• 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!

Republican wins Democratic New York House seat

Conservative said:
How is that relevant when ther eare two FRESHMAN candidates for the House. what are they going to bring back to the District?
Click to expand...

They all make promises, but in this case the chief reasons the Democrat lost is that he was getting hammered on things he did which offended the district residents (like support the Park 51 project and gay marriage in New York state), and he failed to respond to his opponent effectively. It wasn't a campaign run on national issues.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
When did Obama ever consistently control 60 votes in the Senate? Sure, he was able to barter to get 60 votes on a number of occasions -- but he had to barter, that majority wasn't his to command.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable. I am not surprised at the liberal distortion and attempts to re-write history. You really should research more and post less. Name for me one year during the Bush term where he had the control of Congress like the Democrats had in 2009-2010?

All this from Scott Brown's surprise victory over Martha Coakley in the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat held for nearly 47 years by liberal lion Edward Kennedy, who died in August.
Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-seat Senate, breaking Democrats' filibuster-proof majority.
Click to expand...
GOP win in Mass. jolts Obama plans - USATODAY.com
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They all make promises, but in this case the chief reasons the Democrat lost is that he was getting hammered on things he did which offended the district residents (like support the Park 51 project and gay marriage in New York state), and he failed to respond to his opponent effectively. It wasn't a campaign run on national issues.
Click to expand...

that is what you are going to believe and nothing is going to change your mind including media reports after the election.
 
Conservative said:
Hochui got 52,713 votes and her opponents got 58,884 so again here is an other example of where the Tea Party and the Republicans divided the vote giving the election to an Obama Democrat.
Click to expand...
I see you're already preparing your whine for next year's election.
 
Conservative said:
Rocket, results matter to me, not rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Bull**** they do. There's absolutely no way on G-d's green Earth you could vote for George Bush in 2004 if results mattered to you. He lost the Twin Towers, invaded a country over WMD that weren't there, and by election time, lost more jobs to unemployment (2.6 million) than Obama has (2.2 million).

The only reason you did vote for him was because he was a Republican. Don't sit there and lie your ass off claiming results matter to you. I'm embarrassed for you that you would even attempt to pull off such a scam.
 
Conservative said:
Unbelievable. I am not surprised at the liberal distortion and attempts to re-write history. You really should research more and post less.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that you're so narrow-minded that you label anybody who takes issue with your view as liberal, or an Obama supporter. That's why you refuse to see the NY-9 special election as anything other than a referendum.

Conservative said:
[/B]GOP win in Mass. jolts Obama plans - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

At no time in Obama's Presidency has there been 60 Democrats in the Senate. The best he could do was 58 Democrats and 2 left-leaning Independents, and he only had that between the following dates:
  • July 7 - August 24, 2009
  • September 25 2009 - February 3, 2010
 
Conservative said:
that is what you are going to believe and nothing is going to change your mind including media reports after the election.
Click to expand...

You, who calls the media biased and untrustworthy whenever they don't report what you want them to, should really stop referencing media reports as truth. It makes you look like a hypocrite. At any rate, I'm not going to change my mind because I know the truth, whereas all you know is labeling someone who disagrees with you as the opposite of whatever you label yourself.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not surprised that you're so narrow-minded that you label anybody who takes issue with your view as liberal, or an Obama supporter. That's why you refuse to see the NY-9 special election as anything other than a referendum.



At no time in Obama's Presidency has there been 60 Democrats in the Senate. The best he could do was 58 Democrats and 2 left-leaning Independents, and he only had that between the following dates:
  • July 7 - August 24, 2009
  • September 25 2009 - February 3, 2010
Click to expand...

That is pretty good Democrat control and better than anything Bush or Reagan had during their term and yet Obama got his stimulus passed which did nothing but make the problem worse and Obamacare which is a jobs killer. NY 9 got it, when will you?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You, who calls the media biased and untrustworthy whenever they don't report what you want them to, should really stop referencing media reports as truth. It makes you look like a hypocrite. At any rate, I'm not going to change my mind because I know the truth, whereas all you know is labeling someone who disagrees with you as the opposite of whatever you label yourself.
Click to expand...

The media interviewed voters after the election and that is what I was referring to but then I believe you knew that.
 
Conservative said:
The media interviewed voters after the election and that is what I was referring to but then I believe you knew that.
Click to expand...

The media interviewed an unknown number of people and published the opinions of the select few that agreed with the opinion they decided to project, because they have a bias -- a bias you're willing to ignore because it happens to temporarily coincide with yours, whereas normally you discard the media as being biased. That's why you're a hypocrite, but then I believe you knew that.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, that is exactly how I described it -- he didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and he had to bargain for those remaining votes. Otherwise, "Obamacare" would've come out looking much different.
Click to expand...

Obamacare shouldn't have come out at all. This country will never support a single payer system for healthcare which is a personal responsibility. Obama got everything he wanted and the results are there for all to see including the voters of NY 9, 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, 1% GDP growth, 4 trillion added to the debt, rising misery index, declining labor force, and loss of American exceptionalism around the world including Administrative support for Israel.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The media interviewed an unknown number of people and published the opinions of the select few that agreed with the opinion they decided to project, because they have a bias -- a bias you're willing to ignore because it happens to temporarily coincide with yours, whereas normally you discard the media as being biased. That's why you're a hypocrite, but then I believe you knew that.
Click to expand...

You keep saying you don't support Obama yet you ignore the election results of NY 9 and do your best to defend the position that this was a local election so as to not have to admit that Obama's policies have failed. I believe the people of NY knew that and thus their vote for a Republican for the first time in almost 90 years.
 
Conservative said:
Obama got everything he wanted
Click to expand...

No, he didn't, he got some of what he wanted.

Conservative said:
and the results are there for all to see including the voters of NY 9, 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, 1% GDP growth, 4 trillion added to the debt, rising misery index, declining labor force, and loss of American exceptionalism around the world including Administrative support for Israel.
Click to expand...

Jeez, why don't you blame Obamacare for the destruction of the Amazon and the rise of the Anti-Christ while you're at it? :lol:
 
Conservative said:
You keep saying you don't support Obama yet you ignore the election results of NY 9 and do your best to defend the position that this was a local election so as to not have to admit that Obama's policies have failed. I believe the people of NY knew that and thus their vote for a Republican for the first time in almost 90 years.
Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you want, but I actually followed that election (as a pose to you, who just saw the result and drew the conclusion you wanted to draw), and so I know what happened and why the Democrat lost. If he'd won, you would've just written it off as a Democrat district electing a Democrat -- or even better, you would've claimed that Obama was still in trouble because the Democrat's margin of victory wasn't high enough -- and you would've called any media report to the contrary biased and unreliable. That's what hypocrites do.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Pb, I took a civics course and know who controlled the legislative process in 2007-2008 when we went into recession and the financial collapse. I keep asking what Democrats did to prevent that collapse and I see nothing then but I do see what is going on today so the problems continue indicating that the Democrats are doing today what they did in 2007-2008, making things worse.
Click to expand...
And I know the fraud by Wall Street and the investment banks was what caused the near economic collapse and I also know Bush didn't want to stop the predatory loaning practices by the banks. I also know the housing bubble started years before and Bush did nothing to stop it. In fact he tried to get control of Fannie & Freddie by putting them under the treasury department. This was because he wanted 100% financing for low income earners. He spoke of this in speeches.
 
Conservative said:
Oh, I see, so re-wrting history now? what was the Democrat numbers in 2009-2010. Do you know what a filibuster proof Senate is?
Click to expand...
Oh? How many filibusters did Democrats defeat with a cloture vote that required 60 Democrats to break? I'd wager you don't even know. All you know is the rightwing talking point, "filibuster-proof"

FYI, Democrats had 60 Senators in July, 2009 after Al Franken was sworn in and it lasted until February, 2010, when Scott Brown took the Senate's 41st seat for Republicans.

During that period there were 40 cloture votes to defeat filibusters by Republicans (a remarkable number in itself for a 7 month period). Of those 40 cloture votes, there was a grand total of 5 cloture votes that required all 60 Democrats to prevail.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > 111th

So claiming Republicans were victims to the Democrat "filibuster-proof" Senate is more than a stretch.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, he didn't, he got some of what he wanted.



Jeez, why don't you blame Obamacare for the destruction of the Amazon and the rise of the Anti-Christ while you're at it? :lol:
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is the Federal Government's role thus the Federal Taxpayer to fund healthcare for all Americans? What does the Federal Govt. know about the healthcare issues in your local community. Healthcare is a state and local issue plus personal responsibility.

Obama took office at the end of a recession, his first action was a stimulus plan that failed so instead of fixing the stimulus shortfalls he went on to Obamacare. That is either incompetence or the proof that he is a leftwing ideologue in a Center right country. That is what turned people against him including those in NY 9. Had Obama spent the simulus money wisely he wouldn't be in this trouble today again showing incompetence or desire to turn this country into a European socialist economy. He is living up to his resume.
 
Conservative said:
Why do you think it is the Federal Government's role thus the Federal Taxpayer to fund healthcare for all Americans? What does the Federal Govt. know about the healthcare issues in your local community. Healthcare is a state and local issue plus personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
What a pathetic strawman, Con. What does the federal government know about military issues but it's still their job to provide a military for the nation the same way it's their job to provide for the general welfare of the nation.
 
Conservative said:
Pb, I took a civics course and know who controlled the legislative process in 2007-2008 when we went into recession and the financial collapse. I keep asking what Democrats did to prevent that collapse and I see nothing then but I do see what is going on today so the problems continue indicating that the Democrats are doing today what they did in 2007-2008, making things worse.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan had a sign on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here." Meaning the decisions were his, and he took responsibility. Apparently the sign on Bush's desk read "The Buck Stops Down the Street with Harry."

Bush could have vetoed anything that Congress passed. It doesn't become law without the President's signature unless Congress overrides the veto. How many of these economy ruining bills did Bush veto?
 
rocket88 said:
Bush could have vetoed anything that Congress passed. It doesn't become law without the President's signature unless Congress overrides the veto. How many of these economy ruining bills did Bush veto?
Click to expand...
That too is a strawaman ... how many "economy ruining bills" did Democrats even give to Bush to sign?

Answer: zero
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That too is a strawaman ... how many "economy ruining bills" did Democrats even give to Bush to sign?

Answer: zero
Click to expand...

I'm going to give Con the benefit of the doubt. I want to know which bills became law over Bush's veto that drove the economy into recession. In his view. If he's going to pass responsibility down to the Capitol, let's hear how they got around Bush's veto and how that created the recession.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm going to give Con the benefit of the doubt. I want to know which bills became law over Bush's veto that drove the economy into recession. In his view. If he's going to pass responsibility down to the Capitol, let's hear how they got around Bush's veto and how that created the recession.
Click to expand...
You must have missed the Conservative logic he's applied to this in the past. His position was that when Clinton-D was president with a Republican Congress, the president was responsible; but when Bush-R was president with a Democrat Congress, responsibility magically shifted from the president to the Congress.

Go figure? :shrug:
 
rocket88 said:
Ronald Reagan had a sign on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here." Meaning the decisions were his, and he took responsibility. Apparently the sign on Bush's desk read "The Buck Stops Down the Street with Harry."

Bush could have vetoed anything that Congress passed. It doesn't become law without the President's signature unless Congress overrides the veto. How many of these economy ruining bills did Bush veto?
Click to expand...

Really? Seems that people love to divert back to Bush to get off the topic of Obama's affect on Congressional elections. I would love to debate Bush with you and prove how wrong you are but not on this thread. What you fail to recognize is that the 2008 policies and 2009 budgets were Democrat supported budgets and Obama voted for them. TARP was Bush legislation that Obama supported.

Doubt that really matters today and it is obvious that it doesn't matter to the majority today or Obama's ratings would be higher and he wouldn't have lost NY 9.
 
Conservative said:
TARP was Bush legislation that Obama supported.
Click to expand...

How dare he support Bush's legislation? Is that your outrage? Democrats had the temerity to support Bush's idea?

Come on. Your position here is that Bush's stewardship of the economy was flawless, and it was all because of the Democrats. Your example is that they supported Bush's legislation??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom