• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Thanks state legislature :-o The issue that gets me the most is that these measures were slipped into unrelated bills. Seems abit unethical - oh that's right we're talking about politicians here.

Abortion rights advocates were incensed about how the measures have come through the legislative process over the past week.

The Senate bill was inserted into an unrelated House measure to prohibit North Carolina judges from applying part of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign law in certain cases. The House bill considered Thursday was inserted Wednesday into a bill designed to increase penalties against motorists who cause serious motorcycle accidents. There was little or no advanced notice for the changes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/abortions-nc/2510783/
 
Planit said:
Thanks state legislature :-o The issue that gets me the most is that these measures were slipped into unrelated bills. Seems abit unethical - oh that's right we're talking about politicians here.

Abortion rights advocates were incensed about how the measures have come through the legislative process over the past week.

The Senate bill was inserted into an unrelated House measure to prohibit North Carolina judges from applying part of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign law in certain cases. The House bill considered Thursday was inserted Wednesday into a bill designed to increase penalties against motorists who cause serious motorcycle accidents. There was little or no advanced notice for the changes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/abortions-nc/2510783/
Click to expand...

What you don't think that is what the founding fathers wanted? Putting measures into unrelated laws to get them passed? Yea that is democracy... :r:

The R's always make the founders argument. I make it when politicians do this. Was that the intent? I support a federal law that bans this at the federal level, but I doubt each state would pass one.
 
Hink said:
Wah wah, I am not getting my way... I want to take my ball and secede....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/northern-colorado-wants-secede-colorado-174432609.html

Geez. Come on people. Move then. There are tons of things that I am ashamed of in my State. You either get over it, or you move. This seceding junk is weak sauce and comes off and whiny.

It is stuff like this that makes be believe Ted Nugent could run for R office and get to the general election.....:-o
Click to expand...

I live in Texas. If anyone has a right to be ashamed of the actions of state elected officials, U.S. Reps and U.S. Senators, I think it is us.:not::tx:
 
I just get tired of the BS problems congress feels they need to regulate. Do we really need to tell judges that they can't use foriegn laws to judge by? How many times do you need to attempt to overturn the health care bill (i'm not saying it's good or bad)? Try it once or twice then move on. What's worse is states like Arizona where the governor (and legislature) fight everything federal and try to create things like not having to enforce EPA mandates, but when it comes to marijuana, which the people voted to legalize, they have to follow federal laws.
 
The farm bill that just passed the house is shocking. And I don't get shocked easily. On the one hand, my family has an interest in a farm that will get more federal subsidies (if passes senate, whih is doubtful) to not really grow anything, but on the other hand, really? Wow. Not even sure what to say about it.
 
I always heard people become more conservative as they age. I think I have become more liberal over time. Maybe I'm not old enough.

Or the entire conservative/liberal scale slid out from under me when I moved from urban IL to rural TN. That's also possible.
 
Midori said:
I always heard people become more conservative as they age. I think I have become more liberal over time. Maybe I'm not old enough.

Or the entire conservative/liberal scale slid out from under me when I moved from urban IL to rural TN. That's also possible.
Click to expand...

I've certainly become more conservative as I've gotten older. I think the biggest issue is that many modern day conservatives have very little in common with the traditional definition of conservatism. What's pasing for conservatism these days is not really a conservative political philosophy.
 
imaplanner said:
I've certainly become more conservative as I've gotten older. I think the biggest issue is that many modern day conservatives have very little in common with the traditional definition of conservatism. What's pasing for conservatism these days is not really a conservative political philosophy.
Click to expand...

I think you're onto something there. Conservativism (is that a word?) itself is open to different definitions, and it's no longer (was it ever) a dichotomy. Out here where I live now, it's more libertarian or tea party. That was not the case in Chicago, where it had more to do with not voting for the municipal establishment. Could be that I'm just a contrarian, and I'll always vote for the minority. :)

I've told people I'll usually vote with Republicans, but I'd rather have the Democrats over for drinks.
 
Midori said:
I always heard people become more conservative as they age. I think I have become more liberal over time. Maybe I'm not old enough.

Or the entire conservative/liberal scale slid out from under me when I moved from urban IL to rural TN. That's also possible.
Click to expand...

Not Churchill said:
If you're not liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not conservative when you're 35, you have no brain.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of it has to do with money. You become more conservative as you get more money because you like the concept of protecting your wealth. When you are younger you have no wealth, need help from the government, and look for opportunities to be created for you. As you age and accumulate more wealth, you dislike sharing that wealth more and more.

I have not really changed my views as I have aged. I have yet to hit 35 though, so who knows. I think the problem is that the conservative party is full of religious conservatives, which I am not. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative today means libertarian. Not sure that is what I am though...
 
I think part of the "conservative" problem is the scale is sliding on us. Where many of us might have been conservative back in Reagans time, now we are considered moderate. Conservative seems to be something between overblown religious values. I have no problem with people's religious beliefs, they just shouldn't be the government's laws. Or something about no taxation and no funding social anything. Lately I tend to vote more on the left just because they are holding similar values, but I've always considered myself moderate. Another part where I see a problem is that people are being told what to think by news channels (I'm not mentioning any animal related stations) that only give a partial telling of the facts. Sadly I think people believe that information is complete and accurate.

And yes, Arizona can take the challenge anytime. Any state that can pass a bill where life begins before conception has a problem. Aparently ladies, according to Arizona your pregnant the day after your cycle weather you've had nookie or not.
 
Midori said:
I always heard people become more conservative as they age. I think I have become more liberal over time. Maybe I'm not old enough.
Click to expand...

My father defied that stereotype as well. He voted for Reagan the first time and then switched to being a Dem the second time around. By the time he was fading mentally around 2000, he was telling me everyone should learn Spanish because a) its a great language and b) we are drifting toward bilingualism in this country over the next 50 years anyway (which he thought was great and fascinating). Also, he was totally in support of gay marriage - 13 years ago! What this imposter did with my curmudgeonly father, I'm not sure. He was never that open-minded when I was a kid, that's for sure. When I grew my hair long, he practically had a stroke and lectured me for countless hours about how it was such a bad idea.
 
Hink said:
I think the problem is that the conservative party is full of religious conservatives, which I am not. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative today means libertarian. Not sure that is what I am though...
Click to expand...

What does socially liberal, fiscally conservative mean?

I would argue that socially liberal and fiscally anything now makes you a liberal Democrat. There is currently no room in the Republican party for a pro choice, pro gay rights person.
 
Brocktoon said:
What does socially liberal, fiscally conservative mean?
Click to expand...

It means I support gay rights, women's choice, some sort of amnesty, etc. but strongly believe that we should have a flatter tax system (or a fair tax), be more transparent with our government money, and reduce our deficit at the cost of adding programs.

I don't think that these positions are contradictory to each other, much the opposite, I think they can be very much in line with one another. For some reason though, we don't have a third party that can get some of these concepts out there. As I said above, it sure isn't the Libertarians.

Brocktoon said:
I would argue that socially liberal and fiscally anything now makes you a liberal Democrat. There is currently no room in the Republican party for a pro choice, pro gay rights person.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why the Republican party is killing itself. People like me, should be in the republican party. But it is impossible to support a party of bigotry. When social issues trump your other policy positions, you have lost. They will continue to lose until they start to get on the right side of social issues.... which might not be before they implode.


Tide said:
Whatever it is I'm pretty sure I'm the opposite.
Click to expand...

So you are socially conservative (no gay rights, no women's choice, no path to citizenship), but are fiscally liberal (put more money into medicare/caid, increase subsidies to the poor, etc.)?

I don't know that I have met someone like that. Welcome to the no party club. You aren't going to get D's or R's to like you.... good work!
 
I'd have to agree with Hink, we need to get a bunch of people to run out the current R's and bring it back to being a fiscally conservative party, but not overly so like the tea party. It would be good to bring a little compromise back to congress.
 
Hink said:
I think a lot of it has to do with money. You become more conservative as you get more money because you like the concept of protecting your wealth. When you are younger you have no wealth, need help from the government, and look for opportunities to be created for you. As you age and accumulate more wealth, you dislike sharing that wealth more and more.

I have not really changed my views as I have aged. I have yet to hit 35 though, so who knows. I think the problem is that the conservative party is full of religious conservatives, which I am not. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative today means libertarian. Not sure that is what I am though...
Click to expand...

No, that makes you a RINO. Libertarians' fiscal "policy" is to return to the 18th century ... or maybe the 12th.
 
I'm the kind of person that wants to hear both sides of a story from both sides, not just what one side says the other side is about. And until fairly recently (2010 or so) I was still thinking there was some value in what the republican party was advocating for. Much of what they were talking about made sense, even when I might have disagreed with it or found flaws in the logic. There was a legitimate argument being made on many things. I have to say that listening to, and reading right wing narratives since Obama's re-election, and particularly the last day and half regarding the whole Martin-Zimmerman thing, that the narrative coming out of the republican party right now is absolutely horrible and shameful. It makes me sick to my stomach.
 
Hink said:
It means I support gay rights, women's choice, some sort of amnesty, etc. but strongly believe that we should have a flatter tax system (or a fair tax), be more transparent with our government money, and reduce our deficit at the cost of adding programs.

I don't think that these positions are contradictory to each other, much the opposite, I think they can be very much in line with one another. For some reason though, we don't have a third party that can get some of these concepts out there. As I said above, it sure isn't the Libertarians.

!
Click to expand...

The problem I have with the socially liberal, fiscally conservative is that almost every Democrat, Independent and Liberterian say but few define what a fiscal conservative. Supporting a balanced budget is not conservative or liberal position. BOth believe its the end goal but have every different opinions on how to get there.

At first blsuh, I would not define your fiscal position as conservative but its tough to tell.. Care to elaborate on what you mean a flatter and fairer tax system? Also, is deficit reduction the most important fiscal issue facing the country? Should taxes be raised to achieve a balanced budget? What actions should be taken in a recession? Does fiscal stimulus work...were the bailouts of the banking and auto industry worthwhile? What is your position on the Fed and its bond buy back program.
 
I used to think I was a social conservative. I mean, I am quite religious. But I like poor people and people who don't look like me or believe exactly as I do, and think we should give them a fair shake, or even a leg up if they need it. So I guess that makes me not a social conservative, at least if I tell by what I hear in the media and on the street. Oh well.

It seems like the crazies in the Republican party have mastered the off-cycle elections and are good at political mobilization. Moderates and "old" republicans are probably too ambivalent to throw their souls into political action the same way.
 
Brocktoon said:
The problem I have with the socially liberal, fiscally conservative is that almost every Democrat, Independent and Liberterian say but few define what a fiscal conservative. Supporting a balanced budget is not conservative or liberal position. BOth believe its the end goal but have every different opinions on how to get there.

At first blsuh, I would not define your fiscal position as conservative but its tough to tell.. Care to elaborate on what you mean a flatter and fairer tax system? Also, is deficit reduction the most important fiscal issue facing the country? Should taxes be raised to achieve a balanced budget? What actions should be taken in a recession? Does fiscal stimulus work...were the bailouts of the banking and auto industry worthwhile? What is your position on the Fed and its bond buy back program.
Click to expand...

I believe that our tax system should be less directed at the wealthy, and more directed at working to get everyone to share in the burden. Cut out the loopholes and deductions. I don't think a system that asks anyone to pay over 50% of their income (local, state, federal) to the government is equitable. I agree the tax system should be progressive, but not to the point to stifle the upper middle class (who is like the middle class of the 50's). I like the Fair Tax. I like consumption taxes with pre-bates. I don't think that we should hold the country hostage to get a balanced budget, but I don't think we should be deficit spending like we have been for the last 8 years. I agree with stimulus spending, but don't believe that we should be bailing out companies. Yes, it worked with the auto industry, but I still don't think we should have done it. If we can't afford to have social security and medicare act as they have in the past, we need to review how they work, and whether we can do them more efficiently or differently.

I believe that we need to completely change the way we fund federal government programs. As the largest employer in the county, the federal government (either directly or through contract work) pays more salaries than any one business in the country. I don't like the concept of "shrinking" the government, as some conservatives have stated, but I do think that we need to be less repetitive in departments, and workloads (FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.).

I think the QE is a good thing... for now. I think the recession has forced the Feds hand in fiscal policy that at any other time wouldn't be good for the country. I don't think that we should be subsidizing wall street though forever. At some point we need to let the economy run free.

My difficulty with the D position on financing the government is that many times it is considered an open checkbook. Well we have this many people that need this much money, so we need to increase the debt ceiling. We have programs that have always supported people and cost money, and we need more to support it today. At some point, you have to reevaluate these programs. You have to say, sorry, we cannot help everyone. You have to prioritize and work to bring the water level up, not just a couple ships.

I think entitlements are the biggest concern for our future financing as a country. I think we need to remind people what social security was meant to be, and work to get people to start saving for retirement. I think we need to look at how the ACA is going to affect the country and then work to either expand (and remove private sector insurance options - single payer), or modify how medicare if funded, to get a long term solution. The Affordable Care Act is a horrible middle ground that is not sustainable.

That was a lot of things. Does that help clear up my position? ;)
 
Midori said:
I used to think I was a social conservative. I mean, I am quite religious. But I like poor people and people who don't look like me or believe exactly as I do, and think we should give them a fair shake, or even a leg up if they need it. So I guess that makes me not a social conservative, at least if I tell by what I hear in the media and on the street. Oh well.

It seems like the crazies in the Republican party have mastered the off-cycle elections and are good at political mobilization. Moderates and "old" republicans are probably too ambivalent to throw their souls into political action the same way.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be a bit presumptive in assuming your religious affiliation, but what you describe sounds like progressive Christianity. A lot of folks, particularly of my generation, have become "less religious" because they have similar beliefs to what you describe (plus are often supportive of gay rights & tired of the abortion discussion). Many, like me, stopped attending church because they could not find a home that matched their progressive beliefs.

Vast oversimplification coming... Moderates are a hard group to fire up for precisely what you said--ambivalence. Moderates are pretty mellow by definition and like compromise--which means they don't get riled up on issues but instead remain steadfastly pragmatic. As a result, we only hear from the lunatic fringe obcessed with throwing red meat to those they know are fired-up to vote for them. In the meantime, a silent majority comprised of moderates looks on in dismay, but is too cynical to care or simply feel trying to change it is a lost cause.
_____________________

I would probably classify Hink fiscally as a pragmatic moderate leaning conservative from a fiscal/monetary standpoint. Socially, I'm tempted to simply classify him as mainstream with clear progressive leanings given that public opinion is heading towards favoring gay rights, womens rights, etc (unless, of course, you're in one of the aforementioned states). Basically, I think Hink probably represents the vast majority of moderate America, except that he actually votes.
 
Hink said:
I believe that our tax system should be less directed at the wealthy, and more directed at working to get everyone to share in the burden. Cut out the loopholes and deductions. I don't think a system that asks anyone to pay over 50% of their income (local, state, federal) to the government is equitable. I agree the tax system should be progressive, but not to the point to stifle the upper middle class (who is like the middle class of the 50's). I like the Fair Tax. I like consumption taxes with pre-bates. I don't think that we should hold the country hostage to get a balanced budget, but I don't think we should be deficit spending like we have been for the last 8 years. I agree with stimulus spending, but don't believe that we should be bailing out companies. Yes, it worked with the auto industry, but I still don't think we should have done it. If we can't afford to have social security and medicare act as they have in the past, we need to review how they work, and whether we can do them more efficiently or differently.

I believe that we need to completely change the way we fund federal government programs. As the largest employer in the county, the federal government (either directly or through contract work) pays more salaries than any one business in the country. I don't like the concept of "shrinking" the government, as some conservatives have stated, but I do think that we need to be less repetitive in departments, and workloads (FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.).

I think the QE is a good thing... for now. I think the recession has forced the Feds hand in fiscal policy that at any other time wouldn't be good for the country. I don't think that we should be subsidizing wall street though forever. At some point we need to let the economy run free.

My difficulty with the D position on financing the government is that many times it is considered an open checkbook. Well we have this many people that need this much money, so we need to increase the debt ceiling. We have programs that have always supported people and cost money, and we need more to support it today. At some point, you have to reevaluate these programs. You have to say, sorry, we cannot help everyone. You have to prioritize and work to bring the water level up, not just a couple ships.

I think entitlements are the biggest concern for our future financing as a country. I think we need to remind people what social security was meant to be, and work to get people to start saving for retirement. I think we need to look at how the ACA is going to affect the country and then work to either expand (and remove private sector insurance options - single payer), or modify how medicare if funded, to get a long term solution. The Affordable Care Act is a horrible middle ground that is not sustainable.

That was a lot of things. Does that help clear up my position? ;)
Click to expand...

After that I would definately not call you a fiscal conservative.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I'm going to be a bit presumptive in assuming your religious affiliation, but what you describe sounds like progressive Christianity. A lot of folks, particularly of my generation, have become "less religious" because they have similar beliefs to what you describe (plus are often supportive of gay rights & tired of the abortion discussion). Many, like me, stopped attending church because they could not find a home that matched their progressive beliefs.

Vast oversimplification coming... Moderates are a hard group to fire up for precisely what you said--ambivalence. Moderates are pretty mellow by definition and like compromise--which means they don't get riled up on issues but instead remain steadfastly pragmatic. As a result, we only hear from the lunatic fringe obcessed with throwing red meat to those they know are fired-up to vote for them. In the meantime, a silent majority comprised of moderates looks on in dismay, but is too cynical to care or simply feel trying to change it is a lost cause.
Click to expand...

Probably a good explanation for what we're seeing.

Believe it or not, I'm probably on the right end of theological conservatism. I'm hard-core Calvinist by theology, smells-and-bells liturgical, and hold to the sacraments. It is because of those beliefs I feel compelled to have compassion for the poor and extend mercy to the outsider. I'm a little conflicted about gay rights, silently cheering at their advancement, but troubled by the church's uncertainty on the topic. I'm pro-life, but ache for the women who are unwillingly pregnant and would rather look for ways to make their paths easier than focus on vilifying health providers.

In short, I guess neither liberals nor conservatives are going to like me. :a:
 
Hink said:
Wha? I thought EVERYONE wanted it repealed?

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-don-t-want-congress-repeal-151253420.html

Are some in the House of Reps lying to the American people? I feel dirty... ;)
Click to expand...

Polls, schmolls! Seems like every month I read conflicting polls about this.

Here's my question. Obamacare was basically a plan developed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation and the basic outline initially proposed by prominent conservatives, AND now that premiums in the implementing states are being released and are shown to be lowering premiums in many of those states, so actually working as designed, why are some people so hell bent on repealing it? It's a market driven approach. It's lowering the cost curve and actually lowering premiums in many states, and reducing the federal deficit above the baseline of no obamacare. So what is the argument for repealling? That's what I don't understand.
 
What most people think of Congress is what Republicans think about the Affordable Care Act.

People had Congress but like and reelect their Congressman. Approval ratings for Congress is low but ask about the individual congressman and the approval rating is much higher.

Ask a rank and file Republican about the ACA and they hate it. Ask them about many of the provisions and they are supportive of it.
 
I'm kind of in a weird spot with the ACA.

On a fundamental level I do think that the bill in general in unconstitutional.

On a personal level it provides me with several benefits as a young person beginning to make his way through the world.

On a logical level, the ACA (or at least the direction it takes) it likely the only way to come close to achieving universal healthcare via the private sector.

What I'd like is for the Feds to cover the most extreme medical costs (cancer, etc) via a tax increase paid at a flat rate by everyone along with an increased tax on "sin" (cigarettes, booze, soda maybe?). And have insurance focus on "smaller" items like broken bones and car accidents and the regular medical stuff. Insurance premiums would decline and be more affordable while no one would have to go without being able to afford major medical care for a life-threatening disease.
 
I keep tossing around the idea that if employers directly paid out the amount they pay for health insurance benefits to the employees, and then employees purchased insurance through the exchanges, then we might all be better off because:

1) Employees wouldn't be tied to only select the health insurance options their employer provides
2) There would be even greater competition between the insurance companies to put forth reasonably priced options
3) People would keep better track of their health care spending because they have greater control over it
4) The increase in number of people buying through the exchanges could lead to larger pools of covered people, which would lower the prices overall
5) It wouldn't lead to a single-payer solution; it would be more of a true "marketplace" (more like how auto insurance coverage works)

I haven't thought about all of the pros and cons and done much research so there might be major flaws that I haven't thought of. I'm just curious about what would happen if the employers gave their employees the money for insurance directly.
 
terraplnr said:
I keep tossing around the idea that if employers directly paid out the amount they pay for health insurance benefits to the employees, and then employees purchased insurance through the exchanges, then we might all be better off because:

1) Employees wouldn't be tied to only select the health insurance options their employer provides
2) There would be even greater competition between the insurance companies to put forth reasonably priced options
3) People would keep better track of their health care spending because they have greater control over it
4) The increase in number of people buying through the exchanges could lead to larger pools of covered people, which would lower the prices overall
5) It wouldn't lead to a single-payer solution; it would be more of a true "marketplace" (more like how auto insurance coverage works)

I haven't thought about all of the pros and cons and done much research so there might be major flaws that I haven't thought of. I'm just curious about what would happen if the employers gave their employees the money for insurance directly.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. It's fantastically frustrating that it is mostly unfeasible to have health coverage outside of full-time employment. Especially with unemployment so high. It's like kicking people when they're down. There are so many things wrong with the current model.
 
terraplnr said:
I haven't thought about all of the pros and cons and done much research so there might be major flaws that I haven't thought of. I'm just curious about what would happen if the employers gave their employees the money for insurance directly.
Click to expand...

I know a guy that owns a business in another state that is contemplating this exact thing. For him to purchase the plan he would like to for his employees, a similar plan can be had through his state's exchange for about 15% cheaper. He would prefer to just save himself the headache of handling insurance and maybe the savings would allow his employees to purchase a plan even better than his/more tailored to their needs.
 
The Daily News has out done itself. The headline along with the specific picture they chose - wow. I guess they aren't endorsing Carlos Danger.


BQGtfKlCQAEFNt_.jpg:large
 
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-t...nering-on-presidential-debates-160516122.html

Do you think they have the guts to not have their primaries aired on CNN and NBC? I sure don't. I mean if the RNC wants to only have their primaries on Fox, then they are pretty much accepting that they don't want anyone that isn't in their tent.

I think the RNC is in trouble. Threatening NBC might feel good, but it isn't going to stop the bleeding....
 
Hink said:
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-t...nering-on-presidential-debates-160516122.html

Do you think they have the guts to not have their primaries aired on CNN and NBC? I sure don't. I mean if the RNC wants to only have their primaries on Fox, then they are pretty much accepting that they don't want anyone that isn't in their tent.

I think the RNC is in trouble. Threatening NBC might feel good, but it isn't going to stop the bleeding....
Click to expand...

All I could think of when I saw this news was that somebody needs to call the wambulance for the RNC. :r:
 
Hink said:
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-t...nering-on-presidential-debates-160516122.html

Do you think they have the guts to not have their primaries aired on CNN and NBC? I sure don't. I mean if the RNC wants to only have their primaries on Fox, then they are pretty much accepting that they don't want anyone that isn't in their tent.

I think the RNC is in trouble. Threatening NBC might feel good, but it isn't going to stop the bleeding....
Click to expand...

I think not having their primaries aired widely would be helpful no? They were wildly entertaining, and exposed much crazy, but do you really think that exposing the entire country to Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman's views and the fact that those views were not out of the ordinary in the party helped the eventual candidate? I think it harmed Mitt Romney's chances greatly.
 
imaplanner said:
I think not having their primaries aired widely would be helpful no? They were wildly entertaining, and exposed much crazy, but do you really think that exposing the entire country to Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman's views and the fact that those views were not out of the ordinary in the party helped the eventual candidate? I think it harmed Mitt Romney's chances greatly.
Click to expand...

Insulating itself further form reality will only harm the few chances that the party has to get back on the boat. Honestly, I would like to see a Jon Huntsman get out there and get some traction. But 2016 is looking like another crazy bunch of R's - Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and who knows who else. If Ted Cruz runs and there isn't a HUGE deal given to the fact that he was born in Canada by the Republicans, then I give up. I didn't think they liked loopholes to the Presidency.... :r:

I was hoping that the R's would purge Sarah Palin and the crazies by 2016 but it is looking more and more like they are just breeding them.... boo to our two party system. Boo I say.
 
Hink said:
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-t...nering-on-presidential-debates-160516122.html

Do you think they have the guts to not have their primaries aired on CNN and NBC? I sure don't. I mean if the RNC wants to only have their primaries on Fox, then they are pretty much accepting that they don't want anyone that isn't in their tent.

I think the RNC is in trouble. Threatening NBC might feel good, but it isn't going to stop the bleeding....
Click to expand...
Turning this around, would the DNC agree to having their candidates on networks that produce fawning, glowing shows about of the likes of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin?

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
Turning this around, would the DNC agree to having their candidates on networks that produce fawning, glowing shows about of the likes of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin?

Mike
Click to expand...

Hard to say, since I'm not sure that's ever happened? Has Fox News ever carried a Democratic primary debate? Just curious.
 
mgk920 said:
Turning this around, would the DNC agree to having their candidates on networks that produce fawning, glowing shows about of the likes of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin?

Mike
Click to expand...

That's a valid point for sure. My first thought is that it rings a bit hollow given Fox news will have and will continue to get the debates and they have employed and had entire shows based on most likely candidates. But then I guess really it just is the natural progression of the American media model - which is to say that the American media is not really news, but opinion and propaganda. The DNC would be idiotic to let Fox news moderate any of the dem debates, and the RNC should probably similarly not let msnbc moderate any of thiers, regardless of the Hillary miniseries. We just are not going to get anything other than propaganda, regardless of the directions, from the American media. In my opinion of course.
 
Back
Top