• 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'

Jack Hays said:
Senatorial procedure?:lamo
Click to expand...

Not by-the-book senatorial procedure, that was probably a bad term to use. However, a caucus is generally supposed to stick together -- you don't often find members of either party's senate caucuses openly talking **** about their party's legislation. To use that as an example of "leftist" thinking is asinine.
 
Kobie said:
Not by-the-book senatorial procedure, that was probably a bad term to use. However, a caucus is generally supposed to stick together -- you don't often find members of either party's senate caucuses openly talking **** about their party's legislation. To use that as an example of "leftist" thinking is asinine.
Click to expand...

Senators don't act like House members.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. Don't be a sore loser. It's unbecoming.:peace
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm just bowing out because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You'll just make up whatever you want to be contrary.
 
Kobie said:
Nah, I'm just bowing out because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You'll just make up whatever you want to be contrary.
Click to expand...

I am but a humble servant of the data, which can seem like a brick wall to those unfamiliar with it.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, if I did not think elections are important then I would not be spending time in this discussion.:peace
Click to expand...
So should we ignore your statements where you tell us who can and cannot win? Hey! Good idea!
 
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...

Yeah, it turns out it was the timing. I knew he'd messed with it somehow, I just completely 100% screwed up the how :2razz:
 
Kobie said:
OK. What-the-****-ever. :roll:
Click to expand...

Historically he is actually correct. For most of our history the House has operated on something more similar to a Parliamentary model, with the powerful speaker enforcing party discipline by controlling committee memberships. Senators have traditionally felt a freer hand, and each individual Senator has wielded more power than members of the other chamber.
 
cpwill said:
Historically he is actually correct. For most of our history the House has operated on something more similar to a Parliamentary model, with the powerful speaker enforcing party discipline by controlling committee memberships. Senators have traditionally felt a freer hand, and each individual Senator has wielded more power than members of the other chamber.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, perhaps, but certainly not lately. Generally speaking, if a sizeable part of the Senate caucus is going to speak out against their own party's legislation, they're going to at least get the go-ahead from their party's leader in the chamber.

Regardless, the whole "which chamber has more freedom to speak" is a moot argument, since it was a stupid example introducted into the earlier discussion.
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
Historically speaking, perhaps, but certainly not lately.
Click to expand...

What - since 2011? :shrug: maybe.

Generally speaking, if a sizeable part of the Senate caucus is going to speak out against their own party's legislation, they're going to at least get the go-ahead from their party's leader in the chamber.
Click to expand...

Was that what happened when Bush tried to reform Social Security?
 
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...

The point is that the Left goes after anyone they even perceive has strayed off the reservation.

Just today I saw they went nuts thinking Richard Cohen in the WAPO said critical things about the new Communist mayor of NYC and his personal life. They were wrong but they had to drag poor Dick back into the fold.

Another example ... and maybe a more revealing one. You know the D Party is comprised of a pastiche of voting blocks ... blacks being a prominent one ... one that helped launch Obama from community organizer obscurity all the way to the WH. They used race to get him there and they use race to help keep the hounds away from the Oval Office. In order to do that they have to marginalize anyone who tries to leave the plantation.
example: Ben Carson. Especially Ben Carson. Black, educated, very well spoken, successful, neurosurgeon, critic of Obama.
They can't tolerate heretics in one of their major voting blocks ... might give the others pause about what they've been told.
 
Kobie said:
Historically speaking, perhaps, but certainly not lately. Generally speaking, if a sizeable part of the Senate caucus is going to speak out against their own party's legislation, they're going to at least get the go-ahead from their party's leader in the chamber.

Regardless, the whole "which chamber has more freedom to speak" is a moot argument, since it was a stupid example introducted into the earlier discussion.
Click to expand...

Once again, the opposite is closer to the truth in the Senate.:peace
 
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...

I love how someone that shows a lean of "undisclosed" is trying to give me a lesson of what I believe in. Tell you what, when you disclose YOUR lean and YOUR views let's talk. Until then I'm quite happy, content, and CORRECT on my lean.

Your idea of "left" is not only ignorant, but incorrect. Have fun with your rhetroic, it only shows your ignorance and how far from reality you really are. Tell you what, why don't you come back when Rush limpdick tells you to.
 
bubbabgone said:
The point is that the Left goes after anyone they even perceive has strayed off the reservation.
Click to expand...

Haven't been keeping an eye on the GOP eating their own have you? That is the RIGHT just to let you know. Your ignorance knows NO bounds.
 
TheNextEra said:
Haven't been keeping an eye on the GOP eating their own have you? That is the RIGHT just to let you know. Your ignorance knows NO bounds.
Click to expand...
Good example ... the Republicans don't agree with each other and it's public.
The Democrats do it behind Oval Office doors and agree on a strategy to keep the troops in line.
 
TheNextEra said:
I love how someone that shows a lean of "undisclosed" is
trying to give me a lesson of what I believe in.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, when you disclose YOUR lean and YOUR views let's talk. Until then I'm quite happy, content, and CORRECT on my lean.

Your idea of "left" is not only ignorant, but incorrect. Have fun with your rhetroic, it only shows your ignorance and how far from reality you really are. Tell you what, why don't you come back when Rush limpdick tells you to.
Click to expand...
Your own words disclose your confusion ... I just repeated them.
 
bubbabgone said:
Your own words disclose your confusion ... I just repeated them.
Click to expand...

I have no confussion, the confusion is on YOU. BTW what's YOUR views and YOUR lean? Are you afraid to disclose? Yep, you are.
 
bubbabgone said:
Good example ... the Republicans don't agree with each other and it's public.
The Democrats do it behind Oval Office doors and agree on a strategy to keep the troops in line.
Click to expand...

In other words, you were wrong as usual with your pathetic rhetoric. It's amusing to see you show your ignorance to everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom