Reply With Quote
nope. the antiwar candidate is the bloodthirsty one.
the DEMS will filibuster bringing our troops home and not bombing Iran??
the DEMS will filibuster indicting Wall Street thieves???
nope. the antiwar candidate is the bloodthirsty one.
it will be close, as always, but the Pauls/Repugs don't have 60 in the Senate to overcome Dem filibuster.
There are war-monerging shoot-first/ask-never Blue Dog Dems and neo-con Dems like Hilary Clinton want to expand the murderous UCA Empire, not retract it.
The American Public's conscious is incapable of comprehending anything short of an extreme. Everything must be all-black or all-white. Everything must be short and simple. A rational response along the lines of conceptually believing that taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to provide healthcare for the uninsured, but that there are certainly situations that merit exceptions to that concept is far to complicated for us. The public needs to simplify that answer and will do so by using the exception to invalidate the entire concept. "He says he's for this, but he's really not. He's a flip-flopper."
The same situation happened when the republican candidates were asked if they could accept a debt ceiling deal where there were $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes. There was only one way the candidates could answer and that was "no deal". Any rational response about compromise and how the cuts would far and away exceed the tax increases would merely be turned into "this guy wants to raise taxes" and amogst republicans, that's a death blow.
yes it is
in other words, by refusing to say yes or no RP is essentially pandering to a bloodthirsty and obviously vicious GOP political base?
as he must, to remain relevant in a primary
I wouldn't call it pandering. More like avoiding a question there's no correct answer to. If he says yes, he gives the RG's of the world ammunition to portray him as a bloodthirsty extremist. If he says no, his message gets clouded.
nuance. not generally welcome in these parts...
makes one appear squishy
like life itself, perhaps
it's a stupid theoretical question. as bad as that Joe the Plumber question posed to Obama. Wasting time on like this is what they want you to do.
+1
Supporting evidence for my earlier point about our unwillingness to accept anything short of an extreme.
it's not a theoretical question at all.
RP's social/economic Darwinism/AynRandism/MiltonFriedmanism policies very definitely have consequences, just like Massey/BP's no-safety policies have fatal consequences.
yah
its just like running a mine
the president runs the coal mine of health care. that's genius.
I take issue with this. I think the American public is more than capable of a nuanced response to the hypothetical posed. RP could have said the Hippocratic oath requires the doctor to provide service, but the user would be responsible for any services provided or something to that effect.
The same applies to the debt ceiling/tax question. The bottom line is a 10 to 1 cuts to tax increase would be a really big win should any player on the stage be able to negotiate that deal. It's absurd that not a single republican presidential candidate could effectively explain that to the audience.
The overwhelming majority of the American public only needs to see a "D" or an "R" after someone's name to feel adequately informed to cast a ballot, so I respectfully disagree that we're interested in thoughtful responses to questions that can't be summed up in a headline. We want multiple choice, not fill in the blank.
No.
Yes.the DEMS will filibuster indicting Wall Street thieves???
time for this again huh?
Healthcare expenditure per capita, private vs public
Honestly, the fact he dodged it like a punk ass chump says more than if he had stuck to his guns.
I have a lot more of a problem with a non-answer.
Welcome to politics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
