Democrats behaving stupidly again… (1 Viewer)

[Gatorman]

Then why do you think the working class has soundly rejected them? 

Well, again, I'm sure some of the social justice stuff gets in the way. More so is the fact that the propaganda arm of the republican party won't put them on (other than to vilify) so their messaging is muted somewhat.

Bernie was on Fox for a town hall and many of the people in the audience (and who watched) identified with his positions. I believe That was the last time they had him on. I believe Elizabeth Warren likely has the best policies of any candidate out there, but the "Pocahontas" jab and the fact I may be one of 4 people who read her plans (and the fact she is a woman) are a non starter.

The right has really no plans or policies for the working class. Show me one.  Maybe "school choice" i guess qualifies but that's a stretch. Universal Healthcare, Universal Pre-K, Children's healthcare (that the right let expire), The Consumer financial protection bureau, etc etc are democratic plans that get buried bc of "the cost" but defense spending and tax cuts for people of means is the answer. Also, it seems many voters don't understand the simple concept of "you have to spend money to make money".   The CFPB has paid for itself and gotten a bunch of money back to people who got screwed by banks and predatory lenders and the right has tried to strangle it from day 1.

 

[Gatorman]

Lmao. If these recent posts aren't the very definition of "sanctimonious liberal" I don't know what is.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

 

[Rich Conway]

You know what really helps you win elections? Being a good candidate with good ideas. It would be really cool if either side would do that. 

Agree and I may be on an island with this one but how about being a good person.  Not perfect, just not a huge ##### like most of the people that run for office nowadays. 

I think the problem is that neither of these things actually help you win elections.  In fact, they probably both serve as detriments to winning.

 

[msudaisy26]

I think the problem is that neither of these things actually help you win elections.  In fact, they probably both serve as detriments to winning.

You are probably right, which means the problem is us. 

 

[BassNBrew]

 We tried Truth vs fiction and it lost us an election and 3 supreme court nominees. Trump is one of the most corrupt people I've ever encountered, but Hillary's emails??  

Just for clarification, would doing everything you can to undermine Sanders such as turning over the reigns of the DNC and the party funds to the Clinton campaign before the primaries be truth or fiction?

 

[BassNBrew]

 We tried Truth vs fiction and it lost us an election and 3 supreme court nominees. Trump is one of the most corrupt people I've ever encountered, but Hillary's emails??  

Just for clarification, would doing everything you can to undermine Sanders such as turning over the reigns of the DNC and the party funds to the Clinton campaign before the primaries be truth or fiction?

 

[Gatorman]

Just for clarification, would doing everything you can to undermine Sanders such as turning over the reigns of the DNC and the party funds to the Clinton campaign before the primaries be truth or fiction?

I'd say the Clinton's are a special case (much like the Bush Family), but certainly not as Evil as the right portrayed them.  If they could get away with half of what the right accused them of then how didn't she become president? Wouldn't you vote for someone who can erase a person almost at will?

Edit to add: Obama was just a guy who got caught up in the momentum of the moment and whose team understood social media in its infancy.  With all of that, he was neck and neck w/ McCain until the financial meltdown and Sarah Palin. Once he got into office he, like Biden now, expected the right to want to deal.  Didn't happen.  Biden this past go around was the "safe" pick.  Warren had a better plan, Bernie was toast bc of how the bernie bros turned on Hillary in the general and the rest of the field was not ready for prime time against someone like Trump. Sooner or later establishment Dems are going to realize that they can't make easy deals with the right and are going to need to go scorched earth.

I'd say both groups are in flux at the moment, both in who is actual leadership as well as how they want to get their message out.  Hard right and Hard left are likely coming to blows the next 4 election cycles and then perhaps a new moderate may emerge. I don't think that moderate will come from the right, but (and to be fair) DeSantis seemed more of a moderate before he needed Trump's endorsement to eek out a win in Florida.

 

[GordonGekko]

Well, again, I'm sure some of the social justice stuff gets in the way. More so is the fact that the propaganda arm of the republican party won't put them on (other than to vilify) so their messaging is muted somewhat.

Bernie was on Fox for a town hall and many of the people in the audience (and who watched) identified with his positions. I believe That was the last time they had him on. I believe Elizabeth Warren likely has the best policies of any candidate out there, but the "Pocahontas" jab and the fact I may be one of 4 people who read her plans (and the fact she is a woman) are a non starter.....

So a large share of your argument is that the leftist "messaging is muted"

You mean when it's basically Fox against CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, NYT, NBC, CBS, Vox, Slate, Vanity Fair, Huffington Post and on and on and on. Including basically all of Hollywood, all of Late Night TV, and even ESPN and most of the sports world. Never mind it also controls of most of Big Social Media. Which is supported by nearly full control of Big Tech, Big Education, most of Big Finance whil backed by big money like Soros and Bloomberg.

It doesn't even extend out just out there, in here in the PSF, we have only two Staff members who post here on a regular basis. One attempts to start posts and thread topics to balance out the general discussion, in thanks, the radical leftists here barrage him, sealion him and gaslight him about his thread titles and every little thing he says with the only intent to silence him. The other Staff member wears his bias brightly on his sleeve and started a thread to point out which "sources" from the "right wing" are unacceptable. How that's used is it's codified in the PSF that it's OK for the same radical leftist to just call the Conservatives and Republicans here liars if they use those sources, just a blank check to try to incite them to get them react so they can be banned. Then the same Staff member didn't like the Durham/Clinton story in the NYT or WSJ and said that doesn't count as a "good source", because the editorial section is so much different than the rest. Do you know how intellectually dishonest that is to do? Do you know how tyrannical that approach becomes to the Conservatives here? It's cool to call all of you liars because it fits my tribalism without any kind of introspection or context, but when a story pops up I don't like with a source that I've said is legitimate, now "context" matters to denounce it because it makes my "Partisan Team" look bad.

I had a Conservative who never posts in the PSF send me a DM that said - "I wish we have a Staff member who took a french class with Donald Trump Jr in the PSF so we don't have to tiptoe around while waiting to get banned for being Republicans"

Think about what that says, not just from a community standpoint, but a business standpoint. Think about how far off the rails someone has to go to actually create negative brand image for the entire FBG brand for their own personal tribalism. Even here many of you radical leftists have a clear advantage. Republicans here realize they have no margin of error if they lose the coin flip and the dispute goes to the hard left Staff member. It's not like the Conservatives and Republicans here don't talk amongst ourselves in private. Maybe its just time for all of us to pick up and leave. Maybe it's time for all Conservative and Republican subscribers to cash out and go to competitor instead.

A lot of you radical leftists are just too greedy. Your side literally controls nearly all of the activist complicit MSM and you still are upset that Fox is the only holdout to show the other side of the political spectrum. And  guess what? The ratings for the majority of the MSM are tanking, except Fox. Part of that is because there's only real major source for Conservative viewpoints and news. But another part is people are unhappy and they don't want to be asked to swallow "state media" from the DNC that's being shoveled from places like CNN and MSNBC that tell them things aren't so bad when the entire country is a disaster zone.

This is why there were so many purity tests over Fox not carrying the J6 Hearings. The establishment Democrats knew more Americans by ratings were watching Fox over the gaggle of stragglers like CNN and MSNBC. But the question doesn't get raised why left leaning viewers are ditching those networks and literally everything on it, all except basically Rachel Maddow.

Just greedy. I'm waiting for a radical leftist to just come out and be honest about it and say they plain want Conservatives and Republicans fully silenced just because they said so. At least it would be honest. Then it wouldn't be these cheap purity tests, gas lighting, source policing, "unapproved" lists, sea lioning and the rest.

I'm OK with free speech. And that doesn't mean the exclusion of speech that offends some people's dogmatic zealot like view of how the world should be. The world I want to live in includes people who disagree with me. And if they disagree, I know I can always handle my own against anyone, anywhere and at anytime. I agree with Mark Cuban.

"I'm the one guy who says don't force the stupid people to be quiet — I want to know who the morons are." - Mark Cuban,  2014 

 

[Gatorman]

A lot of you radical leftists are just too greedy. Your side literally controls nearly all of the activist complicit MSM and you still are upset that Fox is the only holdout to show the other side of the political spectrum. And  guess what? The ratings for the majority of the MSM are tanking, except Fox. Part of that is because there's only real major source for Conservative viewpoints and news. But another part is people are unhappy and they don't want to be asked to swallow "state media" from the DNC that's being shoveled from places like CNN and MSNBC that tell them things aren't so bad when the entire country is a disaster zone.

Skimmed most of it, but Gordon, I do not agree with your argument mostly:  These "radical leftists" that you talk about are the ultimate straw man.

What exactly is a "radical leftist"?  Social justice issues aside (and I will pull them back in at the end) Its simply about equality. Basically what the constitution said that "all men (people) are created equal"  most of the "radical left" agenda you purport to is all about that.  Now, it does tend to extend over some boundaries even I am comfortable with at times, but I'm a 52 yo white male so my comfort is routed in the 70's and 80s I guess. I do believe that BLM, kneeling, etc, is an important messenger, but some of the pro-palestine stuff I have an issue with (same thing w the Caribbean violence being ignored bc it is POC and it doesn't fit the narrative on the left)

Back to Fox: Its not about "control" its about "fair and balanced" Fox's tag line is supposedly "we have the other opinion of this" but it isn't really that anymore.  Its propaganda and when it doesn't toe the line, then OAN etc go even farther. CNN, MSNBC etc. are no better but they do put a conservative viewpoint up there as well. The reason FOx's ratings are what they are is bc they give red meat to their base without any other thoughts coming in there.  Jon Stewart, not on fox anymore as a guest.  Bernie, Nope. AOC, yeah right.  It's not about greed, its about my mother in law tuning in and not hearing another point of view for 23 hours. Again, I get their business model but it certainly isn't fair and there certainly is no balance. Fox doesn't show the hearings bc it goes against their narrative, and narratives are not what a news company should be about (left or right).

FWIW, it is like reading a study: who paid for the study says a lot about how it is going to turn out.  Most people are not evolved enough to scratch under that top layer..

 

[supermike80]

Skimmed most of it, but Gordon, I do not agree with your argument mostly:  These "radical leftists" that you talk about are the ultimate straw man.

What exactly is a "radical leftist"?  Social justice issues aside (and I will pull them back in at the end) Its simply about equality. Basically what the constitution said that "all men (people) are created equal"  most of the "radical left" agenda you purport to is all about that.  Now, it does tend to extend over some boundaries even I am comfortable with at times, but I'm a 52 yo white male so my comfort is routed in the 70's and 80s I guess. I do believe that BLM, kneeling, etc, is an important messenger, but some of the pro-palestine stuff I have an issue with (same thing w the Caribbean violence being ignored bc it is POC and it doesn't fit the narrative on the left)

Back to Fox: Its not about "control" its about "fair and balanced" Fox's tag line is supposedly "we have the other opinion of this" but it isn't really that anymore.  Its propaganda and when it doesn't toe the line, then OAN etc go even farther. CNN, MSNBC etc. are no better but they do put a conservative viewpoint up there as well. The reason FOx's ratings are what they are is bc they give red meat to their base without any other thoughts coming in there.  Jon Stewart, not on fox anymore as a guest.  Bernie, Nope. AOC, yeah right.  It's not about greed, its about my mother in law tuning in and not hearing another point of view for 23 hours. Again, I get their business model but it certainly isn't fair and there certainly is no balance. Fox doesn't show the hearings bc it goes against their narrative, and narratives are not what a news company should be about (left or right).

FWIW, it is like reading a study: who paid for the study says a lot about how it is going to turn out.  Most people are not evolved enough to scratch under that top layer..

Nope nope nope.  If you can't acknowledge that CNN and MSNBC are as biased as fox is, then you are either biased or not paying very good attention.   Whatever reason that concept diminishes your credibility when it comes to MSM analysis.   Sorry but its true 

 

[Gatorman]

Nope nope nope.  If you can't acknowledge that CNN and MSNBC are as biased as fox is, then you are either biased or not paying very good attention.   Whatever reason that concept diminishes your credibility when it comes to MSM analysis.   Sorry but its true 

Not sure you are the judge of any of those things, including my credibility.  Hate to break that to you. 

I can acknowledge that MSNBC certainly has a spin and CNN also but less so (they at least put a conservative on their panel discussions).  Again, I do not really get my news from any of these outlets bc I prefer data and my own take, but anytime I pass by fox they are either ignoring anything damning to their side or mentioning it then saying "SQUIRREL" to distract.

 

[supermike80]

Not sure you are the judge of any of those things, including my credibility.  Hate to break that to you. 

I can acknowledge that MSNBC certainly has a spin and CNN also but less so (they at least put a conservative on their panel discussions).  Again, I do not really get my news from any of these outlets bc I prefer data and my own take, but anytime I pass by fox they are either ignoring anything damning to their side or mentioning it then saying "SQUIRREL" to distract.

I get to judge based on your posts. You've provided evidence and I judged based on that.  Your take is interesting.  You don't watch it, you just pass by, yet you have already decide they are worse than CNN or MSNBC.  You have mad media skills I guess

 

[djmich]

Not that you needed more help proving your point

 

[Gatorman]

  You have mad media skills I guess

Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Again, Bias in the media is not a good thing no matter which side does it.  If you wish to pretend Fox has no Bias, then that's on you.  I stand by my statement that the three news networks when it comes to which is more biased Fox then MSNBC (Although I'd say they are pretty close) and then CNN.  Again, I left the cable news networks a long time ago bc I like to think for myself so I generally get stuff from the Google news page which aggregates from both sides.  I definitely lean left, because, you know, common sense and The whole right "Groomer, Pedophile, et al" and the fact that anyone with even half a brain can see Trump as anything other than a con man (even before he ran for office). I also do not believe all republicans are racists or that either side is "anti-jew" but they both have "anti-jew" tendencies with one side being domestic and the other being vs. Israel.

So back to the topic at hand... Do I agree with wanting to run against the worst candidate, yes.  The same way a team will pick the other teams worst free throw shooter if the player fouled has to leave the game.

 

[MAC_32]

Well, again, I'm sure some of the social justice stuff gets in the way. More so is the fact that the propaganda arm of the republican party won't put them on (other than to vilify) so their messaging is muted somewhat.

Bernie was on Fox for a town hall and many of the people in the audience (and who watched) identified with his positions. I believe That was the last time they had him on. I believe Elizabeth Warren likely has the best policies of any candidate out there, but the "Pocahontas" jab and the fact I may be one of 4 people who read her plans (and the fact she is a woman) are a non starter.

The right has really no plans or policies for the working class. Show me one.  Maybe "school choice" i guess qualifies but that's a stretch. Universal Healthcare, Universal Pre-K, Children's healthcare (that the right let expire), The Consumer financial protection bureau, etc etc are democratic plans that get buried bc of "the cost" but defense spending and tax cuts for people of means is the answer. Also, it seems many voters don't understand the simple concept of "you have to spend money to make money".   The CFPB has paid for itself and gotten a bunch of money back to people who got screwed by banks and predatory lenders and the right has tried to strangle it from day 1.

School choice is unfortunately a good one because public school reform in the environment isn't happening. What does the red team do for small business that the blue team doesn't?

 

[supermike80]

Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Again, Bias in the media is not a good thing no matter which side does it.  If you wish to pretend Fox has no Bias, then that's on you.  I stand by my statement that the three news networks when it comes to which is more biased Fox then MSNBC (Although I'd say they are pretty close) and then CNN.  Again, I left the cable news networks a long time ago bc I like to think for myself so I generally get stuff from the Google news page which aggregates from both sides.  I definitely lean left, because, you know, common sense and The whole right "Groomer, Pedophile, et al" and the fact that anyone with even half a brain can see Trump as anything other than a con man (even before he ran for office). I also do not believe all republicans are racists or that either side is "anti-jew" but they both have "anti-jew" tendencies with one side being domestic and the other being vs. Israel.

So back to the topic at hand... Do I agree with wanting to run against the worst candidate, yes.  The same way a team will pick the other teams worst free throw shooter if the player fouled has to leave the game.

1.  I specifically said they are all biased. Multiple times.  And 2. Your opinion about those three and their level of bias has zero value since you don't watch them.  

 

[Gatorman]

School choice is unfortunately a good one because public school reform in the environment isn't happening. What does the red team do for small business that the blue team doesn't?

Interesting question and I really haven't delved into it enough to give a great answer, (here's a stream of consciousness rant below) but as an owner of a small business I'd say team blue with the CFPB has helped me a lot more than the tax cut on the right (In terms of banks nickel and diming me)  As for the minimum wage debate I pay all my employees 15/hr or more so I have no opinion.  I wish it was easier to get them health insurance (or myself for that matter since I get mine through my wife) and I'd say the blame there falls squarely on team red for not negotiating to make the ACA better. Neither has done anything meaningful on Tort reform but my malpractice is cheap enough bc I'm an Optometrist. PPP certainly helped me especially since I wanted to pay my staff through the quarantine.

Most of the rights policies are helpful to the "big business" owner.  I'm pretty sure if healthcare was decoupled from employment it would likely be better for all businesses. Not sure Blue has a better policy there bc (and to be fair) most of the crap I don't like in running my business comes from local or state stupidity more so than federal. (red state, blue city).  Finally, even though my student loans have been paid off for a while, not allowing a deduction for interest on student loans is stupid by both parties (even before we talk about federal loan forgiveness)

 

[Snotbubbles]

Well, again, I'm sure some of the social justice stuff gets in the way. More so is the fact that the propaganda arm of the republican party won't put them on (other than to vilify) so their messaging is muted somewhat.

Bernie was on Fox for a town hall and many of the people in the audience (and who watched) identified with his positions. I believe That was the last time they had him on. I believe Elizabeth Warren likely has the best policies of any candidate out there, but the "Pocahontas" jab and the fact I may be one of 4 people who read her plans (and the fact she is a woman) are a non starter.

The right has really no plans or policies for the working class. Show me one.  Maybe "school choice" i guess qualifies but that's a stretch. Universal Healthcare, Universal Pre-K, Children's healthcare (that the right let expire), The Consumer financial protection bureau, etc etc are democratic plans that get buried bc of "the cost" but defense spending and tax cuts for people of means is the answer. Also, it seems many voters don't understand the simple concept of "you have to spend money to make money".   The CFPB has paid for itself and gotten a bunch of money back to people who got screwed by banks and predatory lenders and the right has tried to strangle it from day 1.

Just so I understand your position. Bernie Sanders (and others like AOC, Elizabeth Warren, etc.) actually have political positions that a majority of Americans agree/identify with but the propaganda arm of the Republican party holds them back?  Is that what you are saying? 

If that's the case, why can't Sanders or Warren win a Democratic primary?  Sanders progressive platform was defeated within the Democratic party before he ever made it to the point where moderates had to decide between a conservative and a progressive.  Sorry, I can't/won't put this on Republican propaganda.  Do Democrats listen to that?  

 

[Gatorman]

Just so I understand your position. Bernie Sanders (and others like AOC, Elizabeth Warren, etc.) actually have political positions that a majority of Americans agree/identify with but the propaganda arm of the Republican party holds them back?  Is that what you are saying? 

If that's the case, why can't Sanders or Warren win a Democratic primary?  Sanders progressive platform was defeated within the Democratic party before he ever made it to the point where moderates had to decide between a conservative and a progressive.  Sorry, I can't/won't put this on Republican propaganda.  Do Democrats listen to that?  

First paragraph is not exactly what I said, but I'm sure that's how you interpret it.

Basically what I am saying is one party is having a policy debate and the other party is doing nothing. What policy has the right come out with in the past 10 years other than a tax cut? Again, you had said "things americans agree/identify with" and many agree and identify with the workers rights and healthcare platform of the far left, but that is all mired in the easy talking point called "socialism" even though many on the right (and the left for that matter) have no idea what that means.

Simple question: Do you believe that the problems in America are immigrant based or billionaire based?  People trying to enter this country legally or not vs those with so much money that they stymie anything that could threaten their portfolio? The whole "the game is rigged" message came from Sanders and Warren and Trump then took hold of it and made it a different issue. That is what I mean when I say a majority of americans agree with the policies on the left.  I believe there was a poll done on republicans about Obamacare vs the ACA (both are the same thing BTW).  When asked about Obamacare they reacted negatively.  When asked about the ACA the poll flipped. That is what I mean about the propaganda on the right.

As to the second point about "not winning a primary" well... Bernie at the time was a bit too far left for the party (but I'm pretty sure he beats trump in the general bc they both had a populist message.  The difference is Bernie's message actually had a plan to back up his claims).  Warren is likely the smartest candidate in either party, but she is a woman which for some reason seems to be a non starter in presidential politics.

BTW a whole bunch of shootings over the weekend.  THANK YOU REPULICAN PARTY!!!!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Dems are running ads in Maryland to help the Trumpy GOP governor candidate (Cox) win against the Hogan-backed candidate (Schulz).

 

[Snotbubbles]

First paragraph is not exactly what I said, but I'm sure that's how you interpret it.

Basically what I am saying is one party is having a policy debate and the other party is doing nothing. What policy has the right come out with in the past 10 years other than a tax cut? Again, you had said "things americans agree/identify with" and many agree and identify with the workers rights and healthcare platform of the far left, but that is all mired in the easy talking point called "socialism" even though many on the right (and the left for that matter) have no idea what that means.

Simple question: Do you believe that the problems in America are immigrant based or billionaire based?  People trying to enter this country legally or not vs those with so much money that they stymie anything that could threaten their portfolio? The whole "the game is rigged" message came from Sanders and Warren and Trump then took hold of it and made it a different issue. That is what I mean when I say a majority of americans agree with the policies on the left.  I believe there was a poll done on republicans about Obamacare vs the ACA (both are the same thing BTW).  When asked about Obamacare they reacted negatively.  When asked about the ACA the poll flipped. That is what I mean about the propaganda on the right.

As to the second point about "not winning a primary" well... Bernie at the time was a bit too far left for the party (but I'm pretty sure he beats trump in the general bc they both had a populist message.  The difference is Bernie's message actually had a plan to back up his claims).  Warren is likely the smartest candidate in either party, but she is a woman which for some reason seems to be a non starter in presidential politics.

BTW a whole bunch of shootings over the weekend.  THANK YOU REPULICAN PARTY!!!!

So much to unpack here.

1.  Not sure what "problems in America" you're referring to.  I do believe we should secure our borders to prevent illegal immigrants from trying to cross.  That is an issue where Trump's policies were working.  Billions of taxpayers dollars are spent on illegals.  If you think a majority of Americans are ok with illegal immigration you should probably check out the polling on the issue, you'd be surprised at the results.  As far as Republican policies, 2017-2019 were a pretty prosperous time for most Americans, namely women and minorities.  We spoken about Republican policies ad nauseum on these boards during the 2020 election.  The Democrats now control the House, Senate and White House yet can't even get their own side to agree on their own policy proposals.  Yes, they're that bad.  I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.

2.  Obamacare is unaffordable.  I've actually spoken to people in doctors offices that do billing.  They showed me people who had Obamacare policies.  $6000 High deductible plan with outrageous premiums.  My MIL was one, she was spending her entire check paying for her Obamacare insurance.  But hey, she has insurance now.  No food, but insurance.  The problem with politicians when it comes to healthcare is they are focusing on the wrong issue.  Tackling insurance isn't what they should be doing.  Working on lowering the costs of care is where they should focus.  Work on reducing administrative costs.  Once the costs come down, insurance premiums should follow.  It doesn't matter if you call it Obamacare or Republicancare.  Nothing will be affordable if the costs keep increasing.  

3.  Why do you blame Republicans for shootings?  Are the Mayors, Governors and Legislators where the shootings happen all Republicans or do you only try and point out propaganda when it's for the other side.  

 

[Gatorman]

So much to unpack here.

1.  Not sure what "problems in America" you're referring to.  I do believe we should secure our borders to prevent illegal immigrants from trying to cross.  That is an issue where Trump's policies were working.  Billions of taxpayers dollars are spent on illegals.  If you think a majority of Americans are ok with illegal immigration you should probably check out the polling on the issue, you'd be surprised at the results.  As far as Republican policies, 2017-2019 were a pretty prosperous time for most Americans, namely women and minorities.  We spoken about Republican policies ad nauseum on these boards during the 2020 election.  The Democrats now control the House, Senate and White House yet can't even get their own side to agree on their own policy proposals.  Yes, they're that bad.  I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.

2.  Obamacare is unaffordable.  I've actually spoken to people in doctors offices that do billing.  They showed me people who had Obamacare policies.  $6000 High deductible plan with outrageous premiums.  My MIL was one, she was spending her entire check paying for her Obamacare insurance.  But hey, she has insurance now.  No food, but insurance.  The problem with politicians when it comes to healthcare is they are focusing on the wrong issue.  Tackling insurance isn't what they should be doing.  Working on lowering the costs of care is where they should focus.  Work on reducing administrative costs.  Once the costs come down, insurance premiums should follow.  It doesn't matter if you call it Obamacare or Republicancare.  Nothing will be affordable if the costs keep increasing.  

3.  Why do you blame Republicans for shootings?  Are the Mayors, Governors and Legislators where the shootings happen all Republicans or do you only try and point out propaganda when it's for the other side.  

1) Well, they weren't really working, they were just out of sight out of mind since all Trump did was make it mexico's problem. I think you are incorrect in terms of immigration and the Right making "illegal immigration" and issue was a shrewd move politically, but really a nonsense concept.  Immigration is the engine that makes this country prosper and the closing of that spigot by Trump is one of the reasons that wages have become what they have become. It is a complex issue, but "solidifying the border" with a big wall when most illegals come in through airports in another example of "SQUIRRELL" vs actual policy making.

1) A) Again, not sure what policy other than deregulation was put in place by republicans the past few years, but Trumps fist two years in office were Obama coattail years (as these things tend to be historically).  The last 2 years of his administration (and the first 2 of Biden) are more reflective of Whatever Trump and the right did.

2) Why is Obamacare unaffordable?  Could it be bc unlike Medicare (when it was passed) the Right has done absolutely noting to solidify the program?  All they wish to do is kill it.  Meanwhile, I am still waiting for any republican health plan from the house, senate, or from Trump (remember his "big beautiful plan" he never shared with us.  Why is that?).  Again, proving my point, that the right has no actual policies in place to answer anything.

3) Why should I blame anyone else?  Who let the assault weapons ban expire?  Who refuses for the most part to do anything to make Americans' safer in the wake of all this? Overwhelmingly Americans want to be safe going to school, a movie, a parade, etc etc etc, but the right refuses to do anything up until Uvalde and even then they didn't want to piss off their bosses in the NRA.  The governor of Texas (Republican I think?) went after mental health when Uvalde happened but also cut 120 million dollars in mental health care from his budget.  Not sure how this is a "both sides" issue when only one side is funded by the NRA.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

So much to unpack here.

1.  Not sure what "problems in America" you're referring to.  I do believe we should secure our borders to prevent illegal immigrants from trying to cross.  That is an issue where Trump's policies were working.  Billions of taxpayers dollars are spent on illegals.  If you think a majority of Americans are ok with illegal immigration you should probably check out the polling on the issue, you'd be surprised at the results.  As far as Republican policies, 2017-2019 were a pretty prosperous time for most Americans, namely women and minorities.  We spoken about Republican policies ad nauseum on these boards during the 2020 election.  The Democrats now control the House, Senate and White House yet can't even get their own side to agree on their own policy proposals.  Yes, they're that bad.  I'd rather have no policy than bad policy.

2.  Obamacare is unaffordable.  I've actually spoken to people in doctors offices that do billing.  They showed me people who had Obamacare policies.  $6000 High deductible plan with outrageous premiums.  My MIL was one, she was spending her entire check paying for her Obamacare insurance.  But hey, she has insurance now.  No food, but insurance.  The problem with politicians when it comes to healthcare is they are focusing on the wrong issue.  Tackling insurance isn't what they should be doing.  Working on lowering the costs of care is where they should focus.  Work on reducing administrative costs.  Once the costs come down, insurance premiums should follow.  It doesn't matter if you call it Obamacare or Republicancare.  Nothing will be affordable if the costs keep increasing.  

3.  Why do you blame Republicans for shootings?  Are the Mayors, Governors and Legislators where the shootings happen all Republicans or do you only try and point out propaganda when it's for the other side.  

I think what he is saying is that Republicans can’t get anything done and all policies have come from Democrats so, we can firmly blame all of our issues today on Democrat policies. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

1) Well, they weren't really working, they were just out of sight out of mind since all Trump did was make it mexico's problem. I think you are incorrect in terms of immigration and the Right making "illegal immigration" and issue was a shrewd move politically, but really a nonsense concept.  Immigration is the engine that makes this country prosper and the closing of that spigot by Trump is one of the reasons that wages have become what they have become. It is a complex issue, but "solidifying the border" with a big wall when most illegals come in through airports in another example of "SQUIRRELL" vs actual policy making.

All you have to do is look at the Border Patrol numbers to see that what you wrote here is not correct.  

1) A) Again, not sure what policy other than deregulation was put in place by republicans the past few years, but Trumps fist two years in office were Obama coattail years (as these things tend to be historically).  The last 2 years of his administration (and the first 2 of Biden) are more reflective of Whatever Trump and the right did.

Yes and no.  Covid really altered the last year of Trump's administration and the first year of Biden's was simply a return to work which was as Biden touted as "highest economic growth rate in nearly 40 years."  That was all made possible by Operation Warp Speed and the availability of a vaccine. 

2) Why is Obamacare unaffordable?  Could it be bc unlike Medicare (when it was passed) the Right has done absolutely noting to solidify the program?  All they wish to do is kill it.  Meanwhile, I am still waiting for any republican health plan from the house, senate, or from Trump (remember his "big beautiful plan" he never shared with us.  Why is that?).  Again, proving my point, that the right has no actual policies in place to answer anything.

I guess you need some facts.  Here are some of the effects of Obamacare:

1. In May 2017 the Department of Health and Human Services reported that average health insurance premiums doubled since 2013.

2. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion are responsible for 44 percent of the projected future increases in entitlement spending.

3. According to Kaiser, the average deductible for people with employer-provided health coverage last year was $1,221 compared to $303 in 2006. Usually, you pay higher deductibles for lower premiums. Under Obamacare, you pay more when you get your hospital bill.

Obamacare was good for getting those without insurance, insurance.  For everyone else, it's pretty much been a mixed bag.

3) Why should I blame anyone else?  Who let the assault weapons ban expire?  Who refuses for the most part to do anything to make Americans' safer in the wake of all this? Overwhelmingly Americans want to be safe going to school, a movie, a parade, etc etc etc, but the right refuses to do anything up until Uvalde and even then they didn't want to piss off their bosses in the NRA.  The governor of Texas (Republican I think?) went after mental health when Uvalde happened but also cut 120 million dollars in mental health care from his budget.  Not sure how this is a "both sides" issue when only one side is funded by the NRA.

How many people over the weekend were killed by "assault weapons".  How many of those that fired weapons ignored existing laws?  How many of the laws you want to enact would have prevented killings this weekend?  How many of those that used weapons were NRA members.  How much does the NRA spend on lobbying?  You'd be surprised at how little the NRA spends on lobbying.  You see, you just want policy for the sake of policy without any evidence that the policy is going to prevent what you want it to prevent.

 

[Gatorman]

All you have to do is look at the Border Patrol numbers to see that what you wrote here is not correct.  

Yes and no.  Covid really altered the last year of Trump's administration and the first year of Biden's was simply a return to work which was as Biden touted as "highest economic growth rate in nearly 40 years."  That was all made possible by Operation Warp Speed and the availability of a vaccine. 

I guess you need some facts.  Here are some of the effects of Obamacare:

1. In May 2017 the Department of Health and Human Services reported that average health insurance premiums doubled since 2013.

2. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion are responsible for 44 percent of the projected future increases in entitlement spending.

3. According to Kaiser, the average deductible for people with employer-provided health coverage last year was $1,221 compared to $303 in 2006. Usually, you pay higher deductibles for lower premiums. Under Obamacare, you pay more when you get your hospital bill.

Obamacare was good for getting those without insurance, insurance.  For everyone else, it's pretty much been a mixed bag.

How many people over the weekend were killed by "assault weapons".  How many of those that fired weapons ignored existing laws?  How many of the laws you want to enact would have prevented killings this weekend?  How many of those that used weapons were NRA members.  How much does the NRA spend on lobbying?  You'd be surprised at how little the NRA spends on lobbying.  You see, you just want policy for the sake of policy without any evidence that the policy is going to prevent what you want it to prevent.

1) Ok.  I do not agree with the assessment but my data may be older than yours.

2) Obamacare: Again, this plan worked in Mass.  The republican response to Obama passing it (and their inaction in helping to stabilize the markets) is the real issue here.  No one thought or said Obamacare was perfect.  No policy that big is (neither was medicare when it was first enacted), but the right does not get a pass when 1) they did nothing to shore it up and 2) they have offered nothing as its replacement and we now stand at, what, 16 years since it was enacted?  I am all for an alternative plan.  How come the right hasn't offered one up to the American people? Usually if something sucks you give me another option.  At least the left has come up with "medicare for all" to replace it.  WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN FOR HEALTHCARE (or anything for that matter).  Rubio came out with an immigration plan early in his tenure and almost got flogged by his party for suggesting it.

3) Well, the shooter over the weekend was under 21 and used an AR, and the right is uncomfortable in shrinking the gun market to young adults so again, I'd say policy does matter here.  We can get into a great debate about NRA members and gun safety (not sure if you saw the study that accidental shootings go down during the NRA conventions bc people are away from their guns but that's for another thread).  Every other country in this world does not have this problem. None. spare me the "policy for the sake of policy" nonsense when we both know that there are simply too many guns on the street and whether you are lawful or unlawful in how you obtained the gun you are still more at risk than if you didn't have one.

Again, Show me the republican policy and plan for anything and I'm happy to debate that on its merits.  Wait, that's right, they don't have any...

 

[BladeRunner]

1) Ok.  I do not agree with the assessment but my data may be older than yours.

2) Obamacare: Again, this plan worked in Mass.  The republican response to Obama passing it (and their inaction in helping to stabilize the markets) is the real issue here.  No one thought or said Obamacare was perfect.  No policy that big is (neither was medicare when it was first enacted), but the right does not get a pass when 1) they did nothing to shore it up and 2) they have offered nothing as its replacement and we now stand at, what, 16 years since it was enacted?  I am all for an alternative plan.  How come the right hasn't offered one up to the American people? Usually if something sucks you give me another option.  At least the left has come up with "medicare for all" to replace it.  WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN FOR HEALTHCARE (or anything for that matter).  Rubio came out with an immigration plan early in his tenure and almost got flogged by his party for suggesting it.

3) Well, the shooter over the weekend was under 21 and used an AR, and the right is uncomfortable in shrinking the gun market to young adults so again, I'd say policy does matter here.  We can get into a great debate about NRA members and gun safety (not sure if you saw the study that accidental shootings go down during the NRA conventions bc people are away from their guns but that's for another thread).  Every other country in this world does not have this problem. None. spare me the "policy for the sake of policy" nonsense when we both know that there are simply too many guns on the street and whether you are lawful or unlawful in how you obtained the gun you are still more at risk than if you didn't have one.

Again, Show me the republican policy and plan for anything and I'm happy to debate that on its merits.  Wait, that's right, they don't have any...

The shooter is 21, with some reports saying he's 22 and the rifle was NOT an AR-15 so you're already wrong.  Where are you getting your info from?

I agree the GOP needs to come up with a healthcare alternative, but the fact that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster is not THEIR fault - it's the fault of the Democrats who rammed it thru.  Blaming others for their inaction in no way excuses YOUR failures ("your" as in Democrats).

 

[Gatorman]

I agree the GOP needs to come up with a healthcare alternative, but the fact that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster is not THEIR fault - it's the fault of the Democrats who rammed it thru.  Blaming others for their inaction in no way excuses YOUR failures ("your" as in Democrats).

you (the republican party) has had 16 years to present an alternative or help fix this one.  As with everything else, they have chosen to punt on the issue bc solving an issue does not help their fundraising.  And yes, I'd say that it being an unmitigated disaster is their fault bc they didn't want to negotiate this when Obama presented it, didn't want to do anything to help once it passed, and as I said before never offered up an alternative.  Considering this plan was modeled after a plan made by a republican governor it was always about not wanting to work with Obama no matter what that meant to mainstream Americans.  This trend has not stopped.

At the parade scene, one witness said he counted more than 20 shots.

Miles Zaremski, a Highland Park resident, told the Chicago Sun-Times: “I heard 20 to 25 shots, which were in rapid succession. So it couldn’t have been just a handgun or a shotgun.”

They have not identified the weapon as of yet, so I stand corrected.

 

[BladeRunner]

you (the republican party) has had 16 years to present an alternative or help fix this one.  As with everything else, they have chosen to punt on the issue bc solving an issue does not help their fundraising.  And yes, I'd say that it being an unmitigated disaster is their fault bc they didn't want to negotiate this when Obama presented it, didn't want to do anything to help once it passed, and as I said before never offered up an alternative.  Considering this plan was modeled after a plan made by a republican governor it was always about not wanting to work with Obama no matter what that meant to mainstream Americans.  This trend has not stopped.

Well, I disagree.  It's the same as the Roe v Wade issue: For 50 years the Democrats had opportunity after opportunity to codify it as they KNEW it was on shaky legal footing and they did nothing.  Now, they want to blame the GOP for overturning it who for 50 years built up a long game plan thru the proper Democratic process that in turn came to fruition.  The fault lies with the Democrats on Obamacare.  They were able to pass it thru by themselves so why can't they fix it by themselves?

And do you really think the Democrats are going to fix Obamacare with GOP suggestions?  No way.  The GOP sees Obamacare as unfixable and you have to throw the whole thing out.  You cannot keep any of it around.

 

[Gatorman]

Well, I disagree.  It's the same as the Roe v Wade issue: For 50 years the Democrats had opportunity after opportunity to codify it as they KNEW it was on shaky legal footing and they did nothing.  Now, they want to blame the GOP for overturning it who for 50 years built up a long game plan thru the proper Democratic process that in turn came to fruition.

The fault lies with the Democrats.  And do you really think the Democrats are going to fix Obamacare with GOP suggestions?  No way.  The GOP sees Obamacare as unfixable and you have to throw the whole thing out.  You cannot keep any of it around.

Well, you are wrong then.  I will agree that the left did the politically expedient thing and didn't move to codify Roe assuming that, you know, people who testified under oath were not perjuring themselves before getting on the court.... However, the ACA is a different animal.  The GOP didn't come to the negotiating table (after Obama started with Romneycare) and never did since.  There are some pretty simple fixes to the ACA to make it viable, and the Medicaid expansion and allowing kids to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 25 has been huge as well. Likely the biggest problem with healthcare in general is the Bush era Pharma expansion on Medicare which doesn't allow the US to negotiate Prescription pricing.  That, to me, has been a much bigger dereliction of duty than Obamacare.

 

[timschochet]

Dan Cox won his primary tonight in Maryland, beating out the establishment candidate. He’s a MAGA, election denier, endorsed by Trump. And he’s probably going to get crushed in the general election. 

But he also won because Democrats poured a million dollars into his campaign. And damn do I hate this sort of politics. These Democrats piss me off so much. One of these MAGA types they’re supporting is going to win. Just awful. 

 

[(HULK)]

Cox won in the Maryland governor's primary yesterday. Guy is a loon. Over a million was spent backing him by the Dems.

I'm nervous that they just gambled like that in my state. I don't want Cox anywhere near my state government. And it upsets me, because now I don't have a choice at the polls come November. I guess that was the point, I'd been voting for Hogan and approved of how he did the job. And now I no longer have a choice between two reasonable people, I have to pick between whichever Democrat wins and a fringe nutcase who wants to destroy democracy. That's no choice at all, my vote is already cast for the Democrat. 

It's a dirty tactic and it now personally impacted me. I know the other party has pulled plenty of dirty stunts over the years, but I don't find that relevant to this situation or a valid excuse for what just happened. It sucks.

The only upshot I can see here is that maybe I'll see some fun signs like:

Maryland Republicans Love Cox

Cox Sucks 

Cox Night at the Bowie Baysox 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And now I no longer have a choice between two reasonable people, I have to pick between whichever Democrat wins and a fringe nutcase who wants to destroy democracy.

I know this isn't how you meant it, but I hope you see the dark humor in being asked to choose between the party that wants to destroy democracy versus the party that rigs elections.  

 

[(HULK)]

I know this isn't how you meant it, but I hope you see the dark humor in being asked to choose between the party that wants to destroy democracy versus the party that rigs elections.  

Oh definitely. I'll swallow some campaign finance shennanigans which were legal, vs a guy who literally participated in 1/6. But, the pill is still bitter.

 

[djmich]

Cox won in the Maryland governor's primary yesterday. Guy is a loon. Over a million was spent backing him by the Dems.

I'm nervous that they just gambled like that in my state. I don't want Cox anywhere near my state government. And it upsets me, because now I don't have a choice at the polls come November. I guess that was the point, I'd been voting for Hogan and approved of how he did the job. And now I no longer have a choice between two reasonable people, I have to pick between whichever Democrat wins and a fringe nutcase who wants to destroy democracy. That's no choice at all, my vote is already cast for the Democrat. 

It's a dirty tactic and it now personally impacted me. I know the other party has pulled plenty of dirty stunts over the years, but I don't find that relevant to this situation or a valid excuse for what just happened. It sucks.

The only upshot I can see here is that maybe I'll see some fun signs like:

Maryland Republicans Love Cox

Cox Sucks 

Cox Night at the Bowie Baysox 

Just bad for the country.  On the other end of the spectrum you’ll now also have republicans voting for this guy when they also would have preferred the alternative.

 

[Rich Conway]

I know this isn't how you meant it, but I hope you see the dark humor in being asked to choose between the party that wants to destroy democracy versus the party that rigs elections.  

Only one?

 

[timschochet]

Just bad for the country.  On the other end of the spectrum you’ll now also have republicans voting for this guy when they also would have preferred the alternative.

This:

Some people have asked me what would cause me to stop voting for Democrats. This is the sort of thing that would do it. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Just bad for the country.  On the other end of the spectrum you’ll now also have republicans voting for this guy when they also would have preferred the alternative.

Cox already had a slight lead in the polls before the Dems spent any money pushing his candidacy.  It’s very likely he would have won even without any Democratic shenanigans.

In assessing the blame for Cox’s presence on the ballot I think the overwhelming share has to go to the Republican voters, not the Democratic Party.

 

[timschochet]

Cox already had a slight lead in the polls before the Dems spent any money pushing his candidacy.  It’s very likely he would have won even without any Democratic shenanigans.

In assessing the blame for Cox’s presence on the ballot I think the overwhelming share has to go to the Republican voters, not the Democratic Party.

I agree with this as well. 
 

ETA But yet another problem with these Democratic shenanigans is that it lets the non maga conservatives off the hook. Rather than being forced to examine what is actually happening to their party, they can simply blame the Democrats. 

 

[djmich]

Cox already had a slight lead in the polls before the Dems spent any money pushing his candidacy.  It’s very likely he would have won even without any Democratic shenanigans.

In assessing the blame for Cox’s presence on the ballot I think the overwhelming share has to go to the Republican voters, not the Democratic Party.

No doubt

 

[(HULK)]

Cox already had a slight lead in the polls before the Dems spent any money pushing his candidacy.  It’s very likely he would have won even without any Democratic shenanigans.

In assessing the blame for Cox’s presence on the ballot I think the overwhelming share has to go to the Republican voters, not the Democratic Party.

They still spent a million to help ensure this nutball was on my ballot.

I'm not a Democrat in the first place (nor a Republican), but as a Marylander I hate the idea that I now have a nutball on the ballot and it is in part because the other party thought he'd be easier to defeat and he isn't there because everyone thought he was the best choice.

 

[(HULK)]

Basically, the Democratic party shouldn't spend money on the Republican primary. They're gambling that will make it easier for their pick to win, but if that gamble fails, my state will likely lose 25 years of progress during this guy's term.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Dan Cox won his primary tonight in Maryland, beating out the establishment candidate. He’s a MAGA, election denier, endorsed by Trump. And he’s probably going to get crushed in the general election. 

But he also won because Democrats poured a million dollars into his campaign. And damn do I hate this sort of politics. These Democrats piss me off so much. One of these MAGA types they’re supporting is going to win. Just awful. 

Soros just gave Robert O`Rourke 1 million for his campaign in Texas.  Wonder if Soros is trying to influence the election?

 

[timschochet]

Soros just gave Robert O`Rourke 1 million for his campaign in Texas.  Wonder if Soros is trying to influence the election?

Of course he is. And what is wrong with that? I don’t understand why you are even bringing this up In response to my post. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Basically, the Democratic party shouldn't spend money on the Republican primary. They're gambling that will make it easier for their pick to win, but if that gamble fails, my state will likely lose 25 years of progress during this guy's term.

Yup. I'd go even further than that: Dems shouldn't intentionally try to get the opposition to nominate extremists because having two decent candidates rather than one is better for the people, the state and the country. Democracy is already on life support, no reason to make things worse. Let the GOP be the ones putting party over country.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Of course he is. And what is wrong with that? I don’t understand why you are even bringing this up In response to my post. 

Just wondering what your opinion was of Soros.

 

[timschochet]

Just wondering what your opinion was of Soros.

I’ve made that pretty clear. While I disagree with some of his political views, he’s one of the world’s greatest heroes, having done as much to defeat Soviet communism as Ronald Reagan or anyone else. That will be his legacy. I also believe that much, though not all, of the criticism leveled against him is rooted in anti-semitism. There is a whole thread on this subject. 

 

[(HULK)]

Yup. I'd go even further than that: Dems shouldn't intentionally try to get the opposition to nominate extremists because having two decent candidates rather than one is better for the people, the state and the country. Democracy is already on life support, no reason to make things worse. Let the GOP be the ones putting party over country.

I agree. I hope the Democrats out there agree too and chastise their party leadership for sinking to this level.

 

[Summer Wheat]

I’ve made that pretty clear. While I disagree with some of his political views, he’s one of the world’s greatest heroes, having done as much to defeat Soviet communism as Ronald Reagan or anyone else. That will be his legacy. I also believe that much, though not all, of the criticism leveled against him is rooted in anti-semitism. There is a whole thread on this subject. 

I had no idea he was a Jew until it was mentioned in that thread. Also at 90 not sure he is pulling the strings anymore.

 

[timschochet]

I had no idea he was a Jew until it was mentioned in that thread. Also at 90 not sure he is pulling the strings anymore.

What strings? He donates a lot of money to Democratic causes. So what? What strings are being pulled, by whom? 

 

[Herb]

Yup. I'd go even further than that: Dems shouldn't intentionally try to get the opposition to nominate extremists because having two decent candidates rather than one is better for the people, the state and the country. Democracy is already on life support, no reason to make things worse. Let the GOP be the ones putting party over country.

We all know that the Democratic party is a dumpster fire. The only reason most vote for them anymore is the Republicans have become completely unmoored. This is just further evidence of that.