Election Day Bitches!

The big guy is part of the reason we lost, almost half of the exit poll voters said his handling of Sandy was a major factor in their decision to vote for him even though Sandy is being handled worse than Katrina. We needed Rubio and he simply wasn't willing to run this election. Liberals tend to think the tea party is socially conservative, its not. The tea party is all about the constitution and fiscal conservatism. Social issues are not part of the tea party platform.
 
Mac I challenge that. First which Constitution? It is a loose framework designed to adapt to current conditions, so trying to say things should be strictly interpreted opens a whole can. Strictly interpreted can easily fall into using 225 year old conditions and saying that approach worked then it should be returned now, and we are not an agrarian, isolated, lightly populated nation without communication any longer. As far as the social conservatism, many culture warriors labeled themselves tea partiers and many of the latter latched onto culture warriors. So you may say it is not socially conservative, but their candidates look that way.
 
The US Constitution Chuck, which is a VERY specific about what the government can and cannot do and how it is allowed to do it. The bill of rights is actually a bill of limitations on the government, read it again. You are right that times change and our founders were wise enough to recognize that which is why they wrote into the Constitution a way to change it through amendments. They knew that a simple majority could not be allowed to trample the rights of the minority, so the said if two thirds sees a change is necessary that is enough. As for the tea party, it was born out of crippling federal deficits and unprecedented expansion and intrusion of the federal government. It had nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage (which most tea party members will tell you are state issues). It just happens that mostly its conservatives that believe in a limited federal government.
 
Obama won to fulfill the prophecy. Now the apocalypse will happen as it was told. A man will come from the sky. With the tattoo on his thigh that reads "King of king". He will kill everyone on earth because no one is good. THE END

Good night and sleep tight :)
 
Mac I do not need to read it again -- I am an American Historian who specializied in the philosophy of American government and it evolution through changing social, economic, cultural, and world conditions. And I challenge that the Constitution is specific. It places some specific limits and rules but it was purposefully written with tremendous vagauries to allow it to last a long time. James Madison was very well versed in types of government that had come before and saw that many were doomed to failure through placing contextual limitations on them. There is much inferred and hinted at in the constitution, and it is a loose framework around which to build, not a specific framework. This was by design and is its greatest strength.

Now for the Tea Party, your approach is yours, but the public face of the Tea Party has been candidates that have courted that vote and, in many cases, have simultaneously courted very socially conservative votes. And the latter have cost the Republican party dearly. This goes to my point: the current Republican party is too dominated by culture warriors and, if that is not remedied, the party will be reduced to a regional one. Think of it this way: which leadership would threaten personal liberties more, Democratic or Republican? For the first time in my life I find that answer to be Republican, and that is not in any way, shape, or form the GOP of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, or even Reagan (who was a culture warrior). Really think about this: on social issues Obama is more states rights than the current Republicans.
 
this race wasnt about which party ran, about 90% of the people voted based on the bs that both of them said, only a quarter of the people vote based on the core ideas based on what you believe in or they believe in..... the republican party stated that mitt would of been a good president and im not doubting that but they also said he might have not been the best choice that's the point of a campaign, the purpous of a campaign is to display THE person wanting the change and the core ideas and values of said candidate. alot of people from both parties switched to the other and its most likely based on how the economy sux as is on liberal side and how crappy Romney actually campaigned on the conservative....... people seen that and based their vote primarliy on what was displayed from both parties, no doubt the republican party can take back the white house but they need someone who displays the solid beliefs of their ideas and never change to suit the needs of what occasion or debate comes next, they need someone who can display the concept from conservatives with conviction, all i heard from Romney is what his religious beliefs are and that hes a business man....people want a strong leader regardless of the party and to see that they never waiver, i would of gladly voted for Romney if he had a solid stance on his ideas whatever his ideas were other and obama did a terrible job and displayed that through out every debate and rally. he made the headlines quite a bit with a lie here and a 47% there..... and the mistakes were too great before he even got into the white house. bush wasn't the best of presidents but made a solid front and many people saw that and believed in that..... and i agree he was a good commander in chief. as a voter now a days what you see and hear is what you get, not "im voting this party or this party because theses are the core values." we need someone that can change that way of thinking just by their very presence.
 
And I knew the US Constitution, but it changes all the time. Example: do you recognize the concept of Judicial Review? If so then you believe the Constitution has inferred powers and that the nature of the document and of government should be allowed to change with context. So in essence we have many Constitutions throughout our history, it just depends on who is doing the looking and when.
 
We have one constitution and an army of politicians and appointed "judges" trying to reinterpret it. The constitution is not that ambiguous of a document, but lawyers and politicians have bastardized the letter of the law to side step the spirit of the law. If the supreme court has final say barring an amendment. I subscribe to the amendment process, not an arbitrary opinion provided by political appointees. My point stands that most tea party members are about fiscal conservatism and constitutional conservatism. Social conservatism is NOT the driving force of the tea party. I think blaming Romney's loss on social conservative policy which he is not known for upholding, as opposed to a complete and total forfeiture of media integrity is somewhat dishonest. Social issues are known losers nationally, but the microscope Romney was put under was completely biased and I would be happy to provide examples for the next two weeks but everyone knows this to be true. We lost the election because the deck was stacked. Some of that is our fault, most of it is culturally systemic corruption among societies "intellectual elite". Do you think there is a chance in hell that our founding darned would believe gay marriage or abortion are federal rights? Of course not, they would recognize those issues were never within the federal governments pervue. Too much typing on my phone, losing track of what I typed...... Just wait til I get home mister!
 
On the bright side I like Canada; now we can be just like them; pay crazy high taxes & allow people to feed off the system. I don't know if you guy realize that the ecomony is not growing; who fault is going to be in 2016? It is surely not going to be Bush's fault. I was hoping to someone to bring both parties together Obama is far from that; Romney proved that he could do it in a state that really one sided. My belief is that if you pay taxes you have a vote; it's our money that are using.
 
I don't know; the Republican party has a little soul searching to do. One would hope compromise can be reached now that there is no need to make it their priority to make Obama a one term president (something the Republican leadership made their goal previously and I think was a tactical mistake -- they looked obstructionist rather than positive dissent). The other thing in all this -- rarely does a president make decisions that directly impact the economy. If you ask for the government to create jobs then you are asking for government expansion, something that is rarely a positive. The bigger issue for me when looking at a president is 1) Foreign policy and 2) how they manage the role (like how competent their appointments, etc). Bush was a failure in these areas, and he was the rare president that made mistakes that led to economic problems, aided tremendously by both Democratic and Republican congresses before and during his term. Right now we have Obama as pres, a Democratic senate with a fair number of moderates, and a House that has a leadership decision to make. I hope the decision is to use their power of dissent to pull the pres and senate to the middle and cut what deal is available, because if they dig in it will hurt the country and further erode the Republican party, two things I do not want to see come to pass.

One more note I have to get off my chest --they have to let the Bush tax cuts expire. The Republicans could say we did not agree to a tax increase and a deal could be reached. This would mean higher taxes for my family, but I guarantee you it would not affect my spending habits in the least and it is the most logical approach. We need legislators to make laws and actually do their job.
 
ChuckTheHammer said:
Bush was a failure in these areas, and he was the rare president that made mistakes that led to economic problems, aided tremendously by both Democratic and Republican congresses before and during his term.
Click to expand...

Which mistakes were those?

I'm always amused at the people that try to blame the economic collapse on Bush. But, humor me please: what did he do or not do? Please show your work. :-)

jas
 
I'm going to love to see my taxes go up the next 4 years; how can you average 1T defict year and not reduce government? Sorry, but I was loved economics in high school & college; but, have to say Dem's have no clue how the money cycle works; plus, I want to personally thank your for voting to change our country; change it too a socialism. Eventually, we are going to pay for this.
 
balls2dawall said:
I want to personally thank your for voting to change our country; change it too a socialism. Eventually, we are going to pay for this.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase the cast iron bitch herself, "The thing about socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top