The undecideds

The undecideds

There are 21 comments on the DispatchPolitics story from Oct 24, 2010, titled The undecideds. In it, DispatchPolitics reports that:

Michelle DeWitt and her husband might move closer to relatives in West Virginia if she's one of 400 workers Whirlpool lays off.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at DispatchPolitics.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Susan

Grove City, OH

#1 Oct 24, 2010
With all the time on their hands it would be a good thing to actually really look at the issues and the candidates and the parties and see just what policies will help create jobs. But no they just sit and watch tv ads and vote from what they see there. The couple who plan to not vote but have no problem expressing an opinion are the people that tick me off most. Men and women have died fighting to preserve their liberty and the right to vote and so many just are content to sit along the sidelines and complain but not participate in the process.
CONFUSED

Hilliard, OH

#2 Oct 24, 2010
NOT voting won't change anything either.People need to look at the issues themselves, instead of relying on the media including the Dispatch to provide accurate and unbiased information. Lord, its any wonder why this state and country is in the toilet. PLEASE JOIN ME AT THE POLL!
AmberDru

Columbus, OH

#3 Oct 24, 2010
Make sure the candidate also believes the jobs should be filled by Americans not illegal aliens.

I've specifically asked my reps and those running if they believe Americans should have first crack at jobs in Ohio and the U.S. rather than illegal aliens.

I could not get a direct answer from any of them.

See where your candidates stand.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
Sparky

Bucyrus, OH

#4 Oct 24, 2010
Which one seems like the nicer guy???

ARE YOU KIDDING???

If you are so ignorant that you are "undecided" between a small-government, free-market capitalist and an anti-business, pro-big-government " tax & spend" socialist, then DON'T VOTE!
Obozo the Clown

Windsor, CA

#5 Oct 24, 2010
You Ohio idiots will re-elect Strickland.

Mark my words. The sheeple of Ohio are THAT STUPID.
the truth

Doniphan, MO

#6 Oct 24, 2010
Ted killed over 400K jobs and Obama killed more than 8 million.

Vote the grandma and jobs kill marxist out and impeach the man child while we have a chance to save the USA and jobs.

Recovery summer NOT

Recovery Nov Oh YEA.
MPOV

Columbus, OH

#7 Oct 24, 2010
Remember trips in the car with your children? When children are very young, they get impatient with driving and just want to be there. So we patiently explain that no matter how restless we are, driving (getting there) takes time.(And, of course, detours and traffic jams make it take that much longer.)

I have a problem with the Repubs. They have blocked every single effort to heal the economy, stalled every attempt to help those who are out of work, and pretended that continuing big tax breaks for their wealthy buds would bring back jobs.

These same Repubs brought us this disaster through the same bad policies that they want to bring back.

Rebuilding and recovery take time, especially when the opposition Repubs do everything they can to block progress.

Now they want you to reward the same Republican jerks who voted "NO" on recovery, voted "NO" on extending unemployment aid, and voted "NO" on extending tax breaks for 97% of working families because it didn't include the super rich who don't have to work.

They brought us this nightmare. Then they created the road blocks and the traffic jams that slowed down the recovery. Why? So they could point at the numbers and expect you to put them back in power so they can do it all again.

I'm sure there will be some snarky comments following this post. But the facts are the Dems have only had a few years to deal with the economic mess brought by 8 years of Bush and 12 years of Republican controlled Congress.

Recovery is a long trip and we aren't kids any more. But we don't need more roadblocks and detours.
Tony

Bradenton, FL

#8 Oct 24, 2010
Undecideds??????

you mean the people that have NOT bought into....

party politics
hype and pep rally politics
celebrity voting
race voting
media spin politics
pet issue voting
personality voting
blatant BS and obvious lies voting

and

the people that have not yet sufficiently been able to immolate their common sense in order to go the perennial "lesser of the evils" route.

you mean the people that have been made of no effect by a political system built by career politicans for the sole benefit of themselves.

Vote out ALL members of the House and Senate with over 2 terms in office.

Average Joe

Cincinnati, OH

#9 Oct 24, 2010
MPOV,how can you say the Repubs have blocked every single effort? President is a dem Senate controlled by dems house controlled by dems.The dems didn't need a single Repub vote.

As far as the repubs voting no on extending unemployment and such,they were wanting it paid for through cuts elsewhere,not paid for with more borrowing.Pay and go,ring a bell?

When you stated "and voted "NO" on extending tax breaks for 97% of working families because it didn't include the super rich who don't have to work." If you were referring to the Bush Tax Cuts,being extended.They never even VOTED on that!!! Reid,Pelosi and most dems didn't have the guts to bring it up for a vote.

Another point do you realize the Dems had control of the house and senate the last 2 years Bush was president?That's 4 years the dems have controlled congress.

Since: Oct 10

Saint Clairsville, OH

#10 Oct 24, 2010
Average Joe wrote:
MPOV,how can you say the Repubs have blocked every single effort? President is a dem Senate controlled by dems house controlled by dems.The dems didn't need a single Repub vote.
As far as the repubs voting no on extending unemployment and such,they were wanting it paid for through cuts elsewhere,not paid for with more borrowing.Pay and go,ring a bell?
When you stated "and voted "NO" on extending tax breaks for 97% of working families because it didn't include the super rich who don't have to work." If you were referring to the Bush Tax Cuts,being extended.They never even VOTED on that!!! Reid,Pelosi and most dems didn't have the guts to bring it up for a vote.
Another point do you realize the Dems had control of the house and senate the last 2 years Bush was president?That's 4 years the dems have controlled congress.
Sure! Sure!

Joe

VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!

VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!
MPOV

Columbus, OH

#12 Oct 24, 2010
Average Joe wrote:
MPOV,how can you say the Repubs have blocked every single effort? President is a dem Senate controlled by dems house controlled by dems.The dems didn't need a single Repub vote.
Controlling the House and Senate allow you to set the agenda, and in the House it often allows you to pass legislation. That legislation still needs to pass the Senate. Simple majority control isn't enough in the Senate, since it takes 60 (not 51) votes to bust a threat of filibuster. The Dems only have 57, plus 2 independents sometimes vote with the Dems, but it still takes at least 1 Republican to get past a threat of filibuster and bring a bill up for a floor vote. Add to that the reality that at least one of the independents could as easily be a Republican, based on his record, and the fact that there are a number of conservative Dems who more frequently vote like Republicans than Dems. So the answer to your question is pretty simple. The Dems don't control the Senate, and they DEFINITELY needed Republican votes to get anything through. The Republicans maintain tight control on their members -- have increasingly over the last 15-16 years -- with potential threats of not having party support for re-election if they don't toe the party line. They - the Republicans - have negotiated to get changes in most Dem proposed legislation, then stood as a block against passage of any bill strong enough to get anything done. This shouldn't be a surprise to you, just go out and do a little research on any issue you want. The answer is pretty much the same. The House had the ability to get something out the door, but it died in the Senate, or got compromised to death to get out. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Just do your research.
Average Joe wrote:
As far as the repubs voting no on extending unemployment and such,they were wanting it paid for through cuts elsewhere,not paid for with more borrowing.Pay and go,ring a bell?
Tell that to the out of work folks who lost jobs, then their homes to foreclosures. Republicans can't have it both ways. And in truth they have neither. They don't care about people, but they really aren't conservatives, either. They just want to keep money moving to support the interests of the rich.
Average Joe wrote:
When you stated "and voted "NO" on extending tax breaks for 97% of working families because it didn't include the super rich who don't have to work." If you were referring to the Bush Tax Cuts,being extended.They never even VOTED on that!!! Reid,Pelosi and most dems didn't have the guts to bring it up for a vote.
Can't argue with you on this, and it's a sore point to many Dems who would have liked to force a vote. But the Republicans had already taken their stand, with party leadership in both houses guaranteeing they wouldn't let it wouldn't pass.
Average Joe wrote:
Another point do you realize the Dems had control of the house and senate the last 2 years Bush was president?That's 4 years the dems have controlled congress.
But two years of it under Bush, and none of it with enough control in the Senate to override filibuster, much less a Bush veto.

It's all simple math. There was a time when both parties negotiated in good faith, and reached workable compromises. The Republicans have blocked any such efforts since losing in 2006. And they've made a well publicized campaign strategy of it. Heck, they brag about it.
the truth

Doniphan, MO

#13 Oct 24, 2010
Strickland Backer wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure! Sure!
Joe
VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!
VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!
WOW you are in the state office working for Ted today on our dime
Barney19

Columbus, OH

#14 Oct 24, 2010
MPOV wrote:
Remember trips in the car with your children? When children are very young, they get impatient with driving and just want to be there. So we patiently explain that no matter how restless we are, driving (getting there) takes time.(And, of course, detours and traffic jams make it take that much longer.)
I have a problem with the Repubs. They have blocked every single effort to heal the economy, stalled every attempt to help those who are out of work, and pretended that continuing big tax breaks for their wealthy buds would bring back jobs.
These same Repubs brought us this disaster through the same bad policies that they want to bring back.
Rebuilding and recovery take time, especially when the opposition Repubs do everything they can to block progress.
Now they want you to reward the same Republican jerks who voted "NO" on recovery, voted "NO" on extending unemployment aid, and voted "NO" on extending tax breaks for 97% of working families because it didn't include the super rich who don't have to work.
They brought us this nightmare. Then they created the road blocks and the traffic jams that slowed down the recovery. Why? So they could point at the numbers and expect you to put them back in power so they can do it all again.
I'm sure there will be some snarky comments following this post. But the facts are the Dems have only had a few years to deal with the economic mess brought by 8 years of Bush and 12 years of Republican controlled Congress.
Recovery is a long trip and we aren't kids any more. But we don't need more roadblocks and detours.
You, Sir, or Ma'am, are completely uninformed.. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006, asnd the White House since January of 2009. And I mean controlled. The Repubicans have not had the strength to block anything. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot!
Drink the Hive

Orlando, FL

#15 Oct 24, 2010
Barney19 wrote:
<quoted text>
You, Sir, or Ma'am, are completely uninformed.. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006, asnd the White House since January of 2009. And I mean controlled. The Repubicans have not had the strength to block anything. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot!
Wrong-Amerika Has Been Controlled By The Banking Institutions Since 1913.(Federal Reserve Act)

A Phony Democracy.
ErikW

United States

#16 Oct 24, 2010
Barney19 wrote:
<quoted text>
You, Sir, or Ma'am, are completely uninformed.. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006, asnd the White House since January of 2009. And I mean controlled. The Repubicans have not had the strength to block anything. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot!
I think you may be confused. You see, to the barely functioning liberal mind, perception is reality and to them, reality began January 20, 2009. On that date, The Won had taken his marble throne and promised a world of peace, harmony and tranquility.

Unfortunately, those evil, underhanded Republicans led by Rove, Cheney and Brietbart at the behest of Bush 43 had planted the seeds of financial and psychological destruction that were completely invisible to The All Knowing Lightworker while he worked to single-handedly reverse the natural atmospheric processes known as Global Warming or as the meme evolved, Climate Change.

You see, only a secular Messiah such as Obama could possibly pass his open palm over us and grant free, FREE! healthcare without worry of cost.

My friend, the racist Republican attacks against freedom is ongoing and frightening. I encourage you to vote for Progressive Liberal Democrats who know everything about you and know best how to "take care of you."
MPOV

Columbus, OH

#17 Oct 24, 2010
Barney19 wrote:
<quoted text>
You, Sir, or Ma'am, are completely uninformed.. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006, asnd the White House since January of 2009. And I mean controlled. The Repubicans have not had the strength to block anything. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot!
And you sir or ma'am, are either someone's fool, a simpleton, or possibly a combination of all of the above if you believe what you just posted.(If you DON'T believe it, then I guess you just labeled yourself worse.)

To repeat a previous explanation, controlling the House and Senate allow you to set the agenda, i.e. what comes up for a vote and when, and in the House a simple majority technically would allow you to pass legislation.(The Dems had a good majority in the House the last two sessions, and put out some strong legislation.) However that legislation still needed to pass the Senate. Simple majority control isn't enough in the Senate, since it takes 60 votes, not just a majority, to bust a threat of filibuster (to get cloture). The Dems only have 57, plus the 2 independents who SOMETIMES vote with the Dems, but it still takes at least 1 Republican to get past a threat of filibuster and bring a bill up for a floor vote. And that's if ALL the Dems, 2 independents, and one Republican go along. Those are the facts whether you deny them or not. And you are an idiot if you try.

Add to that the reality that at least one of the independents is more a Republican, based on his record, and the fact that there are a number of conservative Dems who vote more frequently like Republicans than Dems because they come from relatively conservative districts. So no, the Dems DON'T control what passes the Senate, and they DEFINITELY needed Republican votes to get anything through. Those are facts, not opinion. Don't know where you get yours, but I advise changing sources. Or get a math tutor.

The Republicans maintain tight control on their members -- have done increasingly over the last 15-16 years, essentially since Tom Delay taught them how -- with potential threats of not having party support for re-election, and indeed having a Republican competitor, if they don't toe the party line. They - the Republicans - have negotiated to get changes in most Dem proposed legislation, then stood as a block against passage of any bill strong enough to get anything done.

