HuskerNation1

I'm not making this up. Here is the link to it: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/qpoll-issues-213177 I honestly think the reasoning for this is two-fold: 1. This country has always been a center-right country, and I think in many ways still leans to the right. In 2008 people were tired of the war and bought into Obama's Hope and Change mantra that he would somehow heal the divisions in the country. Instead, he has taken this country on a sharp turn to the left, and the divisions (especially racial and the anti-cop rhetoric) has gotten out of control. 2. There are many on both sides of the aisle that just don't understand why members of both parties cannot address our growing national debt and budget. To expect individual citizens to live within their means, but then have the government show no true concern for shrinking the budget is a primary driver. I also think that the lack of focus on illegal immigration for years and years has reached a boiling point, and again, Washington politicians cannot get the job done. This is a very angry electorate, which is why we have a socialist near the lead in one party, and an out of control narcissist leading the other.

Hey Dustin-Just messaged you on here. I already sold Southern Alabama (next week) but still have Southern Miss and Iowa.

I took my son to see his very first Husker game, and what a dreadful ending. We had several non-calls or calls go against us, as well as way too many penalties, but the game was intense and he was happy to see such a fun game (despite the ending). With that said, I did see a few key positives from today. 1. Tommy looked great overall. I was never a big fan of his and was hoping someone else would take the job this season, but I have to say that, when he wasn't being pressured (like non-stop in the 2nd quarter), his form, technique, and decision making were night and day compared to last year. I would like to see him still use his feet more to keep the defense honest. 2. Halftime adjustments-One of the biggest complaints against the Pelini era is that the coaches were horrible at making halftime adjustments. I don't know what this staff did, but this team looked like they were going to get blown out heading into halftime, and they turned it around on both sides of the ball. I think our running game is definitely an area of concern, and given all the focus on AA last year, we did not build a bench of experience back to return this season. We must get the running game going to have a chance. My biggest disappointment today was Drew Brown. He needs to sit next week. Both of those field goals were completely makeable, and with them we would have won the game. NU has always had kickers they can count on, but I don't think we can say that anymore.

I don't think many politicians actually intend to "take on Washington." They just say that to get votes. I'm not even sure what it means. "Washington" is a collection of politicians from all 50 states. I actually don't mind hearing candidates say they want to "fight for us" and take on Washington. This country was not doing great in 2008, and has gotten much worse since Obama took office. I saw a poll out this week that a record 71% of people are unhappy with the direction of this country. Common sense things that we must do on our own, like balance a budget, is not something that members of either party feel is necessary. I think 2016 will be a bit unique in that voters are so frustrated they are ready to show it at the ballot box and select non-traditional politicians.

There is indeed a desire on the right for an outsider, and it's only a matter of time before Conservatives realize that Trump is not really Conservative. Jeb Bush has out this great ad showing what a hypocrite Donald is. To me this may help Carson now, but I really think Fiorina will be the final outsider in the race. Carson isn't as knowledgeable on a broad spectrum of topics, and doesn't have the fighter instinct that the right is wanting now. The idea that Trump is "antiestablishment" is incredibly silly. He's as establishment as it gets: he's corporate and he buys politicians, and now he is a politician. He IS the Corporatocracy. That being said, I don't see anybody stopping Der Trump from getting the Repub nomination at this point. The real powers that be are starting to align behind him. Clear and present danger, is all I can say. The problem with Donald Trump is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth on just about every issue. He claims to be anti-establishment and an outsider, yet he bragged in the first debate how he bought votes from Pelosi and others. He claims he's not raising money, yet he's taking money from small donors "to make them feel engaged." I honestly do not think he will get the nomination and he will fade after the votes begin, but I think with Obama succeeding in 2008 with his celebrity-like appeal and soaring speeches, and Donald now so high in the polls, celebrity status means more now in Presidential politics than money or competence.

There is indeed a desire on the right for an outsider, and it's only a matter of time before Conservatives realize that Trump is not really Conservative. Jeb Bush has out this great ad showing what a hypocrite Donald is. To me this may help Carson now, but I really think Fiorina will be the final outsider in the race. Carson isn't as knowledgeable on a broad spectrum of topics, and doesn't have the fighter instinct that the right is wanting now.

You haven't been around polls for very long I take it. This type of stuff happens all the time. When Romney was toying with the idea of running again earlier this year, many polls came out with and without him as a candidate. This happened all the time with Jeb Bush as a candidate well before he declared in June of this year. What it does is provide a snapshot of what the race might look like with another big name in it. It's hard to find a bigger name than a sitting VP. If it's one poll, or five polls, or ten polls, fine. Like I already said, early in the race when contenders are still mulling, it's understandable. Right now polling data seriously affects the trajectory of campaigns. If you go to RealClearPolitics today, you will see Biden hanging beneath Clinton and Sanders at 14%––with no asterisk or caveat or anything. Why are we not seeing the poll where that 14% is being distributed among actual candidates? In my view they should be limiting major national polls (internal campaign pollsters could put Santa Clause on the list for all I care) to the candidates who have declared. If nothing else, it's for the sake of accuracy. Well, this is how the media skews election results, whether it's through polling or their coverage. In 2007/2008, the media fell in love with Obama and this was to Hillary's detriment. Obama was the chosen one that year. Regarding polling, in 2007 Cheney was in many polls despite the fact he was adamant he was not going to run. Guiliani was in many polls before he ever declared. Media loves to make these events a horse race. One of the primary reasons Trump has gotten to the lead is the non-stop media coverage of him. They have given him the platform to drown out all other candidates. But much of these early polls have little to do with actual results when the voting begins. I take it you are not a Biden supporter?

You haven't been around polls for very long I take it. This type of stuff happens all the time. When Romney was toying with the idea of running again earlier this year, many polls came out with and without him as a candidate. This happened all the time with Jeb Bush as a candidate well before he declared in June of this year. What it does is provide a snapshot of what the race might look like with another big name in it. It's hard to find a bigger name than a sitting VP.

I think this image of Bernie should have one key word change....instead of "Spread the Truth" it should say "Spread the wealth."

Both the Clintons are fake, but Bill was must more masterful and getting people to actually believe him. While also being a liar like Hillary, he was a good politician in the sense of what people tend to think of politicians. He has much higher emotional intelligence than Hillary.

Thanks for doing this. I was going to do the same. The Democratic nomination process is in disarray now that everyone realizes Hillary is a fake. It will be fun to see if Biden gets in. I actually hope the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Hillary as the general electorate does not like her and her favorables are in the tank.

I have season tickets and will be going to 3 games (no longer live in Nebraska) and will be selling the remaining games. The seats are pretty good on the West side (usually shaded) Section 30 Row 17 (side by side). Price varies per game. Just reply here if you are interested and I will PM you.

Umm, a lot of what Carly has said has been accurate, and this lady is as tough as nails. The environmental left-wing nuts are out in full force because she pointed out a fact that all types of energy has downfalls. Wind turbines do kill birds, maybe not as many as were initially stated, but that is a fact. Also, her statements about the fact that the liberally controlled government in California is part of the cause of the water shortage issue they are currently facing was proven to be accurate. Starting in the early 80s with new environmental regulations, that slowed water reservoir solutions that would have kept a great deal of water from flowing out to the ocean. She is also right to state that this is not just a US issue, and our country should not bear the brunt of over-regulation. I agree that she needs to firm up her messaging on the environment, but for someone that has not been in the political scene, she is well versed on well spoken on many topics. Fiorina is actually appealing to a lot of independents and some Democrats too. The Huffington Post actually wrote an article praising her, though they want her to be secretary of education. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-fish/carly-fiorina-education_b_8032570.html Also, most importantly she has the support of Donnie Wahlberg. Lol. I couldn't pass that one up. http://www.gossipcop.com/donnie-wahlberg-endorses-carly-fiorina-president-endorsement-tweet-twitter/ And hey, nothing is worse than Hilary asking if a cloth was needed to wipe the server clean. Did you see that mess of a press conference. Stick a fork in her...she is done. It looks like Biden is jumping into the race soon.

Awesome...we have had good luck in Louisiana, and that is Williams stomping grounds.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. Hey, unlike you, I'm going to be up front and agree that the GOP has not offered a proposal with broad consensus that counters the ACA. Shame on them. With that said, they did not create the mess that the ACA is, including the false promises and the lack of financial accountability to ensure that the ACA is not contributing further to our national debt. The law should never have been put in place by Obama and the Dems to begin with. It was bad legislation that involved a completely non-transparent process that members on the left did not even know what they were voting in favor of. So the law itself, and the process to pass the law, are what makes this the worse domestic legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime. Also, regarding another comment that this is a bill the GOP was in favor of, this has been a talking point on the left as an excuse to dismiss and accountability for the failures of the ACA. It was the early 1990s when HillaryCare was being discussed that a small number of Senators entertained a proposal that had some similarities to the ACA, but nothing like what actually happened. It was not an idea broadly supported by Conservatives nationwide. The experiment of Romneycare was a failure, and if such a program was not a success at the state level, why in heck would anyone want to nationalize it. As you are aware, Romneycare alone was a big reason Mitt Romney almost did not get the nomination, as Republicans were strongly against it. There were no other good candidates running in 2012 (unlike 2016 where there are many good candidates), and Romney was the best of a bad lot. So in summary, the GOP needs to have a viable alternative now that the ACA is in place, but we would be much better off had Obama and the Dems not put the ACA in place to begin with. Good job in falling for absolutely every party line argument the Republicans have put out since the 90s. So, let me get this straight. To my knowledge, everyone pretty much agrees that something needs to be done with healthcare. It is way too expensive and too many people don't have access to services like they should. (if you don't agree with this, then we need to be having a way different discussion). In the 90s, Hillary started pushing for a single payer plan that would take insurance companies completely out of the equation. The Republicans at the time raised hell claiming the socialist Hillary is taking over private industry and that is just plain unconstitutional and she is evil. They, in turn, come out with their own plan. That plan includes private health insurance companies and sets up markets for people to go and buy health insurance. Republicans also didn't like the idea that some people just chose not to buy health insurance and instead, when they got sick, they couldn't pay and they ended up just getting services for free or they end up in horrible financial shape with all the bills. They also didn't like the rising cost of health care. (all valid concerns in my mind) A few Senators wrote the proposal but it was put out as the main opposing idea by the Republican establishment and it was also marketed as pro private industry since health insurance companies were still involved and people could choose what insurance company they wanted to use. Well....Both Hillarycare and the Republican proposals failed. Fast forward to now. Obama basically takes the main tenants of the Republican proposal and pushes them through to actually pass a health care bill. What does the Republican establishment do? They put on one of the most ridiculous and disgusting campaigns I have ever seen against a President claiming he is everything from simply needing to be impeached to a Muslim who was planted here when he was a child to rise up and destroy American civilization. Now, let me explain since you are fairly new here. I once was a staunch Republican conservative. I consumed so much crap conservative media that I thought anything but a Republican was just flat out wrong for America. I watched everything on Foxnews. I even was one of the first listeners when Rush came on the radio. This issue has been one of the main issues that has driven me from the Republican party. Very early on in the Obamacare debate something just didn't feel right to me. So, I decided to sit back and as much as possible view the debate from the outside. I quit the Republican party and registered as an Independent. What I found was an amazingly refreshing view point. The problem was, I found the conservative side of this debate and politics in general at this time in our country to be absolutely disgusting. It is an all out war against anything but a Republican and the end justifies the means. I still remain pretty conservative in my views. But, The GOP flat out on the wrong path of leadership and this issue is a prime example of this. I disagree with Obama on many things and I think this bill could be improved. But, the painting of Obama as the antiChrist by conservatives on Foxnews, conservative radio and in social media just needs to stop. It prevents a real debate on issues and it prevents the Republicans from actually having a seat at the table of finding solutions. Ever stop and think about WHY the Republicans have never proposed anything else? If not, I would like you to do so and give me your ideas as to why. PS....and, I might add....the Tea Party is the worst thing that has ever happened to the conservative side of politics in this country. They just need to go away and drink tea somewhere else. This argument was tried over and over by the Dems...when they realized what a colossal failure the ACA was and still is, they tried claiming that it really wasn't their plan, and it was the GOP's plan. That is called politics, and it's why so many voters are upset with both parties. Referring back to an idea a handful of Senators proposed 18-20 years earlier and then trying to assign blame to the GOP for a failed policy is ridiculous. As for your "transformation" to an Independent, suggesting that Conservatives are the only ones that have extreme elements in their party is also absurd. From 2005-2008 all we heard from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other leading voices on the left (as well as the majority leftist media outlets) was how bad Bush 43 was, and they presented him as Satan. Also, Obama is the most partisan President of our times, and polls have backed that up to show the Partisan divide on his approval. For 7 years now, he has taken shots at Conservatives and Fox News any chance he can get, and last week in his defense of the Iran deal, he equated Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Do you approve of this from your President? Do you approve of all the name calling and hateful rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Dem leaders voiced toward Bush 43? I do agree that fringe elements in both parties are bad for this country, and that includes "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter" on the left. And unlike these latter two groups, Tea Party protests have been peaceful overall. Dude....step away from the Koolaid tap for a while. As for my "transformation. I never suggested that conservatives are the only ones that have extremes. I'm obviously not a Democrat for a reason. I'm an independent. I used to sound just like you. I thought....well, that side is doing XYZ so we need to do it too. The ends justify the means. Two wrongs make a right. I finally stepped back and said ENOUGH!!!! Why should I support a group that feeds me nothing but a bunch or propaganda and drink it up as fast as I can simply because the other side does it too? Shouldn't we as voters be revolting against that instead of supporting it? Don't you actually want the truth instead of being fed a long line of BS? So....we get to your statement of "Obama is the most partisan President....". Ummm....no. The partisanship is from both sides. Obama started his Presidency blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything under the sun. You are right about that. But, the Republicans have no moral high ground in this with their constant crap about him not being an American or him being Muslim or whatever the latest attack is that is so ridiculous that smart people should be able to see through it. Americans have a major problem. Notice I said Americans. Not Conservatives or Liberals. I said Americans. With the media the way it is on TV, radio or on line, people no longer listen to opposing views with an open mind. They drink up whatever media agrees with them (no matter if it is actually true or not) and then go on the attack. When you sit back and watch from the outside looking in, it really is a scary situation that I personally feel is going to end badly. So...hey.....I know exactly how you feel right now. I used to be there. The problem is that this country would be better off if more people would revolt against the media like they do against opposing politicians. I don't think you are getting it by suggesting I'm drinking some Kool-aid or implying I get my news from Rush Limbaugh or someone like that. I have NEVER listened to more than 5 minutes of Rush as I just don't like someone telling me how to think. I've said repeatedly I don't like right-wing radio either, but I do have core center-right principles I have always held since forming my opinions in college. I actually get most of my news by reading the many items on realclearpolitics (both left and right righters) as well as just reading regular news stories. So, to put you on the spot, since you are completely Independent, who are you leaning toward voting for in 2016 given the 20+ candidates in the race from both sides? At this point I am not supporting anyone. I'm listening to both sides. Bernie Sanders bothers me on a lot of levels BUT, I like his desire to get money out of politics. I think that is extremely important and it is what ultimately causes one hell of a lot of problems in this country. To my knowledge, the Republicans have no desire to change anything on this issue. So, I have to ask myself am I willing to vote Democrat for the first time in my life in the Presidential election on this one issue and then go throw up at the thought of voting for everything else? No way in hell I could vote for Hillary. Is there a Republican that I can stomach. As for the Republican candidates, I would like to learn more about Ben Carson. I like people who were successful NOT in politics and come to the table with good ideas. I only watched a little bit of the debate and he seemed very smart and reasonable in his answers that I saw. Donald Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment to the country and just needs to go away. The rest seem like career politicians that I'm not too excited about. I think the repubs would support getting money out (or they should) if it included union dues, teacher unions, govt workers unions, etc - all of those left leaning organizations that have given for decades. So if we want to take Bernie at his word, he should be insisting (and maybe he is) that these left leaning organizations be limited as well as super pacs. Not sure how this all works out - only the self financing wealthy will be able to run or an individual has to drum up an awful lot of individual donors. You're very very correct on that. If big companies aren't allowed to donate then other organizations shouldn't be able to donate also. The Dems will never go for that. There's one theory I have always been interested in for Presidential elections but I'm not sure how practical it is and how the logistics would work. If you had government funded elections and say the candidates were all given 100 million dollars to run a campaign. If you go over that amount, you're out of money. You would be able to see how a candidate can be efficient with other people's money and work with a budget. You could see how well he organizes people to get things done. The candidate then wouldn't also be motivated to give favors for money. But...like I said, it's one of those things that in theory sounds great but making it work would be another thing all together. I agree with you. If we truly want a fair playing field, then both money and political coverage must be fair for all candidates. On the money side, this would include all sorts of unions that give heavily to Dems. Also, while I know Fox and conservative radio leans to the right, most Americans get their news from the mainstream networks, or articles posted on yahoo and their website homepages, and those groups lean to the left. I'm not sure how you execute a fair media model, but if you truly want the most pure and fair election process, money and media have to be fixed. Well, if media outlets were actually punished for false or misleading information, it would go a long ways. But, neither side in politics actually likes this because everyone is comfortable with their power in the media no matter what side you are on. Example...Conservatives are perfectly happy getting all their news from Fox News (even though they know it's slanted conservative ) Meanwhile, liberals are perfectly fine with that because they know liberals hate Foxnews and many times it makes conservatives actually look stupid. So, liberals have no motivation to push for punishment of Foxnews for giving out false or misleading information. I don't know...Conservatives might go for this proposal if it meant they didn't have to deal with the mainstream media bias that permeates the major networks and most online sources like yahoo news. They might be happy that average non-partisan voters are finally getting fair coverage. You do realize that a heck of a lot of that "main stream media bias" is a myth promoted by Foxnews? Lol...just as the left and Obama uses Fox News to bash and claim is treating liberal ideas unfair. If you truly believe the MSM is not biased the least bit to the left, you are living in a fantasy world.

The biggest key for Tommy to be successful is to realize he has many other playmakers on offense. As long as he can get them the ball consistently without a turnover, and then occasionally make a few plays with his feet, they will have a great year. They have awesome WR's, so making the short throws in stride is important. Also, getting finesse on screens is key too. Sometimes those are the toughest throws to make...kind of like the short game in golf. Many guys can drive the ball far, but trying to hit is 30 yards to the green is more challenging.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. Hey, unlike you, I'm going to be up front and agree that the GOP has not offered a proposal with broad consensus that counters the ACA. Shame on them. With that said, they did not create the mess that the ACA is, including the false promises and the lack of financial accountability to ensure that the ACA is not contributing further to our national debt. The law should never have been put in place by Obama and the Dems to begin with. It was bad legislation that involved a completely non-transparent process that members on the left did not even know what they were voting in favor of. So the law itself, and the process to pass the law, are what makes this the worse domestic legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime. Also, regarding another comment that this is a bill the GOP was in favor of, this has been a talking point on the left as an excuse to dismiss and accountability for the failures of the ACA. It was the early 1990s when HillaryCare was being discussed that a small number of Senators entertained a proposal that had some similarities to the ACA, but nothing like what actually happened. It was not an idea broadly supported by Conservatives nationwide. The experiment of Romneycare was a failure, and if such a program was not a success at the state level, why in heck would anyone want to nationalize it. As you are aware, Romneycare alone was a big reason Mitt Romney almost did not get the nomination, as Republicans were strongly against it. There were no other good candidates running in 2012 (unlike 2016 where there are many good candidates), and Romney was the best of a bad lot. So in summary, the GOP needs to have a viable alternative now that the ACA is in place, but we would be much better off had Obama and the Dems not put the ACA in place to begin with. Good job in falling for absolutely every party line argument the Republicans have put out since the 90s. So, let me get this straight. To my knowledge, everyone pretty much agrees that something needs to be done with healthcare. It is way too expensive and too many people don't have access to services like they should. (if you don't agree with this, then we need to be having a way different discussion). In the 90s, Hillary started pushing for a single payer plan that would take insurance companies completely out of the equation. The Republicans at the time raised hell claiming the socialist Hillary is taking over private industry and that is just plain unconstitutional and she is evil. They, in turn, come out with their own plan. That plan includes private health insurance companies and sets up markets for people to go and buy health insurance. Republicans also didn't like the idea that some people just chose not to buy health insurance and instead, when they got sick, they couldn't pay and they ended up just getting services for free or they end up in horrible financial shape with all the bills. They also didn't like the rising cost of health care. (all valid concerns in my mind) A few Senators wrote the proposal but it was put out as the main opposing idea by the Republican establishment and it was also marketed as pro private industry since health insurance companies were still involved and people could choose what insurance company they wanted to use. Well....Both Hillarycare and the Republican proposals failed. Fast forward to now. Obama basically takes the main tenants of the Republican proposal and pushes them through to actually pass a health care bill. What does the Republican establishment do? They put on one of the most ridiculous and disgusting campaigns I have ever seen against a President claiming he is everything from simply needing to be impeached to a Muslim who was planted here when he was a child to rise up and destroy American civilization. Now, let me explain since you are fairly new here. I once was a staunch Republican conservative. I consumed so much crap conservative media that I thought anything but a Republican was just flat out wrong for America. I watched everything on Foxnews. I even was one of the first listeners when Rush came on the radio. This issue has been one of the main issues that has driven me from the Republican party. Very early on in the Obamacare debate something just didn't feel right to me. So, I decided to sit back and as much as possible view the debate from the outside. I quit the Republican party and registered as an Independent. What I found was an amazingly refreshing view point. The problem was, I found the conservative side of this debate and politics in general at this time in our country to be absolutely disgusting. It is an all out war against anything but a Republican and the end justifies the means. I still remain pretty conservative in my views. But, The GOP flat out on the wrong path of leadership and this issue is a prime example of this. I disagree with Obama on many things and I think this bill could be improved. But, the painting of Obama as the antiChrist by conservatives on Foxnews, conservative radio and in social media just needs to stop. It prevents a real debate on issues and it prevents the Republicans from actually having a seat at the table of finding solutions. Ever stop and think about WHY the Republicans have never proposed anything else? If not, I would like you to do so and give me your ideas as to why. PS....and, I might add....the Tea Party is the worst thing that has ever happened to the conservative side of politics in this country. They just need to go away and drink tea somewhere else. This argument was tried over and over by the Dems...when they realized what a colossal failure the ACA was and still is, they tried claiming that it really wasn't their plan, and it was the GOP's plan. That is called politics, and it's why so many voters are upset with both parties. Referring back to an idea a handful of Senators proposed 18-20 years earlier and then trying to assign blame to the GOP for a failed policy is ridiculous. As for your "transformation" to an Independent, suggesting that Conservatives are the only ones that have extreme elements in their party is also absurd. From 2005-2008 all we heard from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other leading voices on the left (as well as the majority leftist media outlets) was how bad Bush 43 was, and they presented him as Satan. Also, Obama is the most partisan President of our times, and polls have backed that up to show the Partisan divide on his approval. For 7 years now, he has taken shots at Conservatives and Fox News any chance he can get, and last week in his defense of the Iran deal, he equated Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Do you approve of this from your President? Do you approve of all the name calling and hateful rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Dem leaders voiced toward Bush 43? I do agree that fringe elements in both parties are bad for this country, and that includes "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter" on the left. And unlike these latter two groups, Tea Party protests have been peaceful overall. Dude....step away from the Koolaid tap for a while. As for my "transformation. I never suggested that conservatives are the only ones that have extremes. I'm obviously not a Democrat for a reason. I'm an independent. I used to sound just like you. I thought....well, that side is doing XYZ so we need to do it too. The ends justify the means. Two wrongs make a right. I finally stepped back and said ENOUGH!!!! Why should I support a group that feeds me nothing but a bunch or propaganda and drink it up as fast as I can simply because the other side does it too? Shouldn't we as voters be revolting against that instead of supporting it? Don't you actually want the truth instead of being fed a long line of BS? So....we get to your statement of "Obama is the most partisan President....". Ummm....no. The partisanship is from both sides. Obama started his Presidency blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything under the sun. You are right about that. But, the Republicans have no moral high ground in this with their constant crap about him not being an American or him being Muslim or whatever the latest attack is that is so ridiculous that smart people should be able to see through it. Americans have a major problem. Notice I said Americans. Not Conservatives or Liberals. I said Americans. With the media the way it is on TV, radio or on line, people no longer listen to opposing views with an open mind. They drink up whatever media agrees with them (no matter if it is actually true or not) and then go on the attack. When you sit back and watch from the outside looking in, it really is a scary situation that I personally feel is going to end badly. So...hey.....I know exactly how you feel right now. I used to be there. The problem is that this country would be better off if more people would revolt against the media like they do against opposing politicians. I don't think you are getting it by suggesting I'm drinking some Kool-aid or implying I get my news from Rush Limbaugh or someone like that. I have NEVER listened to more than 5 minutes of Rush as I just don't like someone telling me how to think. I've said repeatedly I don't like right-wing radio either, but I do have core center-right principles I have always held since forming my opinions in college. I actually get most of my news by reading the many items on realclearpolitics (both left and right righters) as well as just reading regular news stories. So, to put you on the spot, since you are completely Independent, who are you leaning toward voting for in 2016 given the 20+ candidates in the race from both sides? At this point I am not supporting anyone. I'm listening to both sides. Bernie Sanders bothers me on a lot of levels BUT, I like his desire to get money out of politics. I think that is extremely important and it is what ultimately causes one hell of a lot of problems in this country. To my knowledge, the Republicans have no desire to change anything on this issue. So, I have to ask myself am I willing to vote Democrat for the first time in my life in the Presidential election on this one issue and then go throw up at the thought of voting for everything else? No way in hell I could vote for Hillary. Is there a Republican that I can stomach. As for the Republican candidates, I would like to learn more about Ben Carson. I like people who were successful NOT in politics and come to the table with good ideas. I only watched a little bit of the debate and he seemed very smart and reasonable in his answers that I saw. Donald Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment to the country and just needs to go away. The rest seem like career politicians that I'm not too excited about. I think the repubs would support getting money out (or they should) if it included union dues, teacher unions, govt workers unions, etc - all of those left leaning organizations that have given for decades. So if we want to take Bernie at his word, he should be insisting (and maybe he is) that these left leaning organizations be limited as well as super pacs. Not sure how this all works out - only the self financing wealthy will be able to run or an individual has to drum up an awful lot of individual donors. You're very very correct on that. If big companies aren't allowed to donate then other organizations shouldn't be able to donate also. The Dems will never go for that. There's one theory I have always been interested in for Presidential elections but I'm not sure how practical it is and how the logistics would work. If you had government funded elections and say the candidates were all given 100 million dollars to run a campaign. If you go over that amount, you're out of money. You would be able to see how a candidate can be efficient with other people's money and work with a budget. You could see how well he organizes people to get things done. The candidate then wouldn't also be motivated to give favors for money. But...like I said, it's one of those things that in theory sounds great but making it work would be another thing all together. I agree with you. If we truly want a fair playing field, then both money and political coverage must be fair for all candidates. On the money side, this would include all sorts of unions that give heavily to Dems. Also, while I know Fox and conservative radio leans to the right, most Americans get their news from the mainstream networks, or articles posted on yahoo and their website homepages, and those groups lean to the left. I'm not sure how you execute a fair media model, but if you truly want the most pure and fair election process, money and media have to be fixed. Well, if media outlets were actually punished for false or misleading information, it would go a long ways. But, neither side in politics actually likes this because everyone is comfortable with their power in the media no matter what side you are on. Example...Conservatives are perfectly happy getting all their news from Fox News (even though they know it's slanted conservative ) Meanwhile, liberals are perfectly fine with that because they know liberals hate Foxnews and many times it makes conservatives actually look stupid. So, liberals have no motivation to push for punishment of Foxnews for giving out false or misleading information. I don't know...Conservatives might go for this proposal if it meant they didn't have to deal with the mainstream media bias that permeates the major networks and most online sources like yahoo news. They might be happy that average non-partisan voters are finally getting fair coverage.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. Hey, unlike you, I'm going to be up front and agree that the GOP has not offered a proposal with broad consensus that counters the ACA. Shame on them. With that said, they did not create the mess that the ACA is, including the false promises and the lack of financial accountability to ensure that the ACA is not contributing further to our national debt. The law should never have been put in place by Obama and the Dems to begin with. It was bad legislation that involved a completely non-transparent process that members on the left did not even know what they were voting in favor of. So the law itself, and the process to pass the law, are what makes this the worse domestic legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime. Also, regarding another comment that this is a bill the GOP was in favor of, this has been a talking point on the left as an excuse to dismiss and accountability for the failures of the ACA. It was the early 1990s when HillaryCare was being discussed that a small number of Senators entertained a proposal that had some similarities to the ACA, but nothing like what actually happened. It was not an idea broadly supported by Conservatives nationwide. The experiment of Romneycare was a failure, and if such a program was not a success at the state level, why in heck would anyone want to nationalize it. As you are aware, Romneycare alone was a big reason Mitt Romney almost did not get the nomination, as Republicans were strongly against it. There were no other good candidates running in 2012 (unlike 2016 where there are many good candidates), and Romney was the best of a bad lot. So in summary, the GOP needs to have a viable alternative now that the ACA is in place, but we would be much better off had Obama and the Dems not put the ACA in place to begin with. Good job in falling for absolutely every party line argument the Republicans have put out since the 90s. So, let me get this straight. To my knowledge, everyone pretty much agrees that something needs to be done with healthcare. It is way too expensive and too many people don't have access to services like they should. (if you don't agree with this, then we need to be having a way different discussion). In the 90s, Hillary started pushing for a single payer plan that would take insurance companies completely out of the equation. The Republicans at the time raised hell claiming the socialist Hillary is taking over private industry and that is just plain unconstitutional and she is evil. They, in turn, come out with their own plan. That plan includes private health insurance companies and sets up markets for people to go and buy health insurance. Republicans also didn't like the idea that some people just chose not to buy health insurance and instead, when they got sick, they couldn't pay and they ended up just getting services for free or they end up in horrible financial shape with all the bills. They also didn't like the rising cost of health care. (all valid concerns in my mind) A few Senators wrote the proposal but it was put out as the main opposing idea by the Republican establishment and it was also marketed as pro private industry since health insurance companies were still involved and people could choose what insurance company they wanted to use. Well....Both Hillarycare and the Republican proposals failed. Fast forward to now. Obama basically takes the main tenants of the Republican proposal and pushes them through to actually pass a health care bill. What does the Republican establishment do? They put on one of the most ridiculous and disgusting campaigns I have ever seen against a President claiming he is everything from simply needing to be impeached to a Muslim who was planted here when he was a child to rise up and destroy American civilization. Now, let me explain since you are fairly new here. I once was a staunch Republican conservative. I consumed so much crap conservative media that I thought anything but a Republican was just flat out wrong for America. I watched everything on Foxnews. I even was one of the first listeners when Rush came on the radio. This issue has been one of the main issues that has driven me from the Republican party. Very early on in the Obamacare debate something just didn't feel right to me. So, I decided to sit back and as much as possible view the debate from the outside. I quit the Republican party and registered as an Independent. What I found was an amazingly refreshing view point. The problem was, I found the conservative side of this debate and politics in general at this time in our country to be absolutely disgusting. It is an all out war against anything but a Republican and the end justifies the means. I still remain pretty conservative in my views. But, The GOP flat out on the wrong path of leadership and this issue is a prime example of this. I disagree with Obama on many things and I think this bill could be improved. But, the painting of Obama as the antiChrist by conservatives on Foxnews, conservative radio and in social media just needs to stop. It prevents a real debate on issues and it prevents the Republicans from actually having a seat at the table of finding solutions. Ever stop and think about WHY the Republicans have never proposed anything else? If not, I would like you to do so and give me your ideas as to why. PS....and, I might add....the Tea Party is the worst thing that has ever happened to the conservative side of politics in this country. They just need to go away and drink tea somewhere else. This argument was tried over and over by the Dems...when they realized what a colossal failure the ACA was and still is, they tried claiming that it really wasn't their plan, and it was the GOP's plan. That is called politics, and it's why so many voters are upset with both parties. Referring back to an idea a handful of Senators proposed 18-20 years earlier and then trying to assign blame to the GOP for a failed policy is ridiculous. As for your "transformation" to an Independent, suggesting that Conservatives are the only ones that have extreme elements in their party is also absurd. From 2005-2008 all we heard from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other leading voices on the left (as well as the majority leftist media outlets) was how bad Bush 43 was, and they presented him as Satan. Also, Obama is the most partisan President of our times, and polls have backed that up to show the Partisan divide on his approval. For 7 years now, he has taken shots at Conservatives and Fox News any chance he can get, and last week in his defense of the Iran deal, he equated Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Do you approve of this from your President? Do you approve of all the name calling and hateful rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Dem leaders voiced toward Bush 43? I do agree that fringe elements in both parties are bad for this country, and that includes "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter" on the left. And unlike these latter two groups, Tea Party protests have been peaceful overall. Dude....step away from the Koolaid tap for a while. As for my "transformation. I never suggested that conservatives are the only ones that have extremes. I'm obviously not a Democrat for a reason. I'm an independent. I used to sound just like you. I thought....well, that side is doing XYZ so we need to do it too. The ends justify the means. Two wrongs make a right. I finally stepped back and said ENOUGH!!!! Why should I support a group that feeds me nothing but a bunch or propaganda and drink it up as fast as I can simply because the other side does it too? Shouldn't we as voters be revolting against that instead of supporting it? Don't you actually want the truth instead of being fed a long line of BS? So....we get to your statement of "Obama is the most partisan President....". Ummm....no. The partisanship is from both sides. Obama started his Presidency blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything under the sun. You are right about that. But, the Republicans have no moral high ground in this with their constant crap about him not being an American or him being Muslim or whatever the latest attack is that is so ridiculous that smart people should be able to see through it. Americans have a major problem. Notice I said Americans. Not Conservatives or Liberals. I said Americans. With the media the way it is on TV, radio or on line, people no longer listen to opposing views with an open mind. They drink up whatever media agrees with them (no matter if it is actually true or not) and then go on the attack. When you sit back and watch from the outside looking in, it really is a scary situation that I personally feel is going to end badly. So...hey.....I know exactly how you feel right now. I used to be there. The problem is that this country would be better off if more people would revolt against the media like they do against opposing politicians. I don't think you are getting it by suggesting I'm drinking some Kool-aid or implying I get my news from Rush Limbaugh or someone like that. I have NEVER listened to more than 5 minutes of Rush as I just don't like someone telling me how to think. I've said repeatedly I don't like right-wing radio either, but I do have core center-right principles I have always held since forming my opinions in college. I actually get most of my news by reading the many items on realclearpolitics (both left and right righters) as well as just reading regular news stories. So, to put you on the spot, since you are completely Independent, who are you leaning toward voting for in 2016 given the 20+ candidates in the race from both sides? At this point I am not supporting anyone. I'm listening to both sides. Bernie Sanders bothers me on a lot of levels BUT, I like his desire to get money out of politics. I think that is extremely important and it is what ultimately causes one hell of a lot of problems in this country. To my knowledge, the Republicans have no desire to change anything on this issue. So, I have to ask myself am I willing to vote Democrat for the first time in my life in the Presidential election on this one issue and then go throw up at the thought of voting for everything else? No way in hell I could vote for Hillary. Is there a Republican that I can stomach. As for the Republican candidates, I would like to learn more about Ben Carson. I like people who were successful NOT in politics and come to the table with good ideas. I only watched a little bit of the debate and he seemed very smart and reasonable in his answers that I saw. Donald Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment to the country and just needs to go away. The rest seem like career politicians that I'm not too excited about. I think the repubs would support getting money out (or they should) if it included union dues, teacher unions, govt workers unions, etc - all of those left leaning organizations that have given for decades. So if we want to take Bernie at his word, he should be insisting (and maybe he is) that these left leaning organizations be limited as well as super pacs. Not sure how this all works out - only the self financing wealthy will be able to run or an individual has to drum up an awful lot of individual donors. You're very very correct on that. If big companies aren't allowed to donate then other organizations shouldn't be able to donate also. The Dems will never go for that. There's one theory I have always been interested in for Presidential elections but I'm not sure how practical it is and how the logistics would work. If you had government funded elections and say the candidates were all given 100 million dollars to run a campaign. If you go over that amount, you're out of money. You would be able to see how a candidate can be efficient with other people's money and work with a budget. You could see how well he organizes people to get things done. The candidate then wouldn't also be motivated to give favors for money. But...like I said, it's one of those things that in theory sounds great but making it work would be another thing all together. I agree with you. If we truly want a fair playing field, then both money and political coverage must be fair for all candidates. On the money side, this would include all sorts of unions that give heavily to Dems. Also, while I know Fox and conservative radio leans to the right, most Americans get their news from the mainstream networks, or articles posted on yahoo and their website homepages, and those groups lean to the left. I'm not sure how you execute a fair media model, but if you truly want the most pure and fair election process, money and media have to be fixed.

Hey, as I stated earlier, I think this is a fair question and criticism. I honestly think they have poor Congressoinal leadership and Boehner and McConnell must go. I think there are way too many career policians in Congress that no longer know how to compromise and get results. time for term limits Hey, I agree with that. I live in the most corrupt state in the country where we've had many governors go to Prison (Illinois). Progressive policies here have made Illinois the most bankrupt state in the country, and yes, worse than California. For the first time in 12 years a Republican governor was elected, and is pushing term limits and fiscal cuts, but Michael Madigan the the Democratic legislature refuses to make any cuts, and refused to back term limits. If we didn't do term limits, how about making a requirement for no consecutive terms for the House as a start. They are only elected every 2 years, and spend half of their time in office campaigning and raising money. If they didn't have to worry about getting re-elected right away, they could serve the full 2-year term, and make the right choices of this country that won't be thrown back at them immediately.

Hey, as I stated earlier, I think this is a fair question and criticism. I honestly think they have poor Congressoinal leadership and Boehner and McConnell must go. I think there are way too many career policians in Congress that no longer know how to compromise and get results.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. Hey, unlike you, I'm going to be up front and agree that the GOP has not offered a proposal with broad consensus that counters the ACA. Shame on them. With that said, they did not create the mess that the ACA is, including the false promises and the lack of financial accountability to ensure that the ACA is not contributing further to our national debt. The law should never have been put in place by Obama and the Dems to begin with. It was bad legislation that involved a completely non-transparent process that members on the left did not even know what they were voting in favor of. So the law itself, and the process to pass the law, are what makes this the worse domestic legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime. Also, regarding another comment that this is a bill the GOP was in favor of, this has been a talking point on the left as an excuse to dismiss and accountability for the failures of the ACA. It was the early 1990s when HillaryCare was being discussed that a small number of Senators entertained a proposal that had some similarities to the ACA, but nothing like what actually happened. It was not an idea broadly supported by Conservatives nationwide. The experiment of Romneycare was a failure, and if such a program was not a success at the state level, why in heck would anyone want to nationalize it. As you are aware, Romneycare alone was a big reason Mitt Romney almost did not get the nomination, as Republicans were strongly against it. There were no other good candidates running in 2012 (unlike 2016 where there are many good candidates), and Romney was the best of a bad lot. So in summary, the GOP needs to have a viable alternative now that the ACA is in place, but we would be much better off had Obama and the Dems not put the ACA in place to begin with. Good job in falling for absolutely every party line argument the Republicans have put out since the 90s. So, let me get this straight. To my knowledge, everyone pretty much agrees that something needs to be done with healthcare. It is way too expensive and too many people don't have access to services like they should. (if you don't agree with this, then we need to be having a way different discussion). In the 90s, Hillary started pushing for a single payer plan that would take insurance companies completely out of the equation. The Republicans at the time raised hell claiming the socialist Hillary is taking over private industry and that is just plain unconstitutional and she is evil. They, in turn, come out with their own plan. That plan includes private health insurance companies and sets up markets for people to go and buy health insurance. Republicans also didn't like the idea that some people just chose not to buy health insurance and instead, when they got sick, they couldn't pay and they ended up just getting services for free or they end up in horrible financial shape with all the bills. They also didn't like the rising cost of health care. (all valid concerns in my mind) A few Senators wrote the proposal but it was put out as the main opposing idea by the Republican establishment and it was also marketed as pro private industry since health insurance companies were still involved and people could choose what insurance company they wanted to use. Well....Both Hillarycare and the Republican proposals failed. Fast forward to now. Obama basically takes the main tenants of the Republican proposal and pushes them through to actually pass a health care bill. What does the Republican establishment do? They put on one of the most ridiculous and disgusting campaigns I have ever seen against a President claiming he is everything from simply needing to be impeached to a Muslim who was planted here when he was a child to rise up and destroy American civilization. Now, let me explain since you are fairly new here. I once was a staunch Republican conservative. I consumed so much crap conservative media that I thought anything but a Republican was just flat out wrong for America. I watched everything on Foxnews. I even was one of the first listeners when Rush came on the radio. This issue has been one of the main issues that has driven me from the Republican party. Very early on in the Obamacare debate something just didn't feel right to me. So, I decided to sit back and as much as possible view the debate from the outside. I quit the Republican party and registered as an Independent. What I found was an amazingly refreshing view point. The problem was, I found the conservative side of this debate and politics in general at this time in our country to be absolutely disgusting. It is an all out war against anything but a Republican and the end justifies the means. I still remain pretty conservative in my views. But, The GOP flat out on the wrong path of leadership and this issue is a prime example of this. I disagree with Obama on many things and I think this bill could be improved. But, the painting of Obama as the antiChrist by conservatives on Foxnews, conservative radio and in social media just needs to stop. It prevents a real debate on issues and it prevents the Republicans from actually having a seat at the table of finding solutions. Ever stop and think about WHY the Republicans have never proposed anything else? If not, I would like you to do so and give me your ideas as to why. PS....and, I might add....the Tea Party is the worst thing that has ever happened to the conservative side of politics in this country. They just need to go away and drink tea somewhere else. This argument was tried over and over by the Dems...when they realized what a colossal failure the ACA was and still is, they tried claiming that it really wasn't their plan, and it was the GOP's plan. That is called politics, and it's why so many voters are upset with both parties. Referring back to an idea a handful of Senators proposed 18-20 years earlier and then trying to assign blame to the GOP for a failed policy is ridiculous. As for your "transformation" to an Independent, suggesting that Conservatives are the only ones that have extreme elements in their party is also absurd. From 2005-2008 all we heard from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other leading voices on the left (as well as the majority leftist media outlets) was how bad Bush 43 was, and they presented him as Satan. Also, Obama is the most partisan President of our times, and polls have backed that up to show the Partisan divide on his approval. For 7 years now, he has taken shots at Conservatives and Fox News any chance he can get, and last week in his defense of the Iran deal, he equated Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Do you approve of this from your President? Do you approve of all the name calling and hateful rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Dem leaders voiced toward Bush 43? I do agree that fringe elements in both parties are bad for this country, and that includes "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter" on the left. And unlike these latter two groups, Tea Party protests have been peaceful overall. Dude....step away from the Koolaid tap for a while. As for my "transformation. I never suggested that conservatives are the only ones that have extremes. I'm obviously not a Democrat for a reason. I'm an independent. I used to sound just like you. I thought....well, that side is doing XYZ so we need to do it too. The ends justify the means. Two wrongs make a right. I finally stepped back and said ENOUGH!!!! Why should I support a group that feeds me nothing but a bunch or propaganda and drink it up as fast as I can simply because the other side does it too? Shouldn't we as voters be revolting against that instead of supporting it? Don't you actually want the truth instead of being fed a long line of BS? So....we get to your statement of "Obama is the most partisan President....". Ummm....no. The partisanship is from both sides. Obama started his Presidency blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything under the sun. You are right about that. But, the Republicans have no moral high ground in this with their constant crap about him not being an American or him being Muslim or whatever the latest attack is that is so ridiculous that smart people should be able to see through it. Americans have a major problem. Notice I said Americans. Not Conservatives or Liberals. I said Americans. With the media the way it is on TV, radio or on line, people no longer listen to opposing views with an open mind. They drink up whatever media agrees with them (no matter if it is actually true or not) and then go on the attack. When you sit back and watch from the outside looking in, it really is a scary situation that I personally feel is going to end badly. So...hey.....I know exactly how you feel right now. I used to be there. The problem is that this country would be better off if more people would revolt against the media like they do against opposing politicians. I don't think you are getting it by suggesting I'm drinking some Kool-aid or implying I get my news from Rush Limbaugh or someone like that. I have NEVER listened to more than 5 minutes of Rush as I just don't like someone telling me how to think. I've said repeatedly I don't like right-wing radio either, but I do have core center-right principles I have always held since forming my opinions in college. I actually get most of my news by reading the many items on realclearpolitics (both left and right righters) as well as just reading regular news stories. So, to put you on the spot, since you are completely Independent, who are you leaning toward voting for in 2016 given the 20+ candidates in the race from both sides?

This was a great post and I think it's important for any conservatives reading this board to take a hard look at it. I'm in the same boat. There was a period in my life where I drank every drop of conservative media I could get my hands on. Eventually it got to the point where I could predict more or less what Sean Hannity was going to say that night before he came on the air. I didn't need to watch the show anymore. Once I heard what the story or the newest and worst controversy was, I could instantly divine exactly what conservative media would tell me to believe about it. Noam Chomsky makes an argument in his book Manufactured Consent––which was a seminal work of media criticism––that the media's function has little to do with information and a lot to do with setting the "acceptable" parameters of our national discourse. People forget we once had a strong socialist party (actually two socialist parties and a Marxist party) in this country. These were not fringe organizations, either. Their combined influence was tremendous, paving the way to the New Deal. Which is another reason Sanders is important, win, lose or draw. The very fact that it is now acceptable in the United States to call yourself a democratic socialist (or a liberal) is a sign of the times. The right is failing. It's so bad that Donald Trump, who favored single payer healthcare and has no allegiance whatsoever to "conservative values," is able to walk into the Republican Primary and blow off his opponents like so many flies buzzing around him. It really is incredible. Please point me to a poll that shows that a majority of Americans are acceptable of socialism or a Socialist candidate. Also, let's stop the BS that ideological media is one-sided. There are plenty of Conservative voices out there just as there are liberal voices. When Bush was President, the liberal voices went on, and on, and on, and on of how bad Bush was. It's the nature of politics unfortunately, and the party that is out of power in the White House usually has the loudest voice. Are you really going to sit here and act like there Big Liberal media was not on the attack against Bush 43 day in and day out?

Walker is so popular he had to face a recall in his state. I am sure the rest of America will love him though. He faced a recall in a very blue progressive state because he took on the unions, something that was very bold, and guess what... HE WON. He has won 3 elections in a very blue progressive state. As for Perry, I don't support him for President, and in 2012 he was not ready to run for office. I'm not saying his campaign will do better this time around, but he is much more prepared and has clearer focus on his ideas and his record. The bigger point I was making which you seem to lose sight of is that he was governor for many years in a very large state, and he has an outstanding resume of results and job creation while there. Unlike progressive California that is in debt and whose bleeding jobs, Texas is growing almost too fast. There have been countless articles around the different philosophies for governing in Texas vs California, and Perry's conservatism is a big reason why Texas has seen much greater growth.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. Hey, unlike you, I'm going to be up front and agree that the GOP has not offered a proposal with broad consensus that counters the ACA. Shame on them. With that said, they did not create the mess that the ACA is, including the false promises and the lack of financial accountability to ensure that the ACA is not contributing further to our national debt. The law should never have been put in place by Obama and the Dems to begin with. It was bad legislation that involved a completely non-transparent process that members on the left did not even know what they were voting in favor of. So the law itself, and the process to pass the law, are what makes this the worse domestic legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime. Also, regarding another comment that this is a bill the GOP was in favor of, this has been a talking point on the left as an excuse to dismiss and accountability for the failures of the ACA. It was the early 1990s when HillaryCare was being discussed that a small number of Senators entertained a proposal that had some similarities to the ACA, but nothing like what actually happened. It was not an idea broadly supported by Conservatives nationwide. The experiment of Romneycare was a failure, and if such a program was not a success at the state level, why in heck would anyone want to nationalize it. As you are aware, Romneycare alone was a big reason Mitt Romney almost did not get the nomination, as Republicans were strongly against it. There were no other good candidates running in 2012 (unlike 2016 where there are many good candidates), and Romney was the best of a bad lot. So in summary, the GOP needs to have a viable alternative now that the ACA is in place, but we would be much better off had Obama and the Dems not put the ACA in place to begin with. Good job in falling for absolutely every party line argument the Republicans have put out since the 90s. So, let me get this straight. To my knowledge, everyone pretty much agrees that something needs to be done with healthcare. It is way too expensive and too many people don't have access to services like they should. (if you don't agree with this, then we need to be having a way different discussion). In the 90s, Hillary started pushing for a single payer plan that would take insurance companies completely out of the equation. The Republicans at the time raised hell claiming the socialist Hillary is taking over private industry and that is just plain unconstitutional and she is evil. They, in turn, come out with their own plan. That plan includes private health insurance companies and sets up markets for people to go and buy health insurance. Republicans also didn't like the idea that some people just chose not to buy health insurance and instead, when they got sick, they couldn't pay and they ended up just getting services for free or they end up in horrible financial shape with all the bills. They also didn't like the rising cost of health care. (all valid concerns in my mind) A few Senators wrote the proposal but it was put out as the main opposing idea by the Republican establishment and it was also marketed as pro private industry since health insurance companies were still involved and people could choose what insurance company they wanted to use. Well....Both Hillarycare and the Republican proposals failed. Fast forward to now. Obama basically takes the main tenants of the Republican proposal and pushes them through to actually pass a health care bill. What does the Republican establishment do? They put on one of the most ridiculous and disgusting campaigns I have ever seen against a President claiming he is everything from simply needing to be impeached to a Muslim who was planted here when he was a child to rise up and destroy American civilization. Now, let me explain since you are fairly new here. I once was a staunch Republican conservative. I consumed so much crap conservative media that I thought anything but a Republican was just flat out wrong for America. I watched everything on Foxnews. I even was one of the first listeners when Rush came on the radio. This issue has been one of the main issues that has driven me from the Republican party. Very early on in the Obamacare debate something just didn't feel right to me. So, I decided to sit back and as much as possible view the debate from the outside. I quit the Republican party and registered as an Independent. What I found was an amazingly refreshing view point. The problem was, I found the conservative side of this debate and politics in general at this time in our country to be absolutely disgusting. It is an all out war against anything but a Republican and the end justifies the means. I still remain pretty conservative in my views. But, The GOP flat out on the wrong path of leadership and this issue is a prime example of this. I disagree with Obama on many things and I think this bill could be improved. But, the painting of Obama as the antiChrist by conservatives on Foxnews, conservative radio and in social media just needs to stop. It prevents a real debate on issues and it prevents the Republicans from actually having a seat at the table of finding solutions. Ever stop and think about WHY the Republicans have never proposed anything else? If not, I would like you to do so and give me your ideas as to why. PS....and, I might add....the Tea Party is the worst thing that has ever happened to the conservative side of politics in this country. They just need to go away and drink tea somewhere else. This argument was tried over and over by the Dems...when they realized what a colossal failure the ACA was and still is, they tried claiming that it really wasn't their plan, and it was the GOP's plan. That is called politics, and it's why so many voters are upset with both parties. Referring back to an idea a handful of Senators proposed 18-20 years earlier and then trying to assign blame to the GOP for a failed policy is ridiculous. As for your "transformation" to an Independent, suggesting that Conservatives are the only ones that have extreme elements in their party is also absurd. From 2005-2008 all we heard from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and other leading voices on the left (as well as the majority leftist media outlets) was how bad Bush 43 was, and they presented him as Satan. Also, Obama is the most partisan President of our times, and polls have backed that up to show the Partisan divide on his approval. For 7 years now, he has taken shots at Conservatives and Fox News any chance he can get, and last week in his defense of the Iran deal, he equated Republicans to Iranian terrorists. Do you approve of this from your President? Do you approve of all the name calling and hateful rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Dem leaders voiced toward Bush 43? I do agree that fringe elements in both parties are bad for this country, and that includes "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter" on the left. And unlike these latter two groups, Tea Party protests have been peaceful overall.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. Hey, unlike you, I'm going to be up front and agree that the GOP has not offered a proposal with broad consensus that counters the ACA. Shame on them. With that said, they did not create the mess that the ACA is, including the false promises and the lack of financial accountability to ensure that the ACA is not contributing further to our national debt. The law should never have been put in place by Obama and the Dems to begin with. It was bad legislation that involved a completely non-transparent process that members on the left did not even know what they were voting in favor of. So the law itself, and the process to pass the law, are what makes this the worse domestic legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime. Also, regarding another comment that this is a bill the GOP was in favor of, this has been a talking point on the left as an excuse to dismiss and accountability for the failures of the ACA. It was the early 1990s when HillaryCare was being discussed that a small number of Senators entertained a proposal that had some similarities to the ACA, but nothing like what actually happened. It was not an idea broadly supported by Conservatives nationwide. The experiment of Romneycare was a failure, and if such a program was not a success at the state level, why in heck would anyone want to nationalize it. As you are aware, Romneycare alone was a big reason Mitt Romney almost did not get the nomination, as Republicans were strongly against it. There were no other good candidates running in 2012 (unlike 2016 where there are many good candidates), and Romney was the best of a bad lot. So in summary, the GOP needs to have a viable alternative now that the ACA is in place, but we would be much better off had Obama and the Dems not put the ACA in place to begin with.