POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Yes. But I think he gets the next four days off to spend with his family.
I know it's still very early, but right now, it's hard to imagine any of these guys winning the nomination outright during the primary process, especially with a split GOP party right now.
I still think we could have a convention fight, back room deal to determine a candidate.
I still think we could have a convention fight, back room deal to determine a candidate.
Loaded question?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
So if one of you wing-nuts makes an asinine statement...we should all just let it slide?
And why so much fear of a simple and obvious question?
Let me add something I've said from the beginning...the design of ObamaCare is terrible because there is no need for a middle man when it comes to health care. We operate with the premise that everyone has a right to healthcare, we require that hospitals treat the sick and injured that come through their doors and few would argue that they should in fact be turned away. So why do we need insurance companies skimming billions off the top of our healthcare dollars? Every other industrialized nation on this planet has solved this problem and has proven that the single payer model results in overall healthier populations and does so at a much lower cost than our system. Single payer isn't a panacea and it does have issues...but given the choice not one single country would trade our healthcare system for theirs.
Loaded question?
So if one of you wing-nuts makes an asinine statement...we should all just let it slide?
And why so much fear of a simple and obvious question?
Let me add something I've said from the beginning...the design of ObamaCare is terrible because there is no need for a middle man when it comes to health care. We operate with the premise that everyone has a right to healthcare, we require that hospitals treat the sick and injured that come through their doors and few would argue that they should in fact be turned away. So why do we need insurance companies skimming billions off the top of our healthcare dollars? Every other industrialized nation on this planet has solved this problem and has proven that the single payer model results in overall healthier populations and does so at a much lower cost than our system. Single payer isn't a panacea and it does have issues...but given the choice not one single country would trade our healthcare system for theirs.
Obviously, you are not familiar with that form of questioning. Loaded questions even has it's own Wikipedia page. You can "Google" it for more information.
And as the "universal healthcare". Name one country that has universal healthcare with a decent tax plan. Most countries who have it are getting raped in taxes.
Although true, in the age of extreme populism that is impossible.
Granny meet cliff...
And the new spending bill will get nearly unanimous Dem support. There is supposedly some verbiage in it that helps with pension funding requirements and SSDI fraud but my hopes are not high.
I do speak up. Where did I ever indicate that I didn't, dick? I'm constanty arguing and pointing out things omitted. I'm just pointing out the obvious bias.
Would you be fine with knowing your money is going to help people receive health care who other wise wouldn't have any health care?
Crazy world. Harwood writes a story about Rubio's tax plan. Gets a basic fact wrong, issues a tweet to correct. Two weeks later in the debate, he reverts and makes the same false allegation. Refuses to acknowledge that he made a mistake and issued a correction already; the guy who runs the Tax Foundation which was the subject/source of Harwood's original story and follow up debate question tweets that "Rubio is right about this." Harwood refuses to acknowledge any of it. It's like saying today is Friday. Is hailed as courageous by left.The awesome irony of Harcourt screwing up and showing his ass toward Rubio's tax plan is that he already did it on twitter a few weeks ago and had to issue a correction.
John HarwoodVerified account@JohnJHarwood
CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%.
Who is that and are you going to link the post you claimed last night was someone accusing you of being the same the day before or was that just another made up story?
Deee does not like Cal, he would not have him in even a fake account sig. You likely just used 'boarders' as an erotic homage to deeee and his triple digit IQ.
There is no debate that fuzz is on his third name, Z has had too many to count, cardkilla has had at least 3....settled science.
Christy mentioned raising SS age by a year and go eviscerated.
I know it's a broken record thing but BO's number one exit polling "issue" from 2012 was something to the effect of "which candidate cares more about me"
Rubio is so verbally facile, almost glib really. And at the same time he's very disciplined - no matter the question, in the end the answer has something to do with the lower and middle class, his American dream, the dad who was the bartender, the mom who was the maid. He's young, telegenic, inspiring if you let him, Hispanic, articulate - in essence, a potentially formidable general election candidate. In that sense, it's straight from the Obama mold (and in other ways, too).
As I've said, none of that has anything to do with what kind of President he might be. Cynically, you'd say it's style over substance. But it explains why Hilary, Nate Silver/538, and the left establishment generally is and has been preoccupied with Rubio for a while, despite his 4th or 5th place standing....
As I've said, none of that has anything to do with what kind of President he might be. Cynically, you'd say it's style over substance. But it explains why Hilary, Nate Silver/538, and the left establishment generally is and has been preoccupied with Rubio for a while, despite his 4th or 5th place standing....
Why is it my taxes are on the table to begin with? There are other means to pay for that healthcare. As I just mentioned. Legalize weed and prostitution and pay for it that way.
Name one country where universal healthcare is established with a good tax plan for that country's worker.
You know what they aren't paying? Health insurance premiums to the tune of $20000+/yr for a family. Like a lot of people we are doing our benefits re-enrollment right now. For the middle-of-the-road policy the premium is $777.74 every 2 weeks for family coverage...my employer covers $600 of that...works out to $20,221.24/yr.
Regardless, tax rates are a shell game. The cost of taxes is built into the compensation for the most part. What is telling is the comparative standard of living that any two in a similar profession are afforded compared system to system. Compare middle class Americans with middle class Germans or about any other western European country. If I'm paying lower individual taxes but then must pay for things like healthcare, higher education, etc out of my pocket...where did you come out ahead?
As someone, I think q, said, it's now time for the Dems and its SuperPac the media to turn gunsights on Carson. Rubio would follow. Time to go back down memory lane, to Journolist. A great story, warms my heart. Was more than a little disappointed that the Times, the Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. seemed to have very little interest whatsoever!!
"When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/w...inated-the-best-line-of-attack/#ixzz3pyOrZ97u
In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom...."
The rest of the story has well known names like Jeffrey Toobin and Joe Klein, well known sources like Politico, Newsweek, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press, colluding as to how best to present Palin - just picked as McCain's VP - to the nation. "Best" meaning, how do we introduce her to America in the way the helps Obama, and trashes McCain?
Shocked, I tell you, shocked!
The same is coming for Dr. Ben and the rest......
"When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/w...inated-the-best-line-of-attack/#ixzz3pyOrZ97u
In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom...."
The rest of the story has well known names like Jeffrey Toobin and Joe Klein, well known sources like Politico, Newsweek, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press, colluding as to how best to present Palin - just picked as McCain's VP - to the nation. "Best" meaning, how do we introduce her to America in the way the helps Obama, and trashes McCain?
Shocked, I tell you, shocked!
The same is coming for Dr. Ben and the rest......
Like min wage it should be indexed to avoid this populistic bullshit.
Uncle Ben, per deeeee the other day.
Not a fan of Carson at all but will be interesting to see how the machine goes at him.
Well, yesterday. a conservative think tank pointed out that his tax and economic policies don't make any sense. [I picture the guy who fired Kramer from his "job" reading Kramer's "reports".] Conservative think tanks are part of A political machine but I don't know if that qualifies as THE machine. It could just be that Carson has a shallow grasp on political issues and is simply trafficking in fanning discontent. That often gets early attention from voters and then withers on the vine. Apparently we've hit peak Bellicose Man and we're going to have another 9 day wonder.
What I remember clearly from that period is Palin's initial speech was reported across the media as being a "home run", and soon afterwards McCain got a spike in the polls. It wasn't until Palin began to self-destruct by acting clues, and uninformed in a few interviews that followed that the medial pointed (rightfully) to her incompetence.
The Right always whines too much about the MSM - always coming up with a new conspiracy. OTOH you had Right wing media describing Katie Curic's question to Palin "what newspapers do you read?" as a "trick question". How laughable is that?
No doubt there is media bias by many reporters of all political flavors but OTOH there are journalists like Chris Wallace, Megan Kelly, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd that while they don't hide the political leanings, they don't hesitate to pound those on their own side with hardball questions. That's good journalism.
Seriously, do you know how to link?
Again, I don't back Carson at all, his comments about tithing in response to a tax question were laughable....but when I refer to "machine" I am talking about the coordinated headline narratives that run the show in politics today. EG, how multiple talking heads and celebs used the same "Jesus was a community organizer" line simultaneously in 2007. Indeed, a conservative think tank is irrelevant to that discussion.
Loaded question?
So if one of you wing-nuts makes an asinine statement...we should all just let it slide?
And why so much fear of a simple and obvious question?
Let me add something I've said from the beginning...the design of ObamaCare is terrible because there is no need for a middle man when it comes to health care. We operate with the premise that everyone has a right to healthcare, we require that hospitals treat the sick and injured that come through their doors and few would argue that they should in fact be turned away. So why do we need insurance companies skimming billions off the top of our healthcare dollars? Every other industrialized nation on this planet has solved this problem and has proven that the single payer model results in overall healthier populations and does so at a much lower cost than our system. Single payer isn't a panacea and it does have issues...but given the choice not one single country would trade our healthcare system for theirs.
No, We weren't paying for it before unless you went to the hospital. In order to compensate the hospital overcharged.
The Govt has now stepped in to tax everyone to cover those that can't pay. The hospitals aren't lowering costs, ER visits aren't going down, insurance costs aren't going down, the burden on the average working class person has only gotten worse.
![[banana]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682178.gif "banana [banana]")
Top 3 job growth areas the last I saw was medical, temp, and services. Much of how that was constructed was to serve as a shadow stimulus.
Loaded question?
So if one of you wing-nuts makes an asinine statement...we should all just let it slide?
And why so much fear of a simple and obvious question?
Let me add something I've said from the beginning...the design of ObamaCare is terrible because there is no need for a middle man when it comes to health care. We operate with the premise that everyone has a right to healthcare, we require that hospitals treat the sick and injured that come through their doors and few would argue that they should in fact be turned away. So why do we need insurance companies skimming billions off the top of our healthcare dollars? Every other industrialized nation on this planet has solved this problem and has proven that the single payer model results in overall healthier populations and does so at a much lower cost than our system. Single payer isn't a panacea and it does have issues...but given the choice not one single country would trade our healthcare system for theirs.
Fuzz, My wife works in a Oncology office, there are still patients who can't pay for visits, and the DR that has the practice lets many people pay what they can knowing he'll never get compensated.
Imagining that there a single "machine" is a bit close to White Coats and Thorazine for me. We have candidates that range from Bernie Sanders through Mike Huckabee (and such). I don't think there's a single organization which controls the narrative about all of them. Most of the TV people are lazy dopes and simply repeat "common wisdom." And once you've been anointed an insider it takes a live boy or dead girl to remove that. Has Bill Kristol ever been right about anything? And yet there he is. It isn't so much a machine as a sludge pile.
As for linking, what's the point? When I see someone change their mind on an internet political board, I'll hop around like Ron Paul,"It's Happening". Meaning the End of the World is upon us.
I enjoy the contradictions by the left. Hilarious.
If you trashed Obama, you're a racist. However, Ben Carson is fair game by the left and it's totally okay to bash him without being labeled racist.
If you point out what a criminal past Hillary has, you're "afraid of a woman president." However, this same bunch said some of the most vile stuff about Palin non-stop.
The left is supposed to be so diverse yet offers us Hillary and Bernie. Meanwhile the supposed "racist" Cons offer Rubio, Carson, Carly as some diverse candidates.
Just amazing to see the difference in the narritive.
If you trashed Obama, you're a racist. However, Ben Carson is fair game by the left and it's totally okay to bash him without being labeled racist.
If you point out what a criminal past Hillary has, you're "afraid of a woman president." However, this same bunch said some of the most vile stuff about Palin non-stop.
The left is supposed to be so diverse yet offers us Hillary and Bernie. Meanwhile the supposed "racist" Cons offer Rubio, Carson, Carly as some diverse candidates.
Just amazing to see the difference in the narritive.
I'm legitimately terrified of Fiorina.
Every time I see her I'm expecting her to suddenly spin around in a cloud of smoke and fly off on a broomstick. It's unnerving.
Every time I see her I'm expecting her to suddenly spin around in a cloud of smoke and fly off on a broomstick. It's unnerving.
Hilary is the go-to girl of Wall Street and a former board member of Wal-Mart and Sanders identifies as a socialist of the Nordic Welfare State variety.
Diversity.
What I'm talking about is real, and on the record. Recognized names colluding about how to trash a Republican - going so far as Joe Klein saying "OK, here's my latest piece, I've tried to cobble together the various themes you guys have presented, tell me what you think." There is nothing imagined or paranoid about that. Yes, there are good journalists out there - I'm not sure what that has to do with the point.
But it's okay. That other one is a Democrat so no big deal. Gotta make sure the party wins.
I think giving the Clinton's past, people should be terrified what that lunatic does with even more power.
This is the imprisonment that happens when a person gets stuck in a party.
You get labeled. I'll post it again. People will assign themselves to a group, because hey people feel MF'ing awesome when they are a part of a group- we'll call them the Ins. Once they assign themselves a to an "In group", you start to rationalize your value of your "In group" and start belittling anyone who opposes your "In group" We call those enemies the "Out group". There was very good research study called Klee Vs Klandisky that proves this mentality.
It's effing stupid to let a party be an identification for existence.
Only 33% of Independents trust the media as unbiased. That number has tanked over the past decade. Settled science.
oh you don't like women at all? sexist or gay?
I'm most interested in seeing what happens with Christie's numbers after last night. Not that I'm a supporter, but he turned in a back-against-the-wall effort. It's do or die time for his campaign. Either he starts to get SOME semblance of traction or he's done (though I know he's banking on New Hampshire before he makes any type of long term decision about his future).
With so many still in the field, the GOP primary is like the NCAA Tourney in a way. It's all about surviving and advancing while those around you fall out. Really impossible to predict the future until the field starts whittling itself down.
With so many still in the field, the GOP primary is like the NCAA Tourney in a way. It's all about surviving and advancing while those around you fall out. Really impossible to predict the future until the field starts whittling itself down.
Christie would make a hell of a VP for a fiscally-oriented Republican POTUS. Turn him into your Entitlement Reform czar, cut him loose on congress for a year or two, then watch those long-term debt obligations start to level off. That guy isn't scared of AARP, et al.
It'll never happen, though.
It'll never happen, though.
Similar threads
