-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official NeoGAF US Mid-term Elections 2006 Thread
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Bush will not be running.bjork said:but clinton was cool. bush? I dunno... whoever tries to replace him is like the rebound boyfriend after a bad breakup... doomed the moment he walks in the door
If the GOP can get someone like McCain on the ticket, I can defiantly see them winning, regardless of how ****ed things goes with the current administration.
On the other hand, McCain did father an illegitimate black child out of wedlock...
ferrarimanf355
Banned
SHOW ME YOUR ****ING POKEYMANS!!!!!!!!!!
8k votes is still a huge margin to overcome in a recall election
In Florida 2000 Bush only led by 2000 votes. After the recounts, Gore picked up 1500 votes. That was out of 6 million total votes. This election is only 2.3 million votes
In the last VA recount (last year's AG race), the winner won by a mere 323 votes and the recount only added 37 votes (to the winner) out of 2 million votes cast
In Florida 2000 Bush only led by 2000 votes. After the recounts, Gore picked up 1500 votes. That was out of 6 million total votes. This election is only 2.3 million votes
In the last VA recount (last year's AG race), the winner won by a mere 323 votes and the recount only added 37 votes (to the winner) out of 2 million votes cast
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
God damn republicans are using their time machine.
Open Source
Banned
Dan said:
You know, there were some people who were shocked that the Republicans abandoned term limits in 94 after promising them in the Contract with America. Not me. I figured, they're just going to do the same old crap Democrats were doing if they got voted in. And I was right. Remember when Congressional ethics lapses were all about Democrats (Rostenkowsi, Barney Frank, Studds, check bouncing, and much more)? Republicans made a huge deal about that back in the day. And then when they were put in charge, Republicans did the same crap, and Democrats are the ones talking about the "culture of corruption."
So I feel pretty justified in saying that Democrats would have done a lot of the same stuff as Republicans. 10 years from now, everyone will have forgotten what's going on now, and the roles will be reversed again.
The very idea of private property is a social construct, Jefferson raped his slave, Bush isn't any kind of liberal (some kind of corporatist, maybe), and Gore wouldn't have had a bunch of neoconservatives occupying high posts in his administration.
Almost all "Bush isn't really conservative" arguments rely on a definition of conservatism that hasn't applied to the American right wing in decades, if at all. If you concede that, then you're just talking semantics, and who cares?
Almost all "Bush isn't really conservative" arguments rely on a definition of conservatism that hasn't applied to the American right wing in decades, if at all. If you concede that, then you're just talking semantics, and who cares?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Open Source said:
The other thing to note about Southern Democrats (or Nascar Dads, now), is that they've been played since before the Civil War. It's a social comparison theory that basically explains that the only way that Southern non-land-owning White males (those with nothing to gain from slavery) were convinced to fight for it. To this day, the only thing they have to hear is "YOUR MONEY IS GOING TO HELP BLACK PEOPLE!" and they fold like so many times before. I hope not to characterize the entire south as racist, as clearly its not, but "those" people are. They're afraid of black people, they're afraid of gay people, they're afraid of hollywood, and they're afraid of being taken advantage of.
The Republicans have used (and owned) language extremely effectively for a great period of time now, being able to convince these poor southern whites that a tax cut for the rich will somehow help them (trickle down economics), that affirmative action (reverse racism!) will prevent them from getting jobs, that equal rights for gay people will damage our country's moral fiber (protect our marriages!), that an estate tax that effects only the richest of the rich will somehow hurt their children (it's a death tax!), and recently the whole Stem-Cell, WMD-Sadaam-Killed-my-Daddy-Terrorist-coming-to-rape-your-wife thing.
BUT YOU GET A TAX BREAK IF YOU BUY A VEHICLE OVER 3000 LBS!!!
It's all about language, image, and branding. The Republicans are extremely good at selling a product to people that don't need it.
Hitokage said:
It's late, I'm tired, and I have no idea what you mean. :lol
I see your points, I see his, I generally agree with both of you, but since you're arguing something, clearly I don't fully agree with either of you.
You're saying they're different, and on the terms you're laying out, they clearly are.
He's saying they're the same, and while I don't think they're the same, they have a lot of de-facto similarities that disturb libertarian sensibilities to the point we feel we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
When both parties spend at an absurd rate and both parties want to piss on the Constitution and neither party ever relinquishes money or power, I feel inclined to say that he's got a strong point.
Ok, well, compared to GWB, he'd pass as being moderate. But I fear he'd just end up pandering to his party. Look at what the GOP consists of. Moderates are a rare breed. He can't be a one man army. He's going to have to take lots of advice from these people if he's elected President. That's where a lot of my concern lies as well.sangreal said:
ferrarimanf355
Banned
Gawd, when are they going to call the Montana race already?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
penguini said:
What are you selling and why are you taking advantage of them?
We both know what I'm talking about. This whole equating tax cuts for the rich as some sort of protection for "small businesses," when we both know that those cuts help the corporate fat cats a thousand times more and more effectively than the people you're talking about. You know that as well as I do.
Open Source
Banned
Hitokage said:
Hey, thanks for calling me an idiot. Now I see your argument more clearly.
The prescription drug benefit
The huge amounts of pork that never get vetoed
The handouts to "faith-based" organizations
"No Child Left Behind" grants (the brainchild of Sen. Kennedy, for Chrissake)
The increasingly bloated executive branch
The recent education handouts for teacher "merit pay" or whatever
That's just off the top of my head. I mean, just look at the size of the budget the White House send to Congress. It's gone through the roof, and not just because of military spending. And this is with a friendly Congress, too, so he doesn't even have the excuse his dad did.
bjork said:but clinton was cool. bush? I dunno... whoever tries to replace him is like the rebound boyfriend after a bad breakup... doomed the moment he walks in the door
Unless bush goes moderate in the next two years, all the republicans are going to turn on him like a pack of rabid hounds. The republican party is pretty quick turn on their own ranks when the crap hits the fan. As a result, whoever runs in 08 will probably have a 2 year record of opposing bush on certain issues.
In 2 years, the whole landscape will probably be totally different, and if i had to guess now, i would say that the republicans have the more attractive potential candidates at the moment for president.
My only fear is that the presidential primary's will produce two extremist candidates instead of the more attractive centrists.
And on the subject of whether or not bush is like a democrat... i will say that to many conservatives (me included) bush's least attractive aspects are the areas where he drifts away from the libertarian agenda.
edit// the dems were smart too though, they went to the center to take seats away from republicans. It seems they finaly have realized that they needed to go a little more moderate if they wanted to gain back ground.
He's like a democrat except for three key areas...
1. corprate bias
2. social policy (although that is mostly lip service with only a few real changes)
3. cut's taxes on the rich
they lost this election, partly because he disilusioned the libertarian conservatives and partly because he infuriated the populist/isolationist conservatives. The only conservatives he really catered to where the corprate oriented neocons.
Big government conservatism is an oxymoron and a total joke. I'm glad they threw the bums out.
Learn2read
Member
There's a question of why any action, even a large one like the Medicare drug bill, needs to be assigned to a governing philosophy. It was a purely political act, to direct billions of tax dollars to corporate donors (hence my bit about corporatism) and outflank the Democrats.
Spending cash doesn't make you a liberal, just shitty at being conservative.
Spending cash doesn't make you a liberal, just shitty at being conservative.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Mandark said:
I would just like to quote this post because it was extremely well said.
and
The best the GOP can hope for now is to regain the Reagan mojo, wherever that is. But they're going to need a big-bad enemy that looks different. I'm guessing it'll be China that they'll have to protect us from. That, and the ENEMY WITHIN!
so because of this, he's not a Republican anymore, or can be considered a 'Southern Democrat'? i'm not sure what your point is - Republicans in both the House and the Senate added pork on top of pork in appropriation bills that were never vetoed, and voted for the exact 'southern democrat' legislations you mentioned above.Open Source said:
is this the new trend - when a republican does something you don't like, blame it on democratic ideas.
Corwood Rep
Member
Krowley said:
Hey, you stole the post I was about to make only you also made it awesomer. Thanks.
Open Source said:
It really is naked hypocrisy. There's no other way to describe it.
Mandark said:
Ah, but there's the rub. Endorsing spending cash to augment an LBJ "Great Society" program such as this one IS inherently political and inherently socialistic. The size of it is not the issue, it is the program itself, it is the fact that government became (I would say needlessly) involved in the matter in the first place, it is the fact that his duty as a conservative would be to at the very least maintain the status quo in the interest of fiscal responsibility (if not destroy it).
Instead, he wastes his political capital on needless and thankless wars.
ferrarimanf355
Banned
**** this, I'm going to bed now.GhaleonEB said:
Virginia Senate
Updated: 3:20 a.m. ET
Democratic Webb
1,168,368 50% 99% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results
Republican Allen
(Incumbent)
1,161,129 49%
Full VA
Independent Grassroots Parker
26,021 1%
Montana Senate
Updated: 3:17 a.m. ET
Democratic Tester
139,224 50% 75% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results
Republican Burns
(Incumbent)
133,724 48%
Full MT
Libertarian Jones
7,085 2%
Updated: 3:20 a.m. ET
Democratic Webb
1,168,368 50% 99% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results
Republican Allen
(Incumbent)
1,161,129 49%
Full VA
Independent Grassroots Parker
26,021 1%
Montana Senate
Updated: 3:17 a.m. ET
Democratic Tester
139,224 50% 75% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results
Republican Burns
(Incumbent)
133,724 48%
Full MT
Libertarian Jones
7,085 2%
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Man this is sweet. I wanna see sean hannity's face tomorrow lol.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Good night GAF, it was fun.
Just the fact that a thread like this on a video gaming forum can get so much passion means a lot to me, and it should mean a lot to all of you. We have a pretty damn good country and when shit isn't going right, we call ourselves out and say "WTF?!" *Smack!*
Politics is beauty and I love to see everyone in here talking about an election. That's just cool to me.
Just the fact that a thread like this on a video gaming forum can get so much passion means a lot to me, and it should mean a lot to all of you. We have a pretty damn good country and when shit isn't going right, we call ourselves out and say "WTF?!" *Smack!*
Politics is beauty and I love to see everyone in here talking about an election. That's just cool to me.
monchi-kun
Member
waking up in a few hours should be refreshing.
Pork is a Bad Thing, but in budget terms, how big is it? Bush has done three things to blow open the budget:
1) Tax cuts
2) The war in Iraq
3) The Medicare drug bill
Each of these, by themselves, is waaaaaaay more expensive than any discretionary spending increases you could name.
Bush is religious on social issues, dogmatically hawkish in foreign policy, totally favoring corporations in both regulatory and labor policy, royalist on taxes, and downright imperial on the role of the executive branch.
Yeah, he's not going to tear down the welfare state, but that's because, you know, the welfare state is wildly successful and popular. Tell me it isn't, and I'll tell you to repeal Social Security and see how far it goes.
Reagan got as far as he did because white, middle class people felt "their" tax money was going to "those" people who didn't deserve it. There has never been a sufficient political base to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal, and there almost certainly won't be one in our lifetimes.
edit: Yeah, the drug benefit is a social program, but it's not one that liberals or socialists were in favor of, because it was designed primarily for the benefit of those with capital. While it may benefit the seniors who manage to negotiate it, the real rewards go to rich donors.
It ain't conservatism, but it ain't liberalism. Just cronyism.
1) Tax cuts
2) The war in Iraq
3) The Medicare drug bill
Each of these, by themselves, is waaaaaaay more expensive than any discretionary spending increases you could name.
Bush is religious on social issues, dogmatically hawkish in foreign policy, totally favoring corporations in both regulatory and labor policy, royalist on taxes, and downright imperial on the role of the executive branch.
Yeah, he's not going to tear down the welfare state, but that's because, you know, the welfare state is wildly successful and popular. Tell me it isn't, and I'll tell you to repeal Social Security and see how far it goes.
Reagan got as far as he did because white, middle class people felt "their" tax money was going to "those" people who didn't deserve it. There has never been a sufficient political base to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal, and there almost certainly won't be one in our lifetimes.
edit: Yeah, the drug benefit is a social program, but it's not one that liberals or socialists were in favor of, because it was designed primarily for the benefit of those with capital. While it may benefit the seniors who manage to negotiate it, the real rewards go to rich donors.
It ain't conservatism, but it ain't liberalism. Just cronyism.
Open Source
Banned
scorcho said:
No, you're missing the point. The point is that that Bush and the Republicans screwed up big time...but NOT because they were too fiscally converative or too much like traditional Republicans in the Goldwater and Reagan mold. It was because they were too much like Democrats...or like any party that grows fat and happy after being in power too long.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Tester
139,793 50%
Burns
(Incumbent)
133,922 48%
Jones
7,102 2%
78% precincts reporting - Updated: 3:31 a.m. ET
139,793 50%
Burns
(Incumbent)
133,922 48%
Jones
7,102 2%
78% precincts reporting - Updated: 3:31 a.m. ET
- Status