Republicans take over all of Congress - is this good for vaping?

[Kent C]

Ultimately, this scenario always plays out the same way: the second-term president's party gets crushed in the midterms, followed by two years of even more stagnation and gridlock than usual, as everyone plays the political risk-aversion game with an eye toward the next presidential election year. Some sort of White House scandal(s) erupt(s) (Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, US Attorney firings, etc.) which dominate(s) the media coverage for the remainder of the president's lame-duck term. Meanwhile, nothing particularly important or noteworthy happens in terms of legislative or executive action.

Clinton was elected first term '92 - House and Senate went Republican in '94 for the first time in over 50 years. (before Monica, btw)

Democrats under Truman lost 83 House seats in two midterms in 1946 (55 seats) and 1950 (28 seats). After that, Eisenhower dropped 66 seats in l954 and l958, but no president since Truman has equaled Obama's loss of seats, the Rothenberg Political Report states.

A side note to the idea being put forth that that this election was more about 'anti-incumbent', than against the president's policies. 41 incumbent House members retired. Of the remaining 394 up for election only 13 lost their election - ie 97% incumbents were re-elected.

3 (some still pending or contested) incumbent senators lost their seats. There were 4 'Democrat' seats lost in open elections where incumbents were retiring.

 

[exnihilo]

Screw vaping, is this good for us?!

Tapa-shutup

 

[exnihilo]

I think you are getting too much of your "information" from MSNBC. There is no war on women, that was something that the Dems created and attacked the Republicans with (It spawned from a question asked during a debate that was not on the debate questions and therefor Romney was not ready for it, and got overblown into an issue that every republican then had to answer for....it was about contraception....). Furthermore, look at obamas cabinet, the women are not payed as much as the men so what about obamas war on women...

There is also a difference between hating gays, and believing in traditional moral values, and doesnt everyone have a right to their own values? Personally I could care less, if they want to get married let them, there are more important issue that need to be addressed that are not being addressed that affect more than 1or 2% of the population.


Edit: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/first-openly-gay-republican-wins-seat-in-congress/

Absolutely you have the right to your own morals, and keep you morals out my morals and by association the government. Seems simple, doesn't it?

Tapa-shutup

 

[TomGeorge]

Absolutely you have the right to your own morals, and keep you morals out my morals and by association the government. Seems simple, doesn't it?

Tapa-shutup

One would think...But it is a common tactic used to fire up the people and pit them against a certain party. Its a way to make non issues into issues

 

[Sgt.Rock]

Good news for vaping, bad news for women, secularists, non-heterosexuals, and the bottom 99% of income earners.

Horse crap

This was a thread about the effect on Vapers..not your misguided views on Republicans.

BTW.. I'm an Independent

 

[Nate760]

BTW.. I'm an Independent

That's fine, just please stay away from the Libertarian Party.

 

[UntamedRose]

It will be fun when the R's take away net neutrality, and yall can't/ can barely access ECF or any of your fav suppliers sites.


She says with a major

 

[Jman8]

Can we stay on topic please?

 

[Nate760]

Can we stay on topic please?

This should be our new national motto. "In God We Trust" doesn't seem to be doing much good.

 

[Penn]

That's fine, just please stay away from the Libertarian Party.

I am libertarian. I disagree strongly with you. Every libertarian I know would disagree with you statements in this thread.

Maybe libertarian means something different in CA.

 

[Nate760]

I am libertarian. I disagree strongly with you. Every libertarian I know would disagree with you statements in this thread.

I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Libertarian.

 

[Penn]

I don't see any party as being proper (think about it). Whether you capitalize it or not, I don't personally know any in the party that aren't capable of seeing propaganda of the main two parties. Your words and phrasing are straight out of the "progressive" playbook. With so much to criticize both parties for, why borrow from one?

You still haven't demonstrated how this relates to vaping.

 

[Jman8]

Looks like the GOP has secured a majority in the Senate and strengthened their position in the House.
GOP seizes Senate - CNN.com

Some posters have speculated here that this might actually be a good prospect for vapers, in particular as a GOP-led Congress may be less inclined than progressives to pass sweeping new regulations for PVs. Let's use this thread to discuss potential implications.

From another thread (that I started on similar topic):

As I see it:

A - things stand about as they are now where standard consumer regulations exist, and BG may do something, but are more prone to act and get what they want with a US senate that is made up of a Democrat majority. As things stand right now, it may be 2 more years before FDA regulations are invoked. Part of this though is that states will act (or react) accordingly.

B - the federal version of regulating vaping pursues a different course where FDA and pending regulations aren't mentioned in same breath. Why? Because the 2015 version of Congress has exempted eCigs from TCA and while FDA may pursue their agenda, they realize they will have been shot down twice from their agenda.

With our well funded, and well established adversaries (ANTZ), I currently do not see a situation where eCigs go "unregulated." We either wait 2 or so years for ANTZ version of regulations or we utilize the political momentum to change the course of what regulations ought to look like for vaping. If Pub controlled Congress can act favorably toward vaping (or rather act reasonably), then so can a bunch of Pub governors and/or red states.

Even with that last paragraph written, I don't see currently proposed FDA regulations as exactly "ANTZ friendly." But if we remain on defense and cross our fingers hoping that 2 years buys us magical momentum, I see ANTZ taking the opportunity to make proposed regulations even stronger/harsher. Media will help with that over the next 2 years. Plus junk science.

 

[Nate760]

Your words and phrasing are straight out of the "progressive" playbook. With so much to criticize both parties for, why borrow from one?

I don't even know what this means. Criticizing one party doesn't mean you're praising, or identifying with, or borrowing from, any other party. This is the kind of binary thinking that so often reduces our political discourse to facile, childish nonsense.

 

[Penn]

You probably don't know what it means because you read my statement as saying "democrat" when I said "progressive". You probably also aren't familiar with where that word comes from in the topic of US political movements dating back to the 50's.

In essence, all you did was use buzz words and vague topic reference with no independent backing statements that would indicate that you have actually given much thought to validity of statement, though you may have initially heard of it from those distributing that propaganda.

Not knowing is expected since those "progressives" also decidedly don't want the majority of people to know the true end goal.

FYI part of that "progressive" playbook also states you should try to reduce the validity of opposing viewpoints by jokes, insults and otherwise demeaning the person or viewpoint in such ways as calling opposition "childish nonsense".

 

[Nate760]

You probably don't know what it means because you read my statement as saying "democrat" when I said "progressive". You probably also aren't familiar with where that word comes from in the topic of US political movements dating back to the 50's.

I don't know anything about the 50s, except that it's when the Civil War happened.

In essence, all you did was use buzz words and vague topic reference with no independent backing statements that would indicate that you have actually given much thought to validity of statement, though you may have initially heard of it from those distributing that propaganda.

Yeah dude, you've clearly got me all figured out. Well done.

Not knowing is expected since those "progressives" also decidedly don't want the majority of people to know the true end goal.

I thought the true end goal was to turn everybody into a gay Marxist who hates Baby Jesus. Shows you what I know.

FYI part of that "progressive" playbook also states you should try to reduce the validity of opposing viewpoints by jokes, insults and otherwise demeaning the person or viewpoint in such ways as calling opposition "childish nonsense".

 

[fogging_katrider]

I have given several "likes" in this thread.

I only wish that we had a "strongly disagree" button so folks could show their feelings without derailing the threads topic by being dragged into an arguement by the typical progressive playbook tactics and other koolaid drinkers bait trolling rhetoric.

If we did have such a button I'm quite sure Nate760 would have earned several clicks from myself.

Nate, I'm holding back on quote replying to take apart your many misinformed or otherwise ignorant statements regarding Republicans as it would use up several pages of this thread and derail it to the sharktank (outside forum)

Back on Topic please

 

[Nate760]

Nate, I'm holding back on quote replying to take apart your many misinformed or otherwise ignorant statements regarding Republicans as it would use up several pages of this thread and derail it to the sharktank (outside forum)

Thank you for having mercy on me. That's very magnanimous of you.

 

[Katya]

Nate, I'm holding back on quote replying to take apart your many misinformed or otherwise ignorant statements regarding Republicans as it would use up several pages of this thread and derail it to the sharktank (outside forum)

Back on Topic please

I'm holding back too--and I'm not even a Republican...

 

[Nate760]

I'm holding back too--and I'm not even a Republican...

The most supreme irony of this thread is that I'm probably the only person present who once managed a Republican congressional office.