• 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!

Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

Thank you for demonstrating how your desire to bomb other countries into oblivion is stronger than your desire for liberty at home.

Support for "liberty at home" does not require one to embrace a neo-isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy. One can readily choose from among the major foreign policy schools and still support such liberty.
 
Show me the bills that have bi-partisan support in the house (at least 30 Dem votes and many Conservative No votes) and you will move your point forward. The bills that are passed substantially along party lines that are sitting dormant in the Senate are not serious bills. If they were serious, you would see crossover vote in the house. In any serious business transaction, you put forth a reasonable offer that you know will be taken seriously because you have addressed the constituency you are presenting it to. If you can even get cross-over vote in the house, why do you think the Senate should take it seriously? Answer: they don't, which is why they sit on the sidelines, as they should. Negotiations only happen with a serious first offer; a serious first offer has 30+ democrats voting in favor

Though I agree some bills (a handful) meet this criteria, most do not and are not serious pieces of legislation. They are just showboat to the House can do what its doing and say "look here, we did our job"...... Serious minds, however, are more discriminating and see this for the farce it is.

Bogus Bipartisan Claims

Many of the Bills do have bipartisan support. However the Senate does not care about bipartisan support. It proved that with the passage of Obamacare.
 
That is incorrect. Besides, the Senate is not even trying to discuss/negotiate/modify any bills, the are just sitting dormant. There is a big huge close-minded road block to most all bills: Harry Reid.

Here is one list of the 387 Bills. There is info on the votes on most of them as well.
Bill Tracker

That is rather amazing. I wonder how many on this thread actually looked at that list?
 
That is rather amazing. I wonder how many on this thread actually looked at that list?

just as i question whether you and others read post 148 and its cite to appreciate why so many actions were not elevated to the senate floor ... and to view the misrepresentation of what is presented to be 'bi-partisan'
 
just as i question whether you and others read post 148 and its cite to appreciate why so many actions were not elevated to the senate floor ... and to view the misrepresentation of what is presented to be 'bi-partisan'

"factcheck.org" is a horrible place to cite. Even though it may sound official and unbiased, it is not. And it has ties to radical leftists such as Bill Ayers.
 
Show me the bills that have bi-partisan support in the house (at least 30 Dem votes and many Conservative No votes

Wait...your definition of Bipartisan is that some people on both sides like it and many people on both sides don't?

So something that has full democratic support and say 25% of the Republicans in that particular wing of Congress's support wouldn't be bipartisan because too many Democrats support it? o_O
 
just as i question whether you and others read post 148 and its cite to appreciate why so many actions were not elevated to the senate floor ... and to view the misrepresentation of what is presented to be 'bi-partisan'

But the fact is some were bipartisan--even your link challenging the post admitted that. And is it considered by partisan by your side if five or so Republicans vote for something? What is bipartisan can be somewhat subjective. And the fact remains that there are many MANY bills that the House has passed that the Senate has yet to even debate. We don't know how many are actually considered. And it doesn't matter that some are in committee. Nothing gets out of committee until Harry Reid gives his okay.

When you are writing something to make a point, it sometimes takes half a page or more to mention all the extenuating circumstances or anomalies or other factors that go into any complex subject. So we can choose to deflect from the point made by nitpicking every single point of accuracy, or we can choose to see the point made and acknowledge it even if we mention that there are also some extenuating circumstances.
 
just as i question whether you and others read post 148 and its cite to appreciate why so many actions were not elevated to the senate floor ... and to view the misrepresentation of what is presented to be 'bi-partisan'

Actually, post 148 highlights perfectly the issue with the comment "bipartisan". It's a non-specific term that fluxuates person to person and situation to situation. Even the link in post 148 qualifies it's statement by saying many are not "very" bipartisan...applying some kind of opinion based standard of what THEY feel qualifies as "bipartisan" and treating that like it's a fact. I'll note that this kind of "factchecking"...IE, putting an over emphasis on their opinion and then treating said opinion as fact...is an issue I've been noting about Factcheck since the election when they ROUTINELY "fact checked" things in a very different way than the two other major fact checkers, largely based on assumptions and guesses and benefits of hte doubt they would give in some instances and not in the others.

This is the issue with words sometimes and the laughable nature of people who are trying to call out political "spin" using some of the very buzzwords that are ingrained within the political spin cycle.

Take the poster from 148's seeming numbers...."bipartisan" requires that 15% of the opposition party supports it and 8.5% of the majority party also opposes it.

Back in 2013 we had all of four republican senators coming to an agreement with all but 4 Democrats on a possible gun control bill and the media was trumpeting that as a "bipartisan" bill. Using Upsideguy's criteria, this shouldn't be called bipartisan as it didn't have the requisite 5 democrats voting against it or the requisite 7 republicans voting for it. But many were championing it as "bipartisan" and I don't seem to remember many fact checks being done when Liberals were scolding the "extreme right wing" about not getting on board with "bipartisan" gun control measures.

As a note, "Factcheck" called this bill Bipartisan despite only having FOUR Republicans supporting it; no where near a "majority" of Republicans. Yet they call the Republican claim of bipartisan "bogus" because and not "very bipartisan" because it didn't have a majority of democrats voting for it. This is the issue with a site that continually attempts to present qualitative analysis as quantitative and attempts to present it's opinion as facts while ignoring that it's opinion changes from instance to instance.

On the flip side, back in 2011 President Obama proclaimed that "nearly every Senate Republican voted against a Tax Cut", despite 44% doing quite the opposite. Shockingly, the outlet deciding whether something is "very" bipartisan seemingly had nothing to say about that whopper of a mistruth.

My point being that politicians, pundits, posters, and yes "factcheck" sites play fast and loose with how they measure, react, and depict "support" from accross the aisle when it comes to various types of bills in various types of situations.

That's not to say an argument can't be made that there was not many truly "good faith" bipartisan bills coming out of the House in ones opinion...but that's just that, opinion without HARD facts to back it up. Factcheck making a qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis of what DEGREE of "bipartisanship" is needed to qualify as "bipartisanship" is OPINION being masqueraded as "fact" and should not be relyed upon in and of itself as some kind of absolute authority.

For an example of their unequitable treatment, compare the article talking about the "Bogus" claims of bipartisanship by those on the right to the "not entirely" true claims of bipartisanship by an individual on the left. Specifically at the snarky end line of the "bogus" piece with the far more moderated fact toned one in "not entirely".
 
Last edited:
That's just a list of punks that don't deserve anyone's vote.
 
Wait...your definition of Bipartisan is that some people on both sides like it and many people on both sides don't?

So something that has full democratic support and say 25% of the Republicans in that particular wing of Congress's support wouldn't be bipartisan because too many Democrats support it? o_O

Yes, kind of like a fairway shot as opposed to something that ends up in the rough on the left or right. If you want to score, you want to keep the ball in the fairway.
 
Many of the Bills do have bipartisan support. However the Senate does not care about bipartisan support. It proved that with the passage of Obamacare.

Give us a list of bills with real bi-partisan support and you will have made your point. If you can't, then the point remains that the Senate is not taking up the bills because they are not serious bills. I agree there are a few that meet the a bi-partisan standard, but they are very few.
 
Give us a list of bills with real bi-partisan support and you will have made your point. If you can't, then the point remains that the Senate is not taking up the bills because they are not serious bills. I agree there are a few that meet the a bi-partisan standard, but they are very few.

Why don't you give us a list of so-called partisan bills? Again, Sen. Harry Reid and several Democrats in the Senate do not care if the Bill is bipartisan or not. The way Obamacare was passed clearly shows that.
 
I agree there are a few that meet the a bi-partisan standard, but they are very few.

There are few that meet YOUR bi-partisan standard. Understand there is no universally accepted standard for "bipartisan" and thus part of the issue with continual reliance on that word.

I understand your standard, I don't think it's a horrible standard, but please stop acting like your standard is anything other than your opinion on the matter and that others comments should be based on your opinion.
 
But the fact is some were bipartisan--even your link challenging the post admitted that. And is it considered by partisan by your side if five or so Republicans vote for something? What is bipartisan can be somewhat subjective. And the fact remains that there are many MANY bills that the House has passed that the Senate has yet to even debate. We don't know how many are actually considered. And it doesn't matter that some are in committee. Nothing gets out of committee until Harry Reid gives his okay.

When you are writing something to make a point, it sometimes takes half a page or more to mention all the extenuating circumstances or anomalies or other factors that go into any complex subject. So we can choose to deflect from the point made by nitpicking every single point of accuracy, or we can choose to see the point made and acknowledge it even if we mention that there are also some extenuating circumstances.

the point made in post 148 and the referenced cite appears to be one that is ignored:

almost all of those hundreds of bills are anything but bi-partisan efforts
without some modicum of bipartisan support - in this instance from the democrats - then there is no point to elevate those bills for a vote before a senate body having a democratic majority

but kudos to the GOP for trying to make something out of nothing. without knowing this background, it would appear reid was stalling those bills without good reason. that is an excellent propaganda message prior to a national election
 
the point made in post 148 and the referenced cite appears to be one that is ignored:

almost all of those hundreds of bills are anything but bi-partisan efforts
without some modicum of bipartisan support - in this instance from the democrats - then there is no point to elevate those bills for a vote before a senate body having a democratic majority

but kudos to the GOP for trying to make something out of nothing. without knowing this background, it would appear reid was stalling those bills without good reason. that is an excellent propaganda message prior to a national election

So the House is darned if they do and darned if they don't? Aren't anti-Republican folks fond of accusing the Republicans of being obstructionist and do nothing? So how easy is it to say that those bills weren't bipartisan (when in fact some of them were) and justify Harry Reid sitting on them and not allowing them to be debated and voted on? You see this blind fanatical partisanship stuff can easily cut both ways. The House did its job. The Senate has not done theirs.

All the more reason to vote in a Republican majority in the Senate in a couple of weeks . At least we'll have the debate and a vote on legislation that should move forward.
 
Last edited:
So the House is darned if they do and darned if they don't? Aren't anti-Republican folks fond of accusing the Republicans of being obstructionist and do nothing? So how easy is it to say that those bills weren't bipartisan (when in fact some of them were) and justify Harry Reid sitting on them and not allowing them to be debated and voted on? You see this blind fanatical partisanship can easily cut both ways. The House did its job. The Senate has not done theirs.

Are you familiar with the concept of poison pill legislation?
 
I thought of voting in the repub primary, just to do my part to keep the crazies out of office. Then i realized the ones on your list are almost all crazy...

Rand Paul is the only one even considering support of equal rights, so perhaps he'll get my vote
 
One doesn't need a 50% tax hike to adopt a defense budget that is consistent with the security environment that confronts the nation. Smarter and more realistic budget allocations, in other words allocations more in line with national priorities (domestic and foreign policy), along with improved efficiency could probably go a long way toward financing sustainable and adequate defense expenditures.

In other words, you are fine with whatever the politicians want to spend on defense so long as it is more than it is today. Your argument is vague, so vague that you can include or exclude any threat to be accounted for.
 
I thought of voting in the repub primary, just to do my part to keep the crazies out of office. Then i realized the ones on your list are almost all crazy...

Rand Paul is the only one even considering support of equal rights, so perhaps he'll get my vote

If you believe everyone on the op is "crazy". Perhaps you are not a republican and shouldnt comment in who you would vote for in a republican primary
 
the point made in post 148 and the referenced cite appears to be one that is ignored:

almost all of those hundreds of bills are anything but bi-partisan efforts
without some modicum of bipartisan support - in this instance from the democrats - then there is no point to elevate those bills for a vote before a senate body having a democratic majority

but kudos to the GOP for trying to make something out of nothing. without knowing this background, it would appear reid was stalling those bills without good reason. that is an excellent propaganda message prior to a national election

Can you provide any links to the bills being anything but bipartisan, or is that something you repeat with no real knowledge of? Just curious
 
If you believe everyone on the op is "crazy". Perhaps you are not a republican and shouldnt comment in who you would vote for in a republican primary

But i intend to vote in the repub primary, and "least crazy candidate" is my reason. Asked and answered
 
Support for "liberty at home" does not require one to embrace a neo-isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy. One can readily choose from among the major foreign policy schools and still support such liberty.

You really think you can vote for Hillary Clinton and still be "for liberty?"
 
Are you familiar with the concept of poison pill legislation?

Yes, though I doubt you are using the term in its proper context as most of the legislation passed by the House was not that at all.
 
Yes, though I doubt you are using the term in its proper context as most of the legislation passed by the House was not that at all.

it was found to be partisan pap, as opposed to bi-partisan legislation, as it has been wrongly characterized by the GOP propaganda machine
partisan republican bills that would not be favorably considered by the democrat dominated senate
while i can't stand harry reid, he's a corrupt, partisan sack of ****, it appears his reasoning for not moving that partisan legislation to a vote makes good sense
 
Back
Top Bottom