Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2009 US Election Prediction
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The outcome of Tuesday's election? As usual the winners will declare it a referendum on Obama's administration and the loser will say it was the result of local factors. The losers are right in this case. In the three big races getting national attention, it looks like the voters will have to hold their noses firmly before they pull the lever. The only race with national implications is the NY-23 race. If Hoffman pulls it off, you can look for many more challenges from the right to Republican incumbents in 2010 and a final purge of moderates.

As long as economic conservatism as espoused by the leading libertarian, sometime Libertarian, RP who believes repealing all of the 20th Century and a good share of the 19th, it doesn't have a chance at capturing a governing majority. A 'one size fits all economic situations' policy does not meet the road test of the real world.

The name of the game in the real world is economic responsibility. The group, whether it be one of the traditional parties or a new one, that makes that case convincingly to the voting public will govern for the next generation. There's a good chance that will be the Democrats. Stay tuned for Obama's first State of the Union Address in about 3 months. He'll almost certainly deliver a barn-burner about how a period of 'fiscal responsibility' is needed after the god-awful mess of Reaganomics and the bailout that boondoggle necessitated. Combined with a restrained foreign policy and liberal social agenda, it's a winning combination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
seonsengnimble



Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
seonsengnimble wrote:
I would like to see a decent democrat or a candidate from another liberal party replace Joe Lieberman.

Is that all?


There are tons of other things I would like to change, but Lieberman pisses me off so much. He's just a republican who claims to be part of the democratic party.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From NJ, Corzine put his foot in his mouth so he might as well eat it:

Quote:
I have seen the future of American politics, and it is big. Big and fat.

You can get a glimpse of it in the New Jersey governor's race, which pits the slim, distance-running, Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine against Republican Chris Christie, who is built for comfort, not for speed. Corzine ran a TV ad accusing the challenger of "throwing his weight around" to beat traffic tickets, accompanied by footage that did not attempt to conceal Christie's bulk.

...

For a while, Christie dealt with the insults in the classic manner of the overweight, gamely swallowing his embarrassment. "It's just part of who I am, unfortunately," he told The Times, while declining to state his current weight.

But the other day, he decided to confront his opponent. No, not by calling him bald, furry-faced, and four-eyed, all of which would be understandable retorts. No, he took the high road by daring Corzine to stop the sly digs and say what he's thinking outright. "If you're going to do it," said Christie, "at least man up and say I'm fat."


http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/02/a-big-fat-political-mistake

Insulting more than 2/3 of the electorate by proxy is sure way to win elections.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lithium



Joined: 18 Jun 2008

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:41 pm    Post subject: Re: 2009 US Election Prediction Reply with quote

Pluto wrote:
nathanrutledge wrote:
Fox wrote:

A new major conservative party (preferably, an economically conservative yet socially liberal party) really needs to rise up...


So make the libertarians THAT party. More and more people are finding themselves agreeing with libertarian ideals. Plus, there are no federal elections this year, it's all state and local stuff. You can't expect a libertarian to come in and win big federal races unless they start building at the local (city/county) and state levels first.

I just hope the libertarians back off of some of their more extreme positions and try and ease people into their way of thinking. Some of their positions are a bit too outside the realm of reality at this point.


What do you suggest? What is extreme? To Advocate the economically conservative part is easy(ie. tax cuts, less regs ect.) yet being socially liberal is a bit tougher. Where to begin? I'd start with repealing DOMA, allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and at least advocate moving marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2. I'd like to also see a wind down of our foreign military adventures but the neocons will probably have none of that.


You've obviously never served in the military. You do realize that you have to live in close quarters with these "openly gay" individuals, right? Do you think most service members want this? The answer is NO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^sigh, yes I served with 3rd ID, Rock of the Marne and Audie Murphy, spent the better part of 2003 and early 2004 in a desert oven and I support a repeal of of DADT. Apparently, so do most junior enlisted (E-1 thru E-4) and junior officers (O-1 thru O-3):

Quote:
A Gallup Poll this summer indicated that 69 percent of Americans now favor allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve in the armed forces. Strikingly, substantial support was found among conservatives (58 percent), weekly churchgoers (60 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) - three groups that strongly opposed the idea in 1993.

In addition, almost three-quarters of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said they're comfortable serving with gay and lesbian colleagues, according to a 2006 Zogby poll. Paul Rieckhoff, a former Army platoon leader who is head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says there's been a generational shift in attitudes. The average 18-year-old has been around gay people, has seen gay people in popular culture, and they're not this bogeyman in the same way they were in the past, he said.


http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=19088

Don't take it personally, most Americans, including members of the military and veterans, believe in plurality and toleration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A new major conservative party (preferably, an economically conservative yet socially liberal party) really needs to rise up to replace the Republicans, because they're utterly disgusting in pretty much everything they do.


How will the 'new' conservative party distinuguish itself from the pre-existing Democratic Party in terms of social liberalism? It ain't gonna happen. The Dems already have that one wrapped up.

How will the 'new' conservative party distinguish itself from the pre-existing Democratic Party in terms of fiscal conservatism? The Dems have a) Clinton's budget surplus on the books to refer to--in contrast to the traditional conservatives yapping about smaller gov't and then aggressively expanding gov't intervention into private lives and expanding the gov't into health and education far past what the Dems ever did; b) the argument that different economic conditions need different economic policies--tax cuts yet again for the rich are not a solution to any and every economic situation that happens to come along (fiscal pragmatism/responsibility vs blind fiscal ideology) and c) we didn't fall off the cliff last winter like we all were holding our breaths, crossing our fingers and hoping we wouldn't do and now the economy is actually growing. (Thank you gov't intervention.)

A conservative party in a progessive society like the US has a constructive role to play, but that does not involve actually proposing policies. Its job is to restrain the extremists and propose responsible measures to accomplish what the progressives want to do. Anything else is simply reactionary.
I suppose your new conservative party could suggest invading yet another country as part of their assertion of American exceptionalism. That has gone well in recent years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
A conservative party in a progessive society like the US has a constructive role to play, but that does not involve actually proposing policies. Its job is to restrain the extremists and propose responsible measures to accomplish what the progressives want to do. Anything else is simply reactionary.


The Republicans have proven they can't fill this role, and you admit a need for this role exists. As such, I'm not sure what you're arguing against regarding my suggestion that a new, better conservative party needs to replace them.

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I suppose your new conservative party could suggest invading yet another country as part of their assertion of American exceptionalism. That has gone well in recent years.


A properly functioning conservative party would do no such thing, which is just another example of why the Republicans need to be replaced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
A conservative party in a progessive society like the US has a constructive role to play, but that does not involve actually proposing policies. Its job is to restrain the extremists and propose responsible measures to accomplish what the progressives want to do. Anything else is simply reactionary.


The Republicans have proven they can't fill this role, and you admit a need for this role exists. As such, I'm not sure what you're arguing against regarding my suggestion that a new, better conservative party needs to replace them.

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I suppose your new conservative party could suggest invading yet another country as part of their assertion of American exceptionalism. That has gone well in recent years.


A properly functioning conservative party would do no such thing, which is just another example of why the Republicans need to be replaced.



The current 'conservative' party/parties-in-all-their-factions, are not conservative. They (It?) are revolutionary--of the White-Thermidorian variety. They are the kill-the-foreigners, turn power over completely to the corporations and be damned with the world....and bring on Armagedon in your spare time. Has there ever been a functioning conservative party in the US?

I suppose you could consider the party that spouts on and on about 'freedom' while turning over all power to the corporations as conservative. I don't consider that conservative, but maybe you do. It seems a bunch of other people on the board do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Fox wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
A conservative party in a progessive society like the US has a constructive role to play, but that does not involve actually proposing policies. Its job is to restrain the extremists and propose responsible measures to accomplish what the progressives want to do. Anything else is simply reactionary.


The Republicans have proven they can't fill this role, and you admit a need for this role exists. As such, I'm not sure what you're arguing against regarding my suggestion that a new, better conservative party needs to replace them.

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I suppose your new conservative party could suggest invading yet another country as part of their assertion of American exceptionalism. That has gone well in recent years.


A properly functioning conservative party would do no such thing, which is just another example of why the Republicans need to be replaced.



