2012 Presidential Election POLL

Are you insinuating sir that I am evil?

Quote:

Originally posted by AzBo_ZaPrUdDeR

Is the Republican Party fascist? Dangerously close maybe, it's certainly Nationalistic and Authoritarian!!

No.

The Republican party is pretty big, and I'd argue that only its most extreme elements embody those traits. I would be more willing to buy the argument that the Tea Party level right-wing is more of a proto-facist movement, or at least what the initial Tea Party has now morphed into. The kinds of groups they target for suppression (women, intellectuals, gays, immigrants, minorities, etc) is basically the list of "undesirables" that those earlier disgusting movements went after, only they actually did awful things like, you know, kill those people. I don't see that level of hate on the horizon for the TP or the Republican party as a whole.

Evil in the most naughty way ? Yeah...

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Are you insinuating sir that I am evil?

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Reagan was a flaming liberal compared to the current defintion of Republican. The Tea Party will be shown to be a cancer on the GOP. The poor man's reputation.....talk about distortion of his record by the TP...

Frankly, I like Romney very much. I think he is a smart and decent man, but the way he pandered to the far right extremists in the primaries he lost many of us that VERY WELL might have voted for the man.

Well....that and the TP clowns that nuked the women's vote in various senate races.


...

Like i said, the fact that you think the Tea Party is anti woman or anti immigrant proves that the dems do a great job of distorting a groups message.

Social conservatives flock the TP. Moderates and liberals don't. (The GOP plans on it.) Pretty well established fact which was proven last week. If you are otherwise...kudos to you !

Distortion.....in POLITICS ? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING !

Distortion is what makes political fact checkers such a popular thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

Like i said, the fact that you think the Tea Party is anti woman or anti immigrant proves that the dems do a great job of distorting a groups message.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Incoming Lindros rage in 3...2...1...

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Distortion is what makes political fact checkers such a popular thing.



...

So ... the fact checkers proved to you that if the republican, in any race, won the election, then...

1. women would not be able to get abortions, even if they were raped

2. women would have limited access to healthcare

3. women would not be able to get birth control

4. old people would have to privatize their social security and medicare

Those were exactly the messages that every democratic television ad portrayed on television for about two months straight (in Arizona). It sickens me to know that some people went to the polls believing that crap.

And these fact checkers proved that stuff? Just because a couple of no name, religious dude, Senate candidates said that they don't think abortion is right when asked a "what if" question ... "do you think abortion should be allowed even if a woman is raped?", doesn't mean the whole party thinks that. And the question didn't make any sense anyway ... would mean that abortion would have to be illegal in the first place, which it isn't.

It shouldn't even be a topic in federal elections, yet it always comes up.

By the way, you're saying Reagan was liberal? Maybe you should have a listen, sounds kind of like the Tea Party in 2009-2010.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs[/youtube]

It always comes up because it's a pretty big issue with women of child bearing age, who happen to constitute a decent chunk of the electorate. (Guess which party that demographic voted for, btw)

If a major party nominates someone for Senate, that person is automatically more than just a "no name candidate" considering that senators serve for 6 years and have a 92% re-election rate as incumbents. Basically, if someone manages to get into the senate they're almost always there for a long time and can shape lots and lots of legislation.

Tea Party backed candidate Richard Mourdock: ""I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Tea Party-backed senatorial candidate Todd Akin, "“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Tea Partier Tom Smith claimed that having a child out of wedlock is similar to rape.

Rape is a gift from God that He intended to happen. Also, if you're raped legitimately (as opposed to illegitimate rape?) you can't get pregnant.

Tea Party hero Alan West (who just lost) and scores of others support changing the language of the Constitution so that people born it the United States are not automatically citizens.

The Tea Party has backed the draconian, discriminatory laws in Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, etc.

The Tea Party actively takes positions which alienate women, immigrants and minorities. (And they tend to be anti-science - see Mr. Akin's complete ignorance of human physiology or, perhaps the position of TP-backed Paul Broun on evolution). You have to understand that while these people probably legitimately don't think they're being racists or misogynists, that's exactly how those messages sound to those minority groups. Most people who offend others don't know they're doing it, because if they truly thought they were being offensive they wouldn't say it. The problem is they don't have the perspective to understand how their words and policy suggestions feel to people in those groups being targeted by those statements.

But in the end it doesn't matter whether the people saying stupid things know the things they're saying are stupid. Those are the positions they hold and they will not get the support of lots of people because of it. But hey, if it makes you feel better about the terrible perception of those people go ahead and blame "the media" for actually reporting what these ignorant fools actually say and believe.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...

Like i said, the fact that you think the Tea Party is anti woman or anti immigrant proves that the dems do a great job of distorting a groups message.

MAybe not the Tea Party as a whole, but you can't argue that certain high profile members of the party are.

Amazing. Here on WBW, a porn site, we have one of the most reasoned and fact-backed discussions of any I heard since the election began. This is a strange place - a really great strange place with many terrific members.

For as much strong wording there is in this thread, it is mild compared to the vicious bile posted in public media lately. Let's keep up the good work.

My wishes for US politics:

- Reasoned discourse instead of useless name calling.
- Seeking facts, not listening only to what you want to hear.
- Compromise and progress, not polarization and obstructionism.

We used to be able to govern this way. Right now, could we pass legislation to build the Interstate Highway System? We did that with Republican President Eisenhower and a Democratic Congress. Could we have a NASA moon mission? We did that with Democratic and Republican Presidents and bi-partisan support in Congress.

Too many challenges face the US to waste energy bickering. We need to replace the power grid with flexible, reliable and more environmentally friendly electricity that is less vulnerable to weather and terrorism. We need to rebuild crumbling bridges and roads; add more mass transit and better airports. We need to sort out the fairest ways to balance our finances and ensure the safety of our citizens.

We have plenty of opportunity to do permanent good and plenty of ideas from smart, driven people - the same kinds people who accomplished our nation's greatest feats. We must work together to do it.

Oh please....there is one fact that you would do well to check that is not obfuscated by political party spin from either side. The Federal govenment was far greater in size when he left office than when he joined it.

And yes.....the TP loves social conservatives along with....hey wait a minute. The TP IS the social conservative wing of the GOP. Once the fair haired future of the party is now, well not lookin'so good with all of those bad 'tudes on immigration, rights for we women, and the ability of we homosexauls to marry.

The TP liason with the GOP began two years ago and doesn't appear to have much of a future.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...
So ... the fact checkers proved to you that if the republican, in any race, won the election, then...

1. women would not be able to get abortions, even if they were raped

2. women would have limited access to healthcare

3. women would not be able to get birth control

4. old people would have to privatize their social security and medicare

Those were exactly the messages that every democratic television ad portrayed on television for about two months straight (in Arizona). It sickens me to know that some people went to the polls believing that crap.

And these fact checkers proved that stuff? Just because a couple of no name, religious dude, Senate candidates said that they don't think abortion is right when asked a "what if" question ... "do you think abortion should be allowed even if a woman is raped?", doesn't mean the whole party thinks that. And the question didn't make any sense anyway ... would mean that abortion would have to be illegal in the first place, which it isn't.

It shouldn't even be a topic in federal elections, yet it always comes up.

By the way, you're saying Reagan was liberal? Maybe you should have a listen, sounds kind of like the Tea Party in 2009-2010.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs[/youtube]

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

It always comes up because it's a pretty big issue with women of child bearing age, who happen to constitute a decent chunk of the electorate. (Guess which party that demographic voted for, btw)

You're right, adult single women are pretty much democrat all the way when it comes to voting. Married women tend to vote republican. Too bad for republicans that adult single women now outnumber married women.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

If a major party nominates someone for Senate, that person is automatically more than just a "no name candidate" considering that senators serve for 6 years and have a 92% re-election rate as incumbents. Basically, if someone manages to get into the senate they're almost always there for a long time and can shape lots and lots of legislation.

Tea Party backed candidate Richard Mourdock: ""I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Tea Party-backed senatorial candidate Todd Akin, "“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Tea Partier Tom Smith claimed that having a child out of wedlock is similar to rape. Rape is a gift from God that He intended to happen. Also, if you're raped legitimately (as opposed to illegitimate rape?) you can't get pregnant.

None of those three no name candidates were running in Arizona. Yet I still saw ads claiming that the republican is against "reproductive rights". The views of those three religious dudes above are not the views of the majority of republicans. Most of my friends who are republican don't give a damn about abortion. The republicans that were running in my state are against PAYING for abortion with public funds or FORCING insurance companies to provide birth control. Yet it is spun that they are against "womens rights" just for taking those positions.

Romney came out multiple times and said that abortion is acceptable in the case of rape. I bet most people didn't know that, like a lot of people on here continually claiming that republicans are anti-woman, nazi and all that jazz.


I'll get to your other points here in a bit. I don't have as much time to get on here as much as I used to.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Oh please....there is one fact that you would do well to check that is not obfuscated by political party spin from either side. The Federal govenment was far greater in size when he left office than when he joined it.

I'm assuming you're talking about Reagan? The president can't pass everything he wants to, his budgets were all voted down. Dems were in control of the house for his entire presidency, and the senate for his final 2 years. A lot of the republicans in the senate were more liberal than he and voted against his proposals.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

And yes.....the TP loves social conservatives along with....hey wait a minute. The TP IS the social conservative wing of the GOP. Once the fair haired future of the party is now, well not lookin'so good with all of those bad 'tudes on immigration, rights for we women, and the ability of we homosexauls to marry.

The TP liason with the GOP began two years ago and doesn't appear to have much of a future.

...

I don't remember people screaming about abortion, gay marriage, or women's rights at the town hall meetings back when they started. I do remember them talking about healthcare and spending more than you are taking in. Here is how I look at the Tea Party, guess the same way Wikipedia sees them ...

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution,[1] reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3][3] and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2] The movement is generally considered to be partly conservative,[4][5] partly libertarian,[6][7] and partly populist.[8][9][10] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[11][12][13]

If they happen to back some candidates who held those views (socially conservative), a la Akin, Smith and Murdoch, it's because they were the most FISCALLY conservative candidate. They have only been around for 2 or 3 years. It's going to take a while for them to come up with their own candidates.

Either way, like I said before, abortion is already legal and was decided on in the early 70's, so I think it's ridiculous that I was seeing democratic television ads about it. Anyone who thinks abortion is suddenly going to become illegal is somewhat naive in my opinion.

And the whole anti-immigrant thing ... it is anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant that we have a problwm with. To be called racist for that is insulting.

No one cheers as loudly for the tyrant as the slaves he creates. By 2016, the cheers shall be deafening.

I hope that comment is as inclusive as I read it to be, si ?

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

No one cheers as loudly for the tyrant as the slaves he creates. By 2016, the cheers shall be deafening.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

No one cheers as loudly for the tyrant as the slaves he creates. By 2016, the cheers shall be deafening.

Boycott the fat cats and watch the tides turn. We'll bring back the barter system and reinstall a method of hope. Thou shall take only what they can give back.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

I hope that comment is as inclusive as I read it to be, si ?

...

You have heard no cheers, nor shall you, from me.

With the oil and gas reserves we are discovering in the country, history will probably re=write him as one of the great presidents.

But he shall be as destructive in his expansion of public dependency as Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson. Perhaps combined.

I may well benefit from the great windfall to come. I may not. The wealth of this nation is poised to explode, but America is eroding, and it has nothing to do with money.

We've survived two world wars, numerous elective regional foreign wars, the near fatal temper tantrum of the southern states, one depression, four bank panics, the burning of our capital, one foreign invasion, the Enrons, and gawd....the list is long !

I am sure that we will survive four years of Mr. Obama, and whatever political party follows his presidency.

Read the newspapers of 100 years and more from our country for a really dismal view of our imminent failure.

Frankly, I am with Warren Buffett on the future of the country.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...
You have heard no cheers, nor shall you, from me.

With the oil and gas reserves we are discovering in the country, history will probably re=write him as one of the great presidents.But he shall be as destructive in his expansion of public dependency as Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson. Perhaps combined.

I may well benefit from the great windfall to come. I may not. The wealth of this nation is poised to explode, but America is eroding, and it has nothing to do with money.

Wanna make a bet that in 3 years, Obama is trying to run again?

The Constitution has never been something he allows to get in his way.