• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican wins Democratic New York House seat

haymarket said:
With you is that akin to the difference between six and half-a-dozen? I have seen no evidence from any of your posts that there is any substantive difference with your views and where you fall politically.
Click to expand...

I will always select the candidate closest to my political ideology that has a chance to win. I see no benefit in voting for a third party and then just whining about the results. In the past 10 years who would a conservative vote for, Bush vs Gore? Bush vs. Kerry? McCain vs. Obama? then in 2012 ? vs Obama? Simple, Bush, Bush McCain, and ? Sorry you cannot understand that.
 
VanceMack said:
What has the "maverick' done about illegal immigration? What has the "mavericks" position been on debt spending? He may not have been the one pushing national healthcare but I dont believe for a second he wouldnt have signed it.
Click to expand...

I hated to see McCain as the Republican Nominee but he beat the alternative as we can now see today.
 
Conservative said:
I will always select the candidate closest to my political ideology that has a chance to win. I see no benefit in voting for a third party and then just whining about the results. In the past 10 years who would a conservative vote for, Bush vs Gore? Bush vs. Kerry? McCain vs. Obama? then in 2012 ? vs Obama? Simple, Bush, Bush McCain, and ? Sorry you cannot understand that.
Click to expand...

You are understood only too well.

You vote Republican.
 
VanceMack said:
What has the "maverick' done about illegal immigration? What has the "mavericks" position been on debt spending? He may not have been the one pushing national healthcare but I dont believe for a second he wouldnt have signed it.
Click to expand...

Do you always answer questions with questions. I take it you cannot answer the questions I asked about what McCain had said. So, let's look at what you have asked. Illegal immigration. This is a Federal law enforcement issue. Who implements Federal law enforcement issue. One Senator or the President of the United States? I asked you first about McCain's position on debt and you have not answered. I will defer for the moment to your answer... when it comes. As for healthcare, show me where he has even intimated that he would sign such a bill. Did he vote for it? No. You have no leg to stand on with regards to McCain and "ObamaCare."

What is missing from the political process is not more parties, but more responsibility within each. While I am not a member, I appreciate that the Tea Parties are attempting to hold the feet of members of Congress to the fire. We need much more of that rather than 3rd Party members who sit on the sideline and yell "Foul," but then vote in such a manner as to let the worst happen, ala "ObamaCare."
 
Conservative said:
I hated to see McCain as the Republican Nominee but he beat the alternative as we can now see today.
Click to expand...

You couldn't see it in 2008? Obama explicitly said that he was for redistribution of wealth. What more was there to understand? There are evidently people here who are content with leaving that law standing as they will vote 3rd Party in 2012 and possibly allowing President Obama a second term. That should not stand!!!
 
LesGovt said:
No I don't. I did not choose who ran in the primary and I did not vote for McCain in the primary. So now, please tell me how I get to choose the GOP candidate in the primary?
Click to expand...

OK. So to get this straight. You don't vote in the Primary and did not vote for McCain, so you are not responsible for McCain getting the nod. However, I, who did not vote for Obama AM responsible for Obama getting in? Is that really the double standard you wish to now apply?

LesGovt said:
Sorry, your initial premise here is incorrect. My premise was that I voted for McCain in the general election and he had a chance to win where Barr and other candidates did not stand a snowballs chance in Hell of winning. Had McCain won, we would not have "ObamaCare." My further premise is that if people like you and Vance had voted for McCain, he could have won and there would be no "ObamaCare."
Click to expand...

And had YOU voted in the primary and pushed out someone other than McCain, maybe you could have enticed people like ME to vote for the Republican instead of having to look elsewhere in the third parties. Sorry that your double standard isn't holding up here. Had you put up a better candidate, we wouldn't have "Obama Care". If you're going to blame me because I couldn't vote for either McCain or Obama, then I can blame you for not putting up someone better than McCain.

LesGovt said:
I have been perfectly honest.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a dishonest statement given the double standard you're looking to employ.

LesGovt said:
No, that is false. I am under the same rules as everyone is. If you wanted ObamaCare in 2008, you should have voted for Obama. If you do not want ObamaCare, you should have voted for McCain.
Click to expand...

Nope. I didn't want Obama Care, I didn't vote for Obama. That's it. Maybe if we had some form of Instant Runoff Voting, your point would be more valid. But we don't, so it isn't.

LesGovt said:
Again, I do not get to put up the candidate.
Click to expand...

And I did not vote for Obama.

LesGovt said:
I considered that very carefully in both the primary and the general. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

As did I, which is why I could not support neither McCain nor Obama.

LesGovt said:
No, you know that neither you nor I have the authority to choose which candidates will run in the primary elections or who wins the primaries. We have to make decisions off of who wins those primaries and what they stand for. Some like to take the moral highground of standing on the sidelines by voting for someone who cannot win and allow the worst candidate to win; ergo, giving us "ObamaCare." That would not be me.
Click to expand...

If you have not the authority to choose who wins the primaries, then I have not the authority to choose who wins the general election. yet for me you want to impose this belief that because I couldn't vote for McCain or Obama that I'm responsible for Obama being elected. Quite the double standard indeed.
 
1Perry said:
I felt the same about McCain.
Click to expand...

You thought McCain had no itegrity?

He lived his life with integrity and showed it.

How did you come to that conclusion?
 
Conservative said:
Statistics? I have posted data over and over only to be ignored. NY 9 had a Democrat running in support of the Obama record and in a District overwhelmingly Democrat a Republican won for the first time since 1920. The Obama results are a disaster and any Democrat that attaches themselves to those results will be defeated. There is no reason to support 4 more years of Obama.
Click to expand...

You've posted the result OF ONE ELECTION. That's ONE DATA POINT. You may be right, you may be wrong; but you don't have the data to support your claim.
 
Mason66 said:
You thought McCain had no itegrity?

He lived his life with integrity and showed it.

How did you come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

i'm certain his ex-wife thought he lived his life with integrity. after all, he didn't marry cindy for money, now did he?
 
LesGovt said:
You couldn't see it in 2008? Obama explicitly said that he was for redistribution of wealth. What more was there to understand? There are evidently people here who are content with leaving that law standing as they will vote 3rd Party in 2012 and possibly allowing President Obama a second term. That should not stand!!!
Click to expand...

No, I saw it in 2008 and didn't vote for Obama. His resume showed zero leadership and executive skills but did show he was a community agitator and had limited results as a Senator in either the State of Illinois and the U.S. Senate. His resume should have disqualified him but it did show he didn't have the experience for the job.
 
Ikari said:
You've posted the result OF ONE ELECTION. That's ONE DATA POINT. You may be right, you may be wrong; but you don't have the data to support your claim.
Click to expand...

This is what the Candidate in NY 9 supported by his support for Obama policies and apparently what many saw.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings
 
The biggest reason this guy won is not about "Obamacare," or anything to do with Obama. It's all about Weiner's weiner.
 
rocket88 said:
The biggest reason this guy won is not about "Obamacare," or anything to do with Obama. It's all about Weiner's weiner.
Click to expand...

Weiner wasn't on the ballot nor was his weiner. This is a Democrat District and the Democrat ran on support for the Obama record. The GOP ran on a conservative agenda and won 54-46%, the first Republican to win that District since 1920
 
liblady said:
i'm certain his ex-wife thought he lived his life with integrity. after all, he didn't marry cindy for money, now did he?
Click to expand...

Do you know for sure what their relationship was about back then?
 
Ikari said:
OK. So to get this straight. You don't vote in the Primary and did not vote for McCain, so you are not responsible for McCain getting the nod. However, I, who did not vote for Obama AM responsible for Obama getting in? Is that really the double standard you wish to now apply?
Click to expand...

I now see why you are confused. and I apologize for not being clearer. Here is the conversation we had:


Originally Posted by Ikari

Ikari earlier: You vote in the primaries? Then you do.
Click to expand...

Les earlier: No I don't. I did not choose who ran in the primary and I did not vote for McCain in the primary. So now, please tell me how I get to choose the GOP candidate in the primary?
Click to expand...

The "No I don't" has to do with your comment of "Then you do." I don't get to choose the candidate in the primary. I get to have one vote for one of the candidates and I voted for someone other than McCain. That's what I was saying; however, I now see why that confused you. So, if you wish to go after me again, please do so with your new understanding of what I was saying.
 
Mason66 said:
You thought McCain had no itegrity?

He lived his life with integrity and showed it.

How did you come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

His attack on our Constitutional rights for personal gain. I appreciate his service to the country but that doesn't give you an excuse for the rest of your life.
 
Conservative said:
This is what the Candidate in NY 9 supported by his support for Obama policies and apparently what many saw.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings
Click to expand...

People can say lots of things, but you're making an assumption that isn't supported by your data since an equally valid hypothesis supported by this one data point isn't that the people are sick of Obama and looking to take out the Democrats, but that the People are mad at the incumbents and looking to replace them all. The seat had historically been controlled by Democrats, so this data point does fit within that hypothesis as well. You won't know for sure till more results come in. If ONLY Democrats get voted out, that would go well for proving your hypothesis, if it's more that incumbents are being voted out; then it does not.
 
Ikari said:
People can say lots of things, but you're making an assumption that isn't supported by your data since an equally valid hypothesis supported by this one data point isn't that the people are sick of Obama and looking to take out the Democrats, but that the People are mad at the incumbents and looking to replace them all. The seat had historically been controlled by Democrats, so this data point does fit within that hypothesis as well. You won't know for sure till more results come in. If ONLY Democrats get voted out, that would go well for proving your hypothesis, if it's more that incumbents are being voted out; then it does not.
Click to expand...

LOL, hypothisis? These are actual results that the American people are seeing and experiencing.
 
LesGovt said:
The "No I don't" has to do with your comment of "Then you do." I don't get to choose the candidate in the primary. I get to have one vote for one of the candidates and I voted for someone other than McCain. That's what I was saying; however, I now see why that confused you. So, if you wish to go after me again, please do so with your new understanding of what I was saying.
Click to expand...

you also blamed others who did not vote for helping Obama care come to light, did you not? Then non-voting isn't an issue. If non voters are guilty of indirect support of Obama, then you not voting in the primaries is indirect support of who one the primary (in this case McCain), and thus you are guilty of pushing forward candidates whom are unable to reach out beyond the party's boundaries and capturing independents and third party voters.
 
Conservative said:
This is what the Candidate in NY 9 supported by his support for Obama policies and apparently what many saw.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings
Click to expand...
I see you have busted out your stock talking points for the 555th time.:shock:
 
Conservative said:
LOL, hypothisis? These are actual results that the American people are seeing and experiencing.
Click to expand...

Yes, hypothesis. Because you are attributing cause to the action, which is a hypothesis on how the action came to be. But what you claim isn't supported by the one data point you have. You've made assumptions to claim that, assuming it's retaliation against Obama (even though Obama wasn't on the ticket, which I believe was your deflect for Weiner). But it's not necessarily retaliation aimed at Obama. It could be retaliation against the incumbents, it could be based solely upon the candidates themselves; you don't actually know if this is indication of a greater national revolt against the Democrats or against the incumbents as a whole, or an isolated case.
 
Ikari said:
you also blamed others who did not vote for helping Obama care come to light, did you not? Then non-voting isn't an issue. If non voters are guilty of indirect support of Obama, then you not voting in the primaries is indirect support of who one the primary (in this case McCain), and thus you are guilty of pushing forward candidates whom are unable to reach out beyond the party's boundaries and capturing independents and third party voters.
Click to expand...

LOL! People who did not vote for McCain in the general election helped cause ObamaCare to become a reality. Non-voting is an issue as is those who voted, but did not vote for McCain. I'll say it again. I VOTED IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION. Got it now? You are making a false argument. Please read my most recent posting prior to this one.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, hypothesis. Because you are attributing cause to the action, which is a hypothesis on how the action came to be. But what you claim isn't supported by the one data point you have. You've made assumptions to claim that, assuming it's retaliation against Obama (even though Obama wasn't on the ticket, which I believe was your deflect for Weiner). But it's not necessarily retaliation aimed at Obama. It could be retaliation against the incumbents, it could be based solely upon the candidates themselves; you don't actually know if this is indication of a greater national revolt against the Democrats or against the incumbents as a whole, or an isolated case.
Click to expand...

Let's see, this is a Democrat District that last elected a Republican in 1920 and has a 3-1 or 4-1 advantage over the Republicans in numbers. The incumbent resigned and wasn't on the ballot. The Democrat Candidate ran on supporting the Obama policies and the Republican ran against them. The Republican won for the first time since 1920 with a 54-46%. I posted the issues for Turner so not sure what you are looking forward but it sure looks to me like this is a rejection of Obama policies and go with the 2010 elections, the Nevada Special election which wasn't a surprise however the margin of victory was. so study your statistics and let the world pass you by
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom