Exit Polls
-
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
-
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
-
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
I'm talking about in office. There really aren't any left. Moderate Republicans get primaries. They get called RHINOs and lose to other Republicans.
Political scientists measure these things. Both parties have gotten more ideological, but the Republicans have shifted much more to the right than Democrats have to the left. It's simply not correct to say this is a problem that's just as much a problem on the left as on the right.
-
By naming we need tom tupa intellectually elite and then pointing to the conversations you have with him, you declare yourself intellectually elite. That's convenient, because it allows you to think every person that disagrees with you is crazy, wrong, and stupid. You're a very intelligent person, clearly, but I've always considered you a narcissist.
By naming we need tom tupa intellectually elite and then pointing to the conversations you have with him, you declare yourself intellectually elite. That's convenient, because it allows you to think every person that disagrees with you is crazy, wrong, and stupid. You're a very intelligent person, clearly, but I've always considered you a narcissist.
Oh no. Trust me. My long conversations with Steve and Cal do nothing but make me hate myself.
-
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
I'm talking about in office. There really aren't any left. Moderate Republicans get primaries. They get called RHINOs and lose to other Republicans.
Political scientists measure these things. Both parties have gotten more ideological, but the Republicans have shifted much more to the right than Democrats have to the left. It's simply not correct to say this is a problem that's just as much a problem on the left as on the right.
I'm talking about in office. There really aren't any left. Moderate Republicans get primaries. They get called RHINOs and lose to other Republicans.
Political scientists measure these things. Both parties have gotten more ideological, but the Republicans have shifted much more to the right than Democrats have to the left. It's simply not correct to say this is a problem that's just as much a problem on the left as on the right.
It is, though, because that would be one party flatly refusing to accept any blame. Degrees of blame don't help anyone. Instead of pointing fingers why don't the democrats start using actions to try and pretend like they're interested in compromising on issues. Demanding republicans accept all the blame for years of failing to get ANYTHING done on either side will only increase hard feelings.
Abe Lincoln also said of the confederates when asked by Robert E. Lee how the vanquished confederates were to be treated
"Let them up easy" Rubbing their faces in the loss wasn't going to work then and it will not work now.
-
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
Well, I just disagree. I care, and it matters. They're not equally at fault and it's worth pointing out.
I can point you to the use of the filibuster by Republicans versus Democrats. That's a good measure. I mean, let's be real: when President Obama got in to office, he was riding a huge wave. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, devised a strategy to oppose everything he did. Really. Just say no to everything. The theory was that if Obama promised change and a new tone, and then the public saw none of it happen and partisanship, they'd turn on Obama and put Republicans back in charge. And it worked pretty well in 2010.
"“People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."
As Sen. Voinovich recalled, "“He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
Or Joe Biden: “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says. The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.
...Is that the kind of partisanship you're talking about needing to go away? I think so too.
-
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
Well, I just disagree. I care, and it matters. They're not equally at fault and it's worth pointing out.
I can point you to the use of the filibuster by Republicans versus Democrats. That's a good measure. I mean, let's be real: when President Obama got in to office, he was riding a huge wave. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, devised a strategy to oppose everything he did. Really. Just say no to everything. The theory was that if Obama promised change and a new tone, and then the public saw none of it happen and partisanship, they'd turn on Obama and put Republicans back in charge. And it worked pretty well in 2010.
"“People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."
As Sen. Voinovich recalled, "“He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
Or Joe Biden: “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says. The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.
...Is that the kind of partisanship you're talking about needing to go away? I think so too.
Well, I just disagree. I care, and it matters. They're not equally at fault and it's worth pointing out.
I can point you to the use of the filibuster by Republicans versus Democrats. That's a good measure. I mean, let's be real: when President Obama got in to office, he was riding a huge wave. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, devised a strategy to oppose everything he did. Really. Just say no to everything. The theory was that if Obama promised change and a new tone, and then the public saw none of it happen and partisanship, they'd turn on Obama and put Republicans back in charge. And it worked pretty well in 2010.
"“People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."
As Sen. Voinovich recalled, "“He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
Or Joe Biden: “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says. The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.
...Is that the kind of partisanship you're talking about needing to go away? I think so too.
Listen, clearly, the republicans are not helping anything. If the democratic party has any brains they will realize they've won, celebrate in private, and extend the olive branch for real. Otherwise the partisanship will eventually come to civil war. Both parties need to back off certain really divisive issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control and work on things everyone can agree upon like employment and the budget. Sometimes the best thing that can happen is nothing. Barack Obamas legacy will be much better If we get out of the debt crises more or less unscathed than if the ship sinks but gays are finally allowed to marry (for the record I'm for gay marriage.) The big picture is what's important right now.
-
You disagree largely because you're all in for one side. Where, exactly, do you differ from the liberal ideology?
-
I'm not all in for one side. There's just no one to cheer for on the other side anymore. I grew up as a Bill Weld Republican, but there are no Bill Weld Republicans anymore. They don't get elected. In fact, how did Bill Weld's career come to a close? His nomination to be ambassador to Mexico was blocked. By Jesse Helms.
I'm probably what you'd call a "corporate Democrat." Which used to be a moderate Republican.
-
Chris Christie? Is he a giant turd sandwich? I like Christie. I wish he wasn't fat though, because a fat guy isn't an attractive choice in American Idol Politics
-
I like Christie and his candor, but he's not in Congress. He's the governor of a blue state. If I had to name some other Republicans I like, that don't freak me out, I'd say Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins. Guys like Tom Coburn and Bob Corker are conservatives, but serious guys who you can deal with.
There aren't that many. Every time one goes away, like a Richard Lugar or a John Warner, the Republican taking their place is almost always more conservative, more ideological, and less willing to compromise.
I'm hardly the only one making this critique of the Republican Party's draft to the right, or even to crazytown. You can find it pretty much everywhere.
-
Yeah we've established there's plenty of blame for republicans. Are you willing to accept blame for the partisanship of democrats? How willing are prominant dems to work across the aisle, really.
-
They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.
-
They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.
They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.
I'd love for that to happen, that would be just fine. The New Deal was well hated by the right and we got through that. The world war didn't hurt, though. Lots of jobs in a world war.
-
Do you think democrats would agree to outlaw abortion with provisions for incest, rape, and legitimate life threatening situations? And only those things?
-
Oh, no. Absolutely not.
It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.
If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.
I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.
-
Oh, no. Absolutely not.
It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.
If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.
I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.
Oh, no. Absolutely not.
It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.
If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.
I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.
1-time $1500 government paycheck for women 16-21 who get their tubes tied.
-
Oh, no. Absolutely not.
It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.
If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.
I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.
1-time $1500 government paycheck for women 16-21 who get their tubes tied.
1-time $1500 government paycheck for women 16-21 who get their tubes tied.
I'll go with this, but sweeten the pot. 5000 dollars one time no kids ever. You can have all the promiscuous unprotected sex you want.
-
How about letting people do what they want, accepting that not everyone is going to be responsible because not everyone is? We're certainly not going to pay for young women to have their tubes tied.
But let's get past the first layer of this debate because once you start walking through it it's pretty interesting.
Around half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Around half of those end in abortion.
So here are the ways we know you can reduce the number of abortions, and after looking at them you get to see the bind you start getting in:
- Access to free contraception. We know this works. It's been studied. It also costs money to provide. Obamacare, of course, famously requires this coverage as a part of women's health insurance plan. Republicans are against this, both for reasons of religious liberty and for reasons of "not wanting to pay for someone else's fucking." So there you go: a surefire way to reduce the number of abortions, but not supported by the Party that would seemingly want to reduce abortions. Instead, they favor a total ban, or a ban with exemptions.
- Provide financial support to lower-income mothers who become pregnant. One of the top reasons women have abortions is because they don't feel they can financially support another child. Offering government money for things like health and day care services and food and other costs associated with child rearing has been shown to reduce some number of abortions in countries with greater social safety net protections for mothers and their children. But this is highly unlikely to be a solution that is politically feasible in the United States.
- Comprehensive sex and contraceptive education for teens. Also shown to lower the number of unintended pregnancies. Also not something many parents want taught in their schools. Also costs money to provide.
- Adoption services and counseling. This is done in many places, given to women as another option, but this hasn't been shown to reduce abortion levels significantly, or at all. You also have to pay for this, of course.
...So next time you hear a politician talk about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, you might notice they never actually say what that might entail because many people don't want to do what it actually entails. It's almost always lip service. However, the first choice - access to free contraception - is the most effective and is also about to become the law of the land. You can be for it or against it, but it's likely to reduce the number of abortions.
-
Why not pay to have tubes tied? 5000 dollars one time is a lot less than you'll pay for welfare for that kid. No muss no fuss over and done. Or will it be one less future democrat to count on?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login