Republicans win it all

Mr.Bill

New Member
As you all probably know by now, President Bush was reelected for the presidency a few days ago. This republican victory was paired with victories in the House, the Senate, and the Governorships. Additionally, Bush will probably get to appoint two new supreme court judges during his second term, both of which will probably be conservative. To some of you reading this, you may not see anything wrong with this picture. You're conservative, so the government being more conservative is a good thing, right?

I am not so sure, and I'm not just saying that because I am a liberal. About half of the country is liberal, and this new government does not seem to be fit to address their needs. I fear that this may disrupt the balance of things, and this country will become ever moreso one of the conservatives, by the conservatives, and for the conservatives. Even if you're conservative, I do not think this is good for our country's people. This situation will only increase partisanship and break our country apart ever further.

Your thoughts?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I am not so sure, and I'm not just saying that because I am a liberal... I do not think this is good for our country's people... I fear that this may disrupt the balance of things, and this country will become ever moreso one of the conservatives, by the conservatives, and for the conservatives.

I don't intend to be mean, but that seems a bit self contradictive. You seem to refer to "the people" as the liberal portion. As far as conservatives are concerned, the results of the election were quite favorable. I'm not about to start something by criticizing one's political affinity, but to claim that you are displeased by the results of the elections for a reason other than your affinity is double standards. If the majority of the election had been won by democratic candidates, would you be complaining because it would "disrupt the balance of things"?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Anayo @ Nov. 04 2004,1:41)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I am not so sure, and I'm not just saying that because I am a liberal... I do not think this is good for our country's people... I fear that this may disrupt the balance of things, and this country will become ever moreso one of the conservatives, by the conservatives, and for the conservatives.

I don't intend to be mean, but that seems a bit self contradictive. You seem to refer to "the people" as the liberal portion. As far as conservatives are concerned, the results of the election were quite favorable. I'm not about to start something by criticizing one's political affinity, but to claim that you are displeased by the results of the elections for a reason other than your affinity is double standards. If the majority of the election had been won by democratic candidates, would you be complaining because it would "disrupt the balance of things"?
It's not a contradiction, because half of 'the people' are liberal.  I am not saying that their and only their wants and needs should be catered, but they should be catered to SOME extent.  This government will likely have a difficult time achieving that, as it is so heavily conservative now.  THAT is the point at stake here.  Our government is here to serve the people.  As is, it looks like it's only going to be serving half.  The balance of things is being disrupted.
 
Actually a good number of liberal programs are not supported by the Constitution

nowhere in the constitution is there support for a federal Dept. of Education, welfare, social security.


If the President can push through a good number of conservative programs, reducing the size of the federal government (hopefully doing away with the Fed. Dept of Ed and giving major overhauls to Social Security and the Welfare system) then I'm all for it. Even though most liberals would turn white from the mere thought of it.
 
Social Security Overhaul - Good
Doing away with Fed. Dept. of Education - Bad. What does Bush have in mind to help more americans get more quality 4 year degrees, and have more kids graduate high school? Would this be left to the states then?

And what about there being anything about a Department of Homeland Defense in the consitution? Does it fall under a more broad declaration in the constitution?
 
Democrates are just upset because they can't seem to get a good enough movement going to win. They have lost 5 out of the last 7 elections, and the two they won were with a modorate from Arkansas. (IQ Average of 92) What does that say for the Democratic party?


Cory
 
Even your socialist neighbours to the north (Canada) does not have a federal department for education. It is under Provincial jurisdiction.
 
I didn't insult Bush at all. I merely presented a statistic to everyones attention. Texas' average I.Q. is 92 as well thad
tounge.gif
.

I do think the Democrats should lean more moderate, as that does seem to be what would please the most people, and be best for the unity of the country as a whole. You take a candidate from the far right, and run him against one from the far left, theres going to be a ton of friction there.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I didn't insult Bush at all. I merely presented a statistic to everyones attention. Texas' average I.Q. is 92 as well thad
tounge.gif
.

LOL I know, but we aren't the ones pointing silly things out like I.Q.'s. I understand it was in jest, but someone put some serious thought behind it and meant it as a jab to people who voted republican this time around.


I do agree we need a modorate canidate, atleast on one side. I would wager to say that 2/3 of this country falls somewhere in the middle, and leans one way or the other. With the polorization of this current election, we had to choose between the devil we knew, or the devil we didn't know. (well, in reality, we knew him, he's made his name known for 30 years)

Politics this year has made me a very weary person. I work with all liberals (minus 3 of us) and it has been constant borderline harrasement pretty much every day. Now that the election is over, I've been called ignorant, stupid, a sheep, and everything else under the sun because I voted for Bush. And its all my fault that Bush won, even though the state I live in went to Kerry.

But, hopefully it will die down in the next few weeks.

Cory
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You take a candidate from the far right, and run him against one from the far left, theres going to be a ton of friction there.

That's the point of democracy, the people decide. And not alll the people agree.
wink.gif
 
If we had two moderate candidates that lean either left or right, we wouldn't have so much friction though. I don't remember any big uproar when Clinton won, or even Bush Sr.'s win. (Then again I was pretty young when Bush Sr. was in office.)
 
Well, for one, there *couldn't* be much of an uproar, and whatever efforts were made to object were put down by the Left Army (AKA The Big Three, aka, MEDIA).
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]hescominsoon @ Nov. 05 2004,1:33)]frankly i think that is offensive and disparaging..this follows the typical liberal garbage that unless your are stupid there is no way you could not vote for a liberal.  This is not true.
Well statistically it is true...liberal voters tend to have higher IQs than do conservatives. However this doesn't really mean anything, as there are 'smart' and 'stupid' people on both sides of the party line. Calling liberals inherently 'stupid' is just wrong and out of line.
 
Back
Top