logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> This mid-term- the usual mid-term, or revolution?, Real mandate or no?
CruisingRam
post Nov 3 2010, 07:49 AM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Well, the dems kep the Senate, repubs got the house. Every candidate that was closely aligned with Sarah Palin went on to defeat- Fiorna, Whitman, Miller, O'Donnel and Angle. Candidates that distanced themselves from the tea party or at least did thier best to not make any unscripted public appearences (Rand Paul in this case)

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
BoF
post Nov 5 2010, 05:38 PM
Post #41


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 5 2010, 12:06 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 5 2010, 11:00 AM) *
QUOTE(WinePusher @ Nov 5 2010, 12:40 AM) *
QUOTE("nighttimer")
If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.


You're begging the question if you assume all raped, impregnated women want an abortion.

No, you are avoiding the question.

If a woman is raped and wants to carry the child to term that is her choice.

If she doesn't want to bear the child, then according to to some Repulsives Republicans - "tough luck."

Please note Rand Paul’s answer to question No. 2 on the Kentucky Right to Life Political Action Association questionnaire.

BTW: Do you have any hard statistics to indicate what percentage of women want to have a child conceived via rape or incest? I'm interested in seeing stats from something other than a right-to-life group, so don't give me that crapola. Note: This is just a point of interest. Regardless of what percentage of women who choose to bear the child, people like Paul do not have the right to thwart those who do not choose this option. Rights do not require unanimous participation to be rights.


Is this what we've sunk to? If it is any indication that we can answer the question:

I was specifically addressing a point made by WinePusher which you in no way countered.

Yeah Amlord, that's what we sunk to when Rand Paul abandoned his libertarian leanings to pander to the Kentucky Right to Life Political Action Association.

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 5 2010, 05:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 5 2010, 06:18 PM
Post #42


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2010, 12:18 AM) *
QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 4 2010, 07:59 PM) *
Not all Republicans are for all the things you accuse them of. When you exaggerate and make sweeping generalizations, you undermine your own argument.


Not when all you've offered as a counter-argument is a one-liner. Wheh you make a little more effort to put the lie to anything I wrote, you'll have supported your own argument.

If you're not going to bring your "A" game, pheeler, don't play on the big kids side of the court. dry.gif

Did that hurt your feelings or something? I'm not going to make an argument supporting Republicans when I'm not a Republican myself. I just especially dislike people on my side of an argument making ridiculous claims. And now sinking to an attempt to belittle me personally. dry.gif

QUOTE
As for the powerful...if you truly believe the Dems don't cater to the powerful, well, you don't get elected by catering to the weak, now, do you?

True dat. And it's the biggest problem with American politics. There was a recent Supreme Court decision that made that problem even worse, and judges on which side of the aisle ruled in its favor?

QUOTE
Why bring up corporations? That's just repeating the spin. Corporations are not 'the enemy'. Would you rather they all went away, leaving all their workers jobless?

I've worked for a large corporation, and I will work for one again. Did I ever claim "corporations are evil?" What I will say is that corporations exist primarily to make money, and they are run by people whose job is to maximize profit. Corporate interests are only sometimes in common with the best interests for consumers, and often a single corporate interest is not in the best interest of the market as a whole.

QUOTE
It really makes no practical difference whether you help the corporations, who then hire more workers, or help the workers, who then spend more, helping the corporations. Either way, both get helped.

I don't care who you help. Personally, I'd rather the government helped less in both instances. But what the government has failed to do (and make no mistake, I blame Bush-era Republicans squarely for this) is ensure that the playing field was level. Convince me it's the Democrats who want to remove consumer protections and let the "free market" solve everything. Even Adam Smith and other conservative economists knew that free markets were not unregulated markets. Big businesses with large amounts of money and influence need to be regulated. Teddy Roosevelt, the great GOP president, made keeping corporations from exploiting the general population one of his top priorities. The current incarnation of the party seems to be so tied up in corporate interest that it's lost its way entirely.

Democrats have been bought as well, but to a much lesser extent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 5 2010, 08:00 PM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Looks like, all in all, akaCG's fantasies about the nobility of Republicans aside, it's back to business as usual.

The Republicans have already pledged to do the banks' bidding in removing the Volker rule, have signaled they'll raise the debt ceiling, and are blocking Tea Party favorite and batguano-crazy Congresswoman Bachmann's effort to become the #4 power in the House. Amongst other hijinks.

In short "Thanks for helping us back into power. Now go sit down and shut up."

Schadenfreude setting in in 3.... 2.... 1....

My only real puzzlement is in trying to predict whether the Tea Party faithful will blindly support the GOP anyway, or whether they'll revolt as the progressive base did when Obama was timid and conciliatory in the face of extreme obstructionism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 5 2010, 08:26 PM
Post #44


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 04:00 PM) *
Looks like, all in all, akaCG's fantasies about the nobility of Republicans aside, it's back to business as usual.

The Republicans have already pledged to do the banks' bidding in removing the Volker rule, have signaled they'll raise the debt ceiling, and are blocking Tea Party favorite and batguano-crazy Congresswoman Bachmann's effort to become the #4 power in the House. Amongst other hijinks.

In short "Thanks for helping us back into power. Now go sit down and shut up."

Schadenfreude setting in in 3.... 2.... 1....

My only real puzzlement is in trying to predict whether the Tea Party faithful will blindly support the GOP anyway, or whether they'll revolt as the progressive base did when Obama was timid and conciliatory in the face of extreme obstructionism.

Who raised the debt ceiling last time? Are you implying that the Tax and Spend crew just tossed out would have NOT voted to raise the ceiling? blink.gif wacko.gif You have to be kidding.

Now maybe we can find out what the tax rates will be next year and just maybe we can cut off some of the wasted stimulus $$.

Obama allowed the far left to hijack the agenda for 2 years. Some believe that was where he came from anyway.

Times up for that nonsense. Back to reality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WinePusher
post Nov 5 2010, 08:28 PM
Post #45


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 11,253
Joined: July-19-10

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 5 2010, 07:00 AM) *
QUOTE(WinePusher @ Nov 5 2010, 12:40 AM) *
QUOTE("nighttimer")
If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.


You're begging the question if you assume all raped, impregnated women want an abortion.


No, you are avoiding the question.

If a woman is raped and wants to carry the child to term that is her choice.

If she doesn't want to bear the child, then according to to some Repulsives Republicans - "tough luck."


And according to the democrats, the child's life means nothing and should not be a factor taken into consideration. According to the democrats, we don't really have an unalienable right to life.

QUOTE("BoF")
Please note Rand Paul’s answer to question No. 2 on the Kentucky Right to Life Political Action Association questionnaire.


I don't see the relevance of Rand Paul to this discussion. If you want to go down that road, would you consider the Bioethicist Peter Singer to have fringe views on reproduction rights?

QUOTE("BoF")
BTW: Do you have any hard statistics to indicate what percentage of women want to have a child conceived via rape or incest? I'm interested in seeing stats from something other than a right-to-life group, so don't give me that crapola. Note: This is just a point of interest. Regardless of what percentage of women who choose to bear the child, people like Paul do not have the right to thwart those who do not choose this option. Rights do not require unanimous participation to be rights.


No, I never claimed to have hard statisics. The original claim was "If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you." It is the onus of that person to provide statistics showing that all raped and impregnated women seek abortions, or not to speak in generalizations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 5 2010, 09:04 PM
Post #46


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(WinePusher @ Nov 5 2010, 03:28 PM) *
I don't see the relevance of Rand Paul to this discussion. If you want to go down that road, would you consider the Bioethicist Peter Singer to have fringe views on reproduction rights?

This thread is about the mid-term elections. Rand Paul was a winning candidate in Kentucky. I must have missed Peter Singer’s being on the ballot, but what the hell, I've dealt with conservative/Republican diversions before. Nice try at taking this thread off topic.

QUOTE("BoF")
BTW: Do you have any hard statistics to indicate what percentage of women want to have a child conceived via rape or incest? I'm interested in seeing stats from something other than a right-to-life group, so don't give me that crapola. Note: This is just a point of interest. Regardless of what percentage of women who choose to bear the child, people like Paul do not have the right to thwart those who do not choose this option. Rights do not require unanimous participation to be rights.

QUOTE
No, I never claimed to have hard statisics. The original claim was "If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you." It is the onus of that person to provide statistics showing that all raped and impregnated women seek abortions, or not to speak in generalizations.

I'm not surprised that you have no "hard statistics" nor am I surprised that you used a tactic that has been tried here so often it wants to crawl off somewhere and take a nap. sleeping.gif

It does not matter what percentage of women choose to have an abortion due to rape or incest. That option should be available to those who choose it.

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 5 2010, 09:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WinePusher
post Nov 5 2010, 09:23 PM
Post #47


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 11,253
Joined: July-19-10

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE("BoF")
This thread is about the mid-term elections. Rand Paul was a winning candidate in Kentucky. I must have missed Peter Singer’s being on the ballot, but what the hell, I've dealt with conservative/Republican diversions before. Nice try at taking this thread off topic.


Have you been following the thread so far?

QUOTE("nighttimer")
If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.


QUOTE("WinePusher")
You're begging the question if you assume all raped, impregnated women want an abortion.


And then in your response to me, you bring up Rand Paul. I really don't care about Rand Paul's views on Abortion, if you have some type of personal vendetta with him, I suggest you send him a letter. Nowhere did I claim to defend Rand Paul's answer the question # 2 of the "Kentucky Right to Life Political Action Association" questionnaire. It just seems like a red herring used to divert the dicussion.

QUOTE("WinePusher")
No, I never claimed to have hard statisics. The original claim was "If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you." It is the onus of that person to provide statistics showing that all raped and impregnated women seek abortions, or not to speak in generalizations.


QUOTE("BoF")
I'm not surprised that you have no "hard statistics" nor am I surprised that you used a tactic that has been tried here so often it wants to crawl off somewhere and take a nap. sleeping.gif


Yup, I never said I have hard statisics, you tried attributing that to me. You're guilty of trying to shift the burden, if you think all raped and impregnated women want abortion then you should be able to back that assertion with hard statistics, or are people supposed to take what you say at face value?

QUOTE("BoF")
It does not matter what percentage of women choose to have an abortion due to rape or incest. That option should be available to those who choose it.


Again with the red herrings. The original statement was "If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you." The underlying assumption is that all woman who have been raped and impregnated want abortions. Can you defend that, or does the tactic of challenging statements make you want to go take a nap?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 5 2010, 09:31 PM
Post #48


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(WinePusher @ Nov 5 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Again with the red herrings. The original statement was "If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you." The underlying assumption is that all woman who have been raped and impregnated want abortions. Can you defend that, or does the tactic of challenging statements make you want to go take a nap?
I know what the oiginal statement said. I am saying that it doesn't matter whether were talking about all or 1 out of 1000. If a woman finds herself in these circumstances she should be allowed to abort the pregnancy.

Rand Paul disagrees and won.

Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle agreed with Paul's position and lost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WinePusher
post Nov 5 2010, 09:38 PM
Post #49


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 11,253
Joined: July-19-10

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE("BoF")
I know what the original statement said. I am saying that it doesn't matter whether were talking about all or 1 out of 1000. If a woman finds herself in these circumstances she should be allowed to abort the pregnancy.


Ok then. But I will respectfully disagree with your opinion, personally I am Pro Life and think that our unalienable right to life trumps a woman's right to choose.

QUOTE
Rand Paul disagrees and won.

Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle agreed with Paul's position and lost.


Yes, Rand Paul does agree, that doesn't make him radical in my view.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 5 2010, 09:40 PM
Post #50


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(WinePusher @ Nov 5 2010, 04:38 PM) *
QUOTE("BoF")
I know what the original statement said. I am saying that it doesn't matter whether were talking about all or 1 out of 1000. If a woman finds herself in these circumstances she should be allowed to abort the pregnancy.


Ok then. But I will respectfully disagree with your opinion, personally I am Pro Life and think that our unalienable right to life trumps a woman's right to choose.

QUOTE
Rand Paul disagrees and won.

Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle agreed with Paul's position and lost.


Yes, Rand Paul does agree, that doesn't make him radical in my view.

Like beauty, radical is in the eye of the beholder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 5 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 5 2010, 02:18 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2010, 12:18 AM) *
QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 4 2010, 07:59 PM) *
Not all Republicans are for all the things you accuse them of. When you exaggerate and make sweeping generalizations, you undermine your own argument.


Not when all you've offered as a counter-argument is a one-liner. Wheh you make a little more effort to put the lie to anything I wrote, you'll have supported your own argument.

If you're not going to bring your "A" game, pheeler, don't play on the big kids side of the court. dry.gif


Did that hurt your feelings or something? I'm not going to make an argument supporting Republicans when I'm not a Republican myself. I just especially dislike people on my side of an argument making ridiculous claims. And now sinking to an attempt to belittle me personally. dry.gif


People I neither know nor care about cannot hurt my feelings. I don't grant complete strangers the power to hurt me. As regards disliking "people on your side of an argument," you presume too much.

What leads you to believe I'm on your side? Because I self-identify as a "liberal" it does not follow I am a Democrat.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Nov 5 2010, 10:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 5 2010, 10:45 PM
Post #52


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 03:26 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 04:00 PM) *
Looks like, all in all, akaCG's fantasies about the nobility of Republicans aside, it's back to business as usual.

The Republicans have already pledged to do the banks' bidding in removing the Volker rule, have signaled they'll raise the debt ceiling, and are blocking Tea Party favorite and batguano-crazy Congresswoman Bachmann's effort to become the #4 power in the House. Amongst other hijinks.

In short "Thanks for helping us back into power. Now go sit down and shut up."

Schadenfreude setting in in 3.... 2.... 1....

My only real puzzlement is in trying to predict whether the Tea Party faithful will blindly support the GOP anyway, or whether they'll revolt as the progressive base did when Obama was timid and conciliatory in the face of extreme obstructionism.

Who raised the debt ceiling last time? Are you implying that the Tax and Spend crew just tossed out would have NOT voted to raise the ceiling? blink.gif wacko.gif You have to be kidding.

Now maybe we can find out what the tax rates will be next year and just maybe we can cut off some of the wasted stimulus $$.

Obama allowed the far left to hijack the agenda for 2 years. Some believe that was where he came from anyway.

Times up for that nonsense. Back to reality.


Time for my monthly moment of giving Ted the time of day.

Your first paragraph: No, I'm suggesting the GOP won't do anything differently than the Dems in that regard, which is expressly AGAINST the wishes of the Tea Party, and thus, the Tea Party has just been used to get Republicans into power and is being tossed aside.

Your second and third paragraphs: Your usual talking points submitted without critical thought or value.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 5 2010, 11:52 PM
Post #53


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2010, 02:04 PM) *
What leads you to believe I'm on your side? Because I self-identify as a "liberal" it does not follow I am a Democrat.

The fact that I make an effort to keep track of who's who on this website. I've read your opinion on many, many topics by now, and I am inclined to agree with you in most cases.

You interjected a post into a discussion in which I was already engaged, and mischaracterized that which I was trying to criticize, thus detracting from my argument. So here, I'll give you what you want. A point-by-point treatment of each of your points.

QUOTE
If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.

An abortion rights group within the Republican party has been around for twenty years. According to Gallup, 54% of Republicans believe abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances, and 12% believe it should be allowed under all circumstances. That leaves one third who would fall under your characterization.

QUOTE
If you're upset because you're out of work because your company sent it overseas and got a tax break for doing so the Republicans are not for you.

Most of the globalization incentives were passed in a bipartisan fashion. You can blame both parties for that one.

QUOTE
If you're gay and want to serve your country in the military without being persecuted the Republicans are not for you.

Right on one count. There is nearly no Republican support for the repeal of DADT in Congress, and 66% of Republicans oppose letting openly gay Americans serve. And yes, forcing gay servicemen and servicewomen to hide who they are is persecution.

QUOTE
If you don't believe building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and forcing Latinos to be stopped and show their credentials is the way to solve our immigration problems, the Republicans are not for you.

SB 1070 is opposed by many Republicans. While I don't agree with much of what's listed on the Republican website on the subject, I wouldn't characterize their position as "build a wall and harass legal citizens."

QUOTE
If you don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a radical few, the Republicans are not for you.

Come on, stop taking Bill O'Reilly as the only voice of the Republican party. There isn't really a poll I can cite that says x% of Republicans don't blame all Muslims for terrorism, but you can't support this claim either. What is true is that the majority of GOP voters believe Obama has a secret Muslim agenda, which baffles me. Of course, many also believe he is the Antichrist. wacko.gif

QUOTE
If you're a minority and you've been denied a job, or housing, or a seat at a lunch counter, Rand Paul and the Republicans are not for you.

Really? You're reaching pretty far back to come up with this accusation. No doubt, there are racists in the Republican party, but the party as a whole is certainly not for discrimination against minorities. You can argue that they are wrong to oppose affirmative action if you like, but that's not the assertion you make.

QUOTE
If you don't have health coverage because the insurance company denied it due to your preexisting condition the Republicans are not for you.

Most Republicans agree that insurance companies should not be allowed to exclude patients on the basis of a pre-existing condition. They have their own proposal on how to do it, so stick to criticizing that instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

QUOTE
If you're old and hoping to start collecting Social Security before its privatized and turned over to Wall Street fat cats to play with the Republicans are not for you.

Agreed on another count.

QUOTE
If you believe it's a good thing there's a separation between church and state the Republicans are not for you.

Again, you take the most extreme right view and characterize it as the mainstream Republican view. Most Republicans don't want the government to be involved in religion. Just because some of their worst candidates (Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell and Ken Buck) are oblivious to the Constitution, that doesn't mean the whole party is for a theocracy.

QUOTE
If you don't agree "drill baby, drill" is a sound environmental policy the Republicans are not for you.

Republicans are starting to come around on this issue, but you're right to criticize them for their resistance to clean energy bills and environmental protection.

QUOTE
If you don't want to see American soldiers fighting and dying for oil in the Middle East the Republicans are not for you.

I'm ok with blaming GW for this, but not necessarily the entire Republican party. I don't see them doing it again any time soon.

QUOTE
If you're a critically thinking citizen who doesn't take what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh says as the gospel truth and don't melt in sheer ecstasy at the sight of Sarah Palin, the Republicans are DEFINITELY not for you.

Republicans are really really worried about Sarah Palin splitting the party, as akCG already said. I think you can admit yourself that this statement is exaggerated.

QUOTE
Strangely enough, I'm perfectly fine with the Republicans not being for me because I'm not for them either.

Yep, agreed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 6 2010, 12:31 AM
Post #54


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 06:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 03:26 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 04:00 PM) *
Looks like, all in all, akaCG's fantasies about the nobility of Republicans aside, it's back to business as usual.

The Republicans have already pledged to do the banks' bidding in removing the Volker rule, have signaled they'll raise the debt ceiling, and are blocking Tea Party favorite and batguano-crazy Congresswoman Bachmann's effort to become the #4 power in the House. Amongst other hijinks.

In short "Thanks for helping us back into power. Now go sit down and shut up."

Schadenfreude setting in in 3.... 2.... 1....

My only real puzzlement is in trying to predict whether the Tea Party faithful will blindly support the GOP anyway, or whether they'll revolt as the progressive base did when Obama was timid and conciliatory in the face of extreme obstructionism.

Who raised the debt ceiling last time? Are you implying that the Tax and Spend crew just tossed out would have NOT voted to raise the ceiling? blink.gif wacko.gif You have to be kidding.

Now maybe we can find out what the tax rates will be next year and just maybe we can cut off some of the wasted stimulus $$.

Obama allowed the far left to hijack the agenda for 2 years. Some believe that was where he came from anyway.

Times up for that nonsense. Back to reality.


Time for my monthly moment of giving Ted the time of day.

Your first paragraph: No, I'm suggesting the GOP won't do anything differently than the Dems in that regard, which is expressly AGAINST the wishes of the Tea Party, and thus, the Tea Party has just been used to get Republicans into power and is being tossed aside.

Your second and third paragraphs: Your usual talking points submitted without critical thought or value.




Sure Rap. So let me give you a couple of lessons for the day. Or better yet lets hear from some voters who just thrashed the liberals who, like you, were under the illusion that this country had suddenly moved to center left from center right.

“Angry? "Of course I'm angry!" said Leona Leach, 58, a Chicago marketing consultant. It was the angriest she had been on Election Day since she started voting in 1972.
At whom was she angry? Democrats, she said — those in Washington, in the state capital and at City Hall: "They're out of control."

So the former straight-ticket Democratic voter went mostly for Republicans. In 2008, she said, voters believed Barack Obama's promise of change. "We thought it was a magic wand," she said. "They used it to wreak havoc."

In Michigan, where unemployment has been above 10% for two years, many voters seemed more frustrated than angry. "It's the economy," said Bharat Bharaddosi, 64, an engineer in West Bloomfield, outside Detroit. "I'm basically a Democrat, but I voted all Republican. This is the first time." He voted for the Republican candidate for governor, Rick Snyder, a former computer company executive who's promised to bring jobs to the state."


So you are one here with the talking points and have been. And I am sure this will not change. Like Obama you believe that if only those stupid Americans would just listen to message from the left they would “get it”. Well Rap we heard it all and now you see how we feel about healthcare lies, taxes and idiotic spending.

And certainly you will be right there with Obama and this message. And be in full support of Nancy as she runs for Minority leader. And I think that is just wonderful. Nothing in the world could be better for Conservatives.

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 6 2010, 12:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 6 2010, 03:23 AM
Post #55


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 07:31 PM) *
Sure Rap. So let me give you a couple of lessons for the day. Or better yet lets hear from some voters who just thrashed the liberals who, like you, were under the illusion that this country had suddenly moved to center left from center right.

“Angry? "Of course I'm angry!" said Leona Leach, 58, a Chicago marketing consultant. It was the angriest she had been on Election Day since she started voting in 1972.
At whom was she angry? Democrats, she said — those in Washington, in the state capital and at City Hall: "They're out of control."

So the former straight-ticket Democratic voter went mostly for Republicans. In 2008, she said, voters believed Barack Obama's promise of change. "We thought it was a magic wand," she said. "They used it to wreak havoc."

In Michigan, where unemployment has been above 10% for two years, many voters seemed more frustrated than angry. "It's the economy," said Bharat Bharaddosi, 64, an engineer in West Bloomfield, outside Detroit. "I'm basically a Democrat, but I voted all Republican. This is the first time." He voted for the Republican candidate for governor, Rick Snyder, a former computer company executive who's promised to bring jobs to the state."


So you are one here with the talking points and have been. And I am sure this will not change. Like Obama you believe that if only those stupid Americans would just listen to message from the left they would “get it”. Well Rap we heard it all and now you see how we feel about healthcare lies, taxes and idiotic spending.

And certainly you will be right there with Obama and this message. And be in full support of Nancy as she runs for Minority leader. And I think that is just wonderful. Nothing in the world could be better for Conservatives.


Ted's remarks are completely unresponsive to anything I said and seek to make his usual broader lizard-brain talking points (note, "lizard-brain" refers to the points, not necessarily to Ted) about liberalism vs. conservatism. He doesn't address what I'm talking about at all, which is the fact that in the wake of the election the GOP seems to be taking moves to cast the Tea Party aside and proceed with its own usual agenda, including where said agenda directly conflicts with ostensible Tea Party goals.

As Ted cannot or will not directly address anything I had to say, this ends my occasional foray into paying attention to anything he has to say, and I make a general exhortation to my fellow ad.gif citizens to, generally speaking, avoid indulging those who do not demonstrate themselves capable and willing to engage in constructive debate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 6 2010, 04:09 AM
Post #56


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 08:31 PM) *
“Angry? "Of course I'm angry!" said Leona Leach, 58, a Chicago marketing consultant. It was the angriest she had been on Election Day since she started voting in 1972.
At whom was she angry? Democrats, she said — those in Washington, in the state capital and at City Hall: "They're out of control."

So the former straight-ticket Democratic voter went mostly for Republicans. In 2008, she said, voters believed Barack Obama's promise of change. "We thought it was a magic wand," she said. "They used it to wreak havoc."


Miss Leach sounds to me to be a very stupid person. A magic wand? Really? She's almost 60. Isn't that a little old to believe in magic wands? sorcerer.gif

The best post-election quote I've seen isn't mine, but it's an appropriate retort to naive twits like Miss Leach: "If you thought Washington was going to become a whole different town just because you voted some kind of Magical Black Man to office, you deserve Rand Paul making your laws." dry.gif

QUOTE(Ted)
So you are one here with the talking points and have been. And I am sure this will not change. Like Obama you believe that if only those stupid Americans would just listen to message from the left they would “get it”. Well Rap we heard it all and now you see how we feel about healthcare lies, taxes and idiotic spending.

And certainly you will be right there with Obama and this message. And be in full support of Nancy as she runs for Minority leader. And I think that is just wonderful. Nothing in the world could be better for Conservatives.


The election's over, but the lies aren't. The word "repudiation" of the president has been tossed around to the point of nausea. It's estimated 5 million people voted for Obama in 2008 who then flipped and voted Republican in 2010.

That's not even SIX PERCENT of the entire voting electorate. Repubs cane out to vote. Dems ...stayed home. The scenario flipped in '08.

QUOTE
The change from 2008 to 2012 reflected many things, and commentators have accurately pointed to the traditionally smaller midterm electorate and to one this year that was older, righter, and whiter. Republicans voted, Democrats stayed home.

One less hazy factor: About 5 million people — or just under 6percent of the voting electorate — said they pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 and for a Republican this year, according to exit polls and turnout estimates.

That is, on one hand, the symptom of a divided country: The second huge swivel in two years, driven by a the whims of a small share of the electorate.

It is also, though, a reminder that swing voters still matter and that polarization and mobilization aren't the only factors at play.

"You would expect that to be people who were relatively middle-of-the-road anyway, but who were swept up in the Obama exuberance," Rutgers political scientist David Redlawsk speculated.

*I got that number by multiplying turnout estimates of 90 million by the 45 percent who said they voted for Obama in 2008 [and] who also said they voted for a Republican this week. People notoriously like about having picked the winner, so the 45 percent figure may be high, and the overall number — and influence — of swing voters exaggerated. But if you've got access to the full exit poll data, I'd love to see the breakdown for that group."


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/111...ing_voters.html


As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, if I were part of the drastically reduced Democratic caucus, I wouldn't want someone who just "led" my team to lose 60-something seats to be in charge of heading up a comeback, but the Republicans did do a fine job of putting to sleep a lot of Blue Dogs, so maybe Pelosi thinks there's a silver lining in the slaughter.

But don't kid yourself, Ted: Voters didn't ditch Democrats because they love Republicans. They're just hoping the Repubs will get them back to work and put the nation's fiscal house in order. I wouldn't bet John Boehner and his extremely conservative freshman class can get on the same page to accomplish this feat before 2012 rolls around.

Remember this: The Democrats had control of both Houses in 2008 with a liberal House and a moderate Senate. Pelosi's House sent 420 bills up to Reid's Senate where they remain unpassed to this day. With Democrats out of power in the House and their numbers trimmed in the Senate, you really think anything is going to get passed into law that hasn't been gummed to death by negotations. If you're moderates like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and newly-elected Joe Manchin of West Virginia, you're going to give Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell some major bouts of heartburn.

Oh, and it's gonna be REAL fun to see McConnell trying to get Rand Paul on board with the GOP agenda. mrsparkle.gif Welcome to the NEW Party of "No."

Think you can keep running against Nancy Pelosi? The orange-tanned face seated behind President Obama and next to Vice-President Biden will be John Boehner. Pelosi will be watching from the cheap seats. Congress is a very unpopular institution with voters and now Republicans can't opt out of the governing process as they did in 2008 and Boehner will be the guy Democrats run against in 2012. We will see how that works out for them---and you. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 7 2010, 06:31 PM
Post #57


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 5 2010, 09:09 PM) *
Think you can keep running against Nancy Pelosi? The orange-tanned face seated behind President Obama and next to Vice-President Biden will be John Boehner. Pelosi will be watching from the cheap seats. Congress is a very unpopular institution with voters and now Republicans can't opt out of the governing process as they did in 2008 and Boehner will be the guy Democrats run against in 2012. We will see how that works out for them---and you. dry.gif

I hope it's true that the Republican House does start playing ball because it feels it has to. It seems that no Republican will do anything unless his or her butt is on the line. Then again, Republicans may stick to the same game for the next two years and give Dems another chance to do it right. It's too bad that in the intervening two years, the nation will continue to suffer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 7 2010, 07:06 PM
Post #58


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Another aspect of this election that relates to the question asked in the title of this thread is: How did women candidates' performance pan out?

On her program on Friday, Rachel Maddow explored the issue. She correctly noted that this is the first time in 30 years that the number of women in Congress did not increase. And then, for the remainder of the segment, she and her guest (Amanda Marcotte, John Edwards campaign "blogmaster") predictably concentrated their attention on O'Donnell, Angle, McMahon, Fiorina, Whitman, ... notice a pattern there yet? ... and trying to fashion a "American electorate rejected the Mama Grizzlies' anti-feminist views" narrative.

What they spent no time on, also predictably, is:

Every single female congressional incumbent who lost this year was a feminist Democrat. (I'll try to find one or two additional sources that corroborate this).

Democrats lost a net of 8 women in the House and 1 in the Senate.

Republicans gained a net of 7 women in the House and 1 in the Senate.

And, when it comes to Governorships, Republicans gained a net of 3 women, while Democrats are about to lose one with Granholm retiring in Michigan.

Furthermore:
QUOTE
...
On the abortion issue, into which Maddow and Marcotte delved at the end of their segment, the story is even bigger. Only 151 of the 435 incoming members of the 112th House of Representatives received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood for being consistently in favor of abortion on demand. According to the Republican National Coalition for Life, 38 solid pro-lifers defeated consistent abortion proponents in the House, and the net number of pro-life upgrades was somewhere above 50. There are also six more pro-life Senators than there were before, including one Democrat (Joe Manchin). Republicans also elected three new pro-life female governors.

You wouldn't know any of that from watching Marcotte's and Maddow's discussion of women, the election, and "reproductive rights," but 2010 was, in fact, a pretty good year for conservative and Republican women.
...

Link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...-106824648.html

I'm sure that Maddow and Marcotte would have covered all that, had they only had the time. /

NOTE: I'll try to find a similar analysis for the state-level elections.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 7 2010, 08:53 PM
Post #59


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 7 2010, 02:06 PM) *
Another aspect of this election that relates to the question asked in the title of this thread is: How did women candidates' performance pan out?

On her program on Friday, Rachel Maddow explored the issue. She correctly noted that this is the first time in 30 years that the number of women in Congress did not increase. And then, for the remainder of the segment, she and her guest (Amanda Marcotte, John Edwards campaign "blogmaster") predictably concentrated their attention on O'Donnell, Angle, McMahon, Fiorina, Whitman, ... notice a pattern there yet? ... and trying to fashion a "American electorate rejected the Mama Grizzlies' anti-feminist views" narrative.

What they spent no time on, also predictably, is:

Every single female congressional incumbent who lost this year was a feminist Democrat. (I'll try to find one or two additional sources that corroborate this).

Democrats lost a net of 8 women in the House and 1 in the Senate.

Republicans gained a net of 7 women in the House and 1 in the Senate.

And, when it comes to Governorships, Republicans gained a net of 3 women, while Democrats are about to lose one with Granholm retiring in Michigan.

Furthermore:
QUOTE
...
On the abortion issue, into which Maddow and Marcotte delved at the end of their segment, the story is even bigger. Only 151 of the 435 incoming members of the 112th House of Representatives received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood for being consistently in favor of abortion on demand. According to the Republican National Coalition for Life, 38 solid pro-lifers defeated consistent abortion proponents in the House, and the net number of pro-life upgrades was somewhere above 50. There are also six more pro-life Senators than there were before, including one Democrat (Joe Manchin). Republicans also elected three new pro-life female governors.

You wouldn't know any of that from watching Marcotte's and Maddow's discussion of women, the election, and "reproductive rights," but 2010 was, in fact, a pretty good year for conservative and Republican women.
...

Link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...-106824648.html

I'm sure that Maddow and Marcotte would have covered all that, had they only had the time. /

NOTE: I'll try to find a similar analysis for the state-level elections.


Not surprising it wasn't mentioned. There are currently 13 Democratic women in the Senate, and of those, one was lost. Compare with 45 Democratic men, and five losses. The ratio of women to men has increased on the Democratic side of the aisle.

If we look at merely the ones up for reelection, there were four, and one loss, compared to eight and four.

Now let's look at the House. There are 75 women in the House. Eight lost reelection you say, compared to 53 men. 8/75 = 10.7 percent. Of the men who lost, that's 53/360 or 14.7 percent. Even noting two of those losses were Republican men doesn't change the stats much.

In short, the degree to which women suffered losses in the House is less than their male counterparts, by any measure. In fact, the ONLY thing noteworthy in what you tried to bring to the table is that the gender makeup of the Republican caucus shifted in favor of women this cycle.



ETA: I should also note that even after the next Congress starts, Democrats, with their minority, will still claim more women in their caucus than their Republican counterparts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 02:02 AM
Post #60


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
NT
As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, if I were part of the drastically reduced Democratic caucus, I wouldn't want someone who just "led" my team to lose 60-something seats to be in charge of heading up a comeback, but the Republicans did do a fine job of putting to sleep a lot of Blue Dogs, so maybe Pelosi thinks there's a silver lining in the slaughter.

But don't kid yourself, Ted: Voters didn't ditch Democrats because they love Republicans. They're just hoping the Repubs will get them back to work and put the nation's fiscal house in order.


I have no illusions and I don’t think Republicans have either. In any case if they stray from what people expect they will pay the same price Dems just paid.

Yes a lot of Blue Dogs got hit because they were blamed for not stopping the agenda of the left wing of the Party. The very liberal like Pelosi, Boxer and Frank here in MA were reelected by their very liberal base. What boggles my mind is that Pelosi may chose to run for Minority Leader. And yes I know she is good at raising money but frankly nothing could be better for Republicans. If anyone is the face of what voters were angry about it was Pelosi.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 22nd, 2018 - 07:44 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.