Thread: 2012 election predictions

Originally Posted by astralis

dale,



i would be more impressed with that statement were it not for the fact that generally speaking, what Dems tend to push for is a lot more centrist in nature to begin with, which takes into account conservative ideas.

In your opinion.

again, taking the healthcare bill as an example: a conservative thinktank (heritage foundation) plan that was largely executed by a republican governor (with a basis of an individual mandate, supported by the GOP against the dems in the 90s...) was pushed forward as a democratic plan. and that was before negotiation with republicans.

...and was rejected by the majority of American citizenry, including an overwhelming percentage of self-described conservatives.

whereas if you look at what liberals actually wanted-- single-payer, or failing that a public option-- was completely ignored, -by the dems-.

for the most part, i haven't seen this type of moderation from the republican side, or the willingness to negotiate. this scorched-earth, win-it-all/lose-it-all method of politics, is relatively new to american politics.

Pathetically delusional. And absolutely disconnected from my original statement.

-dale

dale,

not quite.

your original statement was that it should be no surprise to anyone that liberals wanted to stop conservative ideas and conservatives wanted to stop liberal ideas.

well, most of US political history shows that what happens is a lot of horse-trading and compromise, where both sides get some of their objectives passed.

the refusal by one side to deal at all (outside of total victory or capitulation) is new, and is due to the polarization of the Republicans in the last few years.

it's pretty interesting how both parties respond to getting spanked; democrats responded in the early 90s to the Reagan Revolution by forming the New Democratic coalition under a centrist Clinton administration, who was nothing if not ready to deal. the republicans responded to getting spanked by...going more "principled conservative".

not sure what the conservatives have gained from this, either. given the current GOP slate, they'll most likely get kicked to the curb in 2012, too. then conservatives will learn the difference between getting some of what they want and none of what they want. i suppose we'll see which way pays dividends.

Originally Posted by astralis

dale,

not quite.

your original statement was that it should be no surprise to anyone that liberals wanted to stop conservative ideas and conservatives wanted to stop liberal ideas.

well, most of US political history shows that what happens is a lot of horse-trading and compromise, where both sides get some of their objectives passed.

the refusal by one side to deal at all (outside of total victory or capitulation) is new, and is due to the polarization of the Republicans in the last few years.

it's pretty interesting how both parties respond to getting spanked; democrats responded in the early 90s to the Reagan Revolution by forming the New Democratic coalition under a centrist Clinton administration, who was nothing if not ready to deal. the republicans responded to getting spanked by...going more "principled conservative".

not sure what the conservatives have gained from this, either. given the current GOP slate, they'll most likely get kicked to the curb in 2012, too. then conservatives will learn the difference between getting some of what they want and none of what they want. i suppose we'll see which way pays dividends.

Again you trot out the falsity of "Dems tried to compromise but Repubs refused". You can go peddle that fish to someone more gullible.

-dale

dale,

Again you trot out the falsity of "Dems tried to compromise but Repubs refused". You can go peddle that fish to someone more gullible.

now i'm confused. in your original post to antimony, you stated that republican opposition to what Democrats propose is because they "think those things are bad for the country and should be stopped if possible."

that implies you DO agree with his statement, "Republicans have been doing their damnedest to put a wrench in anything Obama or the Democrats try to do".

now you are telling me republicans did try to compromise with dems. so which is it?

Originally Posted by astralis

dale,



now i'm confused. in your original post to antimony, you stated that republican opposition to what Democrats propose is because they "think those things are bad for the country and should be stopped if possible."

that implies you DO agree with his statement, "Republicans have been doing their damnedest to put a wrench in anything Obama or the Democrats try to do".

now you are telling me republicans did try to compromise with dems. so which is it?

Don't pretend to be obtuse. Dems said "Health care's expensive! Let's turn it over to the government, fix prices, and cut checks for anybody that can't afford it!"

And Repubs said "Whoah there, Hoss - howsabout we do some smaller things that make the health care we already have less expensive - you know, reduce costs, increase competition? That sort of thing?"

And Dems said "Hell no, fuckoes - it's our way or the highway - none of your ideas will be considered or included because you're all meany-bottoms."

And the Repubs said "Okay, jagoffs, you want hardball, we'll play hardball."

And then the Dems said "Hardball, hell - we'll change the rules so now we're playing Dem-reconciliationball, losers! Neener neener!"

So neither of my positions contradicts the other, even if I accepted your ridiculous premise that party partisanship is a new idea or that the GOP is the leading purveyor of such these days.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Don't pretend to be obtuse. Dems said "Health care's expensive! Let's turn it over to the government, fix prices, and cut checks for anybody that can't afford it!"

And Repubs said "Whoah there, Hoss - howsabout we do some smaller things that make the health care we already have less expensive - you know, reduce costs, increase competition? That sort of thing?"

And Dems said "Hell no, fuckoes - it's our way or the highway - none of your ideas will be considered or included because you're all meany-bottoms."

And the Repubs said "Okay, jagoffs, you want hardball, we'll play hardball."

And then the Dems said "Hardball, hell - we'll change the rules so now we're playing Dem-reconciliationball, losers! Neener neener!"

So neither of my positions contradicts the other, even if I accepted your ridiculous premise that party partisanship is a new idea or that the GOP is the leading purveyor of such these days.

-dale

How very eloquent...

Care to put these in actual policy terms?

Originally Posted by antimony

How very eloquent...

Care to put these in actual policy terms?

Sure. I did that once.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

In your opinion.



...and was rejected by the majority of American citizenry, including an overwhelming percentage of self-described conservatives.



Pathetically delusional. And absolutely disconnected from my original statement.

-dale

I'd be interested in the compromises you think the republican caucus has offered that werent bitter medicine like payroll tax cut done to avoid the cost of opposition? You say delusional I'd be interested in the compromises they offered.


The whole mandate as unconstitutional went unmentioned all the years it had signifigant amount of support from republican elected officals and think tanks till the day democrats acted on it. I mean Romney was praising the idea in 2009. The whole Americans are opposed to the HCR melts when you ask them about things it actually includes. I am sick of carrying the uninsured on my back and having the cost of their care added to my own. What's so bad about demanding self sufficency from citizens? It isnt goverment take over et al it's and end to freeloading on my back

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

I'd be interested in the compromises you think the republican caucus has offered that werent bitter medicine like payroll tax cut done to avoid the cost of opposition? You say delusional I'd be interested in the compromises they offered.


The whole mandate as unconstitutional went unmentioned all the years it had signifigant amount of support from republican elected officals and think tanks till the day democrats acted on it. I mean Romney was praising the idea in 2009. The whole Americans are opposed to the HCR melts when you ask them about things it actually includes. I am sick of carrying the uninsured on my back and having the cost of their care added to my own. What's so bad about demanding self sufficency from citizens? It isnt goverment take over et al it's and end to freeloading on my back

I've tried to explain this to you before. Just read the link - that's most of it.

-dale

Originally Posted by astralis

well, most of US political history shows that what happens is a lot of horse-trading and compromise, where both sides get some of their objectives passed.

the refusal by one side to deal at all (outside of total victory or capitulation) is new, and is due to the polarization of the Republicans in the last few years.

IMO, this is the heart of our current problem with US politics; suddenly, "compromise" is a bad word. It takes two to tango, and both sides are "digging in", so you can't really blame either the Republicans or the Democrats; but I do think it was the Republicans who first decided to "stick to their guns" and "stand up for their principals". The problem is BOTH parties have gone so far down this road of "no compromise, or I'm giving in" that they are past the point of no return; it will take a complete turnover of elected officials at this point to reverse the situation. Even Reagan compromised with Tip O'Neill back when he was Speaker, and we managed to make it work.

Feel better Dale?

http://fathersforlife.org/images/33stos02.gif

Originally Posted by bonehead

Feel better Dale?

http://fathersforlife.org/images/33stos02.gif

I have no idea of what that means.

-dale