• 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!

Mother Jones Shocker: 'New Poll Shows Democratic Incumbents in Big Trouble'

bubbabgone said:
You're very sensitive and evasive, aren't you.
You should explain some of your positions that make you Left and your other positions that make you a Libertarian.
I think many of us would like to see how that combination would work.
You want limited Government but not too limited?
You want healthcare choice but only from a Government approved list?
Or maybe you're simply a Libertarian in the sense that you want to be free to choose not to be free.
Or maybe you're just a confused fellow.
Click to expand...

My positions that make me left are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (unless states ALL get out of the marriage business), pro-welfare (if there was serious reform).

My libertarian positions are a limited government, pro-second amendment, states getting out of marriage ALL TOGETHER, fiscal responsibility, and not be the police of the world. I am on record as being against Obamacare, against the bailouts, against the gun control measures that have been insituted, against forcing a green agenda on people and against what the NSA has become.

I'm not confused in the least, how about YOU share your views or back up YOUR claims that I somehow want some sort of "dominance".
 
Jack Hays said:
His huge majority in NJ includes lots of Dems.:peace
Click to expand...

Because he gave Booker a Senate Seat. He tainted the value of his own victory in order to achieve it.
 
You could have gotten rid of Reid if they hadn't run a complete nutjob against him last time.

GOP - you better find your moderate roots. We crave sensible management, not morality lectures.
 
TheNextEra said:
My positions that make me left are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (unless states ALL get out of the marriage business), pro-welfare (if there was serious reform).

My libertarian positions are a limited government, pro-second amendment, states getting out of marriage ALL TOGETHER, fiscal responsibility, and not be the police of the world. I am on record as being against Obamacare, against the bailouts, against the gun control measures that have been insituted, against forcing a green agenda on people and against what the NSA has become.

I'm not confused in the least, how about YOU share your views or back up YOUR claims that I somehow want some sort of "dominance".
Click to expand...

You see ... as you describe it, that's a problem.
What you call your Libertarian views are Conservative views ... except maybe that marriage one which sounds like a stalking horse for the Left.
So you could have said you are a Left - Conservative ... but I suppose maybe you imagine that would make you sound bi polar or something ... or maybe you just couldn't bring yourself to do it and thought including Libertarian gives you credibility cachet.
Either way, the Left part of any hybrid Left configuration is always relentlessly on the march since the Left by definition and practice don't tolerate alternative beliefs.
 
bubbabgone said:
You see ... as you describe it, that's a problem.
What you call your Libertarian views are Conservative views ... except maybe that marriage one which sounds like a stalking horse for the Left.
So you could have said you are a Left - Conservative ... but I suppose maybe you imagine that would make you sound bi polar or something ... or maybe you just couldn't bring yourself to do it and thought including Libertarian gives you credibility cachet.
Either way, the Left part of any hybrid Left configuration is always relentlessly on the march since the Left by definition and practice don't tolerate alternative beliefs.
Click to expand...

Oh, what a crock that is. Pure, unadulterated, weapons grade bull****.
 
cpwill said:
Because he gave Booker a Senate Seat. He tainted the value of his own victory in order to achieve it.
Click to expand...

:confused: I thought Booker ran to fill Lautenberg's seat in the Senate, ...after Lautenberg died. How does Christie enter the picture, other than backing the Republican who ran against Booker, which was expected?

Greetings, cpwill. :2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
And how, exactly, did Christie "give" anything to Booker?:peace
Click to expand...

He scheduled a special election for John Kerry's Senate Seat. He could have simply appointed someone to finish out Kerry's term, but instead decided to have a special election. This sucked Cory Booker (who was otherwise going to run against him for the Governorship) an easy out - both men had easy, wipeout win elections. Christie made it harder for Republicans to pick up the Senate just so that he could brag about picking up Democrats in NJ.
 
polgara said:
:confused: I thought Booker ran to fill Lautenberg's seat in the Senate, ...after Lautenberg died. How does Christie enter the picture, other than backing the Republican who ran against Booker, which was expected?

Greetings, cpwill. :2wave:
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: I thought it was Kerry's. Regardless, the basic move was the same. Give Booker a Senate Seat win, and he wont' run against you for Governor.
 
cpwill said:
He scheduled a special election for John Kerry's Senate Seat. He could have simply appointed someone to finish out Kerry's term, but instead decided to have a special election. This sucked Cory Booker (who was otherwise going to run against him for the Governorship) an easy out - both men had easy, wipeout win elections. Christie made it harder for Republicans to pick up the Senate just so that he could brag about picking up Democrats in NJ.
Click to expand...

Ahem. Kerry was a Senator from Massachusetts. Booker ran in New Jersey -- where Christie is Governor -- to win the seat of the deceased Frank Lautenberg. Now that we have the states sorted out, here are some other pertinent details. Booker had already announced before Lautenberg died that he was going to challenge Lautenberg in the Dem primary. Booker was never going to run against Christie. Why? Because he would have been badly beaten.:peace
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: I thought it was Kerry's. Regardless, the basic move was the same. Give Booker a Senate Seat win, and he wont' run against you for Governor.
Click to expand...

Booker was already mounting a primary challenge to Lautenberg before Lautenberg died. Booker wanted no part of a run against Christie.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ahem. Kerry was a Senator from Massachusetts. Booker ran in New Jersey -- where Christie is Governor -- to win the seat of the deceased Frank Lautenberg. Now that we have the states sorted out, here are some other pertinent details. Booker had already announced before Lautenberg died that he was going to challenge Lautenberg in the Dem primary. Booker was never going to run against Christie. Why? Because he would have been badly beaten.:peace
Click to expand...

You are correct and I am wrong about Kerry / Lautenberg. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about Booker - though admittedly my strongest memory from the timing of that is a Daily Show piece on it :D. I would run back and check sources, but I'm about to have to launch on a cross-country move, so I will concede until some other day. :peace:
 
cpwill said:
You are correct and I am wrong about Kerry / Lautenberg. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about Booker - though admittedly my strongest memory from the timing of that is a Daily Show piece on it :D. I would run back and check sources, but I'm about to have to launch on a cross-country move, so I will concede until some other day. :peace:
Click to expand...

Good luck with the move.:2wave:
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: I thought it was Kerry's. Regardless, the basic move was the same. Give Booker a Senate Seat win, and he wont' run against you for Governor.
Click to expand...

I heard all day on the news that Booker was running in New Jersey to fill Lautenberg's seat. That is correct, and Booker won. I haven't heard who will fill Kerry's seat, but he's the Senator from Massachusetts, so who knows?
 
polgara said:
I heard all day on the news that Booker was running in New Jersey to fill Lautenberg's seat. That is correct, and Booker won. I haven't heard who will fill Kerry's seat, but he's the Senator from Massachusetts, so who knows?
Click to expand...

Congressman Ed Markey took Kerry's Senate seat.
 
bubbabgone said:
That certainly was a convincing argument.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the "left" does not tolerate opposing viewpoints. This is accepted as some sort of truism among conservatives, and it's a load of crap.
 
Kobie said:
You are claiming that the "left" does not tolerate opposing viewpoints. This is accepted as some sort of truism among conservatives, and it's a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say.:mrgreen:

[h=3]Why are liberals so intolerant? « Hot Air[/h]hotair.com/archives/2012/08/01/why-are-liberals-so-intolerant/‎
Aug 1, 2012 - I thought liberals were the ones preaching tolerance? ... Liberal journalists fanned the flames by deeming Cathy's comments endorsing the “biblical definition of the family unit“ as anti-gay. And to make ..... Quotes of the day.
 
Kobie said:
You are claiming that the "left" does not tolerate opposing viewpoints. This is accepted as some sort of truism among conservatives, and it's a load of crap.
Click to expand...
When 14 Senators have to get permission to state their objections to a law out loud in order to save their political hide, I suspect they don't think it's a load of crap.
True ... being used to the rules may soften the impact a bit.
 
Jack Hays said:
Whatever you say.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Oh golly, Hot Air. Yes, that's objective. :roll:

Anyone can cherry pick anything to make one "side" look bad. But acting as if intolerance of opposing viewpoints is some basic tenet of "left" thought is asinine. It simply isn't true, no matter how much you conservatives (and conservatives masquerading as "independents") try to claim it.

More conservative victimhood complex BS. It's weaksauce.
 
Kobie said:
Oh golly, Hot Air. Yes, that's objective. :roll:

Anyone can cherry pick anything to make one "side" look bad. But acting as if intolerance of opposing viewpoints is some basic tenet of "left" thought is asinine. It simply isn't true, no matter how much you conservatives (and conservatives masquerading as "independents") try to claim it.

More conservative victimhood complex BS. It's weaksauce.
Click to expand...

Ah, well. Nothing to be done in the face of such an irrefutable argument.:lamo
 
bubbabgone said:
When 14 Senators have to get permission to state their objections to a law out loud in order to save their political hide, I suspect they don't think it's a load of crap.
True ... being used to the rules may soften the impact a bit.
Click to expand...

Yes, because a matter of Senatorial procedure from a center-left party = how the "left" operates on a daily basis. :roll:

There is this pervasive notion that everyone to the "left" of center behaves and operates in the exact same fashion. Neither side is a hivemind.
 
Kobie said:
Yes, because a matter of Senatorial procedure from a center-left party = how the "left" operates on a daily basis. :roll:

There is this pervasive notion that everyone to the "left" of center behaves and operates in the exact same fashion. Neither side is a hivemind.
Click to expand...

Senatorial procedure?:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom