login
Republicans are LOSING! (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-10-15 11:59 AM in reply to: NXS |
Expert  2180    Boise, Idaho |  Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING!If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? |
| 2013-10-15 12:24 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) |
| 2013-10-15 1:03 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood The president has said over and over again that he will not compromise the ACA, so he is, in effect, standing on the steps of the White House saying that the ACA is important and will not be diluted. The GOP puts forth a bill that offers, as you put it, to "fully fund everything, with the exception of the ACA", and then acts shocked, SHOCKED and APPALLED when the President and Reid tell them wherre they can stick it. And then they claim that it's the president's fault that the government is shut down, because they "offered" something that they knew full well the President would never accept.. It's disingenuous, partisan nonsense. How about if I offer you five thousand dollars, but I get to burn down your house and crush your cars? No? Ok fine, if you don't want five thousand dollars, that's fine by me. Don't say I didn't offer. Just know that if you don't have enough money for a new bike, that's your fault, not mine, because, you know, I offered it to you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn This is just more "farting and blaming the dog", as John Stewart put it. If the actually GOP feels that Obamacare is so horrible that it's worth shutting down the government in order to try to prevent it from being funded, then fine-- as the author notes, that is their right under the powers granted to them by the constitution. But then, if that's the case, own up to it. If they honestly believed that this is the only course of action to save the country,They should be PROUDLY standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the Capitol steps saying "We shut the government down because we strongly believe that it needs to be done in order to save this nation". That isn't what they're doing. They're literally saying "it wasn't us". I still find it interesting how both sides blame the other for "shutting it down". I know it's politics and that's what they have to do with anything bad that happens. That's why I found the article interesting because the House never voted to shut the government down and didn't shut it down. They passed a bill that fully funded everything, with exception of the ACA. In the same way you mentioned the Republicans proudly standing shoulder-to-shoulder the Democrats could do the same stating that the ACA is so important to America that they shut down the government until the Republicans give them a bill fully funding the ACA. It's still just finger pointing on both sides so I'm not in the partisan camp of it being all Democrats fault either. I just don't think you can fairly say it's all the Republicans fault either. They have divergent opinions on what should be funded and the Democrats appear to be unwilling to negotiate or compromise form anything but a "clean bill" that funds everything they want. I still go back to my statement that this is the kind of stuff that happens when you pass a major legislation such as the ACA without any support at all from the other party. The Republicans didn't support it then and they don't support it now (big shock). Did the Dems just assume that they'd always have both houses for the rest of eternity? I'm personally a fan of a balanced budget. So, if we feel the ACA is important enough to fund then we have to cut it from somewhere else or raise taxes to keep the deficit in check.
Why do you feel as though it is anyone's job to appease the President? They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. |
| 2013-10-15 1:21 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
| Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party?
I think you've unintentionally hit the nail square on the head.
Those who are partisan to the D's or R's see this as the parties do as a contest for their "team" instead of being on "Team USA" Doing the right thing isn't political. |
| 2013-10-15 1:27 PM in reply to: Pector55 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by Pector55 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood The president has said over and over again that he will not compromise the ACA, so he is, in effect, standing on the steps of the White House saying that the ACA is important and will not be diluted. The GOP puts forth a bill that offers, as you put it, to "fully fund everything, with the exception of the ACA", and then acts shocked, SHOCKED and APPALLED when the President and Reid tell them wherre they can stick it. And then they claim that it's the president's fault that the government is shut down, because they "offered" something that they knew full well the President would never accept.. It's disingenuous, partisan nonsense. How about if I offer you five thousand dollars, but I get to burn down your house and crush your cars? No? Ok fine, if you don't want five thousand dollars, that's fine by me. Don't say I didn't offer. Just know that if you don't have enough money for a new bike, that's your fault, not mine, because, you know, I offered it to you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn This is just more "farting and blaming the dog", as John Stewart put it. If the actually GOP feels that Obamacare is so horrible that it's worth shutting down the government in order to try to prevent it from being funded, then fine-- as the author notes, that is their right under the powers granted to them by the constitution. But then, if that's the case, own up to it. If they honestly believed that this is the only course of action to save the country,They should be PROUDLY standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the Capitol steps saying "We shut the government down because we strongly believe that it needs to be done in order to save this nation". That isn't what they're doing. They're literally saying "it wasn't us". I still find it interesting how both sides blame the other for "shutting it down". I know it's politics and that's what they have to do with anything bad that happens. That's why I found the article interesting because the House never voted to shut the government down and didn't shut it down. They passed a bill that fully funded everything, with exception of the ACA. In the same way you mentioned the Republicans proudly standing shoulder-to-shoulder the Democrats could do the same stating that the ACA is so important to America that they shut down the government until the Republicans give them a bill fully funding the ACA. It's still just finger pointing on both sides so I'm not in the partisan camp of it being all Democrats fault either. I just don't think you can fairly say it's all the Republicans fault either. They have divergent opinions on what should be funded and the Democrats appear to be unwilling to negotiate or compromise form anything but a "clean bill" that funds everything they want. I still go back to my statement that this is the kind of stuff that happens when you pass a major legislation such as the ACA without any support at all from the other party. The Republicans didn't support it then and they don't support it now (big shock). Did the Dems just assume that they'd always have both houses for the rest of eternity? I'm personally a fan of a balanced budget. So, if we feel the ACA is important enough to fund then we have to cut it from somewhere else or raise taxes to keep the deficit in check.
Why do you feel as though it is anyone's job to appease the President? They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. Just out of curiosity I read up on the other "shut downs" to see what predicated them. Obviously none of them had anything as big as the ACA as a catalyst, but the last couple with Clinton (both houses controlled by R's) and GWHB (both houses controlled by D's) were over budget issues as well. With Clinton (1996) the Republicans were demanding a budget that balanced in 7 years and Clinton refused. The government shut down before they could come to an agreement. The Republicans eventually caved and passed a continuing resolution to fund the government and ultimately Clinton put forth a budget that the CBO said balanced in 7 years (so win win I guess). With GHWB (1990) Bush refused to sign any budget that didn't have a deficit reduction plan in it. Congress refused and shut down. Ultimately congress passed a budget that had a reduction plan in it. Not trying to prove any point with either. I just thought it was interesting. |
| 2013-10-15 2:39 PM in reply to: Pector55 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by Pector55 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood The president has said over and over again that he will not compromise the ACA, so he is, in effect, standing on the steps of the White House saying that the ACA is important and will not be diluted. The GOP puts forth a bill that offers, as you put it, to "fully fund everything, with the exception of the ACA", and then acts shocked, SHOCKED and APPALLED when the President and Reid tell them wherre they can stick it. And then they claim that it's the president's fault that the government is shut down, because they "offered" something that they knew full well the President would never accept.. It's disingenuous, partisan nonsense. How about if I offer you five thousand dollars, but I get to burn down your house and crush your cars? No? Ok fine, if you don't want five thousand dollars, that's fine by me. Don't say I didn't offer. Just know that if you don't have enough money for a new bike, that's your fault, not mine, because, you know, I offered it to you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn This is just more "farting and blaming the dog", as John Stewart put it. If the actually GOP feels that Obamacare is so horrible that it's worth shutting down the government in order to try to prevent it from being funded, then fine-- as the author notes, that is their right under the powers granted to them by the constitution. But then, if that's the case, own up to it. If they honestly believed that this is the only course of action to save the country,They should be PROUDLY standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the Capitol steps saying "We shut the government down because we strongly believe that it needs to be done in order to save this nation". That isn't what they're doing. They're literally saying "it wasn't us". I still find it interesting how both sides blame the other for "shutting it down". I know it's politics and that's what they have to do with anything bad that happens. That's why I found the article interesting because the House never voted to shut the government down and didn't shut it down. They passed a bill that fully funded everything, with exception of the ACA. In the same way you mentioned the Republicans proudly standing shoulder-to-shoulder the Democrats could do the same stating that the ACA is so important to America that they shut down the government until the Republicans give them a bill fully funding the ACA. It's still just finger pointing on both sides so I'm not in the partisan camp of it being all Democrats fault either. I just don't think you can fairly say it's all the Republicans fault either. They have divergent opinions on what should be funded and the Democrats appear to be unwilling to negotiate or compromise form anything but a "clean bill" that funds everything they want. I still go back to my statement that this is the kind of stuff that happens when you pass a major legislation such as the ACA without any support at all from the other party. The Republicans didn't support it then and they don't support it now (big shock). Did the Dems just assume that they'd always have both houses for the rest of eternity? I'm personally a fan of a balanced budget. So, if we feel the ACA is important enough to fund then we have to cut it from somewhere else or raise taxes to keep the deficit in check.
Why do you feel as though it is anyone's job to appease the President? They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. I know!! They are doing exactly what they are allowed to do by law and what, at least according to them, what their constituency wants them to do. I don't in any way expect for them to appease the President. You're missing my point totally. What I don't get is that they don't have the guts to cop to doing what they're doing. They're saying, "The ACA will end life as we know it on this planet" (ok, I'm paraphrasing, but still...) And that the only way to protect our way of life is to stop the ACA, even if it means shutting down the government, with all the terrible stuff that comes with it, in order to accomplish that goal. So, if what they're saying is true-- that the majority of the American people are opposed to the ACA, and that the ACA is this horrible, short-sighted, fiscally catastrophic disaster that will destroy America, then why are they pretending that shutting down the government is someone else's idea? They have, if you believe them, acted responsibly--no, heroically to stop this horrible thing from happening. So why are all of them, from Boehner on down, pointing fingers at the Dems and the President and saying that they are at least equally, if not entirely to blame? |
| 2013-10-15 2:45 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Pector55 I know!! They are doing exactly what they are allowed to do by law and what, at least according to them, what their constituency wants them to do. I don't in any way expect for them to appease the President. You're missing my point totally. What I don't get is that they don't have the guts to cop to doing what they're doing. They're saying, "The ACA will end life as we know it on this planet" (ok, I'm paraphrasing, but still...) And that the only way to protect our way of life is to stop the ACA, even if it means shutting down the government, with all the terrible stuff that comes with it, in order to accomplish that goal. So, if what they're saying is true-- that the majority of the American people are opposed to the ACA, and that the ACA is this horrible, short-sighted, fiscally catastrophic disaster that will destroy America, then why are they pretending that shutting down the government is someone else's idea? They have, if you believe them, acted responsibly--no, heroically to stop this horrible thing from happening. So why are all of them, from Boehner on down, pointing fingers at the Dems and the President and saying that they are at least equally, if not entirely to blame? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood The president has said over and over again that he will not compromise the ACA, so he is, in effect, standing on the steps of the White House saying that the ACA is important and will not be diluted. The GOP puts forth a bill that offers, as you put it, to "fully fund everything, with the exception of the ACA", and then acts shocked, SHOCKED and APPALLED when the President and Reid tell them wherre they can stick it. And then they claim that it's the president's fault that the government is shut down, because they "offered" something that they knew full well the President would never accept.. It's disingenuous, partisan nonsense. How about if I offer you five thousand dollars, but I get to burn down your house and crush your cars? No? Ok fine, if you don't want five thousand dollars, that's fine by me. Don't say I didn't offer. Just know that if you don't have enough money for a new bike, that's your fault, not mine, because, you know, I offered it to you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn This is just more "farting and blaming the dog", as John Stewart put it. If the actually GOP feels that Obamacare is so horrible that it's worth shutting down the government in order to try to prevent it from being funded, then fine-- as the author notes, that is their right under the powers granted to them by the constitution. But then, if that's the case, own up to it. If they honestly believed that this is the only course of action to save the country,They should be PROUDLY standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the Capitol steps saying "We shut the government down because we strongly believe that it needs to be done in order to save this nation". That isn't what they're doing. They're literally saying "it wasn't us". I still find it interesting how both sides blame the other for "shutting it down". I know it's politics and that's what they have to do with anything bad that happens. That's why I found the article interesting because the House never voted to shut the government down and didn't shut it down. They passed a bill that fully funded everything, with exception of the ACA. In the same way you mentioned the Republicans proudly standing shoulder-to-shoulder the Democrats could do the same stating that the ACA is so important to America that they shut down the government until the Republicans give them a bill fully funding the ACA. It's still just finger pointing on both sides so I'm not in the partisan camp of it being all Democrats fault either. I just don't think you can fairly say it's all the Republicans fault either. They have divergent opinions on what should be funded and the Democrats appear to be unwilling to negotiate or compromise form anything but a "clean bill" that funds everything they want. I still go back to my statement that this is the kind of stuff that happens when you pass a major legislation such as the ACA without any support at all from the other party. The Republicans didn't support it then and they don't support it now (big shock). Did the Dems just assume that they'd always have both houses for the rest of eternity? I'm personally a fan of a balanced budget. So, if we feel the ACA is important enough to fund then we have to cut it from somewhere else or raise taxes to keep the deficit in check.
Why do you feel as though it is anyone's job to appease the President? They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. I"m going to have to look up the definition of "paraphrasing" I guess While gutting and getting rid of the ACA is what some of the Republican Congressmen have openly stated that is what they want. They have also indicated that they would compromise. Haven't they stated they would settle for the President and congress peeps to be included in the ACA, a one year exemption for the average American, like Obama's cronies have received and eliminating the medical device tax (which both sides of the isle don't like)? jmk, could you explain how any of those three things are not reasonable? |
| 2013-10-15 2:46 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? |
| 2013-10-15 3:05 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? Obviously I have no clue. I'd say he has as much of a chance as anyone else right now. I always like to watch who the opposition attacks the most because that often tells you who they're most afraid of. The Democrats fawned over Romney in the primaries during 2012 because they knew they could smoke him in the general election. What did they always say? "He's the most electable candidate the Republicans have" "He is the only one who could get the independent vote" etc... All the while destroying all the other guys in the primaries. Right now the Democrats and the Media are fairly successfully defining Cruz as a wing nut fringe guy. If he decides to run for President and people hear who he really is and what he really stands for I think it will resonate. Now of course, he could go all church lady and all bets are off. However, I suspect him, Rand, or another unknown libertarian minded fiscal conservative could do very well in this political climate. This also goes for the Democratic party. There are Libertarian minded fiscal conservatives in the Democratic party as well, so one of them could hit the scene and shake things up. I just hope we don't end up with another "establishment guy/gal" in the White House in 2016 no matter what party they're from. Also, purely for my own amusement I also hope he runs so I can call all my Dem buddies "Birthers" lol |
| 2013-10-15 3:16 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Pector55 I know!! They are doing exactly what they are allowed to do by law and what, at least according to them, what their constituency wants them to do. I don't in any way expect for them to appease the President. You're missing my point totally. What I don't get is that they don't have the guts to cop to doing what they're doing. They're saying, "The ACA will end life as we know it on this planet" (ok, I'm paraphrasing, but still...) And that the only way to protect our way of life is to stop the ACA, even if it means shutting down the government, with all the terrible stuff that comes with it, in order to accomplish that goal. So, if what they're saying is true-- that the majority of the American people are opposed to the ACA, and that the ACA is this horrible, short-sighted, fiscally catastrophic disaster that will destroy America, then why are they pretending that shutting down the government is someone else's idea? They have, if you believe them, acted responsibly--no, heroically to stop this horrible thing from happening. So why are all of them, from Boehner on down, pointing fingers at the Dems and the President and saying that they are at least equally, if not entirely to blame? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood The president has said over and over again that he will not compromise the ACA, so he is, in effect, standing on the steps of the White House saying that the ACA is important and will not be diluted. The GOP puts forth a bill that offers, as you put it, to "fully fund everything, with the exception of the ACA", and then acts shocked, SHOCKED and APPALLED when the President and Reid tell them wherre they can stick it. And then they claim that it's the president's fault that the government is shut down, because they "offered" something that they knew full well the President would never accept.. It's disingenuous, partisan nonsense. How about if I offer you five thousand dollars, but I get to burn down your house and crush your cars? No? Ok fine, if you don't want five thousand dollars, that's fine by me. Don't say I didn't offer. Just know that if you don't have enough money for a new bike, that's your fault, not mine, because, you know, I offered it to you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn This is just more "farting and blaming the dog", as John Stewart put it. If the actually GOP feels that Obamacare is so horrible that it's worth shutting down the government in order to try to prevent it from being funded, then fine-- as the author notes, that is their right under the powers granted to them by the constitution. But then, if that's the case, own up to it. If they honestly believed that this is the only course of action to save the country,They should be PROUDLY standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the Capitol steps saying "We shut the government down because we strongly believe that it needs to be done in order to save this nation". That isn't what they're doing. They're literally saying "it wasn't us". I still find it interesting how both sides blame the other for "shutting it down". I know it's politics and that's what they have to do with anything bad that happens. That's why I found the article interesting because the House never voted to shut the government down and didn't shut it down. They passed a bill that fully funded everything, with exception of the ACA. In the same way you mentioned the Republicans proudly standing shoulder-to-shoulder the Democrats could do the same stating that the ACA is so important to America that they shut down the government until the Republicans give them a bill fully funding the ACA. It's still just finger pointing on both sides so I'm not in the partisan camp of it being all Democrats fault either. I just don't think you can fairly say it's all the Republicans fault either. They have divergent opinions on what should be funded and the Democrats appear to be unwilling to negotiate or compromise form anything but a "clean bill" that funds everything they want. I still go back to my statement that this is the kind of stuff that happens when you pass a major legislation such as the ACA without any support at all from the other party. The Republicans didn't support it then and they don't support it now (big shock). Did the Dems just assume that they'd always have both houses for the rest of eternity? I'm personally a fan of a balanced budget. So, if we feel the ACA is important enough to fund then we have to cut it from somewhere else or raise taxes to keep the deficit in check.
Why do you feel as though it is anyone's job to appease the President? They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. I believe they are saying that the Dems are to blame because the position is one of no compromise on either side. The left said you must fully fun ACA and the right says no. One could arugue that ACA isn't worth shutting the government down so why draw such a hard line in the sand on the left or right? |
| 2013-10-15 3:37 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? The ultimate goal of any party is self enrichment not the White House. But to your question on Ted Cruz's ability to win a general election. The establishment said the same thing about Ronald Reagan but that pro-life right winger carried the progressive home turf of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in '80. So don't dismiss him yet as some back bencher that has gotten out of line. |
| 2013-10-15 3:49 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? Realistically, I think Cruz has emerged too early. It seems to me that at this point in the last election cycle, we were still talking about guys like Bobby Jindal as a potential GOP nominee. The Dems and their spinmeisters are going to have the better part of four years to pound away at him, and it's likely there won't be much left of him by 2016. His Cat-in-the-hat filibuster is not going to sit well with moderates because it looks like just so much more Washington procedural, obstructionist politics that so many people are growing tired of. Maybe I'm giving the electorate too much credit but I HOPE that by 2016, people will be looking for candidates who can reach across the aisle a little more. I don't know if Cruz is that guy. |
| 2013-10-15 3:55 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! |
| 2013-10-15 4:03 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jeffnboise The ultimate goal of any party is self enrichment not the White House. But to your question on Ted Cruz's ability to win a general election. The establishment said the same thing about Ronald Reagan but that pro-life right winger carried the progressive home turf of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in '80. So don't dismiss him yet as some back bencher that has gotten out of line. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? BUT....Ted Cruz is NO Ronald Reagan. |
| 2013-10-15 4:05 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? Yes. She is good for the base. But if you are trying to start a game of parading around the crazies, the GOP has nothing on the nut bin the Democrats try to keep under lock and key. |
| 2013-10-15 4:24 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jeffnboise The ultimate goal of any party is self enrichment not the White House. But to your question on Ted Cruz's ability to win a general election. The establishment said the same thing about Ronald Reagan but that pro-life right winger carried the progressive home turf of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in '80. So don't dismiss him yet as some back bencher that has gotten out of line. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? BUT....Ted Cruz is NO Ronald Reagan. I guess you are not aware of how Ted Cruz became a Senator. But to your point, most said that that b-movie actor from California was no Ronald Reagan either when he was climbing the political ladder. |
| 2013-10-15 5:35 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jeffnboise Realistically, I think Cruz has emerged too early. It seems to me that at this point in the last election cycle, we were still talking about guys like Bobby Jindal as a potential GOP nominee. The Dems and their spinmeisters are going to have the better part of four years to pound away at him, and it's likely there won't be much left of him by 2016. His Cat-in-the-hat filibuster is not going to sit well with moderates because it looks like just so much more Washington procedural, obstructionist politics that so many people are growing tired of. Maybe I'm giving the electorate too much credit but I HOPE that by 2016, people will be looking for candidates who can reach across the aisle a little more. I don't know if Cruz is that guy. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise If I may suggest; Let's use the other threads to trash ACA. I'm really curious to hear people's opinions about how the Republican's can re-gain their (poll) mojo. Who needs to speak up? Who needs to be quiet? How is the Tea Party affecting the Party? but but but... We like trashing the ACA ;-) I honestly think the best way for them to regain their mojo is for the party as a whole to take a turn towards the libertarian philosophy that Cruz and Paul are preaching. If they start throwing in the social issues then it all gets washed out again, but if they stick to the fiscal conservative approach it will be very well received IMHO. On the heels of the prior 16 years of fiscally irresponsible leaders people on both sides of the isle will rally behind a fiscally conservative message. Neither the GOP or the Democrats have shown the ability to budget money better than a 6 year old child. Heck, I'd even say most of the "Progressives" on BT are fiscally conservative people. The social issues are usually what turns everyone off from the R's. The Democrats are scared to death of Ted Cruz. If he was just a Tea Party whack job then they'd be more than happy to let him take over the party and destroy it, but they don't want him to. They want to destroy him and it's obvious in every talking head interview you watch. On another note, when I was looking up the Alinsky rule 12 to quote I noticed this one as well. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) Hmm, that crazy Cruz guy might be using Obama's rules against him in the context of the shutdown. So, according to the Obama playbook they need to keep up the pressure and public opinion will come back to them. ;-) Could Ted Cruz win in a General Election? And if not, then where does his 'power' in the Republican party come from? IOW: What is the 'upside' of following Ted Cruz if the ultimate goal of ANY party is 1600 Penn. Ave.? I'm not so sure about that. I certainly could be wrong, but by 2016 everyone is going to be fully enveloped in Obamacare. If Cruz was right and stood alone trying to stop the ACA, people will respond favorably to that. I would guess that many (if not most) of those "moderates" are middle class and upper middle class people who will be impacted the most financially by the ACA. There's also a significant number of Democrats that have been none too happy with their party on things like Gun Control and the effects of the ACA on Unions. I'm not saying they'll vote for Cruz, but it could effect turnout. Also, as a father I love that he read cat in the hat to his girls. He was reading them to bed. Here's a picture of his girls when he read it that they tweeted out:
Remember what I posted earlier? The "cat and the hat filibuster" label is nothing more than an attempt to discredit and disqualify him. Make him seem petty and diminish him as a threat. What's wrong with him reading a book to his kids at bedtime during a filibuster? serious question. RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) |
| 2013-10-15 6:42 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! I think that's wishful thinking. I was wrong about the book--it was Green Eggs and Ham. Which, if you'll recall, was a story about a guy who stubbornly insists he is against something even though he has never tried it. In the end, he tastes it and ends up liking it. It's a great lesson. Too bad Cruz missed the irony. I'm all for people being responsible parents, but the floor of Congress is not the place to read bedtime stories to your kids. Anyway, no one with ties to the tea party will ever be a hit with moderates. Whatever the tea party once intended to be, they've now become a far-right faction of the GOP who are too extreme for many of their own party. You may be right about some democrats feeling disenfranchised due to their party's stance on gun control or unions or whatever, but even if that's the case, there will be other candidates who are able to spread the same message without Cruz's far right, Tea Party, obstructionist "party of 'no'" credentials. He's got too much baggage, even three years out. I'm anything but terrified of him. I hope he runs. And I hope his new BFF Sarah Palin is right there telling the whole world how wonderful he is.  You really think the guy who is the symbol of the GOP at a time when they're polling at all time lows has a shot to win the general election? 2016 is a long way away and a lot can happen but I wouldn't bet my life on Cruz. Not for all the roast beast in Who-vile. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-10-15 6:49 PM |
| 2013-10-15 10:55 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? But she has SEEN Russia from Alaska, you mavericky maverick |
| 2013-10-16 9:04 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A So, only the Speaker can call for a vote? And it was changed on October 1? |
| 2013-10-16 9:16 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? But she has SEEN Russia from Alaska, you mavericky maverick I swear....if I was Tuwood, I'd be convinced that Palin was a secret agent of the libs and planted by them to make the republicans look like morons. That woman is an idiot and the Republicans need to rid themselves of her or face the prospect of Madam President, Hillary Clinton, who would win by a landslide if the election was today. ~taking tuwoods tin foil cap off~ Edited by Left Brain 2013-10-16 9:16 AM |
| 2013-10-16 9:25 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? But she has SEEN Russia from Alaska, you mavericky maverick I swear....if I was Tuwood, I'd be convinced that Palin was a secret agent of the libs and planted by them to make the republicans look like morons. That woman is an idiot and the Republicans need to rid themselves of her or face the prospect of Madam President, Hillary Clinton, who would win by a landslide if the election was today. ~taking tuwoods tin foil cap off~ Aw c'mon, don't you think she's a hottie? She's already batsh*t crazy. |
| 2013-10-16 9:51 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? But she has SEEN Russia from Alaska, you mavericky maverick I swear....if I was Tuwood, I'd be convinced that Palin was a secret agent of the libs and planted by them to make the republicans look like morons. That woman is an idiot and the Republicans need to rid themselves of her or face the prospect of Madam President, Hillary Clinton, who would win by a landslide if the election was today. ~taking tuwoods tin foil cap off~ give me my hat back... When McCain first picked Palin I really liked her because she was a "regular person" in the sense that she wasn't some pedigreed politician like all the rest. From a pure politics standpoint I thought she was good for the ticket as well from a ladies vote standpoint. Call it a Chess move to counter the first potential black president by adding the first potential female first lady. However, as we all soon learned, she didn't have the depth of knowledge on world (and domestic) issues that most people expect from someone running for office at that level. I know everyone likes to call her "dumb" but I think it was more of a lacking experience in world events issue. Prior to McCain picking her she probably never even formulated an opinion about the middle east. So when asked policy type questions she was just spouting off talking points and sounded like a tool. I don't think Obama is very smart either, but he's a very experienced politician and comes across as such so the IQ doesn't necessarily matter. Many great leaders weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. That being said, there's no chance she'll ever get nominated to a Presidential ticket so I'm not worried about that. She's good for stirring up crowds and raising money with the Republican base so I'm sure she'll continue doing that. |
| 2013-10-16 9:51 AM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? But she has SEEN Russia from Alaska, you mavericky maverick I swear....if I was Tuwood, I'd be convinced that Palin was a secret agent of the libs and planted by them to make the republicans look like morons. That woman is an idiot and the Republicans need to rid themselves of her or face the prospect of Madam President, Hillary Clinton, who would win by a landslide if the election was today. ~taking tuwoods tin foil cap off~ Aw c'mon, don't you think she's a hottie? She's already batsh*t crazy. I've always been put off by women with kankles. |
| 2013-10-16 10:06 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Republicans are LOSING! Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jeffnboise Sarah Palin? Do Republicans want her on the team? But she has SEEN Russia from Alaska, you mavericky maverick I swear....if I was Tuwood, I'd be convinced that Palin was a secret agent of the libs and planted by them to make the republicans look like morons. That woman is an idiot and the Republicans need to rid themselves of her or face the prospect of Madam President, Hillary Clinton, who would win by a landslide if the election was today. ~taking tuwoods tin foil cap off~ give me my hat back... When McCain first picked Palin I really liked her because she was a "regular person" in the sense that she wasn't some pedigreed politician like all the rest. From a pure politics standpoint I thought she was good for the ticket as well from a ladies vote standpoint. Call it a Chess move to counter the first potential black president by adding the first potential female first lady. However, as we all soon learned, she didn't have the depth of knowledge on world (and domestic) issues that most people expect from someone running for office at that level. I know everyone likes to call her "dumb" but I think it was more of a lacking experience in world events issue. Prior to McCain picking her she probably never even formulated an opinion about the middle east. So when asked policy type questions she was just spouting off talking points and sounded like a tool. I don't think Obama is very smart either, but he's a very experienced politician and comes across as such so the IQ doesn't necessarily matter. Many great leaders weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. That being said, there's no chance she'll ever get nominated to a Presidential ticket so I'm not worried about that. She's good for stirring up crowds and raising money with the Republican base so I'm sure she'll continue doing that. Obama was a law professor, and you don't think he is smart? I'd more lean towards lack of experience as a politician for his current troubles. He is an extremely intelligent person. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK