US Elections 2010

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by james0246

This thread is dedicated to discussion of the upcoming US gubernatorial and congressional election in November 2010. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various candidates, their positions, and the various other positions being voted on across the country. All news and discussion of the upcoming election will be placed in this thread, and once the results are in a possible new thread dedicated to the 112th Congress could be made.

The usual forum rules apply (be considerate of others and their opinions, no flaming, try and provide sources if necessary, etc), and of special note try not to get to caught up in News coverage of the elections (specifically, we all know the mainstream media is inherently biased, so try not to create too much discussion based on how bad you perceive the individual networks are skewing the various elections).

Additionally, here are some important links:
2010 ballot measures
2010 Judicial elections
2010 House of Representatives elections
2010 Senate elections
and
Gubernatorial elections

edit: sorry about highjacking your post Saintless...

---

Originally Posted by justinstrife

He can't be any worse than our President or the leaders of both Houses of Congress. I'd rate 99% of the Politicians in this country as morons as well as a good portion of the voters.

I would do the same, minus your president. Obama isn't that bad....though he's being kicked around by the brainless voters and opposing-wingers.

What Obama needs is more guts to forcibly carry out stuff like the energy act and such instead of trying to appeal to everyone. He's being sissy that way.

Oh yes, he need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Televised speeches and reports have seem to become rather lopsided and less sensible than in the past.

[Altima of the Gates]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

He can't be any worse than our President or the leaders of both Houses of Congress. I'd rate 99% of the Politicians in this country as morons as well as a good portion of the voters.

Well, I agree somewhat with SaintessHeart. Obama is being pushed around by a bunch of quacking ducks at times. I haven't lost heart on him yet, at least its better than the last president. Its rather that people are seeing all too late what was wrong here.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I would do the same, minus your president. Obama isn't that bad....though he's being kicked around by the brainless voters and opposing-wingers.

What Obama needs is more guts to forcibly carry out stuff like the energy act and such instead of trying to appeal to everyone. He's being sissy that way.

Oh yes, he need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Televised speeches and reports have seem to become rather lopsided and less sensible than in the past.

So wait, all this time Obama has been pushed around by the voters and the opposing-wing? That is why he canceled many of those laws/acts/etc that he was going to, but then recently canceled to work on something else? I originally thought he was just doing this stuff on purpose.

Well, I agree somewhat with SaintessHeart. Obama is being pushed around by a bunch of quacking ducks at times. I haven't lost heart on him yet, at least its better than the last president. Its rather that people are seeing all too late what was wrong here.

I suppose the "Quacking Ducks" are the mindless votes that SaintessHeart said? Well I do sorta agree, the voters are usually just blabbering on about things, and just hating on President Obama for various reasons (possibly racist reasons)

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I would do the same, minus your president. Obama isn't that bad....though he's being kicked around by the brainless voters and opposing-wingers.

What Obama needs is more guts to forcibly carry out stuff like the energy act and such instead of trying to appeal to everyone. He's being sissy that way.

Oh yes, he need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Televised speeches and reports have seem to become rather lopsided and less sensible than in the past.

I'll respond in reverse order with your points.

Exactly how is the Fairness Doctrine constitutional? And where exactly do you want it enforced?

Obama is doing more harm than good with his Health Care Reform, not continuing the Bush Tax Cuts, running up the National Debt to epic record numbers, and generally just getting the Government involved in places it should not be involved with. He hasn't been making the situation any better. In some cases, he's continuing Bush policies(which aren't necessarily good), and in others he is going above and beyond them.

We haven't had a good President since Reagan.

[james0246]

^Most of our economic and political woes (hell, even many social) can be directly tied to Reagan's administration, so I would hold off calling him a good President. While Clinton is debatable, I would have to say that the last good president was actually...Nixon. As you, and others, finish laughing (and as I place aside his bigotry, hatred of the elite and the common man, and almost criminal record), Nixon is the last President that actually moved the entire country forward. He created the division between China and the USSR, effectively limiting the Communist alliance across the planet; he forged a détente and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the USSR; He abolished the gold standard (which directly created the world as we know it today (for better or worse)); created the EPA and the Clean Air Act; he helped put through Title IX reforms (that truly established the role of women in the workplace beyond the "traditional" role of the secretary); and his "New Federalism" was the last great moment of the Republican Party (Reagan pissed all over the new federalism, and Gingrich killed it completely in 94'). Nixon will always be remembered for his mishandling of the Vietnam War (however you wish to analyze the triumps and failures of the war) and Watergate and the feeling of paranoia that effectively changed America forever, but amongst these travesties he had many great ideas (or he at least backed other’s great ideas) that shaped America and the world for the better.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'll respond in reverse order with your points.

Exactly how is the Fairness Doctrine constitutional? And where exactly do you want it enforced?

Obama is doing more harm than good with his Health Care Reform, not continuing the Bush Tax Cuts, running up the National Debt to epic record numbers, and generally just getting the Government involved in places it should not be involved with. He hasn't been making the situation any better. In some cases, he's continuing Bush policies(which aren't necessarily good), and in others he is going above and beyond them.

We haven't had a good President since Reagan.

The Fairness Doctrine does a few good things :

1. It protects the president from untrue, slanderous and disparaging commentary.
2. It prevents sensationalism from pushing down civil order, on and off cyberspace.
3. It protects the people who might have an opposing view to magnates and panic mongers - and interestingly, it can indirectly protect gun owners.

It is a good regulator of the media, which is currently running uncontrolled not only in the US, but also any country affected by globalisation. It should be enforced the way it used to be, on the news media industry.

Regarding the US deficits and Obama running up the national debt, it is a by-product of fixing damages - one often spends more to fix something broken or messed up, often up to many-figure multiples if it has infinite useful life, like land, or a financial system. Obama is doing his best to set things right by approving the money usage, but it boils down all to the Congress, other political parties and ultimately, the people to make it work.

Given the political climate, I don't think it is going to work. Not unless Sarah Palin disappears or something.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Obama is doing more harm than good with his Health Care Reform,

Because it's a policy made by committee designed to please everyone at least enough to be passed. It's not a policy designed to actually fix anything.

not continuing the Bush Tax Cuts,

Which are a big factor in the current deficit problems.

running up the National Debt to epic record numbers,

Are you prepared to criticize Reagen for doing the same?

and generally just getting the Government involved in places it should not be involved with.

Such as?

He hasn't been making the situation any better. In some cases, he's continuing Bush policies(which aren't necessarily good),

When he tries to change them he gets shouted at by right wing idiots like Glenn Beck.

and in others he is going above and beyond them.

Such as?

We haven't had a good President since Reagan.

I guess that answers my previous question about Reagen.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by james0246

snip

You'd fit in rather nicely at the forum where I come from, for most of us there have a rather healthy respect for Nixon's good policies. (Including myself, for that matter)

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The Fairness Doctrine does a few good things :

1. It protects the president from untrue, slanderous and disparaging commentary.
2. It prevents sensationalism from pushing down civil order, on and off cyberspace.
3. It protects the people who might have an opposing view to magnates and panic mongers - and interestingly, it can indirectly protect gun owners.

It is a good regulator of the media, which is currently running uncontrolled not only in the US, but also any country affected by globalisation. It should be enforced the way it used to be, on the news media industry.

Don't hold your breath. The one's not all that interested in it and its use was all pre-internet explosion anyways.

Also, I don't think your lust for the return of the fairness doctrine or even the "personal attack" requirement could prevent "the one" from his current slow decline in the polls. We know he likes to respond to every single little gripe (whether he is the subject or not) aired in the media anyway through Gibbsy boy. Not helping him much. Personally, I think the jury is out on the one (the guy only has 2 years of resume material) and hasn't quite reached a level equal to the legacy hire..yet. Others will have other opinions. The fairness doctrine, especially one limited to broadcasting isn't changing my opinion for either of them, nor others opinions.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Altima of the Gates

Seriously, he should start watching his back. Like MrTerrorist said, he's a freaking idiot.

He's not an idiot, he's in fact the smartest man that has claimed leadership of the christian movement in America. If he wasn't so smart I'd probably say Newt was first but he is the master of the herd, the music man, like no other. And once people realize that antiquity won't matter in the apocalypse and anarchistic wasteland Beck creates they'll wish he fell in love with the music teacher instead.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Because it's a policy made by committee designed to please everyone at least enough to be passed. It's not a policy designed to actually fix anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Also the fact that it will require everyone to have health insurance, is extremely unconstitutional... It will only make Health Care in America, much, much worse.

Which are a big factor in the current deficit problems.

Tax Revenue went up under Bush's tax cuts just as it did for Reagan.

Are you prepared to criticize Reagen for doing the same?

Reagan had some issues of his own. Part of the deficit was due to him greatly increasing Military Spending and fixed what Carter messed up(just talk to men who served during the Carter years how bad funding got...), sped up the collapse of the USSR. He screwed up in 1986 with the Amnesty deal that he did with Congress. Of course, they lied to him that they would agree to help fix the illegal immigration problem. If you look at the border states, it's obvious nothing has changed there.. How he handled the Beirut Embassy Bombings led to more violence against America by Islamic Terrorists, and a mistake he later admitted to.

Such as?

Obama has greatly expanded the role of Government, created Czars and people in positions of influence without Congress having a say(I'm not talking about his Cabinet), he took far too long before he bothered listening to Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe things are worse there because of it(not that they could ever be great).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyodr...eature=related

When he tries to change them he gets shouted at by right wing idiots like Glenn Beck.

The ways he wants to change policies, and the direction of this country, are not what the people wanted...

And this is part of the reason why the Democrats are about to get their asses kicked in November, and hopefully in 2012...

Hopefully the GOP establishment will also be looking for new jobs come election day. It's time to clean house.

As probably the only Conservative Tea Party member on this forum, I am not surprised that I am alone here with my view point. Our views are just not compatible, and can never be compatible. How we view America, what it stands for, and what direction it should go, are just completely different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLbeX5TgGCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH...eature=related

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Also the fact that it will require everyone to have health insurance, is extremely unconstitutional... It will only make Health Care in America, much, much worse.

Hmmmmm, so the then Speaker of the House Newt Ginrich is also a Pinko Commie Fascist Libtard Capitalist Hating Hitler Stalin Maoist Kenyan Secret Muslim trying to overwrite the constitution.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Also the fact that it will require everyone to have health insurance, is extremely unconstitutional...

Technically, that is not true. Congress is not allowed to use the Commerce Clause to directly or indirectly regulate activities, but Congress does have the power, under the Revenue Raising clause, to impose upon the citizens regulatory activities. And since the current economic analysis of "Obamacare" shows the program raising revenue rather than lowering it, the program is deemed constitutional.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Tax Revenue went up under Bush's tax cuts just as it did for Reagan.

That's kind of a misnomer. Bush's entire first term showed a rapid decrease in tax revenue, and much of this was directly because of the tax cuts (and an analysis of the GDP by the end of his term is not very good). His second term, though, did show an increase in tax revenue, especially when the Democrats took over in 2006 . The only way to claim that Bush's tax revenue increased each year is to look at a chart that does not adjust for

Btw, you've been watching a lot of FOX/reading a lot of the Heritage Foundation lately, haven't you? . This is nearly exactly what the commentators on FOX have been talking about for the past year in order to get support for the horrendous Bush Tax Cuts as they expire...

Originally Posted by justinstrife

...sped up the collapse of the USSR.

I've never really understood this reasoning. The USSR was already spreading itself thin by 79' when the Soviet-Afghan war started, and Operation Cyclone (a Democratic run initiative) didn't really get into full effect until 82'-83', and by then the USSR was already well in the red. All the while, Reagan was spending 100s of billions he did not have on weapons that were never used for a war that was fought through covert means only.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Obama has greatly expanded the role of Government, created Czars and people in positions of influence without Congress having a say(I'm not talking about his Cabinet)

Oh please, what a BS complaint. Reagan and Bush both greatly expanded the role of government as well, but you refuse to mention that? And a Czar/Tsar is nothing more than bureaucrat that works for the President overseeing one specific policy or group of policies (and their power only extends as far as the President supports them).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

he took far too long before he bothered listening to Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe things are worse there because of it(not that they could ever be great).

He took too long? He took a few extra weeks at best for Afghanistan, and he had already decided to leave Iraq by the first days of his Presidency...

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The ways he wants to change policies, and the direction of this country, are not what the people wanted...

Isn't that a rather large generalization? The majority still put him office, and even with his slipping polls he still has a great deal of support.

As for your Tea Partier status...well that's for you to decide. As for the Tea Party candidates, though, they are a mixed bag. Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are fairly stupid, and I can't imagine a majority of anyone actually supporting them in their election bid. Nikki Haley and Paul LePage seem okay, though Haley often comes across, whether deliberately or not, as a victim, and Paul LePage is a little unknown (besides his BP faux pas, he hasn't done much). And the rest (Kristi Noem, Tim Scott and Anna Little), are all, more or less, political unknowns since they have deliberately flown under the radar. (One thing I've always liked about the tea party movement is how many women have risen within the ranks.)

In all honesty, I would have a lot more respect for the Tea Party movement if it had started under Bush (who created most of the problems the movement originally rallied against), and if the movement had not been taken over by awful politicians like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Dick Armey, etc...

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by james0246

As for the Tea Party candidates, though, they are a mixed bag. Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are fairly stupid, and I can't imagine a majority of anyone actually supporting them in their election bid.

Why are you lumping those two together? And why do you think Rand Paul is stupid? You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm fairly curious - Angle might be for smaller government, but she is inconsistent and supports neocon policies, whereas Paul, love him or hate him, sticks to his guns as an old-school conservative.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Why are you lumping those two together?

I wasn't saying they are the same, just that I dislike both.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

And why do you think Rand Paul is stupid? You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm fairly curious - Angle might be for smaller government, but she is inconsistent and supports neocon policies, whereas Paul, love him or hate him, sticks to his guns as an old-school conservative.

Rand Paul is his father's version of the Libertarian party, not Goldwater's, and Goldwater's is the better since it does not really deal with social issues, only economic and defense. Paul opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, and his bioethics stances are completely contrary to my own. He wants to do away with the Dept. of Education (which I agree needs vast revision, but is still fundamentally good and intrinsically beneficial to society as a whole). His support of the review of the 14th Amendment also turns me off. The only stances of his that I can somewhat support are on Energy (especially tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy) and many of his statements on National Defense.

I do not want to divert the discussion too much, so I will leave it at that.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by james0246

Rand Paul is his father's version of the Libertarian party, not Goldwater's, and Goldwater's is the better since it does not really deal with social issues, only economic and defense. Paul opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, and his bioethics stances are completely contrary to my own.

I don't agree with many of his social policies, either. But if you know about their stances, it shouldn't matter. They believe those issues are up to the people to vote for on a state level, and don't advocate their positions politically beyond pointing out that fact.

Originally Posted by james0246

He wants to do away with the Dept. of Education (which I agree needs vast revision, but is still fundamentally good and intrinsically beneficial to society as a whole).

He wants to do away with it because it has become a monster of political interest that has run out of control. Many of the national education programs introduced by the past few presidents have hurt education, not helped it. And if the department of education is really a good thing, why were Americans more educated in comparison to the rest of the world before it existed?

Originally Posted by james0246

His support of the review of the 14th Amendment also turns me off.

He actually doesn't want it to be repealed or reviewed - all he said on the issue is that private businesses shouldn't be mandated by the government on who they serve as customers. A debatable stance, certainly, but his view on the issue has been mischaracterized.

Originally Posted by james0246

I do not want to divert the discussion too much, so I will leave it at that.

You're a moderator so I'm sure you would understand better than I, but isn't this still on-topic? I thought political discussion was more or less intertwined with this thread.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Why are you lumping those two together? And why do you think Rand Paul is stupid? You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm fairly curious - Angle might be for smaller government, but she is inconsistent and supports neocon policies, whereas Paul, love him or hate him, sticks to his guns as an old-school conservative.

Rand Paul sticking - During the primary attack his opponent for taking money form senators who support the bank abilout and promise not to accept any contributation form anyone who supported the bank bailout. What ahppen after he won the primary hosted a fund raiser included 9 senators who who voted for the bailout.

"We considered that the primary was a fight over the direction and the soul of the Republican Party," Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said this week. "By Rand taking that hard stance in the primary, we think that those ideas won."
Now that Paul is the nominee, "it is great to see so many leaders lining up behind" him, Benton said."


and his own words on the civil rights:



He was ask if he would vote for the civil rights act of 1964, Rand Paul said no.


24-hour later he answer yes.



In between he also said private business have the rights to refuse service to black people.




and on Sharon Angle:
what kind of person would hold a press conference and then ran away from the reporters she invited before they can even ask one questions.



She literally ran away, not walk but ran. The guy who hosted the press conference look like a deer in the headlight when she started running.



and you have to love this:


when ask by a waitress how she would create jobs in Nevada, Angle reply "ask the Lt .gov, it is not her job to created jobs."


No wonder Reid wanted Angle as his opponent, his seat was for the taking. All the republicans had to do was put someone who is alive and sane. Instead they put up Angle who makes Palin look smart and reasonable.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Also the fact that it will require everyone to have health insurance, is extremely unconstitutional... It will only make Health Care in America, much, much worse.

Tax Revenue went up under Bush's tax cuts just as it did for Reagan.

Reagan had some issues of his own. Part of the deficit was due to him greatly increasing Military Spending and fixed what Carter messed up(just talk to men who served during the Carter years how bad funding got...), sped up the collapse of the USSR. He screwed up in 1986 with the Amnesty deal that he did with Congress. Of course, they lied to him that they would agree to help fix the illegal immigration problem. If you look at the border states, it's obvious nothing has changed there.. How he handled the Beirut Embassy Bombings led to more violence against America by Islamic Terrorists, and a mistake he later admitted to.

Obama has greatly expanded the role of Government, created Czars and people in positions of influence without Congress having a say(I'm not talking about his Cabinet), he took far too long before he bothered listening to Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe things are worse there because of it(not that they could ever be great).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyodr...eature=related

The ways he wants to change policies, and the direction of this country, are not what the people wanted...

And this is part of the reason why the Democrats are about to get their asses kicked in November, and hopefully in 2012...

Hopefully the GOP establishment will also be looking for new jobs come election day. It's time to clean house.

As probably the only Conservative Tea Party member on this forum, I am not surprised that I am alone here with my view point. Our views are just not compatible, and can never be compatible. How we view America, what it stands for, and what direction it should go, are just completely different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLbeX5TgGCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH...eature=related

Justin, i got one question for you.

Where were the Tea-party to protest one of the biggest expansion of government powers and spending under the Bush Admin? Obama was in office less then a yr before the tea party protest begin but Bush was in office 8 yrs and I did not see one Tea Party protest. If the tea-party was for small government why i didn't see one tea party protest against Bush?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I don't agree with many of his social policies, either. But if you know about their stances, it shouldn't matter. They believe those issues are up to the people to vote for on a state level, and don't advocate their positions politically beyond pointing out that fact.

Good point, but I still can't support a candidate who I so fundamentally disagree with even if said disagreement never leads to any actual opposition.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

He actually doesn't want it to be repealed or reviewed - all he said on the issue is that private businesses shouldn't be mandated by the government on who they serve as customers. A debatable stance, certainly, but his view on the issue has been mischaracterized.

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You're a moderator so I'm sure you would understand better than I, but isn't this still on-topic? I thought political discussion was more or less intertwined with this thread.

And you've been here 3 years longer than I have, so it all equals out . I consider it somewhat off-topic since our comments and discussion are not really based on any specific news article/source any longer, and are just political discussions.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I don't agree with many of his social policies, either. But if you know about their stances, it shouldn't matter. They believe those issues are up to the people to vote for on a state level, and don't advocate their positions politically beyond pointing out that fact.

if left up to the states, Interracial marriages would still be illegal in certain states.

He wants to do away with it because it has become a monster of political interest that has run out of control. Many of the national education programs introduced by the past few presidents have hurt education, not helped it. And if the department of education is really a good thing, why were Americans more educated in comparison to the rest of the world before it existed?

and local schools isn't? how many times in last 10 yrs have i heard of some local or state who wants add creationism to science class. or recently in Texas, because of Jefferson perceive lack of piety, the texas school board is going to mandate the history to de-empathize Jefferson role in US history.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

and local schools isn't? how many times in last 10 yrs have i heard of some local or state who wants add creationism to science class. or recently in Texas, because of Jefferson perceive lack of piety, the texas school board is going to mandate the history to de-empathize Jefferson role in US history.

I didn't claim local schools running by their own volition would be perfect - but it would sure save us some money, long term, from a department that offers little benefit.

As for interracial marriages, I don't think those laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional to begin with. Leaving it up to the states doesn't mean they can go against the US constitution (though that has of course been the case for a long time now... which needs to change, as well).