Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 03, 2015, 03:57:16 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 162
101  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CNN Poll: Solid economy lifts Obama approval to 2014-high on: December 24, 2014, 12:43:33 pm
So, the idea is the GOP should benefit from work they didn't do? Of course, that's how they always operate. Bush took credit for Clinton's work.

And considering that McConnell and Boehner's approval is very low, I hardly think anyone but a few extreme partisans is enthused about them.
102  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NYPD officers shot dead as "revenge" for Garner decision. on: December 21, 2014, 12:16:57 pm
It's unfortunate, but other people suffer the consequences of bad decisions from prosecutors and juries.
103  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: CA-Gov: Turnout between 2010 and 2014 on: December 21, 2014, 12:09:23 pm
The official results from the Secretary of State list the total as 60%.

It's obviously rounded. I believe in simple arithmetic more)))) (i took raw numbers from the same source)

It's statistically insignificant, really. It's kind of silly to quibble about it, but whatever.
104  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: CA-Gov: Turnout between 2010 and 2014 on: December 20, 2014, 05:19:22 pm
The official results from the Secretary of State list the total as 60%.
105  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama criticizes Sony for pulling "The Interview" on: December 19, 2014, 11:42:38 pm
What? He has no business even addressing this beyond "We're looking into the criminal violations committed".

It was a private business decision to protect their company. And the deal was basically set when the theater chain - the ones who really killed the project - decided not to show it.

Let's be real - he probably decided to pile on Sony because of the racist comments about him in the e-mail.

It wasn't really about business, the movie was pulled because of terrorist threats. That is a very dangerous thing, because it allows an out of control foreign government to extend control beyond it's borders. This isn't just about business, it's about national security.
106  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 16, 2014, 08:47:02 pm
Orange County Democrats lean more economically conservative, but not enough to be a Blue Dog in the sense of the ones from red states. Loretta Sanchez used to be a moderate Republican, but that was when she running for Anaheim Council twenty years ago.
107  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: David Koch: "I'm a social liberal" on: December 15, 2014, 09:36:50 pm
That doesn't really matter, since he spends money to influence economic policy, not social.
108  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Sandy Hook families sue gun manufacturor...... on: December 15, 2014, 05:12:38 pm
At least they aren't using state resources to sue for political theatrics, like some elected officials have done.
109  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Would Mark Udall have won if... on: December 13, 2014, 03:48:17 pm
Considering that he only lost by 2%, I'd say the women's health centered campaign work. His problem was that he didn't do anything to bolster his Hispanic numbers.
110  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 11, 2014, 07:18:43 pm
It's highly unlikely that Republicans would not have gotten their preferred candidates under the previous primary system, as none of them faced any viable competition from the other Republican candidates that ran. With that said, I agree with the poster above, elections shouldn't be tailored to benefit anyone, moderates included. Moderates aren't entitled.
111  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 11, 2014, 10:08:38 am
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.
112  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Convicted Sex Offender wins big scratch-off prize on: December 11, 2014, 09:56:27 am
He still should have been in prison, people who do such things to children shouldn't be back out on the streets. I know that's going to make a lot of people here angry, but that is my opinion and I am not sorry for it.
113  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 10, 2014, 07:24:07 pm
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.
114  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 10, 2014, 12:17:09 am
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.
115  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 08, 2014, 11:52:18 pm
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Landrieu Exceeded all Expectations, so will Hillary be Competitive? on: December 07, 2014, 12:18:56 am
Considering the over performances in Caddo and Jefferson parishes, perhaps so. Those are hardly what you would call ancestrally Democratic parishes, as the Republicans there are more suburban than rural.
117  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: President Obama checks into hospital, complaining of "sore throat" on: December 06, 2014, 06:50:20 pm
Where were John Boehner and Mitch McConnell at when he came down with this "sore throat"?
118  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Peter King on: December 04, 2014, 04:37:47 pm
Long Island, not Staten Island. And second, Democrats never field a credible challenger against him, which is a big mistake.
119  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rand Paul blames Garner's death on cigarette taxes on: December 04, 2014, 12:29:07 am
Taxes are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Rand Paul is incredibly stupid.

Democrats are so adorable. The drug war has failed but the creation of black markets for cigarettes is a great idea.

America is in awe of such intelligence.

Blaming Democrats for this crime is a big reach.
120  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rand Paul blames Garner's death on cigarette taxes on: December 03, 2014, 11:14:43 pm
Taxes are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Rand Paul is incredibly stupid.
121  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 08:35:27 pm
The reason the court ruled that state senate districts had to be drawn equally, was because the rural counties were getting a highly disproportionate amount of representation. In California, Los Angeles County had only one state Senator, while several rural counties were distributed into several low population districts.
122  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NV-Sen: Ralston rates Reid foes on: December 02, 2014, 06:57:14 pm
Reid's main focus would be to drive Sandoval's favorables down early and he would have a good opportunity to do that. With Republicans in control of the Senate, that makes it a little easier for Reid to play defense and tie Sandoval to ineffective leadership.
123  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:54:57 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.



Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage Wink
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.

I believe that we share a fundamental difference in views here, then. It also nonsensical to try to apply the workings in somewhere like Nebraska or the country/local level with a nation of 300 million people. One thing you can't do is say there is no reason, as there are clear reasons to support the Senate whether you agree or disagree with them.
If efficiency is great, why don't we do away with it altogether and found a one-party state? Obviously division of powers is worthless, amirite?

A unicameral Congress would hardly be a one party state. It makes perfect sense to make comparisons between government, since efficiency is more prominent when you have one legislative body and one executive.
124  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:36:14 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.



Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage Wink
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.
125  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:20:25 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.



Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 162


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines