Ironic that Rick Scott doesn’t want to overturn the ACA.
The more Medicare bilking that can be done, the happier he should be!
During a 2007 GOP Presidential debate, Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo all raised their hands to deny belief in evolution. Hoping to reach out to non-morons, Brownback then made a partial retraction in the N.Y. Times:
IIRC, Darwin’s theory was described in a book called Origin of Species, not Small Changes within a Species, so I queried for clarification at the Brownback website. No response.
I don’t think the 1980s are a good decade for comparison because of the Cold War being at its peak. Any political talk was pretty much completely dominated by discussions of missile trajectories, the “doomsday clock”, NATO-Warsaw Pact summit treaties and stuff like that. Domestic issues were much more off the radar and took a huge amount of effort to even get heard, until the cold war threat seemed to recede under Bush I. I get the feeling that if you compare the present day to the 1990s, 1970s, 1950s or many other decades you’d find just as much hostility, probably even more so back then.
I don’t think things have changed at all, it’s just gotten noisier. Most people I knew in the 80’s hated Reagan. Mondale and Dukakis were vilified as limp-wristed liberal pussies. Same shit, different decade.
In the years since, right-wing media has grown and prospered. I’m not really sure why; maybe conservatives just enjoy it more than liberals. All things being equal, there should be some very successful lefty radio personalities.
Nothing will change in 2016, no matter which side takes the presidency. The whole ‘Clinton worked well with republicans’ is a myth. Republicans worked well with Clinton when he gave them what they wanted. If it’s Hillary, she’ll be torn to pieces by FOX, Limbaugh et al., and liberal will hate whoever the republicans cough up.
The only thing that could unite both sides would be an alien invasion.
I think that several changes have occurred that have contributed to the “perfect polarization storm” and I do believe it has gotten worse. First of all it used to be that each party started out with roughly 40% of the electorate and fought over the middle 20. Then it seemed that, beginning with 2000, each side started out with 45 and fought over the remaining 10, an inherently messier process.
The “echo chamber” has also had its effect. Conservatives are AM, Liberals are FM. Lefty-talk just doesn’t catch on, even in markets which demonstrably vote Democratic. Either the host must adopt the methodology of rightie-talkers, which liberals react to negatively even when it’s our own guy is doing it or they must be erudite and polite, which makes for boring radio. (Thom Hartmann being the rare exception.)
Finally, we must own up to the generational change that has occurred. No one has mentioned that 30 years ago politics was dominated by “greatest generation” folks. Reagan and O’Neil may have thought each other misguided boobs, but the put that aside after the votes were counted and it was time to do business. Our generation, by contrast, is in permanent campaign mode and seems still to be fighting either the Viet Nam war of our college days, or the ass-kickers/ass-kissers schism of high school.
The opinions of Blank Slate aside, I don’t even think an alien invasion would change this as one side or the other would probably welcome our new alien overlords depending on their positions on abortion, the capital gains tax, gay marriage and a litany of other issues.
Exactly, thank you.
Thirty years from now, people will say, “Man, politics was a lot more civil and agreeable in the 2010s than now.”
I’m shocked, positively shocked, that anybody with the name **BobLibDem **could actually find fault with Mr. Savage. Can you explain this eerie metamorphosis?
OK, so you’re 0-for-3 by your own admission.
The ‘constituency’ part, which I italicized, was there so we don’t have to argue over whether they represent the party. If they don’t have much of a constituency, then nobody’s following where they’re leading, or nobody’s noticed them. Either way, what they’re thinking doesn’t say much about the party.
I can find out what on their websites?
Surely anyone who breathes through their nose and has IQ over 80 finds fault with Savage.
Here is my view.Don’t know why that case.I was going to start thread once on this.
In the US politics is more religious like and people get very passionate about it.What I found is in Europe ,Canada and UK it is more political viewpoints. An example :eek: conservative on economics but liberal on social issues or conservative on social issues but liberal on economics. Likewise for liberals. And more mix views.
Other thing very different in US than Europe ,Canada and UK is word socialism.In the US people use the word socialism a lot for universal health care or government spending.You say that in Europe ,Canada and UK you will get some strange looks.
Other thing very different in the US is very strong on libertarian party views that you would get strange looks in Europe ,Canada and UK.The conservative in those countries that are fiscally conservatives normally like I support lower tax money it is better to attract business and work on government debt problems and money left over than put it in welfare.Where in the US it is normally goes we have evil socialists and planning to destroy our country oh and Obama is traitor!! You will never hear talk like that in Europe ,Canada and UK.
There is also a lot more sound bite rants and debates that silly rants and all faith base.
I don’t know why the US is like that.Some still hold onto the past like it happen today.
But I don’t know what those countries are doing different that politics is more choosing and you may have some liberal and conservative views.Where the US is more faith base.And people are getting ready for a fight.
Listen to the dude for half an hour. Either he creeps the bejeezus out of you, or you’re already in his camp.
Bush (H.W. not the runt of his litter) cut a bipartisan budget deal in 1990 after a short government shut down. Both sides knew deficits were coming to a head and the usual cut spending or raise taxes divide loomed. Staring in the face of possible government shutdown and automatic cuts… they worked a deal. The Senate passed it with bipartisan support. The House didn’t, with bipartisan opposition. That led to a brief shutdown while the deal got reworked and passed. While maybe not the ideal budget, it worked.
Compare that to recent years’ budgetary chicken games. Do I have to say that I picked 1980-1990? 
ooops the question was asked the other way. 2004-2014 