• 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!

Big review set by Democrats after election losses

disneydude said:
If the country is on the brink of bankruptcy in 2016 like it was under GWB in 2012, you might have a point...and Obama fatigue may kick in. I doubt that the country will be anywhere near the horrible shape it was in under GWB when Obama leaves it to the next woman.
Click to expand...

I am sure Obama fatigue has set in and it probably started about a year and a half ago. But even if it has it doesn’t mean he can’t turn it around. Reagan and Clinton were able to throw it off and recover nicely and both had an excellent last two years. Bush the second wasn’t able to turn it around, Bush fatigue continued until he left the presidency. But you will can tell if Obama is successful or not by watching his approval numbers and party affiliation. To show you what I mean about fatigue setting in compare his approval numbers to a year and a half ago to today:

National Average Then 53% Today 40% minus 13 points
Republican Then 13% Today 7% minus 6 points
Democrat Then 90% Today 78% minus 12 points
Independent Then 47% Today 36% minus 11 points

Party Affiliation
Democrat Then 35% Now 29% minus 6
Republican Then 30% Now 26 % minus 4
Independent Then 32% Now 43% plus 11 points

It would take several pages to explain why the above happened. Waste of time and energy. But both Reagan and Clinton turned figures like around and both finished in the 60’s at the end of their presidency. Bush the second didn’t and dropped down into the upper 20’s at the end of his presidency. If Obama approval and party affiliation drops, the Democrats will have a very hard time in 2016, if he turns it around and throws off voter Obama fatigue and those figures rise, the Democrats will be easy victors.
 
I think a lot of people are like me in that they think it doesn't matter who is in Washington because it makes very little difference in their personal life. Take me:

I am 38 year old male Sr. Systems Administrator that works for a good company. I have a wife, 3 kids, dogs, a home, and am an avid outdoorsman, runner, and cyclist.

Now, lets look at the issues of our time today:

1. The ACA.
I had insurance through my employer. The same with my wife. The ACA changed nothing about our insurance situation positive or negative. The only positive out of it for us is that 2 of our kids were adopted special needs, and thus preexisting conditions will not exclude them from the insurance market if they ever are in the individual market.

2. Abortion.
I am a guy, I won't ever get an abortion.

3. Same Sex Marriage.
I am a married heterosexual man, it makes no difference at all in my life.

4. Defense.
I am getting too old to serve anyway, even if I wanted to quit my job and go out and sign up.

5. Cultural issues.
Its all background noise to me. We haven't been church goers for quite some time now, so I just don't get motivated by things like "the war on Christmas" and other ginned up crap.

6. Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I accept the science and am concerned about it, but its not like we are ever going to do really anything about it regardless of who is in office. So might as well accept that in a few generations its going to be a much warmer world.

My point is to the average middle class to upper middle class Joe, what difference does it make in their life which party controls Washington? To me Washington is this model of disfunction, where little ever gets accomplished and what does is usually a bureaucratic mess because of all that has to be added to it to assemble enough votes to pass it. Hell the main reason I tend to support Democrats over the Republicans at the federal level is the Democrats are much more supportive of public lands and wilderness. I mean how pathetic is that, that our government is so dysfunctional that public lands is the dividing issue for me.

This is what kills the Democrats in the midterms, they are the party of the federal government and the federal government is a dysfunctional mess that makes little difference in most people's lives.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think a lot of people are like me in that they think it doesn't matter who is in Washington because it makes very little difference in their personal life. Take me:

I am 38 year old male Sr. Systems Administrator that works for a good company. I have a wife, 3 kids, dogs, a home, and am an avid outdoorsman, runner, and cyclist.

Now, lets look at the issues of our time today:

1. The ACA.
I had insurance through my employer. The same with my wife. The ACA changed nothing about our insurance situation positive or negative. The only positive out of it for us is that 2 of our kids were adopted special needs, and thus preexisting conditions will not exclude them from the insurance market if they ever are in the individual market.

2. Abortion.
I am a guy, I won't ever get an abortion.

3. Same Sex Marriage.
I am a married heterosexual man, it makes no difference at all in my life.

4. Defense.
I am getting too old to serve anyway, even if I wanted to quit my job and go out and sign up.

5. Cultural issues.
Its all background noise to me. We haven't been church goers for quite some time now, so I just don't get motivated by things like "the war on Christmas" and other ginned up crap.

6. Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I accept the science and am concerned about it, but its not like we are ever going to do really anything about it regardless of who is in office. So might as well accept that in a few generations its going to be a much warmer world.

My point is to the average middle class to upper middle class Joe, what difference does it make in their life which party controls Washington? To me Washington is this model of disfunction, where little ever gets accomplished and what does is usually a bureaucratic mess because of all that has to be added to it to assemble enough votes to pass it. Hell the main reason I tend to support Democrats over the Republicans at the federal level is the Democrats are much more supportive of public lands and wilderness. I mean how pathetic is that, that our government is so dysfunctional that public lands is the dividing issue for me.

This is what kills the Democrats in the midterms, they are the party of the federal government and the federal government is a dysfunctional mess that makes little difference in most people's lives.
Click to expand...


You should re-evaluate your position on AGW.

You seem like a smart enough guy. There's no " science " that backs the existence of Man made Global warming.

There's allot of lies, including the NOAA's blatant alteration of temperature data to " prove " the earths warming, when its not

And the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that essentially got busted doing the samw thing.

The only thing the pro-agw people have to prove it exist are computer models that use fudged data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

That's not " Science ". Thats fraud. Science has nothing to do with " consensus ".

As for the election, the American people voters are sick of being lied to by Democrats.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think a lot of people are like me in that they think it doesn't matter who is in Washington because it makes very little difference in their personal life. Take me:

I am 38 year old male Sr. Systems Administrator that works for a good company. I have a wife, 3 kids, dogs, a home, and am an avid outdoorsman, runner, and cyclist.

Now, lets look at the issues of our time today:

1. The ACA.
I had insurance through my employer. The same with my wife. The ACA changed nothing about our insurance situation positive or negative. The only positive out of it for us is that 2 of our kids were adopted special needs, and thus preexisting conditions will not exclude them from the insurance market if they ever are in the individual market.

2. Abortion.
I am a guy, I won't ever get an abortion.

3. Same Sex Marriage.
I am a married heterosexual man, it makes no difference at all in my life.

4. Defense.
I am getting too old to serve anyway, even if I wanted to quit my job and go out and sign up.

5. Cultural issues.
Its all background noise to me. We haven't been church goers for quite some time now, so I just don't get motivated by things like "the war on Christmas" and other ginned up crap.

6. Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I accept the science and am concerned about it, but its not like we are ever going to do really anything about it regardless of who is in office. So might as well accept that in a few generations its going to be a much warmer world.

My point is to the average middle class to upper middle class Joe, what difference does it make in their life which party controls Washington? To me Washington is this model of disfunction, where little ever gets accomplished and what does is usually a bureaucratic mess because of all that has to be added to it to assemble enough votes to pass it. Hell the main reason I tend to support Democrats over the Republicans at the federal level is the Democrats are much more supportive of public lands and wilderness. I mean how pathetic is that, that our government is so dysfunctional that public lands is the dividing issue for me.

This is what kills the Democrats in the midterms, they are the party of the federal government and the federal government is a dysfunctional mess that makes little difference in most people's lives.
Click to expand...

Soooo, apathy is a good thing? :roll:
 
countryboy said:
Soooo, apathy is a good thing? :roll:
Click to expand...
It's a good thing for Republicans in midterm elections. However it's not a good thing for Democrats. That was my point in all that.
 
I think most people feel the way I do. Regardless of who wins my life goes on as it had.
 
The Dems lost because they ran their campaigns like little bitches. They ran afraid and actively tried to scare their voters into going to the polls. Fear doesn't work the same on Dems as it does with Republicans.

Run on what you will do and address reality.
 
Kobie said:
The GOP would have already HAD the Senate if they hadn't run the Whackadoodle Brigade in 2010.

Angle, O'Donnell, Joe Miller in Alaska and Ken Buck in Colorado all were Tea Party nutters who lost extremely winnable races in 2010 due to the fact that they were loony tunes. Add those four seats and it would have been a 51-47 Republican advantage.
Click to expand...

Oh ****, I forgot about Joe Miller. Now that guy was a nutcase. I don't really remember Ken Buck...I have to Google him.

You are 100% right and we're in agreement. The GOP had a big chance to catch the Senate but they ran what were arguably the worst candidates they could find. I think that was a mistake they realized too late for them, and they decided not to try it again. Much better pool of candidates in 2014.
 
ocean515 said:
I appreciate the defense of NPR. However, there is a reason certain groups and individuals donate to it.
Click to expand...

As an individual I donate to it because I enjoy the programming.

Probably the same reason anyone pays (either directly or through the access their listening provides to paying advertisers) for any type of entertainment.

Beyond that, the greater point remains valid.
Click to expand...

I didn't disagree with your point in general.

I don't think FOX is nearly as influential as many on the left make it out to be.

It has a small cadre of die hard listeners who tune in primarily to hear their prejudices reinforced.

It certainly isn't swaying elections.
 
Tettsuo said:
The Dems lost because they ran their campaigns like little bitches. They ran afraid and actively tried to scare their voters into going to the polls. Fear doesn't work the same on Dems as it does with Republicans.

Run on what you will do and address reality.
Click to expand...


They wanted a chance in hell.

That wasn't possible if they ran " what they did ".

If they had it would have been an even bigger wash out than it was.
 
Misterveritis said:
Is NPR still state-run media? I think it is time for it to have any government funding withheld. Let it stand, or fall, on its own.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree.

There are plenty of programs that could easily stand on their own merit and a whole lot of garbage that only exists because of public subsidies.

Then again, I feel the same way about entertainment in general.

Professional sports shouldn't be subsidized by mandatory inclusion in basic cable packages.

If ESPN and the hundred other sports programing outlets can't get the folks who actually watch/listen to their programming to foot the entire bill then they should be allowed to die.
 
Fenton said:
They wanted a chance in hell.

That wasn't possible if they ran " what they did ".

If they had it would have been an even bigger wash out than it was.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer that than running scared and looking like a bunch of cowards.
 
soot said:
As an individual I donate to it because I enjoy the programming.

Probably the same reason anyone pays (either directly or through the access their listening provides to paying advertisers) for any type of entertainment.



I didn't disagree with your point in general.

I don't think FOX is nearly as influential as many on the left make it out to be.

It has a small cadre of die hard listeners who tune in primarily to hear their prejudices reinforced.

It certainly isn't swaying elections.
Click to expand...

I used to donate to PBS. They decided to turn hard left with their programming, so that came to an end. George Soros, in my opinion, one of the more dangerous men in the global socio-economic Progressive Machine effort, has donated millions to NPR for reporters and other insider efforts.

NPR may have it's innocent middle of the road shows, but willfully taking these huge sums of money from big time political extremist operatives like Soros and others, classifies them exactly as the money, and the acceptance of it, has earned them.
 
ocean515 said:
NPR may have it's innocent middle of the road shows, but willfully taking these huge sums of money from big time political extremist operatives like Soros and others, classifies them exactly as the money, and the acceptance of it, has earned them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but for every penny they're taking from "big time political extremist operatives" they're taking tens or even hundreds of dollars from for profit corporations.

Go read their 990s and their Donor Lists if you don't believe me.

So where do we really net out here?

George Soros makes a one-time $1.8 million donation while JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the American Natural Gas Alliance donate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, after year, after year.

At the end of the day there's really an overwhelming corporate interest backing NPR.

Yet still they're able to remain decidedly middle-of-the-road in terms of their broad spectrum of current events, political, and news coverage.
 
soot said:
Yeah, but for every penny they're taking from "big time political extremist operatives" they're taking tens or even hundreds of dollars from for profit corporations.

Go read their 990s and their Donor Lists if you don't believe me.

So where do we really net out here?

George Soros makes a one-time $1.8 million donation while JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the American Natural Gas Alliance donate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, after year, after year.

At the end of the day there's really an overwhelming corporate interest backing NPR.

Yet still they're able to remain decidedly middle-of-the-road in terms of their broad spectrum of current events, political, and news coverage.
Click to expand...
It seems the middle of the road has moved a great deal toward the left then. Is there really any 'right wing news' on NPR? They even fired Juan Williams for being extreme!
 
soot said:
Yeah, but for every penny they're taking from "big time political extremist operatives" they're taking tens or even hundreds of dollars from for profit corporations.

Go read their 990s and their Donor Lists if you don't believe me.

So where do we really net out here?

George Soros makes a one-time $1.8 million donation while JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the American Natural Gas Alliance donate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, after year, after year.

At the end of the day there's really an overwhelming corporate interest backing NPR.

Yet still they're able to remain decidedly middle-of-the-road in terms of their broad spectrum of current events, political, and news coverage.
Click to expand...

I do read their donations lists and the IRS submissions. For example, the Ford and MacArthur foundations are two major Progressive operations. They play a vital monetary role in NPR.

You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Thanks for the exchange.
 
soot said:
Yeah, but for every penny they're taking from "big time political extremist operatives" they're taking tens or even hundreds of dollars from for profit corporations.

Go read their 990s and their Donor Lists if you don't believe me.

So where do we really net out here?

George Soros makes a one-time $1.8 million donation while JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the American Natural Gas Alliance donate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, after year, after year.

At the end of the day there's really an overwhelming corporate interest backing NPR.

Yet still they're able to remain decidedly middle-of-the-road in terms of their broad spectrum of current events, political, and news coverage.
Click to expand...

You understand that many of those corporate donations aren't to PBS's general fund but programming. They pay for a lot of the documentaries shown. It helps them keep the tone of the documentaries from becoming too anti them.
 
soot said:
I don't really disagree.

There are plenty of programs that could easily stand on their own merit and a whole lot of garbage that only exists because of public subsidies.

Then again, I feel the same way about entertainment in general.

Professional sports shouldn't be subsidized by mandatory inclusion in basic cable packages.

If ESPN and the hundred other sports programing outlets can't get the folks who actually watch/listen to their programming to foot the entire bill then they should be allowed to die.
Click to expand...
I prefer to keep the propaganda arm of the government separated from other forms of coercion. Cable is dying. Bundling is one of the reasons.
 
Henrin said:
What is actually wrong about wages being determined by value? What would you base it on? That someone is human and needs stuff?
Click to expand...

Yes, its called treating people decently rather than exploiting a person's desperate situation. Its akin to giving a dying person in the deert a free or cheap glass of water rather than charging as much as you can.
 
Hard Truth said:
Yes, its called treating people decently rather than exploiting a person's desperate situation. Its akin to giving a dying person in the deert a free or cheap glass of water rather than charging as much as you can.
Click to expand...
If you feel strongly about it then use YOUR money.

How are you different than any other thief that roams the streets?
 
grip said:
The Democrats were handed such big losses, because they've pushed the liberal agenda too hard.
Click to expand...
What agenda would that be?

There weren't enough voters to counter the older and middle aged conservatives, who are afraid of the immigration issue
Click to expand...
Really? And who made it a problem because SAS it did not crop up overnight?

acceptance of LGBT community
Click to expand...
Right, because rights that protect everyone are bad and bigotry and selfishness are so much better.

poor economic performance.
Click to expand...
Because record profits and market levels are terrible.
 
Henrin said:
What is actually wrong about wages being determined by value? What would you base it on? That someone is human and needs stuff?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that it should be you who makes such determinations because someone died and left you in charge or because you are the only one who can do so? I am curious, what is your valuation system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom