ELECTION NIGHT COMMENTS

[SPK145]

Good call, Merge, good call.

My point in this thread is that, as someone who can't stand either the Democraps or Republicants and is wedded to the Constitutional mandate of limited, enumerated government, the House is the only thing that can be relied on to carry this out. Obama and the Senate surely won't.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Section112:

My feelings are the same. We can do so much better. Obama is not a leader, has little experience and did not bring folks together or do a good job in his 4 years. The Repubs put up a bunch of bad candidates and ran a poor election except for the lift Romney got in his first debate. But then he went back to saying stupid stuff like "binders full of women" etc. I mean common.

And to prove how unexcited folks are I saw a stat today (did not confirm it) that said over 12 million less folks voted vs. the last presidential election. If true that speaks volumes.

IMO the two parties are not working for the American people. They only care about trying to prove who is right and not about fresh ideas or working together. It's sad and this election did nothing to change that. I only hope that in 4 years there are some candidates I can get behind.

Well stated 112...feel exactly the same way.

Is Christie the next Rep hope? Who knows, but you'll know he's going to run the day he schedules a lap band surgery

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by cernjSHU:
I can't understand all the hard feelings here about how we could elect an ineffective President again. There is no question that Obama was very vulnerable to being beaten this election. However, the Republicans ran a slate of worse candidates and the best of the lot was Romney.

Forget about how bad you think Obama is. What you fail to think of is how bad Romney and all the other candidates that the Republicans ran like, Mr. 9/9/9/ and Mr. I can't remember a damn thing from Texas. The Republicans candidates were a joke. That is why they lost this election. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for being hijacked by tea party wing nuts and Birther issues. It's an embarrassment. BTW, let's assume Obama was born in Kenya, he is still eligible to be President because he was an American born citizen at birth due to his mom being an American citizen. This is similar to Mitt Romney's father who was born in Mexico and yet ran for the Republican nomination for President.

Now that everyone is finished breaking their arms from patting their own backs, I think this post sums it up about as eloquently, and truthfully, as possible. Romney was sub par, and that's putting it mildly. The fact that he was in this election right up to the end (yeah, 303, but VA, FL, and OH were CLOSE), is a referendum on Obama's performance (as were the midterms).

The right wing-nuts in the Republican party are insane, just like the far left. The rape/abortion comments made by the guys in Indiana and Missouri are incomprehensible. The idea of subjecting a woman to transvaginal ultrasound before undergoing a termination of pregnancy is brutal.
I think Christie, with his straight talk and moderate conservative stance, is a very attractive candidate (weight issues aside) for 2016.

After a couple nights' sleep, I think we're just as bad off today as we would have been, had Romney won. That's sad. The hard feelings stem from the deep divide in world-view in this country. Reading the articles, online, in the aftermath is like having rivals from a football game rub a loss in your face; worse, many are calling it the end of conservativism, the end of the influence of the Catholic church, and a drastic left shift. At 50-50 in the popular vote, really? Maybe some good Catholics and good conservatives looked at Romney, and his shape-shifting, and figured Obama couldn't be worse, or more disingenuous.
After Bush beat Kerry, you had liberals screaming that we were becoming a theocracy, and moving too far to the right; people were swearing that they'd leave the country. Now it's time for the conservatives to cry in their beer, and for the left to make outrageous proclamations. Cheers.


This post was edited on 11/8 2:07 PM by donnie_baseball

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Originally posted by cernjSHU:
I can't understand all the hard feelings here about how we could elect an ineffective President again. There is no question that Obama was very vulnerable to being beaten this election. However, the Republicans ran a slate of worse candidates and the best of the lot was Romney.

Forget about how bad you think Obama is. What you fail to think of is how bad Romney and all the other candidates that the Republicans ran like, Mr. 9/9/9/ and Mr. I can't remember a damn thing from Texas. The Republicans candidates were a joke. That is why they lost this election. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for being hijacked by tea party wing nuts and Birther issues. It's an embarrassment. BTW, let's assume Obama was born in Kenya, he is still eligible to be President because he was an American born citizen at birth due to his mom being an American citizen. This is similar to Mitt Romney's father who was born in Mexico and yet ran for the Republican nomination for President.

Now that everyone is finished breaking their arms from patting their own backs, I think this post sums it up about as eloquently, and truthfully, as possible. Romney was sub par, and that's putting it mildly. The fact that he was in this election right up to the end (yeah, 303, but VA, FL, and OH were CLOSE), is a referendum on Obama's performance (as were the midterms).

The right wing-nuts in the Republican party are insane, just like the far left. The rape/abortion comments made by the guys in Indiana and Missouri are incomprehensible. The idea of subjecting a woman to transvaginal ultrasound before undergoing a termination of pregnancy is brutal.
I think Christie, with his straight talk and moderate conservative stance, is a very attractive candidate (weight issues aside) for 2016.

After a couple nights' sleep, I think we're just as bad off today as we would have been, had Romney won. That's sad. The hard feelings stem from the deep divide in world-view in this country. Reading the articles, online, in the aftermath is like having rivals from a football game rub a loss in your face; worse, many are calling it the end of conservativism, the end of the influence of the Catholic church, and a drastic left shift. At 50-50 in the popular vote, really? Maybe some good Catholics and good conservatives looked at Romney, and his shape-shifting, and figured Obama couldn't be worse, or more disingenuous.
After Bush beat Kerry, you had liberals screaming that we were becoming a theocracy, and moving too far to the right; people were swearing that they'd leave the country. Now it's time for the conservatives to cry in their beer, and for the left to make outrageous proclamations. Cheers.



This post was edited on 11/8 2:07 PM by donnie_baseball

Very good post Donnie. While my views are admittedly left of center I do believe the real problem is the polarization of our political system with uncompromising representative of both the far left and far right. We are much better off when the country is governed closer to the center. Unfortunately our primary system makes this very difficult as the candidates have to kiss up to the extremes just to get the nomination.

Tom K

 

[Merge]

I would most likely vote for Christie, but would he get through the primaries?

I made my outrageous proclamations prior to that election that republicans will not win another general election if they do not move to the center on some social issues.

Right now it is basically just immigration and abortion. They need to move closer towards amnesty and while they don't need to become pro-choice, but the republicans are going to need to start to support "safe legal and rare" initiatives instead of campaigning against abortion.

I think those two shifts combined with fiscal conservatism is where the country has moved.

Romney killed his chances with the self deportation comments and moving too far to the right on reproductive issues.

and while Virgina, Florida and Ohio were close... Obama didn't actually need any of them to win.

 

[JMM13]

Originally posted by Merge:
I would most likely vote for Christie, but would he get through the primaries?

I made my outrageous proclamations prior to that election that republicans will not win another general election if they do not move to the center on some social issues.

Right now it is basically just immigration and abortion. They need to move closer towards amnesty and while they don't need to become pro-choice, but the republicans are going to need to start to support "safe legal and rare" initiatives instead of campaigning against abortion.

I think those two shifts combined with fiscal conservatism is where the country has moved.

Romney killed his chances with the self deportation comments and moving too far to the right on reproductive issues.

and while Virgina, Florida and Ohio were close... Obama didn't actually need any of them to win.

Just wondering what you meant by Romney moving too far right on reproduction issues.

Speaking as someone who is ardently Pro-LIfe, it would be a welcome step to have those proponents of abortion talk about limiting abortion to "safe legal and rare". Why don't you call on Planned Parenthood to do that. From what I have read, they refer to fetus' as being merely tissue. A welcome step would be to require a sonogram before a woman gets an abortion. or at least a teen ager. And my goodness, why not require parental approval or at least notification when a yourng teen wants an abortion.

There are many concessions that Pro life proponents would accept at this point. But the so called pro choice groups will not have any of it.

Don't lay this all on the door step of the Pro life folks. The "Pro-choice folks won't budge an inch.

But you are right, it is an issue that hurts Republicans. They need to do a better job about communicating the Pro-Life stance..... especially due to the "political correctness" that surrounds "Pro-Choice". I saw no Romney ads that remotely addressed abortion or Pro Life. There might have been some, but I didn't see them, but did see ads in which women talked about controlling their own bodies.....Democrats framed the discussion. Republicans didn't want to mention abortion (except in their party platform) so Democrats wound up owning the issue. I think that if the issue can be discussed in such a way that could prove positive for Republicans. After all, most Americans do oppose abortion... and the Republicnas did not take advantage of that. They chose to remain silent.


This post was edited on 11/8 5:09 PM by JMM13

 

[Section112]

JMM makes a good point about parental approval or consent for minors. It is preposterous to me to think that my underage daughter could get an abortion without parental support. I mean that is simply crazy to me that someone who is a minor is allowed to do that without the help and support of their parents. Again a more reasonable stance by all is merited.

 

[donnie_baseball]

JMM - extremely well said, and with you on all counts.

12 - It's crazy. You can't put a band-aid on a 17 year old in college without parental consent to treat, but a 13 year old can walk into Planned Parenthood and get "don't ask, don't tell" treatment. The pro-lifers really need to keep fighting the good fight on that issue. Sorry, there's just no need for on demand, when I want it, destruction of human life. I'd be willing to negotiate on rape, and maternofetal compromise.

I once worked at a place where college age girls would routinely walk in and say to our nurses, "I need to get this thing out of me." These were largely white, middle class women in their teens and 20s, many of whom had had a prior abortion. Even our most staunch womens' rights nurses would get nauseous at their callous attitudes.

 

[SPK145]

Why are some Republican's views on abortion called extreme yet Obama's views on abortion (OK right up to delivery) not seen as extreme?

 

[SnakeTom]

The only extreme views in my opinion are those expressed by the two losing Senate candidates from Indiana & Missouri plus those who oppose abortion even when the health and/or life of the mother is at stake. The later part is totally unacceptable to me. As I have said before it's easy to be strident on this in the abstract but if it was your wife, daughter or sister would you still advise her to put her life at risk regardless of the consequences. I seriously doubt it.

Tom K

 

[Merge]

JMM13, I think you may have misunderstood my point.

My point is that the republican party has to move towards the view that the country has and not move towards the views of planned parenthood or anyone else specifically.
SPK, if Obama is as extreme as you believe him to be, then he too would need to move towards the center, where the country as a whole views this issue. I do not believe him to be as extreme as you do.

I would agree that it is absurd that parents are not involved for minors... and for what it's worth, that is the case for a far majority of states in America, though not NJ or NY.

I would be absolutely opposed to forcing a sonogram on women. The only purpose that serves is trying to inflict mental anguish on someone. That is just not the right thing to do. That is like me forcing Peter Luger's to display a video of cows being slaughtered before anyone is allowed to order a steak because I am morally opposed to eating meat. (just an analogy. I love steak)

Republicans should aim to help people avoid getting pregnant in the first place through education first.
In the Netherlands for example, they have a much lower rate of unintended pregnancy because their government supports comprehensive sex education to prevent unplanned pregnancies and disease. They encourage the use of contraception which is easily available with nationalized healthcare. If both sides are really interested in lowering the abortion rate, and not just using this as a political tool every 4 years, then both sides need to start moving towards more sex education and encouraging the use of contraception.

I am against abortion as well, and that is why I want to limit the reasons why people get them.

 

[JMM13]

There are a couple of points that I would like to make... but have some meetings coming up. (ugh)

Let me just comment on the sonogram issue. Women should make the decision for abortion with all of the facts in front of them. They should realize exactly what it is that they are "removing from their bodies". On one hand you have the Planned Parenthood and probably other such organizations telling pregnant women that it is just tissue that is being removed. That is a dishonest way of allowing woment to rationalize their decision and making it alright. It will make them feel good about what they are doing. So what if it is dishonest it's all about feeling good.

On the other hand you have the sonogram in which you see the fetus and how it has begun forming fingers and toes and eyes and maybe you can even tell the sex of this "blob of tissue". If you are against abortion the way you say you are, then don't you want women making an informed and intelligent decision? Viewing a sonogram is really the best way of giving them all the facts. Mental anguish???? I think not. A woman who views a sonogram and then goes ahead with an abortion is probably not concerned about mental anguish.

Sonograms are a way of educating women...and men. Something you are calling for.

 

[Merge]

If you educate them beforehand, they will already know what the fetus looks like and when.
Before I saw my wife's first sonogram, I already knew what it would look like because I had decent sex education. I knew the development from week to week from what I learned in my public education which is also why I believe abortion to be wrong.

If they are on the table receiving a sonogram for an abortion which they are requesting then it is already too late.


This post was edited on 11/9 10:46 AM by Merge

 

[JMM13]

Then you miss my point.

 

[Merge]

Not really.

We both believe in education, we just disagree on when that education should take place.

The education I want aims to prevent the pregnancy and the need for abortion, the education you want aims to prevent abortion.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Merge:

SPK, if Obama is as extreme as you believe him to be, then he too would need to move towards the center, where the country as a whole views this issue. I do not believe him to be as extreme as you do.

Obama has always voted against the ban of late-term abortions, hence his extremism, how could you think otherwse?

Proper sex education can only help, as well as common sense, like parental notification for minors.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by Merge:

SPK, if Obama is as extreme as you believe him to be, then he too would need to move towards the center, where the country as a whole views this issue. I do not believe him to be as extreme as you do.

Obama has always voted against the ban of late-term abortions, hence his extremism, how could you think otherwse?

Proper sex education can only help, as well as common sense, like parental notification for minors.

"On an issue like partial-birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."

He also cosponsored a bill that would allow abortions to remain legal only before viability unless the life of the mother was at risk. I don't think his views are that extreme.
Though the bill did seem to aim to get rid of a states rules for parental notification which I do not agree with.

 

[JMM13]

Originally posted by Merge:
Not really.

We both believe in education, we just disagree on when that education should take place.

The education I want aims to prevent the pregnancy and the need for abortion, the education you want aims to prevent abortion.

You are putting words in my mouth. We need both. Obviously education at all levels is key.... to prevent pregnancy and to prevent abortions. As i said at the beginning of my earlier post I was just addressing your comment on sonograms.

I'm confused about your position on abortion. You said in an earlier post that you were against abortion. But it seems that you are saying that once a woman becomes pregnant, education about abortion should not take place. At least that's what it sounds like you are saying. In which case...... well.... I'm just not sure what you are saying.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by JMM13:

Originally posted by Merge:
Not really.

We both believe in education, we just disagree on when that education should take place.

The education I want aims to prevent the pregnancy and the need for abortion, the education you want aims to prevent abortion.

You are putting words in my mouth. We need both. Obviously education at all levels is key.... to prevent pregnancy and to prevent abortions. As i said at the beginning of my earlier post I was just addressing your comment on sonograms.

I'm confused about your position on abortion. You said in an earlier post that you were against abortion. But it seems that you are saying that once a woman becomes pregnant, education about abortion should not take place. At least that's what it sounds like you are saying. In which case...... well.... I'm just not sure what you are saying.

Like I said, I believe the moment you are talking about is too late, they have already decided to have an abortion at that point for whatever reason.

Abortion is currently legal and those people made a legal choice. What a pre-abortion sonogram is trying to accomplish is making them feel worse about their decision. Should we also aim to make other people who do other acts that some consider morally wrong feel guilty about their decisions?
If we implement comprehensive sex education across the country, there is literally no need for a sonogram before an abortion as everyone will already understand the development of a fetus.

If however, we could end the debate by creating a federal law which says public schools must teach sex education, abortions would only legal before viability (except in rare cases that the life of the mother is in danger), parents must be notified for children under 18, and a sonogram is required beforehand. I would be happy and consider the debate over.

 

[shu09]

I was not surprised Obama won (the map favored him all along) but I was surprised by the electoral vote margin. Never thought he'd go 8-1 in the swing states.

 

[JMM13]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by JMM13:

Originally posted by Merge:
Not really.

We both believe in education, we just disagree on when that education should take place.

The education I want aims to prevent the pregnancy and the need for abortion, the education you want aims to prevent abortion.

You are putting words in my mouth. We need both. Obviously education at all levels is key.... to prevent pregnancy and to prevent abortions. As i said at the beginning of my earlier post I was just addressing your comment on sonograms.

I'm confused about your position on abortion. You said in an earlier post that you were against abortion. But it seems that you are saying that once a woman becomes pregnant, education about abortion should not take place. At least that's what it sounds like you are saying. In which case...... well.... I'm just not sure what you are saying.

Like I said, I believe the moment you are talking about is too late, they have already decided to have an abortion at that point for whatever reason.

Abortion is currently legal and those people made a legal choice. What a pre-abortion sonogram is trying to accomplish is making them feel worse about their decision. Should we also aim to make other people who do other acts that some consider morally wrong feel guilty about their decisions?
If we implement comprehensive sex education across the country, there is literally no need for a sonogram before an abortion as everyone will already understand the development of a fetus.

If however, we could end the debate by creating a federal law which says public schools must teach sex education, abortions would only legal before viability (except in rare cases that the life of the mother is in danger), parents must be notified for children under 18, and a sonogram is required beforehand. I would be happy and consider the debate over.

Your "If however" statement indicates that we are on the same page with respect to sonograms. My key point and that really is where I was going with my original comment was that sonograms should be required. And you clarified that you agree that a sonogram, should be required beforehand. ... I guess it's how you define "beforehand"

It would be nice if we had a system where abortion mills would need to see proof that a sonogram was administered prior to performing the abortion.

Just because abortion is legal shouldn't make it exempt from warnings. Smoking is legal....... look at all the warnings that smokers are bombarded with. As a former smoker I applaud that. There is a cottage industry built around people quitting smoking ... all for valid reasons.

If a sonogram is required as part of the education process and it serves to prevent abortions........ then it's a positive step for the Pro Life movement and for those who profess to oppose abortions. If after vviewing a sonogram, a woman chooses to have an abortion and she has "mental anguish" and bad feelings about it.... well that's regretable, but it's a lot less harmful than the abortion itself where a life is snuffed out. Many women today have mental anguish after abortions. Sonograms are not required today and they still have mental anguish. What about the mental anguish that these women suffer?

Let's face it though..... the way things are going it will take a lot more than two guys on a message board hashing it out.... it will take political courage for one of our leaders to call for a re-look at the way abortions are handled in the US. Romney at least addressed it with his call for defunding of Planned Parenthood. Although the abortion topic was not addressed in any meaningful way that I saw.

By the way, not sure how commonly known it is that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is considered a racist in many circles who looked at abortions and sterilization as a way to keep the black population down.

This post was edited on 11/13 3:32 PM by JMM13

 

[HALL85]

Not to change the direction of this thread completely, but has any local politician (from either party) actually contributed their time to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy? I can appreciate Christie for getting out there and doing the non-partisan thing which he gets points for. Volunteering to help is a personal choice, but after being bludgeoned to death by all of the political ads, it would be nice to see one of them assisting the homeless or elderly in relief efforts.....just sayin

 

[SnakeTom]

That would be nice !

TK

Originally posted by HALL85:

Not to change the direction of this thread completely, but has any local politician (from either party) actually contributed their time to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy? I can appreciate Christie for getting out there and doing the non-partisan thing which he gets points for. Volunteering to help is a personal choice, but after being bludgeoned to death by all of the political ads, it would be nice to see one of them assisting the homeless or elderly in relief efforts.....just sayin