Larry Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yeah, California seems to have it all figured out. Well, they do apparently occasionally get something right. Non partisan districting comes to mind. (Although I have no doubt that the Parties are working at how to seize control of that process, as we speak.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Not sure what the dig was..but I don't recall the past few governors elections in California being fronted by extremists (or really even 1 extremist). Perhaps Meg Whitman was one..but she got the trouncing she deserved (if she really was one). We'll see if Cuckoo gets trounced in Virginia like his party deserves for nominating him. Probably not though since a lot of old Virginia would vote anyone with a "R" in front of his name. And a lot of NoVA/Newport News/Richmond do the same thing with whoever has a "D" in front of his/her name. Pretty much standard across the US. I'm not familiar with what Jefferson had to say about Political Parties off the top of my head, but Washington was against them altogether, not just having only two of them. A stance I 100% support. TJ was as well. In fact, I'd be willing to bet all of the Founding Fathers were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm not familiar with what Jefferson had to say about Political Parties off the top of my head, but Washington was against them altogether, not just having only two of them. A stance I 100% support. But how would the idio..... err voters, know who to vote for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Sounds like the parent's problem. She probably should have thought of that before deciding to have a child. It should not be society's responsibility to pay for a child because the mother decided to have one despite knowing she could not provide for it. That right there is reason enough to take the child away and give it to parents that want a child and can care for it. God damn you are obtuse. Who cares what SHE did? Who cares if "she probably should have thought of that blah blah blah." You don't punish her by starving the infant. Getting back at the evil vixen that stole your sperm doesn't feed the innocent child caught up in this situation. TJ was as well. In fact, I'd be willing to bet all of the Founding Fathers were. Umm... no. Thomas Jefferson (and Alexander Hamilton) pretty much invented the American political parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 "In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time." --Thomas Jefferson The founding fathers were the ones that created our first political parties. One of the reasons Washington cautioned against the formation of parties was because it was already being done by the people in his own cabinet. Specifically Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. We really need to stop looking at the founding fathers as any more than men. They weren't demigods who had all the answers. They were just people, trying to do the best they could to govern despite their strongly differing opinions. Just like us. I do have to ask those of you who advocate abandoning political parties altogether. Has a democratic nation ever been effectively governed without them? I can only think of one attempt, and it only lasted for four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Colorado was pro-gun. Now they have an AWB, universal background checks, magazine restrictions. Gun control seems to be the bastion of the left right now. Maryland and NY's most recent legislation pretty much established that. Hence why Bloomberg has been backing Mcauliffe financially to the tune of over a million bucks. What does Maryland have? Second, I don't know what AWB is. But universal background checks is "far left" now? That was the NRA's idea years ago. 95% of America is far left on that issue? I guess if you think background checks are far left, then you do think all gun control laws are far left. But, I disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 What does Maryland have? Second, I don't know what AWB is. But universal background checks is "far left" now? That was the NRA's idea years ago. 95% of America is far left on that issue? I guess if you think background checks are far left, then you do think all gun control laws are far left. But, I disagree with that. Maryland added verbiage to their carry laws requiring people to have a good reason to be carrying. Assault Weapons Ban. Agreed. The fact we can't even discuss background checks as a law is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Maryland added verbiage to their carry laws requiring people to have a good reason to be carrying. Assault Weapons Ban. Agreed. The fact we can't even discuss background checks as a law is disgusting. Ah... well, the devil is in the details of how you define assault weapons, but I support those. However, I dont think Colorado has an assault weapons ban. My father-in-law (from Colorado) exercises his second amendment rights pretty regularly, and I thought he told me they didn't pass it. I did a quick google search, and I don't think it passed either. As far as magazine restrictions, isn't the devil in the details there too. Can people really say that no restriction makes sense? I think I'm derailing here, so I'll just stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Emerson poll released today: McAuliffe: 42 Cuccinelli: 40 Sarvis: 13 This race can't end soon enough for McAuliffe. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe_vs_sarvis-4111.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Emerson poll released today: McAuliffe: 42 Cuccinelli: 40 Sarvis: 13 This race can't end soon enough for McAuliffe. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe_vs_sarvis-4111.html that is astounding to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I do have to ask those of you who advocate abandoning political parties altogether. Has a democratic nation ever been effectively governed without them? I can only think of one attempt, and it only lasted for four years.I'm advocating people thinking for themselves, but I've already accepted that it's too much to ask for and that I will never be at peace with the political system. No matter what you try to implement as a system of politics, even if it works in it's infancy, it will someone will inevitably learn to game the system. Perhaps that's why Jefferson advocated a bloody uprising every so often to keep things fresh and keep us from contenting ourselves with whatever the powers that be decide to do with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 that is astounding to me More polls than not have this at 6+. Interesting that the final Quinnipiac poll has Sarvis down to 8%. It'll be interesting to see what he pulls. I'm guessing Democrats are generally nervous about what the ACA has done to their chances in 2014. A nailbiter with Cuccinelli would probably make them go crazy. If McAuliffe loses, there would probably be a mass suicide in the Dem caucus. 6ish points, which seems most likely, would probably raise an eyebrow, but it wouldn't mean much (IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 More polls than not have this at 6+. Interesting that the final Quinnipiac poll has Sarvis down to 8%. It'll be interesting to see what he pulls. I'm guessing Democrats are generally nervous about what the ACA has done to their chances in 2014. A nailbiter with Cuccinelli would probably make them go crazy. If McAuliffe loses, there would probably be a mass suicide in the Dem caucus. 6ish points, which seems most likely, would probably raise an eyebrow, but it wouldn't mean much (IMO). I think you are reaching. It sounds like the dems will win a clean sweep pretty easily. There have been a few outliers, but it appears to be a solid 6 point win for McAuliffe. People aren't voting on the ACA. They are voting against anti-sodomy laws and against making having a miscarriage a crime scene. They are voting against the extreme right agenda, which is currently on the tickets in VA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Despite being a Catholic, Cuccinelli represents everything Old Virginia stands for. A win, while surprising, wouldn't be earth shattering to me. In Virginia, the GOP really should be favored in most statewide races there until the majority of the baby boomers die out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I think you are reaching. It sounds like the dems will win a clean sweep pretty easily. There have been a few outliers, but it appears to be a solid 6 point win for McAuliffe. People aren't voting on the ACA. They are voting against anti-sodomy laws and against making having a miscarriage a crime scene. They are voting against the extreme right agenda, which is currently on the tickets in VA. Lol. I think you didn't read my whole post. Here was the last line: 6ish points, which seems most likely, would probably raise an eyebrow, but it wouldn't mean much (IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Lol. I think you didn't read my whole post. Here was the last line: No, I read it, but maybe I misunderstood. Why would that raise an eyebrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 No, I read it, but maybe I misunderstood. Why would that raise an eyebrow? A 6 point win for McAuliffe, in a 50/50 swing state that usually votes GOP in non-Presidential election years, with a candidate nobody seems to like, would speak volumes about either the current state of the GOP or the radicalism of their candidate. In this case, both IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 A 6 point win for McAuliffe, in a 50/50 swing state that usually votes GOP in non-Presidential election years, with a candidate nobody seems to like, would speak volumes about either the current state of the GOP or the radicalism of their candidate. In this case, both IMO. Sounds like I misunderstood that then. I thought he was saying a 6 point lead didn't mean much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Sounds like I misunderstood that then. I thought he was saying a 6 point lead didn't mean much. No I think he meant winning by only 6 would be a bad sign for Dems. I was making my point in disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 No I think he meant winning by only 6 would be a bad sign for Dems. I was making my point in disagreement. That's what I thought. He was saying if the dems win by 6, they have somehow lost. Which I was saying is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 That's what I thought. He was saying if the dems win by 6, they have somehow lost. Which I was saying is silly. especially when you have a d-bag like Mcauliffe running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Can't wait to vote tomorrow! Hope it helps to defeat that anti-woman slate of candidates the Republicans are fielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 That's what I thought. He was saying if the dems win by 6, they have somehow lost. Which I was saying is silly. I said it wouldn't mean much, but yes, I do think it'd raise an eyebrow in a crowd that thought this would be a 10-15 point race, easily. And yes, I do also think this says a lot about the R that's running. There's no way a good candidate would lose to McAuliffe in this atmosphere, IMO. I think that's been accepted on the right for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert C. Sarvis on the ballot — a move that could split conservative votes in a tight race. Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot. Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. More at link. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 More at link. So the only link were the ones in the excerpt, but I clicked it and it indicated that PAC gave Sarvis $11k. Hardly funding a campaign for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.