I wouldn't say so. The election results were lopsided, but not because scores of people rejected liberalism and voted the other way. Much of it was due to the fact that many who tend to support liberalism simply stayed home. Thus, voters rejected Obama, not liberalism as a whole. That being said, the brand is certainly damaged.
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?[/COLOR]
Yes, it was one of the biggest sweeps in history. Yes, many of the normally Democratic supporting voters stayed home.
While I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the voters that stayed home did so because of Obama, his performance and his liberal policies. Or perhaps the perception of Obama's policies being liberal.
I think it right that liberalism's brand has been damaged through all this, fairly or unfairly, I don't know. What I do know is that the ever greater statism that liberal policies require certainly hasn't gained any fans. No one seems to want to have an excessively intrusive, excessively intervening, all powerful state redistributing health, picking winners and losers, and that, from my perception anyway, is the cornerstone of today's liberalism.
Seems to me, keep the classic liberal, dump the statist liberalism, and I'd be more OK with that.
In my opinion this was a rejection of liberal social crusades and not an endorsement of libertarianism.
My answer is not just no, it's HELL NO. :roll:
Wait and see what happens in 2016, when another Democrat will be elected president of the USA.
"Better days are coming." But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP
Thats a superficial statement. I wasn't asking about 2016, but rather last tuesday.What about tuesday?
The answer that I've posted is the only one that you'll get from me.
Wait and see what happens in 2016.
The fatal flaw of liberalism, is that it must sacrifice the freedom of the individual for the state. Thats why even the term "liberal" is a misnomer. When it inevitably comes down to that choice-freedom or the state, the liberal chooses the state.
This is one of the skeletons in the closet the left needs to deal with. I'd like to think this election brought that home, but I doubt it-especially after the sad excuses Ive heard up to this point.
I was just thinking that we had a pretty good, and interesting topic going here.
'Just wait until next time!' Is all you can muster?
Well . . . . OK. If that's all you can muster.
Yeah, there's no other way for the liberalism that we currently have to function, and yeah, they really are going to have deal with it.
We've seen the results in the black community the results of 50 years of liberal programs, which is to say a worse result than what probably would have been had there not been these liberal programs. Now, it seems, the current liberals want to inflict this on the entire country, and make the entire population dependent on the government the same sort of way.
I'm really not in support of that. I'm far more in support of everyone having the needed capabilities to take care of themselves and doing so, regardless of the choices that they make for themselves.
Are you suggesting that equality of outcomes, after inequality of effort is a flawed premise? :shock:
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?
Yeah, there's no other way for the liberalism that we currently have to function, and yeah, they really are going to have deal with it.
We've seen the results in the black community the results of 50 years of liberal programs, which is to say a worse result than what probably would have been had there not been these liberal programs. Now, it seems, the current liberals want to inflict this on the entire country, and make the entire population dependent on the government the same sort of way.
I'm really not in support of that. I'm far more in support of everyone having the needed capabilities to take care of themselves and doing so, regardless of the choices that they make for themselves.
Can you tell us what these results are and how they differ from what the black community was like before the programs? I'm genuinely curious to see what numbers you use to make such claims.
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?
The fatal flaw of liberalism, is that it must sacrifice the freedom of the individual for the state. Thats why even the term "liberal" is a misnomer. When it inevitably comes down to that choice-freedom or the state, the liberal chooses the state.
This is one of the skeletons in the closet the left needs to deal with. I'd like to think this election brought that home, but I doubt it-especially after the sad excuses Ive heard up to this point.
There was a time where there were strong black communities being served by black owned businesses, and each black family was an intact family unit, and a prevalent black middle class. Then came the war on poverty. Suddenly, government benefit programs and hand outs became the norm. And now, we have what we have.
Even if it was segregated, granted unfair, the before is certainly looking better than the after.
However, the study found that, compared with white and Latino fathers who don’t live with their children, black fathers are more engaged in their children’s lives.
That’s in keeping with other studies, such as the recent Pew Research Center study that estimates about two-thirds of black fathers who don’t live under the same roof with their kids still see them at least once a month.
That compares to about 59 percent of white and 32 percent of Hispanic dads.
the CDC study shows that most men who live in the same household with their kids are actively engaged in their kids’ lives, especially children under the age of 5.
Most of those dads play and eat meals with their children daily. More than 7 in 10 black men also bathed, dressed or put diapers on their children, compared with 6 in 10 white men and about 45 percent of Latino fathers.
But no, I have no reference to share specific to this, but I keep my eye out for one, should I come across it.
My answer is not just no, it's HELL NO. :roll:
Wait and see what happens in 2016, when another Democrat will be elected president of the USA.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill.
"Better days are coming." But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP
Well, let's see... my numbers:
America and the hurtful myth of the 'absent black father' | Dallas Morning News
Ah, so you're saying that there is more poverty today than before all of these liberal programs? You're saying that there are fewer black owned businesses today than before these programs? Yes?
War on Poverty at 50: How to Fight Poverty -- and WinDespite spending nearly $20 trillion since the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate remains nearly as high today as it was in the mid-1960s. Today, government spends nearly $1 trillion annually on 80 federal means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services for poor and low-income Americans. Clearly, policymakers can’t hide behind reams of programs and billions in spending and declare they’ve done their duty to the poor. Good intentions aren’t enough.
We need to change the character of public assistance. That means redirecting incentives in federal welfare programs. “Sometimes those incentives encourage dependence, even for generations,” said Robert L. Woodson, Sr., founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee last year. Woodson sees firsthand the effects of these programs as he works with community leaders across the country to empower those in need to overcome adversity.
Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost - WSJLBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an "investment" that would "return its cost manifold to the entire economy." But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.
That is in part because the government's poverty figures are misleading. Census defines a family as poor based on income level but doesn't count welfare benefits as a form of income. Thus, government means-tested spending can grow infinitely while the poverty rate remains stagnant.
Not even government, though, can spend $9,000 per recipient a year and have no impact on living standards. And it shows: Current poverty has little resemblance to poverty 50 years ago. According to a variety of government sources, including census data and surveys by federal agencies, the typical American living below the poverty level in 2013 lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair, equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. His home is larger than the home of the average nonpoor French, German or English man. He has a car, multiple color TVs and a DVD player. More than half the poor have computers and a third have wide, flat-screen TVs. The overwhelming majority of poor Americans are not undernourished and did not suffer from hunger for even one day of the previous year.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?