Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: Progressives angry at getting "steam rolled" in New Jersey

  1. #31
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    50,165
    Thanks
    15200

    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I suppose its easier for those either center left or center right to laugh at this, but I guess it might be worrisome overall. If he is against gay marriage that does carry implications further down the line. I mean some things like abortion can go either way, because one can say its a religious thing. Guns, can also go both ways saying its cultural. But against gays? Thats bigotry plain and simple. He certainly might win, but it could cause friction later on when decisions are made about wedding cakes or LGBTQ issues. Could also give fodder to the GOP when the dems point out one of theirs is anti gay.
    I agree, saying you are personally against abortion does not mean you are against a woman's right to choose and you cannot be pro-choice. Saying you are for the 2nd amendment and gun rights doesn't mean you are against gun controls. But it is hard to image someone being against gays for any reason other than bigotry. I would have to see more info concerning this guys views, the article could easily have taken some obscure statement made by the guy and concluded he is against gays. If he truly is a bigot, he should be a republican.

  2. #32
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,258
    Thanks
    12772

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    The tortured language has caught on since the last election. For some reason the loser is the winner and the winner is the loser.
    Depending upon who you speak with, the losing\winner won by a "landslide" and the winner who lost, lost by an unprecedented number of votes more than the losing\winner, for a winning\loser. <----- Torture!

    The loser won by nearly 3 million votes and the winner won the EC by an effective number of votes that was approximately 80,000.

    To solve this dilemma, perhaps it in such situations to give the person with the most votes overall, the Presidency and the person that came in second, the Vice Presidency. Good checks and balances.......

    Can we imagine a President Clinton with Trump as her VP?
    Thanks from Minotaur

  3. #33
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,258
    Thanks
    12772

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    I agree, saying you are personally against abortion does not mean you are against a woman's right to choose and you cannot be pro-choice. Saying you are for the 2nd amendment and gun rights doesn't mean you are against gun controls. But it is hard to image someone being against gays for any reason other than bigotry. I would have to see more info concerning this guys views, the article could easily have taken some obscure statement made by the guy and concluded he is against gays. If he truly is a bigot, he should be a republican.
    Some people might remember that President Obama was against gay marriage, also, but because he had no problems with homosexuality and because people still elected him President, he was more likely to be moved toward being for gay marriage, than a candidate supported by people trying to make gay marriage illegal.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    100,528
    Thanks
    8390

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Frankly, as a supporter of the Democratic Party, I'd much rather have a district represented by a Democratic politician who agrees with me on 75% of the issues than a Republican politician who agrees with me on 1% of the issues. Being from a nation with parliamentary rule, it's understandable that you wouldn't understand the power wielded by the majority party in Congress in a two party system.

    A smart voter in the US will protest based upon their deeply held personal ideology, and will vote based upon the party that most closely adheres to that personal ideology.
    I do understand it. For the executive. Thatís winner take all. But thereís nothing stopping third, fourth, fifth parties from winning and using seats in Congress.

    Otherwise it gives your party a blank cheque to completely ignore you and go and do things you donít support in order to win. Not to mention say completely contradictory things depending on the audience.

    Or, say, elect a babbling man child, or an Alabama child mollester, etc.
    Thanks from bajisima

  5. #35
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    38,990
    Thanks
    37219

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    I do understand it. For the executive. That’s winner take all. But there’s nothing stopping third, fourth, fifth parties from winning and using seats in Congress.

    It's easy enough to say that, as a hypothetical. Still, the fact remains that we have only two viable political parties here in the US, and the party that holds even a 1 vote majority in the House or the Senate makes all of the committee leadership appointments and writes all of the procedural rules for the passage of legislation. They also control the appointment of judges.

    That's why it's stupid to vote against the party that best represents your own interests simply because the candidate doesn't agree with you on every single issue.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,330
    Thanks
    28363

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    I agree, saying you are personally against abortion does not mean you are against a woman's right to choose and you cannot be pro-choice. Saying you are for the 2nd amendment and gun rights doesn't mean you are against gun controls. But it is hard to image someone being against gays for any reason other than bigotry. I would have to see more info concerning this guys views, the article could easily have taken some obscure statement made by the guy and concluded he is against gays. If he truly is a bigot, he should be a republican.
    Well thats a problem too. Say someone out there sees the potential blue wave coming and even though they may be a GOPer, they could easily just re-register as a democrat to win. But then afterwards vote as a republican. People are fairly naive and will just vote for the D or R depending on how the wave goes. So one could easily manipulate the system.

  7. #37
    Established Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,729
    Thanks
    3638

    From
    out
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Frankly, as a supporter of the Democratic Party, I'd much rather have a district represented by a Democratic politician who agrees with me on 75% of the issues than a Republican politician who agrees with me on 1% of the issues. Being from a nation with parliamentary rule, it's understandable that you wouldn't understand the power wielded by the majority party in Congress in a two party system.

    A smart voter in the US will protest based upon their deeply held personal ideology, and will vote based upon the party that most closely adheres to that personal ideology.
    Frankly, given your example, I think there is a need for at least another party who agrees with you on 24% of the issues, especially if those 24% are the most important for you.

  8. #38
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    38,990
    Thanks
    37219

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Well thats a problem too. Say someone out there sees the potential blue wave coming and even though they may be a GOPer, they could easily just re-register as a democrat to win.

    Yeah... Good luck winning that primary election running against an actual Democrat.

  9. #39
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    38,990
    Thanks
    37219

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    Frankly, given your example, I think there is a need for at least another party who agrees with you on 24% of the issues, especially if those 24% are the most important for you.

    Lots of folks think so. I have no particular problem with third party candidates, but it has been exceedingly rare for a third party candidate to garner more than single digit percentages of the vote -- especially in a presidential election. We're a big nation, and an independent or third party candidate might manage to grab one or two seats in Congress, out of the 535 slots available. Of course, when such a candidate does win a seat, they then have to decide whether they want to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans -- or be completely irrelevant.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26th October 2016, 04:16 AM
  2. Replies: 74
    Last Post: 3rd January 2016, 06:31 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 25th March 2014, 12:03 PM
  4. Replies: 128
    Last Post: 8th August 2012, 02:11 PM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 7th August 2012, 01:28 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed