Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >

Some post-election thoughts

Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 9:35 AM

Some post-election thoughts 


Last night was a butt kicking for the GOP. They'll spin it by saying how close the vote was nationally, that the GOP kept the House, and that Obama received less support this time than last time.

All of those things are true, but this election should have been won by the GOP with the unpopularity of Obama's signature accomplishments and the continuing state of the economy. The fact that they even lost ground in the senate shows that the GOP has major issues.

Another ominous sign for the GOP was that the Dems had almost the same turnout advantage last night as they did four years ago.  The Obama ground game is phenomenal, probably the best ever, but to not cut into that advantage more significantly should be a major red flag.

These things, along with a lack of options in the Romney/McCain generation, makes me believe that this is the last Presidential election that we'll see the current version of the GOP.  They will have to change in order to compete (as an aside, DenverDevil thinks they should fire their coach :op).

So the question, of course, is why did the things above happen and what changes can be made to make up ground?

I think the first thing that needs to happen is for the GOP to adopt a reasonable immigration policy and scrap the ridiculous "send them all home" or "self-deportation" positions they currently hold. The latino/hispanic population is growing exponentially and will continue to do so.  The good news is that the core beliefs of this demographic align well with GOP beliefs, but you can't point out how much you agree with them while asking them for their papers.  The Republicans left a HUGE opportunity on the table when they dragged their feet and allowed Obama to beat them to the current, watered down version of the DREAM Act that he enacted with the stroke of his pen without Congressional involvement.  The version he signed is very close to the version that Marco Rubio was going to put forward.  By allowing the President to move first, the GOP sealed their fate with latinos/hispanics.

The next thing that needs to happen is for the GOP to create and pass (in the House, of course) reasonable changes to Obamacare. With last night's vote, it's here to stay.  But it's fatally flawed and is still upopular with the electorate.  Being the party to advance real, substantive changes within the framework that's here to stay is critical to being seen as leaders on this important topic.  You know the Dems are only going to look to expand the freebies being handed out with this new entitlement, so there is an opportunity to look like the sane party in the healthcare debate. And, to put a final bow on the healthcare portion of my rant, the GOP failed miserably at communicating their alternative to Obamacare, so the electorate didn't like what was passed but didn't really have an alternative to move to.

The GOP is also going to have to figure out what to do with the social conservatives.  This group is one of the main reasons there is so much infighting within the party and why many people have left the party in recent years (including me).  This group seems to view politics as a way of advancing their religious beliefs. They've blurred the line between politics and religion on many issues and it turns away many people that have an issue that is a "deal breaker" but otherwise align with conservative principles (e.g. many women, gays, etc.).  I don't know what to do with this group, honestly, but the party is going to have to find a way to get them to turnout in larger numbers when their "religious guy" didn't get through the primary or bring more people under the tent so the evangelical vote isn't as important.

I think doing a lot of the things above will bring many people that voted libertarian in line with the GOP, although the GOP will never get the libertarians that want an isolationist foreign policy (nor should the GOP want to court these folks, IMO).  IMO, many of the people that currently vote libertarian would strongly consider voting Republican if some of the above was incorporated into the GOP platform.

And finally, the GOP has to figure out a way to communicate with the masses better.  The way the media handled the Benghazi attack and the way the administration reacted to it underscores that the Rs are not going to be able to rely on most media outlets to be the true media watchdogs they've been traditionally. The media mostly ignored what should have been covered closely, with many difficult questions asked until the White House gave sufficient answers.  And the current coverage of the gaps in FEMA services for much of the area struck by Sandy mirrors the media's treatment of Libya.  There isn't an easy answer here, but more "average Joes" need to be made aware of these types of occurrences and it's obvious that the regular media is no longer going to take a neutral stance on how they report them.

Lots of changes need to be made. We'll see who grabs the reins of the party and moves it forward.  I'm guessing Christie blew his shot at being the guy with his embrace of the President last week.  Will it be Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, or someone else?
E

***The opinions stated by BigESunDvl are his alone and do not necessarily represent those of DevilsDigest.com or its staff.***
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 10:48 AM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 


I would be a proud card carrying member of the GOP if they did three things...
1) Stopped spending so much on defense and invading other countries
2) Stop messing with peoples personal lives or at the very least let the states figure it our on their own. 
3) Stopped endorsing corporate welfare and tax breaks for billionaires, hedge fund managers, etc... There is no reason why I should pay 30+% in taxes when Mitt pays 14% and there is no reason why some homeless, handicapped woman should be cut off from her $500/week Social Security check when millionaire landowners get to receive huge govt checks for NOT growing crops on their land.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 11:34 AM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 



the42yardline wrote: I would be a proud card carrying member of the GOP if they did three things...
1) Stopped spending so much on defense and invading other countries
2) Stop messing with peoples personal lives or at the very least let the states figure it our on their own. 
3) Stopped endorsing corporate welfare and tax breaks for billionaires, hedge fund managers, etc... There is no reason why I should pay 30+% in taxes when Mitt pays 14% and there is no reason why some homeless, handicapped woman should be cut off from her $500/week Social Security check when millionaire landowners get to receive huge govt checks for NOT growing crops on their land.
A couple thoughts on your thoughts:

1. I don't think most GOPers want to continue "invading other countries" and recognize the need to reduce military spending.  The question is always how much to reduce, where to reduce, and how "prepared" our military needs to be on a continuing basis.  This question seems to be the difference of opinion for most of us.

