damn

nm

[Dappleganger]

81. Exactly, they don't give a shit as long as they "win".

[MissDeeds]

103. Yep

It was probably the plan all along.

[emilyg]

109. +1

[Upton]

4. Yeah, but they don't care..

they figure we have nowhere else to go and will just bend over and take it..

[kenny blankenship]

5. To notice, first he would have to give a shit.

No evidence for that.

[gratuitous]

7. I suppose they are aware of it

Do they care about the dissatisfaction? I don't think so. We're not even granted the dubious courtesy of acknowledgement from our wise and wonderful leaders. It's very similar to another situation I could describe, and equally as frustrating.

[William769]

8. Do you think they care how alot of us feel?

I don't.

[atreides1]

9. Wrong question

Instead we should be asking if President Obama and top Democratic leaders, care that we are upset?

I believe that they are very aware of our frustration, but I don't think it factors into their thinking.

[NightWatcher]

10. They don't care. What are you going to do, email them?

It will take one of their staffers all of 2 seconds to delete their emails and clear the voicemails.

[YvonneCa]

60. Try...

...this:

http://current.com/shows/countdown/

[avaistheone1]

11. We don't matter to this president.

Only corporate interests matter to him.

[Whisp]

30. crapola

I suppose you are thinking of how Obama's presidential campaign funds 'all came from corporations' which makes him a 'corporate whore'.

which is a clear out fucking lie. If you don't know that is a falsehood spread around by people who have no clue that if Joe the Janitor happens to work for AIG, and Joe donated to Obama, he is listed as being an EMPLOYEE of AIG, not like some like to think that every AIG donation is from the top scum layer of CEOs as bribes.

[avaistheone1]

45. That's what I think of this President.

CRAPOLA! Funny how it was "the janitors" from the big Wall Street firms and banks that were Obama's largest contributors - just like they were for George W. Bush. :wow:


Should I thank the janitors for this splendid debt deal too?
:rofl:

[Whisp]

69. I know you are having a great time with this,

thus all your laughing and rolling.

givlusupiofopy

[Lorien]

52. He is indeed a corporate whore. He'll help them privatize damn near everything

though you'll keep denying it and pretend that he's a helpless victim of RW baddies while calling him the greatest President ever as it happens. Denial can lead to very dire consequences.

[TBF]

12. Knows and doesn't give a crap - cares only enough to get the votes he needs for reelection. nt

[LiberalLoner]

18. Well, I really am wondering at this point about his reelection chances. Aren't you guys, too?

Maybe I'm not even supposed to say this on DU, but I am hoping for a primary from someone to the left of President Obama. Is it okay to hope for something like that, here?

What I fear though is violence. And I think that if this situation continues down this road we will see it, or rather see more of it I should say.

[TBF]

31. Are you kidding?

I am hoping we overthrow capitalism at some point. For the short term I would take a primary challenge. Actually, what I'd like even better is Bernie running as an Independent. People are pissed and if the election were today he'd win.

[LiberalLoner]

43. Me too. n/t

[dawg]

34. I think a Romney or Hunstman would be hard for us to beat.

Low-information voters tend to vote for change whenever they feel things are not going well. Things *aren't* going well, and I don't think it bodes well for the President's re-election. The spending cuts will be a further drag on the economy, and the Republicans know this.

The best hope is that the Republicans nominate someone like Bachman, Palin, or perhaps Perry. I think an extreme tea-party style Republican would send independents scurrying back to the President.

As for the primaries, I don't see it happening, although I do believe it would be good for the party. People like us would feel a lot better voting for the President in November, if we felt like we had been given a chance to make our voices heard in the primaries.

[LiberalLoner]

49. I agree. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Yep. But, that works both ways. See LBJ for what happens then.

[LiberalLoner]

14. Wow. Well, like Olbermann said, time for action. Time to do our best to

elect more progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders and Kucinich. But the powers arrayed against us are so strong at this point, I worry about the outcome. Money talks awfully loudly, doesn't it? Seems to drown out our voices every time from what I can see.

[loyalsister]

104. So do voters

Money is a huge factor, but we shouldn't discount the geographical dynamics. I live in what is supposedly a swing state, and it only looks that way during national elections.

Rural voters have considerable power nationwide. Districts are drawn with geography and population in mind. There are a lot of districts that overrepresent conservative voters because scattered conservatives outnumber the more concentrated liberals.
Not all of the people who live in rural areas are conservative in all ways, but social issues play a significant role and many people vote against their interest. Once people identify with a particular party the can be extremely loyal. Thus, Rs. don't have to work too hard to get those votes.

A strategy I have seen is one where people who want to run for a state office have moved into districts in an effort to flip or maintain the partisan dynamic.
We really need to get together and adopt some of these strategies from the ground up.

[Inuca]

17. Yes n/t

[dawg]

20. They know.

They think we are fringe, have no place else to go, and are therefore far less important than the mythological centrist independents they are wooing.

They think they lost the 2010 elections because independents thought things were moving in too much of a liberal direction.

I disagree. I think it was the failure of the economy to quickly recover. That, and the fact that the Republicans seem to have an electoral advantage over us in mid-term elections. Heck, they would've probably won the White House in 2008, were it not for the fact that the Bush administration had so thoroughly screwed-up the economy it was hard for even low-information voters not to notice.

[LiberalLoner]

25. You know what I am also thinking...I am sure they have noticed that every time

there is a truly effective spokesman for the left, money pours in and they get defeated or brought down by scandal (hacking, anyone?).

I would think that would have a chilling effect on liberal politicians.

[dawg]

51. I've thought about that, too.

The Clinton, Spitzer, Weiner treatment.

Liberals have got to know that folks will be gunning for them. I just think its sad that so many of our brightest lights have provided conservatives with the openings with which to take them down.

[harun]

21. Yes, but I think they want that.

[mmonk]

22. My rep knows we are. He voted against the deal.

The leadership goes on the presumption we will fold behind them, that we are partisan at any cost or whatever position they take.

[jpak]

24. What upsets you the most?

:shrug:

[LiberalLoner]

27. I guess what upsets me most is that it's now been agreed, tax cuts and cuts to

entitlements are the way to fix this nation, when I feel the exact opposite is needed to prevent further suffering.

[jpak]

37. What entitlements were cut ? What taxes will increase in 2012?

First answer - none

Second answer - taxes on the rich

So again - what upsets you the most?

:shrug:

[LiberalLoner]

41. Well, I'm one of the ones who believe that cuts to Medicare providers will mean fewer

doctors accepting Medicare. And I believe the Bush tax cuts will not be allowed to expire. I know I could be wrong there, but that's what my beliefs are right now.

[jpak]

48. So you're True Believer

OK

[dawg]

65. What she believes is consistent with what we've seen so far.

All the Dems had to do to repeal the Bush tax cuts in 2010 was nothing. Precisely nothing. No cloture vote needed. No vote needed at all. Nothing.

But the nasty Republicans held middle-class taxpayers and the unemployed hostage for getting all the cuts extended.

And just what will keep them from doing this again?

[jpak]

78. It is not consistent with reality - NO entitlements were cut

NO Medicare benefits were slashed

and revisionist history fail

yup

[LiberalLoner]

80. No, no benefits were cut. Only payments to providers. Doctors work to get paid like all of us do.

[jpak]

84. No benefits were cut

thank you

[LiberalLoner]

85. Ever listen to people talk about how they can't find a doctor to help them because

there aren't nearly enough doctors accepting Medicaid?

That happened because Medicaid payments are low enough that doctors prefer other patients (better money.)

Reduce Medicare payments, the same thing happens to Medicare.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. While I doubt they care much I will also say that the ongoing

mechanism of the WH creates a bubble that is hard to see outside of. The world he lives in is designed to insulate, and only those who proactively work against that have any hope of remaining connected to their own history and to the people. This is true of some other jobs as well.

[RoccoR5955]

28. They know, but WTF do they care!

According to "them," we don't have any other place to go. What we ought to do, is to start organizing, not unlike the baggers. If we get real, honest to goodness LIBERALS to run for the House, we may stand a chance. Perhaps we might be better off dusting off the Green Party, and make part of their platform to not take corporate money.

[DainBramaged]

29. Nope as I've said before they don't give a shit about the Informed left

we are dog shit to them.

[treestar]

39. Then increase your numbers and relevance

Do you suppose that the majority should be ignored?

[Lost-in-FL]

63. Teahadists are showing that numbers don't matter.

What matters only is the "interests of those paying for reelection".

[treestar]

64. Teahadists had enough numbers to get elected

enough to influence the Republican majority in the House. So they matter somewhat. Progressives seem to prefer shooting selves in foot - primarying Democrats where Republicans would win, etc. Taking foolish chances and losing rather than making any progress.

[Lost-in-FL]

86. No. The President insists on reaching to the Teahadists and Republicans

which makes it seem as if the Teahadists have "the numbers". Please, don't blame progressives, just look at what the president has been doing since the beginning. I don't go as far as saying that Obama is an accomplice of the Republicans, but in his attempt at compromising he is tilting this country to the right.

[That Guy 888]

108. No. The teaparty asshats had deep pocket corporate backers and friendly media.

I remember seeing posts how Wisconsin protests had thousands show up while teapartiers were in the hundreds, and still the teaparty had more (and more favorable) press coverage. Same thing with Netroots Nation getting no press while a less than 100 person teaparty rally received national coverage.

The bluedogs were the dems who made the President's majorities in the House and Senate "in name only" they were unreliable and voted with republicans too often to be Democrats. Yet, somehow they are the ones we need, and only their concerns are addressed. Liberals are "retarded" (as per Rahm)to expect anything close to the power given the backstabbing bluedogs.

The goppers have had a decades-long game changing plan, which our party HAS NOT addressed at all. A key part of this plan is to cut off all funding for the Democratic Party. Tort "reform" was to target the income of personal injury trial lawyers, who contributed to the Democratic Party. Unions were branded as the reason for outsourcing to cheap labor, to denigrate them and cut there membership( which of course is necessary for driving down the cost of labor). What has our Democratic DLC leadership done to counter these moves?

The weakness displayed by DLC Democrats in refusing to fight for their constituents, there fellow members (Weiner, Gravel, etc.) or even their positions (apparently it's easier to pretend the goppers have a point instead of pointing out their propaganda and bumpersticker philoshpical shortcomings) has encouraged the goppers to even more naked power grabs (caging operations not prosecuted, phone jammers slapped on the wrist and allowed to continue working in politics,). All of which leads up to what can only be called stolen elections, from bush V. Gore to the South Carolina Democratic Primary for Senator.

In short teahadist don't have numbers, but pretending they do allows our DLC buddies to pretend that capitulation is courage.

[treestar]

113. I see just "weakness and refusing to fight" as a lazy meme

to not have to analyze the political situation. It would be like your trial lawyer getting you a large settlement, you insisting on going to trial, getting less from the jury, and then just accusing the lawyer of not "fighting" hard enough.

Fighting is not what politicians are supposed to do.

[MessiahRp]

120. LMAO! "Fighting is not what politicians are supposed to do."

Then why the fuck would you ever bother to run for office. You're supposed to be there to represent your constituents and FIGHT for their needs. I can just imagine what you think politicians ARE there to do. I suppose it's to get elected and then allow lobbyists to bid for their personal services (ie votes), right? That would explain why you defend Obama so hard on these boards.

[socialist_n_TN]

79. The majority is ALREADY being ignored

Where are the taxes on the rich? Where are the withdrawals from the wars? Where are no changes to SS and Medicare? ALL of these issues have overwhelming support among the people. Yet this New Silent Majority is being ignored by EVERYBODY in DC, Republicans to a person and also MOST Dems.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. No

I think they're caught in the Washington bubble, where information about "what the people think" flows from cocktail parties attended by Cokie Roberts, Moira Liason and the late David Broder, who dutifully tell/told us what we think and it's usually news to us.

[ahumanist]

35. Obama and the ‘Age of Auctoritas’

Classical Rome called it auctoritas. A statesman’s accumulation of prestige, respect and authority. Political power wielded by a senator or consul was directly proportional to his auctoritas. His sum, his essence ...

Mr. Obama must engage the enemy soon and beat him in the field or his auctoritas will have vanished along with whatever remains of the morale of his troops.

His political essence is fading away. His supporters no longer admire him and his enemies no longer fear him. The latter being as dangerous as the former is bitter ...
Article:
Obama and the ‘Age of Auctoritas’

[tnlefty]

83. Welcome ahumanist!

:hi:

[avaistheone1]

112. Welcome

Your historical reference frames Obama well.

[treestar]

36. They know all about who is upset and why

I mean for those who supposedly only care about re-election, I am sure it is a matter of much study and discussion.

and why is this remark not aimed at Boner and the House Republicans too?

To me there is an unhealthy obsession with the Presidency, which is sort of scary - some ideologue who is inspiring and wants all power could easily sway such people.

[Autumn]

38. Do you think President Obama and the other top D leaders

give a shit if we are upset? Cause I don't think they give a damn, Palin anyone? They know they have us by the balls.

[KittyWampus]

40. When are you ever NOT upset?

[LiberalLoner]

53. LOL you have a point. n/t

[Lorien]

54. When are you ever not defending the corporate takeover of America?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Yes. But, not enough to stop caving to the right.

[Lorien]

47. They have selective hearing. Obama "thanked" everyone for their comments prior to

the deal, misleading people into thinking that he was listening to us, but we're not the ones that he hears.

[EFerrari]

50. Of course they do. That's why Nancy went through the motions

of protesting this atrocity and talking about "the middle class" for 15 minutes.

[florida08]

55. yes they know

They know democrats in Congress are upset. Obama is an ideologue committed to triangulation politics so it's not purely emotional for him. It worked to get him elected. But he has mistakenly used it as a governing strategy in this economic climate. Especially when one side is outright attacking the other.

They are insulated to some degree but Obama reads and know what is being said about him.

[myrna minx]

56. Yes they know, but they don't care. n/t

[cordelia]

58. They know.

And could not possibly care less.

[OHdem10]

61. To them we are irrelevant. Obama, DLC Blue Dogs and

and Republicans showed us last night. They can do
what they wish and they will.

[frazzled]

62. The question itself means you haven't been listening

During at least 4 press conferences over the past month, when the WH was trying to get the Republicans to accede to concessions on their side, the president said, "we've had to make painful concessions on our side, and they are ones that are making the people who elected us mad." He totally acknowledged our anger, and asked the other side to have the courage to anger their side as well with respect to revenues. It was the only way to avoid default. But they were willing to go over the edge. It was pretty much a hostage situation.

I'm hugely disappointed. But this final agreement doesn't seem to me any worse than any other agreement that's been talked about over the last few months, including the Reid bill that was shot down immediately. Why is everyone acting so surprised now, after months of discussion over equally painful solutions. It's not like they didn't all suck.

But back to the original question: if you don't listen to President Obama and the top D leaders, why do you complain about them not listening to you? (even though they have.)

[phleshdef]

66. The truth is. He and most of them are probably upset as well.

This BS conspiratorial nonsense that Obama is a stealth Republican that is getting exactly what he wants, is just that, conspiratorial nonsense. It sucks to have to deal with a lot of unnecessary bullshit and then still get blasted whenever you pull off the most legislatively feasible course of action to end it.

Its all just so friggin silly. America voted in 2010 to send a bunch of liberal-hating hotheads in to control Congress then they get mad at Obama over the consequences of having done so.

[divvy]

71. Did you bump your head?

Obama started selling us down the river as soon as he took office and not a day before.

[phleshdef]

82. Blah, blah. Same broken record bunch of dog shit thats stuck on repeat around here.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you on that. It will just turn into another conversation where you ignore circumstances and attempt to minimize or belittle the good stuff.

I frankly don't give a shit.

[divvy]

115. The first error in judgement was no war crimes investigation

Did the republicans give us a pass for Obama's generosity? Uh, no. Try to remember all those "bi-partisan" talks on health care reform. That really worked well didn't it? All it did was give the republicans the opportunity to organize their resistance around the issue.

In retrospect .... a very nice 8-dimensional chess maneuver. No?

[divvy]

68. Do YOU think they give a shit?

just curious.

I think they do not. Oh, they say, the dirty unwashed will always vote for us because we are better than the alternative.

[LiberalLoner]

75. I don't know. I'm afraid of the future. I don't feel very strong and brave anymore. I

was in the hospital 4 months ago with Guillain Barre Syndrome. Still not 100% recovered from that. Was in the hospital six weeks ago having a total abdominal hysterectomy/ovary removal done. Still not fully recovered from that.

I don't feel physically or mentally strong right now. I don't feel up to facing a future I fear will be very bad for me, for all of us.

I don't know.

[tnlefty]

95. I hope that you're recovered and feeling stronger soon!

I'm convinced that they don't give a flying fiddler's damn.:hi:

[LiberalLoner]

98. Thank you so much! But I know I will never be what I was at twenty, which is not

surprising, LOL. If there is to be a revolution, those stronger, braver and probably younger than me, will have to lead the way.

[divvy]

116. Unfortunately, someone in a similar position will become our "plumber joe"

I hope you feel better. I really do. Let the republican bastard get sick and suffer under the weight of their own stupidity.

[chill_wind]

72. The huge FU disdain for any need for an enthusiastic base

has been openly expressed over and over, just as it was again two days ago in the NYT:

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. “Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they’re absolutely certain of — they’re going to hate these Republican candidates,” Mr. Mellman said. “So I’m not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”

"Who ya gonna vote for, President Bachman? Ha hah hah!!"

So no, it's not insulation. It's complete, hard-resolved indifference.

Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift
2011-07-31
JACKIE CALMES The New York Times
http://m.post-gazette.com/news/us/rightward-tilt-leaves-obama-with-party-rift-1164270?p=1

Time will tell if the constant calculations to woo independents, while actually ignoring their TOP key economic issues, will pay off for them in 2012. It didn't in 2010.

[CanonRay]

74. Better question: Do they give a shit?

[LiberalLoner]

77. Just wanted to thank everyone for replying and having this discussion. I am

very interested in what each of you has to say about this.

I am just stunned and wonder what happens next.

[NorthCarolina]

87. They will use the MSM to promote the image that those displeased are part of the fringe. nt

[LiberalLoner]

88. Or people on message boards will post saying those of us upset are fringe and ridiculous...n/t

[NorthCarolina]

94. On the message boards at DU for sure. That's already happening in GD:P. No surprise there though.

:argh:

[LiberalLoner]

111. People who are upset at these posts - please just let us blow off some steam. I don't know

how we will vote, how we will feel in the future. But a lot of us feel the need to just vent some today. Please be patient with us.

[GreenArrow]

91. Of course they know.

But ask them if they give a fuck. They spray fart in our general direction.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. I have to go with other posters and state that they MAY know, and if they do, THEY DON'T CARE. n/t

[stranger81]

93. They know, and they don't give a damn.

They think they have their constituency over a barrel with no other options but to vote for them. Ergo, they no longer have any need to be responsive to our needs and desires.

The only voters this President is responsive to are those voters not already committed to his camp.

[Ferret Annica]

96. Obama does not give a damn about anyone but himself

I will not vote for him even in a hold my nose mode fearing the consequences of a Repug win.

I am a Green who would say where my vote will go, but the nanny-like mods here will censor me again if I do.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

97. Yes. But our voices are not important. We are not Wall St.,

big business lobbyists, wealthy people, or the Tea Party (ie: corporate party), so why the hell would they care what WE think?

They don't. If NOTHING else has become crystal clear after what just happened, that should be. NO MONEY = NO VOICE in our government. You can't afford it.

It's called taxation without representation. And - yes, it's unconstitutional.

[semillama]

99. I recommend following the White House twitter feed

The recent "Office Hours" sessions where you can tweet a question and possibly get it answered or addressed by a staffer is quite interesting. They pick from a wide spectrum of questions, even from obvious tea party folks.

[LiberalLoner]

101. Thank you, I will look at that! n/t

[semillama]

121. I think this is the hastag:

#WHChat

[Fearless]

100. Undoubtedly we will be chastised at a later date... their version of being called unAmerican.

:nuke:

[Marr]

105. Oh, definitely. They brag about inspiring anger from the left as if it gives them credibility.

They know we're pissed. They don't care. They don't represent us.

[VeryConfused]

106. If there is gnashing of teeth and whining every other week

sort of hard to react to ever instance.

[Lost-in-FL]

110. Because there is no reasons to complaint whatsoever. nt

[grahamhgreen]

107. I would think having HALF YOUR OWN PARTY vote against you would make

some sort of impression.

He carried more R's than D's yesterday.
\
But, maybe that's what he wants.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raine]

117. They know but they DO NOT CARE nt

[dipsydoodle]

118. Know ?

Or care ?

[PufPuf23]

119. Yes but i do not think they give a fuck about our wishes nt.

[hifiguy]

122. They know. They just don't give a crap.

"Whattaya gonna do, vote for a teatalitarian that's even worse than us? Now shut up and eat your fucking peas, peasants" is clearly the attitued of this administration.