View Poll Results: Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    21 26.25%
  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    13 16.25%
  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    3 3.75%
  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    36 45.00%
  • Im a not American, yes.

    0 0%
  • Im a not American, no.

    7 8.75%
Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 504

Thread: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

  1. #171
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Look at your last graph. And see if you can understand it yourself. Poverty was falling dramatically BEFORE the war on poverty began in 1964.
    You honestly believe the war on poverty started in 1964? Lol. These social programs go as far back as the New Deal.

    American President: Dwight David Eisenhower: Domestic Affairs

    Eisenhower favored a more moderate course, one that he called Modern Republicanism, which preserved individual freedom and the market economy yet insured that government would provide necessary assistance to workers who had lost their jobs or to the ill or aged, who through no fault of their own, could not provide for themselves. He intended to lead the country "down the middle of the road between the unfettered power of concentrated wealth . . . and the unbridled power of statism or partisan interests."
    New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The most important program of 1935, and perhaps the New Deal as a whole, was the Social Security Act, drafted by Frances Perkins. It established a permanent system of universal retirement pensions (Social Security), unemployment insurance, and welfare benefits for the handicapped and needy children in families without father present.[73] It established the framework for the U.S. welfare system. Roosevelt insisted that it should be funded by payroll taxes rather than from the general fund; he said, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."[74]
    Again, the 60s marked a high point for these programs as far as their establishment goes. However, the war on poverty is part of a long line of legislation which has been in the works since before the 60s and they have by all means worked. How does that make you feel inside?

    Since that point it has hovered right around 15%. Which is essentially no change at all since the war on poverty began. Its almost like you don't understand what your own graphs mean.
    Ah essentially, it's no change... you do realize you sound ridiculous when you make such blatantly false statements against the very image you claim are right? Yes? From now on, 23-25% poverty rate is the same as 15%. Just like 35% poverty rate is the same as 25%. Yes? No. That's nonsense.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #172
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Ummm...you do realize that chart has very little to do with her argument, right?
    Her arguments have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and I even acknowledge that. Food portions have gotten smaller? False. What they have to do with social programs? Nothing. Just like people getting divorced has nothing to do with poverty. Now quit trying to follow me because your ridiculous arguments have nothing to do with the discussion either.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Her arguments have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and I even acknowledge that. Food portions have gotten smaller? False. What they have to do with social programs? Nothing. Just like people getting divorced has nothing to do with poverty. Now quit trying to follow me because your ridiculous arguments have nothing to do with the discussion either.
    I'm not following you. She was talking about food prices in general, and for some reason you posted a chart that shows that portions have gotten larger for three different types of food. Big ****ing whoop if fast food joints serve bigger hamburgers, pizzas and Mexican food portions? It has nothing to do with the price of ground beef at the grocery store.

  4. #174
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I'm not following you. She was talking about food prices in general, and for some reason you posted a chart that shows that portions have gotten larger for three different types of food. Big ****ing whoop if fast food joints serve bigger hamburgers, pizzas and Mexican food portions? It has nothing to do with the price of ground beef at the grocery store.
    This is why you need to read posts. She complained things are more expensive, yes that's what happens in a country where supply and demand matter and the population triples in size. It has happened in literally every country that doesn't freeze prices. That has nothing to do with social programs. Food portions have gotten smaller? That's just false. We eat more as a country than we ever have. We eat ****ty foods, however that's what happens when companies want to turn a profit without spending a lot of money. Food raised in industrial farms? Cheap and plenty of. Food raised by human hand (basically artisanal farming nowadays) expensive. That has absolutely nothing to do with social programs either. Both have to do with a society that demands more and wants it cheaper.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #175
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,289

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You honestly believe the war on poverty started in 1964? Lol. These social programs go as far back as the New Deal.
    The war on poverty did begin in 1964. That is a fact. You just want the post war boom that really impacted the poverty rate to be credited to government action. That is false. Since 1964, there has been essentially no change in poverty. That is 50 years and there is no denying that. Yet you do. Why? Cant handle the fact that your leftist ideas are a failure. Because they are.

    Ah essentially, it's no change... you do realize you sound ridiculous when you make such blatantly false statements against the very image you claim are right? Yes? From now on, 23-25% poverty rate is the same as 15%. Just like 35% poverty rate is the same as 25%. Yes? No. That's nonsense.
    Your own graph shows no change in 50 years. That is a fact and you sound ridiculous pretending otherwise.

  6. #176
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-03-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,589

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    I'd say liberal politicians were, yes. Liberal issues (gay marriage, gun control, abortion rights, marijuana legalization) were not. Meh, I'll take it

  7. #177
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,953
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    While I'm not especially thrilled with her, the "skeletons" will be some manufactured crap ("what difference does it make?") and pictures of her looking frumpy.
    1) She's just not that good at campaigning.
    2) The “fire in the belly”question.
    3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation.
    4) Obama is leaving a mess.
    5) The country wants real change.
    5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run | RealClearPolitics

    Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows | Early & Often

    Just Being Hillary Isn't Enough | RealClearPolitics

    The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary
    The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary – Telegraph Blogs
    Troubled Clinton Foundation reportedly to provide perch for Hillary amid 2016 buzz | Fox News

    Liberal Dems Pushing 2016 Candidates Further Left

    Do Americans want another Clinton in the White House? As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flirts with running in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also a potential White House candidate, has put an interesting spin on Bill Clinton's White House years. Democrats shouldn't accuse the GOP of waging a "war on women," he recently told "Meet the Press," because President Clinton was a "sexual predator" with former intern Monica Lewinsky.
    The Clintons in the War on Women | RealClearPolitics

    For a woman who claims that her experience and good relations with foreign countries is a major selling point, Hillary might be alarmed that Angelina Jolie has more support overseas than she does.
    In U.S. Most Admired Poll, Hillary Clinton Ranks Lower than Bush, Rush Limbaugh

    Lower than Limbaugh! Really? Where's the support going to come from?

    1. Hillary’s involvement in scandals started early.
      As a 27-year-old staffer, she was fired from the Watergate committee for fraud and unethical behavior.
      Her former boss, Jerry Zeifman, finally spoke out in 2008:
      “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
      2. Seriously, she’s really into coverups.
      3. She lied about being shot at by a Bosnian sniper.
      4. She really isn’t that good for women.
      5. She hasn’t actually done much with her power.
      6. Benghazi.
    6 “Inconvenient Truths” about Hillary Clinton | Rare

    How people really don't change.

    So Hillary is a shoo-in? Mmmm. OK. If you say so.

    I'm less inclined to believe it. But yes, it does matter who is running against her. That's undeniable.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Every single one of yours since Tuesday.
    That is uncalled for.

  9. #179
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    It takes enormous brass balls or almost an almost childlike lack of awareness to sit here on DP, of all places, and whine about liberals being arrogant and snotty.

  10. #180
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    The war on poverty did begin in 1964. That is a fact. You just want the post war boom that really impacted the poverty rate to be credited to government action. That is false. Since 1964, there has been essentially no change in poverty. That is 50 years and there is no denying that. Yet you do. Why? Cant handle the fact that your leftist ideas are a failure. Because they are.

    Your own graph shows no change in 50 years. That is a fact and you sound ridiculous pretending otherwise.
    Good grief, it's like you make stuff up to validate your point:

    Poverty in the 50 years since ‘The Other America,’ in five charts - The Washington Post

    In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then. Contrary to what you may have heard, the best evidence indicates that the War on Poverty made a real and lasting difference.
    By race:



    Both white and black poverty fell dramatically during the 1960s, though the drop in black poverty from 55.1 percent in 1959 to 32.2 percent in 1969 is particularly remarkable. More recently, it appears that white and Asian-American poverty have become decoupled from the state of the economy, whereas black and Hispanic poverty remains heavily cyclical, with a big fall during the 1990s boom and a corresponding rise as the recession hit in 2009 and 2010. Hispanic poverty overtook black poverty from 1994 to 1997, and it looks as though the two are converging again.
    National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

    In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

    For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.
    Yes yes we know, there is no difference between 22% and 11%. Only a 50% difference really.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •