Who is voting this November and why should you bother?

bloviation from finn over yet?

we have a goober race this year an our present governor is of the "lets starve it nd see wht happens" style. Hes forged real sweetheart relationship with the gas industry as if it were necessary to kiss their ass to get em to come in and xploit our resource.
Hes mae the gas industry professionals IMMUNE from any licensure and safety requirements an the result is that Pa is as bad as the Dakotas when it comes to pollution and competence.

This governor has got to go .


Damn strait Im voting

What do you mean?

Are you perhaps referring to my having voted for Obama in 2012 despite his continued drone usage and not allowing detainees to have the same rights as anybody else accused of a crime? Things of that nature? It is true, there are things I have been disappointed in Obama about, but I haven't let that stop from me from supporting him in the things I have not been disappointed in him about. In other words when Bush was doing the same, I was much more apt to discuss it than I am with Obama.

Everyone should because it affects everyone in the long run. Politics are mostly about money though so who cares. Except when we need to put boots on the ground to stop ISIS. That's where I draw the line. Air strikes cannot and WILL not stop them. I played Call Of Duty with an ISIS member the other day. No seriously. I won though. Yeah I'm good! Vote people vote! Jeez

That's when our government used to work; both republicans and democrats came to the table, talked, negotiated, and compromised. The only thing the right contributes now is NO-NO-NO-NO-NO--------

That's not going to change with a few shuffling of chairs in congress.

We need a revolution, not another voting ballot. It's pretty obvious.

that is a distorted prejudiced view of the situation. The problem is a basic lack of respect for the people on the other side, and the Left is no better than the Right. These guys dont know or trust the other party, they dont want to, and getting America working again is not a strong enough motivator to get them to try. The Professor is the culmination of this, as he does not know or trust even people in his own party, much less the other side.

Your post provided me with my good laugh for today. Your first sentence disagrees, but what follows is the same message as mine; "they don't want to."

From Rasmussen Reports.

If you want another president Bush in office, dont vote.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the White House is up fro a vote this November.

Not at all. I'm referring to Grimes' answer when asked if she voted for Obama in 2012. McConnell was ripe for defeat but not by Grimes.

No, I'm just getting warmed up so have another cup of warm milk and toddle off to bed.

If they still need to steal the vote from us, its not too late and it is important to vote.

Christie says GOP gubernatorial candidates need to win so they control 'voting mechanisms'

Governor Christie pushed further into the contentious debate over voting rights than ever before, saying Tuesday that Republicans need to win gubernatorial races this year so that they’re the ones controlling “voting mechanisms” going into the next presidential election.

Republican governors are facing intense fights in the courts over laws they pushed that require specific identification in order to vote and that reduce early voting opportunities. Critics say those laws sharply curtail the numbers of poor and minority voters, who would likely vote for Democrats. Christie — who vetoed a bill to extend early voting in New Jersey — is campaigning for many of those governors now as he considers a run for president in 2016.

Christie stressed the need to keep Republicans in charge of states — and overseeing state-level voting regulations — ahead of the next presidential election. Christie made his push at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event in Washington, D.C., where he ran down a list of states he’s spent time in recently as chairman of the Republican Governors Association questioning whether a Republican presidential nominee would rather have the incumbent GOP governor in power or the Democratic challenger.

“Would you rather have Rick Scott in Florida overseeing the voting mechanism, or Charlie Crist? Would you rather have Scott Walker in Wisconsin overseeing the voting mechanism, or would you rather have Mary Burke? Who would you rather have in Ohio, John Kasich or Ed FitzGerald?” he asked.

- See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/christie-says-gop-gubernatorial-candidates-need-to-win-so-they-control-voting-mechanisms-1.1113989#sthash.ID1NOQ0B.dpuf

Why we fight!

The catastrophes that a GOP-controlled Congress would bring


By Katrina vanden Heuvel October 21 at 12:20 PM

With two weeks to go until the midterms, and with polls pointing to the prospect that Republicans could take control of the Senate, the stakes are high — not just for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, but for the United States. The consequences of Republican control of both the House and Senate could be catastrophic for the environment, workers, women and minorities.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has promised a gathering of donors hosted by the Koch brothers that “We’re not going to be debating all these gosh darn proposals . . . things like raising the minimum wage . . . extending unemployment . . . the student loan package.”

And it won’t just be progressive proposals that are stymied. Consider the judges who will never make it to the bench, including the highest, when it is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and not Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who is in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Consider the destabilizing political circus Republicans will create for the Obama administration and the nation when Rep. Darrell Issa’s hyper-partisan investigations into fake scandals spread from the House to the Senate.

If Republicans take charge of key Senate committees, they will restrict and remake the range of debate. What happens, for example, when Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), formerly president of the right-wing Club for Growth, takes over Sen. Sherrod Brown’s subcommittee that oversees financial institutions and consumer protection? What happens to the Iran nuclear negotiations if McConnell, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are deciding when to bring up a sanctions bill?

But a Republican takeover of the Senate is not a threat just because of what Republicans will do. Progressives should also worry about the many areas of potential agreement between the president and a Republican-controlled Senate. It is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), for example, not Republicans, who is denying the president fast-track authority to force corporate trade deals through Congress. Without Reid in the way, “free-trade” pacts like Trans-Pacific Partnership — which labor leaders have called “NAFTA on steroids” — are likely to become the law of the land. Likewise, President Obama and Republicans could agree to pursue lower corporate tax rates — as opposed to infrastructure investments and job creation — as their primary economic-development initiative. And let’s not forget that Obama has repeatedly floated cuts to Social Security as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Republican leaders. Although we believe that the president has many progressive instincts, he has shown an inclination to seek consensus rather than to fight. If Republicans control both chambers of Congress, any consensus will err to the right.

Perhaps the most worrying consequence of a Republican-controlled Senate will be the extension of an already damaging austerity agenda. Working Americans, who have suffered through years of a stagnant economy, will see their livelihoods threatened by the shifting power dynamic in Washington. Think, for example, about how different the next debt-ceiling fight will look. Republicans have repeatedly used the debt ceiling to hold the economy hostage, but each time they have relented for the same basic reason: the conclusion that it would be Republicans, not the president, who would be blamed for the consequences. After all, if Congress couldn’t get a bill to Obama’s desk, how could he be blamed for not signing it? But if Republicans take the Senate, the calculus will change. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and McConnell (if he survives the challenge by Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes) will be able to send hundreds of bills to the president’s desk for his signature or veto. What happens when they send him a bill to prevent a default on our debt at the 11th hour, attached to a bill that ravages Social Security? The Republican Party will gain the power to force the president to choose between impossible options.

It is with this sort of leverage that empowered Republicans will be able to attack key progressive priorities while advancing a right-wing agenda that includes the Keystone XL pipeline, a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, an assault on the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, the decimation of an already weak Dodd-Frank Act and more tears in an already weakened social safety net. This time, it might be Obama who shuts down the government.

In a democracy, there is no such thing as an election without consequences. Many progressives are not satisfied with today’s Democratic Party; they want it to be more populist and progressive. But they also know it is absurd to suggest that there are no differences between the two major parties, and it is madness to suggest that little will change if Republicans take the Senate. A lot will change — and the change will be the worse for women, immigrants, workers and the environment. A Republican Senate, working with a Republican House, will be a wrecking crew. There is only one way to avert the devastation: Vote with a vengeance on Nov. 4.

Read more from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s archive or follow her on Twitter.

You got it exactly right. Five thumbs up!!

Good for you!!

thanks!

It is statements such as this and past blatantly obvious statements which gives the lie to their excuse of fraud being the reason they keep making it harder for people to vote.

It's obvious they all lie to win elections. Why people don't push back on lies by any honest republicans is the amazing character of the party. They don't mind their party politics as liars and cheaters to win.

Do they love sports? What's the use?