Welcome to PatsFans.com

The good news, the bad news

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Obviously, from my perspective, this election was disappointing, but ... it could have been worse. Democrats have retained control of Senate. The worst loss there in my opinion was the defeat of Russ Feingold, who perhaps did enough to alienate some liberals as well as many conservatives. He was probably the most principled Senator, voting his conscience even when there was enormous pressure on him to tow a party or national line. Some say that Chris Coons from Delaware will be the new Feingold--very bright and very principled, and generally progressive. We'll see.

    The worse victory there was by Rand Paul, who believes that women who get pregnant from rape should be forced to bear the child and that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. To my way of thinking, his victory is a victory for American fascism.

    The interesting thing for the Republicans is that they now have a libertarian block that has a lot of supporters. My guess is that we're going to see Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Joe Lieberman, and a few others becoming major power brokers.

    In the House, where Democrats suffered there worse loss since Truman, the good news is that about half the Democratic losses were by Blue Dogs. Those were hardly reliable Democratic votes in the first place.

    The question about the House is how many moderates (and even liberal) Republicans got elected. One presumes that in more liberal areas, Republicans put up RINOs. It seems unlikely that there will be enough RINOs and Democrats to form a majority. If that's the case, it will form a major problem for Boehner, since he'll have a hard time getting anything done if he can't find room for compromise. (The Senate won't be a problem, since the Senate has never in modern times been anything but a place for compromise.)

    My guess is that we'll see two types of Republicans: the ideological pure who are willing to let things get worse in the hope of increasing their numbers so they can legislate the kinds of changes they want and and those who favor business as usual and look for common ground with Obama.

    At any rate, it's pretty clear that if Obama chooses, he should be able to triangulate with this Congress as Bill Clinton did, and form coalitions that exclude the far right and make progress on less controversial issues. On the other hand, as Boehner himself said, the 2012 campaign starts in only a year, so the parties don't have that much time to get things done before political posturing takes over.

    I suppose we'll see some deficit reduction, but the lesson of 1937, when Roosevelt cut government spending in response to large Republican gains in Congress, and the economy declined, tells us that budget cuts may not be all that wise at this time. Mostly, I think we'll see a do-nothing Congress, with both sides preparing for 2012.
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2010
  2. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,757
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +69 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Be careful what you wish for. A political party that doesn't have a range of views and is pulled to one extreme ( Republicans in 1964, Democrats in 1972) is a party that is destined to get mauled in a national election when the electorate gravitates towards the center. Those blue dogs were primarily Southern Democrats and if you write off an entire region, you're giving up a huge electoral bloc in a Presidential election... The Democrats need the South to capture the White House and it's what elected Carter, Clinton and Obama.
    A bigger loss for the Democrats were all the governorships with redistricting coming after the 2010 census which will affect the 2012 election.
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    I agree with you in terms of a party needing a broad base, but frankly the Democrats are still far broader than Republicans in that regard. There are still quite a few conservative Dems (including the newly elected Manchin in the Senate), but there are hardly any liberal Repubs.

    As far as redistricting goes, you're right. The Republicans have strengthened their hand and it should help them hold the House in 2012, but as the last few elections show, the electorate is awfully fickle, and in 2012, the tide could just as easily turn blue again as it could stay red. In addition, redistricting will compel Democrats to broaden their base and bring back some Blue Dogs.
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2010
  4. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I explained Rand Paul's stance to a gay friend of mine on what he said about resturants, and he agreed with me.

    I said, would you happily give you money to a closet homophobe just so you can dine at their establishment? Or would you rather them openly say they don't ant you there, so you can focus your money on places that support your values.

    In a free market, the business who distrimantes the most has the biggest challenge to survive. I much rather know before hand if I am supporting a racist or a homophone rather than quietly funneling money into his weekend KKK meetings via my patronage.
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    I tried to explain that same reasoning on here a long time ago and of course with my language barrier and the way I talk I was the one who was immdeiately branded as the Racist, Bigot, Homophobe.

    In this day and age when word gets around that your business "discriminates" you won't be in business very long.

    Why would a "Gay Person" want to eat in a restaurant that doesn't want them to eat there, how could they enjoy their food, why would they want to leave a tip to a Homophobe?

    Here's a question that might get me in a little hot water, are there any Minority or Gay business' that "discriminate" against you know who (white christian straight bastards)

    Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's To Crowded.

    I'm dissapointed in the election but we can't win em all, if they're smart they'll just leave Obama alone he'll "self distruct"

    :bricks:
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Racists and homophobes are dangerous people who get other people killed by perpetuating the myths about one person being less intrinsically valuable than another. Because of that, I would not want any of my taxes going toward the support of any one of those azzholes or their enterprises.

    So fine. Let people do whatever they want for their businesses, but if they refuse to treat black people equally as white people, then the road to their establishment should not be built. Their kids should not be allowed to use the public schools (which wouldn't exist in Paul's world, of course), get protection from fire and police not receive trash pickup. They also would have to use well water under their land, use a contained septic system, and bury their trash in a hole next to their stinking diner. Their bank accounts can't have federal deposit insurance,, they can't hunt on public land or fish from rivers and lakes that are managed by public agencies. No cable, no electricity, no natural gas or oil subsidized by the government. He would have to pay the $18/ gallon that fuel would cost without subsidies, mining and environmental costs. Same goes for medicine and hospitalization for him and his family.

    Yes. People should be free to live as they wish with no interference from the government.
  7. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Dude, they pay taxes too... and they have the freedom of speech... Why is the default reaction of your types to use Big Brother Government to punish another citizen?

    Why isn't "I'm just not going to associate with them" good enough?

    And you can influence others with your freedom of speech to showcase how their views are dumb.

    Freedom means letting people be free to be stupid, and have bad ideas. and you aren't FORCED to believe like them.


    Freedom! It's amazing!
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    The left wing liberal philosophy is "we know best, it they don't like it we will force them to like it"

    I don't eat food I don't like
    I don't watch TV that I don't like
    I don't own cars that I don't like
    I DON'T HANG AROUND WITH PEOPLE I DON'T LIKE

    IN A COMMUNIST DICTATOR LED GOVERNMENT THEY CAN FORCE YOU TO DO MANY THINGS BUT TRY AS THEY MIGHT THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONTROL WHAT YOU THINK UNLESS YOU ALLOW THEM TOO.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>