It's called health. It could be financial. It could be psychological. It could be anything. It's completely up to the woman. As I posted, you are shockingly ignorant about this topic.
WOW!! Kasich calls out the GOP
- Thread starter WVUBRU
- Start date
It's called health. It could be financial. It could be psychological. It could be anything. It's completely up to the woman. As I posted, you are shockingly ignorant about this topic.
I'm not going to say that you are wrong, but I would like examples. I know the gay marriage issue was a concern for you, but that was not anything that the GOP could stop without a Constitutional amendment, and they could not have succeeded there IMHO. The GOP voted as a bloc against ACA and voted many times to try to repeal it.
Conservatives that you speak of are the very reason why we have had to endure 8 years of the buffoon currently in office. You put those type of people in Congress. You don't put them in the WhiteHouse. The President should be a steward to ensure the various factions within the entire representative base are working together.
It's a constant move to the left, since Clinton left office.
W
- NCLB
- Adding a $900-billion prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the insurance program for senior citizens.
- Spending out of control
- Bailout
- Stimulus
Clinton's last 2 years were the most centered we've had in 20 years.
Conservatives voted him in office? I want to see how you come to this conclusion.
So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that we need another Clinton in office. [banana]
No, not this one. She's the original Single Payer freak. Luckily Congress shut that mess down, or we'd been broke 18 years ago.
Well, it depends on if you are talking Fiscal vs. Social Conservatism. I assumed in your original that I responded to you talking social conservatism.
To your point however, these endless Don Quixote like stances the social conservatives take give the DNC and the liberal media every opportunity they need to mask the real issues and create victims. Social conservatives and the religious right are our parties worst enemy. They make up a percentage of the base albeit a farrrrr right side of it and then wonder why they never get their ideas realized. Well no ****, 90% of the country is scared shitless of them and their ideas and end up voting for some gimmick with zero qualifications to lead a nation. They create the story which is sensationalized on TV and the rubes buyoff on the liberal victimization talking points.
So yea, the social conservatives and evangelicals are a damn problem to the party. Instead of getting a little of what we want and a little of what they want, we get nothing and they get everything.
Fiscal conservatism is something entirely different and I am 100% for that.
While personally I'm very much a social conservative, and would attempt to persuade others to the same by being saved, I am absolutely against legislating such things. If they were legislated, it would actually is a detriment to my true goal. I think you'd categorize me as a populist Libertarian politically.
I would love to see Republicans who don't embrace social conservativism and religious extremism join up with Democrats who don't embrace socialism and authoritarianism to form a third party that actually had a chance...
Fully disagree. The Libertarian Party doesn't represent those qualities. Not even close. Fiscal "Libertarians" are extremely right wing. Social "Libertarians" are extremely left wing. Worse yet, almost on every subject their talking points lead to solutions that are either impossible to implement to ridiculous in substance. Being a "Libertarian" means you rather whine about the situation rather than address the problem.
Time for the libertarians to man up and move out of the GOP house. Given the current state of the party, libertarians obviously don't mingle well with the established GOP. And regardless of what the GOP thinks, Hillary is a clear frontrunner nationally, partly because of the dysfunctional mess the GOP has become (exhibit A = Donald Trump is their front runner). So let's begin the transition now and forge a new party and gear up for a serious presidential run in 2020. Be the leader and make the GOP conform to your principles rather than vice versa.
Those are the extremes. The damn near anarchy types. I'm talking about the warm creamy middle.
I thought that's what they were going to be also, but then they sold their ideology to the highest bidder and we have what we have now with them.
I would hope that there wouldn't be anybody or any group that you agree with completely. It seems to me that the people that agree with a group on all issues are allowing their ideologies to be dictated by the group, rather than forming their own and finding the group that meets most of them.
I most closely align with the Libertarians myself, but don't totally agree with them on everything.
https://www.lp.org/platform
I was an ardent supporter of the Tea Party at the beginning. Once the religious nuts infused their agenda, I got off the train.
It's funny how the TP dialogue then was fiscal, fiscal, fiscal. Then the party mind-melded into the very thing they wanted to get away from. Sad.
Interesting and candid admission.....it's never easy to bail from an "group" whose (supposedly) essential message is what drew you to them in the first place.
I think most reasonable people embrace elements of different political groups. On one end we have people like you,myself and dvldog who mostly are open minded while on the other end we have the extremely close minded zealots like mneilmont and richardpeterjohnson.
Without calling out any individual posters, you see it on here daily. There are a bunch that just tow the company line and anything that comes out of the mouths of somebody on their "team", they instantly agree with it and defend it. Collectively we need to back away from that mentality and think "pretend I don't know who just said this, do I agree with it or do I disagree with it". It's like people pick a team and then determine what they are supposed to think and feel about something based on that affiliation.
There are some on here that are really really bad about it. I catch myself wondering if people really mean the stuff they are saying or are they just playing it up for the entertainment of a message board. I hope it's the latter.
I think many of us, and I am guilty, sometimes let our egos sometimes over-rule common sense and decency. I think a few of us also like to provoke and agitate.
You could start to see it happening too. Religious fiscal conservatives using it as a platform to push social conservative issues, and a media glad to give them the platform to do it.
I am definitely not "holier than thou" in that regard. I try to be civil and balanced and reasonable most of the time, but sometimes I lose it. LOL
Speaking only for myself, I have no problem calling out individuals here......as I mentioned to bornan last week, I told him to refer to me directly (when he took issue with a specific comment I made about him) rather than with some more-anonymous reference I knew applied to yours truly.
IMO, we're all adults here......though a few try very hard to hide that fact.....and if we're willing (and apparently prepared) to take what proves to be shots at others, I see no reason why we shouldn't be equally (and personally) willing to man-up to our stake in the discussion.
I do, of course, realize the potential for that notion to be taken to an unacceptable extreme.....
I agree.
However, if I'm going to call somebody out for something, it will be something specific. In this case, I know a lot of posters that do what I'm talking about, but without having a specific instance to point to, I prefer to just keep it more general. I've done it on a number of occasions and when I did I pointed out "you said this ... then you said this ... when all I said was this". For the most part though, I see no use in personal attacks and will tolerate a good bit of it before responding in kind.
I'd rather talk about ideas than people. When we start with the personal attacks and all of that, I think that unacceptable extreme becomes inevitable. I prefer the give and take of different points of views. Some people are just wrong with facts at times, but for the rest of these discussions it is just thoughts and opinions.
I agree with the Democrats on about half the issues, the Republicans on about a quarter, and neither on a quarter. I think that things work best when we have strong leaders on both sides working together, and compromising. It is a fine balance, where the government can't control everything, nor can big business. There has to be rules, laws, and government, but it can't dominate every facet of your life.
You know, I think I myself disagree with that......at least in this specific environment.
The reason is because I personally feel everyone....whether I happen to agree or not......is absolutely entitled to their own belief, viewpoint, and opinion set; meaning disagreement by me (or others) is, therefore, totally irrelevant. However, I myself find it to be more the manner in which individuals choose to express.....or insist on expressing.....their position is what leaves the individual (rather than the opinion itself) open for criticism.
As for "some people being wrong with facts", I think this Board makes it clear pretty much everyday that most "facts"......when assessed as part of a political discussion/argument....are viewed pretty much strictly in the eyes of the beholder. In other words, there's really little in the way of true, universally-held fact (or truth) when colored by the lens of partisanship.
Besides, on Message Boards.....just like in Presidential debates......when individuals are confronted with a "fact" over which they're uncomfortable (or have no reasonable response), they typically respond simply by evading (or downright ignoring) the point and moving forward with another of their own choosing.
The facts are the facts.
Once somebody allows things to be viewed through that colored lens of partisanship, then the fact gets obfuscated. However, the fact is still there. What I find more frustrating than anything is that some people can't even accept the facts in the first place. If we can at least agree on the facts, then we can share opinions on what those facts mean in context. "reasonable people, equally informed, rarely disagree". That requires reasoned people that allow themselves to be informed, i.e., accepting the facts as they are. On many social issues, there aren't really any facts to speak of, just different viewpoints.
I'm not trying to convince you to do things my way, or that your way is wrong. We can disagree in our approach, and even on every single point of view that we hold. The differences in everybody is what makes this board what it is. It would be pretty boring without it. However, there are some that can't accept some differences without making things personal. There's really no sense or need in that kind of thing as far as I'm concerned.
Same here, Cool Man. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Having a different opinion doesn't make someone the enemy or evil. When you (not you personally) start personally attacking people, because they believe something different than you, it accomplishes nothing. I love discussing politics with people who are respectful, but when someone is a whiner, a commie, a know nothing, hates the country, etc., just because they would fix a problem in another way, it is pointless...