Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2018, 07:03:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 426 427 428 429 430 [431] 432 433 434 435 436 437
10751  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Murray/Feinstein amendment is going on in the senate on: February 03, 2009, 04:14:45 pm
So, wait--was this a successful filibuster?

Yep. Friggin absurd:


WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked Democrats from adding $25 billion for highways, mass transit, and water projects to President Barack Obama's economic recovery program. Already unhappy over the size of the measure, Republicans insisted additional infrastructure projects be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the bill.


1. Rule by the minority. Where was this in 2001-2006? Also-- California has done so well through rule by minority fiscal rules that we should take it nationwide, right? I mean, California never has any fiscal problems, right?

2. No Republican has the right to complain that the bill doesn't have enough infrastructure spending now, because they just blocked a (meager) attempt to augment it.

3. The Republican reasoning is warped. You don't pay for spending with tax CUTS. That is exactly the kind of bullsh**t that has got us into the fiscal hole to begin with. I'd rather have tax-and-spend than borrow-and-spend, because at least with the former, you know what you're getting.



I don't think they were asking for tax cuts to pay for additional infrastructure funds, but rather that they don't want to add any more money to the overall sum, so therefore other projects would have to be cut from the bill that are the equivalent value of the new spending so that the cost remains constant.
10752  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: will a true moderate be a serious contender for the gop nomination? on: February 03, 2009, 12:29:26 pm
Not sure if this term applies, but we may get a MINO... (Moderate in name only) for the GOP.

That is essentially what McCain was this year...

McCain has never been a moderate.

Perhaps, but the media had been always labeled him as a 'maverick' or someone who has bucked his party. He was labeled as a moderate, but it was just a name, hence the term MINO.

Pro-choice, pro-gay right, pro-gun control Republican isn't a moderate for you? I know he was extremely hawkish, but otherwise, he was a moderate Republican. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He just had an awful campaign strategy and the primary schedule wasn't a help either. If McCain hadn't run, he may have won New Hampshire assuming Romney still imploded.

he was an uber-hawk and supported attacking Iran, torture, and warrantless wiretaps. If anything, Giuliani was the closest thing to a pure neoconservative in high-level elected office. Gun control is a fake issue, and abortion is for the most part also, because Roe v Wade is never going to be overturned. Unfortunately, in contemporary American political discourse, the labels "conservative" and "liberal" are largely determined by two or three social issues.

Giuliani:

Liberal Views
Abortion
"Amnesty" for Illegal Immigrants
Gay rights
Gun control

Conservative Views
Affirmative action
Death penalty
Drugs
Free Trade
Health care
Kyoto Protocol/Alternative Energy (anti-wind and solar)
PATRIOT Act
School vouchers
Social Security (pro-privatization)
Taxes
War In Iraq/War on Terror

Pretty solidly conservative overall, I'd say, at most a lean-libertarian conservative. Three or four exceptions do not make someone a moderate, but it is an improvement over some other names that ran.
10753  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: New Register Thread on: February 03, 2009, 11:01:03 am
(Former WRP General Secretary) realisticidealist
Washington
JCP

Yay, a non-troll party. Smiley
10754  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: will a true moderate be a serious contender for the gop nomination? on: February 03, 2009, 10:50:10 am
Not sure if this term applies, but we may get a MINO... (Moderate in name only) for the GOP.

That is essentially what McCain was this year...
10755  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Abraham Lincoln (D) v. Jefferson Davis (R): 2012 on: February 02, 2009, 01:24:54 pm


Lincoln (D): 467
Davis (R): 71

Best case Davis scenario
10756  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Millard county utah, where Obama only beats Baldwin by 3 to one on: February 02, 2009, 01:22:10 am
Didn't a right-wing third party in 1992 almost beat Clinton in some Idaho counties?

Franklin County, ID:
George Bush (R) - 52.22%
Ross Perot (I) - 21.98%
Bull Clinton (D) - 12.94%
James Bo Gritz (I) - 12.40% (Only 22 votes behind Clinton!)

Not as close, but still....

Oneida County, ID:
George Bush (R) - 38.21%
Ross Perot (I) - 31.62%
Bill Clinton (D) - 18.81%
James Bo Gritz (I) - 11.25%

Madison County, ID:
George Bush (R) - 59.14%
Ross Perot (I) - 24.73%
Bill Clinton (D) - 9.55%
James Bo Gritz - 6.30%

Duchesne County, UT:
George Bush (R) - 43.44%
Ross Perot (I) - 26.92%
Bill Clinton (D) - 16.91%
James Bo Gritz (I) - 11.76%
10757  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: New Party System on: February 02, 2009, 12:47:17 am
Some combination of People's and Freedom.

Add in a couple of elements of the Social Democratic Party and that is where I would lie. If I had to choose one, I might end up voting for the SDP even though I disagree with a number of their positions because I don't think I could trust a communtarian party to not eventually violate individual rights, and the libertarian party would probably be somewhat weak on the economy and internationally.
10758  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is your most right wing/left wing political position? on: February 01, 2009, 03:45:24 pm
Right wing: I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned (not immediately, though)

Left wing: tough....I am adamently against war except when we are directly attacked
10759  General Politics / Individual Politics / What issues do you disagree with your party on? on: January 31, 2009, 09:31:01 pm
What issues do you disagree with your party on? Where do you think that the mainstream of your party is out of line? Even if

For me, as a Democrat, I disagree with them on:
  • Roe v. Wade (I support repealing it and letting the states decide)
  • Gun control
  • Affirmative action
  • School vouchers (though I also support increasing education funding)
  • Religious charities
  • Social security (I support privatization for those who want it, in addition to other changes)
  • Amnesty
  • Lack of an emphasis on balanced budgets
  • Israel (though the Republicans are no better)
  • Opposing nuclear power
  • Drug policy (Republicans are worse)
  • Prostitution and other victimless crimes (once again, Republicans are worse)
  • PATRIOT Act (see above)
10760  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are you a member of the party you are? on: January 31, 2009, 08:07:15 pm
Quote
6. Republicans believe abstinence only sex-education is an appropriate way to combat teenage sexual activity.

That is interesting. Putting aside that I am not particularly interested in having some per se stricture inculcated in teenagers against sexual activity (in fact I would oppose that actually come to think of it; one size does not fit all), it would seem to me that if one wanted to combat sexual activity, the only way to do that would be by abstinence. Is there a way that one can be both abstinent while engaging in sexual activity?

I don't think that the goal is to fight sexual activity, but rather unwanted pregnancies, which is the cause of abortion.
10761  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are you a member of the party you are? on: January 31, 2009, 08:06:31 pm
It seems like the only things the Republican party cares about these days is abortion and Gays.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The fact that their platform is so heavily tied to these issues is one of the major reasons I am a Democrat.  I refuse to support a party that wants to put discrimination back into the Constitution and legislate a woman's sex life.  Here are some others:

1. Republicans are reckless stewards of the environment and promote irresponsible use and extraction of natural resources.  Democrats promote protection of the environment and emphasize conservation and low impact methods of resource extraction.
2. Republicans still think the Iraq war was a good idea.  Democrats have realized it was not.
3. Republicans politicized 9/11 and used it as a scare tactic to erode our freedoms and violate the Constitution.  Democrats generally are opposed to the "anti-terrorist" policies Republicans have enacted.
4. Republicans are the most vocal opponents of euthanasia.  Democrats usually are more supportive.
5. Republicans want to teach creationism, an idea that requires the suspension of scientific thought, in science classrooms.  Democrats oppose the teaching of religious philosophies in public schools.
6. Republicans believe abstinence only sex-education is an appropriate way to combat teenage sexual activity.  Democrats realize this is the best way to increase the number of teen pregnancies and teens infected with STDs.

I largely agree with that, save perhaps on abortion.
10762  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are you a member of the party you are? on: January 31, 2009, 08:00:21 pm
I find that although there are many areas that I disagree with the Democratic Party, they are at least tolerant (more so than the Republicans), and they do not engage in the business of nation-building nearly as much as the Republicans.

I would consider being a Republican if they learned tolerance. Until then, I shall always be a Democrat unless a third party comes along that is tolerant, moderate, and fits my views even more closely than the Dems.
10763  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: The Atlas Forum Impeachment Vote on: January 30, 2009, 10:14:36 am
Yes, duh (D)
10764  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: what was your favorite presidential action of George W. Bush? on: January 30, 2009, 10:11:47 am
Legislation/Executive Orders
Creation of Pacific Marine Reserves
Do Not Call List
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Other
Butchering the English language Smiley
Throwing a strike in the 2001 World Series

Unforgivably Bad
DODGING THE SHOE - it would have been immeasurably funnier to see at least one of them hit him. Angry
10765  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Re: What gives us this map? on: January 29, 2009, 10:23:02 am
St. Warner running as a Republican?
10766  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Obama vs Palin vs Feingold on: January 29, 2009, 10:18:05 am


Obama 353
Palin 185
Feingold 0

Feingold keeps Obama back from a landslide victory.

It depends on Obama's approvals, but you're joking if you think he still wins the election by that large of a margin if there are two liberals running. Feingold would most certainly split the left vote in Wisconsin. No way Obama gets 40% there with him on the ballot.

First of all, the OP didn't specify the year or the conditions. So I went under the assumption that it was 2012 and that Obama was moderately successful. Chances are that a Feingold run would not be able to leach off a whole lot of a fairly popular incumbent president's support.

If Obama is unpopular, then Feingold would certainly doom his chances.

Let's assume that the elections took place today (or that the political environment is no different than it is today).

Obama is rather popular at the moment, so he would probably win very easily, Feingold or not.
10767  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Obama vs Palin vs Feingold on: January 28, 2009, 06:51:30 pm


Obama 353
Palin 185
Feingold 0

Feingold keeps Obama back from a landslide victory.

It depends on Obama's approvals, but you're joking if you think he still wins the election by that large of a margin if there are two liberals running. Feingold would most certainly split the left vote in Wisconsin. No way Obama gets 40% there with him on the ballot.

First of all, the OP didn't specify the year or the conditions. So I went under the assumption that it was 2012 and that Obama was moderately successful. Chances are that a Feingold run would not be able to leach off a whole lot of a fairly popular incumbent president's support.

If Obama is unpopular, then Feingold would certainly doom his chances.
10768  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Obama vs Palin vs Feingold on: January 28, 2009, 06:44:10 pm


Obama 353
Palin 185
Feingold 0

Feingold keeps Obama back from a landslide victory.
10769  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Who would they have gone for? on: January 18, 2009, 12:22:49 am
These are the facts:

  • In the eight elections from 1904 to 1932, the Socialist Party broke 2% nationwide six times, 3% three times, and 5% once.
  • In the nine elections from 1884 to 1916, the Prohibition Party broke 1% eight times and 2% twice.
  • The Progessive Party twice won states and approached or passed major parties in total votes (1912 and 1924)

Who was the second choice amongst these voters; who would these voters have likely gone for if these parties were not in existence, or they were not allowed to vote for them? Would they have voted at all?
10770  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: "Never voted Republican" club down to two members? on: January 18, 2009, 12:06:54 am
Western Nebraska must have some too.

No, actually, with the arguable exception of Keya Paha.

Why is that arguable? It went Dem in 1916 and 1896.
10771  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: "Never voted Republican" club down to two members? on: January 17, 2009, 11:40:50 pm
Kane County, UT is one that has never voted Democratic. I'm sure Jackson County, KY never has either. Obama was also the first Democratic Presidential candidate in history to win DuPage county, as well as McHenry, Kane and Kendall. Western Nebraska must have some too.

Every county in Utah went Dem in 1916.
10772  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: At-large CD Result Maps on: January 17, 2009, 11:39:46 pm
I love that Vermont has an "Energy Independent" candidate, a "Marijuana party" candidate and one from the "Liberal Union", but no Republican...

Don't forget about the Progressive Party candidate. Vermont is just a win state.
10773  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: The Byrd Presidency on: January 17, 2009, 10:54:38 pm
Win.
10774  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: NYC - Map of results by Assembly District (dim Queens) on: January 17, 2009, 08:42:59 pm
It looks like Weiner won some of the blacker parts of Brooklyn

Why wouldn't Weiner be huge amongst blacks?
10775  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: "Never voted Republican" club down to two members? on: January 17, 2009, 08:40:14 pm
Technically, I do not know for certain if Elliott County would have voted for the Republicans in 1864 and 1868, but I would guess that it would have.

I don't see any reason to assume that.

Well, I could very well be wrong. Feel free to come up with an estimate of how it would have voted if you'd like.
Pages: 1 ... 426 427 428 429 430 [431] 432 433 434 435 436 437


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines