2014 US Election Open Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
In politics, two years is a lifetime. I think Warren is quite brilliant and, even more important, a fighter for the little guy.
Click to expand...
By fighter for the little guy I assume you mean someone who wants to raise taxes, increase government regulations which of course in the end hurts a little guy more than anyone else
 
Path_Finder said:
Make no mistake about it, Pro-Lifers won, I don’t care if this is the Catholic Register speaking in this case, it seems all around the Republican Candidates who won were Pro-Life. Md. and Ma. may be different, I don’t know.

Case closed, it is conventional wisdom that tries to downplay social issues.

Many other sources affirm the above.
Click to expand...
I agree on pro-life; that was a winning issue and I am very happy about that. The candidates to my knowledge pretty much threw traditional marriage under the bus. Also, the wider demographic of the presidential election will be in play here in 2016.
 
estesbob said:
By fighter for the little guy I assume you mean someone who wants to raise taxes, increase government regulations which of course in the end hurts a little guy more than anyone else
Click to expand...
On whom does Warren want to raise taxes: the little guy or big business? She is opposed to big banks’ stranglehold on the economy, and IIRC, disagrees with Obama’s bank bailout.
 
meltzerboy said:
On whom does Warren want to raise taxes: the little guy or big business? She is opposed to big banks’ stranglehold on the economy, and IIRC, disagrees with Obama’s bank bailout.
Click to expand...
The little guy ends up paying more when taxes and raised on big business .
 
meltzerboy said:
In politics, two years is a lifetime. I think Warren is quite brilliant and, even more important, a fighter for the little guy.
Click to expand...
I respect your political leanings and your support for Warren (even if I disagree), but I steer clear of anyone who is characterized as fighting for the “little guy” or for “minorities” or women, or whatever other group. I detest identity politics. I want someone who will fight for ALL people. ALL people, including the unborn I might add.
 
Path_Finder said:
Make no mistake about it, Pro-Lifers won, I don’t care if this is the Catholic Register speaking in this case, it seems all around the Republican Candidates who won were Pro-Life. Md. and Ma. may be different, I don’t know.

Case closed, it is conventional wisdom that tries to downplay social issues.

Many other sources affirm the above.
Click to expand...
Did the Republicans run on a firm pro-life initiative? I ask because it isn’t clear to me why the Republicans won because in my own state, Illinois, all I saw were ads about how horrible the other guy was. Which were probably all correct, but…

From what I saw nationwide, it seemed like the Republicans didn’t run on anything and the Democrats didn’t run on anything either. Engagement was very low and so was the actual voting.

Let me ask this from different parts of the country: What do you expect from this Congress now? The Republicans have to stand for something because they can pass legislation and can’t just stop Democrats from passing legislation. What will that be? What will the priorities be?
 
Crossbones said:
Did the Republicans run on a firm pro-life initiative? I ask because it isn’t clear to me why the Republicans won because in my own state, Illinois, all I saw were ads about how horrible the other guy was. Which were probably all correct, but…

From what I saw nationwide, it seemed like the Republicans didn’t run on anything and the Democrats didn’t run on anything either. Engagement was very low and so was the actual voting.

Let me ask this from different parts of the country: What do you expect from this Congress now? The Republicans have to stand for something because they can pass legislation and can’t just stop Democrats from passing legislation. What will that be? What will the priorities be?
Click to expand...
well, we can start with the hundreds of bills that are just sitting unvoted on in the Senate because Harry Reid (possibly the worst politician this country has ever had) has blocked absolutely everything put through by the House. this idea that republicans stand for nothing and are a do-nothing party is such a fallacy. the House has tried to do a lot. and I’m not being partisan here. It shouldn’t work the other way either. I have no idea how or why our system is set up in such a way that one obstructionist senator can control everything.
 
Crossbones said:
Did the Republicans run on a firm pro-life initiative? I ask because it isn’t clear to me why the Republicans won because in my own state, Illinois, all I saw were ads about how horrible the other guy was. Which were probably all correct, but…

From what I saw nationwide, it seemed like the Republicans didn’t run on anything and the Democrats didn’t run on anything either. Engagement was very low and so was the actual voting.

Let me ask this from different parts of the country: What do you expect from this Congress now? The Republicans have to stand for something because they can pass legislation and can’t just stop Democrats from passing legislation. What will that be? What will the priorities be?
Click to expand...
State Platforms are there for everyone to see online. That’s what the party stands for.
 
madtom said:
well, we can start with the hundreds of bills that are just sitting unvoted on in the Senate because Harry Reid (possibly the worst politician this country has ever had) has blocked absolutely everything put through by the House. this idea that republicans stand for nothing and are a do-nothing party is such a fallacy. the House has tried to do a lot. and I’m not being partisan here. It shouldn’t work the other way either. I have no idea how or why our system is set up in such a way that one obstructionist senator can control everything.
Click to expand...
👍 Quite a few of those bills passed in the House were with Dem support. Reid wasn’t just flipping off the Repubs, he was doing it to his own party as well.
 
meltzerboy said:
On whom does Warren want to raise taxes: the little guy or big business? She is opposed to big banks’ stranglehold on the economy, and IIRC, disagrees with Obama’s bank bailout.
Click to expand...
First, MB, a business cannot pay a tax; only a person can. But, you’ll never understand this. Second, Elizabeth Warren is a radical pro-abortion fake Indian. Just what America needs in the WH, another total fraud! :eek:
 
mary_bobo said:
I’m not so sure about that. After two terms for the current president, I have no faith in our electorate.
Click to expand...
I have no faith in the electorate no matter who they may elect on any given occasion. Just watch the dumb “man on the street” interviews on comedy shows, and you’ll understand how an Obama can buffalo enough folks to get elected. :nope:
 
Path_Finder said:
State Platforms are there for everyone to see online. That’s what the party stands for.
Click to expand...
Platforms don’t mean much to me (read them, mostly full of crude that you know will never get done).

What do you expect the two or three things that Reublicans will work on?
 
Crossbones said:
Platforms don’t mean much to me (read them, mostly full of crude that you know will never get done).

What do you expect the two or three things that Reublicans will work on?
Click to expand...
Repealing Healthcare; at least this seems to be what the Pundits are talking about.

Immigration Reform or enforcement of the current laws on immigration.

That is about all I can say as the election just happened, we will have to see what else comes up.

I don’t see foreign policy as of right now.
 
=meltzerboy;12472435]In politics, two years is a lifetime. I think Warren is quite brilliant and, even more important,
Click to expand...
I wonder if she should have won by a larger margin against Scott Brown in what was a year for the Democrats. :hmmm:
disagrees with Obama’s bank bailout.
Click to expand...
The bailouts were a disaster to say the least. :yup:
a fighter for the little guy.
Click to expand...
Not the unborn child. :nope: :dts: :sad_yes: :banghead: :mad:
 
Dawnia said:
The best way to get a GOOD candidate is to get involved before there is only 1 left.
Click to expand...
Well, It’s about TIME someone in the USA said that!

But guess what that means?

No more LAME excuses of

“Uh, gee, I’m too tired from work, and I don’t have time to research the candidates, not even type their name in a search engine but I’ve got time to watch youtube, the NFL and the Simpsons.”

“But they PROMISED me…”

“Gee, that person has the same mystical, magical skin colour/gender/sexual preference as me, that’s all I need to know!”
 
Most political analysts agree that the GOP won big this time precisely because the party establishment forces made sure that Tea Party candidates did not advance beyond the primaries, leaving only establishment Republicans with broad-based support. Last time they let fringe candidates define the party. If they nominate a Tea Party candidate or other non-establishment candidate for president, they are likely to lose big, which is why you will see an establishment candidate in 2016.
Click to expand...
I think Karl Rove said it best: “the GOP lost potential pick-ups in 2010 and in 2012 because they didn’t have good candidates. In 2014 we got involved in the primary process to get good candidates”.

Even Ben Carson was campaigning for Cassidy, but even so, a whopping 14% of LA voters cast their ballots for Maness.

Fact is in 2010 we didn’t have good candidates. I really knew less now than I do then about this, and I can see why for instance Sharon Angle never stood much a chance against Harry Reid. I mean, we’re talking about the Senate Majority Leader running for office in his home state. In 2012, well, don’t even get me started on Akin, who I think took the race for granted and Richard Murdoch, who’s 11th hour gaffee would break the top 10 of even Biden’s list.

Of course, if the voters were actually intelligent and/or mature enough to see through this, but alas.

I sure hope :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Indiana is enjoying pro-gay “marriage” Obama-Joe Donnelly and that Missouri is pleased with McCaskill’s pro-choice record and all the wind turbines. And then there is North Dakota’s Heitkamp and WV’s Joe Manchin. Hey, they could jump ship and join the War on Coal. Now, the first three will be around another four years and I do believe Manchin is up in 2016.

SO… how’s that been working out?

I guess we found out Tuesday night!
 
RACJ said:
I have no faith in the electorate no matter who they may elect on any given occasion. Just watch the dumb “man on the street” interviews on comedy shows, and you’ll understand how an Obama can buffalo enough folks to get elected. :nope:
Click to expand...
That stuff has got to be staged!

Else we’d have lost the country long ago.

ICXC NIKA
 
Path_Finder said:
Repealing Healthcare; at least this seems to be what the Pundits are talking about.

Immigration Reform or enforcement of the current laws on immigration.

That is about all I can say as the election just happened, we will have to see what else comes up.

I don’t see foreign policy as of right now.
Click to expand...
Did the Republicans in your state run on that? Because they didn’t run on that in my state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top