• 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!

Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 14 21.5%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 12 18.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 32 49.2%

  • Im a not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a not American, no.

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Total voters
    65
US Conservative said:
Its had very little, and for many reasons.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Now you've definitely lost all credibility. First, you argue that 8,000 deaths per year and sectarian violence = peaceful period. Now, you argue that people getting divorced creates more poverty. That's proven wrong by Fletch's argument that poverty has remained static. Yep, it's like you guys have no coherent arguments left and all you want to argue - against every indicator - is that the left is bad because the overwhelming majority of people aren't anywhere as poor they were before these social programs came into existence.
 
Hatuey said:
Are you bothered because your narrative of poverty isn't really the truth? Uneducated rates through the roof, starvation a real issue depending on the economy, black poverty rate at 87%? Yep. Sounds like a time you'd love.
Click to expand...

I would love to know how you define educated.
 
Hatuey said:
LMAO. Now you've definitely lost all credibility. First, you argue that 8,000 deaths per year and sectarian violence = peaceful period. Now, you argue that people getting divorced creates more poverty. That's proven wrong by Fletch's argument that poverty has remained static. Yep, it's like you guys have no coherent arguments left and all you want to argue - against every indicator - is that the left is bad because the overwhelming majority of people aren't anywhere as poor they were before these social programs came into existence.
Click to expand...

You are arguing against men of straw here. Try harder.
 
Cardinal said:
If only his policies were especially liberal.
Click to expand...

Like Obamacare, killing keystone, killing the coal industry, imposing more and more regulation on the banking industry, no drilling on federal lands, Obama and his open border policy, etc etc. if you don't think his policies are a liberal failure, wait for the GOP to pass legislation that is not liberal.
 
US Conservative said:
You are arguing against men of straw here. Try harder.
Click to expand...

He said something about marriage to me earlier to mock a view I never presented. What in the hell is that about?
 
Hatuey said:
Yes and it was on the rise before the New Deal. Do you disagree? :)



When the facts don't add up to your conclusion, say the facts are wrong with nothing to back it up and yet... here were are. A nation with high literacy rates, practically no child starvation and most indicators of poverty showing that our "poor" have iphones, live in homes and eat well. Yep! Better go back to what came before liberal programs! How was social mobility back then? ;)
Click to expand...
Except the facts do add up to my conclusions though. The war on poverty has been a failure particularly if you consider the unimaginable amount of money that has been spent over the last two generations. There is still massive, crushing poverty in virtually every major city. And the people trapped on these violent, drug infested liberal plantations have very little hope of ever escaping. Add in the squeezing of the middle class and the leftist welfare state can only be objectively viewed as a total failure.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol - someone is hurt because their argument that marriage causes poverty was shown to be nonsense. ;)
Click to expand...

What in the ****? Seriously, when did I ever say anything like that?
 
US Conservative said:
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?
Click to expand...

No.

People voted decidedly liberal on ballot initiatives. Several states -- even ones traditionally thought of as being quite red -- voted in favor of minimum wage increases, paid sick leave, marijuana legalization, and gun control. Meanwhile, they also voted against personhood amendments.

Liberal policy is obviously still quite popular. What isn't popular is the leadership of the Democratic party, and Obama especially. Policy and performance are two different things.

Republicans capitalized on that. Rather than being too forward with their own proposals (which would have obviously ran afoul of the many liberal policies most Americans still support), they ran as simply "not Democrats." That way, they could avoid talking about policy, and just focus on performance. I suppose that's a rather intelligent strategy, given that Republicans aren't terribly popular either -- just slightly more so than Democrats, at this particular moment.
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Like Obamacare,
Click to expand...

Not liberal, unless you count swallowing the health insurance industry's giant **** of Doom as liberal.

killing keystone,
Click to expand...

Not in line with his policy of promoting renewal energy, but if non-science denial and weaning off of fossil fuels is "liberal" to you, so be it.
killing the coal industry,
Click to expand...

Oh, do tell.

imposing more and more regulation on the banking industry,
Click to expand...

Again, do tell.

no drilling on federal lands
Click to expand...

See #2, and besides, why should he want that?

Obama and his open border policy, etc etc.
Click to expand...

"His" border policies are the policies of pretty much everyone before him. Why do you think our produce is always so cheap?

Some free advice: less am radio, more research.
 
Last edited:
lifeisshort said:
Some of us do but I think many Americans want to have their cake and eat it too so they want a good economy AND socialist policies. Oil and water I know but that is what they want
Click to expand...

Sure, liberals have made our society dependent on government. The more freebies the Dems give the more votes they get. The problem is there is the other side that has to pay for all these freebies and they vote too. However for the moment there are still more payees than takers, when the scales tip we're finished as a leader in the world and as a superpower. Liberals continue to hammer on this country and have been sense WWII so that everyone is dependent on big daddy, as it is big daddy that knows best on how to take care of you.

The economy will no longer matter as the socialist policies have taken hold of the lives of Americans.
 
Cardinal said:
Not liberal, unless you count swallowing the health insurance industry's giant **** of Doom as liberal.



Not in line with his policy of promoting renewal energy, but if non-science denial and weaning off of fossil fuels is "liberal" to you, so be it.


Oh, do tell.



Again, do tell.



See #2, and besides, why should he want that?



"His" border policies are the policies of pretty much everyone before him. Why do you think out produce is always so cheap?

Some free advice: less am radio, more research.
Click to expand...

Give it up, you lost we won. Liberalism was repudiated, Obama's liberal policies were puked up in the toilet all over the country and in every category. Now do you get it?
 
US Conservative said:
He's right though. Poverty had been dropping at a rate of roughly 1% per year for the 2 decades before the lefts war on poverty. Since then its pretty much held steady, and we still have the bloated bureaucracy that defines success as the number of people who need govt cheese.
Click to expand...

Having the rest of the developed world's manufacturing capacity destroyed by war, eliminating your competition, would do wonders for the economy of any country.
 
eohrnberger said:
Banning fracking completely is exceedingly foolhardy. For those who live on the trucking routes required by it, there must be some sort of compromise or route that can leave your neighborhoods in tact.

Fracking is the second gold or oil rush, and could easily make the US energy independent. Not only does it burn clearer, with less CO2 and soot than other fossil fuels, it can readily be used to fuel electrical generation, cars and other transportation, not to mention that it's already being used to heat homes and for cooking, the case of a gas stove. Why would you want to limit or ban all those positive uses?

Those who insist on banning all fracking, you should be the first to do without LNG. Leave it to the rest of us, thanks. Enjoy your cold food and your cold house.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with your assessment of fracking, that probably belongs on a different thread. I think most would agree that anti-fracking is a liberal position, and there were several anti-fracking initiatives that passed this month, in spite of considerable money thrown against it. (Yes, one in California did fail as well.)

Thus, I used these initiatives as an example that liberalism wasn't rejected.
 
Declan said:
Having the rest of the developed world's manufacturing capacity destroyed by war, eliminating your competition, would do wonders for the economy of any country.
Click to expand...

Sense when were liberal about jobs?
 
Born Free said:
Give it up, you lost we won. Liberalism was repudiated, Obama's liberal policies were puked up in the toilet all over the country and in every category. Now do you get it?
Click to expand...

Just as I thought. You can't clarify how Obama's "liberal policies have failed" because you have absolutely no idea yourself, just as you have no idea why the Senate changed hands on Tuesday. That's what you get for listening to am radio: you're bombarded by a peppering of buzz words, but you receive no comprehension in the bargain. The price you'll pay for this is Republicans will lose congress again, they won't get their guy elected president, and you'll just be left standing there, saying, "Wha? What happened?"
 
US Conservative said:
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
Click to expand...

Those who were happy with the economy voted for the democrats and those who were unhappy with the economy voted for the GOP. People are not embracing conservatism and rejecting liberalism so much as they seeking something different. If the GOP does not deliver something meaningful for struggling families, they will be tossed out in 2016. It is the unfortunate choice in a two-party system that you do not have any meaningful choices.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No.

People voted decidedly liberal on ballot initiatives. Several states -- even ones traditionally thought of as being quite red -- voted in favor of minimum wage increases, paid sick leave, marijuana legalization, and gun control. Meanwhile, they also voted against personhood amendments.

Liberal policy is obviously still quite popular. What isn't popular is the leadership of the Democratic party, and Obama especially. Policy and performance are two different things.

Republicans capitalized on that. Rather than being too forward with their own proposals (which would have obviously ran afoul of the many liberal policies most Americans still support), they ran as simply "not Democrats." That way, they could avoid talking about policy, and just focus on performance. I suppose that's a rather intelligent strategy, given that Republicans aren't terribly popular either -- just slightly more so than Democrats, at this particular moment.
Click to expand...

exactly! well-said. I forgot to bring up the defeat of the personhood amendments earlier; thanks!
 
Born Free said:
Sense when were liberal about jobs?
Click to expand...

America gained economical advantage by the added capacity of having women who remained in the workplace. It wasn't liberalism that wanted (and still wants) women barefoot and pregnant with their 8th child instead of working.
 
Cardinal said:
Just as I thought. You can't clarify how Obama's "liberal policies have failed" because you have absolutely no idea yourself, just as you have no idea why the Senate changed hands on Tuesday. That's what you get for listening to am radio: you're bombarded by a peppering of buzz words, but you receive no comprehension in the bargain. The price you'll pay for this is Republicans will lose congress again, they won't get their guy elected president, and you'll just be left standing there, saying, "Wha? What happened?"
Click to expand...

You are a poor loser and in denial, typical of a liberal. A liberal never takes responsibility for anything even losing when Obama called it a shellacking and now the atom bomb went off on Obama's and his fellow liberals policies such as you were totally rejected. Let me make it clear in terms you can understand. YOU'RE A LOOSER.
 
Declan said:
America gained economical advantage by the added capacity of having women who remained in the workplace. It wasn't liberalism that wanted (and still wants) women barefoot and pregnant with their 8th child instead of working.
Click to expand...

It's not are you kidding me. Liberals have never been about jobs, you liberals want everyone dependent on big daddy and all the free stuff. Your idea of helping the middle class is giving of free stuff, not a job. Liberals have never been about jobs and never will be.

Have you not listened to the new GOP senate that will be sending to Obama jobs bills that he told dingy Harry to not bring up in the senate.
 
Declan said:
Those who were happy with the economy voted for the democrats and those who were unhappy with the economy voted for the GOP. People are not embracing conservatism and rejecting liberalism so much as they seeking something different. If the GOP does not deliver something meaningful for struggling families, they will be tossed out in 2016. It is the unfortunate choice in a two-party system that you do not have any meaningful choices.
Click to expand...

Well, 2016 is a different dynamic, its a presidential election. Also one without an incumbent.

But in the mean time it appears the democrat party forgot bill Clintons comment- "Its the economy stupid!".
Note that Im not calling you stupid.
 
Born Free said:
It's not are you kidding me. Liberals have never been about jobs, you liberals want everyone dependent on big daddy and all the free stuff. Your idea of helping the middle class is giving of free stuff, not a job. Liberals have never been about jobs and never will be.

Have you not listened to the new GOP senate that will be sending to Obama jobs bills that he told dingy Harry to not bring up in the senate.
Click to expand...

From what I have noticed most liberal policies are about forcing their will on others. For example, minimum wage and forcing businesses to pay for sick leave is nothing but forcing other people to do what they think is right.

What is sad is that they actually think they are morally superior to their opponents. They are nothing but a bunch of fools and tyrants
 
Born Free said:
It's not are you kidding me. Liberals have never been about jobs, you liberals want everyone dependent on big daddy and all the free stuff. Your idea of helping the middle class is giving of free stuff, not a job. Liberals have never been about jobs and never will be.

Have you not listened to the new GOP senate that will be sending to Obama jobs bills that he told dingy Harry to not bring up in the senate.
Click to expand...

Its ironic to me that the welfare state keeps women home barefoot and dependent.
 
Declan said:
Those who were happy with the economy voted for the democrats and those who were unhappy with the economy voted for the GOP. People are not embracing conservatism and rejecting liberalism so much as they seeking something different. If the GOP does not deliver something meaningful for struggling families, they will be tossed out in 2016. It is the unfortunate choice in a two-party system that you do not have any meaningful choices.
Click to expand...

Does denial mean anything to you. Those that rejected the state of the economy rejected Obama's liberal policies. Period. But that was not all they rejected they rejected all of Obama's liberal policies. But you want to stand there and make believer it's not your liberal policies but some other factor. Yes you are in denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom