Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
The point is that private prisons already exist and they are awful. It's an example of how privatizing government functions (which your post was championing) can be a terrible idea.
Govt. Shutdown
- Thread starter bravesnumberone
- Start date
The point is that private prisons already exist and they are awful. It's an example of how privatizing government functions (which your post was championing) can be a terrible idea.
Yeah. Anyone who thinks Obama is hyperpartisan is insane. Reid isn't even as liberal as Pelosi, he just happens to be majority leader. Pelosi may be far left in the House, but Reid isn't as liberal as someone like a Bernie or Warren or even a Ron Wyden.
Also, the notion that we have to meet halfway with Republicans on everything is also insane. If I'm looking at a left to right scale from -10 to +10 with 0 being the center of this country... I'd say mainstream Dems fall in the -3 or -4 on the left side, and the GOP currently falls on the +8,+9 on that scale. The middleground of -4 and +9 is going to be +2 or +3. Concessions would be to find something to meet back at 0, but that'd be too "liberal" for this currrent mainstream GOP.
Also, the notion that we have to meet halfway with Republicans on everything is also insane. If I'm looking at a left to right scale from -10 to +10 with 0 being the center of this country... I'd say mainstream Dems fall in the -3 or -4 on the left side, and the GOP currently falls on the +8,+9 on that scale. The middleground of -4 and +9 is going to be +2 or +3. Concessions would be to find something to meet back at 0, but that'd be too "liberal" for this currrent mainstream GOP.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
So what do Obama and Warren/Pelosi have an actual complete disagreement on? What issues?
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I'm just saying though that I'm sick of libs complaining about the politicians that conservatives elect or are in the highest positions of power, when in fact Boehner, Reid, McCain, Romney etc. are at the very least comparable to the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc.
I actually don't view Boehner as an extremist. He's always been slighty right of moderate. He's mainly speaker because of his seniority in the party than his ideology. Deep down, Boehner is the same mold of Republican as Romney or McCain. They all have to cater to a certain radical faction in their party to do what they want.
There is no such faction like that in the Dems. Dems are probably more united than GOP when it comes to voting. Boehner has to juggle the phonies like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Marsha Blackburn, and the Tea Partiers.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Obama had to give up on the public option because he couldn't get enough blue dog dems in the house to back him up. That's what I'm talking about when I say they were fighting amongst their own party. Look, you can speculate all you want about why Obama struggled to even get the federal mandate through, but the facts are the facts. It was an extremely partisan vote. I'll let you speculate on the reasons while I just bathe in the facts. I never speculate.
Of course the pubs are offering something. They're offering him funding. They're witholding it because the dems aren't negotiating right now. This is something that has been done many times in the past by both parties. They just asked for a simple delay in the implementation of Obamacare. Reid is unwilling to go to the negotiation table on it. At the very least there are significant concerns about the Obamacare implementation. So what's so bad about a one year delay. Get the kinks worked out and then implement the horrible policy.
Let me ask you this question? If the Pubs are petty by doing this governmental shutdown thing, then is the President not being petty by refusing to consider bills that would partially restore nonnecessary governmental services? Is it petty of the president to allow as much pain as he can allow, like he did during the sequester? The truth is that both sides are playing politics here.
With all of that in mind... I think this is a pure political move to appease to the majority who don't like Obamacare. In the end I think it makes republican congress look bad as a whole, but it doesn't really matter. People vote for their representatives on an individual basis.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
The liberals have to appease to their base as well. It cuts both ways. I mean you have to be a pretty big homer not to see that. For Every moderate liberal there's a steaksauce.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Boehner is a garden variety wheeler-dealer and corporate suckup . . . typical of the type that often rise to leadership positions in both parties. His caucus is a different story, though.
Yeah the Insurance Mandate was far from what liberals wanted.
Liberals have wanted a single-payer system forever. Couldn't get that, so let's try public option. Nope, couldn't get that either, so had to settle for a plan the Heritage Foundation and Republican Party drew up 20 years ago.
That's concession and appeasement?
Even I as a liberal concede this insurance mandate is going to be more costly than single payer/public option, but it's better than the current system.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
in the House, sure. Gerrymandered districts cut both ways. The republicans have been more successful winning the state legislatures recently, so they've carved out a few more on their side, but yes, of course there are lefties in congress, and of course they play to their bases.
You're still kind of sliding around the point, though. The far right is driving policy and strategy on the republican side. They have organization and access to money that has no analogue on the left. The far left has been shut out of D policymaking since, well, pretty much since before I was of voting age.
Look at the Senators getting hte most attention in the Republican Party.
Senator Cruz
Senator Rand Paul
before that was Senator Rubio.
What do they all have in common? They're all Tea Party sweethearts.
The other long time Republican Senators who 10 years ago would be considered far right and are now actually moderate because of how far the scale has been skewed, all they have to do is just vote NO to keep their job safe and the Tea Party happy.
McCain is just trying to remain relevant, by pretending to be an elder statesman/maverick and telling Cruz and others to chill out, but he votes the same way they do because he really has no more political clout. Everybody just looks at him as a former Presidential Candidate, that's been a senator a very long time. He doesn't have the sway Ted Kennedy did.
Corker is same as McCain. Been here a while, would have been considered a far right winger in the 90's, but now is considered one of the Senators that Obama may be able to talk to. O'Reilly was considered the Far right TV host for a long time, until Glenn Beck and Limbaugh upstaged him. Now O'Reilly looks like a sane center of right Republican compared to those two.
Do Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and guys like Ron Wyden and Boxer/Feinstein get as much attention as their Republican counter parts?
Warren has her fight with the banks.
Bernie has his fight with income inequality and social security/medicare.
Feinstein has her fight with guns.
But nobody takes them serious on fiscal issues like everyone on the right takes Paul and Cruz seriously.
Senator Cruz
Senator Rand Paul
before that was Senator Rubio.
What do they all have in common? They're all Tea Party sweethearts.
The other long time Republican Senators who 10 years ago would be considered far right and are now actually moderate because of how far the scale has been skewed, all they have to do is just vote NO to keep their job safe and the Tea Party happy.
McCain is just trying to remain relevant, by pretending to be an elder statesman/maverick and telling Cruz and others to chill out, but he votes the same way they do because he really has no more political clout. Everybody just looks at him as a former Presidential Candidate, that's been a senator a very long time. He doesn't have the sway Ted Kennedy did.
Corker is same as McCain. Been here a while, would have been considered a far right winger in the 90's, but now is considered one of the Senators that Obama may be able to talk to. O'Reilly was considered the Far right TV host for a long time, until Glenn Beck and Limbaugh upstaged him. Now O'Reilly looks like a sane center of right Republican compared to those two.
Do Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and guys like Ron Wyden and Boxer/Feinstein get as much attention as their Republican counter parts?
Warren has her fight with the banks.
Bernie has his fight with income inequality and social security/medicare.
Feinstein has her fight with guns.
But nobody takes them serious on fiscal issues like everyone on the right takes Paul and Cruz seriously.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
All of those you mentioned would have lost to Obama. The only candidate that could have won was Ron Paul. I dont know that anyone would have beaten Obama in 08 because Bush left such a bad taste in peoples mouths about republicans. Flat out the Republican party chose another Obama term over a Ron Paul presidency. Anyone who thought Romney would win was an idiot or in denial. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot not embracing the libertarian revolution going on in their party. Their whole strategy is to wait until people get sick of democrats again and are just trying to obstruct Obama as much as possible until that day comes. They should just give Obama everything he wants and just sit back and say "see, we told you so, maybe dont vote for a liberal next time". Obstructing Obama just gives him an excuse to use.
And if your on the left dont pretend you know which candidate is best for the right. Any candidate you think acceptable is probably not someone anyone on the right wants to vote for. It gets the same reaction that telling you the left should nominate Joseph Lieberman would get from you.
All it would take for Ron Paul to lose, would be for Obama to mention that Paul wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
People on the left pick out who's more capable of winning a general on the right, because that's the person who's more moderate and would have the best chance of winning a battleground state.
No Republican is going to win California, so you need a moderate Republican that can battle for the battleground states. If Paul's platform on social security, and medicare/medicaid came known in states like Florida, Ohio.... that's not even a question.
Paul gets blown out in the general vs. Obama.
People on the left pick out who's more capable of winning a general on the right, because that's the person who's more moderate and would have the best chance of winning a battleground state.
No Republican is going to win California, so you need a moderate Republican that can battle for the battleground states. If Paul's platform on social security, and medicare/medicaid came known in states like Florida, Ohio.... that's not even a question.
Paul gets blown out in the general vs. Obama.
The idea that Paul could defeat Obama running on his political stances, is sillier than the guy that posted a picture of the electoral map of the country via district that shows there's more square mileage of red on the map than blue, when blue is where all the densely populated areas are.
Anti-War and Civil Liberty agendas won't matter when you stack them up against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Not to mention a big reason Romney lost was because of the latino vote... that alone would have Paul losing.
The only youth vote he would've gotten would be for legalizing weed (as sad as it makes me to admit that about my generation's voting priorities), and I'm sure Obama's team would've jumped all over that if not agreed to legalize it as well to counter that.
Let's be real here, we've been in 2 wars for 10 years, still stuck in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, potentially are going in Syria, fear of going to war with NK for a while. Our civil liberties have been attacked for 10+ years to where most Americans don't really even notice they're not there.
You tell your average middle class family if they have to choose between the thought of abolishing social security, medicare, unemployment benefits and sending our troops out of the middle east/No more Patriot Act, I think we know which one gets picked 99% of the time.
Also, the fact Obama would be FOR *** marriage, when Paul would be only allowing states to decide (which every Southern State would reject), the youth vote there would favor Obama.
Obama ran on anti-war/civil liberties, but that isn't what got him elected. It was economy and $$$ issues.
Paul telling everyone, we should cut more taxes, would dig him in a deeper hole.
Let's not forget, Paul would be for shrinking the military (which I'm actually in favor of), and as we all know that's a huge voting block for the Republican Party. You can't get Senators and Congressman in districts with military bases to go along with Paul's vision of gutting the military. All Obama would have to do is speak on his record of defense and play up to military families and Paul loses.
Obama ran on anti-war/civil liberties, but that isn't what got him elected. It was economy and $$$ issues.
Paul telling everyone, we should cut more taxes, would dig him in a deeper hole.
Let's not forget, Paul would be for shrinking the military (which I'm actually in favor of), and as we all know that's a huge voting block for the Republican Party. You can't get Senators and Congressman in districts with military bases to go along with Paul's vision of gutting the military. All Obama would have to do is speak on his record of defense and play up to military families and Paul loses.
sturg33
I
All in the messaging.
For example, if Mitt Romney went on a debate stage and said "This President signed a bill that allows the US military to indefinitely detain ANY US citizen for ANY reason, with no trial to that citizen" I believe he would have won the election.
But Mitt Romney agreed with NDAA
ACA was pretty unpopular - yet the Republicans put up the man who implemented it first.
Obama won in 2008 bc of his opposition to the war, unbalanced budget, and attacks to civil liberties. But Ron Paul was the only Republican who could have made an argument against him in 2012
If Ron Paul discussed how we are broke, can't afford wars, the wars on drugs, etc etc, that message resonates.
And Ron Paul laid out his plans for SS, did you not see it? He basically said that congress is constutionally forced to pay the benefits it has promised, but he would offer an opt out for anyone under 25 years old - and eventually the program would have died on its own, but voluntarily.
In 2008, I thought Ron Paul was crazy because... everyone told me he was crazy. When I actually listened to what he said, I realized he was brilliant
sturg33
I
Paul is not in favor of *** marriage because he doesn't care. In his view, anyone who wants to marry someone else should be allowed to, and that we don't need a law to give us permission. I think that is a very strong argument FOR the cause.
Yeah, Obama ran on economy and we're still in the ****ter. Paul was the only Republican who had a track record of doing what he says.
Yes, Paul telling everyone they should be able to keep more of their money will really get him in trouble
Yes, he is in favor of shrinking defense spending. But I never met a republican who said they would not vote for Paul against Obama. Yeah, they thought he was crazy bc of foreign policy - but their pea sized brains told them that "he's not Obama" so they would have voted for him anyways