Reply With Quote
That's pretty much the status quo
Yeah, the democrats figured out that the far left was unelectable during the late 60's - '70's, when they got so far to the left the country left them for the more moderate (at that time) party, the Republicans. Then when Nixon began running to the South after the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, the Republicans started touting the 'values' that Southerners wanted to hear about, including mostly white evangelical social and religious positions. It has worked for them for a long time, but the newer electorate (if it lasts longer than the Obama presidential terms) is younger and cares far less about all of those social values.
That is what I am wondering about for the future. If the coalition that elected Obama twice is a new electorate or if it will go back to the way it was in the 80's and 90's.
Whenever either extreme takes over a party, the American electorate has always brought them around. Current gerrymandering may have us in a persistently polarized position nationally for quite a while, though. That is why the independent vote has been so important in the last three election cycles. We will see if it continues.
That's pretty much the status quo
who these extremists running the Dems? and what are the extremisms?
everything the Dems are doing?
ing right-wingers, black is white, up is down, out is in
What can I say... they're destroying the only party that can bring a semblance of balance in washington, and doing a great job at it. Yeah, I'm not a fan.
no. the juniors pay in to get coverage when they're seniors.
the demographic boomer bump is due to Hitler's War and The Greatest Generation.
I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant (), and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.
That's all fine, but people are living longer and getting more than they paid in.
Extreme? How about the fact that they have an entire news network dedicated to spouting the party's talking points, which pulls very high viewership because of how many Americans apparently don't know how to tell when their intelligence is being insulted? I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it's dangerous to have such a large percentage of the population at the ready to get really angry about whatever they're told to get angry about.
The Dems have all the other channels for this purpose.
Case in point.
maybe, but US longevity is declining, and is well below other industrial countries.
the real problem is that right-wingers refuse to address is the multi-decade sky rocketing cost of health care, that outpaces the actual rate of disease, inflation, and increase in longevity.
The Repug "solution" is to deny care to seniors by making them pay more (they can't) to the exorbitant health care scam while not touching the extractive PRICES the health insurance and providers charge.
Class Warring Repugs ALWAYS the 99% and protect/enrich the 1%.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-29-2013 at 03:08 PM.
Not true
Not if the viewpoint is to bring government to a screeching halt by obstructing compromise at all costs. That is not a valid viewpoint. That doesn't work at all, and they are being called out on it now by Republicans (like Karl Rove) who want to govern.
edit: I read these criticisms by Jindal, Gingrich, Rove, etc. as being directed at the Tea Party candidates,
I think that is true (that people are getting more than they paid in because they live so long past their retirement age). It seems totally reasonable to me, therefore, to means-test social security and medicare payments. I think that eventually that will happen, but there will be political to pay for whoever gets it done. If Obama wanted to be a really good statesman he would step up and champion this sort of thing. Of course the Democrats in Congress wouldn't go along with it or they would face getting thrown out in the next primary. But even if a lot of Dems balked, it could pass if the Republicans could make themselves agree with something that Obama actually came up with. So far it appears to be "If he is for it, I am against it, even if I used to be for it in the past'"
That is how I read them as well.
I thought Jindal was talking about the social conservatives. Global warming, evolution, and things like that. Compromise which means more spending without any cuts isn't compromise to them.
Coburn makes a good point:
@1:56
Extremist
did somebody say Jindal, aka known as macaca by Virginia Repugs?
Five Reasons Bobby Jindal Is Responsible For Transforming The GOP Into ‘The Stupid Party’
1. He permits Louisiana schools to teach creationism. Thanks to Jindal’s educational voucher system in Louisiana, students will be attending private or parochial schools on the taxpayer’s dime. But those schools don’t necessarily meet the standards of the state’s public schools, and may teach students creationism instead of standard science curricula.
2. He allows state employees to be fired for being gay. During his first few months as governor, Jindal decided not to renew an anti-discrimination executive order protecting LGBT employees who work for the state. Jindal has also said that same sex marriage opens up a path for courts to overturn the Second Amendment.
3. He has signed bills to intimidate women seeking abortions. Jindal compared women who have gotten abortions to criminals. But that unpalatable sentiment also came with a policy change — he signed a bill that requires all abortion clinics to post intimidating messages in their waiting rooms, and establishes a website that points women to crisis pregnancy centers instead of abortion-providing facilities. Jindal also signed a measure creating a 24-hour waiting period between a woman’s mandatory ultrasound and the date of her abortion.
4. He seeks to dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy, increase taxes for everyone else. Jindal’s latest tax proposal would raise taxes for 80 percent of Louisianians. The poorest 20 percent — with an average income of $12,000 — would face substantial tax increases, while those in the top one percent would on average get a tax cut of $25,423.
5. He refuses to provide health care for Louisiana’s poorest. Louisiana has the third highest uninsured rate in the country. Twenty percent of residents lack insurance of any kind. But as one of the governors vehemently opposed to Obamacare, Jindal turned down the Medicaid expansion offered under the law, ignoring the fact that it would drastically lower the numbers of uninsured and ultimately save the state money on emergency care.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...-stupid-party/
Since the summary, above Jindal "STUPIDLY" proposed cutting state support for ho e care, but even red-state LA kicked him in the teeth for it.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-29-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Lol, exactly. Cracks me up hearing Hannity whine this media bias basically every time I have heard him speak 5 minutes or more.
If you're poor, it's like down 4 years vs non-poor.
Typical OK ingorant redneck, in BigOil's deep pockets.
Medicare Part A would be out of money because assholes like Coburn refuse to reduce payments to the greedy, extractive health care leeches.
Yep, no media bias.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
