New Gallop poll: GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I didn't say Nixon got us into the Vietnam war. The problem is the way we left Vietnam, which was in disgrace, and that greatly tarnished our image as a nation. Nixon failed to bring about a reasonable solution to a war started by Eisenhower, a republican.

Nixon didn't get us out of a mess, he made the mess worse by poorly managing the war.

Pavil

No, we are not getting off topic, this stuff is a part of the history of what divides the two parties. Carter did not make things worse, Carter made things better.

reply to post by sos37


What is BS is you blaming Obama for the mess left by the GW admin, and that is complete BS.

First of all, the U.S. government has always been in the banking business, it is a part of monetary policy.

The bailout was initiated by the GW admin, at the request of the banks and investment firms whose crooked business practices brought them to the point of insolvency.

Yeah, the whole concept of a free market is total BS, there is no such thing and there never will be. Do you believe in free government? Both terms are oxymorons on the same level.

Lower taxes is a nice idea, but not when you then finance government through deficit spending as the last three repub admins have done. What is BS is cutting taxes on the super rich, in expectation that future generations should make up for the loss in revenue.

As far as the U.S. government now managing the businesses that they bailed out, that is standard procedure, and any private corporation would do the same thing.

Our country owes trillions of dollar due to the actions of the last three repub admins, not due to Obama. Your attempt to blame our national debt on Obama is pathetic.

As for the rest of your outrageous claims, please provide some links to back up this nonsense. Seems to be you have been sold a bill of goods.

reply to post by sos37


History will remember that the GOP did everything in its power to enrich the elites and support the interests of International Corporations, even if that meant tarnishing our image as a nation abroad, and committing horrible acts in the name of the U.S. to defend the assets of the IC's.

History already sees the period when Bill Clinton was in office as a breath of fresh air, when the U.S. acted with reason and intelligence on the world front, earning the respect of the world.

If will be a few years before the world has any idea of what Obama will do as a president, even though the repubs are already blaming him for everything that the GW admin screwed up. While the GOP sheoples are buying this garbage, the rest of the world is not, and the rabid propaganda attacks against Obama by the GOP are only further alienating the party from the mainstream.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Doc Velocity

Pavil

No, we are not getting off topic, this stuff is a part of the history of what divides the two parties. Carter did not make things worse, Carter made things better.

Afghanistan and Iran. That's all I have to say. Prove to me how Carter made those two problems better for the U.S.?

reply to post by pavil


Afghanistan was not an issue for the U.S. until very late in Carter's term, it was invaded in 1979 and we really did not start getting involved until Reagan so no you can't blame Afghanistan on him.

As for Iran... we had been meddling in their affairs since at least 1953 when the Shah was overthrown and we backed a coup against the duly elected government to reinstall him and helped prop him up for the 25 years... he was deeply hated in Iran and we were deeply resented for our meddling.

The Shah was overthrown again and went into exile... then he developed cancer and despite warnings not to Carter, upholding our obligations to the Shah, allowed him into the country for treatment and that act led directly to the hostage crisis.

Carter was between a rock and a hard place on that one... if he refused to let the Shah in it would have severely damaged foreign relations during the cold war... but in allowing him to enter, he set the stage for 400+ day hostage crisis and his own downfall.

How did this thread get derailed into an examination of the Carter administration?

I think the problem with the new "republicanism" is that it only ever seems to apply to whoever is using the term to describe themself personally.

I don't see how you can ever create a successful movement with the mantra "You aren't enough!" Pretty soon nobody is enough and you've got nobody left. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then chucking out the bathtub as well.

I don't see that having an "independent" party would actually fix the situation. Our last local election had no Republicans *or* Democrats on the ballot - suddenly this year everyone is an independent, including all of the incumbents who were all Republicans last election. Silly!

Personally I'd like to see a bunch of more specialized parties and someday a coalition government. We have a LOT of people in the US, many different regions, and a lot of different attitudes from region to region. I don't understand why we have *less* political parties than a largely homogeneous society like Sweden, or a lesser populated country like New Zealand.

Maybe the current climate will make Americans realize how intellectually and politically lazy we have been with our current 2 party system.

reply to post by grover



Like I said....we drifted. Sorry for the hijack. But I disagree with you on those two, he was at fault.


[edit on 21-5-2009 by pavil]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sos37

 

History will remember that the GOP did everything in its power to enrich the elites and support the interests of International Corporations, even if that meant tarnishing our image as a nation abroad, and committing horrible acts in the name of the U.S. to defend the assets of the IC's.

History already sees the period when Bill Clinton was in office as a breath of fresh air, when the U.S. acted with reason and intelligence on the world front, earning the respect of the world.

If will be a few years before the world has any idea of what Obama will do as a president, even though the repubs are already blaming him for everything that the GW admin screwed up. While the GOP sheoples are buying this garbage, the rest of the world is not, and the rabid propaganda attacks against Obama by the GOP are only further alienating the party from the mainstream.

Uh, first of all - get your facts straight. It's true that GWB pushed for the first bailout of the financial sector. He did so because Bernanke assured him that the economy would be in imminent collapse if it wasn't passed. I'm not defending GWB there. I'm defending the Republicans. You will also note, sir, that a MAJORITY of Republicans in Congress OPPOSED the bailout and I've got the roll call numbers to prove it. Would you like to see those numbers and be reminded, sir? NO, I didn't think so. You seem to want to forget that in the last two years of Bush's term Congress was controlled by Democrats.

There was a SECOND bailout after Obama was elected, don't you remember that? And don't you also remember that the Republicans overwhelmingly voted against it? Again, I can prove it with the roll call numbers - would you like a reminder of factual history, sir?

So the argument is clear and the point is made - Obama AND the Democrats STUCK THIS NATION with TRILLIONS of dollars already added to what we had. What the hell, right? It's the middle class who will have to pay for it.

And who is it that decided we need to bail out the auto companies? Who approved those bailout loans? YES - A Democratic-led Congress. Where did it get us? Chrysler is now in Chapter 11 and has already stated they have NO INTENTION of paying back that debt. General Motors is less than two weeks away from a government deadline to which they will enter Chapter 11 and most likely also make the same vow not to repay the debt. Who also decided that a CEO (Waggoner) of a car company should be fired or else GM would get no more government money? Yep, that would be OBAMA. So the president now takes presidence over their board of directors and government directly interferes in private business. Today it's GM. Tomorrow, who knows. Where does it stop?

Need I also remind you about Bill Clinton - if he and his ideals were such a breath of fresh air then why did a majority Democratic Congress under him LOSE the next major Congressional elections to a Republican majority? Can you answer that question, sir? Why would the American people vote to replace a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN CONGRESS just TWO YEARS into Clinton's administration if they thought he was doing such a swell job? The answer - Clinton was a major SCREW UP and re-electing a Republican majority to Congress was the only way the American people could put a halt to his screwed-up policies.

So you sir, are the one with the problem. You choose to ignore facts and then try to shift the blame elsewhere when the truth stares you in the face. The list of facts I cited previously are ALL a result of Democratic rule, Obama and his administration. You have NO GROUND to blame Bush for ANY of it. Face it - Obama doesn't have this country's best interests in mind, he has HIS best interests in mind. Obama doesn't care about the well being of this country at all - he cares that his policies get enforced and the country does what HE wants it to do. But he's a great public speaker. The man cares about POWER, not you or me. And for the Democrats that's all you have - a power-hungry president who is proving himself more incompetent every day of his administration, Congressmen who will lie to save their own asses (Pelosi), Senators who don't care to pay taxes yet still get nominated to the president's cabinet ... yeah - which party is falling apart? The only difference right now is the GOP knows it needs to change. You Democrats are still in total denial.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by sos37]

reply to post by grover


Carter became a subject, because repubs like to blame Carter for the mess left by Nixon and Ford, just like they are now trying to blame Obama for the mess left by GW, even though Obama hasn't been in office for any of his policies to have any type of long term effect.

I would like to add, that as far as the Iranian hostage crisis is concerned, there is considerable evidence that the CIA set Carter up on the Iranian hostage crisis specifically to influence the 1980 election. Carter cut defense spending, and probably black ops funding as well, so they turned against him.

The guy they really wanted in power is GH Bush, but Reagan was far more popular. If you are against a NWO, or CWO and the PTB, you need to recognize that this is when the military industrial complex took over our country. By supporting the repubs, you are supporting the NWO and the PTB.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by grover

 

By supporting the repubs, you are supporting the NWO and the PTB.

OHHHHH now I get it. That last line of your previous post sums you up in a nutshell, sir. You believe that the Democrats don't support the NWO and the powers that be.

How the hell you ever earned the title of "fighter" when your arguments are so irrational and full of fiction is a mystery to me.

reply to post by sos37


Once again, where are your links to back up your claims? It is easy to draw conclusions without links to back up your claims, but should you provide any credible links, they will show that your conclusions are unjustified. What you call facts are nothing but your twisted interpretations of events.

Repubs didn't vote for the bailout because the democrats included provisions restricting how the money would be used, and putting control over the institutions they were bailing out, as they should have done.

In addition, who put Bernanke into power as the chairman of the Fed Res? Bernanke is man put into his position by a repub admin. You act as if Bernanke's decisions somehow are as a result of Obama in some strange twist.

Where is your links to this second bailout? If it is as you claim, show some evidence.

