PDA

View Full Version : What is Your Deal Breaker



BonMallari
11-23-2011, 05:36 PM
Probably wont get many responses on here considering its the day before a holiday...but all of us here have different things that we think of as important to us,some more than others

But with each of us liking or disliking one candidate over another, is there ONE single issue that is a deal breaker for you, whether that is social,fiscal,ideological, spiritual,race,religion

not sure I have one just yet, but if hard pressed it would be 1)2nd amendment 2)immigration 3)abortion 4)world views

I feel that any of the current nominees are committed to the economy, national security, and tackling the deficit, I think all would defend the constitution and all would appoint conservative minded SCOTUS judges

just trying to see why we are splitting hairs when it comes to picking and being behind any nominee

tim bonnema
11-23-2011, 05:49 PM
JMHO but I think we need to get them all out of office and send in a batch of independents. People who will represent 95 % of America. the two major parties have lost touch with the middle class that has carried us this far.

Gerry Clinchy
11-23-2011, 07:57 PM
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/11/video-watch-the-full-iowa-thanksgiving-family-forum/

This Nov. 19 debate was pretty insightful. These candidates are much more in agreement on the major issues than might be apparent from some of the sound bytes that get reported.

Since Romney and Huntsman did not participate, can't tell their views ... but of the other six, they are very similar on abortion; there is difference between RP & the others about just how to handle the Iran nuke situation; they are all similar on definition of marriage. 2nd amendment has not come up in any of the debates. Almost surprising due to the waves about Fast & Furious.

The Nov. 22 debate points out that Newt's "amnesty", is not really for the majority of illegals here; and his proposal does not grant automatic citizenship either.

If there were one issue that could turn me off to a candidate, it might be condoning partial-birth abortions. I cannot see how that position is defensible when you're talking about a viable baby. Since none of the candidates support that, I don't have to make that choice.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-23-2011, 08:02 PM
Obama 2012....;-)

Jake

HPL
11-23-2011, 08:48 PM
Obama 2012....;-)

Jake

Not sure if you are saying that Obama winning in '12 is your deal breaker, but it sure is mine. It would take quite a bit, perhaps someone would have to say that their number one priority was to register all privately owned firearms in preparation of confiscating them or something equally egregious to keep me from voting for whoever the Republicans nominate.

dixidawg
11-23-2011, 09:06 PM
Leave me alone.

I don't want them in my wallet. In my gun cabinet. In my business. In my Doctor's office. In my bedroom. I will vote against whoever wants to violate those the most.

BonMallari
11-23-2011, 09:18 PM
Leave me alone.

I don't want them in my wallet. In my gun cabinet. In my business. In my Doctor's office. In my bedroom. I will vote against whoever wants to violate those the most.

do we interpret that as

wallet -taxes

gun cabinet- gun control

business- govt regulations

Dr. office- mandated health care

bedroom- either defensive marriage act or use of currently outlawed recreational substances :p:p:p

Marvin S
11-23-2011, 09:41 PM
But with each of us liking or disliking one candidate over another, is there ONE single issue that is a deal breaker for you, whether that is social,fiscal,ideological, spiritual,race,religion

1) 2nd Amendment rights
2) Make the government smaller thus lower taxation
3) Someone capable of bringing on board a team to slim down the feds, which immediately eliminates - Paul, Cain, Bachman none of whom are even VP material.
4) Immigration - Newt's proposal is sensible, I just don't like Newt - but the borders must be secure 1st
5) Someone whose exhibited throughout their life an understanding of family values, but I don't want to hear about that - I believe abortion is sometimes justified, just not as a birth control pill
6) Someone capable of staying out of neighborhood spats - make the UN function or quit giving them money
7) Someone who would eliminate the cabinet level positions in energy, housing, education, commerce, etc

Someone who would make John Bolton SoS - Steve Forbes SoTreas - SoDef is harder, there is a lot of benefits from pushing the envelope, just maybe not as hard as is presently the case -

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-23-2011, 10:06 PM
Not sure if you are saying that Obama winning in '12 is your deal breaker, but it sure is mine. It would take quite a bit, perhaps someone would have to say that their number one priority was to register all privately owned firearms in preparation of confiscating them or something equally egregious to keep me from voting for whoever the Republicans nominate.

Exactly what I am saying...."deal breaker...Obama 2012 ;-)"

Seriously...

DEBT DEBT DEBT....if who ever is elected does not put a SERIOUS effort to geting our debt mess under control with the tools out on the table (equal to keeping taxes at the present rate and NO higher) then I am saying DEAL BREAKER...

My Generation and the one's after me, ARE the one's that are going to PAY for this generation and the one before it's "Good Time"

Jake

Sorry 50 year and up crowd...it wasn't us 30 year old's and younger that did this. I call it how I see it and a spade a spade.

BonMallari
11-23-2011, 10:12 PM
1) 2nd Amendment rights
2) Make the government smaller thus lower taxation
3) Someone capable of bringing on board a team to slim down the feds, which immediately eliminates - Paul, Cain, Bachman none of whom are even VP material.
4) Immigration - Newt's proposal is sensible, I just don't like Newt - but the borders must be secure 1st
5) Someone whose exhibited throughout their life an understanding of family values, but I don't want to hear about that - I believe abortion is sometimes justified, just not as a birth control pill
6) Someone capable of staying out of neighborhood spats - make the UN function or quit giving them money
7) Someone who would eliminate the cabinet level positions in energy, housing, education, commerce, etc

Someone who would make John Bolton SoS - Steve Forbes SoTreas - SoDef is harder, there is a lot of benefits from pushing the envelope, just maybe not as hard as is presently the case -

I can go along with that agenda...as for the VP will agree with TWO of the Three not veep material

I agree on Bolton,actually came up with that name myself on another thread, Forbes, I can get on board with that,,,DEFENSE, I'm thinking Petraeus,maybe Sessions from Alabama

also need to get rid of all the czars

Ken Bora
11-23-2011, 10:15 PM
deal breaker,
if they straight up tell a lie on the job or about the job they will do. Example Representative Peter Smith Republican from Vermont was endorsed by the NRA made pro gun speeches and was elected by the hunters of Vermont and sent to Washington. He promptly signed restrictive gun legislation. When he came up for reelection there were bumper stickers "Peter Smith, The Big Lie!" and a young upstart named Bernie Sanders soundly defeated him and you all know Bernie. The rest is history. BTW I voted for Bernie that year as well. Don't Lie to me.
 
.

T. Mac
11-23-2011, 10:19 PM
deal breaker,
if they straight up tell a lie on the job or about the job they will do. Example Representative Peter Smith Republican from Vermont was endorsed by the NRA made pro gun speeches and was elected by the hunters of Vermont and sent to Washington. He promptly signed restrictive gun legislation. When he came up for reelection there were bumper stickers "Peter Smith, The Big Lie!" and a young upstart named Bernie Sanders soundly defeated him and you all know Bernie. The rest is history. BTW I voted for Bernie that year as well. Don't Lie to me.
 
.


But, but, but it was for your own good!:cool:

JDogger
11-23-2011, 10:30 PM
Exactly what I am saying...."deal breaker...Obama 2012 ;-)"

Seriously...

DEBT DEBT DEBT....if who ever is elected does not put a SERIOUS effort to geting our debt mess under control with the tools out on the table (equal to keeping taxes at the present rate and NO higher) then I am saying DEAL BREAKER...

My Generation and the one's after me, ARE the one's that are going to PAY for this generation and the one before it's "Good Time"

Jake

Sorry 50 year and up crowd...it wasn't us 30 year old's and younger that did this. I call it how I see it and a spade a spade.


You wouldn't know it being 30 something or whatever, but there was a time when calling a spade a spade was considered perjoritive. It doesn't matter if you're <30 or 50> we're all to blame. We're all the "deal breakers". JD

BonMallari
11-23-2011, 10:32 PM
deal breaker,
if they straight up tell a lie on the job or about the job they will do. Don't Lie to me.
 
.


yup that's definitely a deal breaker in my personal life too, former Sen. Ensign serving on the Family Values committee and meanwhile he is boinking one of his staff member's wife...might be why I don't like Newt

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-23-2011, 10:38 PM
You wouldn't know it being 30 something or whatever, but there was a time when calling a spade a spade was considered perjoritive. It doesn't matter if you're <30 or 50> we're all to blame. We're all the "deal breakers". JD


It would take somebody that viewed or looked or even used it that way to know it and point it out.....

We're all to blame to a degree, I understand that...

But it isn't the 18-35 class that had ANYTHING to do with the last 30 years of RUN AWAY SPENDING....creation of the rules and regs that allowed for this problem...held votes to approve this...were in positions of power to influence...

I bet the list of 18-35 year old individuals that had an impact on the debt situation is a list shorter than your arm and could most likely be counted on one hand...

BUT....the list of the players over the age of 50......that had a hand in the "jar" over the last 40 years well....let's just say...ahhh you KNOW what I am getting at and the point I am driving home.

Jake

JDogger
11-23-2011, 10:46 PM
It would take somebody that viewed or looked or even used it that way to know it and point it out.....

We're all to blame to a degree, I understand that...

But it isn't the 18-35 class that had ANYTHING to do with the last 30 years of RUN AWAY SPENDING....creation of the rules and regs that allowed for this problem...held votes to approve this...were in positions of power to influence...

I bet the list of 18-35 year old individuals that had an impact on the debt situation is a list shorter than your arm and could most likely be counted on one hand...

BUT....the list of the players over the age of 50......that had a hand in the "jar" over the last 40 years well....let's just say...ahhh you KNOW what I am getting at and the point I am driving home.

Jake

So...now it's up to you "younger guys" to make it right. What's yer plan?
Elect another old guy to replace another old guy? That'll work...right?

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Jake. JD

dixidawg
11-23-2011, 11:06 PM
do we interpret that as

wallet -taxes

gun cabinet- gun control

business- govt regulations

Dr. office- mandated health care

bedroom- either defensive marriage act or use of currently outlawed recreational substances :p:p:p


YES ;):cool::p

BonMallari
11-23-2011, 11:33 PM
So...now it's up to you "younger guys" to make it right. What's yer plan?
Elect another old guy to replace another old guy? That'll work...right?

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Jake. JD

JD I dont agree on a lot of political issue with you but you are spot on with this comment...

IMHO the R party has in the past seemed to go back to the PAST instead of a look to the future, it almost as if its a right of succession....look who they have trotted out there before...Ford- Dole- McCain...and in some ways now Newt, now I am not totally in favor of turning over the keys to the car to some inexperienced young slick talker, we just did that...so there has to be some balance

good observation JD

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-23-2011, 11:36 PM
So...now it's up to you "younger guys" to make it right. What's yer plan?
Elect another old guy to replace another old guy? That'll work...right?

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Jake. JD

First...You To JD..enjoy it, relax, watch some FB..walk the pooch..hang with the family!!!

Second...

I would like to think that with AGE comes WISDOM...see the ERRORS of that generations "WISDOM" and have them FIX the problems they created....

I never heard my dad say to me...."I went metal on metal with the brakes...Here you fix it" and conversely he never allowed me to say..."I put diesel in the lawn mower and blew it up...You fix it"

As well you and I both know there is NO way the older generation will ever vote in a YOUNG whipper-snapper with fresh "off the top" idea's to "ease" the mess that they created....

I say that while we both agree, all hands on deck!!!! There should be (call it what you want, some call it guilt) a sense of duty, on behalf of the people before me to do as much to help clear the path...I don't need them to PAVE it, but at least clear it so I can see it.

I have no problem with having "A" hand tied behind my back...it still give's me one to fight with...but HOG TIED....

As they say....

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7489/11634661.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/11634661.png/)


Jake

road kill
11-24-2011, 05:17 AM
Anyone with ties to Harvard worries me.


I like honesty.
That was why I like Cain, but he is not the one.

You all would love Scott Walker, I guarantee it.

But, I will back whoever runs against Obama, even RP.

RK

Gerry Clinchy
11-24-2011, 08:04 AM
I would like to think that with AGE comes WISDOM...see the ERRORS of that generations "WISDOM" and have them FIX the problems they created....


Age does not always equal wisdom ... some people get older, but not much smarter :-)

I think history is not emphasized enough in our educational system. That is a stength with Newt, a knowledge of history. And, yes, have to agree that Newt's personal life piccadillos have been an obstacle for me. The question would be, did he learn from his mistakes?

As I watched the real estate bubble, I knew it had to reach a peak & then slide. We have seen it before. History. I cannot believe that those in control of the financial system could not foresee it. They were either that stupid or that greedy.

tim bonnema
11-24-2011, 08:10 AM
Well my deal breaker has already happened. We need a group that will get the economy under control. I can accept higher taxes if there are drastic budget cut to go along with them. People who are focused on issues that do not effect this great nation should not be re elected . ie abortion I do not think it is right but making it against the law will not work, just look at history. 2nd amendment is our right as a free nation. take it away and again just look at history, every dictator first took away the citizens firearms.

Let them focus on how to fix the American economy, so far no one currently in office seems to be willing to do this. And it is time WE spoke out and demanded a change.

road kill
11-24-2011, 08:30 AM
Well my deal breaker has already happened. We need a group that will get the economy under control. I can accept higher taxes if there are drastic budget cut to go along with them. People who are focused on issues that do not effect this great nation should not be re elected . ie abortion I do not think it is right but making it against the law will not work, just look at history. 2nd amendment is our right as a free nation. take it away and again just look at history, every dictator first took away the citizens firearms.

Let them focus on how to fix the American economy, so far no one currently in office seems to be willing to do this. And it is time WE spoke out and demanded a change.

Scott Walker, Governor of WI, balanced the budget, cut taxes and no one lost a state job!!
Local municipalities and school districts that used the tools he gave them have hired MORE teachers, reduced class sizes and realized budgets in the black.

His reward??

The unions are pouring MILLIONS into WI to recall Walker.

Can someone explain that to me??



Anyways, the difference between Walker and these other guys, they talk the talk.....Walker walked the walk!!!:shock:
RK

BonMallari
11-24-2011, 08:52 AM
Well my deal breaker has already happened. We need a group that will get the economy under control. I can accept higher taxes if there are drastic budget cut to go along with them. People who are focused on issues that do not effect this great nation should not be re elected . ie abortion I do not think it is right but making it against the law will not work, just look at history. 2nd amendment is our right as a free nation. take it away and again just look at history, every dictator first took away the citizens firearms.

Let them focus on how to fix the American economy, so far no one currently in office seems to be willing to do this. And it is time WE spoke out and demanded a change.

two reasons for that: one we keep voting in the same idiots and incumbents and no ONE person is going to change the system back from the direction that ONE idiot is currently ruining

and the only way to speak out is through your vote, our elected officials quit doing our bidding some time back, 2010 showed some that the American public can still change the way things are,2012 can go a long way in finishing the job

Gerry Clinchy
11-24-2011, 09:25 AM
I can accept higher taxes if there are drastic budget cut to go along with them.

The problem has always been that the "carrot" for allowing higher taxes is the "promise" of later expense cuts. Guess what happens? The extra revenue makes the politcos giddy, and the expenses keep growing, until the carrot is hung out again.

Nope ... this go-round, I think we need to see the expenses cut first; then, if taxes are raised to specifically cut the debt, I could agree to go along.

Just look at the history of SS. The "fund" was doing fine, but the politicians couldn't stand to see all that $ not spent ... so they dreamed up new benefits and gave the fund worthless IOUs. Now both SS and the rest of the budget are in trouble. Similar thinking resulted in pension plans that were not sustainable.

When the govt turns down free software from IBM to cut Medicare and Medicaid fraud, is there any way you can't call that stupid? or maybe corrupt would be a better word?

The fact that Congress hasn't passed a budget yet for a year that's already gone by, is reprehensible.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-24-2011, 11:46 AM
Well my deal breaker has already happened. We need a group that will get the economy under control. I can accept higher taxes if there are drastic budget cut to go along with them. People who are focused on issues that do not effect this great nation should not be re elected . ie abortion I do not think it is right but making it against the law will not work, just look at history. 2nd amendment is our right as a free nation. take it away and again just look at history, every dictator first took away the citizens firearms.

Let them focus on how to fix the American economy, so far no one currently in office seems to be willing to do this. And it is time WE spoke out and demanded a change.


The problem has always been that the "carrot" for allowing higher taxes is the "promise" of later expense cuts. Guess what happens? The extra revenue makes the politcos giddy, and the expenses keep growing, until the carrot is hung out again.

Nope ... this go-round, I think we need to see the expenses cut first; then, if taxes are raised to specifically cut the debt, I could agree to go along.

Just look at the history of SS. The "fund" was doing fine, but the politicians couldn't stand to see all that $ not spent ... so they dreamed up new benefits and gave the fund worthless IOUs. Now both SS and the rest of the budget are in trouble. Similar thinking resulted in pension plans that were not sustainable.

When the govt turns down free software from IBM to cut Medicare and Medicaid fraud, is there any way you can't call that stupid? or maybe corrupt would be a better word?

The fact that Congress hasn't passed a budget yet for a year that's already gone by, is reprehensible.

Both are flawed.....

We have been made to think that Taxes going up is gonna lower the debt.

That is why in post 1 of this thread I stated clearly (for me) work with what you have NOW...NO taxes above current levels.

Geeee..people, that's how it starts..."well I could see if..." "It's ok if..." "I understand if..."

NO..NO...NO...NO, Cut spending NOW, use that money to pay down the debt, and leave taxes as they are....

REFORM what ever programs you gotta, slash what ever programs you gotta, do the same for entire departments if you have to...but dang it, don't let them "chip" away with the idea that it is "OK...if we do this or that"

Jake

Gerry Clinchy
11-24-2011, 06:17 PM
Nor-Cal, I agree with you in that they must prove they will cut expenses, before they get another penny in taxes.

Marvin S
11-24-2011, 06:42 PM
That is a stength with Newt, a knowledge of history.

Newt was a history prof in college prior to his political career - he was not a Math major so does not know how to handle money :(, which is what is needed.


The unions are pouring MILLIONS into WI to recall Walker.

Can someone explain that to me??

RK

They are fighting for their life - if Walker is successful, there goes their lucrative jobs.

HPL
11-24-2011, 09:50 PM
It would take somebody that viewed or looked or even used it that way to know it and point it out.....

Jake

Actually, it only takes someone old enough or well read enough to have some historical perspective on that particular phrase. A while back there was a thread in which someone had given their BLACK lab the kennel name "Spook" and I wondered if they understood how that might be taken in some parts of the country.

charly_t
11-24-2011, 10:23 PM
Age does not always equal wisdom ... some people get older, but not much smarter :-).....................


I'm here to tell you.....some of us ( myself included ) have lost some or our "smarts". We shouldn't be running for any office.........maybe not even running loose. VBG

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-24-2011, 11:06 PM
Actually, it only takes someone old enough or well read enough to have some historical perspective on that particular phrase. A while back there was a thread in which someone had given their BLACK lab the kennel name "Spook" and I wondered if they understood how that might be taken in some parts of the country.

I know exactly what you and JD are saying and I know the "historical background/perspective" and I am "well read"....but you MISS the point.

I do NOT use it that way, it WAS NOT used that way and to try to interject that meaning to what was said show's that your single track mind was lost on the use and meaning as pertained to statement I made that preceded the term....So to point it out as such like you and he had, lends one to say what I said.

Jake

twall
11-25-2011, 09:18 AM
While all the points made recently are important. The one deal breaker for me is abortion. We are talking about an innocent life. Just think where our country would be if we hadn't allowed the murder of over 45 million future citizens!

Tom

HPL
11-25-2011, 11:03 AM
While all the points made recently are important. The one deal breaker for me is abortion. We are talking about an innocent life. Just think where our country would be if we hadn't allowed the murder of over 45 million future citizens!

Tom

So you won't vote for a Republican that doesn't come out strongly anti Pro-choice, thus helping ensure that the much more liberal dems retain control and get to make the next supreme court appointment(s) pretty much guaranteeing that your main cause becomes a moot point. That is why the Republicans are having so much trouble these days. People who are so fixated on single issues keep shooting us in the foot. I would suggest that you listen to some of Newt's speeches on how to WIN the election. We have to WIN first! You have to look at what is likely to happen when it comes time to appoint judges. If Obama wins again, abortion won't be the only issue we need to worry about. You just need to assume that your cause will be better served by almost any republican we get in office and you certainly will be no worse off than you will be if Obama gets re-elected. As much as you might like to think that it is the BASE that gets folks elected, at the national level it is always the moderates, those in the middle, that decide the election, and whereas as the BASE can't get a candidate elected, by insisting on an candidate that is too far right, they can sure guarantee that their candidate loses. (See Bush vs Clinton, and McCain/Palin vs. Obama)

HPL
11-25-2011, 11:12 AM
I know exactly what you and JD are saying and I know the "historical background/perspective" and I am "well read"....but you MISS the point.

I do NOT use it that way, it WAS NOT used that way and to try to interject that meaning to what was said show's that your single track mind was lost on the use and meaning as pertained to statement I made that preceded the term....So to point it out as such like you and he had, lends one to say what I said.

Jake

No, it is you who miss the point. When we have our first black president in office, using the expression "call a spade a spade" just seems a bit ill-advised, and regardless of how you meant it, that is EXACTLY the type of expression that can (as seen here) divert the conversation. In this PC, hyper sensitive era, one unfortunately needs to be cognizant of minutia such as that. Since you basically accused anyone knowing what that expression means of being a racist I simply pointed out that one didn't need to be racist to acknowledge that certain expressions carry unfortunate baggage and one should be somewhat careful when using them.

road kill
11-25-2011, 11:22 AM
So you won't vote for a Republican that doesn't come out strongly anti Pro-choice, thus helping ensure that the much more liberal dems retain control and get to make the next supreme court appointment(s) pretty much guaranteeing that your main cause becomes a moot point. That is why the Republicans are having so much trouble these days. People who are so fixated on single issues keep shooting us in the foot. I would suggest that you listen to some of Newt's speeches on how to WIN the election. We have to WIN first! You have to look at what is likely to happen when it comes time to appoint judges. If Obama wins again, abortion won't be the only issue we need to worry about. You just need to assume that your cause will be better served by almost any republican we get in office and you certainly will be no worse off than you will be if Obama gets re-elected. As much as you might like to think that it is the BASE that gets folks elected, at the national level it is always the moderates, those in the middle, that decide the election, and whereas as the BASE can't get a candidate elected, by insisting on an candidate that is too far right, they can sure guarantee that their candidate loses. (See Bush vs Clinton, and McCain/Palin vs. Obama)
Are you stating that those candidates are "far right?"


PUHLEEEEEESE!!!!


RK

HPL
11-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Are you stating that those candidates are "far right?"


PUHLEEEEEESE!!!!


RK

Actually, what I am saying is that in both races the democrat candidates were able to campaign as moderates and pushed the Rupublican candidates farther to the right and in the case of the 2008 election, pushed them far enough right to make this life long republican vote independant (RP). It has been my position for several election cycles that the Dems have won because because the Republicans have failed to challenge them for the centrist vote and it is those voters that actually determine the outcome of the elections. (I believe that Newt makes that basic point in several of the speeches I have heard).

BonMallari
11-25-2011, 12:27 PM
HPL by that mode of thinking the R's should be nominating Romney or Huntsman, they are moderates...Gingrich is not a moderate , at least he is not portraying himself as one...all the candidates are stepping on each other to prove they are the more conservative candidate, they may move to the center before the general election....McCain was a moderate, some say a RINO, where did that get us

dixidawg
11-25-2011, 12:31 PM
Good God, you think McCain was too far RIGHT?

twall
11-25-2011, 01:19 PM
So you won't vote for a Republican that doesn't come out strongly anti Pro-choice, thus helping ensure that the much more liberal dems retain control and get to make the next supreme court appointment(s) pretty much guaranteeing that your main cause becomes a moot point.

What you state makes "sense." However, when it comes to a childs life I do not think we can rationalize acceptance of abortion just to win.

This is a principle I will stand on. If it results in the "wrong" candidate being elected than so be it.

Tom

HPL
11-25-2011, 01:19 PM
Good God, you think McCain was too far RIGHT?

Not McCain, I was planning on voting McCain, but Palin queered the deal for me.

Cody Covey
11-25-2011, 01:34 PM
Not McCain, I was planning on voting McCain, but Palin queered the deal for me.

A vice president made you vote for Obama (I know you voted RP which is jsut a vote for Obama)?

BonMallari
11-25-2011, 01:41 PM
A vice president made you vote for Obama (I know you voted RP which is jsut a vote for Obama)?

Cody you just brought up a very good point....can a VP candidate be a deal breaker...or one step further

if you didnt like the R's tcket and decided to NOT vote or Vote for an Indy is that basically giving BHO another term

HPL
11-25-2011, 02:28 PM
A vice president made you vote for Obama (I know you voted RP which is jsut a vote for Obama)?

Actually, I knew that in the county in which I live, my vote for pres doesn't really count. I live in a college town (translate liberal yahoos) where the other two large demographics are both recognized minorities so our electoral votes were going DEM no matter what I did.

road kill
11-25-2011, 02:45 PM
Not McCain, I was planning on voting McCain, but Palin queered the deal for me.

So you liked Biden better??:rolleyes:


Dude, you are just getting in deeper by the post here..........


RK

road kill
11-25-2011, 02:48 PM
Actually, I knew that in the county in which I live, my vote for pres doesn't really count. I live in a college town (translate liberal yahoos) where the other two large demographics are both recognized minorities so our electoral votes were going DEM no matter what I did.



ra·tio·nal·iza·tion-noun

Definition of RATIONALIZATION:
the act, process, or result of rationalizing; especially : the provision of plausible reasons to explain to oneself or others behavior for which one's real motives are different and unknown or unconscious


HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RK

dixidawg
11-25-2011, 03:34 PM
Cody you just brought up a very good point....can a VP candidate be a deal breaker...or one step further

if you didnt like the R's tcket and decided to NOT vote or Vote for an Indy is that basically giving BHO another term


Ross Perot gave us Clinton, who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Obama has already gifted us with Sotomayor and Kagen. The SCOTUS balance is but a heartbeat away from changing. Remember "We won, get over it"? What could a 2nd Obama term bring us in judicial appointments alone, and how long would their effects be felt??

Regardless of what the candidates think or laws they pass, most of them can be undone with time. It is the SCOTUS that makes the BIG long lasting decisions.


Think Roe v Wade. Heller, McDonald and a whole queue of 2nd amendment cases in the court system now. The upcoming hearing on Obamacare. We will never have an "ideal" candidate. The priority must be to win first.

HPL
11-25-2011, 04:16 PM
Ross Perot gave us Clinton, who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Obama has already gifted us with Sotomayor and Kagen. The SCOTUS balance is but a heartbeat away from changing. Remember "We won, get over it"? What could a 2nd Obama term bring us in judicial appointments alone, and how long would their effects be felt??

Regardless of what the candidates think or laws they pass, most of them can be undone with time. It is the SCOTUS that makes the BIG long lasting decisions.


Think Roe v Wade. Heller, McDonald and a whole queue of 2nd amendment cases in the court system now. The upcoming hearing on Obamacare. We will never have an "ideal" candidate. The priority must be to win first.

B'lieve that's what I said a few posts back.

HPL

HPL
11-25-2011, 04:26 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RK

No rationalization. I could not bring myself to vote for a ticket with Palin and couldn't bring myself to just skip the election altogether so voted repub in local and state and RP in presidential. Indeed, our county went republican for US rep just barely but was overwhelmingly Obama for presidential. There are some areas where your vote counts and some where it just doesn't, and that's just the way the system is (but that is a different thread).

dixidawg
11-25-2011, 04:44 PM
B'lieve that's what I said a few posts back.

HPL


So it was! I guess great minds think alike ;)

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-25-2011, 05:05 PM
No, it is you who miss the point. When we have our first black president in office, using the expression "call a spade a spade" just seems a bit ill-advised, and regardless of how you meant it, that is EXACTLY the type of expression that can (as seen here) divert the conversation. In this PC, hyper sensitive era, one unfortunately needs to be cognizant of minutia such as that. Since you basically accused anyone knowing what that expression means of being a racist I simply pointed out that one didn't need to be racist to acknowledge that certain expressions carry unfortunate baggage and one should be somewhat careful when using them.

Did my origional use of the term as it pertained to the preceding statement...

"the older generation is responsible for the DEBT, I must take on and fix"

1. Have anything to do with "BLACK"
2. Have anything to do with our current President

No.

I don't fit the mold that you would like me to fit in..I do not care for your hyper sensitive PC era...

I responed in kind...By JD origionally and now you, pointing out that my use of the term, some how mean's it must have a racist overture if flat out wrong, I simply pointed out that if your viewing it as such, then it could be a mirror reflection...

Being as I did not use it as a racist term, I do not need to worry about the baggage that is or could be assoicated with it...and I pointed out that someone that may have (viewed it that way) would need to worry...

Sorry, HPL I have presented my case to you, if you want to continue to dance this dance you will find yourself dancing alone...

I think JD got what I was saying, understood my retort and left it at that...If you must have the last word...so be it...have fun...:cool::cool:

Jake

Back on topic, another deal breaker for me would be...if the canidate would not aggree to use every mean's possible to gather as much of our native energy as possible in efforts to release us from dependence on foreign energy.

BonMallari
11-25-2011, 05:34 PM
Ross Perot gave us Clinton, who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Obama has already gifted us with Sotomayor and Kagen. The SCOTUS balance is but a heartbeat away from changing. Remember "We won, get over it"? What could a 2nd Obama term bring us in judicial appointments alone, and how long would their effects be felt??

Regardless of what the candidates think or laws they pass, most of them can be undone with time. It is the SCOTUS that makes the BIG long lasting decisions.


Think Roe v Wade. Heller, McDonald and a whole queue of 2nd amendment cases in the court system now. The upcoming hearing on Obamacare. We will never have an "ideal" candidate. The priority must be to win first.

Biggest voting mistake of my life...I tried to convince people that if BHO was elected he would get at least 2 SCOTUS nominees, I for one do not want to see him get a third,or God forbid a fourth to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-25-2011, 05:42 PM
Biggest voting mistake of my life...I tried to convince people that if BHO was elected he would get at least 2 SCOTUS nominees, I for one do not want to see him get a third,or God forbid a fourth to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy

If I am not mistaken.....NEWT in the last debate asked the audience if they support TERM LIMITS for SCJ's.....it could have been the Family Leader debate....

ONLY person I hear throwing out that Idea...which is or could be a good thing.

Jake

HPL
11-25-2011, 06:50 PM
What you state makes "sense." However, when it comes to a childs life I do not think we can rationalize acceptance of abortion just to win.

This is a principle I will stand on. If it results in the "wrong" candidate being elected than so be it.

Tom

I would suggest that in the interest of putting a Republican president in office it would be best not to even ask about his position on abortion rights as we already know what the Dems' position is and the very worst you would get from a Rep is what we already have, but if you make the Republican candidate take the standard Republican base position, that will alienate many of the center and thus again usher in Obama.

HPL
11-25-2011, 07:27 PM
Well, I do like having the last word, so..... I only initially responded because it seemed that you were accusing JD of being racist, which he didn't accuse you of being, only pointed out that one needs to parse one's words carefully in this day and age. I also try not to bend to PCness but am mindful of how a careless phrase can sink an argument.

Now as to the deal breaker question. I guess Ineed to go back and find the link to a couple of Newt's speeches where he points out that there are issues which are embraced by the conservatives that are actually popular issues and poll in the 70%- 85% range across the board and those are the issues that the Repbs need to be running on. Newt suggests that we get our candidate to go to those issues, stand next to them and smile, so to speak. These issues tend to be economic and national security related and can bring the country together. Unfortunately too much of the Repub. base insists on focusing on the most decisive issues in the country makein it very difficult to build a winning platform.

tim bonnema
11-25-2011, 07:40 PM
My opinion may have only one flaw. It is the belief that we could vote a group into office that would work for the greater good. Not just the needs and desires of a few.

We are the power in the end. And it is up to us to hold them accountable or our kids and grandkids will pay.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-25-2011, 07:56 PM
Now as to the deal breaker question. I guess Ineed to go back and find the link to a couple of Newt's speeches where he points out that there are issues which are embraced by the conservatives that are actually popular issues and poll in the 70%- 85% range across the board and those are the issues that the Repbs need to be running on. Newt suggests that we get our candidate to go to those issues, stand next to them and smile, so to speak. These issues tend to be economic and national security related and can bring the country together. Unfortunately too much of the Repub. base insists on focusing on the most decisive issues in the country makein it very difficult to build a winning platform.

I think that is just the opp. of the current need...we can not continue to "meet in the middle"..."hug and kiss"..."over look, this to accomplish that"

The Repub base sticks to their CORE belief's and that is what seperates the Repb from the Dem...the Dem's IMHO have no "core" belief's its kinda..easy come easy go.

If we choose to take a HARD LINE...ie...our nice back and forth, where we both agree "I am TIRED of the PC BS" then one day it will be gone and people will actually be able to say something and not have to look over our shoulders...

If we say...I am against abortion, and want to overturn R v W then dang it MEAN it and don't settle for the easy "in the middle" out.

If we want to cut the debt...mean it, and set the terms, stand by them and don't BACK DOWN... say we need to cut 4T with no spending increases....dont even go down the road with people who say OK..but how about we cut 4T and increase taxes by XXX, so we can keep spending at current levels...

I think one of the most destructive things to come to this nation is the "COMPRIMISE"

JMHO...

Jake

JDogger
11-25-2011, 08:24 PM
I think that is just the opp. of the current need...we can not continue to "meet in the middle"..."hug and kiss"..."over look, this to accomplish that"

The Repub base sticks to their CORE belief's and that is what seperates the Repb from the Dem...the Dem's IMHO have no "core" belief's its kinda..easy come easy go.

If we choose to take a HARD LINE...ie...our nice back and forth, where we both agree "I am TIRED of the PC BS" then one day it will be gone and people will actually be able to say something and not have to look over our shoulders...

If we say...I am against abortion, and want to overturn R v W then dang it MEAN it and don't settle for the easy "in the middle" out.

If we want to cut the debt...mean it, and set the terms, stand by them and don't BACK DOWN... say we need to cut 4T with no spending increases....dont even go down the road with people who say OK..but how about we cut 4T and increase taxes by XXX, so we can keep spending at current levels...

I think one of the most destructive things to come to this nation is the "COMPRIMISE"

JMHO...

Jake

I'll not go back and argue any of the previous posts on this thread. I will, however, argue that compromise is the most destuctive thing to come to this nation.
Gridlock may be the most destructive, and we are in a traffic jam of epic proportion.
The "never give an inch" mentality that seems to dominate the conservative point of view, seems to be to me the greatest stumbling block to advancing any legislation. You may have inadvertently defined the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" more eloquently than you know.
Compromise, give and take, is an art form that has been lost in recent politics.

It's sad. JD

HPL
11-25-2011, 08:38 PM
I think that is just the opp. of the current need...we can not continue to "meet in the middle"..."hug and kiss"..."over look, this to accomplish that"

The Repub base sticks to their CORE belief's and that is what seperates the Repb from the Dem...the Dem's IMHO have no "core" belief's its kinda..easy come easy go.

If we choose to take a HARD LINE...ie...our nice back and forth, where we both agree "I am TIRED of the PC BS" then one day it will be gone and people will actually be able to say something and not have to look over our shoulders...

If we say...I am against abortion, and want to overturn R v W then dang it MEAN it and don't settle for the easy "in the middle" out.

If we want to cut the debt...mean it, and set the terms, stand by them and don't BACK DOWN... say we need to cut 4T with no spending increases....dont even go down the road with people who say OK..but how about we cut 4T and increase taxes by XXX, so we can keep spending at current levels...

I think one of the most destructive things to come to this nation is the "COMPRIMISE"

JMHO...

Jake

What I am saying is that presidential elections are decided by those in the middle, the independents so as Newt suggests it is best to run on issues that appeal to the majority instead of hitching your horse to the most devisive issues like reproductive rights. I don't want the Republican candidate to say
"I am against abortion". He/she can be against it, but don't pin the republican candidate down on these devisive issues. It is just plain stupid to make a candidate stand up and say that his number one priority is the overthrow of Roe v. Wade for instance. That is guaranteed to lose the election. Might as well just vote Democrat yourself. When you lose the middle, you lose the election. Run on issues where you CAN build a concensus and then when you WIN, if you have the votes in congress, address the tough issues, and you are also now in a position to appoint judges that will carry your issues forward. If you lose, and reproductive rights is a LOSING issue for the Republicans at the moment, then you can say, well, I fought the good fight, but with the judges that have been appointed we now face another 30 years before we can really address the issues. As a wise friend of mine used to say, it's great to stand your ground, but if you can't hold it, you better be prepared to eat it.
Oh, and nobody here believes that you believe that your opinions are "humble", so you can drop the IMHO crp.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-25-2011, 09:28 PM
I'll not go back and argue any of the previous posts on this thread. I will, however, argue that compromise is the most destuctive thing to come to this nation.
Gridlock may be the most destructive, and we are in a traffic jam of epic proportion.
The "never give an inch" mentality that seems to dominate the conservative point of view, seems to be to me the greatest stumbling block to advancing any legislation. You may have inadvertently defined the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" more eloquently than you know.
Compromise, give and take, is an art form that has been lost in recent politics.

It's sad. JD

Geee, not even a "thanks for the well wish's over the holiday too" just a reach back a paddle my little ARSE....;-);-):cool:

JD, I do agree there are "items" that can be compromised..but CORE items should not be.

This is another example where we will agree to disagree...I think that once you open the door to Quid Pro Quo...you unlease a series of bad decisions.

And if your suggesting that my inadvertent showing of the difference somehow suggests that Liberals are more willing to compromise...I think you missed the mark.

Jake

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-25-2011, 09:39 PM
What I am saying is that presidential elections are decided by those in the middle, the independents so as Newt suggests it is best to run on issues that appeal to the majority instead of hitching your horse to the most devisive issues like reproductive rights. I don't want the Republican candidate to say
"I am against abortion". He/she can be against it, but don't pin the republican candidate down on these devisive issues. It is just plain stupid to make a candidate stand up and say that his number one priority is the overthrow of Roe v. Wade for instance. That is guaranteed to lose the election. Might as well just vote Democrat yourself. When you lose the middle, you lose the election. Run on issues where you CAN build a concensus and then when you WIN, if you have the votes in congress, address the tough issues, and you are also now in a position to appoint judges that will carry your issues forward. If you lose, and reproductive rights is a LOSING issue for the Republicans at the moment, then you can say, well, I fought the good fight, but with the judges that have been appointed we now face another 30 years before we can really address the issues. As a wise friend of mine used to say, it's great to stand your ground, but if you can't hold it, you better be prepared to eat it.
Oh, and nobody here believes that you believe that your opinions are "humble", so you can drop the IMHO crp.

I was with you untill you included that nice dig at the end...sorry...I will only use IMO from now on....Lord forgive me for my sin's...:rolleyes:

I guess the above suggests...JUST LIE about where you stand, while your on the campain trail...then when you get in office really give it to the people....or in other words, repeat pattern of current elected officials and do what ever it takes to get into office.

You would not rather have a canidate, say "this is where I stand...." and then let the people decide if that is something they can live with or not...and if he gets elected and doesn't live up to the things he said you hold their feet to the fire??? You would rather the person LIE to the people to get elected and then, say "Gotcha" this is the way I really feel???

Maybe I am missing your point on this one, but to me that is how it read's???

You stay classy San Diego regards,

Jake

Marvin S
11-25-2011, 09:44 PM
I'll not go back and argue any of the previous posts on this thread. I will, however, argue that compromise is the most destuctive thing to come to this nation.
Gridlock may be the most destructive, and we are in a traffic jam of epic proportion.
The "never give an inch" mentality that seems to dominate the conservative point of view, seems to be to me the greatest stumbling block to advancing any legislation. You may have inadvertently defined the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" more eloquently than you know.
Compromise, give and take, is an art form that has been lost in recent politics.

It's sad. JD

Only an ideologue would fail to see that neither side is heading for a common ground. Until the liberals (they are now progressives :)) bring something to the table nothing will happen. I am personally happy to see gridlock when so little has been placed for discussion.

Patty Murray - Queen of Lobbyists :(, that's your poster person JD :-P:-P.

JDogger
11-25-2011, 10:07 PM
Compromise, is an art form that has been lost in recent politics.
JD

Guess you misunderstood that part Marvin. I meant you, me, us, them. All of us. You define yourself so well...JD

JDogger
11-25-2011, 10:13 PM
I am personally happy to see gridlock



http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/images.jpg


JD

HPL
11-25-2011, 10:52 PM
I was with you untill you included that nice dig at the end...sorry...I will only use IMO from now on....Lord forgive me for my sin's...:rolleyes:

I guess the above suggests...JUST LIE about where you stand, while your on the campain trail...then when you get in office really give it to the people....or in other words, repeat pattern of current elected officials and do what ever it takes to get into office.

You would not rather have a canidate, say "this is where I stand...." and then let the people decide if that is something they can live with or not...and if he gets elected and doesn't live up to the things he said you hold their feet to the fire??? You would rather the person LIE to the people to get elected and then, say "Gotcha" this is the way I really feel???

Maybe I am missing your point on this one, but to me that is how it read's???

You stay classy San Diego regards,

Jake

I'm a really slow typist so sometimes my thoughts are somewhat truncated. Actually, yes, I would rather have a candidate say this is where I stand on the issues but it is better that the issues we are talking about aren't the most devisive issues in the country. I would love to have a candidate that was willing to say out loud that reproductive rights is a complicated issue. I know that many in the base would disagree, and that is the problem, because the majority of Americans who think about that issue don't see it as a black and white situation. That would be an honest position I woulde LOVE to hear a candidate take.
Really, would you rather have a candidate who is vehemently anti-choice and lose to a party that supports abortion rights, or have a candidate that admits having a more nuanced position and win?

Gerry Clinchy
11-26-2011, 09:35 AM
Really, would you rather have a candidate who is vehemently anti-choice and lose to a party that supports abortion rights, or have a candidate that admits having a more nuanced position and win?

The abortion question was actually asked in the Iowa "interviews". The candidates attending there appeared to be uniform in their position as pro-life. I use that term hesitantly, since Santorum was the only one I sensed might have Roe v. Wade high on his to-do list. But all supported the concept of life existing within the womb. The interviews did not go into the details of their nuanced opinions. Even RP, as a physician, with his personal freedom perspective, indicated that the unborn child had some rights along with the mother.

Since Romney & Huntsman were not present, we do not know their opinions. Huntsman is a non-factor as the end result, so rather immaterial.

The questioner mentioned that there is a case now that will come before the SCOTUS that would challenge Roe v. Wade.

No way was that question the real "core" of the interviews.

BonMallari
11-26-2011, 03:10 PM
When I started this thread I was curious as to what everyone's deal breaker was...but I have no problem with what anyone's deal breaker is or their own personal motive behind it, that is part of what makes us great...what I do have a problem with is when people try and convince others that their "deal breaker" is flawed...Look there are a few people who I don't agree with and their positions that they take, but its THEIR positions and I have to at the very least accept it

if their breaker is a social issue, so be it, if its an economic one so be it...I would much rather have someone take a stance and draw their own line in the sand,than to have someone with few personal convictions (not those kind)

Make every vote count...because it matters