The current 'conservative' party/parties-in-all-their-factions, are not conservative. They (It?) are revolutionary--of the White-Thermidorian variety. They are the kill-the-foreigners, turn power over completely to the corporations and be damned with the world....and bring on Armagedon in your spare time. Has there ever been a functioning conservative party in the US?

I suppose you could consider the party that spouts on and on about 'freedom' while turning over all power to the corporations as conservative. I don't consider that conservative, but maybe you do. It seems a bunch of other people on the board do.


If you're really asserting no functional conservative party has ever been functionally formed in the United States, and you further assert our political system has a role which needs to be filled by one, why on Earth are you being so hostile towards my desire to see a new conservative party? One which has the potential to be exactly what you seem to want, rather than the mess the Republican Party is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eIn07912



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Location: seoul

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm gonna jump in here.

So the NY 23 went to Owens. Now, I'm as liberal a person as you'll meet, but I'm a little saddened to see it this way. I (along with several Dem strategists) was pulling for Hoffman and the ubber conservatives to pull this one off.

Had he done so, it would have fired up the hard line base to challenge moderate Republicans across the board next year and there would have been some heavy primaries to watch. And in the end, the moderate Dem would have spanked a hard liner because these Purple Districts are purple for a reason. They don't go hard left or hard right. If the Dems run a progressive in one, he'll lose. Same goes for a wing nut. Sadly, it looks the conservative base will learn from this mistake and end the party purge it set out on a year ago.

I told my friends last night as we were discussing this over a few beers: Either way, this goes good for the left. Either we pick up a seat we haven't held since before the Civil War, or this situation I described above happens. It was win-win for us today up there.

As for the Gov. races, VA was supposed to go to the Republican. That's just how that state operates. After every Presidential election, it votes for the opposing party Gov. It did that after Bush and now it did it for Obama. No big surprise there. It was their's to lose. Had it gone the other way would have made bigger news.

The NJ Gov race was a little heart breaking though. Oh well, can't win 'em all.

Still watching the Maine gay marriage issue though. Turn out is high, which bodes well for the pro gay marriage crowd. I think we'll see it stay in place. ME is a pretty moderate state, no way they side with the religion nuts. Although CA was a surprise, so you never know what might happen.

Biggest story though: Small town in Colorado legalizes 1 ounce of pot for adults over 21. Interesting to see how this one plays out in the coming weeks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
The name of the game in the real world is economic responsibility. The group, whether it be one of the traditional parties or a new one, that makes that case convincingly to the voting public will govern for the next generation. There's a good chance that will be the Democrats. Stay tuned for Obama's first State of the Union Address in about 3 months. He'll almost certainly deliver a barn-burner about how a period of 'fiscal responsibility' is needed after the god-awful mess of Reaganomics and the bailout that boondoggle necessitated. Combined with a restrained foreign policy and liberal social agenda, it's a winning combination.

Economic responsibility??? Like the double-digit TRILLIONS (and counting) that your despicable, lying crook of a president handed over to the banks? Obama works for the banks, period. He has already pissed away more money than both Bushes and Reagan put together (not that I'm a fan of any of them).

Seriously, what part of it don't you understand? Are you even capable of rational thought whatsoever? I can't imagine what sort of a fantasy land you must be living in to have written the above nonsense...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Things turned out really well in the two Congressional races. I hadn't been following the California race but came across this:

"Then came the news that Democrat John Garamendi, who campaigned as an unapologetic backer of sweeping health-care reform, had won a big victory in the race to fill an open U.S. House seat in northern California. Garamendi, a rabble-rousing critic of big insurance companies who beat the choices of much of the party establishment in the primary, keeps a Democratic seat Democratic. But he will serve as a decidedly more progressive representative than the member he succeeds, Ellen Tauscher, who was one of the few California Democrats to join the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.

Tauscher took the seat in 1996 from a Republican and for many years the district was portrayed as one where only a conservative Democrat could beat the GOP. Garamendi's win proves the thinking wrong and actually gives a boost to reformers in the House."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/491759/house_wins_offset_gubernatorial_losses_for_obama_dems

Owens' victory in NY-10 is a stunner. Very Happy I admit I was so fascinated with the shenanigans going on with the other 2 candidates that I don't know a thing about him, but he adds another vote for the Dems in Congress. I'm not convinced the Teabaggers will give up. I'm expecting them to be frothing even more because the RINOs seem to have broken for Owens. No doubt there will be lots more talk of victimization and stabs in the back. I don't think the Civil War is over--I think the two sides have just had their Shiloh and now know it will be a long and bloody affair.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Things turned out really well in the two Congressional races. I hadn't been following the California race but came across this:

"Then came the news that Democrat John Garamendi, who campaigned as an unapologetic backer of sweeping health-care reform, had won a big victory in the race to fill an open U.S. House seat in northern California. Garamendi, a rabble-rousing critic of big insurance companies who beat the choices of much of the party establishment in the primary, keeps a Democratic seat Democratic. But he will serve as a decidedly more progressive representative than the member he succeeds, Ellen Tauscher, who was one of the few California Democrats to join the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.

Tauscher took the seat in 1996 from a Republican and for many years the district was portrayed as one where only a conservative Democrat could beat the GOP. Garamendi's win proves the thinking wrong and actually gives a boost to reformers in the House."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/491759/house_wins_offset_gubernatorial_losses_for_obama_dems

Owens' victory in NY-10 is a stunner. Very Happy I admit I was so fascinated with the shenanigans going on with the other 2 candidates that I don't know a thing about him, but he adds another vote for the Dems in Congress. I'm not convinced the Teabaggers will give up. I'm expecting them to be frothing even more because the RINOs seem to have broken for Owens. No doubt there will be lots more talk of victimization and stabs in the back. I don't think the Civil War is over--I think the two sides have just had their Shiloh and now know it will be a long and bloody affair.

As much as I'd like to simply ignore it, the stuff you write is just so misguided, I can't help but comment... The "reality" you (and others on here) believe in is so typical, and so obviously parroted from the mainstream media, that you actually cheer-lead for Democrats (who are a pack of crooks, as a statement of fact, every single bit as much as the Republicans are) while cracking wise about tea party protests. In other words you would choose to support a bunch of bald-face lying politicians who don't give a flying f--k about you, over your fellow citizens who are protesting the open raping of our economy by the banks - first under Bush - and now even more under Obama. Some of the tea party protesters are misguided (Glen Beck is a sham), but it's NOT a Dems vs Reps issue. It is the people vs the criminal government. It's about protecting our liberties. The stuff you parrot from the media is deliberately meant to divide the public so that we'll fight amongst ourselves and ignore the fact that both sides are working with the banks who run it behind the scene. This is all documented, and factual - and anyone who looks outside the box realises it. Turn off your TV and start researching about the private Fed, and the banker-run think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission that control both parties, and you will see the light.

It's really time to snap out of your trance and get a clue already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
The "reality" you (and others on here) believe in is so typical, and so obviously parroted from the mainstream media, that you actually cheer-lead for Democrats (who are a pack of crooks, as a statement of fact, every single bit as much as the Republicans are) while cracking wise about tea party protests. In other words you would choose to support a bunch of bald-face lying politicians who don't give a flying f--k about you, over your fellow citizens who are protesting the open raping of our economy by the banks - first under Bush - and now even more under Obama. Some of the tea party protesters are misguided (Glen Beck is a sham), but it's NOT a Dems vs Reps issue. It is the people vs the criminal government. It's about protecting our liberties. The stuff you parrot from the media is deliberately meant to divide the public so that we'll fight amongst ourselves and ignore the fact that both sides are working with the banks who run it behind the scene. This is all documented, and factual - and anyone who looks outside the box realises it. Turn off your TV and start researching about the private Fed, and the banker-run think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission that control both parties, and you will see the light.

x2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
[]
Economic responsibility??? Like the double-digit TRILLIONS (and counting) that your despicable, lying crook of a president handed over to the banks? ...



I was under the impression that it was 700 billion...and even then not all of that went to the banks. A lot of that went to the major automakers as well.

Plus the banks are obligated to repay the money...some are already doing so.

http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN1734998420090417
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International