• 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 Will Drop Out Now?

Who will drop out because of the NH Primary?

  • Total voters
    39
vesper said:
That's just not true. My ideology is based on Constitutional first principles not what some party says I should believe. A true conservative is more closely aligned with a Classic Liberal (not welfare liberal) than any other ideology. True conservatives are associated with the Republican party. They are a conservative first, a Republican second. They are the first to buck their own party over compromising its ideology of less government. Partisanship naturally occurs when one stands up for their core principles.
Click to expand...
No - that is being an ideologue. Partisanship is when you value the party more than those principles, and value beating the other side as an end rather than a means.
 
cpwill said:
No - that is being an ideologue. Partisanship is when you value the party more than those principles, and value beating the other side as an end rather than a means.
Click to expand...
The national political parties promote the very opposite in the party platforms adopted by both Democrats and Republicans at their national conventions.

They each have an "official" message of what the parties stand for. Each platform denounces partisanship, yet each platform contains strong condemnations of the other party. They denounce partisanship because it is the political correct thing to do. And this pretense is quickly evaporating. Look no further than the presidential race where political correctness may never ever fully recover. :)
 
vesper said:
The national political parties promote the very opposite in the party platforms adopted by both Democrats and Republicans at their national conventions.
Click to expand...

They do? They take opposite positions on amnesty? Or do they simply disagree about the specifics. Do they take opposite positions on ISIL? Or do they just disagree on relative troop allocation? So they take opposite positions on continuing to have a federal system that (contrary to the position of the Founders, and the intentions of our Constitution) overweighs the states? Or do they just sorta disagree around the edges, one arguing for accelerating the growth, and one arguing for slowing it?



They each have an "official" message of what the parties stand for. Each platform denounces partisanship, yet each platform contains strong condemnations of the other party.
Click to expand...

Almost as if partisanship were actually in their interest......

Whatever they may say elsewhere, Democrats love that they have convinced blacks that Republicans are racists, just as Republicans love that a major portion of their base is convinced that Democrats are evil.

They denounce partisanship because it is the political correct thing to do. And this pretense is quickly evaporating. Look no further than the presidential race where political correctness may never ever fully recover. :)
Click to expand...

True. And candidates who should be allies or, at least respectable opponents lie about each other, and see only that it gives them advantage.
 
cpwill said:
They do? They take opposite positions on amnesty? Or do they simply disagree about the specifics. Do they take opposite positions on ISIL? Or do they just disagree on relative troop allocation? So they take opposite positions on continuing to have a federal system that (contrary to the position of the Founders, and the intentions of our Constitution) overweighs the states? Or do they just sorta disagree around the edges, one arguing for accelerating the growth, and one arguing for slowing it?
Click to expand...

Back up the truck. BEEP BEEP BEEP! And I have shortened your post to focus solely on your comments above.
I guess I must remind you that the reason the tea party happened at a grassroots level was because of all the Republicans selling them out. It started under GW Bush. GW Bush had no respect for a fiscal conservative nor a constitutionalist. He was a big government lover who disguised himself under what was called "compassionate conservatism". The term conservative is used by many Republicans but too many don't walk the walk but if they can find one ounce of conservatism in the rhetoric they claim they tout it as calling themselves conservative . They are big government just like their opponents across the aisle but they think they are smarter in implementing big government than their opponents across the aisle. Bush cut taxes but he also increased federal government spending by leaps and bounds. He was of the mindset that some were too big to fail and shoved onto every taxpayer the burden of bailing them out. We recently saw the Republican Congress give Obama everything he needed to continue supporting his agenda through the recent omnibus under Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Two leaders in the Republican party that have sh@t all over basic fundamentals of conservatism. We now have an electorate that is so outraged that it is willing to back a Trump because of the feckless leadership in Washington over their feckless handling of things while the Republicans have been in the majority in Congress under Obama. Sometimes anger taints a person's perspective. I think that is the case in the rise of Trump.

I just learned that SC justice Scalia has died. Now who would trust Trump in replacing him or any other SC justice......... I am sure this will come up in the debate]
 
vesper said:
Back up the truck. BEEP BEEP BEEP! And I have shortened your post to focus solely on your comments above.
I guess I must remind you that the reason the tea party happened at a grassroots level was because of all the Republicans selling them out. It started under GW Bush. GW Bush had no respect for a fiscal conservative nor a constitutionalist. He was a big government lover who disguised himself under what was called "compassionate conservatism". The term conservative is used by many Republicans but too many don't walk the walk but if they can find one ounce of conservatism in the rhetoric they claim they tout it as calling themselves conservative . They are big government just like their opponents across the aisle but they think they are smarter in implementing big government than their opponents across the aisle.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is a word for the tendency to value party loyalty over principle, which leads to that kind of thing. "Partisanship."

Bush cut taxes but he also increased federal government spending by leaps and bounds. He was of the mindset that some were too big to fail and shoved onto every taxpayer the burden of bailing them out. We recently saw the Republican Congress give Obama everything he needed to continue supporting his agenda through the recent omnibus under Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Two leaders in the Republican party that have sh@t all over basic fundamentals of conservatism. We now have an electorate that is so outraged that it is willing to back a Trump because of the feckless leadership in Washington over their feckless handling of things while the Republicans have been in the majority in Congress under Obama. Sometimes anger taints a person's perspective. I think that is the case in the case of Trump
Click to expand...

Yup. Portions of the base have turned partisan in turn, and are supporting someone who is Not Party, rather than someone who agrees with them ideologically.

I just learned that SC justice Scalia has died. Now who would trust Trump in replacing him or any other SC justice......... I am sure this will come up in the debate]
Click to expand...

It is a serious loss. If Rubio wins, I would like to see him nominate Cruz. Cruz on the SCOTUS would be fantastic.
 
cpwill said:
Yes. There is a word for the tendency to value party loyalty over principle, which leads to that kind of thing. "Partisanship."



Yup. Portions of the base have turned partisan in turn, and are supporting someone who is Not Party, rather than someone who agrees with them ideologically.



It is a serious loss. If Rubio wins, I would like to see him nominate Cruz. Cruz on the SCOTUS would be fantastic.
Click to expand...

You don't get it CPwill that ideology turns a person partisan. But hey that's alright I still like ya.
 
Someone in this discussion noted that people organize in political parties to get things done. The goals involved can be extremely negative, as was the case with groups like the Nazis, or they can be positive, as was the case with the Republicans in the 1850s and with the Democrats a few decades earlier.

The political philosophy of the GOP is irreconcilable with an institution like slavery. I figure that's a good thing. Somebody had to do something about what was being done to African-Americans in southern states. When the war was over, some important organizing principles remained, including a demand that a "liberal," free market economic system not be interfered with by government through excessive taxation or oppressive regulation. There's a focus on personal success and responsibility, the benefits of an entrepreneurial spirit, and the need to defend individual liberties.

I'd say none of that is inconsistent with Democratic values like justice in the courts and from administrative agencies, equal opportunity in housing and education, universal access to adequate healthcare, pollution control, and product safety and consumer protection. These are seen as basic human rights that government must seek to ensure for the very many in society who lack the financial resources to secure them as individuals. I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't have much of any difficulty supporting all of that.

I'd say that's why both parties continue to exist and have broad support. They advocate for positions that a large majority of Americans endorse enthusiastically.
 
mmi said:
Yes, I know.

>>I was working all weekend and all day Monday and Tuesday on the election.

Keeps ya outa trouble.

>>I went to dozens of events the last few days.

And?

>>I know what I'm talking about.

Well, maybe.

>>If you think most New Hampshire Republican voters go to "Allen West's site" or "Western Journalism" to get their information they use to select a candidate as they are heading to the polling places, I can assure you, you're wrong.

How about watching Fox News or visiting Town Hall, the Daily Caller, World Net Daily, Breitbart, The Blaze, the Washington Examiner, or the Washington Free Beacon? Those are the other eight of the ten I listed.

>>What you have done is wasted your typing fingers with links to places that discussed the discussion in the debate.

When I leave this life, I expect to have surplus typing ability left in my digits.

>>Do you have any idea how many other issues were discussed in the debate, and how many other issues were being discussed in the days after the debate?

Yes.

>>Do you have any idea how many commercials we had to see on a daily basis for about the last 5 months?

Yes. Do you think voters who are looking for information to make a choice go more by ads or by debates?

>>Any idea how many places we all saw the candidates

All?

>>how many people knocked on our doors

Yes, I used to be a knocker.

>>how many town hall meetings we could attend

Could or did?

>>If you think Cruz having a 5 minute discussion with Trump in the Saturday night debate

Again, it was not Scruz, it was Bush.

>>a handful of political sites discussing that exchange

My guess is every single political news source a Republican primary voter in NH was likely to come across between Sat night and the time he/she went to the polls on Tues. And those who didn't might well have discussed the topic with a friend or relative who did.

>>[If you think what you've presented] constitutes the issue being "played against Trump", I'm here to tell you that you are sorely mistaken.

Well, my right hip is sure sore from all this snow-shoveling lately, but after this cold snap breaks, things look more promising.



>>Partisanship eats at your soul

I haven't noticed any of it being nibbled away.

>>gives you anger

I'm a volcano of anger, but that has little or nothing to do with partisanship.

>>makes you look down on others

With my severely osteoarthritic hip, I'm kinda bent over went I stand up. I'm only six feet tall to begin with, so the only people I look down on nowadays are children and dogs. Maybe little old ladies and petite women, but I'm nice to the former and often attracted to the latter.

>>makes you assume evil on the part of others

Nah, teabuggers aren't evil, just uninformed/confused. Nazis are evil.

,>>more willing to countenance evil yourself

Gee, I sure hope not. My chances for salvation may be hanging by a thread already.

>>generally makes you a worse and more miserable person.

I don't expect I could become any worse or more miserable, my partisanship notwithstanding.

>>I hope you reconsider.

Not a chance.

>>Reagan generally was not a partisan

As partisan as I am, I'd say.

>>Jefferson, sadly, became such later.

I think he did OK right up to the end.

>>A mention at a debate is not an ad campaign.

More than a mention, and what's so great about ad campaigns? I figure the negative ones, although surely effective to some extent, turn a lot of people off.

>>Cruz didn't spend his money in New Hampshire because he didn't need the state and it wasn't fertile soil for him.

I never suggested he did.

>>he probably figures he will have plenty of time for that once he protects his flank.

Yer big on flank protection. Infantry or armoured unit experience?
Click to expand...

You don't want to learn a thing. You just want to come on here and make your incorrect posts which don't make you look serious or informed.
 
tres borrachos said:
You don't want to learn a thing. You just want to come on here and make your incorrect posts which don't make you look serious or informed.
Click to expand...

Since you don't address any detail of the discussion, I will, appropriately I feel, disregard yer comment. Or I could say that I accept yer surrender.
 
vesper said:
You don't get it CPwill that ideology turns a person partisan. But hey that's alright I still like ya.
Click to expand...

:) Hopefully not. :) And backatcha, though I hope you continue to think so, even if I don't currently support your guy in the primary.
 
Anywho, we need a thread for South Carolina.
 
mmi said:
Since you don't address any detail of the discussion, I will, appropriately I feel, disregard yer comment. Or I could say that I accept yer surrender.
Click to expand...

You were posting away as if you know anything about what happened in NH. You don't. I do. And since you have no interest in learning, I have no interest in wasting my time. If you want to call it a "surrender", please do so. I surrender to your blatant ignorance which is far stronger than anything else I can provide.
 
tres borrachos said:
You were posting away as if you know anything about what happened in NH. You don't. I do.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to say I think this is another particularly weak response. You've said you expect more from me, and I feel the same way about you.

The issue here is very simple — you say the ED card (yuk, yuk) was not played against Trump in yer state. I posted information about Scruz talking about it to reporters on the trail, and more importantly I'd say, a widely viewed and reported dispute between Bush and Frump in the debate three days before the primary. You've sought to dismiss this, saying it wasn't discussed at the many events you attended, and that voters either didn't watch the debate at all cuz they had better things to do on a Saturday night or else that confrontation came on too late.

I don't see this as a valid critique. I'm not saying it was the number one issue on voters' minds. I'm saying it was used by Frumpy's opponents, and not quietly.

>>you have no interest in learning

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. I've carefully considered what you've said. Is there something else you think I can be educated about regarding this issue?

>>I have no interest in wasting my time.

I can certainly understand that, although members might think otherwise from my innumerable and pointless dialogues with Conservative.

>>If you want to call it a "surrender", please do so.

How else can I characterize it?

>>I surrender to your blatant ignorance which is far stronger than anything else I can provide.

I'm thinking there may in fact be nothing to provide. How is it that you feel you can credibly argue that the issue of Frumpy's use of eminent domain in his business operations was not raised by his opponents in the NH primary? Bear in mind that I've already acknowledged that you apparently wish it had been more of a focus.
 
cpwill said:
Anywho, we need a thread for South Carolina.
Click to expand...

The dems are the only ones at play there. Trump has SC sewn up, and he's busy sewing up super Tuesday as we speak.
 
clownboy said:
The dems are the only ones at play there. Trump has SC sewn up, and he's busy sewing up super Tuesday as we speak.
Click to expand...
It seems he pretty much does. So long as the others stay divided and fratricidal, they won't take him down, and he can ride a plurality. Hopefully SC takes out Bush and Carson. Kasich will hold on a bit, and then get out later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom