• 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 ironic to me that the welfare state keeps women home barefoot and dependent.
Click to expand...

They not only want woman home and barefoot dependent on government they want all the men to join them and the sad part is many men have.
 
Born Free said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't wanna know how you know he's looser.
 
Cardinal said:
Not liberal, unless you count swallowing the health insurance industry's giant **** of Doom as liberal.
Click to expand...

And yet when the final vote came around liberals voted for it and later ran around the country defending it. Go figure, eh? :lamo
 
Born Free said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exit polling is clear. You are just hacking.
 
Henrin said:
And yet when the final vote came around liberals voted for it and later ran around the country defending it. Go figure, eh? :lamo
Click to expand...

It was better than what was before. After the passing of the PPACA all we could really hope for at that point is that it would be a stepping stone to actual UHC. I try to be a pragmatist about these things.
 
Cardinal said:
It was better than what was before. After the passing of the PPACA all we could really hope for at that point is that it would be a stepping stone to actual UHC. I try to be a pragmatist about these things.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I forgot about that. You guys really wanted UHC, so instead of going towards that path you decide to empower insurance companies in the hope that it would lead to UHC. Because after all, if the plan is successful there will be a real need for UHC. :lamo

Do you guys even hear yourself?

Seriously, how does corporatism lead to socialism? No wonder people think you guys purposely put together something that would fail. Otherwise, there is no way the ACA could lead to socialism.
 
Henrin said:
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
Click to expand...

You talk about the minimum wage as it is the all to bring up the middle class, you don't get it and never will. Jobs bring up the middle class and the more jobs there is the more wages go up. But you liberals never can understand that. You thing helping the middle class is given freebies and saying we need to pay our low wage earners more. Try for once growing the economy to employ all worker and then you will see wages go up. As it is now the middle class is making less then when Obama took office, so a liberal says to make the middle class make more is to raise the minimum wage. A liberal will never say we need to put America to work so that prosperity can be shared by every class.

Under Obama the rich have gotten richer and the middle class has less. Now I'm a market guy and love the gains I've received under Obama, but the fact is under his liberal polices the middle class have been left behind with less than they had before him. That is a fact.
 
Henrin said:
Oh yes, I forgot about that. You guys really wanted UHC, so instead of going towards that path you decide to empower insurance companies in the hope that it would lead to UHC. Because after all, if the plan is successful there will be a real need for UHC. :lamo

Do you guys even hear yourself?
Click to expand...

If you bothered to actually read the positions written by left-leaning members, you would know that the liberal base feels betrayed by Obama's "compromise." Anyway, even the small hope of the PPACA as a stepping stone to UHC is now gone as accomplishing that would require another Democratic super majority, and that's not going to happen for a long, long time.
 
Declan said:
Exit polling is clear. You are just hacking.
Click to expand...

You wish, anything to make an excuse for liberal failure. All across the board republican governors now control 32 states, the House has gains seats they have not had that many seats sense 1930's and the senate is in republican hands, and all across the country dems have lost in their districts and in the houses. Obama said the first time he got a shellacking and now the atom bomb want off. And all you true blue liberals are in denial the same as Obama.
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

It will be an election without an incumbent. The democrats have at least Hillary, if she chooses to run, that has 100% name recognition, good or bad, and the GOP will have to build someone up. It will be about the economy in 2016, but I do not see the GOP taking the White House if Hillary is the nominee for the democrats. Ultimately it is control of the House of Representatives that will matter the most. Unless the GOP moderates away from the Tea Party types and tries to advance some sort of economic direction that includes some relief for those in places where recovery will be a decade more in coming and some new job creation, then the GOP might lose the House either way.

Melissa Harris-Perry had a good segment on the economics of the election this week as an unusual break from her typical Democratic Apologist format. The basics were what I have already stated--those doing better economically supported the dems and those who saw the economy as not good voted for the republicans based on exit polling. She then discussed how things like rising GDP/lowering unemployment and all these US macro indicators are looking impressive but that they hide a lot of people struggling because they have no extra cash to save or invest or purchase extra things with.
 
Cardinal said:
If you bothered to actually read the positions written by left-leaning members, you would know that the liberal base feels betrayed by Obama's "compromise." Anyway, even the small hope of the PPACA as a stepping stone to UHC is now gone as accomplishing that would require another Democratic super majority, and that's not going to happen for a long, long time.
Click to expand...
I disliked (still do) "Obamacare" because it seemed half-assed and unfinished, with multiple flaws looming to cause problems.

It remains to be seen what all the consequences of it will be, especially now that the Republicans are talking about cutting some stuff out...
 
The Mark said:
I disliked (still do) "Obamacare" because it seemed half-assed and unfinished, with multiple flaws looming to cause problems.

It remains to be seen what all the consequences of it will be, especially now that the Republicans are talking about cutting some stuff out...
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Cardinal said:
If you bothered to actually read the positions written by left-leaning members, you would know that the liberal base feels betrayed by Obama's "compromise." Anyway, even the small hope of the PPACA as a stepping stone to UHC is now gone as accomplishing that would require another Democratic super majority, and that's not going to happen for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

Again, the only way ACA could lead to UHC is if it failed and democrats figured out a way to blame the failure on capitalism. If ACA fails and the blame is not squarely placed on the shoulders of the private sector UHC will never happen.

Supporting corporatist policies to get to socialist policies is absolutely brilliant in this regard because you can actually cause the market to fail and then place the blame squarely on the market. The one thing liberals are good at is politics. They understand how to get to where they are going better than anyone.
 
Declan said:
It will be an election without an incumbent. The democrats have at least Hillary, if she chooses to run, that has 100% name recognition, good or bad, and the GOP will have to build someone up. It will be about the economy in 2016, but I do not see the GOP taking the White House if Hillary is the nominee for the democrats. Ultimately it is control of the House of Representatives that will matter the most. Unless the GOP moderates away from the Tea Party types and tries to advance some sort of economic direction that includes some relief for those in places where recovery will be a decade more in coming and some new job creation, then the GOP might lose the House either way.

Melissa Harris-Perry had a good segment on the economics of the election this week as an unusual break from her typical Democratic Apologist format. The basics were what I have already stated--those doing better economically supported the dems and those who saw the economy as not good voted for the republicans based on exit polling. She then discussed how things like rising GDP/lowering unemployment and all these US macro indicators are looking impressive but that they hide a lot of people struggling because they have no extra cash to save or invest or purchase extra things with.
Click to expand...

I dont think the GOP will be looking to the dems for advice, but it will be an interesting dynamic, this new congress with the presidential elections on top.
 
Henrin said:
Again, the only way ACA could lead to UHC is if it failed and democrats figured out a way to blame the failure on capitalism. If ACA fails and the blame is not squarely placed on the shoulders of the private sector UHC will never happen.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that I like this situation, or that I actually believe that the PPACA leading to UHC is a particularly brilliant plan. I can assure you I do not. What part of "the liberal base feels betrayed by Obama" are you not comprehending?
 
Cardinal said:
You seem to be under the impression that I like this situation, or that I actually believe that the PPACA leading to UHC is a particularly brilliant plan. I can assure you I do not.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know. If the government can cause the market to fail then they could use the opportunity to push for more controls. If you put together a plan that empowers the market, but the market fails under the weight you could say that the market is not fit to run healthcare, and just like that you have a case for UHC.

If however the plan succeeds, well, then you have pretty much shut the door on it entirely.
 
The Mark said:
I disliked (still do) "Obamacare" because it seemed half-assed and unfinished, with multiple flaws looming to cause problems.

It remains to be seen what all the consequences of it will be, especially now that the Republicans are talking about cutting some stuff out...
Click to expand...

I personally wish we had pushed for universal health care, like so many western european countries - and Canada - have. ACA was a very conservative approach to getting health care for a large number of people; it kept the health insurance companies in business.

However, I understand than undermining the health insurance companies would not have been good for our economy in the short run - they employ a lot of people.

I sure hope we move toward more of a universal system. But we'll see what happens. Certainly those red states who refused to set up health insurance exchanges are helping to push us to single payer health care. ironic, isn't it?
 
US Conservative said:
I dont think the GOP will be looking to the dems for advice, but it will be an interesting dynamic, this new congress with the presidential elections on top.
Click to expand...

Then they will not do so at their own peril. It is only a new Senate. The House did not change hands. The GOP will be facing the last gasp of the Tea Party and the growth of the Libertarians as the sail into the headwind of what will likely be a $1.5-$2 Billion per side election if Hillary is the nominee. The only reason the GOP did not take down Mark Warner was because of the votes it lost in Virginia to the Libertarians. The right will have to pick and choose how to spend its money--capturing the WH, holding onto the Senate or holding onto the House. Without an incumbent, people will not be protesting voting the POTUS like was seen in this midterm.
 
Declan said:
Then they will not do so at their own peril. It is only a new Senate. The House did not change hands. The GOP will be facing the last gasp of the Tea Party and the growth of the Libertarians as the sail into the headwind of what will likely be a $1.5-$2 Billion per side election if Hillary is the nominee. The only reason the GOP did not take down Mark Warner was because of the votes it lost in Virginia to the Libertarians. The right will have to pick and choose how to spend its money--capturing the WH, holding onto the Senate or holding onto the House. Without an incumbent, people will not be protesting voting the POTUS like was seen in this midterm.
Click to expand...

Its still a new house in that it has many more republicans. The TEA party isn't going away, it would be unwise for the left to ignore them.
 
Born Free said:
You talk about the minimum wage as it is the all to bring up the middle class, you don't get it and never will. Jobs bring up the middle class and the more jobs there is the more wages go up. But you liberals never can understand that. You thing helping the middle class is given freebies and saying we need to pay our low wage earners more. Try for once growing the economy to employ all worker and then you will see wages go up. As it is now the middle class is making less then when Obama took office, so a liberal says to make the middle class make more is to raise the minimum wage. A liberal will never say we need to put America to work so that prosperity can be shared by every class.

Under Obama the rich have gotten richer and the middle class has less. Now I'm a market guy and love the gains I've received under Obama, but the fact is under his liberal polices the middle class have been left behind with less than they had before him. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

???

I'm not a liberal and I don't support minimum wage or welfare. I'm a voluntaryist that supports free markets and voluntary exchange.
 
US Conservative said:
Its still a new house in that it has many more republicans. The TEA party isn't going away, it would be unwise for the left to ignore them.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party does not take votes away from the democrats. They can ignore them until the cows come home.
 
Born Free said:
You talk about the minimum wage as it is the all to bring up the middle class, you don't get it and never will. Jobs bring up the middle class and the more jobs there is the more wages go up. But you liberals never can understand that. You thing helping the middle class is given freebies and saying we need to pay our low wage earners more. Try for once growing the economy to employ all worker and then you will see wages go up. As it is now the middle class is making less then when Obama took office, so a liberal says to make the middle class make more is to raise the minimum wage. A liberal will never say we need to put America to work so that prosperity can be shared by every class.

Under Obama the rich have gotten richer and the middle class has less. Now I'm a market guy and love the gains I've received under Obama, but the fact is under his liberal polices the middle class have been left behind with less than they had before him. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

Raising the minimum wage has nothing to do with the middle class. The middle class doesn't work for minimum wage.
 
Kobie said:
Raising the minimum wage has nothing to do with the middle class. The middle class doesn't work for minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Those who work a second job or the second-income earner in the same household might very well be working for minimum wage or the range in which their wages would go up depending on the amount of increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom