Aa
It's a 50-50 nation, give or take
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/new_with_new_subject?forum_id=621
Nov 7, 11:05 AM (ET)
By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - The election laid bare a dual - and dueling - nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half of the people nearly all of the time.
Americans retained the fractious balance of power in re-electing President Barack Obama, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, altogether serving as guarantors of the gridlock that voters say they despise. Slender percentages separated winner and loser from battleground to battleground, and people in exit polls said yea and nay in roughly equal measure to some of the big issues of the day.
Democracy doesn't care if you win big, only that you win. Tuesday was a day of decision as firmly as if Obama had run away with the race. Democrats are ebullient and, after a campaign notable for its raw smackdowns, words of conciliation and healing are coming from leaders on both sides, starting with the plea from defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney that his crestfallen supporters pray for the president.
But after the most ideologically polarized election in years, Obama's assertion Wednesday morning that America is "more than a collection of red states and blue states" was more of an aspiration than a snapshot of where the country stands.
Compromise was a popular notion in the hours after Obama's victory and an unavoidable one, given the reality of divided government. But the familiar contours of partisan Washington were also in evidence, especially the notion that compromise means you do things my way.
As Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York put it, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election showed "if you are an extremist tea party Republican, you are going to lose."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was grudging in interpreting the election as any kind of mandate for Obama, saying voters "have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with Congress, and did not endorse his "failure or excesses."
In New York's bustling Times Square, hope, skepticism and familiar polarities were all to be found when people talked about the president. "He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," said Jerry Shul. "I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."
A less-flattering George Dallemand called this "a moment of truth" for the country. "I guess we have to wish for the best now, but I still think he is socialism."
In Miami, Karen Fitzgerald, 55, wore a black dress and said she was in mourning over Romney's defeat.
"It's an upsetting day," she said. But she took some comfort from her Democratic friends on Facebook, who have stopped chiding the other side in their posts. "Now they're all saying we need to work together and be united," she said. "Maybe we can."
In Chicago, Obama supporter Scherita Parrish, 56, predicted the president will reach out to Republicans but may not get much back.
"But the people have spoken," she said. "They need to lick their wounds, get on with it and start working with the president."
Indeed, unity is a challenge not just for Obama but for the Republicans, who won less than 30 percent of the growing Hispanic vote and not even one in 10 black voters. Obama built a strong Electoral College majority, if only a narrow advantage in the popular vote, despite losing every age group of non-Hispanic white voters.
Surveys of voters found Obama's health care law to be as divisive as ever, with just under 50 percent wanting it repealed in whole or part, and 44 percent liking it as is or wanting more of it.
But democracy doesn't care about exit polls, either, and the election almost certainly means Republicans can forget about trying to roll it back now.
In reaffirming divided government, though, Americans all but ensured colossal fights are ahead over the shape of government and Obama's agenda. He is out to break a wall of Republican opposition to tax increases on the wealthy - a move that about half the voters in exit polls thought was a good idea. And extraordinarily difficult negotiations are imminent as the president and Congress try to make a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - steep spending cuts and a variety of tax increases in January.
In the end, voters split about equally on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
Then again, they were divided down the middle on whether Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves most of the blame for the economy's problems.
So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.
---
Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami, Michael Tarm in Chicago and David Martin in New York contributed to this report.
Nov 7, 11:05 AM (ET)
By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - The election laid bare a dual - and dueling - nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half of the people nearly all of the time.
Americans retained the fractious balance of power in re-electing President Barack Obama, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, altogether serving as guarantors of the gridlock that voters say they despise. Slender percentages separated winner and loser from battleground to battleground, and people in exit polls said yea and nay in roughly equal measure to some of the big issues of the day.
Democracy doesn't care if you win big, only that you win. Tuesday was a day of decision as firmly as if Obama had run away with the race. Democrats are ebullient and, after a campaign notable for its raw smackdowns, words of conciliation and healing are coming from leaders on both sides, starting with the plea from defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney that his crestfallen supporters pray for the president.
But after the most ideologically polarized election in years, Obama's assertion Wednesday morning that America is "more than a collection of red states and blue states" was more of an aspiration than a snapshot of where the country stands.
Compromise was a popular notion in the hours after Obama's victory and an unavoidable one, given the reality of divided government. But the familiar contours of partisan Washington were also in evidence, especially the notion that compromise means you do things my way.
As Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York put it, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election showed "if you are an extremist tea party Republican, you are going to lose."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was grudging in interpreting the election as any kind of mandate for Obama, saying voters "have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with Congress, and did not endorse his "failure or excesses."
In New York's bustling Times Square, hope, skepticism and familiar polarities were all to be found when people talked about the president. "He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," said Jerry Shul. "I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."
A less-flattering George Dallemand called this "a moment of truth" for the country. "I guess we have to wish for the best now, but I still think he is socialism."
In Miami, Karen Fitzgerald, 55, wore a black dress and said she was in mourning over Romney's defeat.
"It's an upsetting day," she said. But she took some comfort from her Democratic friends on Facebook, who have stopped chiding the other side in their posts. "Now they're all saying we need to work together and be united," she said. "Maybe we can."
In Chicago, Obama supporter Scherita Parrish, 56, predicted the president will reach out to Republicans but may not get much back.
"But the people have spoken," she said. "They need to lick their wounds, get on with it and start working with the president."
Indeed, unity is a challenge not just for Obama but for the Republicans, who won less than 30 percent of the growing Hispanic vote and not even one in 10 black voters. Obama built a strong Electoral College majority, if only a narrow advantage in the popular vote, despite losing every age group of non-Hispanic white voters.
Surveys of voters found Obama's health care law to be as divisive as ever, with just under 50 percent wanting it repealed in whole or part, and 44 percent liking it as is or wanting more of it.
But democracy doesn't care about exit polls, either, and the election almost certainly means Republicans can forget about trying to roll it back now.
In reaffirming divided government, though, Americans all but ensured colossal fights are ahead over the shape of government and Obama's agenda. He is out to break a wall of Republican opposition to tax increases on the wealthy - a move that about half the voters in exit polls thought was a good idea. And extraordinarily difficult negotiations are imminent as the president and Congress try to make a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - steep spending cuts and a variety of tax increases in January.
In the end, voters split about equally on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
Then again, they were divided down the middle on whether Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves most of the blame for the economy's problems.
So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.
---
Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami, Michael Tarm in Chicago and David Martin in New York contributed to this report.
Hey, good news. They go up for EVERYONE in January!
Well good, Im glad your not staying away. And in the same vein of this conversation, read this link. Says it all I think.
President Obama's Quick Pivot From Campaigning to Governing
Nearly half of voters (47 percent) said Tuesday they thought income tax rates on those making more than $250,000 a year should go
up. Another 13 percent said rates for all Americans should be increased,
while 35 percent said taxes should not be raised on anyone.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/the-presidents-quick-pivot-from-campaigning-to-governing.html
President Obama's Quick Pivot From Campaigning to Governing
Nearly half of voters (47 percent) said Tuesday they thought income tax rates on those making more than $250,000 a year should go
up. Another 13 percent said rates for all Americans should be increased,
while 35 percent said taxes should not be raised on anyone.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/the-presidents-quick-pivot-from-campaigning-to-governing.html
Who am I kidding!..I CANNOT stay away.....Mock on, say I'm naive, tell me I'm blind I don't care..I support the President and I will continue to express that in his defense if I feel like I have to defend his policies...If you don't like it...TOO BAD! As long as I'm not personally offending or attacking anyone, my conscious is clear because I know I don't come on this forum and disrespect or mock people...
teko,
I agree about the two reasons that the repubs HAVE to work together...John Boehner actually has an opportunity here to do something BIG..He really doesn't owe anyone anything in his party anymore..Whether or not the reubs like it, they HAVE to know that a tax increase is a must also the dems HAVE to know that the entitlement programs do absolutely NEED reform..So EVERYONE including us (the president's supporters) are going to have to realize that we ALL have to compromise our principals a lil bit to get this country moving FORWARD!...
I agree, the President needs to take a firm bit reasonable stance. I believe he will. My biggest question is like you said, "will they?"..Speaker Boehner showed a glimpse of they will yesterday when he spoke and IMO, with the rupubs coming from 4 yrs ago and having a stance on making the president fail and instead they failed at their goal and the majority of the American people do NOT agree with them, I think speaker Boehner and the rest of the repubs in congress know there is a lot at stake...We'll see. I'm a little more worried about Mitch and the tea party in congress. We'll see how they deal with all of this when they start talking about the "fiscal cliff"...
teko,
I agree about the two reasons that the repubs HAVE to work together...John Boehner actually has an opportunity here to do something BIG..He really doesn't owe anyone anything in his party anymore..Whether or not the reubs like it, they HAVE to know that a tax increase is a must also the dems HAVE to know that the entitlement programs do absolutely NEED reform..So EVERYONE including us (the president's supporters) are going to have to realize that we ALL have to compromise our principals a lil bit to get this country moving FORWARD!...
I agree, the President needs to take a firm bit reasonable stance. I believe he will. My biggest question is like you said, "will they?"..Speaker Boehner showed a glimpse of they will yesterday when he spoke and IMO, with the rupubs coming from 4 yrs ago and having a stance on making the president fail and instead they failed at their goal and the majority of the American people do NOT agree with them, I think speaker Boehner and the rest of the repubs in congress know there is a lot at stake...We'll see. I'm a little more worried about Mitch and the tea party in congress. We'll see how they deal with all of this when they start talking about the "fiscal cliff"...
Well Mrs. P, I do agree with you as far as Obamas policies. I think the media has gone a long way in treading the party line and as such people are not aware of what the healthcare entails, frankly it either has not been covered or has been used as a political football. Obama actually wanted universal health care and what we ended up with is mostly Republican ideas. But how do people KNOW that if they are not given the straight of it all.
Rivil the healthcare that is coming is not universal. It will work the same as it does now with the exception that more exchanges will be set up to choose from and all will be required to carry it and you will no longer have to depend on an employer to cover you which I think is a good thing. You can keep what you have if you like but what this is intended to do is make it possible for more people to get coverage. In my own situation, having pre existing conditions and insurance companies refusing to cover me because of them, this is hope for people like me and my husband. Its funny, we are not low income at all, (those people have options), unlike myself so I look at it as a good thing.
My concern about the parties working together is optomistic because Obama is no longer going to run again (knocks that excuse of making him a one termer), and we have midterms in two years when lots of these people will come up for re election and if the two parties are not working on our behalf, we will vote them out! Two reasons for the parties to work together imo.
My concern is that all or most of the republicans in office have signed a tax pledge and I do not see them coming off of it so I am left to wonder how that is going to work when the president ran on raising taxes, which means ending the bush tax cuts for starters. So right off the bat I see gridlock once again.
The majority has spoken and agree that we need spending cuts as well as increased revenue. Now lets see if that message got thru or not?
One good thing is more dems came to the senate and maybe will have enuff votes to kill a filibuster which is what was used every time someone wanted to kill any chance of bipartisanship. It only takes one person to stall the process altogether
That is and has been my stance all along. Mrs. P I think that has been yours as well along with several other non republicans on this forum.
No one is changing their minds just because they won or lost the ballgame. What it does do is send the president back to the drawing board with capitol from his win. As george bush once said, I have been given capitol and Im going to use it. Obama handled it much differently (altho I kinda wish he had taken the same stance of Bush), he said, he intends to reach across the isle and work in a more bipartisan way.
Will he? I believe he will. Will they? Like you, this pledge will probably get in the way, in fact I would bet on it. I hope not! But we will see.
The people have spoken.
Here in Florida they had 11 constitutional amendments put on the ballot by republicans. All but three of those failed. Dems were put in office across the nation. My take on this is that overall the people have tried to stop the gridlock.
Now we sit back and watch and hope that we can all take away something from the oncoming negotiations. But to think we are not going to have to hurt a little to get out of the mess we are in, is just naive imo.
I hope you wont leave, and I hope you let it slide off your back. Obama won, the people have spoken, and in the end that is the only bottom line. No opinions have been changed as a result. Mine either. So come back.
Rivil the healthcare that is coming is not universal. It will work the same as it does now with the exception that more exchanges will be set up to choose from and all will be required to carry it and you will no longer have to depend on an employer to cover you which I think is a good thing. You can keep what you have if you like but what this is intended to do is make it possible for more people to get coverage. In my own situation, having pre existing conditions and insurance companies refusing to cover me because of them, this is hope for people like me and my husband. Its funny, we are not low income at all, (those people have options), unlike myself so I look at it as a good thing.
My concern about the parties working together is optomistic because Obama is no longer going to run again (knocks that excuse of making him a one termer), and we have midterms in two years when lots of these people will come up for re election and if the two parties are not working on our behalf, we will vote them out! Two reasons for the parties to work together imo.
My concern is that all or most of the republicans in office have signed a tax pledge and I do not see them coming off of it so I am left to wonder how that is going to work when the president ran on raising taxes, which means ending the bush tax cuts for starters. So right off the bat I see gridlock once again.
The majority has spoken and agree that we need spending cuts as well as increased revenue. Now lets see if that message got thru or not?
One good thing is more dems came to the senate and maybe will have enuff votes to kill a filibuster which is what was used every time someone wanted to kill any chance of bipartisanship. It only takes one person to stall the process altogether
That is and has been my stance all along. Mrs. P I think that has been yours as well along with several other non republicans on this forum.
No one is changing their minds just because they won or lost the ballgame. What it does do is send the president back to the drawing board with capitol from his win. As george bush once said, I have been given capitol and Im going to use it. Obama handled it much differently (altho I kinda wish he had taken the same stance of Bush), he said, he intends to reach across the isle and work in a more bipartisan way.
Will he? I believe he will. Will they? Like you, this pledge will probably get in the way, in fact I would bet on it. I hope not! But we will see.
The people have spoken.
Here in Florida they had 11 constitutional amendments put on the ballot by republicans. All but three of those failed. Dems were put in office across the nation. My take on this is that overall the people have tried to stop the gridlock.
Now we sit back and watch and hope that we can all take away something from the oncoming negotiations. But to think we are not going to have to hurt a little to get out of the mess we are in, is just naive imo.
I hope you wont leave, and I hope you let it slide off your back. Obama won, the people have spoken, and in the end that is the only bottom line. No opinions have been changed as a result. Mine either. So come back.
I maybe young but I'm not naive and I'm not gullible.....It's sad that most of you on the right on this forum believe I am and for that I am DONE with this forum! My opinions and what I believe in get mocked and it's just a damn shame... I wish you all well.
.
Whoever said you were gullible? We're discussing politics, it isn't always pretty, but i'm sorry, I'm not seeing where anyone is knocking you for your beliefs.
None of you even believe in his policies
That's actually not entirely true at all. It's his approach that we disagree with most of the time. Our goals on both sides are shared ones. Like health care...there DOES need to be massive changes, but I don't think his plan is the way to go. There are parts of it that are good, and parts that aren't. So, in that sense, I don't diasagree with his policy, but rather HIS idea of what the solution should be. There needs to be more compromise. The repubs weren't on board and asked for changes to be made...they were shut down. That works both ways.
Just as you feel frustrated, we feel the same way. This isn't directed at YOU, but it is frustrating when a discussion comes up about how some of us feel Obama has fallen short. You seem to take that so personally, and then start in with the fact that the repubs made it their goal to make him fail, etc etc etc, or how he inherited a mess. ONE guy made a comment about Obama being a one term president. We've all come out and said that was probably not the brightest thing to say, and people were just trying to explain, that while repubs in congress need to compromise along with the dems....there's good reasons for their opposition, it's their job to support the repub agenda, as much as it is the dem's job to further the liberal agenda...with a repub president. That's what it's supposed to be...that creates the much needed checks and balances that keeps one side or another from just running rampant with their agenda. It just seems like there are always excuses toi be made for why he didn't do what he promised he would.
Now, sure, both sides are guilty of defending and protecting their agenda to an extreme, where not much is getting accomplished. We've all said as much.
I loved GWB, but I have no problem stating things I think he did wrong...or agreeing with some of the opinions about him. That was the point I was trying to make yesterday about how I see similarities to him and Obama in their presidencies...but I kind of got shut down as if I was bitching or something. I wasn't. But, I just let it go.
Sometimes, we're just getting involved in the convo, and with all due respect, you guys get upset, like we're badgering you all or something. Ironically, most times we're not even the ones who started the thread...but yet, if we engage in a resulting discussion, we're told you're tired of hearing it, etc etc. You see? That's very frustrating. Sometimes, I don't even bother, because I don't want people to accuse me of beating a dead horse....when I'm only trying to have a discussion!!
I'm sorry you're so upset to the point where you feel you want to leave CE. Maybe just give yourself a breather. We've stated that we're happy for you guys that Obama prevailed....but of course we're still going to discuss the issues. That doesn't mean we don't support Obama or wish him well. We're not going to all of a sudden change our opinions, as you know, but I think us conservatives have been gracious about the outcome. We're all cautiously optimistic, is that not enough? I don't see how you're taking that personally.
Our continued discussion over our worries and fears doesn't mean we're being difficult, or cry babies, or anything of the sort. I wish you wouldn't take our views about Obama so personally. That's nothing directed at you.
I left this forum because i was told in a sarcastic way that I wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President says..
Mrs. P....I will say, honestly, that you HAVE stated at times....areas in which you weren't pleased with Obama...you've said many times that Libya wasn't sitting well with you. So, yes, you HAVE said things before about Obama...HOWEVER, overall, MOST times, you won't budge. I don't think that's anything to take personally either. That's who you are, you're passionate about your beliefs, and you DO support Obama in a big way, so of course you would back him up in most cases. That's fine.
That's no reason to leave the forum, IMO. Of course, that's your decision...but that comment is just another person's opinion based on their observations. I agree with it, to a point. I don't think that should necessarily be a bad thing.
Hope you give this some thought...certainly no one is wanting you to leave. I've enjoyed getting to know you. This election has been a long and stressful one. Maybe you just need a break!
.
Whoever said you were gullible? We're discussing politics, it isn't always pretty, but i'm sorry, I'm not seeing where anyone is knocking you for your beliefs.
None of you even believe in his policies
That's actually not entirely true at all. It's his approach that we disagree with most of the time. Our goals on both sides are shared ones. Like health care...there DOES need to be massive changes, but I don't think his plan is the way to go. There are parts of it that are good, and parts that aren't. So, in that sense, I don't diasagree with his policy, but rather HIS idea of what the solution should be. There needs to be more compromise. The repubs weren't on board and asked for changes to be made...they were shut down. That works both ways.
Just as you feel frustrated, we feel the same way. This isn't directed at YOU, but it is frustrating when a discussion comes up about how some of us feel Obama has fallen short. You seem to take that so personally, and then start in with the fact that the repubs made it their goal to make him fail, etc etc etc, or how he inherited a mess. ONE guy made a comment about Obama being a one term president. We've all come out and said that was probably not the brightest thing to say, and people were just trying to explain, that while repubs in congress need to compromise along with the dems....there's good reasons for their opposition, it's their job to support the repub agenda, as much as it is the dem's job to further the liberal agenda...with a repub president. That's what it's supposed to be...that creates the much needed checks and balances that keeps one side or another from just running rampant with their agenda. It just seems like there are always excuses toi be made for why he didn't do what he promised he would.
Now, sure, both sides are guilty of defending and protecting their agenda to an extreme, where not much is getting accomplished. We've all said as much.
I loved GWB, but I have no problem stating things I think he did wrong...or agreeing with some of the opinions about him. That was the point I was trying to make yesterday about how I see similarities to him and Obama in their presidencies...but I kind of got shut down as if I was bitching or something. I wasn't. But, I just let it go.
Sometimes, we're just getting involved in the convo, and with all due respect, you guys get upset, like we're badgering you all or something. Ironically, most times we're not even the ones who started the thread...but yet, if we engage in a resulting discussion, we're told you're tired of hearing it, etc etc. You see? That's very frustrating. Sometimes, I don't even bother, because I don't want people to accuse me of beating a dead horse....when I'm only trying to have a discussion!!
I'm sorry you're so upset to the point where you feel you want to leave CE. Maybe just give yourself a breather. We've stated that we're happy for you guys that Obama prevailed....but of course we're still going to discuss the issues. That doesn't mean we don't support Obama or wish him well. We're not going to all of a sudden change our opinions, as you know, but I think us conservatives have been gracious about the outcome. We're all cautiously optimistic, is that not enough? I don't see how you're taking that personally.
Our continued discussion over our worries and fears doesn't mean we're being difficult, or cry babies, or anything of the sort. I wish you wouldn't take our views about Obama so personally. That's nothing directed at you.
I left this forum because i was told in a sarcastic way that I wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President says..
Mrs. P....I will say, honestly, that you HAVE stated at times....areas in which you weren't pleased with Obama...you've said many times that Libya wasn't sitting well with you. So, yes, you HAVE said things before about Obama...HOWEVER, overall, MOST times, you won't budge. I don't think that's anything to take personally either. That's who you are, you're passionate about your beliefs, and you DO support Obama in a big way, so of course you would back him up in most cases. That's fine.
That's no reason to leave the forum, IMO. Of course, that's your decision...but that comment is just another person's opinion based on their observations. I agree with it, to a point. I don't think that should necessarily be a bad thing.
Hope you give this some thought...certainly no one is wanting you to leave. I've enjoyed getting to know you. This election has been a long and stressful one. Maybe you just need a break!
anything should be 'any time'. typo.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
