• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What does increasing number of toss up states mean?

Y

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I look at the electoral map and seethe disappearance of most light blue states and wonder what that means and who it benifiets.
 
Which electoral map?
 
The quiet Romney surge.

Voters saying: " We can't keep going on like this. "
 
CedarBear said:
The quiet Romney surge.

Voters saying: " We can't keep going on like this. "
Click to expand...

Which may be true.

But that does not mean we should go in the direction Romney would take us.
 
What if...? said:
Right back into the ditch his ideological predecessors just drove us into.
Click to expand...

or out of the ditch we are about the fall into. Some pundits have hinted that Romney could regain the Senate on his coattails, or get it to 50/50. If the GOP were to win, GOP divisions would develop on which the moderate dems could be the tie-breakers. It isn't as if Mitt is the GOP fan favorite.
 
Fisher said:
or out of the ditch we are about the fall into. Some pundits have hinted that Romney could regain the Senate on his coattails, or get it to 50/50. If the GOP were to win, GOP divisions would develop on which the moderate dems could be the tie-breakers. It isn't as if Mitt is the GOP fan favorite.
Click to expand...

What about the T's in the House? Romney will have no chioce but to follow their extreme right wing lead. He has shown no backbone at all against the demands of the Teaparty. Thsnkfully we will not have to find that out the hard way.
 
It means that no matter what people want you to believe it will be close.
 
iguanaman said:
What about the T's in the House? Romney will have no chioce but to follow their extreme right wing lead. He has shown no backbone at all against the demands of the Teaparty. Thsnkfully we will not have to find that out the hard way.
Click to expand...

They can be marginalized by DINO's/moderates. There will be one less T in the House as he will be breaking ties in the Senate :)
 
What if...? said:
Right back into the ditch his ideological predecessors just drove us into.
Click to expand...

You mean the one Obama has drove us into further? We are running record budget deficits in the trillions, which are greater than under the previous administration, we are still militarily involved in the middle east, we are still around 8% unemployment, and gas prices are still going up. Romney couldn't be worse than Obama has been for the country. If your options are to vote for the least economically responsible President in history or vote for the other guy, who would you take your chances with?
 
Fisher said:
or out of the ditch we are about the fall into. Some pundits have hinted that Romney could regain the Senate on his coattails, or get it to 50/50. If the GOP were to win, GOP divisions would develop on which the moderate dems could be the tie-breakers. It isn't as if Mitt is the GOP fan favorite.
Click to expand...

No real difference from the standard Republican wish list from R & R, though.

You know what they say about doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
 
Jill Stein is making her run and taking Obama and Romney votes with her. It is the only plausible solution. (wishful thinking)
 
MAcc2007 said:
You mean the one Obama has drove us into further? We are running record budget deficits in the trillions, which are greater than under the previous administration, we are still militarily involved in the middle east, we are still around 8% unemployment, and gas prices are still going up. Romney couldn't be worse than Obama has been for the country. If your options are to vote for the least economically responsible President in history or vote for the other guy, who would you take your chances with?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I vote AGAINST the money that backs Republicans.

Whatever they want I don't want, so I vote against the party they sponsor.

That BOTH parties are owned almost outright by Wall St. types is a whole 'nother thread.
 
What if...? said:
No real difference from the standard Republican wish list from R & R, though.

You know what they say about doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Click to expand...

yeah, it means you are an Obama supporter :2wave:
 
Fisher said:
yeah, it means you are an Obama supporter :2wave:
Click to expand...

I think the a Rep preside t might have gotten us further OUT of the ditch because they wouldnt have filibustered every thing he tried.

But I think we would have been unhappy about what we paid for that "recovery", years later.

As is usually the case, IMO.
 
What if...? said:
Right back into the ditch his ideological predecessors just drove us into.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the community reinvestment act (a dem bill) is what drove us into a ditch not bushes policys which I didn't agree with either. They problem is we can't get a y work done because of special intrest if We had a president or congressmen ok with being 1 term in they could do real change.
 
Fisher said:
or out of the ditch we are about the fall into. Some pundits have hinted that Romney could regain the Senate on his coattails, or get it to 50/50. If the GOP were to win, GOP divisions would develop on which the moderate dems could be the tie-breakers. It isn't as if Mitt is the GOP fan favorite.
Click to expand...

That's a big leap of faith when there is a large GOP bloc that wants to cut everything to the bone and is willing to get rid of any Republican that doesn't bend over.

I seriously doubt the Senate will flip. Looks right now that the Democrats have a lock on at least 51 seats.
 
MAcc2007 said:
You mean the one Obama has drove us into further? We are running record budget deficits in the trillions, which are greater than under the previous administration, we are still militarily involved in the middle east, we are still around 8% unemployment, and gas prices are still going up. Romney couldn't be worse than Obama has been for the country. If your options are to vote for the least economically responsible President in history or vote for the other guy, who would you take your chances with?
Click to expand...

First of all, Executive branch spends no money. Read the powers granted to it by the COTUS.
Second, it doesn't matter who is in office, we are going to be involved period. It's not like electing Obama will pull the 7th fleet out of Bahrain. And Obama did end the Iraqi Mistake.
Third, a President has relatively little control over the economy compared to Congress. Foreign policy is far more of a power that the President has.
Fourth, the only way the President can reduce gas prices is via releasing stockpile from the reserve. Expansionist policies for gas are almost always met with corresponding OPEC cuts.

The least economically responsible President in US history was Hoover who railed against the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act calling it "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious"" and then signed it anyways. It proceeded to destroy roughly 14% of the US economy directly related to trade and far more indirectly related to trade. No President in US history is that economically responsible compared to Hoover who KNEW what that bill would do but signed it anyways.

I take it you're pretty young? US history really ain't taught well in schools these days
 
Rokkitsci said:
powerful sound byte - idiotic, but powerful.
Click to expand...

So deregulation and cutting taxes whenever possible (without ACTUALLY cutting spending (except on those pesky poor people)) had NOTHING to do with the ditch we ended up with?

Your guys expending any effort to make sure it doesn't happen again?
 
Rokkitsci said:
Which makes one wonder how one could consider voting for Obama.
Click to expand...

All those entities sitting on capital are going to have to get up off it eventually.

I don't think they will.consider their losses a good investment after the election.

Either they're gonna get 'bout everything they want if Romney wins or have to wait at least 4 more for another chance.
 
obvious Child said:
First of all, Executive branch spends no money. Read the powers granted to it by the COTUS.
Click to expand...

Then you and I agree that Obama is a liar. Obama promised to reduce the deficit in half, which you note he has no power to do. What a liar!
Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009 - YouTube


obvious Child said:
Second, it doesn't matter who is in office, we are going to be involved period. It's not like electing Obama will pull the 7th fleet out of Bahrain. And Obama did end the Iraqi Mistake.
Click to expand...

But Obama increased the fight in Afghanistan and, in our ally, Pakistan.
Barack Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan - YouTube

obvious Child said:
Third, a President has relatively little control over the economy compared to Congress. Foreign policy is far more of a power that the President has.
Click to expand...

Obama claims only government can fix the economy. Why, then, did Obama make his unpopular health care law his top priority when he entered office, instead of using government, the only solution, to fix the economy? He had a democrat House and a democrat Senate. So which is it obvious Child? Is Obama a liar on this issue, or does he just have terrible leadership skills?

Obama: Only Government Can Fix the Economy - YouTube

obvious Child said:
Fourth, the only way the President can reduce gas prices is via releasing stockpile from the reserve. Expansionist policies for gas are almost always met with corresponding OPEC cuts.
Click to expand...

These energy prices are exactly what Obama wants. He wouldn't support policies to reduce prices even if he had options before to reduce the cost of gas.
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube


obvious Child said:
The least economically responsible President in US history was Hoover who railed against the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act calling it "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious"" and then signed it anyways. It proceeded to destroy roughly 14% of the US economy directly related to trade and far more indirectly related to trade. No President in US history is that economically responsible compared to Hoover who KNEW what that bill would do but signed it anyways.

I take it you're pretty young? US history really ain't taught well in schools these days
Click to expand...

Haven't you been listening to Obama, "this has been the most fiscally irresponsible administration" talking about the Bush administration. You may be right about history not being taught well, even the President doesn't know about Hoover...

FLASHBACK: Obama Campaigning In '04: Deficit Is "An Enormous Problem" - YouTube

Everything I have said is true and comes straight from Obama's mouth. You have to decide if Obama is just a liar saying he can fix the economy but he actually can't or he is just an idiot who is less knowledgeable than you about your purported facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom