PDA

View Full Version : Election Day 2013- Not a good night for the Tea Party



Bunch
11-06-2013, 03:23 AM
Not a good night for the Tea Party at all...

First they lose the Virginia gubernatorial election to a really week candidate. Second Chris Christie wins in resounding fashion in the blue state of New Jersey. Third and most telling...


MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Bradley Byrne has won the Republican runoff in Alabama's 1st Congressional District.

With 91 percent of the precincts reporting Tuesday night, Byrne had about 53 percent of the vote; Dean Young garnered roughly 47 percent.

The Republican primary presented a classic clash between the two sides of the Republican Party. Byrne was the establishment candidate, drawing support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and two men who held the 1st District office, Jo Bonner and Jack Edwards. Young ran as an outsider, aligning himself with the tea party and drawing praise from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Link to article: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4171956

I think its going to come down to the Tea Party running as a third party in some 2014 races and maybe having a 2016 presidential candidate.

Your_Name_Here
11-06-2013, 04:55 AM
The worst is yet to come for the Tea Party, and they have no one to blame for it but themselves. The elections in VA have proven decisively that no one likes extremists enough to elect them--at least not now that the country saw what damage they can do on the federal level.

Stalwart
11-06-2013, 09:45 AM
I think its going to come down to the Tea Party running as a third party in some 2014 races and maybe having a 2016 presidential candidate.

Not sure. The Tea Party is not really a party (yet), but more like a Special Interest PAC -- pooling effort and money from groups of like minded people and supporting with funds, effort and time those candidates who have principles or ideas they like or mounting counter-efforts to those they don't. As far as having their own candidate, they are far from that level of national organization. The pros of the Tea Party movement are in part that the organizing principles behind the movement are good and they are able to bring together people in a grassroots manner. The cons of the Tea Party movement are that in part the demographics of their membership is lopsided (as of 2011 -- 79% white, 61% men 44% identify as Christian) and the presence of identifiable radicals in some of their sub-groups. But, these are the common pros and cons that exists in mainstream conservative or mainstream progressive groups.

The election last night seems to be indicative that many areas once thought to be solidly red or blue can shift or have a split representation based on the candidate.

Personally, I would like to see a viable third party option to both establishment Democrats and Republicans, but the funding by the national parties makes this a near impossibility at the federal (Congressional & Presidential elections) and very difficult at the state level. Most of the third party options in my recent memory most seem to be more effective at siphoning votes from an otherwise more likely to win candidate:

Perot in 1992
Nader in FL 2000
Sarvis in VA 2013

AJBIGJ
11-06-2013, 11:56 AM
Not sure. The Tea Party is not really a party (yet), but more like a Special Interest PAC -- pooling effort and money from groups of like minded people and supporting with funds, effort and time those candidates who have principles or ideas they like or mounting counter-efforts to those they don't. As far as having their own candidate, they are far from that level of national organization. The pros of the Tea Party movement are in part that the organizing principles behind the movement are good and they are able to bring together people in a grassroots manner. The cons of the Tea Party movement are that in part the demographics of their membership is lopsided (as of 2011 -- 79% white, 61% men 44% identify as Christian) and the presence of identifiable radicals in some of their sub-groups. But, these are the common pros and cons that exists in mainstream conservative or mainstream progressive groups.

The election last night seems to be indicative that many areas once thought to be solidly red or blue can shift or have a split representation based on the candidate.

Personally, I would like to see a viable third party option to both establishment Democrats and Republicans, but the funding by the national parties makes this a near impossibility at the federal (Congressional & Presidential elections) and very difficult at the state level. Most of the third party options in my recent memory most seem to be more effective at siphoning votes from an otherwise more likely to win candidate:

Perot in 1992
Nader in FL 2000
Sarvis in VA 2013

The funding and the electoral college at the national level. You will pretty much always see states like Texas and California and see their massive contribution of delegates going red or blue respectively, this alone gives the two party system too much momentum to see a viable third or even a fourth party in these states. A third party could sweep up a whole slew of little states just be stampeded over by these juggernauts.

If we took all of the states, and let every single delegate count towards the national level vice having to win their state first, I think that would add an interesting paradigm to the state of politics. Right now hypotheticaly you could take a state like California, have the split be 27 Democrat votes, 23 Republican votes, and 5 Third Party, yet in the national elections it still looks like 55 Democrat votes towards say the Presidential campaign. That would be a whole lot different than if it only contributed 27 Democrat votes and 23 votes towards the rival running against them, and it would make a third party appear much more viable.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
11-06-2013, 12:25 PM
The worst is yet to come for the Tea Party, and they have no one to blame for it but themselves. The elections in VA have proven decisively that no one likes extremists enough to elect them--at least not now that the country saw what damage they can do on the federal level.

Yeah, because advocating fiscal responsibility and limited government is "extremist." Here's the deal though. Those who rely on the status quo to maintain their current standard of living (i.e., entitlement and welfare recipients) don't want to face the fact that our current model of spend, tax, spend, tax, spend spend spend is absolutely unsustainable. The fix means pain for everyone. Not fixing it means kissing the country goodbye. Last I checked, the DEMS are doing their best to grow the "handout" population, and of course votes, and they're doing a great job at it. The illegal alien amnesty bill will surely be a huge feather in their cap.

imnohero
11-06-2013, 01:09 PM
Fiscal Responsibility and limited government are not "extremist"...it's what and how specific politicians want to cut that's extremist. Eliminating multiple entire federal agencies is "extreme". The limited government, personal responsibility philosophy in conjuntion with the adopted christian conservative policies (like banning all abortions) just to secure a voting base is self-contradictory. The libertarian/Tea Party candidates do not have a coherent governing philosophy, nor any real chance of winning a majority of elected seats in congress or winning the white house. Not because the american people are "addicted to government" but because "tea party" solutions to our problems are not viable alternatives. For me and a lot of other people, the status quo (however bad) is preferable to the note-card Randian policies of the Tea Party.

Bunch
11-06-2013, 01:34 PM
Yeah, because advocating fiscal responsibility and limited government is "extremist." Here's the deal though. Those who rely on the status quo to maintain their current standard of living (i.e., entitlement and welfare recipients) don't want to face the fact that our current model of spend, tax, spend, tax, spend spend spend is absolutely unsustainable. The fix means pain for everyone. Not fixing it means kissing the country goodbye. Last I checked, the DEMS are doing their best to grow the "handout" population, and of course votes, and they're doing a great job at it. The illegal alien amnesty bill will surely be a huge feather in their cap.

Yeah because entitlements and welfare is the only bad government spending.

Farmers subsidies, oil subsidies, wall st subsidies, tax reforms that favors the rich and big companies, military spending, unpaid wars all that is good spending... the ones the conservatives like.

BTW when it comes to illegal immigration the Red States have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of illegal immigration so stop it. Many people in rural america owe their farm business or have maintain ther farm business on the backs of illegal immigration and paying these people slave wages. Thats the republican way after all.

At least you are not a hypocrite, I give you ponts for that.

AJBIGJ
11-06-2013, 01:40 PM
Fiscal Responsibility and limited government are not "extremist"...it's what and how specific politicians want to cut that's extremist. Eliminating multiple entire federal agencies is "extreme". The limited government, personal responsibility philosophy in conjuntion with the adopted christian conservative policies (like banning all abortions) just to secure a voting base is self-contradictory. The libertarian/Tea Party candidates do not have a coherent governing philosophy, nor any real chance of winning a majority of elected seats in congress or winning the white house. Not because the american people are "addicted to government" but because "tea party" solutions to our problems are not viable alternatives. For me and a lot of other people, the status quo (however bad) is preferable to the note-card Randian policies of the Tea Party.

I think the definition of "extremist" in the types of cuts varies from person-to-person. I think anyone who suggests a phase out of Social Security for instance would typically be labeled as an extremist. Even if all it involved was a one-for-one exhange issuing of government bonds for the total amount of individual contributions to the Social Security Program, a no present cost solution that would allow every single individual to recoup their individual investment into that program, eliminate the decisively insolvent program in its entirety, and increasing the individual income that every citizen gets by that amount on their individual paychecks, and Social Security by the way is the single most regressive tax the government imposes. The main down side is that it would involve a temporary hike in the National Debt, which would require a balancing of the budget to recoup. With that much more spending power going to the individual the individual spending and overall total revenues the government receives would increase fairly substantially, going a long way towards that goal.

Every proposed "cut" will never work without a comprehensive phase out plan. Plus it would have to be sold by facts in contrast to the demogoguery that would come en masse supported by the special interest groups who stand to lose financially from the cuts being made. No easy task, but elective austerity is far less painful than forced austerity resulting from rapid hyper-inflation and debasement of the currency, especially if foreign governments begin to elect alternative currencies than backing their economic growth under the currently recognized US Dollar.

Stalwart
11-06-2013, 01:50 PM
Fiscal Responsibility and limited government are not "extremist"...it's what and how specific politicians want to cut that's extremist. Eliminating multiple entire federal agencies is "extreme".

Which is where I as a citizen and voter find a conundrum. I trend a bit conservative in my views on spending, but on many social issues trend a bit liberal (I believe in helping people that need help). To look a record of my personal voting history would confuse any researcher.

Edit: by “conservative on spending”, I am not in favor of spending more than we take in via revenues, and not a fan of going with astronomical tax rates. I think we could stand to cut spending in almost every section of government and do it effeciently.

After having worked on Capitol Hill for the better part of 14 months so far (deeply embedded with appropriations matters) I can't ignore that where most people focus their angst is on the discretionary spending numbers and not on the mandatory spending that has been written into law. I have also seen first-hand how the same set of data used in a speech or on any chart, set of numbers or reports can be skewed or interpreted to say anything that person building the presentation wants to make it say and too many people don't know how to find the raw data themselves and the raw data is not what is reported by any news agency.

For those who do like to do research, in my opinion the Congressional Budget Office (scores bills for cost) and Congressional Research Service (produces really good products on nearly anything) who both answer to Congress and tend to be more neutral I think are better sources than the Office of Management and Budget who is an Executive Agency asset and generally produces products in support or at least slanted towards the administration in office at the time.

Measure Man
11-06-2013, 02:44 PM
Fiscal Responsibility and limited government are not "extremist"...

They are also not the only things the Tea Party is about....

AJBIGJ
11-06-2013, 02:55 PM
Which is where I as a citizen and voter find a conundrum. I trend a bit conservative in my views on spending, but on many social issues trend a bit liberal (I believe in helping people that need help). To look a record of my personal voting history would confuse any researcher.

Edit: by “conservative on spending”, I am not in favor of spending more than we take in via revenues, and not a fan of going with astronomical tax rates. I think we could stand to cut spending in almost every section of government and do it effeciently.

After having worked on Capitol Hill for the better part of 14 months so far (deeply embedded with appropriations matters) I can't ignore that where most people focus their angst is on the discretionary spending numbers and not on the mandatory spending that has been written into law. I have also seen first-hand how the same set of data used in a speech or on any chart, set of numbers or reports can be skewed or interpreted to say anything that person building the presentation wants to make it say and too many people don't know how to find the raw data themselves and the raw data is not what is reported by any news agency.

For those who do like to do research, in my opinion the Congressional Budget Office (scores bills for cost) and Congressional Research Service (produces really good products on nearly anything) who both answer to Congress and tend to be more neutral I think are better sources than the Office of Management and Budget who is an Executive Agency asset and generally produces products in support or at least slanted towards the administration in office at the time.

I do think it's a good habit to get into certainly. I think part of the problem however, is very few of the laymen have the skill set to effectively interpret the numbers in front of them. The "partisan" statistics are generally more appealling because somebody has already went ahead and completed the work for you. Very few out there would really understand the importance involved when for instance they're evaluating "M4" money supply and how it differs from "M2" or "M1", and wouldn't know that most of the quoted "financial" information we see in the media generally analyzes only the latter categories. The reasoning behind it I think is fairly self-explanatory. The majority of us would just rather take the word of the politician we most agree with then try to sort all of that out for ourselves!

CYBERFX1024
11-06-2013, 04:19 PM
The worst is yet to come for the Tea Party, and they have no one to blame for it but themselves. The elections in VA have proven decisively that no one likes extremists enough to elect them--at least not now that the country saw what damage they can do on the federal level.

Really? The election was slated to be a Democratic landslide and he barely squeaked out a victory, more than likely the only reason he won is because of the people in N. Va. The rest of the country is seeing what the Democrats can do on a Federal level. I will beat you $500 that the Republicans pick up the senate next year.

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 04:20 PM
They are also not the only things the Tea Party is about....

Do telll! Do tell!

Measure Man
11-06-2013, 04:23 PM
Do telll! Do tell!

Well, if you look at their website, they are mostly about photoshopping Obama, making up funny names for him and calling for his impeachment.

Their headline motto is to: "..bring awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation."

Some of their "programs" include: No Amnesty, Youth Gun Initiative,

Research more yourself: http://www.teaparty.org/

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 04:59 PM
The worst is yet to come for the Tea Party, and they have no one to blame for it but themselves. The elections in VA have proven decisively that no one likes extremists enough to elect them--at least not now that the country saw what damage they can do on the federal level.

Decisively? Really? LOL The guy who was up by double digits last week won by 3. Outspent by $15 million and had the President's money men funding a fake Libertarian.

Decisively? Didn't even win a popular majority, but sure, whatever you say.

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 05:01 PM
Well, if you look at their website, they are mostly about photoshopping Obama, making up funny names for him and calling for his impeachment.

Their headline motto is to: "..bring awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation."

Some of their "programs" include: No Amnesty, Youth Gun Initiative,

Research more yourself: http://www.teaparty.org/

OK, so they make fun of Obama. I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 05:22 PM
Dislike? Really? LOL

Measure Man
11-06-2013, 05:52 PM
Dislike? Really? LOL

Well, you didn't add anything of substance...so yeah.

What more is there to talk about?...I claimed the Tea Party was about more than fiscal responsibility and limited govt...you snarkily replied "do tell, do tell"...implying at least that I don't know what I'm talking about and that you are oh so much more knowledgeable than i am about it.

I give you a quip...and a couple factual programs that they support....you reply only to the quip with another quip.

Since you can't engage on the actual facts...you are down to these little quips, that I don't have much time for.

Why, did this dislike hurt your feelings? Or do you care to expound more on the idea the the Tea Party supports Only the issues of fiscal responsibility and limited government?

We can try again if you like, here:

Tea Party is about more than fiscal responsibility and limited government.

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 05:56 PM
Tea Party is about more than fiscal responsibility and limited government.

Pretty much all political parties are more than just one or two ideas, but they all do have their major ones, so I don't see your point.

Measure Man
11-06-2013, 05:58 PM
Pretty much all political parties are more than just one or two ideas, but they all do have their major ones, so I don't see your point.

Okay...so when I said the Tea Party was about more than those two things, I was corect, yeah?

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 05:59 PM
Okay...so when I said the Tea Party was about more than those two things, I was corect, yeah?

You mean Captain Obvious? Sure.

Measure Man
11-06-2013, 07:50 PM
You mean Captain Obvious? .

One would think.

grimreaper
11-06-2013, 10:45 PM
Don't fool yourself into thinking the GOP is any more fiscally "responsible" than the Dems. They aren't. Corporate welfare and similar handouts are beyond out of control. And as for amnesty, i don't know when or if it's the right answer, but if you were good with it when Reagan did it in 1986, you should be good with it now--that's even IF it goes down as an amnesty grant.

False comparison. When Reagan did it, there were promises from the Democrats that securing the border would happen after, something the Democrats quickly reneged on (go figure) afterwards. Amnesty 2.0 is setup the same way, as it leaves most of any new border security measures up to the Director of Homeland Security, which pretty much means it ain't going to happen. This Admin. isn't even enforcing the immigration laws we have currently have on the books and is suing States who try to protect their own borders. Like a said...piss poor comparison.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 12:34 AM
False comparison. When Reagan did it, there were promises from the Democrats that securing the border would happen after, something the Democrats quickly reneged on (go figure) afterwards. Amnesty 2.0 is setup the same way, as it leaves most of any new border security measures up to the Director of Homeland Security, which pretty much means it ain't going to happen.

Wait...you just said it's a false comparison because it is the same...



This Admin. isn't even enforcing the immigration laws we have currently have on the books and is suing States who try to protect their own borders. Like a said...piss poor comparison.

Can you name a modern Administration that has been successful in enforcing immigration laws?

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 01:01 AM
Wait...you just said it's a false comparison because it is the same...

No, only the outcome will end up being the same. Reagan knew border security was important. Obama? not so much. He isn't concerned with actually slowing down the flow of illegals into the country...just how he can get voter registration cards into their hands in the shortest amount of time.



Can you name a modern Administration that has been successful in enforcing immigration laws?

It's kind of hard to try and enforce something when you come out and say that you're not going to.

imnohero
11-07-2013, 01:12 AM
This Admin. isn't even enforcing the immigration laws we have currently have on the books ...

That depends on which parts of immigration law you are talking about. Politifact has a good summary with links: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/07/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-obama-shows-reluctance-enforc/

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 01:24 AM
Amnesty 2.0 is setup the same way


No, only the outcome will end up being the same. Reagan knew border security was important. Obama? not so much. He isn't concerned with actually slowing down the flow of illegals into the country...just how he can get voter registration cards into their hands in the shortest amount of time.

Okay...so the setup was the same an the outcome will end up the same.

Why can't they be compared again?

See what I mean about that whole talking in circles thing?


It's kind of hard to try and enforce something when you come out and say that you're not going to.

Assume you're talking about Obama here? If so...okay, so Obama is doing what he said he would?

What about other administrations....all other modern administrations lied? Or all others were just incompetent in fulfilling their promises...made promises they never intended to keep...what? Or are these again false comparisons?

Or do you have one administration that successfully enforced immigration laws?

Bunch
11-07-2013, 03:13 AM
Im all for the Tea Party and the GOP to keep making excuses about why they lose elections...

-"candidate wasn't conservative enough"
-"candidate was too extreme"
-"other candidate had more money"
-"other candidate lied"
-"other candidate stole the election"
-"republican moderates didn't vote"
-"true conservatives stayed at home"
-"we only lost by X amount of votes"
-"if third party candidate don't run we win"
-"blacks vote too much"
-"latinos vote too much"
-"women vote too much"
-"LGBT community votes too much"
-"our voters are dying" ... Ok this one is kind of sad

As long as they lose I don't mind the excuses.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 03:23 AM
Okay...so the setup was the same an the outcome will end up the same.

Reagan believed in border security and was in favor of it. Obama is not. Tell me how that's the same again?





Assume you're talking about Obama here? If so...okay, so Obama is doing what he said he would?

If you mean blatantly ignore the law, you're correct.

Other Admins were just incompetent in fulfilling their promises. Do you know of another one that said they simply were no longer going to enforce the law, and to take it a step further, sued a state for trying to control immigration within their own borders?

Oh, the hypocrisy of this Administration...sues Arizona because their law supposedly conflicts with Federal law/usurps federal authority...yet they do nothing about "sanctuary cities". Is not the whole premise of a sanctuary cities in conflict of federal immigration law?

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 03:36 AM
Reagan believed in border security and was in favor of it. Obama is not. Tell me how that's the same again?

Neither one provided it.

....but what is your point here...you favored amnesty when Reagan did it, because you thought he would provide border security, but was incompetent in actually carrying it out?

So...what you are saying is both were set-up the same...both would end the same. the difference is that Obama told the truth, and Reagan was incompetent, right?


Other Admins were just incompetent in fulfilling their promises.

Okay...just to be clear...Obama said what he was going to do, he was elected...and he did what he said.

Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, made promises about what they were going to do...but, were incompetent in fulfilling their promises.

Yes, I do think honesty is better than incompetence, yeah...

Thanks, grim...I enjoyed this chat.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 03:42 AM
Neither one provided it.

....but what is your point here...you favored amnesty when Reagan did it, because you thought he would provide border security, but was incompetent in actually carrying it out?

If that's your definition of Congress reneging, I guess you would be right, but that's a pretty funny definition.




Okay...just to be clear...Obama said what he was going to do, he was elected...and he did what he said.

You mean ignore the law? Right again.


Yes, I do think hypocrisy is better than...

There, fixed it for ya...and yes, I bet you do.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 03:44 AM
If that's your definition of Congress reneging, I guess you would be right, but that's a pretty funny definition.

Okay...he was outsmarted by evil Democrats....he trusted, but failed to verify. Politically outmaneuvered....and now the GOP is paying the price by all those immigrants voting for Obama.

He was the President...where's the taking responsibility? where's the leadership? stop blaming democrats when YOU are the POTUS!! Securing the border is the Executive Branch's job.


There, fixed it for ya...and yes, I bet you do.

What is hypocritical about saying what you are going to do and then doing it?

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 03:49 AM
Okay...he was outsmarted by evil Democrats....he trusted, but failed to verify. Politically outmaneuvered....and now the GOP is paying the price by all those immigrants voting for Obama.

He was the President...where's the taking responsibility? where's the leadership? stop blaming democrats when YOU are the POTUS!!

You mean like Obama on (put any subject here)? Funny, you don't seem to hold him to the same standard.


What is hypocritical about saying what you are going to do and then doing it?


Oh, the hypocrisy of this Administration...sues Arizona because their law supposedly conflicts with Federal law/usurps federal authority...yet they do nothing about "sanctuary cities". Is not the whole premise of a sanctuary cities in conflict of federal immigration law?

I love how you just glossed over that.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 03:50 AM
You mean ignore the law? Right again.

What law requires the President to secure the border?

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 03:56 AM
You mean like Obama on (put any subject here)? Funny, you don't seem to hold him to the same standard.

Obamacare? oh...that's right he outsmarted the GOP and got it passed.


I love how you just glossed over that.

Again...you failed to highlight any hypocrisy (you do know what the word means, right? Or is this another one of the threads where I spent all these posts discussing with someone only to find out they don't know what the word means?)....according to you he is doing what he said he would do. You will have to define what laws you are talking about here...if you are saying that putting time and energy into enforcing one federal law...while doing little or nothing about another federal law is hypocrisy...then pretty much everyone who has ever worked for the government is a hypocrite.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 03:57 AM
What law requires the President to secure the border?

Not referring to securing the border. Referring to enforcement of federal immigration law...you know...what the sued Arizona over because immigration enforcement is the duty of the Feds, and at the same time, doing nothing about sanctuary cities...that is unless your going to tell me the DOJ filed suit against sanctuary cities for conflicting with federal immigration law.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 04:07 AM
Again...you failed to highlight any hypocrisy (you do know what the word means, right? Or is this another one of the threads where I spent all these posts discussing with someone only to find out they don't know what the word means?)....according to you he is doing what he said he would do. You will have to define what laws you are talking about here...if you are saying that putting time and energy into enforcing one federal law...while doing little or nothing about another federal law is hypocrisy...then pretty much everyone who has ever worked for the government is a hypocrite.

Here, let me spell it out for you again since you are really struggling...The DOJ sued Arizona because they claimed the Arizona law usurped federal authority/conflicted with federal immigration law. Sanctuary cities acting in open defiance of immigration laws? Not a peep out of the DOJ.

That is hypocrisy. If you can't see it, that's your problem, not mine.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:08 AM
Here, let me spell it out for you again since you are really struggling...The DOJ sued Arizona because they claimed the Arizona law usurped federal authority/conflicted with federal immigration law. Sanctuary cities acting in open defiance of immigration laws? Not a peep out of the DOJ.

That is hypocrisy. If you can't see it, that's your problem, not mine.

WHEN DID HE PROMISE TO SUE SANCTUARY CITIES?

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:10 AM
Here, let me spell it out for you again since you are really struggling...The DOJ sued Arizona because they claimed the Arizona law usurped federal authority/conflicted with federal immigration law. Sanctuary cities acting in open defiance of immigration laws? Not a peep out of the DOJ.

That is hypocrisy. If you can't see it, that's your problem, not mine.

So...if Reagan took action to enforce one federal law....but sort of ignored or did nothing to enforce a blatant violation of another federal law....then he would be a hypocrite too?

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 04:11 AM
WHEN DID HE PROMISE TO SUE SANCTUARY CITIES?

WHEN DID I SAY HE DID?

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 04:15 AM
So...if Reagan took action to enforce one federal law....but sort of ignored or did nothing to enforce a blatant violation of another federal law....then he would be a hypocrite too?

Yup. But keep in mind we are talking about the realm of immigration law...And...we are talking about the guy currently in charge. Trying to divert attention to Reagan, Obama's favorite target of pass the buck (Bush) or Mickey Mouse isn't going to help you.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:20 AM
Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. (Google)

Hypocrisy: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.- (Merriam Webster)

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.- (The Free Dictionary)


If someone says...I am going to kill my neighbor and does it...they are a law breaker, not a hypocrite. they are an honest law breaker, at that.

If someone say...I don't correct Airmen wearing hats, and they don't....they might be failing to uphold standards, but they are not a hypocrite.

If someone says...I will enforce TO violations with an LOR, but I don't care if Airmen wear hats.... and they write and LOR for TO violations, but not for failing to wear a hat...again, they are not a hypocrite.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:22 AM
Yup. But keep in mind we are talking about the realm of immigration law...And...we are talking about the guy currently in charge. Trying to divert attention to Reagan, Obama's favorite target of pass the buck (Bush) or Mickey Mouse isn't going to help you.

LOL...comical. Reagans failure to fulfill his promise....Democrats fault.

Obama doing exactly what he said...hypocrite.

Obama passes the buck.

Amazing, man, truly amazing.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:23 AM
WHEN DID I SAY HE DID?

Okay...you didn't...again, I'm assuming you know what the word hypocrite means.

To be a hypocrite for not suing sanctuary cities...he would have had to said it is something he believes a President should do.

If he said he wasn't going to...and he didn't...there are words for that, but hypocrite isn't one of them. Honesty might be one.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:29 AM
I gotta check out...got homework to do.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 04:35 AM
Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. (Google)

Hypocrisy: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.- (Merriam Webster)

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.- (The Free Dictionary)


If someone says...I am going to kill my neighbor and does it...they are a law breaker, not a hypocrite. they are an honest law breaker, at that.

If someone say...I don't correct Airmen wearing hats, and they don't....they might be failing to uphold standards, but they are not a hypocrite.

If someone says...I will enforce TO violations with an LOR, but I don't care if Airmen wear hats.... and they write and LOR for TO violations, but not for failing to wear a hat...again, they are not a hypocrite.

LOL, if someone says I'm going to sue X because their law conflicts with immigration law and does, but is presented with another case that conflicts with federal immigration law and doesn't, THAT is hypocrisy.

Applicable definition: behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.- (Merriam Webster)

By suing Arizona over immigration law, the Admin is claiming the law is important...important enough to sue (which constitutes their belief or feeling). Presented with another case of a conflict with federal immigration law, they do nothing, which is "behavior that does not agree with what they believe or feel".

Class dismissed.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 04:41 AM
LOL, if someone says I'm going to sue X because their law conflicts with immigration law and does, but is presented with another case that conflicts with federal immigration law and doesn't, THAT is hypocrisy.

Applicable definition: behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.- (Merriam Webster)

By suing Arizona over immigration law, the Admin is claiming the law is important...important enough to sue (which constitutes their belief or feeling). Presented with another case of a conflict with federal immigration law, they do nothing, which is "behavior that does not agree with what they believe or feel".

Class dismissed.

First...there must be claims.

Completely different laws...completely different actions. Arizona is trying to STOP the immigrants...sanctuary cities are welcoming them.

Let's just "say" for example...there is a perfect person that has no hypocrisy whatsoever...and he professes to believe that all immigrants, legal or otherwise should be welcome.

He sues Arizona for trying to stop them.

He does not sue sanctuary cities for welcoming them.

See?

MitchellJD1969
11-07-2013, 04:47 AM
Im all for the Tea Party and the GOP to keep making excuses about why they lose elections...

-"candidate wasn't conservative enough"
-"candidate was too extreme"
-"other candidate had more money"
-"other candidate lied"
-"other candidate stole the election"
-"republican moderates didn't vote"
-"true conservatives stayed at home"
-"we only lost by X amount of votes"
-"if third party candidate don't run we win"
-"blacks vote too much"
-"latinos vote too much"
-"women vote too much"
-"LGBT community votes too much"
-"our voters are dying" ... Ok this one is kind of sad

As long as they lose I don't mind the excuses.

Or thirty plus years of incremental progressive/leftist influence in education has dumbed down the voting populace. Progressive influence in education is working out about as well as its influence on the welfare state. But what do you expect from a movement that would have the government and governmental techno-weinies as the center of peoples lives.

The progressive movement doesnt want to peacefully coexist with its opponents or compromise, but would rather destroy them. Progressives are just as authoritarian/facist as any other political movement, they are just better at demonizing their opponents then couching their beliefs as the only way to achieve fairness and equality. Disagreeing with a progressive or presenting an alternative solution to our problems means that you will be called a racist, bigot, homophobe, or sexist, just because you hold a different view on how to fix those problems. Words like hate, tolerance, intolerance, extremist, and equality are bandied about with ease by progressives have made the meaning of these words meaningless and worthless. For a bunch of people that dont want others to judge how they are...they sure like to make snap judgments about those who disagree with them.
Going onto some lefty/progressive websites reminds me of Orwell's two minute hate. Talk about some true believers....makes me wonder how much suffering and pain people would endure if the progressives were in power.

Go ahead and talk about how bad the right is....there are valid arguments for that. But after observing things done by the left for 40 years, I really dont think that when the left/progressives talk about fairness and equality, its all unicorns and rainbows. No, its about control...pure and simple.

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 04:48 AM
Yeah, because advocating fiscal responsibility and limited government is "extremist." Here's the deal though. Those who rely on the status quo to maintain their current standard of living (i.e., entitlement and welfare recipients) don't want to face the fact that our current model of spend, tax, spend, tax, spend spend spend is absolutely unsustainable. The fix means pain for everyone. Not fixing it means kissing the country goodbye. Last I checked, the DEMS are doing their best to grow the "handout" population, and of course votes, and they're doing a great job at it. The illegal alien amnesty bill will surely be a huge feather in their cap.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the GOP is any more fiscally "responsible" than the Dems. They aren't. Corporate welfare and similar handouts are beyond out of control. And as for amnesty, i don't know when or if it's the right answer, but if you were good with it when Reagan did it in 1986, you should be good with it now--that's even IF it goes down as an amnesty grant. --Oh, and grimreaper, stop crying; it is VERY MUCH a valid comparison.

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 04:59 AM
False comparison. When Reagan did it, there were promises from the Democrats that securing the border would happen after, something the Democrats quickly reneged on (go figure) afterwards. Amnesty 2.0 is setup the same way, as it leaves most of any new border security measures up to the Director of Homeland Security, which pretty much means it ain't going to happen. This Admin. isn't even enforcing the immigration laws we have currently have on the books and is suing States who try to protect their own borders. Like a said...piss poor comparison.

And.....you're wrong. MM already explained it to you.

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 05:07 AM
Decisively? Really? LOL The guy who was up by double digits last week won by 3. Outspent by $15 million and had the President's money men funding a fake Libertarian.

Decisively? Didn't even win a popular majority, but sure, whatever you say.

Of course, it HAD to be "the President's money men"...whoever that would be...and a "fake Libertarian"...whatever THAT means. Because God forbid that it was a much simpler case of your candidate sucking more badly than his opponents. Rather telling that all you could really complain about was my use of the word "decisively." Got sources regarding money men OR fake Libertarians? I call Bullshit.

AJBIGJ
11-07-2013, 12:43 PM
Of course, it HAD to be "the President's money men"...whoever that would be...and a "fake Libertarian"...whatever THAT means. Because God forbid that it was a much simpler case of your candidate sucking more badly than his opponents. Rather telling that all you could really complain about was my use of the word "decisively." Got sources regarding money men OR fake Libertarians? I call Bullshit.

I would say Quasi Libertarian based on his economic views, which are more or less to keep the status quo. It's probably a bit hypocritical for me to say that because one of the core principles behind Libertarianism itself is the sovereignty of the individual. But statistically speaking more Libertarians favor a shift in the management of the economy away from centralized authority and away from the corporatism we experience today. He's really more of a Moderate Independent if we're looking to effectively "label" his views. His position on social issues and gun control are very much in line with "typical" Libertarian views, yet on Economic Issues Cuccinelli is far more closely aligned with the Libertarian "standard" viewpoints. So relativistically speaking, it all comes down to which issues a person prioritizes.

The rumor is his funding came from an individual who previously funded the Obama campaign in 2012. Whether that makes him a "stooge" or not is open to speculation. If we follow the trends leading up the election, Cuccinelli is the candidate who gained points at the very end, while Sarvis and McAulliffe dropped a bit, not enough to offset the results but a fair indicator that Sarvis may have done more to offset McAulliffe than Cuccinelli on the day of. Again all speculation based on the trends and the social media surrounding the elections in the state.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 05:48 PM
First...there must be claims.

Completely different laws...completely different actions. Arizona is trying to STOP the immigrants...sanctuary cities are welcoming them.

Let's just "say" for example...there is a perfect person that has no hypocrisy whatsoever...and he professes to believe that all immigrants, legal or otherwise should be welcome.

He sues Arizona for trying to stop them.

He does not sue sanctuary cities for welcoming them.

See?

Negative. The Feds claim it is important tha other immingration laws do not conflict with Federal ones. They believe this so strongly, the sue a state that they say is doing that. Meanwhile, several cities are doing the same thing in regards with immigration law and that "importance" placed on not having things conflict with federal immingration laws is all the sudden forgotten. Amazing...and hypocritical.

See?

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 05:50 PM
Negative. The Feds claim it is important tha other immingration laws do not conflict with Federal ones. They believe this so strongly, the sue a state that they say is doing that. Meanwhile, several cities are doing the same thing in regards with immigration law and that "importance" placed on not having things conflict with federal immingration laws is all the sudden forgotten. Amazing...and hypocritical.

See?

Okay...so what you are saying is Obama did the right thing in suing Arizona?

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 05:53 PM
And.....you're wrong. MM already explained it to you.

Well let me explain it to you since you obviously don't get it....

Reagan was for strong border enforcement. Obama is not. The fact Reagan got duped by the Democrats is irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that Reagan's plan was very different than Obama's plan, so no, just because Reagan did it and people agreed with it back then, doesn't mean they have to be for it now.

Bottom line is that Reagan's plan was much different than Obama's and you know it.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 05:57 PM
Of course, it HAD to be "the President's money men"...whoever that would be...and a "fake Libertarian"...whatever THAT means. Because God forbid that it was a much simpler case of your candidate sucking more badly than his opponents. Rather telling that all you could really complain about was my use of the word "decisively." Got sources regarding money men OR fake Libertarians? I call Bullshit.

Is it telling? That you can't even accurately describe election results without, what was it you said..."Bullshit"? Yep, I guess it is telling.

Yeah, a fake Libertarian. All anyone has is look at Sarvis' positions to figure that one out. Not rocket science.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 06:04 PM
Okay...so what you are saying is Obama did the right thing in suing Arizona?

If he had sued all the sanctuary cities for conflicting with federal immigration laws, sure, but...he didn't. So hypocrisy it is. Glad we we were able to figure this out together.

AFcynic
11-07-2013, 06:22 PM
Well let me explain it to you since you obviously don't get it....

Reagan was for strong border enforcement. Obama is not. The fact Reagan got duped by the Democrats is irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that Reagan's plan was very different than Obama's plan, so no, just because Reagan did it and people agreed with it back then, doesn't mean they have to be for it now.

Bottom line is that Reagan's plan was much different than Obama's and you know it.


No way! Reagan had a different plan than Obama 30 years ago in a different economic and political climate? Color me shocked!

I read the book "Tear Down This Myth", and it puts Reagan in a totally different light than what is portrayed by the media. I don't consider the book to be stone cold fact, and even though I'm a liberal, he doesn't deserve to be completely trashed.

Interestingly enough, do you think Reagan would even get the support of the Tea Party today?

AJBIGJ
11-07-2013, 06:33 PM
No way! Reagan had a different plan than Obama 30 years ago in a different economic and political climate? Color me shocked!

I read the book "Tear Down This Myth", and it puts Reagan in a totally different light than what is portrayed by the media. I don't consider the book to be stone cold fact, and even though I'm a liberal, he doesn't deserve to be completely trashed.

Interestingly enough, do you think Reagan would even get the support of the Tea Party today?

His 1980 Election Platform would have passed muster definitely, his performance, probably not as much ironically.

It's funny how the times change things. I doubt JFK would've lasted a second running for the Democratic Party in today's environment also based on his platform, funnier thing is he probably would've lost to Lyndon Johnson if they opposed each other in the primaries. I would bet FDR would've gone right to the top.

Lincoln as a Republican probably would've never happened in today's environment.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 06:45 PM
No way! Reagan had a different plan than Obama 30 years ago in a different economic and political climate? Color me shocked!

I read the book "Tear Down This Myth", and it puts Reagan in a totally different light than what is portrayed by the media. I don't consider the book to be stone cold fact, and even though I'm a liberal, he doesn't deserve to be completely trashed.

Interestingly enough, do you think Reagan would even get the support of the Tea Party today?

Times are so different today that it would be tough to say. Fiscally, we are in a much tougher climate today than back then. Reagan wasn't a tight-wad by any stretch of the imagination, but that was a the height of the Cold War.

People seem to think that the Tea Party grew out of Obama's election, which is absolutely false. The Tea Party rise came out towards the end of the Bush Administration when federal spending and deficits really started to reach absurd levels. The Tea Party was all about fiscal issues when it started. Other groups globbed onto the Tea Party because they saw it as an avenue to bring up their issues, but the "anti-tea partiers", you know the people I'm talking about...the one's who's first words used to describe them are "racists", "bigots" etc. are either doing it out of ignorance or out of deceit. They usually don't know a thing about what a person stands for, but as soon as the hear the word "Tea Party", the anti-tea partiers instantly knee-jerk, fall-back, default position is to paint them all with the same brush. Whether it's out of ignorance or out of deceit, only they can answer that.

Even though original tea partiers are more concerned with fiscal issues, most still believe in a strong national defense, and back then, the Democrats also recognized the threat the Soviet Union posed. So to answer your question, I don't think the Tea Party would have been thrilled with him, but they probably would have went along with a good portion of his agenda.

AFcynic
11-07-2013, 06:49 PM
Knowing what I know about JFK and Marilyn Monroe, if dude ran today, he'd have my vote.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 06:54 PM
His 1980 Election Platform would have passed muster definitely, his performance, probably not as much ironically.

It's funny how the times change things. I doubt JFK would've lasted a second running for the Democratic Party in today's environment also based on his platform, funnier thing is he probably would've lost to Lyndon Johnson if they opposed each other in the primaries. I would bet FDR would've gone right to the top.

Lincoln as a Republican probably would've never happened in today's environment.

I agree with your assessment. It's funny that we are talking about a Kennedy not fitting into today's Democratic Party. If that right there doesn't tell you just how much things have changed, nothing does.

Rainmaker
11-07-2013, 08:46 PM
No way! Reagan had a different plan than Obama 30 years ago in a different economic and political climate? Color me shocked!

I read the book "Tear Down This Myth", and it puts Reagan in a totally different light than what is portrayed by the media. I don't consider the book to be stone cold fact, and even though I'm a liberal, he doesn't deserve to be completely trashed.

Interestingly enough, do you think Reagan would even get the support of the Tea Party today?

Das Raciss.

Rainmaker
11-07-2013, 08:50 PM
Knowing what I know about JFK and Marilyn Monroe, if dude ran today, he'd have my vote.

you wouldn't have known it back then. but, yeah MM got the goods.,, Juss like JFK, Rainmaker's kryptonite is big booty. NomSayin?

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 08:51 PM
If he had sued all the sanctuary cities for conflicting with federal immigration laws, sure, but...he didn't. So hypocrisy it is. Glad we we were able to figure this out together.

:lame::lame::lame::lame:

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 09:17 PM
:lame::lame::lame::lame:

If you say so...:beerchug:

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 10:17 PM
Well let me explain it to you since you obviously don't get it....

Reagan was for strong border enforcement. Obama is not. The fact Reagan got duped by the Democrats is irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that Reagan's plan was very different than Obama's plan, so no, just because Reagan did it and people agreed with it back then, doesn't mean they have to be for it now.

Bottom line is that Reagan's plan was much different than Obama's and you know it.

Did Reagan sign, or did he *NOT* sign, a bill that materially granted amnesty? The "plan," as it may/may not have been intended, is completely irrelevant compared to what actually came to be.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 10:19 PM
Did Reagan sign, or did he *NOT* sign, a bill that materially granted amnesty? The "plan," as it may/may not have been intended, is completely irrelevant compared to what actually came to be.

Keep on telling yourself that Reagan's Plan and Obama's plan were exactly the same. At least you've been able to convice yourself.

Your argument is this: If you were in favor of Reagan's plan, you should be in favor of Obama's. (Just completely disregard the fact Reagan's plan and Obama's plan are very different and even though Reagan got duped by the Democrats.)

ROFL

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 10:23 PM
Is it telling? That you can't even accurately describe election results without, what was it you said..."Bullshit"? Yep, I guess it is telling.

Yeah, a fake Libertarian. All anyone has is look at Sarvis' positions to figure that one out. Not rocket science.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

It was make-or-break time (the first of many to come for tea party-leaning candidates), and...your boy lost. You just sound like a sore loser--still.

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 10:26 PM
Keep on telling yourself that Reagan's Plan and Obama's plan were exactly the same. At least you've been able to convice yourself.

Your argument is this: Even though Reagan's plan was vastly different than Obama's, if you were in favor of Reagan's plan, you should be in favor of Obama's, even though Reagan got duped by the Democrats.

ROFL

Not necessarily "for" it. One just shouldn't bitch about it, if you didn't bitch about it then. There is a difference. It. doesn't. MATTER. WHAT. the "plans" were. The NET EFFECT is the only thing that matters here. You can laugh yourself literally to death for all I care.

Your_Name_Here
11-07-2013, 10:28 PM
And you still sound clueless as ever Mr. Decisive.

Nope, nice try though, Mr. sore loser.

grimreaper
11-07-2013, 10:30 PM
Not necessarily "for" it. One just shouldn't bitch about it, if you didn't bitch about it then. There is a difference. It. doesn't. MATTER. WHAT. the "plans" were. The NET EFFECT is the only thing that matters here. You can laugh yourself literally to death for all I care.

So riddle me this ...If someone was for Reagan's plan in the beginning, even though the border security part was reneged on in the end by Democrats, why the hell does that mean they shouldn't "bitch" about Obama's plan? That makes no sense whatsoever.

They wouldn't have known that the border security part wasn't going to happen until the Democrats reneged.

Your argument is completely illogical.

Interceptor
11-08-2013, 03:11 AM
To All,

Fascinating thread so far. Great arguments and great passion. Let keep it civil though, there is no reason to start with the name calling or personal attacks. Feel free to attack the message not the messenger. Lets keep a good thing going here.

Your_Name_Here
11-09-2013, 05:03 AM
So riddle me this ...If someone was for Reagan's plan in the beginning, even though the border security part was reneged on in the end by Democrats, why the hell does that mean they shouldn't "bitch" about Obama's plan? That makes no sense whatsoever.

They wouldn't have known that the border security part wasn't going to happen until the Democrats reneged.

Your argument is completely illogical.

While yours is circular.

You HAVE *read* the actual text of IRCA of 1986, haven't you? The law is, what it is--and there's...wait for it...AMNESTY in it!!! *GASP*
Not liking what the Democrats did is irrelevant. Reagan didn't *have* to sign it into law. But he did.

Oh, wait--IIIIIII GET IT *NOW*: You were FOR amnesty, before you were......."against" it. Gotcha. Feel free to let me know when you're done being a Reagan apologist, or at least done making lousy excuses for him.

grimreaper
11-09-2013, 07:13 PM
While yours is circular.

You HAVE *read* the actual text of IRCA of 1986, haven't you? The law is, what it is--and there's...wait for it...AMNESTY in it!!! *GASP*
Not liking what the Democrats did is irrelevant. Reagan didn't *have* to sign it into law. But he did.

Oh, wait--IIIIIII GET IT *NOW*: You were FOR amnesty, before you were......."against" it. Gotcha. Feel free to let me know when you're done being a Reagan apologist, or at least done making lousy excuses for him.

Still trying to push the ridiculous notion that their plans are the same thing I see...Like I said, as long as you've got yourself convinced...

But I'll play your silly little game...Just like back then,the promises of enforcement will never materialize. It was a bad deal then, it's a bad deal now, so whatever microscopic point you think you are making, you still lose either way.