...and, targeted at you, the "stupidity of the American voter", as referenced by the rabid leftists destroying the country.
Obamacare Architect Admits that ACA was...
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Re: *crickets...*
I'm sorry, I don't spend my entire life on the GD board. I just read his post. Unlike yours, it's reasonable and well thought out, not riven with right-wing-nutjob lingo and talking points.
Do I think Republicans would try to cram bills down our throats even with fear of media backlash? Yes I do. They've done it in the past and will do so in the future. The 109th Congress passed several laws along party lines when Republicans owned both houses and the White House.
I'm sorry, I don't spend my entire life on the GD board. I just read his post. Unlike yours, it's reasonable and well thought out, not riven with right-wing-nutjob lingo and talking points.
Do I think Republicans would try to cram bills down our throats even with fear of media backlash? Yes I do. They've done it in the past and will do so in the future. The 109th Congress passed several laws along party lines when Republicans owned both houses and the White House.
Apparently, things done in Congress should be discussed, but points raised by Purdue85 are not open to discussion without being labelled as "obsession" or "hate." Interesting.
Purdue85 has replied to every one of my and qazplm's responses to him, et sequitir, Purdue85 must be "obsessed" with us and "hates" us.
Purdue85 has replied to every one of my and qazplm's responses to him, et sequitir, Purdue85 must be "obsessed" with us and "hates" us.
I'm sorry. I should've said: "Says you. You don't know me, but you're quite good at condescension."
Re: *crickets...*
as I've said before, so long as we have this back and forth where each party has a "wave" every two years of varying sorts, you will see the frantic push to take advantage of that wave as quickly as possible. the republicans know their time is short, just like dems in 08 and 12 knew their time was short.
as I've said before, so long as we have this back and forth where each party has a "wave" every two years of varying sorts, you will see the frantic push to take advantage of that wave as quickly as possible. the republicans know their time is short, just like dems in 08 and 12 knew their time was short.
Re: *crickets...*
Just to support your claim, for now at least.....from a conservative blogger which I cannot argue with.
Story of the 2014 election? Maybe a longer trend?
Just to support your claim, for now at least.....from a conservative blogger which I cannot argue with.
Story of the 2014 election? Maybe a longer trend?
Re: *crickets...*
You may be stretching a point, calling him a Conservative blogger. I wouldn't call anyone who is a regular contributor to that paragon of Conservatism, "The Huffington Post" a real Conservative. If you read his articles carefully, he seems to enjoy putting in snarky jabs at conservatives in the body of his posts.
Re: *crickets...*
Bush won NM, CO, NV in 2004. Go back and look at electoral maps from 1980 and 1984...
Trends last as long as they last. I don't believe there's some major demographic shift in this country towards major liberal thinking. I do think that a lot of younger and poorer people prefer the party that they perceive puts more money in their pockets, however as this year proved, those folks don't always get out and vote, particularly when their favored candidates aren't popular. I agree that states like CA will always favor all but the absolute worst Democratic candidates.
I suspect the trend we'll see is a split between House, Senate, and Executive for the remainder of my lifetime, though it wouldn't shock me to see a Republican win the Presidency in 2016. *IF* Hillary doesn't run, that could be a toss up because I'm not sure who else the Democrats have. Then again, Obama came from nowhere... That said, it also wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Democrats regain control of the Senate, particularly if the Republicans go on a f*** this away for the next two years as they probably will.
I think he makes a lot of assumptions in there, some of which are valid, and some of which are easily questioned. He puts all kinds of stock into the Senate results, but then hand-waves the Governor results away. Some of those "blue wall" states haven't always been that way. You think Scott Walker wouldn't win Wisconsin if he chose to run for President? I do. (Yes, I know Romney didn't carry his home state.)
Bush won NM, CO, NV in 2004. Go back and look at electoral maps from 1980 and 1984...
Trends last as long as they last. I don't believe there's some major demographic shift in this country towards major liberal thinking. I do think that a lot of younger and poorer people prefer the party that they perceive puts more money in their pockets, however as this year proved, those folks don't always get out and vote, particularly when their favored candidates aren't popular. I agree that states like CA will always favor all but the absolute worst Democratic candidates.
I suspect the trend we'll see is a split between House, Senate, and Executive for the remainder of my lifetime, though it wouldn't shock me to see a Republican win the Presidency in 2016. *IF* Hillary doesn't run, that could be a toss up because I'm not sure who else the Democrats have. Then again, Obama came from nowhere... That said, it also wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Democrats regain control of the Senate, particularly if the Republicans go on a f*** this away for the next two years as they probably will.
Re: *crickets...*
"though it wouldn't shock me to see a Republican win the Presidency in 2016. *IF* Hillary doesn't run, that could be a toss up because I'm not sure who else the Democrats have. Then again, Obama came from nowhere... That said, it also wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Democrats regain control of the Senate, particularly if the Republicans go on a f*** this away for the next two years as they probably will."
I don't think Hillary is a lock to win in 2016. She has a lot of baggage including crises like Benghazi. Hardcore lefties like Elizabeth Warren (Fauxcahontas), but I view her as unelectable, just like Ted Cruz is unelectable on the right side. I also think that Christie is unelectable. If the Republicans put Romney up again, I think I'll commit hari kari.
So far, the Republicans really haven't trotted anyone out yet that looks like a viable candidate. You're right that it could be someone like Scott Walker or a different governor, or maybe his fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan.
As you said, it's quite possible that the Rs pi$$ away their current position of Congressional strength.
"though it wouldn't shock me to see a Republican win the Presidency in 2016. *IF* Hillary doesn't run, that could be a toss up because I'm not sure who else the Democrats have. Then again, Obama came from nowhere... That said, it also wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Democrats regain control of the Senate, particularly if the Republicans go on a f*** this away for the next two years as they probably will."
I don't think Hillary is a lock to win in 2016. She has a lot of baggage including crises like Benghazi. Hardcore lefties like Elizabeth Warren (Fauxcahontas), but I view her as unelectable, just like Ted Cruz is unelectable on the right side. I also think that Christie is unelectable. If the Republicans put Romney up again, I think I'll commit hari kari.
So far, the Republicans really haven't trotted anyone out yet that looks like a viable candidate. You're right that it could be someone like Scott Walker or a different governor, or maybe his fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan.
As you said, it's quite possible that the Rs pi$$ away their current position of Congressional strength.
Re: *crickets...*
Walker will NOT run in 2016. This comes from the chief-of-staff of one of Wisconsin's senators. I ran into him in a hotel near O'Hare late last December and during our 15 minute conversation asked him the direct question. Scott Walker will not run in 2016 because he doesn't think he's ready yet. He's only 47 and believes his time will come in 2020/24.
Democrats have a visceral hatred for Walker which makes his three election wins in 4 years even more impressive. He is attacked relentlessly by thè WI print media, unions and democrat political appointees in the state bureaucracy yet continues to effectively perform his job.
I lived in WI for almost three years before we moved to Switzerland in August 2013 so I saw a lot of crap first-hand. The Kenosha 4th of July parade during the recall year was very "entertaining." I'm also amazed that Paul Ryan continues to get elected from that district given the democrat hold on all the local and state-level elected offices in his district.
Walker will NOT run in 2016. This comes from the chief-of-staff of one of Wisconsin's senators. I ran into him in a hotel near O'Hare late last December and during our 15 minute conversation asked him the direct question. Scott Walker will not run in 2016 because he doesn't think he's ready yet. He's only 47 and believes his time will come in 2020/24.
Democrats have a visceral hatred for Walker which makes his three election wins in 4 years even more impressive. He is attacked relentlessly by thè WI print media, unions and democrat political appointees in the state bureaucracy yet continues to effectively perform his job.
I lived in WI for almost three years before we moved to Switzerland in August 2013 so I saw a lot of crap first-hand. The Kenosha 4th of July parade during the recall year was very "entertaining." I'm also amazed that Paul Ryan continues to get elected from that district given the democrat hold on all the local and state-level elected offices in his district.
Re: *crickets...*
The chief-of-staff might be right, but I bet if Reince Priebus asked him to run in 2016, he'd do it.
I agree with you about the D's visceral hatred of Walker. The people of Wisky are smart enough to know that Madison and Milwaukee are run by the unions (less so now than before), but yet they like what Walker and Ryan have done for their state.
I also find Ed Schultz (MSNBC) entertaining. His extreme lefty, union bias was often on display in front of the cameras. I thought he was going to go into cardiac arrest when Walker beat the recall.
The chief-of-staff might be right, but I bet if Reince Priebus asked him to run in 2016, he'd do it.
I agree with you about the D's visceral hatred of Walker. The people of Wisky are smart enough to know that Madison and Milwaukee are run by the unions (less so now than before), but yet they like what Walker and Ryan have done for their state.
I also find Ed Schultz (MSNBC) entertaining. His extreme lefty, union bias was often on display in front of the cameras. I thought he was going to go into cardiac arrest when Walker beat the recall.
actually no
I dont think Walker would win Wisconsin if he ran there. I think he'd make it mighty competitive, but in the end, I think the turnout would be high, and Clinton would win the state.
ling Virginia a can't win state for republicans. Now, he ain't far off, in presidential elections NOVA absolutely dominates, and he's right, I live in the area and there was almost no advertising for the senate race by team blue, and turnout wasn't great.
His overarching points are:
1. The Reps will be on defense all over the place and in a lot more places than Dems were this year in the Senate in a lot, lot bluer ground
2. turnout will be very high with the first woman with a good chance at winning. that's always a bad sign for republicans.
2004 isn't 2014. demographic changes are moving swiftly and voter turnout among hispanics and blacks in presidential elections is higher than back then. (sadly for my side, that isn't the case during offcycles). NM, NV, and CO will go blue in 2016 regardless of who the reps nominate, I'll give 500 to your fav charity if that isn't the case.
well it last forever, well sure it won't, sooner or later reps will right-size their approach to social issues, to some economic issues, and to immigration which will return hispanics, and possibly some socially conservative AAs to their side, and maybe some youth. But we are talking either a sea change or a long, slow process. AA used to vote republican, then they switched thanks to the dixiecrats moving to the rep party. that's generations of a solid voting block that would take a ton to change. hispanics are slowly moving in that same direction as part of the rep party takes a hard immigration line.
has less to do with "major liberal thinking" and has more to do with broad areas. Those broad areas (abortion, equality (for gays, women and minorities), immigration) all favor the very demographic groups we are talking about for dems. the only reason reps are hanging on is that the groups they pull in (white men, older voters) consistently come out and vote, but one group is shrinking, and the other group, well, is dying. They will need to adjust to remain viable (and of course they will, necessity makes hypocrites of us all).
The house probably won't change hands for awhile. Gerrymandering has resulted in a pretty solid rep control (and yes dems do it and did it too, and that explains their LONG dominance of the house back when the reps were otherwise more often in control of the WH and Senate). The senate is likely to switch back and the WH to remain dem, which yes means split government probably at least for another decade.
I dont think Walker would win Wisconsin if he ran there. I think he'd make it mighty competitive, but in the end, I think the turnout would be high, and Clinton would win the state.
ling Virginia a can't win state for republicans. Now, he ain't far off, in presidential elections NOVA absolutely dominates, and he's right, I live in the area and there was almost no advertising for the senate race by team blue, and turnout wasn't great.
His overarching points are:
1. The Reps will be on defense all over the place and in a lot more places than Dems were this year in the Senate in a lot, lot bluer ground
2. turnout will be very high with the first woman with a good chance at winning. that's always a bad sign for republicans.
2004 isn't 2014. demographic changes are moving swiftly and voter turnout among hispanics and blacks in presidential elections is higher than back then. (sadly for my side, that isn't the case during offcycles). NM, NV, and CO will go blue in 2016 regardless of who the reps nominate, I'll give 500 to your fav charity if that isn't the case.
well it last forever, well sure it won't, sooner or later reps will right-size their approach to social issues, to some economic issues, and to immigration which will return hispanics, and possibly some socially conservative AAs to their side, and maybe some youth. But we are talking either a sea change or a long, slow process. AA used to vote republican, then they switched thanks to the dixiecrats moving to the rep party. that's generations of a solid voting block that would take a ton to change. hispanics are slowly moving in that same direction as part of the rep party takes a hard immigration line.
has less to do with "major liberal thinking" and has more to do with broad areas. Those broad areas (abortion, equality (for gays, women and minorities), immigration) all favor the very demographic groups we are talking about for dems. the only reason reps are hanging on is that the groups they pull in (white men, older voters) consistently come out and vote, but one group is shrinking, and the other group, well, is dying. They will need to adjust to remain viable (and of course they will, necessity makes hypocrites of us all).
The house probably won't change hands for awhile. Gerrymandering has resulted in a pretty solid rep control (and yes dems do it and did it too, and that explains their LONG dominance of the house back when the reps were otherwise more often in control of the WH and Senate). The senate is likely to switch back and the WH to remain dem, which yes means split government probably at least for another decade.
Re: *crickets...*
I think I'd favor Rand Paul over Paul Ryan, but that's because Ryan's budgetary shenanigans targeted military personnel costs (read: pay and benefits) before they targeted procurement, R&D, or any place else where the federal government wastes billions of dollars annually.
The pension COLA cut was going to save the government something like $600MM over the next decade, but cost people like me about $125K. Meanwhile, systems like RAMICS, which never came to fruition, spent $632MM in four years in development, procurement and testing costs with zero return on investment. Sorry, I don't feel like funding that directly. The first place budget hawks look to trim the military budget is in personnel because, you know, we'll take it and go happily on our way.
Then again, Rand Paul is every bit the budget hawk that Ryan is, I just don't know if he's so dumb as to attack Veteran's benefits right up front like Ryan was.
I think I'd favor Rand Paul over Paul Ryan, but that's because Ryan's budgetary shenanigans targeted military personnel costs (read: pay and benefits) before they targeted procurement, R&D, or any place else where the federal government wastes billions of dollars annually.
The pension COLA cut was going to save the government something like $600MM over the next decade, but cost people like me about $125K. Meanwhile, systems like RAMICS, which never came to fruition, spent $632MM in four years in development, procurement and testing costs with zero return on investment. Sorry, I don't feel like funding that directly. The first place budget hawks look to trim the military budget is in personnel because, you know, we'll take it and go happily on our way.
Then again, Rand Paul is every bit the budget hawk that Ryan is, I just don't know if he's so dumb as to attack Veteran's benefits right up front like Ryan was.
dude, you have tracked me and followed me with a passion.
You don't care about other points of view. It's laughable for you to pretend otherwise.
Re: *crickets...*
It isn't about "right wing nutjob lingo", or any such idiocy. (Interestingly, you seem to have no problem with "left wing nutjob lingo".)
This is a representative republic. There is no "cram(ming) bills down our throat", and it certainly won't happen without media backlash. There's nothing wrong with bills that fall along party lines, as that happens frequently. But there's certainly something wrong when bills are rammed down the throats of the American people without transparency, and when the premise is built on a house of lies.
Try arguing the point.
It isn't about "right wing nutjob lingo", or any such idiocy. (Interestingly, you seem to have no problem with "left wing nutjob lingo".)
This is a representative republic. There is no "cram(ming) bills down our throat", and it certainly won't happen without media backlash. There's nothing wrong with bills that fall along party lines, as that happens frequently. But there's certainly something wrong when bills are rammed down the throats of the American people without transparency, and when the premise is built on a house of lies.
I am an unabashed liberal - at least in most issues. What exactly are the problems people have with Obamacare? Is it perfect? Nope, Does it address serious issues at a relatively modest cost? Yes. Is repealing it better than improving it? Absolutely not. I am open to hearing arguments from people opposed to it. I really want to know what I am missing.
My opinion of ACA is that it expands coverage at relatively modest cost and does a little bit - but not much - in reining in costs. I think long-term (a couple decades from now) it will eventually lead to the decoupling of employment and health insurance. This by itself while a big change is not necessarily a bad thing.
My opinion of ACA is that it expands coverage at relatively modest cost and does a little bit - but not much - in reining in costs. I think long-term (a couple decades from now) it will eventually lead to the decoupling of employment and health insurance. This by itself while a big change is not necessarily a bad thing.
Latest posts
-
-
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-