Are Republicans Doomed In 2014?

[francois60]

Clinton was more popular than Obama and was making a stand on firmer ground. Plus, as I said, going into a general election it's going to be harder for Republicans than during a midterm.

That being said, the GOP did lose seats in the 1998 midterm, but that requires a popular President. Clinton was enjoying 60%+ job ratings at the time and full employment. I don't see Obama ever doing anything to get so much as above 50%. It's a lot easier to pick fights with Presidents with no political capital.

 

[Wiseone]

No need for anyone to come out and say it. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

Well you'd have to blame the Department of Defense for that, by virtue of being in the military I'm paid by tax dollars and everything I do is paid for by tax dollars, I even went to college off of someone else's tax dollars. I can't say that I agree with your assessment, I'd say I've earned my pay for the most part.

 

[Zyphlin]

Well you'd have to blame the Department of Defense for that, by virtue of being in the military I'm paid by tax dollars and everything I do is paid for by tax dollars, I even went to college off of someone else's tax dollars. I can't say that I agree with your assessment, I'd say I've earned my pay for the most part.

Let's be honest wise one, you suggested dollars you couldn't repay...which suggests you did nothing to earn those dollars

Serving in the military IS he repayment for those dollars, as you're working and serving your country in exchange for those dollars

 

[Wiseone]

Let's be honest wise one, you suggested dollars you couldn't repay...which suggests you did nothing to earn those dollars

Serving in the military IS he repayment for those dollars, as you're working and serving your country in exchange for those dollars

I agree I've earned my pay, but there's no way around the fact that I'll consume more tax dollars than I'll ever give back and not just counting my pay but training, equipment I've used, etc etc. Far far more in cost than any welfare receipt will use thats for sure.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

I agree I've earned my pay, but there's no way around the fact that I'll consume more tax dollars than I'll ever give back and not just counting my pay but training, equipment I've used, etc etc. Far far more in cost than any welfare receipt will use thats for sure.

"Get your government hands off of our soldier's pay you darn socialist."

I agree that paying an E-3 $32,000 per year plus benefits cost the government more than giving a single mom $4,800 a year in food stamp benefits. The refusal of conservatives to use a calculator is our biggest obstacle to success. Conservatives are good at getting elected but very bad at math. ARGH!! It's so frustrating.

vasuderatorrent

 

[Zyphlin]

I agree I've earned my pay, but there's no way around the fact that I'll consume more tax dollars than I'll ever give back and not just counting my pay but training, equipment I've used, etc etc. Far far more in cost than any welfare receipt will use thats for sure.

That's the thing though. You're directly contributing a service to the country...there's a reasonable argument to be made as to whether that service is "giving back" for what you're consuming. The legitimate life threatening risk of military duty based on what you've signed up for is a potential large and legitimate argument when talking about what you're "giving back" for what you've been given.

While I get your point that you're trying to make.....it's rather disingenuous to imply a comparison between a person "consuming tax dollars" through equipment and training as part of the military and someone whose "consuming tax dollars" by signing a form to collect food stamps and welfare.

 

[Comunitee]

Absolutely. I am not on welfare of any kind. I have a full-time job (with full insurance benefits). I pay my bills. I pay my taxes. I even give to certain charities when I can.

Moochers are on welfare. They may have full-time jobs, but lots of time it's a crap job because they didn't stay in school. Moochers usually get back more in tax returns, than what they pay in income tax. Moochers may blow money on night life, cable or their cell phone, but then complain that they don't have enough money for rent or food.

That's because Mother Government has enslaved the moochers. They want ultimate control over as many citizens as possible. They want to control your health...your expenditures...your entertainment...your children...etc.

Moochers? Here's the top 10 States as far as federal aid is concerned:

1. New Mexico. Red as recently as 2004.
2. Mississippi. Blood red, y'all.
3. Alaska. Blood red, you betcha.
4. Louisiana. Was blue until Clinton, but since the NRA started lying about Democrats coming to take yer guns, it's been blood red.
5. West Virginia. Same combo as Louisiana.
6. North Dakota. Has been red in every election since 1968, and in all but one since 1940.
7. Alabama. Blood red, y'all.
8. South Dakota. Same combo as North Dakota, it didn't even go blue for homeboy George McGovern.
9. Virginia. Went blue for Obama both times, but from 1968 to 2004 only did so for Carter in 1976 -- not in 1980.
10. Kentucky. Same combo as Louisiana and West Virginia. Come to think of it, so are Clinton's Arkansas & Gore's Tennessee.

So who are the "moochers"? Except for the State at Number 1, in which Obama didn't quite reach 53 percent, they're all historically Red States.

Source: Blue state, red face: Guess who benefits more from your taxes?

 

[Comunitee]

How about liberals stop listening to the radical 1% of the right-wing.

We're not the ones who do. Don't tell us, tell John Boehner.

 

[Comunitee]

Rest assured, I am not accusing the democrats of being the better party. The democrat party is both idiotic, lazy and spiteful.

If you want to call someone else idiotic and lazy, you might want to start calling the Democratic Party by its proper name. Calling it "the Democrat Party" makes you look like one of these ignorant Teabags who think the national media is liberal. If it were, after the 2012 election, Eric Cantor would be the House Minority Leader.

 

[Rainman05]

If you want to call someone else idiotic and lazy, you might want to start calling the Democratic Party by its proper name. Calling it "the Democrat Party" makes you look like one of these ignorant Teabags who think the national media is liberal. If it were, after the 2012 election, Eric Cantor would be the House Minority Leader.

Nobody cares what an idiotic party desires to call itself.
I'll call whatever I damn well please and if that's your finest argument to counter my point, then you best drop it.

 

[Wiseone]

That's the thing though. You're directly contributing a service to the country...there's a reasonable argument to be made as to whether that service is "giving back" for what you're consuming. The legitimate life threatening risk of military duty based on what you've signed up for is a potential large and legitimate argument when talking about what you're "giving back" for what you've been given.

While I get your point that you're trying to make.....it's rather disingenuous to imply a comparison between a person "consuming tax dollars" through equipment and training as part of the military and someone whose "consuming tax dollars" by signing a form to collect food stamps and welfare.

That's part of my point, the other is that many folks would typically not say what I do and use in taxdollars is not waste whereas someone pulling food stamps is, even though of course the military wastes tons of money. Additionally many people join the military for completely self-serving reasons, they want an education for example and will leave as soon as they can after they get it.

While its true you can say I'm performing a service that's debatable as well, looking at much of what our military does and spends its money on its difficult to say that all of it is in service to the nation. As in its tough to say that much of it actually contributes to our country at all.

So in other words if someone went on welfare and actually used the system as intended not as a means of livelihood but as a means to get them through a hard time till they can improve their situation, I'd say that's doing more of a service to the nation than much of what I do.

Also other forms of social welfare like education grants, that produce productive citizens from people that may not have had the chance to go to college probably do more good dollar for dollar than military spending. Frankly I think if Congress decided to stop spending 5% of the money thrown at equipment development and used to simply pay for smart but poor people to go to top universities they would contribute more to the general welfare of this country than that military equipment would.

 

[Comunitee]

If you want to call someone else idiotic and lazy, you might want to start calling the Democratic Party by its proper name. Calling it "the Democrat Party" makes you look like one of these ignorant Teabags who think the national media is liberal. If it were, after the 2012 election, Eric Cantor would be the House Minority Leader.

Nobody cares what an idiotic party desires to call itself.
I'll call whatever I damn well please and if that's your finest argument to counter my point, then you best drop it.

"I'll call it whatever... " Not "I'll call whatever... " And "You'd best... " Not "you best." If you can't handle basic grammar, then, clearly, you are in no position to call anyone else idiotic.

The Democratic Party is the party that believes in ideas, education, and enlightenment. To call its members "idiotic" is ridiculous.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Moochers? Here's the top 10 States as far as federal aid is concerned:

1. New Mexico. Red as recently as 2004.
2. Mississippi. Blood red, y'all.
3. Alaska. Blood red, you betcha.
4. Louisiana. Was blue until Clinton, but since the NRA started lying about Democrats coming to take yer guns, it's been blood red.
5. West Virginia. Same combo as Louisiana.
6. North Dakota. Has been red in every election since 1968, and in all but one since 1940.
7. Alabama. Blood red, y'all.
8. South Dakota. Same combo as North Dakota, it didn't even go blue for homeboy George McGovern.
9. Virginia. Went blue for Obama both times, but from 1968 to 2004 only did so for Carter in 1976 -- not in 1980.
10. Kentucky. Same combo as Louisiana and West Virginia. Come to think of it, so are Clinton's Arkansas & Gore's Tennessee.

So who are the "moochers"? Except for the State at Number 1, in which Obama didn't quite reach 53 percent, they're all historically Red States.

Source: Blue state, red face: Guess who benefits more from your taxes?

I don't care about individual states. I'm talking about individual citizens. Everywhere you go, there are going to be moochers and producers. Once again, that's the liberal code: treat citizens as groups instead of individuals. Divide and conquer like some powermongering despot.

 

[longview]

If you want to call someone else idiotic and lazy, you might want to start calling the Democratic Party by its proper name. Calling it "the Democrat Party" makes you look like one of these ignorant Teabags who think the national media is liberal. If it were, after the 2012 election, Eric Cantor would be the House Minority Leader.

"I'll call it whatever... " Not "I'll call whatever... " And "You'd best... " Not "you best." If you can't handle basic grammar, then, clearly, you are in no position to call anyone else idiotic.

The Democratic Party is the party that believes in ideas, education, and enlightenment. To call its members "idiotic" is ridiculous.

You should read more history on your enlightened Democratic party.
It is a history of racism, segregation, and oppression.
It's only been a little over 50 years since the KKK was the enforcement arm of the
Democratic Party, That is Properly why Martin Luther King was a Republican.

 

[clownboy]

Moochers? Here's the top 10 States as far as federal aid is concerned:

1. New Mexico. Red as recently as 2004.
2. Mississippi. Blood red, y'all.
3. Alaska. Blood red, you betcha.
4. Louisiana. Was blue until Clinton, but since the NRA started lying about Democrats coming to take yer guns, it's been blood red.
5. West Virginia. Same combo as Louisiana.
6. North Dakota. Has been red in every election since 1968, and in all but one since 1940.
7. Alabama. Blood red, y'all.
8. South Dakota. Same combo as North Dakota, it didn't even go blue for homeboy George McGovern.
9. Virginia. Went blue for Obama both times, but from 1968 to 2004 only did so for Carter in 1976 -- not in 1980.
10. Kentucky. Same combo as Louisiana and West Virginia. Come to think of it, so are Clinton's Arkansas & Gore's Tennessee.

So who are the "moochers"? Except for the State at Number 1, in which Obama didn't quite reach 53 percent, they're all historically Red States.

Source: Blue state, red face: Guess who benefits more from your taxes?

There are no red or blue states. Every one of them is a slightly different shade of purple. Catch a clue. Break it down by district and see where those benefits go and who profits from the benefits going there. If a rural area receives farm support, it does so in order for the cities to have food. So who really is getting the support?

 

[Comunitee]

I don't care about individual states. I'm talking about individual citizens. Everywhere you go, there are going to be moochers and producers. Once again, that's the liberal code: treat citizens as groups instead of individuals. Divide and conquer like some powermongering despot.

If we were powermongering despots, you'd be dead or in jail by now. But you're not. Nor is John Boehner. Nor is Ted Cruz. Nor, interestingly enough, is Ted Nugent, who predicted he would be.

The point is that the Red States, and therefore the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS in those States, are the biggest "moochers."

You know who was a moocher, Mr. Libertarian? Ayn Rand. She collected Social Security.

 

[Comunitee]

You should read more history on your enlightened Democratic party.
It is a history of racism, segregation, and oppression.
It's only been a little over 50 years since the KKK was the enforcement arm of the
Democratic Party, That is Properly why Martin Luther King was a Republican.

Bull.

The KKK was a conservative organization. The Democrats cut their ties with them. Hugo Black and Robert Byrd actually apologized for having been members. In contrast, Trent Lott, Senate Republican Leader, never apologized for giving a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- CCC, or, as they're also known, the KKK in suits and ties.

When Martin Luther King was jailed in Georgia on a BS charge in 1960, Coretta called the Nixon campaign, and begged them to get him out, because she was afraid he'd be killed in jail. Whether the plea ever got through to Nixon himself, I don't know; but the Nixon campaign did nothing. So Coretta called the Kennedy campaign. Somebody there got a message to Jack, who said, "Call Bobby." Bobby made a few calls, found a friendly judge, and Dr. King was sprung. And when that happened, Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. said, "If I had a million votes, I would give them to Jack Kennedy." I don't know if the black vote going to JFK made a difference, but that election was so close, it could have. If Nixon's people had gotten their man the message, and he'd done something about it, it would have shown that the GOP was still the party of civil rights, and it would have had consequences far more favorable to them in the long-term than Nixon beating Kennedy in 1960 would have been. The King family has been Democratic ever since.

Even Jackie Robinson, who worked for Nelson Rockefeller after he left baseball, and was a Republican as much for their "self-help" talk as for their ever-shrinking connection to Abraham Lincoln, saw the disgusting display at the 1964 Republican Convention and said, "It would make everything I worked for meaningless if baseball were integrated and America's political parties were segregated." Robinson voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Wilt Chamberlain was also a Republican, pointing out that, once Nixon finally won in 1968, he did do things to help the poor, white and black alike. But he also said that, while he liked Nixon, he didn't like Reagan or Bush Sr., because their approaches to black Americans made Nixon look positively enlightened by comparison. (Yes, I read Wilt's entire book, not just THAT chapter. He was a fascinating guy, above and beyond his basketball skill.)

The Democrats' civil rights errors are in the distant past. The Republicans' are half a century old and ongoing.

 

[Comunitee]

There are no red or blue states. Every one of them is a slightly different shade of purple. Catch a clue. Break it down by district and see where those benefits go and who profits from the benefits going there. If a rural area receives farm support, it does so in order for the cities to have food. So who really is getting the support?

I know Trent Lott's Mississippi got a lot more aid after Katrina than Mary Landrieu's Louisiana did.

 

[clownboy]

I know Trent Lott's Mississippi got a lot more aid after Katrina than Mary Landrieu's Louisiana did.

If that is indeed true (I doubt your ability to tell fact from meme) it would show Lott to be the superior politician and representative of his constituency. Doesn't have anything to do with your belief in the fiction of red and blue states or your miscomprehension of the hows and whys of federal funding.

 

[longview]

Bull.

The KKK was a conservative organization. The Democrats cut their ties with them. Hugo Black and Robert Byrd actually apologized for having been members. In contrast, Trent Lott, Senate Republican Leader, never apologized for giving a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- CCC, or, as they're also known, the KKK in suits and ties.

When Martin Luther King was jailed in Georgia on a BS charge in 1960, Coretta called the Nixon campaign, and begged them to get him out, because she was afraid he'd be killed in jail. Whether the plea ever got through to Nixon himself, I don't know; but the Nixon campaign did nothing. So Coretta called the Kennedy campaign. Somebody there got a message to Jack, who said, "Call Bobby." Bobby made a few calls, found a friendly judge, and Dr. King was sprung. And when that happened, Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. said, "If I had a million votes, I would give them to Jack Kennedy." I don't know if the black vote going to JFK made a difference, but that election was so close, it could have. If Nixon's people had gotten their man the message, and he'd done something about it, it would have shown that the GOP was still the party of civil rights, and it would have had consequences far more favorable to them in the long-term than Nixon beating Kennedy in 1960 would have been. The King family has been Democratic ever since.

Even Jackie Robinson, who worked for Nelson Rockefeller after he left baseball, and was a Republican as much for their "self-help" talk as for their ever-shrinking connection to Abraham Lincoln, saw the disgusting display at the 1964 Republican Convention and said, "It would make everything I worked for meaningless if baseball were integrated and America's political parties were segregated." Robinson voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Wilt Chamberlain was also a Republican, pointing out that, once Nixon finally won in 1968, he did do things to help the poor, white and black alike. But he also said that, while he liked Nixon, he didn't like Reagan or Bush Sr., because their approaches to black Americans made Nixon look positively enlightened by comparison. (Yes, I read Wilt's entire book, not just THAT chapter. He was a fascinating guy, above and beyond his basketball skill.)

The Democrats' civil rights errors are in the distant past. The Republicans' are half a century old and ongoing.

You can call BULL all you want, and even cite a few examples,
It still does not change the Democratic parties ugly history.
They are still practicing oppression, just in different ways.
Do you think English as a second language, is about helping Hispanic kids?
And has the war on poverty helped or hurt more people, destroying families, and
starting cycles of dependency.

 

[Moon]

"Get your government hands off of our soldier's pay you darn socialist."

I agree that paying an E-3 $32,000 per year plus benefits cost the government more than giving a single mom $4,800 a year in food stamp benefits. The refusal of conservatives to use a calculator is our biggest obstacle to success. Conservatives are good at getting elected but very bad at math. ARGH!! It's so frustrating.

vasuderatorrent

The fact that you think those two situations are comparable is very illuminating.

 

[fmw]

The reason republicans are not doomed in 2014 is that people always blame other peoples' members of congress and continue to reelect their own. Crazy but true.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

The fact that you think those two situations are comparable is very illuminating.

One costs the government money. The other one costs the government........................................................ money. I suppose they are a little bit different.

vasuderatorrent

 

[Moon]

One costs the government money. The other one costs the government........................................................ money. I suppose they are a little bit different.

vasuderatorrent

How very simplistic of you.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

How very simplistic of you.

Maybe my wife should stop getting her nails done so that I can continue buying cars.

vasuderatorrent