Jump to content


The Repub Debate


Recommended Posts

 

***SNIP***

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

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?

Link to comment

Wow, I thought you were in left field, but claiming that there is no other media bias like you feel there is at Fox is probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say so far.

 

Well that's interesting, because it wasn't even close to my point. Not even close. You are a master of red herring and straw man argument.

 

And I'm in left field? At least I'm on the field, man. Talking to you I get the distinct impression of someone who isn't even in the stadium, or aware that the larger sport exists at all.

 

I'm not disputing there is bias on Fox, but the bias is just bad on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN. There are countless studies that have been done about the number of positive and negative stories about Presidential candidates both in 2008 and 2012, and when you looked at the evening news for ABC, CBS, and NBC, Obama had far more positive stories and minutes spent on him, while the GOP candidate had more negative and less positive coverage. I don't have time to provide all the links now but will tomorrow evening when I have more time.

 

I wouldn't bother. Not so much because I'm not interested but because it has nothing to do with my argument. You're evading the point by shifting the conversation to something you feel more comfortable talking about.

 

I do work in the day in order to provide plenty of tax dollars to pay for all the social redistribution programs that you and the Bern are seeking.

 

I do appreciate it. I was actually about to take my Cadillac to exchange my food stamps for crack cocaine. That way I can be really high when I read Saul Alinsky this afternoon. :sarcasm

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

 

 

***SNIP***

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

 

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.
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

 

***SNIP***

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

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.

 

I'm all for great alternatives to ACA. The problem is ( and Brill obviously probably doesn't realize it) that the problem Republicans have with coming up with an alternative is that THEY were the ones who originally came up with the main ideas put in place in the ACA. But...of course.....now those are unconstitutional acts put in place by a Muslim dictator who was sent to the US 50 years ago to destroy our way of life and turn our nice peaceful government into a tyrannical form of oppression.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

I'm all for great alternatives to ACA. The problem is ( and Brill obviously probably doesn't realize it) that the problem Republicans have with coming up with an alternative is that THEY were the ones who originally came up with the main ideas put in place in the ACA. But...of course.....now those are unconstitutional acts put in place by a Muslim dictator who was sent to the US 50 years ago to destroy our way of life and turn our nice peaceful government into a tyrannical form of oppression.

 

And I think, in a nutshell, this is the reason Republicans are perceived as being obstructionists. Okay, you don't like a policy; that's fine. But rather than acting like a 3-year old that simply threatens to hold his breath until he gets his way, act like an adult and open a dialog. Offer alternatives. Until that happens, the Republican party doesn't mearly marginalize itself - it removes itself from the scene entirely.

 

The Iranian deal is another example. The country was marching steadily toward nuclear capabities. Sanctions didn't stop that march. But the sanctions hurt sufficiently to bring them to the table and cause them to accept oversight and limits. The alternative would be to continue the sanctions and either wait for Iran to reach nuclear capability or to put boots on the ground in another war that, at best, would result in thouands more American deaths, untold costs, and an unlikely positive outcome. So, you don't like the deal? Offer alternatives.

 

I realize that part of the Republican strategy is to demonize every effort by the Administration, but to date it hasn't gained them the White House and in all likelyhood won't yet again. Recognize that negotiations would serve both parties well - and for damn sure would best serve the country.

 

Oh, well...

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

 

 

 

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. My guess is Clinton never once told Trump to run. He's too smart for that.

 

What he probably did do was indirectly encourage him by feeding his narcissism. "You know, Donald, they just don't respect your ideas like they should." Kind of like pointing a Frankenstein Monster in the direction of your enemies and letting him shamble on over there by himself. It doesn't matter if he implodes in a week or wins the nomination; either way it ends up working for Hillary.

 

And pretending Bill did intend this––which we can't prove, but say he did. What does it say about the Republican Party that it worked? You have to tip your hat. If Bill poured honey in Citizen Trump's ear, it was a masterful strategy.

 

 

Wait...I missed this. It worked???

 

I didn't know the election was over.

 

If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate.

 

 

Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself).

 

The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP.

 

So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line.

 

LOL.....that's pretty amazing.

 

Throw out a hypothetical and come up with a big grand description of how it could work and then by the end claim...."well...hey...it's already worked" and we haven't even really got the heart of the campaign started yet.

 

I do know one thing. In most Presidential elections, what appears to be projected to happen at this point in the game very very seldom ever actually happens come next November. So, claiming anything has "worked" at this stage of the game is well....getting the cart before the horse.

Link to comment

 

I'm all for great alternatives to ACA. The problem is ( and Brill obviously probably doesn't realize it) that the problem Republicans have with coming up with an alternative is that THEY were the ones who originally came up with the main ideas put in place in the ACA. But...of course.....now those are unconstitutional acts put in place by a Muslim dictator who was sent to the US 50 years ago to destroy our way of life and turn our nice peaceful government into a tyrannical form of oppression.

And I think, in a nutshell, this is the reason Republicans are perceived as being obstructionists. Okay, you don't like a policy; that's fine. But rather than acting like a 3-year old that simply threatens to hold his breath until he gets his way, act like an adult and open a dialog. Offer alternatives. Until that happens, the Republican party doesn't mearly marginalize itself - it removes itself from the scene entirely.

 

The Iranian deal is another example. The country was marching steadily toward nuclear capabities. Sanctions didn't stop that march. But the sanctions hurt sufficiently to bring them to the table and cause them to accept oversight and limits. The alternative would be to continue the sanctions and either wait for Iran to reach nuclear capability or to put boots on the ground in another war that, at best, would result in thouands more American deaths, untold costs, and an unlikely positive outcome. So, you don't like the deal? Offer alternatives.

 

I realize that part of the Republican strategy is to demonize every effort by the Administration, but to date it hasn't gained them the White House and in all likelyhood won't yet again. Recognize that negotiations would serve both parties well - and for damn sure would best serve the country.

 

Oh, well...

 

It's typical of what ever party is not in power in the Whitehouse. If it were Republicans up there then the Dems would be coming up with every wild and crazy conspiracy as to how everything they propose is nothing more than doing favors for the 1% rich people in the country and it's all racist, sexist, classist, homophobic along with some sort of age discrimination. Sure, the Repubs have taken it to an impressive level in the last 3-4 years. But, it's nothing new.

Link to comment

 

 

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. My guess is Clinton never once told Trump to run. He's too smart for that.

 

What he probably did do was indirectly encourage him by feeding his narcissism. "You know, Donald, they just don't respect your ideas like they should." Kind of like pointing a Frankenstein Monster in the direction of your enemies and letting him shamble on over there by himself. It doesn't matter if he implodes in a week or wins the nomination; either way it ends up working for Hillary.

 

And pretending Bill did intend this––which we can't prove, but say he did. What does it say about the Republican Party that it worked? You have to tip your hat. If Bill poured honey in Citizen Trump's ear, it was a masterful strategy.

 

Wait...I missed this. It worked???

I didn't know the election was over.

 

If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate.

Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself).

 

The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP.

 

So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line.

LOL.....that's pretty amazing.

 

Throw out a hypothetical and come up with a big grand description of how it could work and then by the end claim...."well...hey...it's already worked" and we haven't even really got the heart of the campaign started yet.

 

I do know one thing. In most Presidential elections, what appears to be projected to happen at this point in the game very very seldom ever actually happens come next November. So, claiming anything has "worked" at this stage of the game is well....getting the cart before the horse.

Sigh . . .

 

I don't think you're following me, man. I wrote that not because I actually believe Bill Clinton pushed Donald Trump into the race. Since I have no evidence to substantiate it, I can't draw any certain conclusions or make any claims about it. Don't make so much out of it.

 

But IF Clinton wanted Trump in the race, and IF he deliberately acted to try and make it happen--and one more time to make sure you read it and don't have to respond to the same post a third time, there is zero hard evidence he did--it would be, HYPOTHETICALLY, a low risk/high reward deal that would have been a net benefit for Hillary the day Trump announced. That's all. Not rocket science. The political implications of it are about as basic as squares and triangles (or triangulation since we're talking about Bill Clinton).

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

 

***SNIP***

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

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.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

***SNIP***

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

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.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

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.

:lol:

. . . not in 2016. The GOP has 4 governors alone that in prior years would have been chosen as the frontrunner just as Hillary seems to be this year (Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular, and three of them in states Obama carried both times.

Link to comment

 

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.

:lol:

. . . not in 2016. The GOP has 4 governors alone that in prior years would have been chosen as the frontrunner just as Hillary seems to be this year (Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular, and three of them in states Obama carried both times.

 

Walker is so popular he had to face a recall in his state. I am sure the rest of America will love him though.

Link to comment

 

 

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.

:lol:

. . . not in 2016. The GOP has 4 governors alone that in prior years would have been chosen as the frontrunner just as Hillary seems to be this year (Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular, and three of them in states Obama carried both times.

 

Walker is so popular he had to face a recall in his state. I am sure the rest of America will love him though.

 

That and the cognitive dissonance required to tout a 2016 candidate who also ran in 2012 . . . while simultaneously claiming that there were no other good candidates in 2012 other than Romney.
Link to comment

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.

 

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.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...