Jump to content

2018 Midterm Elections


Brass Cannon

Recommended Posts

Just now, mrflynn03 said:

Should we let New York and California dictate the agenda for 48 other states?

More specifically NYC and LA?

If thats the will of the majority of the people then yes.

Combined those 2 cities are only like 4 percent of the us population anyway so they hardly can dictate all policy. That’s just a boogeyman that the GOP used to scare people.  Even the MSAs are barely over 10 percent  

The top 10 cities in size spanned every time zone and we’re in states that went 5-5 in the last election.

Versus the swing states which are all east of the Mississippi River. Should we let the eastern side of the US dictate US Policy?  Even if a popular vote resulted in only cities being visited it would still be more representative than current set up.  At least a candidate might visit Indianapolis  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 415
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

If thats the will of the majority of the people then yes.

Combined those 2 cities are only like 4 percent of the us population anyway so they hardly can dictate all policy. That’s just a boogeyman that the GOP used to scare people.  Even the MSAs are barely over 10 percent  

The top 10 cities in size spanned every time zone and we’re in states that went 5-5 in the last election.

Versus the swing states which are all east of the Mississippi River. Should we let the eastern side of the US dictate US Policy?  Even if a popular vote resulted in only cities being visited it would still be more representative than current set up.  At least a candidate might visit Indianapolis  

 

I hope the hell you don't live in Indiana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s something like in only 3 of the last 30 elections the incoming president didn’t lose a branch (read this days ago, trusting my memory on a random article I read). It’s absolutely necessary this administration gets a check and generally the population makes this a reality. I think it’s absolutely of the utmost importance. I’m picturing a blood bath but the dems sure know how to f things up. Let’s hope they don’t this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats will win the House, the Senate will be very close either way then go heavily Blue in 2020. 

Depending on the current investigation, the GOP may really come to regret not stating Merrick Garland. It isn't exactly hard to imagine a scenario where Pence is forced out (was hand picked by criminal mastermind and proven international election cheat Paul Manafort and lied/covered for proven criminal Mike Flynn during transition) and the Dems refuse to seat a VP nominee, giving a similar (but immensely more valid) line as to what McConnell gave. Then if Trump is forced out one way or another the Speaker of the House would become President. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

My bold but not so bold pick is Beto wins in Texas. Senate splits 50/50. 

I think this is really possible. Judging by the pitiful attack ads Cruz has nothing on Beto to slam him. 

Which means these upcoming debates will just be Cruz on defense which will look weak. A lot different than 6 years ago. Cruz is like a republican Hilary Clinton. 

This race reminds me a lot of 2008 and Obama in Indiana  

Either way this is keeping GOP money out of Missouri, Nevada and North Dakota which could be huge.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

Lol

You’d rather Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania choose it for you?  Indiana hasn’t had any effect on a president in my lifetime   Every person in Indiana could have written in Elmo for the last 30 years and nothing is changed. 

When was the last time a GOP candidate won Ohio,Florida, and Pennsylvania?  That should tell you something is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

I dont mind moderate democrats like Joe Donnelly but I hope the moronic socialists dont bogart the democrat party and further divide things. 

I agree and enjoyed open discourse with liberals before most identified or became synonymous with the left.  Honest and not meant to be inflammatory question, of those who call themselves liberal, do you distance yourselves from the left? (Same could be said for the alt-right.  Both extremes scare me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PoHoosier said:

I agree and enjoyed open discourse with liberals before most identified or became synonymous with the left.  Honest and not meant to be inflammatory question, of those who call themselves liberal, do you distance yourselves from the left? (Same could be said for the alt-right.  Both extremes scare me.)

No. I want us to go further left and we will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ADegenerate said:

You can’t back Trump and then expect balance. Lines were drawn. I mean come on. 

I do not believe I drew lines.  Though I support Trump in some things does not mean I blindly support him in all.  I wish he would stay away from Twitter.  His children could stay away from social media as well.  I supported Obama as well, and I did not agree with many things he did.

He is our president.  I will support and respect the office regardless of who is in it.

Ideally, we get the special interest groups out of politics and have the politicians focus on their job representing the people that voted for them.  If that happened, I wonder how far the gap between conservative and liberal would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distribution of wealth is a problem that will need to be resolved if this country is going to move forward.  How this could even be a debate is beyond me.  The policies that have been put in place to ensure that money flows to the top is clearly the work of one party, while the other party stood by.  The real power players have worked to divide this country on scare tactics, scapegoating, and wedge issues.  All the while economic policy is adopted to favor the few over the many.  Those who hate socialism, that is fine, but tell me how capitalism is working for millions upon millions of people who have little to no security in terms of income, saving and healthcare.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUDan93 said:

The distribution of wealth is a problem that will need to be resolved if this country is going to move forward.  How this could even be a debate is beyond me.  The policies that have been put in place to ensure that money flows to the top is clearly the work of one party, while the other party stood by.  The real power players have worked to divide this country on scare tactics, scapegoating, and wedge issues.  All the while economic policy is adopted to favor the few over the many.  Those who hate socialism, that is fine, but tell me how capitalism is working for millions upon millions of people who have little to no security in terms of income, saving and healthcare.  

Doubtful we will agree on this, and that is also fine.
My offerings are that capitalism is fine, until corruption and greed enter into the picture.  My concerns on socialism is Venezuela, and past failings of socialism.  Lets say greed and corruption do in capitalism and we go with socialism, are the governmental powers that be (corrupt and greedy - why I mentioned getting special interest groups out of politics in my post above) still going to be running everything.  Is it going to be different?  We go down that road, are we able to turn back, or does the ship continue taking on water?  How do we make socialism work ie, not fail as it has in Venezuela and now defunct governments/countries?  Please do not cite Scandinavian countries as socialist as they rebuffed Bernie in calling them that when Bernie Sanders ran.  None of those countries are socialist as many define them.  Perhaps, our definitions of socialism are different.

Canada is widely considered socialist, and has a 50% tax rate.  Sweden is 61.85%, Denmark 60.2%, Finland is down to 51.6% after topping out at 62.2% in 1995, and so on.  Are the poor helped out with socialism in these countries or are they subject to the same tax?  Do they even have poor?  I ask not out of snark, but because I do not know and know no one in those countries (except for a few in Canada and they want our tax rates and health care.  To me, that screams of the concerns of socialism)

I am throwing tons of stuff out there, I apologize, 14 hour work night, another tonight. 
Getting to direct answers, capitalism again is being destroyed by corruption and greed.  Back in the 1950s, a corporation viewed its success not by its stock value or its profit margin, but the quality of lives its employees lived.  One person could work in a household, one could stay home and take care of the kids and house.  That one worker could pay for the house, 2 cars, and put the kids through college.  Wage stagnation over the last 50+ years has destroyed capitalism and the family.  Both parents must now work, the value of a parent in the home is not known, forgotten and often unheard of.

Lastly, I think we do agree that there are HUGE problems.  No solution is easy or without debate and tons of work.  Hopefully, whatever solution is reached, things improve for all.  Cheers, and great discussion.  Hopefully, I can understand socialism better and have my fears alleviated through better understanding.  Perhaps, those friends in Canada are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUDan93 said:

The distribution of wealth is a problem that will need to be resolved if this country is going to move forward.  How this could even be a debate is beyond me.  The policies that have been put in place to ensure that money flows to the top is clearly the work of one party, while the other party stood by.  The real power players have worked to divide this country on scare tactics, scapegoating, and wedge issues.  All the while economic policy is adopted to favor the few over the many.  Those who hate socialism, that is fine, but tell me how capitalism is working for millions upon millions of people who have little to no security in terms of income, saving and healthcare.  

I'll ask the same question I ask all the time when I hear this. What's your solution? Growing up in a city (Chicago) that was better at the bitch/complaining vs offering solutions....I'm always fascinated when people say things like this. I mean BO was in the White House for 8 years and didn't do a thing to improve this. Pelosi has been in charge of the Democrats for 12 years. So I ask the question....what's the solution?  Because it's clear the very leaders who are expected to help the less fortunate haven't done a thing in that regard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

 

When was the last time a GOP candidate won Ohio,Florida, and Pennsylvania?  That should tell you something is different.

Moving them goal posts. Still no good reason those states should control the election 

 You guys do realize that the EC that was supposed to protect the rural states  from the big states at the expense of nearly a 3 million vote disparity resulted in Trump. Trump has of course has done long lasting harm to rural America while making his friends in New York richer. 

So basically the EC does nothing for you. The gop has just fed you a line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I'll ask the same question I ask all the time when I hear this. What's your solution? Growing up in a city (Chicago) that was better at the bitch/complaining vs offering solutions....I'm always fascinated when people say things like this. I mean BO was in the White House for 8 years and didn't do a thing to improve this. Pelosi has been in charge of the Democrats for 12 years. So I ask the question....what's the solution?  Because it's clear the very leaders who are expected to help the less fortunate haven't done a thing in that regard. 

My reply to this is going to sound like it is out of left field.  But I will do my best.  The problem, to me, lies in that politicians(no matter what party affiliation) lose sight of what they are there for.  Simply put, they are there to represent the people that elected them.  We notice it quite a bit at the Federal level, but it starts well before that at the state and local levels.  They ain't for the people, they are for themselves.  And it pisses me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

I do not believe I drew lines.  Though I support Trump in some things does not mean I blindly support him in all.  I wish he would stay away from Twitter.  His children could stay away from social media as well.  I supported Obama as well, and I did not agree with many things he did.

He is our president.  I will support and respect the office regardless of who is in it.

Ideally, we get the special interest groups out of politics and have the politicians focus on their job representing the people that voted for them.  If that happened, I wonder how far the gap between conservative and liberal would be.

Not wanting him to post on social media is hardly not supporting him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rico said:

My reply to this is going to sound like it is out of left field.  But I will do my best.  The problem, to me, lies in that politicians(no matter what party affiliation) lose sight of what they are there for.  Simply put, they are there to represent the people that elected them.  We notice it quite a bit at the Federal level, but it starts well before that at the state and local levels.  They ain't for the people, they are for themselves.  And it pisses me off.

And to your point I'll say this. Republicans don't hide from this. They are there historically to give you more of your $, smaller government, try to create jobs,etc....all the while helping the rich with tax breaks. It's been a mainstay in the party for as long as I've been alive. On the flip side. The D's have historically said we'll help the poor, the forgotten,etc....and yet here we are in 2018 and the divide ( $ wise) probably hasn't been greater since the 80's so I ask again. Those who vote D...it's time you start asking your party leaders what's up because the divide is great and isn't improving.

I generally stay out of political debates for the most part because it's all just hot air. I can't stand politics. There was a guy (European) who did a rant the night after Hillary lost to 45 that sums up to me at least perfectly what the Democratic party should be asking their leaders. I'll see if I can find it. 

 

Jonathan Pie rant on Youtube why Trump won should be able to locate it. Didn't want to post because of the language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Moving them goal posts. Still no good reason those states should control the election 

 You guys do realize that the EC that was supposed to protect the rural states  from the big states at the expense of nearly a 3 million vote disparity resulted in Trump. Trump has of course has done long lasting harm to rural America while making his friends in New York richer. 

So basically the EC does nothing for you. The gop has just fed you a line. 

No, NYC and LA do nothing for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with US politics is parties. And the voters that blindly support a party  

If you do a party line ballot you are part of the problem 

if you have voted Republican or Democrat since the 70s then your part of the problem. 

States didn’t used to be Red or Blue. Jimmy Carter won Texas for gods sake. The parties have carved up the map. Using Modern technology and advanced analytics they are able to keep states the color they have a slight disposition 

No president has given a crap about Indiana. The Dems don’t need us and the republicans take us for granted. 

Washington understood this and was opposed to parties. Presidents should be above their party and work equally with both. Since they don’t they can’t get anything done unless their party controls Congress. 

Obama had 59 senators iirc and couldn’t get his agenda done for gods sake 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...