Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2013, 04:40 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 3,118,979 times
Reputation: 478

Advertisements

HC is part of the system though, more of a saviour from the system will prob be required in 4 years.

Last edited by stargazzer; 02-04-2013 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2013, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Jawjah
2,468 posts, read 1,909,022 times
Reputation: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Too early for what? For liberal voters to fall in line behind the next person they're told to worship? It's never too early for that.
You are talking about Republicans. They were told to fall behind Romney and fall behind they did. It was a given from day one. Not so with the Democrats in 2008.

The 2008 Democratic Primary battle is a perfect example of not taking things for granted - in fact the 2008 D primaries were so good that even the GOP were (wrongly) citing them as what Romney was aspiring to in his nomination process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 05:50 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,165,040 times
Reputation: 3411
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Fair enough. I'm the last person here to argue against anyone's frustration with our two-party death-embrace and our system of checks-and-gridlock.

On the other hand, many frustrated Progressives/Liberals voted Democrat in '12 simply to keep the weirdos out, and if it looks close in '16 they will again, simply on the principle "better the devil you know".

But on the specific issue of health insurance reform: technically, Hillary played no role in the Clinton proposal since she held no official post at that time, being merely first lady, but of course we know she was the active force behind it.

I think anyone on the left might fairly be skeptical of her approach to some other favorite causes of the Left, given her record as essentially a Third-Way DLC moderate, like her husband.

But her deep commitment, then and now, to a better system of healthcare provision can hardly be doubted. Depending on the political configuration after the '16 election, I think she can be relied on to either protect whatever advance Obamacare represents or, if she's in a position to do so, push for improvements.
Actually, Hillary DID have a huge, official role in the efforts to pass health care reform in 1993. It was a big controversy, because Bill Clinton appointed her the head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform--she became an administration appointee and ran the whole show, a role that a first lady had never played before. That's why they called it "Hillarycare." The line was that you got two Clintons for the price of one. I went looking for articles, but 93 was before many major news agency were online. Here's her wiki bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 05:58 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 9,963,367 times
Reputation: 7690
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
You are talking about Republicans.
No, I'm talking about brain dead Democrats who would have voted for Obama no matter what he did or said. I'm talking about Democrats who would rather vote for Obama than admit that they were wrong in 2008. I'm talking about Democrats who were bused to the polls and told who to vote for like every presidential election cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 06:10 PM
 
174 posts, read 153,809 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltine View Post
3rd party is desperately needed. The left and right are just arms of the same monster
Our system naturally devolves to two-parties. It's why we've always had two major parties, except for brief periods of one or three parties -- which always end with either the one party factionalizing into two parties, or the three parties coalescing into two parties. And neither party has been supplanted since the rise of the Republican Party in the mid-1850s.

The only thing remotely close was the Progressive Party, which managed to do better than the Republican Party in the 1912 Presidential Election... but only because it snagged a former two-term President as its nominee. One Roosevelt was gone, the Progressive Party disappeared, and didn't even run a Presidential candidate in 1916.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
In political science, Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 06:24 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,165,040 times
Reputation: 3411
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
No, I'm talking about brain dead Democrats who would have voted for Obama no matter what he did or said. I'm talking about Democrats who would rather vote for Obama than admit that they were wrong in 2008. I'm talking about Democrats who were bused to the polls and told who to vote for like every presidential election cycle.
WAAAAAAA!!!!!

Sorry, but what a bunch of baloney.

The truth is that the R's did two things to THEMSELVES this year.

First, they ran one of the poorest presidential candidates in a generation. I raised concerns about Romney being the only guy out front who could possibly get the party nod (the rest were nuts except for Huntsman) and how he was a terrible candidate (which became all too apparent, all too soon) well over a year ago. He was awful.

Second, you guys lost the moderates this round, and worst yet, you've pretty much lost the party loyalty of moderate conservatives who've historically voted R--they're not calling themselves R's anymore. Why would they stay with you? The base has done it's best to shout RINO! every time a moderate opens his or her mouth. You made it very clear that you don't want moderates in leadership. You take the most extreme positions possible, and then you expect people to vote R just because they always have. You even went to the extent of actually running more conservative R's against standing, more moderate republicans--that type of disloyalty is unheard of in party politics. The end result was that you LOST because you can't do the math to see that you don't pull in enough voters to win with that type of strategy or the types of policies that you're pushing. It doesn't work, but nothing is going to change until you admit that it has nothing to do with the democrats and everything to do with the R party being one big freaking mess.

Bottom line--the democrats didn't vote for Obama because "they didn't want to admit they were wrong, or because they're brain dead." Democrats and a chunk of former republicans voted for Obama because the R party gave them zero options. Obama was the way lesser of two evils.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,434,424 times
Reputation: 20674
Bsed on " right now" Christie is the one and olny Republican who has a shot at beating her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,434,424 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
Actually, Hillary DID have a huge, official role in the efforts to pass health care reform in 1993. It was a big controversy, because Bill Clinton appointed her the head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform--she became an administration appointee and ran the whole show, a role that a first lady had never played before. That's why they called it "Hillarycare." The line was that you got two Clintons for the price of one. I went looking for articles, but 93 was before many major news agency were online. Here's her wiki bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Did you know that the first President who pitched national healthcare was a Republican, back in the early 70's? It could have been Nixcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 06:39 PM
 
174 posts, read 153,809 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
You are talking about Republicans. They were told to fall behind Romney and fall behind they did. It was a given from day one. Not so with the Democrats in 2008.

The 2008 Democratic Primary battle is a perfect example of not taking things for granted - in fact the 2008 D primaries were so good that even the GOP were (wrongly) citing them as what Romney was aspiring to in his nomination process.
It is true that Republican nominees are much more predictable than Democratic nominees.

That said, Clinton's chances for the nomination in 2016 would have to be considered good, if she runs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,016 posts, read 12,517,382 times
Reputation: 9025
After the next 4 years of Obama and then 8 years of Clinton the GOP will be DOA for sure. Hopefully a sane and viable conservative alternative can rise form the ashes of this completely horrible and idiot cabal called the GOP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top