Democrats lost Congress due to their own fault, and part of that was not supporting Clinton enough. Clinton is a moderate, and the liberal democrats in congress at the time did not want to support his moderate efforts adequately, so they lost those elections, not Clinton. Clinton won his re-election, remember?

reply to post by sos37


It seems that the truth burns you like the light of the day burns a vampire.

The evidence that the people you support and defend are in fact the NWO and the PTB seems to be something beyond which you can admit.

You last post screams, noooo, it can't be, its them, the democrats that support the powers that beeee.

I fully recognize that many in the democratic party do in fact support the NWO and the PTB. Unlike you, I can recognize this. I would say that the more liberal components of the democratic party do just that. In my opinion, the extremists on both sides of the political aisle support the NWO and the PTB. Luckily, the moderates are succeeding in taking more control over the democratic party, starting from 1994, while the extremists on the right seem to be gaining even more control over the GOP.

You won't be able to escape from your delusions until you finally recognize that the free market concept is nothing but a con job, right wing communism.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sos37

 

I fully recognize that many in the democratic party do in fact support the NWO and the PTB. Unlike you, I can recognize this. I would say that the more liberal components of the democratic party do just that. In my opinion, the extremists on both sides of the political aisle support the NWO and the PTB. Luckily, the moderates are succeeding in taking more control over the democratic party, starting from 1994, while the extremists on the right seem to be gaining even more control over the GOP.

God, this is TOO easy. You are making my arguments for me. Think about what you just said - for one moment.

You claim that the moderates, not liberal extremists, are taking over the Democratic party. On the other hand, you claim no moderates are taking over the Republican party, but the extremists are. So you think the Republican party is losing moderates or doesn't have any left - now why would that be??? It doesn't have ANYTHING to do getting fed up over with Republican idealogy. It has EVERYTHING to do with being villified as a hatemonger or racist because you side with Republican principals. Who are the ones doing it? Democrats. Not extremist liberals, but every day Democrats in conjunction with the liberal media.

Now think about this - what happens when the moderate-Republicans leave the Republican party - who do you think is going to be left? That's right. Die-hard Republicans and even more far-right extremists. So yes, of course they are gaining control over the GOP.

Bottom line - it's not your "valuable" Democrat ideals and principals that are keeping people away from the Republican Party and it's not even the right wing extremists. It's the fear of being villified and chastized of belonging to a party of "hatemongers and racists". And you know what? I can prove that, too.

You know how I can prove it? Here's one example: The recent Carrie Prejean, Miss California, comment mess. It's safe to say that the Democratic party contains the majority of people who are pro-gay marriage. Democrats are also the same people who used to say that it's okay if you are different. But suddenly, someone who doesn't agree with gay marriage has the guts to stand up and speak her mind when asked. Carrie Prejean answered the question honestly and politely. And what did the Democrat party do?

Suddenly, members of the Democrat party who were "okay" with people being different now are suddenly furious that someone stands up and says "Hey, I think differently than you do." Carrie Prejean has been villified to no end ever since her answer.

Where is your political party's "enlightened" ideals in this situation? So basically it's "We're fine with you as long as you think like us. If you aren't with us then you are obviously damaged". Right? Absolutely right!! And your party is proving it on a DAILY basis.

Enlightened ideals? The Democrats? Hardly. I don't agree with hardcore Democrat ideals and I don't agree with hardcore Republican ideals either. But the crap your party is trying to sell America right now stinks to high heaven.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sos37

 

Once again, where are your links to back up your claims? It is easy to draw conclusions without links to back up your claims, but should you provide any credible links, they will show that your conclusions are unjustified. What you call facts are nothing but your twisted interpretations of events.

Facts, sir.

H R 1424 YEA-AND-NAY 3-Oct-2008 1:22 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Democratic Yea: 172 Nay: 63
Republican Yea: 91 Nay: 108
Independent (none)

TOTALS: Yea 263 Nay 171

clerk.house.gov...
also
www.senate.gov...

Repubs didn't vote for the bailout because the democrats included provisions restricting how the money would be used, and putting control over the institutions they were bailing out, as they should have done.

So that's a claim YOU are making. Where are YOUR FACTS to back up that load of crap? Care to reciprocate?

In addition, who put Bernanke into power as the chairman of the Fed Res? Bernanke is man put into his position by a repub admin. You act as if Bernanke's decisions somehow are as a result of Obama in some strange twist.

No, sir. I never acted or implied that Bernanke was Obama's yes-man. I know full well by whom he was appointed. I simply stated a FACT. Bernanke warned Bush that if a bailout was not approved, the nation's economy would collapse.

Paulson and Bernanke -- who we are reminded is the nation's pre-eminent student of the causes and consequences of the Great Depression -- seem to be warning us that as scary as it is already, it could get a lot scarier if this $700 billion firewall is not erected.

From blogs.abcnews.com...
dated September 24, 2008

Where is your links to this second bailout? If it is as you claim, show some evidence.

Right here, pal.

clerk.house.gov...

and also

The bill was first approved by the House of Representatives, and then by the Senate. ... was voted on and passed as Roll Call Vote 70 by the House, 246-183. The vote was largely along party lines with all 246 Yea votes given by Democrats and the Nay vote split between 176 Republicans and 7 Democrats. No Republicans in the House voted for the bill. Later that day, the Senate passed the bill, 60-38, with all Democrats and Independents voting for the bill along with three Republicans. The remaining 38 Republican senators voted against the bill.

en.wikipedia.org...

Democrats lost Congress due to their own fault, and part of that was not supporting Clinton enough.

Got anything to back that up? Oh right, that's YOUR OPINION.

Clinton is a moderate, and the liberal democrats in congress at the time did not want to support his moderate efforts adequately, so they lost those elections, not Clinton. Clinton won his re-election, remember?

He ran against Dole and Kemp for crying out loud! Bob Dole isn't exactly the strongest candidate around. That's like the Democrats trying to beat Bush with John Kerry.

Anyway, I've provided the evidence, as I said I would. Can you do the same, or are you just some cowardly Democrat who likes to talk big and make up facts?

Originally posted by grover
And by the way... it was Eisenhower who first got us into Vietnam... and I do know that Kennedy and Johnson got us in far deeper but Nixon and Kissinger expanded it.

Eisenhower loaned American military advisers to the French, who were already entrenched in Vietnam. During Eisenhower's administration, only 9 American soldiers died in Vietnam.

In spite of the demonstrated number of American casualties steadily falling under the Nixon administration, after they maxed out under the Johnson administration, you still cling to the liberal propaganda, insisting that the devil Nixon and his demonic sidekick Henry Kissinger escalated the war in Vietnam.

When people can look at the facts and still hold to their revisionist history, you know that some serious multi-generational brainwashing has taken place.

You can lead a liberal to the fact, but you can't make him accept it.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Bite me.

And don't give me that liberal crap.

Originally posted by sos37


College graduates aren't being educated about anything - they're getting ONE SIDE of the political spectrum drilled into them daily by college professors who tend to be LIBERAL minded.

I'm guessing someone didn't go to college?

And yes, by definition college is 4-8 years of education, I've actually been through college and its pretty much exclusively a learning environment, not the political brainwashing machine you seem to think it is. Also, our professors were much less 'LIBERAL' than you might imagine, and unless you were in a government class, they didn't get into political discussions. And the government professors made a note to never reveal their political affiliations, to keep students actively interested in what they had to say and to promote honest in-class discussion.

You shouldn't assume all college professors are liberal if you haven't been to college yourself. College professors usually have a good deal of higher education, and while highly educated individuals tend to lean to the left, that doesn't mean they bring up politics when they are busy teaching other subjects.

And if you consider the Gallup poll, the second-largest group that has been dropping out of the GOP is people from the Midwest. Are you going to make a sweeping generalized statement about Midwesterners now? Perhaps they are being "geologically pressured" to vote democrat?

Originally posted by drwizardphd

You shouldn't assume all college professors are liberal if you haven't been to college yourself. College professors usually have a good deal of higher education, and while highly educated individuals tend to lean to the left, that doesn't mean they bring up politics when they are busy teaching other subjects.

Why do you assume someone's education level from their political views? Shockingly, many conservatives have College educations.

Anyhow.... here's how College professors have put their money when it comes to political contributions.....see any disparity there? I didn't think so.

Download All Contribution Records from College Professors 1999 - present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Total Contribution Dollar Amount $45,978,746 (1999 - Present)
Average Contribution Dollar Amount $548

Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $4,308,334 (9% of total)

Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $614

Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $34,455,179 (75% of total)

Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $549

www.campaignmoney.com...

I'm sure if the numbers were reversed you wouldn't be screaming that Colleges had a Conservative bias, now would you?

Originally posted by pavil
Why do you assume someone's education level from their political views? Shockingly, many conservatives have College educations.

That's actually not what I said, I said people who have higher education (a.k.a 4 or more years of college) tend to lean to the left, as is evident from the Gallup poll in the OP.

Mr. Wolfe points to a new poll by Washington Post/ABC News that found that white people without a college degree favor John McCain, the Republican candidate, by 17 percentage points, while those with a college degree prefer Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, by 9 percentage points.

Source

Originally posted by pavil
Anyhow.... here's how College professors have put their money when it comes to political contributions.....see any disparity there? I didn't think so.

Who cares how they contributed campaign money? That doesn't change the fact that Professors generally don't talk about politics in class.

Have you been to college? Did your professors really try to brainwash you into a liberal? If they did I would recommend you attend a school where they actually teach what they're supposed to, like I did.