2. Messing with personal lives how? This seems to happen with both parties.  And I share your federalism preference.

3. Many GOP members would agree with your thoughts on those types of subsidies to farmers. And most, like me, would need to know the situation when the ladYyyou described doesn't gether social security anymore. And there are plenty of very good reasons why Romney might pay 14% and you might pay a higher rate that have been discussed here ad nauseum. The class warfare "fairness" argument is a crock of crap since we have consciously incentivized, via lower tax rates, people with extra money to do certain things with it that we've deemed to be good for the whole of the country. And now we want to be mad that they take advantage of the incentives we've set up?  I'll ask you the same question I ask all the fairness crowd and never get a straight answer on -- the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of income taxes. What percentage of the income taxes would the top 10% have to pay for it to be "fair?"
E

***The opinions stated by BigESunDvl are his alone and do not necessarily represent those of DevilsDigest.com or its staff.***

Last edited 11/07/2012 11:43 AM by BigESunDvl

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 11:43 AM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 


What percentage of the income taxes would the top 10% have to pay for it to be "fair?"

It's a stupid question--back in the 60s and 70s the highest marginal rates were 79%. Nobody whined about fairness--and the economy was vibrant.

The rich and ultra rich get the most benefits from our "system", somewhere close to 80% is right IMO. The top 10% own somewhere around 60% of the assets of this country, the top 2% own 50%.

Frankly E, I have no idea why you are so concerned about the rich---as far as they are concerned you are just another useful idiot!
Harriet Tubman: "I freed thousands of slaves, and could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves." (c. 1901)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 12:00 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 



baalforhire wrote:

It's a stupid question--back in the 60s and 70s the highest marginal rates were 79%. Nobody whined about fairness--and the economy was vibrant.

Actually the economy was extraordinarily stagnant in the late 70's.  Furthermore there were umpteen zillion loopholes for these "evil" millionaires to hide their money so few paid that percentage.  It also favored certain "evil" millionaires over others.  It wasn't fair to anybody.  During the Reagan years they set out two tax rates: 10% and 25%.  The only deductions you really got were for home mortgage and that was about it.  Guess what...the economy not only boomed but there was more money that came into the system.  It's not that rich people don't want to pay taxes, they just want to pay more in taxes and they want the system to be predictable and fair. 

The rich and ultra rich get the most benefits from our "system", somewhere close to 80% is right IMO. The top 10% own somewhere around 60% of the assets of this country, the top 2% own 50%.

And yet this country enjoys a standard of living that is second to none, even amongst its poorest.  Other nations that don't have the huge divide have an sharply lower standard of living.  So would you have fewer rich people owning more with a higher standard of living for everyone or income gap equality with a lower standard of living? 

Frankly E, I have no idea why you are so concerned about the rich---as far as they are concerned you are just another useful idiot!

So how many poor people have you worked for just out of curiosity?  All my bosses had one thing in common.  They were usually pretty well off.  They also never considered me a useful idiot.  I did a great job for them and they paid me to do it.  I lived comfortably because of it.  If they didn't, then I wouldn't work for them.  It's that simple! 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 12:16 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 


Big E, just to reply to your original post and add a few thoughts of my own:

I generally agree with your points, except the Hispanic one.  This is one of the GOP's biggest mistakes in my opinion.  To think that by pandering to the Hispanic community with immigration talk will win votes back is misguided for multiple reasons. 

1) You can't "out-liberal" the liberals on immigration.  For all the voters you think you'll win by pushing some sort of DREAM act, the Democrats already have them locked up.  You can't win with amnesty-lite, when the democrats are using amesty-original.

2) To assume that Hispanics' most important issue is immigration, is flat out wrong, intuitively and emprirically.  Poll after poll shows that Hispanics who vote democrat are more concerned with the GOP economic positions, than with their immigration positions.  Hispanics are about 4 times more likely to be in poverty than non-hispanics, so their biggest concerns are "safety nets" and taxing upper incomes.  They were VERY instrumental in getting the Prop (I think its 30) passed in CA to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Economic issues are number 1 for them.  Not immigration. 

3) The majority of Hispanics don't care about immigration policy much, because they are already in the country.  If you are born here you don't care about immigration policy at all.  To think that a second generation Hispanic cares most about how we treat out illegal immigrants is pandering and misguided.



On your other points, I pretty much agree.  GOP does a terrible job of messaging.  Although it's a shame, I think Christie lost his shot at a Presidential run.  Absolutely a terrible reason for it to happen and I hope I'm wrong.  To speak well of the incumbent right before the election was bad timing, but doesn't discount anything he would bring to the table as president.


My biggest frustration over the years has been the Republican establishment's refusal to go conservative.  How many times do we have to put forth a moderate to "win" the center votes, only to get smashed.  Run conservative, voice those ideas intelligently. Like I mentioned earlier, you're not going to "out-liberal" the liberals.  Still a conservative country, so run that way.

I'm not as concerned about the future of the GOP as most.  Politics is cyclical.  A lot of young guns in the party compared to across the aisle so we'll be fine.  What worries me the most is the electorate.

Blacks vote democrat 90+ %.  Women went +10 to Obama, while he spent the whole campaign pretty much saying they only care about free birth control and abortion.  Bail out auto industry and you win Ohio and Michigan. The fact that class warfare, the war on women, cheaper higher education for all, free healthcare, and stimulus still have political traction is very concerning and troubling.   

Objectively this has been one of the worst presidential terms in history and the majority of the voters don't care.  That's what worries me.

and Johnson voters piss me off.  We undertsand and actually agree with you on many issues.  Don't throw your vote away for pride sake.  All you do by voting libertarian is make your self more irrelevant than you already are (which is hard to do).

ASU by 17 on Saturday.

Last edited 11/07/2012 12:20 PM by mexicostateuniversity

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 12:23 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 



the42yardline wrote: I would be a proud card carrying member of the GOP if they did three things...
1) Stopped spending so much on defense and invading other countries
2) Stop messing with peoples personal lives or at the very least let the states figure it our on their own. 
3) Stopped endorsing corporate welfare and tax breaks for billionaires, hedge fund managers, etc... There is no reason why I should pay 30+% in taxes when Mitt pays 14% and there is no reason why some homeless, handicapped woman should be cut off from her $500/week Social Security check when millionaire landowners get to receive huge govt checks for NOT growing crops on their land.

1)  I don't want to invade other countries.  Most people don't.  Why do you think Bush was wildly unpopular toward the end of his term? 
2)  What do you think Democrats do?  I always think its funny that they say they're "Pro-choice" when they only choice the support is abortion.  They don't advocate choice in health care, schools, jobs, media, just about everything you can think of.  I for one am somewhat socially libertarian and agree that what one does in the privacy of their own home is their business.  Modern day Democrats don't think as much.  Look at California.  They tell you what lightbulbs you have to buy, what size TV you can buy, when you can use your fireplace, and its getting to the point where they're now telling you where you have to live in certain cities!  For as moralistic as Republicans can be, they're far more libertarian than Democrats. 
3)  The effective corprorate tax rate in this country is second highest in the world.  Even then its not the corporations who pay these taxes but the consumer who uses their products.  What most Republicans advocate is a simple straight forward and predictable tax code with a lower rate! 

As for Mitt Romney (and Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, and pretty much every Democrat in federal office) the 14% is also misleading.  That's their net tax liability.  If you're paying 30+% in taxes you need to get a better tax preparer because you're getting ripped off.  The fact is I'm in a 30% tax bracket myself, but I paid last year only 8% effective taxes after all my deductions.  In fact Mitt Romney's 14% net effective rate was higher than 96% of Americans.  It's a great talking point for the president but its very inaccurate. 

Also keep in mind that he was right tat 47% of the country doesn't pay any federal income tax at all.  Yes about half of those people are SS retirees and veterans and they shouldn't (because they already paid into the system one way or the other) but the other half are just because they can claim enough deductions to put them at no taxes or to be subsidized.  I firmly believe EVERYONE should pay taxes no matter how small.  Everyone needs skin in the game.  If you make only $15k a year, you should pay $50.  Not a lot but you can at least say you contributed.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 2:53 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 



mexicostateuniversity wrote: Big E, just to reply to your original post and add a few thoughts of my own:

I generally agree with your points, except the Hispanic one.  This is one of the GOP's biggest mistakes in my opinion.  To think that by pandering to the Hispanic community with immigration talk will win votes back is misguided for multiple reasons. 

1) You can't "out-liberal" the liberals on immigration.  For all the voters you think you'll win by pushing some sort of DREAM act, the Democrats already have them locked up.  You can't win with amnesty-lite, when the democrats are using amesty-original.

2) To assume that Hispanics' most important issue is immigration, is flat out wrong, intuitively and emprirically.  Poll after poll shows that Hispanics who vote democrat are more concerned with the GOP economic positions, than with their immigration positions.  Hispanics are about 4 times more likely to be in poverty than non-hispanics, so their biggest concerns are "safety nets" and taxing upper incomes.  They were VERY instrumental in getting the Prop (I think its 30) passed in CA to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Economic issues are number 1 for them.  Not immigration. 

3) The majority of Hispanics don't care about immigration policy much, because they are already in the country.  If you are born here you don't care about immigration policy at all.  To think that a second generation Hispanic cares most about how we treat out illegal immigrants is pandering and misguided.



On your other points, I pretty much agree.  GOP does a terrible job of messaging.  Although it's a shame, I think Christie lost his shot at a Presidential run.  Absolutely a terrible reason for it to happen and I hope I'm wrong.  To speak well of the incumbent right before the election was bad timing, but doesn't discount anything he would bring to the table as president.


My biggest frustration over the years has been the Republican establishment's refusal to go conservative.  How many times do we have to put forth a moderate to "win" the center votes, only to get smashed.  Run conservative, voice those ideas intelligently. Like I mentioned earlier, you're not going to "out-liberal" the liberals.  Still a conservative country, so run that way.

I'm not as concerned about the future of the GOP as most.  Politics is cyclical.  A lot of young guns in the party compared to across the aisle so we'll be fine.  What worries me the most is the electorate.

Blacks vote democrat 90+ %.  Women went +10 to Obama, while he spent the whole campaign pretty much saying they only care about free birth control and abortion.  Bail out auto industry and you win Ohio and Michigan. The fact that class warfare, the war on women, cheaper higher education for all, free healthcare, and stimulus still have political traction is very concerning and troubling.   

Objectively this has been one of the worst presidential terms in history and the majority of the voters don't care.  That's what worries me.

and Johnson voters piss me off.  We undertsand and actually agree with you on many issues.  Don't throw your vote away for pride sake.  All you do by voting libertarian is make your self more irrelevant than you already are (which is hard to do).

ASU by 17 on Saturday.
+1000
Solid post.  I agree with everything except your prediction of the SC game.  I hope your right about that as well.

The republicans have no choice but to go conservative with their next candidate.  I thought Romney did a good job and was looking more presidential as time went on, but we need a staunch conservative from the get go.  We also need this individual to explain conservatism to this country, how it works and how it will improve conditions in this country.  Sadly, we are at a point when this needs to be explained to people. 

Hispanics are conservative.  They love family, faith, hard work.  Liberals have a disdain for all of those.  This should not be a difficult thing to sell to them, if we get the right person that can articulate this while not being afraid of the media.

Along the same lines, I would have liked to see Romney and others bring up fast & furious.  This is the worst scandal in this country's history.  The Obama administration walks hundreds of weapons into Mexico and hands them to violent drug cartels for the express purpose of killing mexicans.  Hundreds of mexicans died because of this, yet they came out in mass to vote for this guy.  This needed to be repeated to hispanics over and over.  Why are Republicans so afraid to be confrontational when they have the truth on their side?

"I didn't come here to win on a Saturday, I came to win here every day"

Todd Graham

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 3:13 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 


Yes, the problem with the GOP is that we're not conservative enough. Keep going that way, see what happens.

Maybe, just maybe your ideology is flawed and doesn't work. Maybe the "liberal media" isn't liberal at all, but center-right. Maybe the majority of the country believes in the right to choose, contraception, don't believe in "Devine Rape"', believe the science is in on climate change AND it's causes, gay people have the right to marry, strong public schools and funding them, a strong social safety net, reliable and secure mail service, the ability for all of us to vote without waiting in lines for hours on end, medical care for all without having to worry about going bankrupt because you got sick, a military that doesnt believe in occupying other countries and pre-emptive war, religious freedom, and a progressive tax structure, etc.

Have you ever considered you may be wrong?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 3:42 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 


I don't think buying off hispanics with amnesty is the way to go for the GOP. 

As far as the tax rates discussion is concerned.... the rich pour billions and billions into a massive propaganda campaign aimed at convincing gullible americans that they need to rely on the wealthy to keep our economy going. There are think tanks, radio stations, tv stations, newspapers all aimed at convincing the public that raising the top marginal rate from 32% to 35% is socialism and everyone will be laid off by our masters at the top. 

Ask yourself if you have fallen for this message.

If you don't know take the following test...

Which scenario do you think results in the creation of more jobs...

1) A wealthy lemonade stand owner has one employee and he has been selling less and less lemonade each month because he only has a few friends who can afford it. But he just found out that his income taxes will be reduced from 25% to 20%. 

2) A wealthy lemonade stand owner with one employee just arrived at his lemonade stand today and there was a line of 100 middle class customers wrapped around the block. They all said they received modest tax cuts and have enough money to buy lemonade every day. 

If you think scenario 1 creates more jobs you have been brainwashed.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 4:23 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 


So I've had to stay off here until today as the 2012 drinking game took it's toll on me. Drinking.gif


I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and I've campaigned for candidates from both sides. To me the biggest problem is the increased partisanship and polarization that has eliminated the moderate from congress. These are the deal makers who help get important bills passed but it's getting harder and harder for them to survive the primaries. 

The result last night wasn't really a big surprise for me, the battle ground map wasn't favorable for Romney and his momentum had stalled a few weeks before the election. Romney was an OK but not a great candiate, in many ways he's the GOP's version of John Kerry. Just like Bush in '04 you've got a vulnerable incumbent but the other side didn't nominate a strong challenger to oppose them. Romney just like Kerry comes off as out of touch with the common man and bit of a used car salesman who'd say anything to get elected. 

The one thing I'm interested to see is how does the GOP respond to losing what was a winnable election. The social conservatives will say that electing a "Massachusetts Moderate" lost them the election but I think that's very foolish thinking. The GOP needs to stop fighting unwinnable wars against gay marriage and other social issues which pushes younger voters towards the democrats. The biggest problem they run into is their harsh language against the Latino community and the "send them all home" tone on immigration  These are not stances that will grow your tent with the fastest growing ethnic demographic of the country. After the 2008 election Mike Murphy (McCain's 2000 Campaign Manager) wrote a great article on the shifts to the political map coming, among them was that the most popular baby name in Texas is Jose.

Staying on that topic the next few elections could show a dramatic shift of the battle ground states as the electoral college map shifts. The midwest is losing electoral votes as the population shifts away from the old manufacturing centers and it's moving west. Arizona, Texas, Nevada and Colorado could become future battleground states in the next few elections which doesn't bode well for the Republican party if they don't adapt to the changing environment. 

On a separate note, cheers to Nate Silver who once again nailed it with his projections. He went 50-50 this year which makes him 99/100 over the past two elections. He's simply amazing at what he does.

PT - 42

 

http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 4:35 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 


"I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and I've campaigned for candidates from both sides."

So, how on earth do you vote?

Obama has increased the national debt by over $6T and counting, and 30,000 drones will be spying on you in 18 months.  So, that must be out for you?  Republicans are war mongers who spend on military, and don't give a damn about the poor and inner city degenerates.  So, that must be out for you?

So, you accept that you love money...and it's the root of all kinds of evil you practice.

What a troubled soul you must be.  You think you're so sophisticated and intelligent with your observations, and evaluations on things societal.  Maybe you're a libertarian and don't know it yet?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 4:53 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 


You guys are reading way too much into my comments about the DREAM Act. I probably did not explain myself well.

Rubio was going to put forth his version of the DREAM Act anyway, so he should have done it before the President could just enact his version (which, based on most reports, generally tracks what Rubio would have proposed). The idea is to take steps to not be viewed as the party that wants to round up all the illegals and deport them so they look like they have some sane plan having to do with immigration.  Whether it was adopted or not, Rubio putting his plan forth would have been a great message to latino/hispanic voters (who I agree have many other issues and don't fall in line completely with whoever offers the DREAM Act).

Right now, the Rs not only have the other policy issues to overcome with this demographic, but their immigration stance turns some/many potential voters away that would otherwise agree with the rest of their policies. Whether it's Rubio's DREAM Act or some other plan, the Rs need to create some sort of realistic immigration plan.  Right now, they don't have one.

The Rs don't need to win the latino/hispanic vote, but they can't take a 70/30 drubbing every election if they want to win any big races.
E

***The opinions stated by BigESunDvl are his alone and do not necessarily represent those of DevilsDigest.com or its staff.***

Last edited 11/07/2012 5:00 PM by BigESunDvl

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 6:09 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 



ASUbigfans wrote: "I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and I've campaigned for candidates from both sides."

So, how on earth do you vote?

Obama has increased the national debt by over $6T and counting, and 30,000 drones will be spying on you in 18 months.  So, that must be out for you?  Republicans are war mongers who spend on military, and don't give a damn about the poor and inner city degenerates.  So, that must be out for you?

So, you accept that you love money...and it's the root of all kinds of evil you practice.

What a troubled soul you must be.  You think you're so sophisticated and intelligent with your observations, and evaluations on things societal.  Maybe you're a libertarian and don't know it yet?
I'm not sure why the vague personal swipe in the final paragraph, I merely gave my thoughts on the election and politics. Baseless responses like that is why I rarely leave the huddle on this forum...

I'll admit that controlling the national debt should be a top priority for both sides over the next four years but will you concede that most of the increase wasn't Obama's doing? I'm fine with someone who's a strict fiscal conservative, but I do find humor that these folks only showed up when it was no longer a Republican president signing the checks. Even the Tea Party golden boy Paul Ryan voted for TARP, the Auto Bailouts, Medicare Part D (unfunded), 2 wars (unfunded) and the Bush tax cuts. Both sides deserve blame for the debt as we got to this point from decades of poor decisions.

I'd respond on my own personal candidate preferences and beliefs on the role of government, but it's clear for your posts here and in other threads that you don't want a serious conversation on this matter.

PT - 42

 

http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/

Last edited 11/07/2012 6:11 PM by DSPdevil

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 7:09 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 




---------------------------------------------
--- BigESunDvl wrote:

You guys are reading way too much into my comments about the DREAM Act. I probably did not explain myself well.

Rubio was going to put forth his version of the DREAM Act anyway, so he should have done it before the President could just enact his version (which, based on most reports, generally tracks what Rubio would have proposed). The idea is to take steps to not be viewed as the party that wants to round up all the illegals and deport them so they look like they have some sane plan having to do with immigration.  Whether it was adopted or not, Rubio putting his plan forth would have been a great message to latino/hispanic voters (who I agree have many other issues and don't fall in line completely with whoever offers the DREAM Act).

Right now, the Rs not only have the other policy issues to overcome with this demographic, but their immigration stance turns some/many potential voters away that would otherwise agree with the rest of their policies. Whether it's Rubio's DREAM Act or some other plan, the Rs need to create some sort of realistic immigration plan.  Right now, they don't have one.

The Rs don't need to win the latino/hispanic vote, but they can't take a 70/30 drubbing every election if they want to win any big races.

---------------------------------------------

See, I think this is the problem with R's, they are not genuine, here you are trying to justify putting forth a policy, not because you believe it, but because it plays well politically. I think, unless you are stuck to Fox news all day, Americans see through this.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 8:08 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 



DSPdevil wrote: 
Even the Tea Party golden boy Paul Ryan voted for TARP, the Auto Bailouts, Medicare Part D (unfunded), 2 wars (unfunded) and the Bush tax cuts. 

The Neo-Cons call him Tea Party because that's how Neo-Cons attempt to confuse Libertarian leaning Republicans in their propaganda.  koolaid.gif

There is nothing fiscally conservative about Paul Ryan.  He's just another war mongering Neo-Con leading the Republican Party to another defeat in the Presidential Election.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 8:17 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 



99sundevil wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- BigESunDvl wrote:

You guys are reading way too much into my comments about the DREAM Act. I probably did not explain myself well.

Rubio was going to put forth his version of the DREAM Act anyway, so he should have done it before the President could just enact his version (which, based on most reports, generally tracks what Rubio would have proposed). The idea is to take steps to not be viewed as the party that wants to round up all the illegals and deport them so they look like they have some sane plan having to do with immigration.  Whether it was adopted or not, Rubio putting his plan forth would have been a great message to latino/hispanic voters (who I agree have many other issues and don't fall in line completely with whoever offers the DREAM Act).

Right now, the Rs not only have the other policy issues to overcome with this demographic, but their immigration stance turns some/many potential voters away that would otherwise agree with the rest of their policies. Whether it's Rubio's DREAM Act or some other plan, the Rs need to create some sort of realistic immigration plan.  Right now, they don't have one.

The Rs don't need to win the latino/hispanic vote, but they can't take a 70/30 drubbing every election if they want to win any big races.

---------------------------------------------

See, I think this is the problem with R's, they are not genuine, here you are trying to justify putting forth a policy, not because you believe it, but because it plays well politically. I think, unless you are stuck to Fox news all day, Americans see through this.
Uh, if you really think that this is something only the Rs do, then I truly feel sad for you.  You have such a warped sense of reality.  It's called Politics.  Both sides put forth policies they don't believe in to have it play well politically.  And, the key is that many Rs would support the policy and while it's being debated in the party the Rs would have taken the lead on presenting a solution to the issue.
E

***The opinions stated by BigESunDvl are his alone and do not necessarily represent those of DevilsDigest.com or its staff.***
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 8:41 PM

RE: Some post-election thoughts 



DSPdevil wrote:
ASUbigfans wrote: "I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and I've campaigned for candidates from both sides."

So, how on earth do you vote?

Obama has increased the national debt by over $6T and counting, and 30,000 drones will be spying on you in 18 months.  So, that must be out for you?  Republicans are war mongers who spend on military, and don't give a damn about the poor and inner city degenerates.  So, that must be out for you?

So, you accept that you love money...and it's the root of all kinds of evil you practice.

What a troubled soul you must be.  You think you're so sophisticated and intelligent with your observations, and evaluations on things societal.  Maybe you're a libertarian and don't know it yet?
I'm not sure why the vague personal swipe in the final paragraph, I merely gave my thoughts on the election and politics. Baseless responses like that is why I rarely leave the huddle on this forum...

I'll admit that controlling the national debt should be a top priority for both sides over the next four years but will you concede that most of the increase wasn't Obama's doing? I'm fine with someone who's a strict fiscal conservative, but I do find humor that these folks only showed up when it was no longer a Republican president signing the checks. Even the Tea Party golden boy Paul Ryan voted for TARP, the Auto Bailouts, Medicare Part D (unfunded), 2 wars (unfunded) and the Bush tax cuts. Both sides deserve blame for the debt as we got to this point from decades of poor decisions.

I'd respond on my own personal candidate preferences and beliefs on the role of government, but it's clear for your posts here and in other threads that you don't want a serious conversation on this matter.
Serious conversation?  You must be joking.  Listening to both democrats all along their spectrum...from the Clintonites to the straight Marxists like Baal makes me puke in my mouth.  Then listening to republicans from the Reaganits to the Bush 43 crew (and his TARP) drivel on and on about defending Israel and reving up the war machine is just as sickening.

The only "serious discussion" is one that clearly understands history, the trend, and our current fiscal and social issues at hand.  This country is broke...and the election has just sealed our country's fate.  I'm not going to have "serious conversations" regarding the election results, how the GOP party needs to pander for votes, or who added the debt.  It's a waste of time.

Here is the dashboard info for a "serious discussion".  Ready?

$16.8T in December.  It forces a -42% deficit spending trend.  That's $560B/monthly on the credit card.  Fiscal Cliff. 24 Million people unemployed.  The U6 number is 15%.  $121Trillion in unfunded Medicare/Medicaide/retirement entitlements through 2025 (Baby Boom years).  The average boomer has only $80K saved for retirement.  Our trade deficit started in 1984 and grows more negative every month by tens of millions.  We unhinged gold from the dollar in 1971.  There is no "re hinging it".  Falling interests rates have helped stimulate a slowing economy every 3-5 years since 1980 when they were 14%.  They have been at 0% for over 3 years.  The END is HERE...you can't go lower.

US Equities markets are over inflated by approx. 48% due to day after trading gains of TWIST, ZIRP, QE1, QE2, and QEternity.  This covers the time line of the last 3 years while rates have been set at 0 by the FED.

Digest that.  And let me let you in on a little secret.  When the interest rates rise...the Federal Reserve will implode this country like you could have NEVER imaged in your wildest F'ing nightmares.  I heard that mentioned for the first time, today on CNBC when they were interviewing a former Fed bank board member.

So, when you say I'm not "serious"...how about we start from THIS REALITY in our country and stop all the talk about ancillary, knee jerk horseshit that all of the zombies focus on from day to day.

So, be my guest and say something interesting or worthy instead of the same old BS dem vs. rep. arguments, which really only comes down to world view, and a perspective on God and faith.  The only reason I had to vote Romney after Ron Paul was not an option.

Last edited 11/07/2012 8:57 PM by ASUbigfans

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/07/2012 9:24 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 




---------------------------------------------
--- BigESunDvl wrote:


99sundevil wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- BigESunDvl wrote:

You guys are reading way too much into my comments about the DREAM Act. I probably did not explain myself well.

Rubio was going to put forth his version of the DREAM Act anyway, so he should have done it before the President could just enact his version (which, based on most reports, generally tracks what Rubio would have proposed). The idea is to take steps to not be viewed as the party that wants to round up all the illegals and deport them so they look like they have some sane plan having to do with immigration.  Whether it was adopted or not, Rubio putting his plan forth would have been a great message to latino/hispanic voters (who I agree have many other issues and don't fall in line completely with whoever offers the DREAM Act).

Right now, the Rs not only have the other policy issues to overcome with this demographic, but their immigration stance turns some/many potential voters away that would otherwise agree with the rest of their policies. Whether it's Rubio's DREAM Act or some other plan, the Rs need to create some sort of realistic immigration plan.  Right now, they don't have one.

The Rs don't need to win the latino/hispanic vote, but they can't take a 70/30 drubbing every election if they want to win any big races.

---------------------------------------------

See, I think this is the problem with R's, they are not genuine, here you are trying to justify putting forth a policy, not because you believe it, but because it plays well politically. I think, unless you are stuck to Fox news all day, Americans see through this.
Uh, if you really think that this is something only the Rs do, then I truly feel sad for you.  You have such a warped sense of reality.  It's called Politics.  Both sides put forth policies they don't believe in to have it play well politically.  And, the key is that many Rs would support the policy and while it's being debated in the party the Rs would have taken the lead on presenting a solution to the issue.

---------------------------------------------

Then why wouldn't the R's just hop on board to Obama's idea? Especially if it plays well. Instead, they hate Obama so much that they would sacrifice the Latino vote just to spite him or do you think it was fear of losing the base if they went along with it and making Obama look like a leader. Either way, it is a spineless move.

The Dems don't really have to play these games to the extent the R's do because they are with the majority on most issues like marriage equality, a more progressive tax rate, women's right to choose, environmental issues, union rights, healthcare, and immigration. So when a Democrat says things to support, say immigration, he is much more credible because it matches the party platform. When a Republican says he believes a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy when she is raped - no one believes them because it doesn't align with the party platform, and there are countless videos of many Republicans taking both sides of any issue that is out of the mainstream.

The problem is, what most R's believe would never get them elected to anything other than in the most conservative states or districts, so they have to lie. I believe one of the main reasons the R's had so many problems this year is because they had so many primary debates, I think they lost the women's vote, the Latino vote, and the youth vote because people actually saw what they stood for, like self deportation, like not accepting a 10 reduction in benefits to one dollar increase in revenue, like let a man die in the streets if they don't have insurance, and appoint judges that would reverse Roe V Wade.

On the flip side the more debates Dems have, the better it is because everyone thinks of themselves as self made, pull yourself up by your bootstraps type of person, and we don't need the government to help. However, as the Dems debate, people start to see the benefits of a strong government and the positive role it plays in our lives.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/07/2012 9:34 PM

Re: Some post-election thoughts 



99sundevil wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- BigESunDvl wrote:


99sundevil wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- BigESunDvl wrote:

You guys are reading way too much into my comments about the DREAM Act. I probably did not explain myself well.

Rubio was going to put forth his version of the DREAM Act anyway, so he should have done it before the President could just enact his version (which, based on most reports, generally tracks what Rubio would have proposed). The idea is to take steps to not be viewed as the party that wants to round up all the illegals and deport them so they look like they have some sane plan having to do with immigration.  Whether it was adopted or not, Rubio putting his plan forth would have been a great message to latino/hispanic voters (who I agree have many other issues and don't fall in line completely with whoever offers the DREAM Act).

Right now, the Rs not only have the other policy issues to overcome with this demographic, but their immigration stance turns some/many potential voters away that would otherwise agree with the rest of their policies. Whether it's Rubio's DREAM Act or some other plan, the Rs need to create some sort of realistic immigration plan.  Right now, they don't have one.

The Rs don't need to win the latino/hispanic vote, but they can't take a 70/30 drubbing every election if they want to win any big races.

---------------------------------------------

See, I think this is the problem with R's, they are not genuine, here you are trying to justify putting forth a policy, not because you believe it, but because it plays well politically. I think, unless you are stuck to Fox news all day, Americans see through this.
Uh, if you really think that this is something only the Rs do, then I truly feel sad for you.  You have such a warped sense of reality.  It's called Politics.  Both sides put forth policies they don't believe in to have it play well politically.  And, the key is that many Rs would support the policy and while it's being debated in the party the Rs would have taken the lead on presenting a solution to the issue.

---------------------------------------------

Then why wouldn't the R's just hop on board to Obama's idea? Especially if it plays well. Instead, they hate Obama so much that they would sacrifice the Latino vote just to spite him or do you think it was fear of losing the base if they went along with it and making Obama look like a leader. Either way, it is a spineless move.

The Dems don't really have to play these games to the extent the R's do because they are with the majority on most issues like marriage equality, a more progressive tax rate, women's right to choose, environmental issues, union rights, healthcare, and immigration. So when a Democrat says things to support, say immigration, he is much more credible because it matches the party platform. When a Republican says he believes a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy when she is raped - no one believes them because it doesn't align with the party platform, and there are countless videos of many Republicans taking both sides of any issue that is out of the mainstream.

The problem is, what most R's believe would never get them elected to anything other than in the most conservative states or districts, so they have to lie. I believe one of the main reasons the R's had so many problems this year is because they had so many primary debates, I think they lost the women's vote, the Latino vote, and the youth vote because people actually saw what they stood for, like self deportation, like not accepting a 10 reduction in benefits to one dollar increase in revenue, like let a man die in the streets if they don't have insurance, and appoint judges that would reverse Roe V Wade.

On the flip side the more debates Dems have, the better it is because everyone thinks of themselves as self made, pull yourself up by your bootstraps type of person, and we don't need the government to help. However, as the Dems debate, people start to see the benefits of a strong government and the positive role it plays in our lives.
You've only confirmed that you live in fantasy land.  There is no strong majority for either party.  There are majorities on issues, but not parties.  The Rs lead on small government, the Ds lead on others.  People weight different issues differently and vote accordingly.

Your characterization of the Rs is simply a strawman (let people die in the streets), which lets me know you'd rather live in your own fantasy land than have a real discussion.
E

***The opinions stated by BigESunDvl are his alone and do not necessarily represent those of DevilsDigest.com or its staff.***
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >