So, what do you suggest the GOP do to "reach out?"
Quote: boymimboGeez, AZ, why don't you just come out and say it? Democrats are stupid morons and Rebublicans are soooo smart...
Not going to be that direct but I will say of the people I see and meet the lower information one are almost always Democrat.
Quote: thecesspitThe 47% comment might be true, but was badly phrased. It's not the 47% that is the problem. It's a portion of that 47%. In any welfare state system there will be some people who are net takers. The guy just laid off, or the vet too injured to work, and so forth. That's the point of a safety net. The problem is the safety net (as perceived by Romney and his supporters) is too large. By what percentage, I don't know and don't really care.
That should have been the focus. The 20%, say. Not the 47%. You lump too many people into one group with that comment. People don't like being lumped together.
It was valid point, badly managed. Yeah, you can talk about media spin and all that jazz. The paranoia of the media bias always being the 'problem' for the Republicans to succeed again may be true, but it's a deflection. It's blaming someone else. Blaming someone else should not be part of the Republican ideology. Improve thyself, right? So live it.
Stop caring quite so much about what the other side is doing. Promote themselves positively, not the other side negatively. Promote an alternative. Not demote the status quo.
I agree, but it doesn't matter what the percentage is/was. Romney would have gotten hammered by the media regardless. It's not "blaming" anyone to bring up fairness. I mean, how many people heard footage of Obama saying that there are "57 states"? I don't know the answer myself, but I bet it was less than the number of people who heard the "47% comment".
Also, Romney did promote himself positively. He never brought up Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko. He ignored the whole birth certificate thing and didn't mention the fact that Obama doesn't help his brother who lives in a hut on a few dollars per month. Heck, he didn't even go after Obama on Benghazi. Instead, he stuck strictly to the economy.
And Romney was the ultimate squeaky clean candidate, yet they still made mincemeat out of him.
Quote: thecesspitGay marriage... one idea how to cut that knot... -personally- I think the state should recognise personal unions, that are exclusive between two people above the age of majority. That's it. If you want a Baptist marriage, the Baptists can decide what makes you eligible for their ceremonies. You want a registry office marriage in Idaho, idaho state law decides what that means. But in the eyes of the law, anyone is allowed a civil union, and that means the same for all, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.
I actually agree. If the push was for equal rights via civil unions, then I don't think this whole thing would be an issue at all. In fact, that's how civil unions were initially presented a decade ago. But nowadays, liberals won't rest until they've made every person in America accept their new definition of a commonplace word.
Quote: boymimboGeez, AZ, why don't you just come out and say it? Democrats are stupid morons and Rebublicans are soooo smart...
What's wrong with holding such opinions? Just go the Huffington Post and read the comments section for just about any political article. Democrats there make the same sort of statements.
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat's wrong with holding such opinions? Just go the Huffington Post and read the comments section for just about any political article. Democrats there say the exact opposite.
That's the point. I follow politics and I have developed strong political opinions that are logical and supported by fact, if someone disagrees with me they are certainly a "low information voter" because I have information and the correct party/candidate is obvious. Thus, a person who favors the other candidate/party must not use the information and are thus a "low information voter".
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat's wrong with holding such opinions? Just go the Huffington Post and read the comments section for just about any political article. Democrats there make the same sort of statements.
There's nothing wrong with having those opinions. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Attributing a bunch of attributes across 47% of the electorate is kind of idiotic in its own right. Obama may have said there are 57 states, but which states would he have offended by making that statement?
Grouping a large segment of the population into one group (all democrats) with similar negative characteristics (aka stereotyping) is just parroting the Fox Newspeak. And when Romney made the 47% remark, what percent of that 47% was going to vote for Romney?
It's like me calling Republicans stupid rednecks, which is probably a widely held opinion up here in Canada. But I happen to be married to a proud Republican, and I respect her views (wrong as they might be) and she ain't no redneck.
You aren't going to win an election if you can't sway any of the "47%" to vote for you and group a pile of people into one negative stereotype, like AZ just did.
Quote: boymimboYou aren't going to win an election if you can't sway any of the "47%" to vote for you and group a pile of people into one negative stereotype, like AZ just did.
This is exactly my point.
Saying 'hey, there's not enough people pushing the wagon" is one thing.
Saying "it's ALLLLL of you guys" is another.
Quote: boymimbo
You aren't going to win an election if you can't sway any of the "47%" to vote for you and group a pile of people into one negative stereotype, like AZ just did.
Funny statement, because the GOP is always lumped as a bunch of racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobic white guys by the left all the time. The fact is both sides have about 45% that isn't switching no matter what. What happened is Romney actually said it.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrThat's the point. I follow politics and I have developed strong political opinions that are logical and supported by fact, if someone disagrees with me they are certainly a "low information voter" because I have information and the correct party/candidate is obvious. Thus, a person who favors the other candidate/party must not use the information and are thus a "low information voter".
Right. You hold strong political OPINIONS. My political opinions may be completely opposite to you but may seem just as logical and supported by fact as well. My issues and the things that are important to me are different than your issues and the things that are important to me.
For example, if I have a candidate who tells me that s/he is going to push for more parental rights for fathers because it's important to them, they will likely have my vote, no matter what their other views are. If my municipal candidite for council tells that they will try to stop the path that is going behind my house (despite the fact that the path's existence is much to the greater good of the community), they will likely have my vote. Neither of those issues matter to you -- you're a single person who lives a mile away.
Politics is personal. We can have different views, supported by logic and fact, that leads us to different conclusions. it doesn't make me a "low information" voter nor does it make you a "low information" voter for disagreeing with me. It means we're different.
All our political differences means is that we have different beliefs as to what is important. To call a wide swath of people "low information voter" aka STUPID is counterproductive.
Quote: AZDuffmanFunny statement, because the GOP is always lumped as a bunch of racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobic white guys by the left all the time. The fact is both sides have about 45% that isn't switching no matter what. What happened is Romney actually said it.
And that's not what Romney said.
Quote: Mitt Romney, May 2012There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Right, AZ, except I don't say it, either, because I don't believe it, and frankly, it's just wrong. There are far too many Republicans on this forum who are smart, thoughtful folk, just as there are a number of Democrats who are the same. But when you just attack all Dems as "low informational" voters, it just illustrates why people are too deeply engrained in their beliefs and the beliefs of the other sides to switch.
Then it becomes all about demographics and more importantly, who shows up at the polls.
Quote: boymimboObama may have said there are 57 states, but which states would he have offended by making that statement?
I don't know if 'offended' is the right word, but if Romney's comment is relevant to the big picture, then people in all 50 states should be concerned about a candidate who doesn't even know how many states are in the Union.
Quote: boymimboGrouping a large segment of the population into one group (all democrats) with similar negative characteristics (aka stereotyping) is just parroting the Fox Newspeak. And when Romney made the 47% remark, what percent of that 47% was going to vote for Romney?
None, which was Romney's point.
Quote: boymimboYou aren't going to win an election if you can't sway any of the "47%" to vote for you and group a pile of people into one negative stereotype, like AZ just did.
A very, very large number of people vote Democrat not because they're stupid, but because the Democratic message is a much easier sell. For example, say two guys are talking to group of people. One guy promises them a bunch of freebies, while the other wants to end those freebies.
Who are people more likely to vote for? Naturally, there will be many more who support the first guy without doing further research, and I think that's what AZ meant by "low-information voter". (And no, that term does not apply to you or the other liberals who have posted in both this and the gun thread. You guys obviously know your stuff and vote Democrat because of legitimate philosophical differences.)
Quote: boymimboAnd that's not what Romney said.
Right, AZ, except I don't say it, either, because I don't believe it, and frankly, it's just wrong. There are far too many Republicans on this forum who are smart, thoughtful folk, just as there are a number of Democrats who are the same. But when you just attack all Dems as "low informational" voters, it just illustrates why people are too deeply engrained in their beliefs and the beliefs of the other sides to switch.
Never said "all Democrats are low information voters," what I said was, "most low information voters vote Democrat." And I will stand by that. There are Democrats who have well thought out beliefs. I may disagree with socialism, but some people think it will work and choose the candidate promising a more socialist USA (Obama in 2008 and 2012.) OTOH the "Obamaphone Woman" cannot be described as anything but low information.
Quote: Beethoven9thNone, which was Romney's point.
Exactly. So how do you expect to win an election by being completely defeatist? You need some of that 47% to vote for you if you want a hope of winning an election.
There are some Democrats who are not stupid AND who don't want freebies. Some Democrats (not all) can't accept the Republican's steadfast views on abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights for example. That's not stupid - that's a choice. It may be the wrong choice, in your opinion, but it's still a choice, and not an easy one for many. Some Democrats (not all) believe in social welfare and universal health insurance (paid through their tax dollars) even though they have no need to collect on it or use it, because they believe that a safety need is a good thing and that people have the "right" to receive health care. Some people vote Democrat because they didn't support the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I am certain that there
There are some Republicans who are not gun-toting, rednecks who want everyone to fend for themselves. Some Republicans can't accept the Democrat's steadfast views on free choice, gay marriage, and gun control for example. That's a choice. It may be the right choice, in your opinion, but it's still a choice, and not an easy one for many. Some Republicans believe in libartaranism and paying for your own health care, even though they may never have any need to pay it, because they believe that a safety net just costs them and people do not have the right to receive health care. Some people vote Republican because they support the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I am certain that there are some immigrants that vote Republican.
Neither side is stupid. Each's beliefs are based on a different yet valid (to them) value system, and resorting to either side as a stereotype befriends no one.
Quote: boymimbo
Neither side is stupid. Each's beliefs are based on a different yet valid (to them) value system, and resorting to either side as a stereotype befriends no one.
What remains more interesting is why both sides fall so completely to one side or the other. Gun control, abortion, and gay marriage should be independent issues. But they are not. A democrat will go nowhere in the party if they are not totally anti-gun, pro-abortion, and in favor of gay marriage. In the GOP you can have small qualification on abortion (rape/incest) but still must fall mostly in line.
In the general public it is much the same. We may be turning into two different societies.
Quote: boymimboExactly. So how do you expect to win an election by being completely defeatist? You need some of that 47% to vote for you if you want a hope of winning an election.
How is that being defeatist? Romney was just stating a fact. (For example, that's about the same number of people who pay ZERO federal income tax.)
Quote: boymimboSome Republicans believe in libartaranism and paying for your own health care, even though they may never have any need to pay it, because they believe that a safety net just costs them and people do not have the right to receive health care.
Not to nitpick, but I don't think anyone opposes a right to health care. It's "free" health care that conservatives and libertarians oppose.
I totally agree though that it serves no purpose when any debate turns into insults and petty name calling.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot going to be that direct but I will say of the people I see and meet the lower information one are almost always Democrat.
It's funny, I see the opposite in my locality. And I lean more right than left* so it bugs me.
*really more of an independent libertarian anyway, but I have republican roots and would choose them if forced between the 2 shitpiles we have in this 2-party system.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat remains more interesting is why both sides fall so completely to one side or the other. Gun control, abortion, and gay marriage should be independent issues. But they are not. A democrat will go nowhere in the party if they are not totally anti-gun, pro-abortion, and in favor of gay marriage. In the GOP you can have small qualification on abortion (rape/incest) but still must fall mostly in line.
In the general public it is much the same. We may be turning into two different societies.
I don't think that's true. I think most people are somewhere in the middle and abhor having to choose the lesser of two evils. The approval rating in congress reflects some of this feeling. When polar opposites collide, nothing gets done. Politicians must actually be closer to the middle too but are forced to vote on party lines.
Getting back on topic, I would argue that the 2012 version of Mitt Romney was the 2004 version of John Kerry -- a candidate that couldn't relate to the electorate and certainly couldn't sway the voters away from the party lines. The Republicans, up until the time he was actually nominated, didn't think he was the right candidate either.
The election was the Republicans to win, and I think a better candidate would have pulled it off.
Quote: boymimboI don't think that's true. I think most people are somewhere in the middle and abhor having to choose the lesser of two evils. The approval rating in congress reflects some of this feeling. When polar opposites collide, nothing gets done. Politicians must actually be closer to the middle too but are forced to vote on party lines.
For disengaged voters maybe, but when I think of most people I meet if seems to be more true than false. I will admit I socialize more with engaged folks, but it seems to hold true in my experience.
Quote:Getting back on topic, I would argue that the 2012 version of Mitt Romney was the 2004 version of John Kerry -- a candidate that couldn't relate to the electorate and certainly couldn't sway the voters away from the party lines. The Republicans, up until the time he was actually nominated, didn't think he was the right candidate either.
The election was the Republicans to win, and I think a better candidate would have pulled it off.
I will mostly agree here though I will say Romney could have pulled it off had he gone on the attack. He didn't except at the first debate. A candidate did ate on the attack would have said, "well he ought to know about not building things because he never built anything himself no matter how small." I think Romney had a case of "don't attack the black guy" fever.
Quote: AZDuffmanI will mostly agree here though I will say Romney could have pulled it off had he gone on the attack. He didn't except at the first debate.
I think so, too. He was a better candidate than Kerry, and I feel that he only lost for two reasons: (1) He gave Obama a pass on Benghazi, and (2) Hurricane Sandy. Although nothing could be done about the latter, letting Obama off on Benghazi was huge. I do admit though that Romney fumbled in the 2nd debate when he asked Obama a direct question on whether or not he called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" because that allowed that hack liberal jackass Candy Crowley to interject and defend Obama. Oh man, I better not get started on that...
Romney managed to lose despite him having a much stronger position and track record on the economy than Obama, and the economy was the number one issue for the election, yet Obama managed to win with a majority. Everyone knew that the economy stank, but despite the alternative (Romney / Ryan), the electorate continued to go with the incumbent whose record on the economy has been terrible and will continue to be. That's what happens when you alienate voters and why the 47% remark was so reflective of why Romney lost.
In my opinion, anyway.
Quote: chickenmanIMNSHO the republican party blew it by not incessantly beating the drum on the arrogant, insulting and condescending "you didn't build it" theme that epitomizes the total lack of class of this empty suit potus. Did I mention how insulting that was...? :-)
It did alienate about 48% of the voters.
Quote: boymimboI respectfully disagree. Kerry's problem was the same as Romney in that he could not connect to his voters. I think that election would have been fairly easy to win if he didn't come across as a rich arrogant pompous ass, which is exactly the same as Kerry came across as. Both Kerry and Romney came from very rich parents, and Kerry managed to alienate enough of his voters despite there being an unsuccessful war going on and a sputtering (but much better economy) economy.
Romney managed to lose despite him having a much stronger position and track record on the economy than Obama, and the economy was the number one issue for the election, yet Obama managed to win with a majority. Everyone knew that the economy stank, but despite the alternative (Romney / Ryan), the electorate continued to go with the incumbent whose record on the economy has been terrible and will continue to be. That's what happens when you alienate voters and why the 47% remark was so reflective of why Romney lost.
In my opinion, anyway.
I wouldn't say Romney came off as pompous but that he is more of a stable and quiet guy. Obama otoh has this quality that certain kinds if people just want to follow him and some just want to give up whatever it takes from their personal life if he asks. Not all of his supporters but plenty. I mean ask some Obama supporters why they like him or what makes him great and they can't give one concrete reason. They just like HIM. It is a cult of personality. They want to chant and be part of something.
That is hard to overcome.
Quote:So, what do you suggest the GOP do to "reach out?"
1. Promise lower taxes 'cause that's your meat and potatoes.
2. Nag nag nag your privite sector supporters to go all-out on creating hi profile jobs programs even if it's for minimum wage.
3. Don't outrage immigrants, gays, and women voters. Just go stealthy low profile on your anti-policies and hope they don't notice too much.
Quote: rxwine1. Promise lower taxes 'cause that's your meat and potatoes.
2. Nag nag nag your privite sector supporters to go all-out on creating hi profile jobs programs even if it's for minimum wage.
3. Don't outrage immigrants, gays, and women voters. Just go stealthy low profile on your anti-policies and hope they don't notice too much.
Anti-policies?
Quote: AZDuffmanAnti-policies?
LOL.
I mean the normal policies. Promoting civil unions for gays. Building walls along the border. English official language only. etc., More legal hurdles for abortion.
Tone down your negatives. But make sure your base knows you're still for the "right" things.
Quote: boymimboI respectfully disagree. Kerry's problem was the same as Romney in that he could not connect to his voters. I think that election would have been fairly easy to win if he didn't come across as a rich arrogant pompous ass, which is exactly the same as Kerry came across as. Both Kerry and Romney came from very rich parents, and Kerry managed to alienate enough of his voters despite there being an unsuccessful war going on and a sputtering (but much better economy) economy.
Romney managed to lose despite him having a much stronger position and track record on the economy than Obama, and the economy was the number one issue for the election, yet Obama managed to win with a majority. Everyone knew that the economy stank, but despite the alternative (Romney / Ryan), the electorate continued to go with the incumbent whose record on the economy has been terrible and will continue to be. That's what happens when you alienate voters and why the 47% remark was so reflective of why Romney lost.
In my opinion, anyway.
Obama's team was also HUGELY effective at winning key precincts. They had that part of the campaign down to a T.
I found it strange that the election was pretty much a replay of the previous one in the results. Nothing on the needle really shifted, despite a vocal minority of people telling me it was all over for Obama, and Romney was winning by a landslide.
The debate for the future shape of the US is not over, maybe the next cycle will resolve it better as they'll be no incumbent to defeat.
Quote: thecesspitObama's team was also HUGELY effective at winning key precincts. They had that part of the campaign down to a T.
I found it strange that the election was pretty much a replay of the previous one in the results. Nothing on the needle really shifted, despite a vocal minority of people telling me it was all over for Obama, and Romney was winning by a landslide.
The debate for the future shape of the US is not over, maybe the next cycle will resolve it better as they'll be no incumbent to defeat.
Not the biggest surprise actually. The USA is in a traditionalist/progressive struggle socially right now. It is going to take something big and painful to tip it forever one way or the other. On immigration in 10 years Mexico falls below replacement birth rate so that will be interesting immigration wise
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat remains more interesting is why both sides fall so completely to one side or the other. Gun control, abortion, and gay marriage should be independent issues. But they are not. A democrat will go nowhere in the party if they are not totally anti-gun, pro-abortion, and in favor of gay marriage. In the GOP you can have small qualification on abortion (rape/incest) but still must fall mostly in line.
In the general public it is much the same. We may be turning into two different societies.
This.
I mean, boymimbo actually called me a conservative. I can only assume it was a direct result of the gun thread and my gun-nuttery, because, at least socially, a think conservative would be one of the last words used to describe me. But the political climate is such that certain things just automatically denote a stance. Like guns? You’re conservative. Like gays? You’re liberal. Fan of God? Conservative. Want a social safety net? Liberal.
How can I as an independent thinker go Republican to protect my gun rights when they go off the reservation with their comments about abortions and gays? How can I go Democrat to get away some of the insanity of the GOP when they want to blow my money on hopeless healthcare systems and take my guns?
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am. Stuck in the middle with who?
Unfortunately, that's already the case. Democrats have to remain vigilant against complacency otherwise they'll just become Republicans and no sane person wants that. Democrats need more like Elizabeth Warren and fewer like the corrupt Max Baucus.Quote: renoIf the trend continues, the Democrats will get lazy, complacent, and ultimately corrupt.
Quote: FaceThis.
I mean, boymimbo actually called me a conservative. I can only assume it was a direct result of the gun thread and my gun-nuttery, because, at least socially, a think conservative would be one of the last words used to describe me. But the political climate is such that certain things just automatically denote a stance. Like guns? You’re conservative. Like gays? You’re liberal. Fan of God? Conservative. Want a social safety net? Liberal.
How can I as an independent thinker go Republican to protect my gun rights when they go off the reservation with their comments about abortions and gays? How can I go Democrat to get away some of the insanity of the GOP when they want to blow my money on hopeless healthcare systems and take my guns?
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am. Stuck in the middle with who?
The libertarians. You're pretty close to New Hampshire, right? Join up!.
Seriously though, I would urge you and all others in a similar position (whether you lean libertarian or you just don't like the 2 parties for other reasons) to vote 3rd-party. It sucks right now, but if no one does it, we're stuck with the Jokers and the Clowns for the rest of our days. A viable 3rd party could emerge in the next 10-20 years.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThe libertarians. You're pretty close to New Hampshire, right? Join up!.
Seriously though, I would urge you and all others in a similar position (whether you lean libertarian or you just don't like the 2 parties for other reasons) to vote 3rd-party. It sucks right now, but if no one does it, we're stuck with the Jokers and the Clowns for the rest of your days. A viable 3rd party could emerge in the next 10-20 years.
I had always fought the 3rd party movement, but after this past election, I totally agree with you. The Republicans will never win another national election, and voting for a 3rd party looks like the way to go.
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm not changing my belief because it is a fad of some kind. 35 years of homophile indoctrination will sooner or later have an effect on the younger generation. Sadly.
So by Republican standards, an 89-year old WWII vet is the "younger generation." The homophiles have brainwashed George H. W. Bush into serving as the official witness for a lesbian wedding. Here he is signing the wedding license:
All the Bushes can become rinos with the wrong move. Fine with me. Tea party doesn't want to work with moderates in their party, just have their way.
If it's my way or the highway, eventually the rightwing is the one on the highway.
Quote: renoSo by Republican standards, an 89-year old WWII vet is the "younger generation." The homophiles have brainwashed George H. W. Bush into serving as the official witness for a lesbian wedding. Here he is signing the wedding license:
You revived a thread that's been dead for 5 months for this?
Quote: Beethoven9th
You revived a thread that's been dead for 5 months for this?
Dude is wearing 1 red sock and 1 blue sock. You don't think that's newsworthy?
The next part of the calculation is what sort of thing are you going to implement to take advantage of the number without causing enough negative effects to nullify your advantage.
I have this feeling the conservatives got their calculations a little bit wrong on that part. We'll see anyway.
Quote:A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that only 28 percent of Americans view the Republican Party favorably — down 10 percentage points since September, and the lowest number for either party since Gallup began asking the question in 1992.
Not the record you really want to break.
Quote: renoThe Republican Party is now viewed favorably by 28% of Americans, down from 38% in September.
I like this poll better: Obama’s Approval Rating Down to 37
Quote: Beethoven9thI like this poll better: Obama’s Approval Rating Down to 37
This just helps point out that it's everyone's fault and no one likes what is going on.
So it boils down to this:
Which is worse for our country:
Raise our debt ceiling, which we have done numerous times with little consequence?
OR
Default on a debt payment, which we have never done in our history?
Since raising the debt ceiling has worked out fairly smoothly in the past, I'd personally stick with that.
Quote: Boz
Sluts: I'll let that one go since we never got an answer on how many partners Ms Fluke or the womans Basketball Team at Rutgers had.
And why not say "Rush" instead of hinting about it. Funny how liberals always look to bash him when he has never run for office or been an offical with the GOP. Maybe he is popular because people believe what he says.
I would've hoped you would've "let that one go" because it was indefensible. Ugly. Uncalled for. An attack on private citizens by a public figure. And none of your effing business.
"Rush" is not entertainment, but whenever he's called to task for being, well, "Rush", he always makes this type of claim, as you have above. Cop-out. A public figure in this country should take responsibility for his hate-speech, whether he has people who agree with him or not.
Quote: beachbumbabsI would've hoped you would've "let that one go" because it was indefensible. Ugly. Uncalled for. An attack on private citizens by a public figure. And none of your effing business.
Rush just learned from the libs who viciously attacked Joe the Plumber, a private citizen, back in 2008.
Rush has been on the air with "feminazis" and stuff like that since 1992. And it all goes back to a Republican operative named Lee Atwater in 1988, who for Bush 41, changed the face of American politics forever. There are some amazing documentaries out there about it. Mr. Atwater died of brain cancer in his 40's or early 50's's, but he gave several interviews discussing exactly how to make those things work. Rush just carved out his own spot in that arena.
Quote: beachbumbabsAnd it all goes back to a Republican operative named Lee Atwater in 1988
Lee Atwater didn't attack private citizens, just the people his clients were running against. Hardball tactics go back even further though (e.g. LBJ's "Daisy" commercial).
Quote: Beethoven9thLee Atwater didn't attack private citizens, just the people his clients were running against. Hardball tactics go back even further though (e.g. LBJ's "Daisy" commercial).
Please have a clue when you make a comment
Tomorrow the Social Security chief is testifying he may not be able to pay recipients in a few weeks. The head of the veterans administration has already said it needs to be settled by late October or veterans disability payments stop.
The stock market has already been affected, and more to come there. Oh people's investment, 401ks, who cares about that, eh?
Some Republicans are saying like Alfred E. Neuman, "Why me worry?" We've never been down this road, maybe we should try it. Now there's some sound critical thinking.
Quote: rxwineThe more I hear about it, this particular shutdown may be the best idea the rightwing has ever come up with.
You're talking specifically about the debt ceiling, not the shutdown. But I agree, I actually hope we do default. Then, at least, we won't have to hear about ridiculous issues like amnesty, gay marriage, war on women, etc. Plus, people will start to realize that the government isn't the solution to all problems.
BTW, I love this song of Obama singing:
And this one of Clinton singing:
Quote: rxwine
Tomorrow the Social Security chief is testifying he may not be able to pay recipients in a few weeks. The head of the veterans administration has already said it needs to be settled by late October or veterans disability payments stop.
The stock market has already been affected, and more to come there. Oh people's investment, 401ks, who cares about that, eh?
Some Republicans are saying like Alfred E. Neuman, "Why me worry?" We've never been down this road, maybe we should try it. Now there's some sound critical thinking.
Quote: tringlomane
Default on a debt payment, which we have never done in our history?
This all just shows how poor our leaders in DC are at governing, they think if they can't just keep borrowing all will end.
There will be no "default" on 10-18. We have many times more money in the bank than we need to cover the interest payments. So "default" is ended.
Social Security takes in virtually all it needs every month, most of the rest comes from the Treasury returning payments to itself. And the rest can be had, legally should be had, by selling Treasury Securities that Social Security holds on the secondary market, which will still be active as there is no default, see above.
For the rest, well maybe they need to learn how to cut back. Now I know that we are in a time of year where monthly deficits are naturally higher, but when your credit is cut off your credit is cut off. Get creative, lay people off. Ask for laws to cut back entitlements and subsidies.
Or Obama can just stop his hissy fit about not negotiating and act like every other POTUS in history before him.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't understand why people keep perpetuating this myth that pro-gay marriage Republicans will somehow become a force in American politics. The evidence shows the exact opposite.
Amid raucous debate, Nevada Republican Party conventioneers on Saturday stripped opposition to gay marriage and abortion from the party platform. Previously, the state party platform defined marriage as “between a man and a woman,” as does the Nevada Constitution. The past document also described the party as “pro-life,” or against abortion, a stance most Republicans still agree with.
