Election Day Thread - Page 7

Mevara · #1 11-08-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Exactly! Where do we fit in?!

This is what I believe and I have abandoned the Republican party (because I believe they mix Religion in with government) and moved to Libertarian. You really should check out their values on all the topics you might see they are a better fit (At least I did). Libertarian Platform

Mevara · #2 11-07-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess

I fervently hope this election brings about the end of the Republican Party as we have known it for the past several years. It would not surprise me to see it break into religious right, a libertarian, and an economics-first-to-hell-with-the-rest sects. Hey, one can dream.

From my local libertarian website:

Quote:

"There are two kinds of Tea Partiers," said Benedict. "One kind is so blinded by its hatred of Obama and Democrats that it cannot see fault with Republicans. It's the other kind the Libertarian Party is reaching out to."

Looks like they are already trying to absorb Republicans.

PeppyGPhiB · #3 11-07-2012, 07:40 PM

According to the feds, marijuana is as dangerous as meth and heroin. So why does it allow states to permit its use for medicinal purposes? It will be awkward for them to overturn recreational use without also overturning laws in the same states permitting medicinal use. Once that happens, maybe then people will get pissed enough to start demanding changes at DEA.

ETA: and I realize they don't acknowledge that medicinal use is legal at all, but since they've pretty much ignored it, they've implied endorsement. They don't want to do the unpopular thing and take away a drug that makes people with terminal illness feel a little better.

DubaiSis · #4 11-07-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

According to the feds, marijuana is as dangerous as meth and heroin. So why does it allow states to permit its use for medicinal purposes?

They may be saying this, but it's hooey. The biggest problems associated with marijuana are associated with production and sale of the substance. I am not a fan of lazing your life away baked, but I'm also not a fan of getting blotto on alcohol or toasting your lungs with tobacco. I really think the laws for marijuana need to be correlated with alcohol. Around the country. If you're a dry county now, great, keep marijuana illegal. But otherwise, regulate it, tax the crap out of it and move on. I don't particularly want to offend the believers that Reagan was a good guy, but pulling federal funding to force all the states to change their drinking laws was a terrible thing to do. So much for Republicans and States Rights.

I think these states are bellwethers. The primary people who will be against it are the ones who are in the incarceration business because it will keep a lot of people out of jail for petty crime.

Over the last few years it has become less taboo (even NOT taboo) for a politician to be on the side of legalization. Once that tide turned, the end was near. We're not there yet, but look how far we've come from Iowa legalizing gay marriage and how many states have it now? Marijuana will follow the same slow steady march toward legalization, probably with varying rules from state to state. But that's true of alcohol sale and use, so that's ok.

(sorry for the rambling stream of consciousness post here. I am apparently REALLY tired.)

PeppyGPhiB · #5 11-07-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

They may be saying this, but it's hooey.

I know it's hooey. Everyone does. That's why it's ridiculous!

DubaiSis · #6 11-07-2012, 08:45 PM

There is definitely a wing of the Libertarians I can relate to, but many people associate Libertarianism with the hard right. It can also be hard left. But I agree. My prediction for the next presidential is that there will be a 3rd party candidate who gets more than 10% of the vote. And the Libertarians seem like a good choice if they can make themselves seem like the "government out of your bedroom AND your wallet" party and not the "we hate 47% of America party."

ASUADPi · #7 11-07-2012, 10:05 PM

I really hope I'm not the only one who questions why we have a term on our President but we don't have terms on Senators and Representatives.

Some of those people in Congress need to get the hell out! Just like we get a new president every 4 to 8 years, we need some new blood in Congress!

MysticCat · #8 11-07-2012, 10:22 PM

^^^^ We didn't have limits on presidential terms until after FDR. That took a constitutional amendment, which term limits for members of Congress would also take. I'm sure you can see the challenge there.

moe.ron · #9 11-07-2012, 10:51 PM

If the Massachusetts version of Romney showed up from the beginning, he would've won easily.

DeltaBetaBaby · #10 11-07-2012, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe.ron

If the Massachusetts version of Romney showed up from the beginning, he would've won easily.

But would he have made it out of the primary? That's the problem; moderate republicans are getting Teabagged all over the place.

ASTalumna06 · #11 11-08-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

Exactly! Where do we fit in?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

I really hope I'm not the only one who questions why we have a term on our President but we don't have terms on Senators and Representatives.

Some of those people in Congress need to get the hell out! Just like we get a new president every 4 to 8 years, we need some new blood in Congress!

Part of the problem is that there are no term limits, but the other issue is that no one is willing to go against their own party in order to come to an agreement. I watched 60 Minutes this past weekend, and they addressed this exact issue. It was said that even if you vote with your party 98% of the time, you're looked at as a traitor. A Congresswoman from Maine said that she didn't run for reelection this year because nothing was being accomplished and she was fed up. They had the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders sit down with each other, and neither of them would really admit that party lines and an unwillingness to cross them was the problem.

It's sad. We can't move forward if no one works together.

Gusteau · #12 11-08-2012, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

The Republican Party, if it wants to remain nationally relevant in the 20th century, has to do a lot of work. Let's see if they actually do it.

Yes to all of this. Because if you're all of those things and truly care about a certain social issue, say marriage equality, you cannot align yourself with a clear conscience to the current iteration of the Republican Party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

But would he have made it out of the primary? That's the problem; moderate republicans are getting Teabagged all over the place.

You win at life for the best use of "teabag" as a verb.

DubaiSis · #13 11-08-2012, 12:44 AM

check out www.nolabels.org! When I first read about it I thought it was a brilliant idea that didn't stand a chance in hell. It is actually getting traction. With a little brow-beating, I think some more electeds can be brought on board.

And regarding socially liberal and fiscally conservative, there is a party for that. It's the current Democratic party. Look at actual numbers and not at the hype from the right. Money is not being thrown around willy-nilly. Targeted spending (the auto bailout which was a resounding success, infrastructure improvements) help the economy by keeping people employed and paying taxes. And for all the end of the world crap about Obamacare, in the long term I believe it will save the US government a huge amount of money. But not in the first year!

AOII Angel · #14 11-08-2012, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

check out www.nolabels.org! When I first read about it I thought it was a brilliant idea that didn't stand a chance in hell. It is actually getting traction. With a little brow-beating, I think some more electeds can be brought on board.

And regarding socially liberal and fiscally conservative, there is a party for that. It's the current Democratic party. Look at actual numbers and not at the hype from the right. Money is not being thrown around willy-nilly. Targeted spending (the auto bailout which was a resounding success, infrastructure improvements) help the economy by keeping people employed and paying taxes. And for all the end of the world crap about Obamacare, in the long term I believe it will save the US government a huge amount of money. But not in the first year!

Amen, sister!

aephi alum · #15 11-08-2012, 02:25 AM

It was pretty much a given that my state would go to Obama. Connecticut is not exactly a battleground state.

We did have an interesting Senate race. Lieberman's seat was up this year, and he's decided to retire, so we got to choose between Chris Murphy (Democrat, currently in the House) and Linda McMahon (Republican, has never held an elected office that I know of, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment - oh, and she wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood entirely because, not only do they provide abortions and she's pro-life, but also apparently low-income women don't need checkups and pap smears and the many other non-abortion-related services that PP provides). Murphy won.