• 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 would you vote for in a republican primary?

Can you provide any links to the bills being anything but bipartisan, or is that something you repeat with no real knowledge of? Just curious

read the cite as provided in referenced post #148
 
it was found to be partisan pap, as opposed to bi-partisan legislation, as it has been wrongly characterized by the GOP propaganda machine
partisan republican bills that would not be favorably considered by the democrat dominated senate
while i can't stand harry reid, he's a corrupt, partisan sack of ****, it appears his reasoning for not moving that partisan legislation to a vote makes good sense

I'm sure all good partisan troopers are instructed and assigned that particular talking point. It's a darn good way to give irresponsible government license to do nothing but what is self serving for itself. But it's a free country and so far everybody is allowed their opinion (unless their opinion is politically incorrect.)
 
Yes, though I doubt you are using the term in its proper context as most of the legislation passed by the House was not that at all.

And you know this how?
 
I'm sure all good partisan troopers are instructed and assigned that particular talking point. It's a darn good way to give irresponsible government license to do nothing but what is self serving for itself. But it's a free country and so far everybody is allowed their opinion (unless their opinion is politically incorrect.)

Oh, stop it.
 
You really think you can vote for Hillary Clinton and still be "for liberty?"

My point was a more abstract one. One can vote for, let's say a candidate with a Realist foreign policy perspective, and that candidate might well support "liberty" at home. One has examine things on a candidate-to-candidate basis. If one is looking for a government role that is substantially reduced from the present role, Hillary Clinton probably won't be the preferred choice for that voter. However, that's a different matter. By later next year, the candidate pool should have become fairly clear and domestic and foreign policy details should be emerging.
 
In other words, you are fine with whatever the politicians want to spend on defense so long as it is more than it is today. Your argument is vague, so vague that you can include or exclude any threat to be accounted for.

Given what the testimony of past Defense Secretaries, Joint Chiefs members, etc., I'm confident that currently budgeted resources are inadequate for the tasks being given to the military. How the spending would be allocated is as important as how much funding is provided. Given the vital importance of free shipping passage through the Persian Gulf and increasingly disputed parts of the Pacific, a policy path that results in the Navy having its fewest ships in more than a century probably doesn't make much sense. Technology can allow for fewer ships than in the recent past, but technology is not a complete substitute for such vessels. In general, when one is evaluating the security environment, the focus of a National Security Strategy (not to mention foreign policy) needs to place priority on the large events. The shifting balance of power in East Asia is a seminal evolution with profound implications. All geopolitical or security trends are not equal.
 
Why don't you give us a list of so-called partisan bills? Again, Sen. Harry Reid and several Democrats in the Senate do not care if the Bill is bipartisan or not. The way Obamacare was passed clearly shows that.

You are the one trying to make a point... and you are failing miserably at it.

BTW... there are 50 Senate bills that haven't been taken up by the house, most notably the Immigration bill. It's pretty hard to cry foul when you are guilty of the same.

Back to the main point, the idea that Harry Reid is solely to blame for Washington not working may play well with the uninformed, but it is substantially silliness. Most of what has been passed in the House and not considered by the Senate is either buried in committee or not worthy of consideration. When challenged, you have been unable to defend this point, so either step up or stand down.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate' | PolitiFact
 
There are few that meet YOUR bi-partisan standard. Understand there is no universally accepted standard for "bipartisan" and thus part of the issue with continual reliance on that word.

I understand your standard, I don't think it's a horrible standard, but please stop acting like your standard is anything other than your opinion on the matter and that others comments should be based on your opinion.

My "bi-partisan" standard is a pretty low bar.... 30 dem votes out of 200 democrats... that is a 15% threshold. I doubt too many people would really consider that bi-partisan, yet, by your own admission that are very few that fit this distinction.

Back to my point, that even in double team, you seem to be unable to overcome, the reason bills are not being taken up by the Senate is because they aren't serious bills.... they are partisan bills that are designed only to register a vote. You can't blame the Senate any more than you can blame the House (which is also sitting on bills, including a very serious bill for Immigration Reform... which I dare say there is nothing remotely equivalent in significance and seriousness before the Senate) for not acting on legislation. Harry Reid is not the problem.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate' | PolitiFact
 
My "bi-partisan" standard is a pretty low bar.... 30 dem votes out of 200 democrats... that is a 15% threshold.

That's not your only threshold. 15% opposition party for it, 8.5% of the majority party against it.

You are the first person I've ever seen suggest that a certain percentage of the majority party must be against a bill for it to be called "bi-partisan". I would hardly call that "standard".

I'll also note it's a stricter standard than Fact Check used, along with multiple news sources, when describing a 2013 gun control bill as "Bi-Partisan" despite having only 9% of the Republican senates support.

Back to my point, that even in double team, you seem to be unable to overcome, the reason bills are not being taken up by the Senate is because they aren't serious bills

Well considering I've never tried to deny that point in this thread I'm not sure why you're lumping me into it. My issue is not with your assertion that the Senate is not taking up "serious bills". My issue was with the ridiculous propping up of Factcheck as some kind of objective absolute unquestionable authority on the matter and your continual attempt to present your opinion as some kind of definitive standard.

My issue is a general one with people who mindlessly and ignorantly see that things are called "fact checkers" and blindly believe that the entities are actually putting for objective, unbiased, definitive statements rather and thus present the information found within them as some kind of holy gospel that is unquestionable proof and hard truth when in reality they are routinely filled with subjective reasoning, unequally applied assumptions, and individual author bias.

FactCheck, Politifact, TheFactChecker...these are all good tools to use to butress an opinion; they are not absolute authorities or objectively true reporting that can be pointed to as singular truth proving an assertion.
 
Whats it to you? Are you a troll or do you intend on voting in a republican primary.

Anyone the libs say "guarantees a win for dems". Is probably a good candidate

Since NP joined and since he was on Whistlestopper (back in 2004), any time he makes a prediction, the opposite comes true. It's uncanny how over 10 years of predictions on forums, the opposite of what he claims always comes true.
 
None of them are good, but I guess Rand Paul. I don't think he would ever actually be elected president, and he is far from perfect.

Lots of good candidates in 2016

Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson
Scott Brown


At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson

I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.

What say you
 
I like Jon Huntsman a lot and actually made a contribution to his campaign back in 2012, but he is not nearly crazy enough to make it through today's Republican Primary process. Ben Carson would be a good one to nominate if the Republicans want to lose over 40 states. The same with Cruz. I like Chris Christie a lot but he needs to lose a lot more weight if he wants to run.

This post is hilarious, but I don't think you intended it to be. You really think Christie can't get elected if he is overweight? Why is that? I don't think he can get elected because of all the scandals in New Jersey and his behavior during Mitt's run for the white house.
 
I don't trust Mike because he looks like one of those alien kids on the movie The Village.

Indiana governor Mike Pence or
Ohio governor Kasich sp

Needs to be a governor
To me senators don't have enough experience running things.:twocents:
 
This post is hilarious, but I don't think you intended it to be. You really think Christie can't get elected if he is overweight? Why is that? I don't think he can get elected because of all the scandals in New Jersey and his behavior during Mitt's run for the white house.

Being overweight would not keep you from being elected, but being morbidly obese would. The presidency is a hard job. It ages even healthy people a lot. Look Bush the guy is a health nut, eats well, exercises strenuously, and it still aged him a lot. How many guys do you know of that are Christies size that live to even 60?
 
Being overweight would not keep you from being elected, but being morbidly obese would. The presidency is a hard job. It ages even healthy people a lot. Look Bush the guy is a health nut, eats well, exercises strenuously, and it still aged him a lot. How many guys do you know of that are Christies size that live to even 60?

That's a good point, though Christie always claims he is healthy and has normal cholesterol and blood pressure. Who knows if it is true. It's actually hard to believe.
 
That's a good point, though Christie always claims he is healthy and has normal cholesterol and blood pressure. Who knows if it is true. It's actually hard to believe.

He has lost quite a bit of weight in the past year.
 
Lots of good candidates in 2016

Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson
Scott Brown


At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson

I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.

What say you



I would never vote for anyone who supports far-right evangelical ideas.

In any case I don't believe that any GOPer will be living in the White House after the 2016 election.

Wait and see.

BTW: no matter what happens in the upcoming election the GOP will never be able to over-ride an Obama veto. Keep that in mind.
 
Last edited:
Put this whole Hispanic vote thing to rest.

CRUZ
 
Being overweight would not keep you from being elected, but being morbidly obese would. The presidency is a hard job. It ages even healthy people a lot. Look Bush the guy is a health nut, eats well, exercises strenuously, and it still aged him a lot. How many guys do you know of that are Christies size that live to even 60?

Hillary is a drunk and she's still alive. ;)
 
Put this whole Hispanic vote thing to rest.

CRUZ
:lol: Implying that the hispanic vote is driven entirely by ethnicity. Cruz would lose the demographic handily.
 
:lol: Implying that the hispanic vote is driven entirely by ethnicity. Cruz would lose the demographic handily.

The usual low information voters would see 'CRUZ' and go 'Hey there's a Hispanic brother"

I think Ted Cruz has a better story to tell and he's a Constitutionalist..
 
Back
Top Bottom