This shouldn't be a surprise to you, just go out and do a little research on any issue you want. The answer is pretty much the same. Take health care insurance. By the time it passed the things that essentially made it a program that would save money and cover everyone were ripped out to get a bipartisan compromise that the Republicans later betrayed. The House had the ability to get something out the door, but it got compromised to death to get out.

This isn't opinion, it's fact. Just do your research.

Since: Oct 10

Saint Clairsville, OH

#18 Oct 24, 2010
the truth wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you are in the state office working for Ted today on our dime
WOW, your at John house working for what I don't know..some kind of job, I'm sure.. maybe his shrink..LOL!

VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!

VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!
ErikW

United States

#19 Oct 24, 2010
MPOV wrote:
<quoted text>
And you sir or ma'am, are either someone's fool, a simpleton, or possibly a combination of all of the above if you believe what you just posted.
That's a long way to go to explain why Obama couldn't get anything done without forcing it through against the public's will.

Savor it while you can, you Socialists will be tossed out soon enough.
Average Joe

Cincinnati, OH

#20 Oct 24, 2010
MPOV wrote:
<quoted text>
Controlling the House and Senate allow you to set the agenda, and in the House it often allows you to pass legislation. That legislation still needs to pass the Senate. Simple majority control isn't enough in the Senate, since it takes 60 (not 51) votes to bust a threat of filibuster. The Dems only have 57, plus 2 independents sometimes vote with the Dems, but it still takes at least 1 Republican to get past a threat of filibuster and bring a bill up for a floor vote. Add to that the reality that at least one of the independents could as easily be a Republican, based on his record, and the fact that there are a number of conservative Dems who more frequently vote like Republicans than Dems. So the answer to your question is pretty simple. The Dems don't control the Senate, and they DEFINITELY needed Republican votes to get anything through. The Republicans maintain tight control on their members -- have increasingly over the last 15-16 years -- with potential threats of not having party support for re-election if they don't toe the party line. They - the Republicans - have negotiated to get changes in most Dem proposed legislation, then stood as a block against passage of any bill strong enough to get anything done. This shouldn't be a surprise to you, just go out and do a little research on any issue you want. The answer is pretty much the same. The House had the ability to get something out the door, but it died in the Senate, or got compromised to death to get out. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Just do your research.
<quoted text>
Tell that to the out of work folks who lost jobs, then their homes to foreclosures. Republicans can't have it both ways. And in truth they have neither. They don't care about people, but they really aren't conservatives, either. They just want to keep money moving to support the interests of the rich.
<quoted text>
Can't argue with you on this, and it's a sore point to many Dems who would have liked to force a vote. But the Republicans had already taken their stand, with party leadership in both houses guaranteeing they wouldn't let it wouldn't pass.
<quoted text>
But two years of it under Bush, and none of it with enough control in the Senate to override filibuster, much less a Bush veto.
It's all simple math. There was a time when both parties negotiated in good faith, and reached workable compromises. The Republicans have blocked any such efforts since losing in 2006. And they've made a well publicized campaign strategy of it. Heck, they brag about it.
Independents,Lieberman and Sanders.Nothing more than dems.Collins and Snowe nothing more than rino's.The only thing that stopped Obama from getting more of what he wanted,was flack from a few in his own party.The repubs only delayed,not stopped Obama's agenda.

BTW even some of the dems wanted Bush's tax cuts extended for all.Nancy and Harry knew they didn't have the votes they wanted,for extending them for only people making less than 250'000$.

Would you care to inform me of something Obama didn't get passed because of the repubs blocking it.
the truth

Doniphan, MO

#21 Oct 24, 2010
Strickland Backer wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW, your at John house working for what I don't know..some kind of job, I'm sure.. maybe his shrink..LOL!
VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!
VOTE STRICKLAND / BROWN!!
You know seeing you are from the hills and brother and sister do marry in your hood or coop well they left out a few brain cells in your tree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Appliances Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Architect of an empire: Gerald "Jerry" Rubin ta... (May '11) Fri knowsitall 20
News Whirlpool to cut 1,100 jobs, shut plant in Indiana (Aug '09) Feb '16 got 44
News General Electric Pursues Spinoff, Sale of Consu... (Jul '08) Jan '16 Arkie 5,481
News Park National Acquires $636,000 in Snap-on Inco... Jan '16 Challenger Lifts ... 1
News Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) Upgraded to Hold at ... Jan '16 Challenger Lifts ... 1
News Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) Lifted to Strong-Buy... Jan '16 Challenger Lifts ... 1
anyone have whirlpool email address? (May '07) Sep '15 gaithersburg appl... 128
More from around the web