You’re right. 49.8% of americans want the bill repealed:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html
Only 42.2% feel strongly enough to oppose repeal.
Those numbers do not indicate a political problem if Republicans wish to do repeal. I cited the 80% number to demonstrate how few americans would be personally affected by ACA repeal in a way strong enough to rush to the polls in anger after Republicans repealed it.
It isn’t that a particular candidate is a bad person, generally speaking. For me, it’s the party and people that they represent. The Republicans as a group disbelieve in science, oppose diversity, oppose societal safety nets, support the dramatic and severe consolidation of wealth, and favor control of behavior in line with a fundamentalist christianity.
They don’t counter arguments with truth, but almost exclusively rely on misrepresentation or lies.
I do believe these things are exceptionally bad for our overall future, yes.
Romney’s not a bad example of someone who is probably otherwise not entirely horrid, but whi has to contort himself into a gargoyle to appeal to the Republicans.
Wow. And Democrats say Republicans see their opposition in a caricatured way. After that post, merely calling a party “socialist” is tame.
This is very true. UHC is the new abortion. Republicans may stump against it, but it is a lock to become policy.
I also don’t like all the fear based campaigning, but unfortunately, thats what gets the unwashed masses going. It’s especially ridiculous in this centerist, 2-party system. It’s 52% dark chocolate vs 72% dark chocolate. It’s vanilla ice cream vs vanilla BEAN ice cream.
The theory is, congress used to get together at the end of the day and have drinks. I guess over time, that stopped. When that stopped, all the fear mongering and hate started. Freakonomics Radio had a thing on that recently.
Uh, there is a socialist party. I think they prefer to be called socialist.
But if you mean the Democratic Party, or more particularly, the current administration, then thanks for helping to demonstrate my point. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively or state controlled. Those who would apply it to our current administration are either ignorant of the definition or more interested in misrepresentation for partisan gain.
It was my understanding since justice Roberts declared the mandate a tax that it could be repealed via reconciliation with 50 votes.
Even though support of the law is pretty much split (about 50% oppose it, the vast majority of the rest support it with about 5-10% who think it didn’t go far enough), the policies within the law are fairly popular and win 70%+ approval.
When a candidate has protected unrepentant torturers, fought to strengthen his own personal power to imprison people indefinitely without trial and overseen the deliberate murder of innocent sixteen year old children? Maybe that’s just me holding a grudge, but I think it is.
Even allowing that these are fair characterizations of Obama, this election does not represent a choice on those policies (except insofar as Romney would double down on them). So what relevance does your point have to a thread about dramatizing the choice?
Yeah… Except that that is an accurate portrayal. Republicans have failed miserably in almost every regards.
In science, they have been almost uniquely dishonest, catering to the parts of their base who do not believe in evolution, global warming, and all manner or similar crap. They have pushed very hard to further scandals like climategate that dishonestly discredit the scientists at the cutting edge of climatology, they have supported bills and amendments that would funnel funds to the teaching of religious pseudoscience, and have attempted to undermine basic biological science in our schools.
The opposition to societal safety nets of all kinds on both an ideological and a (dishonest) fact-oriented basis is well-documented.
Republican fiscal policy has been almost uniquely Dooh Nibor in nature – raise taxes and cut services for the lower and middle class, slash taxes on the rich. This does indeed lead to a more severe consolidation of wealth, and it’s been shown fairly conclusively that simply slashing taxes on the upper brackets does nothing.
Republicans are the party backing the ridiculous claims that “religious freedom” of the catholic church extends as far as to dodge regulations on health insurance. They are almost uniformly against women’s rights, sex education, and sexual health.
I fail to see how any of that is cartoonish in nature. Everything beyond “oppose diversity” is true. As I have said before, I don’t hate the republican policy because it’s made by republicans. I hate republicans because the policy they craft is so incredibly harmful, and shamelessly, transparently bullshit that I don’t understand how anyone in their right minds could vote for them.
Just to clarify, did you mean to disagree with my statement about their opposition to diversity? Because if so, who was behind Chick fil a appreciation day? CA prop 8? Who puts forward all the stuff about English as the official/only language? Who opposes mosques being built in the south and in Manhattan? Muslim red scare witch hunts? The Southern Strategy? A disposition to xenophobia is imho a primary motivation for an individual to affiliate with the Republicans in the first place.
It would be both bad strategy and a lie to describe the Republican candidates like that. If someone is moral & ethical they aren’t going to be in a position of power within the party that the Republicans have become. They’ve demonstrated their incompetence; and with their anti-government focus, they are in fact dedicated to being incompetent on purpose. Someone who wants government to fail is not going to be a competent government official. The Republicans have also repeatedly demonstrated their total lack of interest in the best interests of either the country or the world. They want to make the world worse, not better, and are generally the cause of problems; never the solution.
This. An honest description of the Republicans is going to be highly insulting, because they really are just that awful.
QFT and as for the item that this will increase costs, the ACA is only partially effective, we will see if the expanded competition will reduce costs, and lets not forget that this was the Republican plan back in the 90’s, this is the last chance for free enterprise to show that they can do a better job regarding health care and the costs of it.
We are paying almost 18% of our GDP in healthcare now, already more than a 3rd than the next developed country with universal health care already in place. To me logic does say that under the current conditions there is a growing percentage of people that would be working already if employers in the USA did not have to pay such high premiums that are a “feature” in the current system.
There are more than two candidates. Go down the list until you find one who isn’t pro-murder, -torture and -kidnapping.
Good luck with that.
This, like most of your posts, is unhelpful hyperbole. Like it or not, the Republicans are part of the political landscape. Demonizing and insulting them isn’t likely to produce constructive dialogue. In fact, rhetoric like yours underscores the problem I articulated at the start of this thread–each side calls the other incompetent, evil, etc. etc. etc., each hiding behind its ideology and treating extremism as if it were some sort of desirable commodity.
You forgot his serial rape of the entire female population of Oklahoma and his deliberate spread of Ebola virus throughout the world. Oh, and he murdered forty-three million Eskimos and Aborigines. He also wiped out eleventy-twelve endangered species and blew up Jupiter.
(Your lunacy aside, what percentage of torturers do you think are repentant?)
Pst. Greenslime. That’s what Der does. Maybe you will enjoy it after a while. I sure do.
QFqualityHyperbole. ETA: To be fair though, Grunman may or may not have been referring to a US politician.
The OP: I dunno, it depends. I mean Palin was truly a lunkhead. Carter had the political sense of an autistic amoeba. And Reagan was a bit of a muppet, wasn’t he?
Obama and McCain’s moral sense was fine, though McCain’s grades weren’t too hot. I don’t doubt Romney’s technical ability but let’s face it, he’s the only person I know of who has gone from anti-abortion, to pro-choice, then back to anti-abortion. Never mind him championing Romneycare before it became Obamacare at a national level. So his moral flexibility and problems with veracity are a little unusual, even for a politician. Hey, at least he’s not a saint, like Jimmy Carter: that was problematic.
“It’s the end of America as we know it.”
I’m gonna count how many times I hear this phrase from now on. Past users:
Sean Hannity
Anne Colter
Glenn Beck
Sarah Palin
As it has apparently eluded you thus far, there’s a difference between actual fact (like the Obama administration specifically asking the Senate Committee on Armed Forces to remove exceptions for American citizens protecting them from being detained indefinitely without trial) and this chaff.
There are some that came to recognise that it is at least ineffective if not unethical, but the particular one I was thinking of has a goddamn book deal defending torture.
There might as well not be. Spoiler effect, 2-party-system, first-past-the-post, et cetera.
But here’s the thing: calling the republican party “intentionally obstructive” isn’t hyperbole. It’s what they do. It’d be like saying, “Hey, don’t call Charles Manson insane, that kind of rhetoric doesn’t help anyone” – no, it’s not rhetoric, it’s an accurate descriptor. And you know what? I will gladly demonize those who stand against science, progress, equal rights, and economic stability, as those who do are either incompetent beyond belief or evil, and neither of those two qualities have any place in running our country. So what, do we have to lie to ourselves to get constructive dialogue? Why?