The Politics of Development

[Will]

It goes back to religion and when life begins for you, and no one will change your mind on that. I will say this: Most of the young professionals we so covet, the ones that are rapidly expanding our city and clamoring for some sort of mass transit solution, disagree with your views.

samsonh, I don't recall mentioning religion or when life begins or my views on the topic at all, though I will cop to being a young professional born in the '80s who desires mass transit solutions for Nashville. 

 

But what is the link between the views of young professionals such as myself on transit and abortion and the views of anyone else? Should we be concerned about whether our views on a given topic jibe with those of young professionals who like mass transit? If these young professionals find out that we don't share their views, is the putative problem that they might get offended and move to some other city? If so, maybe we all need to spend more time on Buzzfeed.

[samsonh]

samsonh, I don't recall mentioning religion or when life begins or my views on the topic at all, though I will cop to being a young professional born in the '80s who desires mass transit solutions for Nashville. 

 

But what is the link between the views of young professionals such as myself on transit and abortion and the views of anyone else? Should we be concerned about whether our views on a given topic jibe with those of young professionals who like mass transit? If these young professionals find out that we don't share their views, is the putative problem that they might get offended and move to some other city? If so, maybe we all need to spend more time on Buzzfeed.

 You didn't mention those things but you didn't have to. Young professionals tend to be more progressive, less reliant on religion, and more free thinking than older generations. Yes we be concerned about creating a climate these young professionals want to live in. Yes we should be concerned they do not want to live here because some of our backwards policies. These should be very obvious answers.

[BrandonTO416]

Re: abortion, I hope you guys notice how low voter participation was last night in Tennessee. It wasn't just low, it was exceptionally low. The vote FOR amendment 1 doesn't really represent the will of the entire state. Actually, it won within 5% margin, which is narrow. An amendment of this type should face a clear majority, it should have required 60% or more for it to pass. Abortion doesn't affect me personally, but I hate to see women's rights be degraded. The strongest anti-abortion vote is white evangelical men. LOL

 

If there's any good news, Amendment 1 doesn't explicitly make abortion illegal, it just paves the way for the Assembly and Senate to do whatever they want. Hopefully Haslam can reign the extremes in and realize abortion isn't going anywhere. A federal court can overturn things a state does eventually if it goes too far...

 

When you look at the national picture, however, I laugh at our political punditry on TV. They're running away with the "wave" and the "GOP crush" just like they said the Republicans were dead in 2008, almost never to be resurrected. Not once in 2008 did I ever think the Republicans were dead... And they certainly didn't win with huge margins last night.

 

Any objective observer has to realize the Republicans have a lot of challenges after winning a ton of close races where they had the best possible natural advantage. The majority of seats last night were Democratic seats up for grabs, few Republicans had to defend existing seats. The Republicans won by only a few percentage points in places like Kansas, North Carolina, Colorado, etc.

 

IMO, since every extreme bill they pass can be met with an Obama veto pen, this is the best time possible for Republicans to show their stuff. No party can have a majority forever, and Democrats had theirs starting in 2006. If the GOP can't keep its extreme elements (like foaming at the mouth Ted Cruz) from ruining the party, they are going to be led into 2016 with a miserable record.

 

The power the GOP really has now is the power of the purse. Will they fund transportation projects as needed? Will they try and defund health care since they've become obsessed with "Obamacare" over the years? Will Obama veto an extreme budget that constricts too much? Time will tell.

 

Last night was hardly a surprise nor a worse case scenario. Since the Republicans controlled the House already, nothing was getting done. As long as GOP leadership can keep extreme elements within that party at bay, maybe there can be more movement towards getting things done. I'm not a Republican and never have been, but Republicans can effectively govern if they keep the anti-government wing of their party under check. I mean it wasn't *that* long ago when Republicans signed the expensive Medicare Part D bill...

 

Someone in the Republican fold is going to have to put a sock in Ted Cruz's mouth, however. The Republicans no longer can lead by doing nothing and opposing everything, they now control a majority of the Federal Gov't and have no choice but to govern. In order to govern, they have to put anti-governance aside.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I love how the left fears Ted Cruz. He has my 1000% support for President in 2016.

[BrandonTO416]

There is no fear with Ted Cruz, he's not even liked by his Republican colleagues. Its more of a you look at him and roll your eyes at the stupidity.

[samsonh]

^I love how the left fears Ted Cruz. He has my 1000% support for President in 2016.

 

Lol, we know fmj, we know.

[ruraljuror]

^I love how the left fears Ted Cruz. He has my 1000% support for President in 2016.

 

I, for one, look forward to a Cruz presidential run, if for no other reason than getting to watch his supporters squirm when asked why they made such a big deal about getting a copy of Obama's birth certificate if they were going to immediately turn around and nominate someone who was actually born outside the country.  Kind of makes you wonder what was really at the foundation of all that 'he's un-american' othering throw at the President over the last 7 years, doesn't it?

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I love the smell of jealousy. Of course, with you guys getting behind such moral, ethical and intellectual giants as the Butcheress of Benghazi and Fauxcahontas, it won't be a pretty picture for the Dems. Though it's going to be hard to top 8 years of Obola.

[dmillsphoto]

^I love the smell of jealousy. Of course, with you guys getting behind such moral, ethical and intellectual giants as the Butcheress of Benghazi and Fauxcahontas, it won't be a pretty picture for the Dems. Though it's going to be hard to top 8 years of Obola.

 

You do realize that Ebola was a fear-tactic to goad the (uneducated) masses that follow both parties, right? The reality is that there have still only been 2 transmitted cases in the US and it was, quite literally, the most overblown and idiotic reaction by a populace in the last 30 years...

 

Obama shouldn't have even appointed a project manager for it, since it ultimately fueled the idiocy, however I have to question the common sense of anyone who thought that Ebola was the new Spanish Flu and that a President would have any bearing on how to control those 5 people. Talk about government overspending - yeesh. That's like saying that any US president has any influence on gas prices.

[samsonh]

^I love the smell of jealousy. Of course, with you guys getting behind such moral, ethical and intellectual giants as the Butcheress of Benghazi and Fauxcahontas, it won't be a pretty picture for the Dems. Though it's going to be hard to top 8 years of Obola.

 

Of course GOP favorite Mike Huckabee is running again, so its not a given for Cruz. Mike Huckabee is a serious contender. Think about that.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Huckster is not well-regarded by the Conservative base at all.

[ruraljuror]

^I love the smell of jealousy. Of course, with you guys getting behind such moral, ethical and intellectual giants as the Butcheress of Benghazi and Fauxcahontas, it won't be a pretty picture for the Dems. Though it's going to be hard to top 8 years of Obola.

 

Davey, you've been called out multiple times in the last couple days for failing to respond to the substantive points and references provided by several other commenters on this board.  If all you've got to offer in your defense are puns like Fauxcahontas and Obola, maybe you should just stick with not responding at all.  Save the name calling for the playground. 

[BrandonTO416]

Ebola isn't a political party, its a virus. Its a serious, deadly virus. It warrants serious action, it doesn't warrant an over-reaction and banning people.

 

Why does everything have to be so partisan today? A virus isn't a partisan political issue.

[samsonh]

Rural juror,

He can't address facts from conservative sources that contradict his opinion because it would mess up his narrative!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Davey, you've been called out multiple times in the last couple days for failing to respond to the substantive points and references provided by several other commenters on this board.  If all you've got to offer in your defense are puns like Fauxcahontas and Obola, maybe you should just stick with not responding at all.  Save the name calling for the playground.

Dude, I've got better things to do than reply to a lot of left/Dem talking points nonsense, pure propaganda and cognitive dissonance coupled with Alinskyite personal attacks to deflect the original topic at hand (remember, "The Politics of Development" ?) and turn it into a peculiar psychological deconstruction of myself and my belief system. If this thread had been a 3 or 4 on 1 attack on a leftist member here, the thread would've been closed and deleted.

Ebola isn't a political party, its a virus. Its a serious, deadly virus. It warrants serious action, it doesn't warrant an over-reaction and banning people.

 

Why does everything have to be so partisan today? A virus isn't a partisan political issue.

Because your side has politicized EVERYTHING. A fact that you can't even recognize.

[ruraljuror]

Dude, I've got better things to do than reply to a lot of left/Dem talking points nonsense, pure propaganda and cognitive dissonance coupled with Alinskyite personal attacks to deflect the original topic at hand (remember, "The Politics of Development" ?) and turn it into a peculiar psychological deconstruction of myself and my belief system. If this thread had been a 3 or 4 on 1 attack on a leftist member here, the thread would've been closed and deleted.

 

Dude, you clearly don't have better things to do than post on this message board.  All I'm saying is that since you're posting anyway, you should stick to addressing the substantive issues we're discussing.  What exactly does Fauxcahontas have to do with "the Politics of Development" anyways?  How does that bring anything of any value whatsoever to the debate? You might as well just keep repeating 'I know you are, but what am I.' 

 

The links provided by myself and others were from reputable 3rd party sources that specifically contradicted claims that you had been making (e.g. California vs. Kansas).    If you can back up your statements with some compelling references please feel free to do so, but the fact that you decided to go with snark, name-calling and self-pity instead is pretty revealing about both the foundation of your beliefs and the lack of merit they have under scrutiny. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Hey, Gov. Brownback won in Kansas, btw. Good to see the corrosive cancer of leftism repudiated last night ! 

I'll leave you to your whining and teeth gnashing.

[dmillsphoto]

Davy - I do believe the first ones were (so-called) conservatives to politicize and, if I recall correctly, BLAME the president for not doing enough to "shield" the country from Ebola. I'd link articles but you'd just ignore them (the moderator side of me apologizes and ultimately retracts this comment).

[BrandonTO416]

Take a look at the map of voter participation put together by US News:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/04/data-deep-dive-voter-turnout-varies-widely-by-state

 

This is from 2010, but it was only 32% in Tennessee. 2014 is potentially set to be even lower than 2010. If only 32% of registered voters bother to show up, this is a disturbing trend. As I said before, hundreds of thousands of fewer people voted in 2014 than voted in 2002 as I sampled earlier, despite hundreds and hundreds of thousands of more residents in the state.

[BrandonTO416]

http://elections.tn.gov/?ByOffice=United%20States%20Senate

 

This is the US Senate race.

 

United States Senate View County Breakdowns Candidate Party Votes % Lamar Alexander Republican 849,629 61.89% Gordon Ball Democratic 437,251 31.85% Joe Wilmoth Constitution 36,063 2.63% Martin Pleasant Green 12,536 0.91% Tom Emerson, Jr. Independent 11,149 0.81% Danny Page Independent 7,710 0.56% Rick Tyler Independent 5,753 0.42% Joshua James Independent 5,672 0.41% Bartholomew J. Phillips Independent 2,380 0.17% Edmund L. Gauthier Independent 2,311 0.17% Eric Schechter Independent 1,668 0.12% C. Salekin Independent 784

0.06%

 

 

If you add all votes up, that's 1,372,906. In a state of roughly 6.5 million, even taking the under 18 population into account, that's super low turnout of people. I used the Senate race since Gordon Ball was a competitive, capable Democrat for this state.

 

Governor View County Breakdowns Candidate Party Votes % Bill Haslam Republican 951,215 70.28% Charles V. "Charlie" Brown Democratic 308,803 22.82% John Jay Hooker Independent 30,554 2.26% Shaun Crowell Constitution 27,357 2.02% Isa Infante Green 18,513 1.37% Steven Damon Coburn Independent 8,651 0.64% Daniel T. Lewis Independent 8,315 0.61%

 

 

And for governor, total vote count is 1,353,408, so with an uncompetitive Democrat it had several thousand fewer votes than the Senate race. In a state that is growing toward 7 million in overall population, you'd expect more participation. This is on a downward trek and needs to change.

 

 

 

COMPARE to 2006:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/TN/index.html

 

 

Corker 929,835  51%

Ford Jr. 879,494 48%

 

The two party candidates alone garnered 1,809,329 votes, nearly 500,000 more voters in the pool as the state had hundreds of thousands of fewer residents in 2006.

 

Bredesen 1,245,992 69%

Bryson 540,441 30%

 

For governor, the two party candidates garnered 1,786,433 votes. Again, almost 500,000 more voters in 2006 when the state had hundreds of thousands of fewer residents.

 

 

I think it is clear the fact is voter turnout is lessening and voter enthusiasm is lessening. There's nothing to indicate Tennessee is becoming more conservative, there is every indication people don't care anymore.

[samsonh]

Fmj,

How do you think most people would view you after reading this thread? Think about that for a second please

[ruraljuror]

^Hey, Gov. Brownback won in Kansas, btw. Good to see the corrosive cancer of leftism repudiated last night ! 

I'll leave you to your whining and teeth gnashing.

 

Another substance free post courtesy of FMDJ.  If you've got time for more name calling, more gloating, even more obnoxious emoticons, you've certainly got time to defend the statements you've made.  

 

Here's another chance.  This time the query was "Kansas economy" and here are the first few results:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kansas-retracts-after-failed-gop-experiment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sam-brownbacks-failed-experiment-puts-state-on-path-to-penury/2014/09/21/ded58846-3eb2-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/11/03/3587971/kansas-october-revenue-brownback/

 

I never said that Brownback was going to lose, I just hoped he would for the sake of Kansas.

 

But never mind what the facts and evidence show--you've got puns and worn out insults to throw at various lefty left-leaning leftists. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

Fmj,

How do you think most people would view you after reading this thread? Think about that for a second please

Again, what does that have to do with the subject at hand ? Has the thread been retitled, "The Politics of DJ" ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Another substance free post courtesy of FMDJ.  If you've got time for more name calling, more gloating, even more obnoxious emoticons, you've certainly got time to defend the statements you've made.  

 

Here's another chance.  This time the query was "Kansas economy" and here are the first few results:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kansas-retracts-after-failed-gop-experiment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sam-brownbacks-failed-experiment-puts-state-on-path-to-penury/2014/09/21/ded58846-3eb2-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/11/03/3587971/kansas-october-revenue-brownback/

 

I never said that Brownback was going to lose, I just hoped he would for the sake of Kansas.

 

But never mind what the facts and evidence show--you've got puns and worn out insults to throw at various lefty left-leaning leftists.

I stated a fact: He won. Fortunately the people of the state saw fit to not turn back the clock to the bad old policies of the RINOcrat cabal.

BTW, all three of your links are leftist propaganda sites, but you knew that, didn't you ? Do you ever look at websites that aren't ?

[ruraljuror]

I stated a fact: He won. Fortunately the people of the state saw fit to not turn back the clock to the bad old policies of the RINOcrat cabal.

BTW, all three of your links are leftist propaganda sites, but you knew that, didn't you ? Do you ever look at websites that aren't ?

 

Attacking sources without addressing their data or the specific claims they made?  Not providing any sources to the contrary?  I'm absolutely shocked!

 

To tell you the truth, I didn't even look at the articles I sent or where they came from--it's just what Google spat back to me.  You know why I didn't look at them?  Because everyone agrees that Kansas is in a lot of trouble.  You seem to be the only one saying otherwise, but, again!, feel free to send me some real news so I can get educated if I'm wrong about that.

 

More importantly, I think you should look at the last couple posts you sent before you responded to me here (again with insults and no substance).  Let's consider this an exercise in self-reflection:

 

Here's your first one--

Posted Today, 05:16 PM

^Hey, Gov. Brownback won in Kansas, btw. Good to see the corrosive cancer of leftism repudiated last night ! 

I'll leave you to your whining and teeth gnashing."

 

 

Again I'll note that you're gloating and being insulting, and that's it.  No substance, no evidence, no point really.  Seriously, what was your point?  That Brownback won?  Did anyone claim that Brownback lost?  Telling us that Brownback won might be relevant if someone got some bad information and thought Brownback had lost his election, but I don't recall that happening. 

 

Anyways, the amazingly unselfaware part comes in your next post just a few short minutes ago:

 

Here it is--"Again, what does that have to do with the subject at hand ? Has the thread been retitled, "The Politics of DJ" ?"

 

First, doesn't it bother you just a little to write a post that is in no way related to the politics of development, then immediately in your very next post complain about Samson's post because it was also unrelated to the politics of development?  You regularly reference cognitive dissonance, but sometimes I'm not sure you know what it means.  Maybe you just don't want to deal with the content of what he said, because it might require more humility than you seem to be willing to dredge up at the moment?  Maybe not, who knows.

 

Either way, allow me to answer your question.  NO DAVEY!!!  THIS THREAD IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE POLITICS OF DJ!!!  In fact, no one cares about your politics at all.  The only reason we're talking about your politics is because you chose to inject them into the debate.  I promise that if you stop subjecting us to your opinions about cancerous liberals and their commie death cult propoganda, no one is going to spend any more time talking about your political opinions at all. 

 

Deal?