I vote for Congressmen, and I have occasionally written letters to my Congressman, and I have received at least a form letter back most of the time. By the way why would they want to listen to you, as they represent alot more people than you, thank goodness.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:That's the wish and demand of most Americans.
I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.
It doesn't matter what the House does or doesn't do; all the polls show that the majority of Americans want our soldiers home. Our politicians are supposed to serve at the bequest of the citizens; not what they think is good or bad.
Gee, I didn't see anything in the USA Constitution that says that one or more allegedly random samples of the opinions of 1,000 probable voters must substitute for the opinions of members of the House and Senates.
I even thought the USA was a representative and not a pure democracy, such that the representatives were only accountable to the voters for their decisions at times of election.
ican: Gee, I didn't see anything in the USA Constitution that says that one or more allegedly random samples of the opinions of 1,000 probable voters must substitute for the opinions of members of the House and Senates.
I even thought the USA was a representative and not a pure democracy, such that the representatives were only accountable to the voters for their decisions at times of election.
You still don't "get it." Congress has the lowest performance rating for ignoring public sentiment/wishes of the majority of Americans. The next election will be the response for ignoring the public on important issues. Just because they were elected into office doesn't mean they can continue to ignore the public's wishes. They can ignore public sentiment, but they will pay dearly for it, and they will only hurt their own party - as reflected by many planning to vote democratic during the next election.
Quote:You still don't "get it." Congress has the lowest performance rating for ignoring public sentiment/wishes of the majority of Americans. The next election will be the response for ignoring the public on important issues. Just because they were elected into office doesn't mean they can continue to ignore the public's wishes. They can ignore public sentiment, but they will pay dearly for it, and they will only hurt their own party - as reflected by many planning to vote democratic during the next election.
How is this possible?
I thought that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi promised the most ethical and honest congress in history.
I thought they said thay would get us out of Iraq immediately and that they would respond to the nations wishes.
Are you now saying that they havent kept their promises?
And since the dems control congress now, when it is at its lowest approval ratings ever, I would think the voters would want the majority party out because it is so weak.
cicerone imposter wrote:
You still don't "get it." Congress has the lowest performance rating for ignoring public sentiment/wishes of the majority of Americans. The next election will be the response for ignoring the public on important issues. Just because they were elected into office doesn't mean they can continue to ignore the public's wishes. They can ignore public sentiment, but they will pay dearly for it, and they will only hurt their own party - as reflected by many planning to vote democratic during the next election.
Perhaps if you haven't heard, the Democrats are running Congress now, ci, so if you aren't happy with it and think a different party is needed, vote Republican, not Democrat. Your statement was going pretty good until you had the last phrase about voting Democratic during the next election, which rendered your statement illogical.
okie, Do you know anything about how congress operates? Probably not; go back to school and learn.
I don't give the democrats much credit for doing anything constructive either, but that's another reason why congress has such a poor performance rating.
cicerone imposter wrote:I don't give the democrats much credit for doing anything constructive either, but that's another reason why congress has such a poor performance rating.
Then why would this be true...
Quote:as reflected by many planning to vote democratic during the next election.
If the dems are just as bad as the repubs.
You can twist my statement any way you wish to meet your personal interpretation, but most media have been reporting on this very issue; many republicans plan to vote for democrats. Can't help you if you don't read the media.
From CNN.
Poll: Democrats boost advantage in races for Congress
POSTED: 5:09 p.m. EST, November 6, 2006
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of likely voters who plan to vote for Democrats in Tuesday's congressional elections increased in the past week, according to a CNN poll conducted during the weekend.
Those voters supporting Democrats also seem less likely to change their minds before casting ballots, the poll found
Democrats hold a 20 percentage-point advantage -- 58 percent to 38 percent -- over Republicans among likely voters in the survey released Monday morning. The Democratic advantage was 11 percentage points -- 53 percent to 42 percent -- in a poll a week ago.
From the Polling Place.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Nov. 2-4, 2007. Adults nationwide.
.
"Please tell me whether you think each of the following political officeholders deserves to be reelected or not: [See below.]"
.
Yes No Unsure
% % %
The U.S. representatives in your congressional district N=528 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)
11/2-4/07
58 39 4
.
Most members of Congress N=528 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)
11/2-4/07
42 53 5
.
Most Democratic members of Congress N=496 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form B)
11/2-4/07
50 44 6
.
Most Republican members of Congress N=496 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form B)
11/2-4/07 Yes 38 No 58 Undecided 5
okie wrote:Nobody has ever claimed mistakes are not made. Name a war that has been run flawlessly from beginning to end.
So maybe instead of being called the "betrayer," perhaps Petraeus should have been Time Magazine's Man of the Year?
There is a difference than making mistakes and not going after the insurgency because you refuse to admit there is an insurgency which is what Rumsfeld and Cheney did.
Now that they implemented a plan (which was recommended long ago) it is almost too little too late to do much good in the long run for Iraqis government and country unless there is some cooperation between the sects in Iraq.
cicerone imposter wrote:I don't give the democrats much credit for doing anything constructive either, but that's another reason why congress has such a poor performance rating.
Then why vote for more of them? If you are going to base your vote on approval rating, I would venture to guess the Republican Congress in the 90's had a higher rating when there were more conservatives. I would recommend voting for more conservatives, regardless of party.
cicerone imposter wrote:From CNN.
Poll: Democrats boost advantage in races for Congress
POSTED: 5:09 p.m. EST, November 6, 2006
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of likely voters who plan to vote for Democrats in Tuesday's congressional elections increased in the past week, according to a CNN poll conducted during the weekend.
Those voters supporting Democrats also seem less likely to change their minds before casting ballots, the poll found
Democrats hold a 20 percentage-point advantage -- 58 percent to 38 percent -- over Republicans among likely voters in the survey released Monday morning. The Democratic advantage was 11 percentage points -- 53 percent to 42 percent -- in a poll a week ago.
If that poll is valid, then 58% of the likely voters currently want higher taxes, higher spending, more diplomacy, less defense, and more theft.
If that holds true in November 2008, then so long USA, and hello ASU (i.e., Acrid Socialist Union).
cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:From CNN.
Poll: Democrats boost advantage in races for Congress
POSTED: 5:09 p.m. EST, November 6, 2006
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of likely voters who plan to vote for Democrats in Tuesday's congressional elections increased in the past week, according to a CNN poll conducted during the weekend.
Those voters supporting Democrats also seem less likely to change their minds before casting ballots, the poll found
Democrats hold a 20 percentage-point advantage -- 58 percent to 38 percent -- over Republicans among likely voters in the survey released Monday morning. The Democratic advantage was 11 percentage points -- 53 percent to 42 percent -- in a poll a week ago.
If that poll is valid, then 58% of the likely voters currently want higher taxes, higher spending, more diplomacy, less defense, and more theft.
If that holds true in November 2008, then so long USA, and hello ASU (i.e., Acrid Socialist Union).
Leave it to the voters; that actually sounds good to me!
Cice, I concluded long ago that actually sounds good to you. Yes, I shall leave it to the voters! However, I bet it sounds bad to a majority of voters.
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie: I don't decide for others who to vote for.
Well, who could have guessed that from reading your posts?
As the generals and this administration talks about the "progress" in Iraq, they have completely ignored the children, just as Bush vetoed health care for our children. Something is fundamentally wrong when they forget our children to advance war funds.
Iraq children 'paying high price'
Two million children in Iraq are facing threats including poor nutrition, lack of education, disease and violence, the UN children's agency, Unicef, has said.
Hundreds were killed in violence during 2007, while 1,350 were detained by the authorities, it said in a new report.
Some 25,000 children and their families had to leave their homes each month to seek shelter in other parts of Iraq.
But Unicef said the fall in violence in recent months was opening a window for more international assistance.
Earlier, the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, told the BBC that the number of violent attacks in Iraq had fallen to its lowest in two-and-a-half years.
According to recent figures, some 536 Iraqis have died in violence so far this month, compared with more than 2,300 in December 2006.
'High price'
In a report entitled "Little Respite for Iraq's Children in 2007", Unicef said Iraqi children continued to pay too high a price for their country's turmoil, and that this year things had got worse.
Iraqi children were frequently caught in the crossfire of conflict throughout 2007
Unicef
The report said an average 25,000 children per month were being displaced from their homes as their families fled violence or intimidation. By the end of the year, 75,000 children had resorted to living in camps or temporary shelters.
The disruption led to extreme hardship for many children and eroded access to education and healthcare, Unicef said.
Many of the 220,000 displaced children of primary school age had their education affected in a country where around 760,000 children (17%) were already absent from primary school. Only 28% of 17-year-olds sat their final exams.
Unicef said children in remote and hard-to-reach areas were frequently cut off from healthcare and that only 20% outside the capital, Baghdad, had working sewerage in their community. Access to safe water was also a serious issue.
But the agency said there had been some progress during 2007 - more than 4m children were vaccinated against polio and 3m against measles, and more than 500,000 internal refugees were given medical help, safe water and shelter by relief agencies and local communities.
It also said the current fall in violence provided an opportunity to deliver more aid and to get a clearer view of exactly what the conflict had done to Iraq's children.
"Iraqi children are paying far too high a price," said Roger Wright, Unicef's special representative for Iraq.
"While we have been providing as much assistance as possible, a new window of opportunity is opening, which should enable us to reach the most vulnerable with expanded, consistent support. We must act now."
Mr Wright stressed that Iraqi children should be the priority for international investment in Iraq as they would be the "foundation for their country's recovery".
Story from BBC NEWS:
