Republican Judgement

[robdawg1]

well stated

and I bet the majority..... that are not fringe right or left agree with you

Which shows how apathetic we are.

Keep holding my breath for the day a candidate arrives that says to cut the crap with the side issues and deal with the real ones.

Oh wait we had that guy. His name is Ron Paul and the media convinced the public he is a kook.

Funny how that works. For all their quirkiness both Trump and Perot had their eye on the ball. And also got bashed by the media. Sure some of it was earned but the media focused on the fringe crap and not the substance.

I dont know how well they convinced about Ron Paul. He has had more support than others in recent history, and has caused the republican party to swing a little closer to center than they have been in recent times. I am a hard core left wing nut, and have found myself stopping and listening to Ron Paul and liking what i hear!

And in reference to apathy, do you mean showing up to vote, or our apathy at Gay rights and Abortion etc?

 

[Accountable]

I dont know how well they convinced about Ron Paul. He has had more support than others in recent history, and has caused the republican party to swing a little closer to center than they have been in recent times. I am a hard core left wing nut, and have found myself stopping and listening to Ron Paul and liking what i hear!

Yes, his voice finally cut through the cacophony ... a little. If a new politician comes in talking along the same lines, the people should be more ready to listen. But if someone doesn't step in to pick up his baton, and soon, I'm afraid it might have been in vain.

 

[Minor Axis]

My opinion on the tax returns is that it's a distraction that both parties are more than happy to wave in front of you, the easily distracted, so that no body will notice that nothing is different no matter which one is in the majority. Pay no attention to the curtain! Just enjoy the show.

I see, they are working together to make sure that one of them wins and no one will notice things are the same? If you message is that our political system has turned into the shits, I'd agree, but unfortunate our representatives are a product of our (the voters') choices and expectations. We are in deep shit.

You mean Gay marriage, Abortion, proof of citizenship, alcohol abuse, AWOL from national guard duty, whether or not someone was on a swift boat....these are all distractions? You mean that all these divisive and highly emotional issues are meant to distract us from what we should be focused on? And you tell me the American people are just that gullible? I scoff at that!!!

:hellno:thatfunny::usa:

So you don't believe the American voters are gullible or that they should be focused on the issues you mentioned? These are a combination of wedge or distraction issues amplified to create doubt about the candidate with the target group.

 

[Accountable]

I see, they are working together to make sure that one of them wins and no one will notice things are the same?

They don't have to focus on the first part so much because they've set up the rules to effectively lock out other competition. If they were a business they'd be indicted for violating antitrust laws. They're not in conflict about most major issues (actions, not rhetoric) or in what the "direction" of the country should be. They only argue about who should be in charge - who should take credit.

If you message is that our political system has turned into the shits, I'd agree, but unfortunate our representatives are a product of our (the voters') choices and expectations. We are in deep shit.

We've allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking our only choice is which Republocrat to vote for, and have adjusted our expectations accordingly. I don't think it's an accident. Yes, we are in deep shit.

 

[Minor Axis]

We've allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking our only choice is which Republocrat to vote for, and have adjusted our expectations accordingly. I don't think it's an accident. Yes, we are in deep shit.

You've stated what you see as a problem but what is your solution?

I am not scared of voting for Independents and have done so. I voted for Jesse Ventura for Gov of Minnesota. Do I regret it? Although he was not the best politician, because he did not like submitting to others and preferred dictating, I still liked him better the the GOP and Dem candidates at the time and do not regret the choice.

The parties that exist in the U.S. do so because we choose them. Want to get rid of Republicans or Dems? Stop voting for them. We vote for them because we think they best represent our morality.

How do you make it easier for new parties to gain traction? My ideas: would be to take the money out of elections, to pass laws preventing political advertising until 60 days before an election, and to pass instant run off voting. Instant Runoff voting is when you are allowed to prioritize your top 2 or 3 choices for each political position in the voting booth. In this way you would be allowed to vote your conscious without fear of wasting your vote. However with the confusion for a substantial number of people just to fill out a ballot with one choice per office, I don't have high hopes this would really work on a large scale basis. :smiley24:

 

[Accountable]

You've stated what you see as a problem but what is your solution?

I am not scared of voting for Independents and have done so. I voted for Jesse Ventura for Gov of Minnesota. Do I regret it? Although he was not the best politician, because he did not like submitting to others and preferred dictating, I still liked him better the the GOP and Dem candidates at the time and do not regret the choice.

The parties that exist in the U.S. do so because we choose them. Want to get rid of Republicans or Dems? Stop voting for them. We vote for them because we think they best represent our morality.

How do you make it easier for new parties to gain traction? My ideas: would be to take the money out of elections, to pass laws preventing political advertising until 60 days before an election, and to pass instant run off voting. Instant Runoff voting is when you are allowed to prioritize your top 2 or 3 choices for each political position in the voting booth. In this way you would be allowed to vote your conscious without fear of wasting your vote. However with the confusion for a substantial number of people just to fill out a ballot with one choice per office, I don't have high hopes this would really work on a large scale basis. :smiley24:

We're having this discussion in the Repair Gov't thread. We largely agree, except I get nervous when the advertising ban runs up against the 1st Amendment. I don't think any corporate entity should be allowed to influence either our electoral processes, or legislative processes unless they were specifically created to represent a political point of view. Businesses, unions, and political parties should not be allowed in the halls of Congress.

The parties that exist in the U.S. do so because we choose them. Want to get rid of Republicans or Dems? Stop voting for them. We vote for them because we think they best represent our morality.

I would rephrase it to: The two major parties exist because we chose them ... a century ago. They've become so ensconced into the actual government that some people think they are government, and the parties like that just fine. Want to get rid of Republicans or Dems? Stop voting for them. We vote for them because we think moral people can't win, and so we foolishly vote for the lesser of two evils, hoping that maybe next time ... next time ... next time.

 

[Minor Axis]

Who could he be talking about?

 

[robdawg1]

So you don't believe the American voters are gullible or that they should be focused on the issues you mentioned? These are a combination of wedge or distraction issues amplified to create doubt about the candidate with the target group.

It was sarcasm stating that I am aware that these inflamatory issues are heavily emphasized by less than mediocre candidates to distract and divide the electorate, and I am VERY aware of how gullible American voters are. While these issues are important in their own right, and deserve valid attention when appropriate, they are often not issues that should take priority in a national election.

 

[Minor Axis]

It was sarcasm stating that I am aware that these inflamatory issues are heavily emphasized by less than mediocre candidates to distract and divide the electorate, and I am VERY aware of how gullible American voters are. While these issues are important in their own right, and deserve valid attention when appropriate, they are often not issues that should take priority in a national election.

Thanks for clarifying. Our political system is so polarized, if Obama wins, I see no progress. It could easily be another 4 years of stonewalling by the opposition waiting for the next Presidential election. And if Romney wins, I have no idea what will happen.

 

[robdawg1]

Thanks for clarifying. Our political system is so polarized, if Obama wins, I see no progress. It could easily be another 4 years of stonewalling by the opposition waiting for the next Presidential election. And if Romney wins, I have no idea what will happen.

There will be just as much stone walling....Look at the last 2 administrations...when there is a republican controlled congress with a democratic president or visa versa you wall hit a brick wall....it is very hard to pass any grand and moving legislation with a bitter, and resistant opposing party in control...

 

[Accountable]

Thanks for clarifying. Our political system is so polarized, if Obama wins, I see no progress. It could easily be another 4 years of stonewalling by the opposition waiting for the next Presidential election. And if Romney wins, I have no idea what will happen.

I know what won't happen: repeal of the ACA.

 

[Minor Axis]

There will be just as much stone walling....Look at the last 2 administrations...when there is a republican controlled congress with a democratic president or visa versa you wall hit a brick wall....it is very hard to pass any grand and moving legislation with a bitter, and resistant opposing party in control...

This is a very good example of what is wrong with democracy. Nothing real will happen until we are forced to change, most likely by crashing and burning.

I know what won't happen: repeal of the ACA.

But, but, that is what the GOP is campaigning on!! (repealing the Affordable Care Act).


This is why the GOP is up in arms, Obama and his debt.

 

[Accountable]

This is a very good example of what is wrong with democracy. Nothing real will happen until we are forced to change, most likely by crashing and burning.[/quote]I think you're absolutely right.

But, but, that is what the GOP is campaigning on!! (repealing the Affordable Care Act).

Tut tut. The mantra is "Repeal And Replace". They just don't like the name. What specific part of the Act have they complained about?

 

[Tim]

Let me ask you a question Accountable, would you want every part of it repealed?

Even the part that says that if you continue to pay your premium that Insurance companies cannot throw you off if your treatment becomes too expensive for their liking?

 

[Minor Axis]

Tut tut. The mantra is "Repeal And Replace". They just don't like the name. What specific part of the Act have they complained about?

And you claim to be grounded in reality.

 

[Accountable]

Let me ask you a question Accountable, would you want every part of it repealed?

Even the part that says that if you continue to pay your premium that Insurance companies cannot throw you off if your treatment becomes too expensive for their liking?

Yes. The monstrosity is thousands of pages long. It would be more acceptable to me if they scrapped the entire thing, then passed separate laws for those very few things that are unarguably constitutional, rather than repealing parts and leaving parts and telling us to trust that only the constitutional stuff remains.

 

[Accountable]

And you claim to be grounded in reality.

What specific part of the Act have they complained about?

 

[Minor Axis]

What specific part of the Act have they complained about?

The entire program, that's what. Repealing Obama Care is a cornerstone of Romney's campaign. And it's a hell of a lot more than disliking the name. They want to repeal it and replace it with some vague, un-described, "program that makes sense", presumable in their minds costs and offers less. Oh, so because it is repeal and replace, even though you don't know what their counter proposal is, it will be all right. Unlike you, until I hear some specifics, I would assume, coming from conservatives they will gut the program while giving it a new patriotic name. Let's start with the DTMHA- Don't Tread On Me Health Act.

From what I've heard on the news, Romney can't seem to make up his mind if he is supporting Ryan's pre-VP health/budget proposals or his own. I've also said if the proposal, Ryan's proposal is to give everyone $15k per year to buy insurance with, I'd have know more about that, but until I do, with their track record, based on what I know, is to be negative.

Your inclination is to spend virtually all of your time in this forum defending the GOP and their policies. I find this very curious from someone who states "they are all alike".

 

[robdawg1]

http://rokita.house.gov/repeal

you wanted reasons....this is just one republican, I can find about 300 others if you like....

 

[Accountable]

The entire program, that's what. Repealing Obama Care is a cornerstone of Romney's campaign. And it's a hell of a lot more than disliking the name. They want to repeal it and replace it with some vague, un-described, "program that makes sense", presumable in their minds costs and offers less.

That's crap. Listen to what they're saying. They're not just being "vague and un-described" about what they'll replace ACA with. They're being "vague and un-described" about why they object to the program. Open your ears and eyes! They don't say anything specific about the program because they don't object to it. They don't object to it because it benefits the insurance companies. You know the insurance companies, don't you? Those big rich corporate sponsors OF BOTH PARTIES.

Oh, so because it is repeal and replace, even though you don't know what their counter proposal is, it will be all right.

You really don't see a goddamn thing that doesn't match your preconceptions. No matter what I've written, you're mind's made up. You've decided you know what I think. Again, open your fucking eyes.

Unlike you, until I hear some specifics, I would assume, coming from conservatives they will gut the program while giving it a new patriotic name. Let's start with the DTMHA- Don't Tread On Me Health Act.

That's why I asked what specific part the repubs have complained about. You haven't heard specifics about any of this from them because they don't have any. They're just using histrionics to scare people into electing them into control. They're not going to change a damn thing ... except give it a new patriotic name.
I like DTMHA.

From what I've heard on the news, Romney can't seem to make up his mind if he is supporting Ryan's pre-VP health/budget proposals or his own. I've also said if the proposal, Ryan's proposal is to give everyone $15k per year to buy insurance with, I'd have know more about that, but until I do, with their track record, based on what I know, is to be negative.

I don't give a damn what they propose at this point. I'm too jaded against them.

Your inclination is to spend virtually all of your time in this forum defending the GOP and their policies. I find this very curious from someone who states "they are all alike".

*sigh*