Democrats don't back down?!

WTF have you been?! Are you kidding me?!

Obamacare was a moderate compromise from single payer or even government option. It's called a compromise, dude. You apparently don't know what it means. It means you don't get everything you wanted, nor none of what you wanted. They saw they couldn't pass single payer or government option, so they went with a centrist plan that could pass.

Your side lost their marbles and said Obamacare was a complete socialized gov't take over of health care out to kill grandma.

Here's the practical results of your side doing that - people like me went... "Hmm... there could be something better than Obamacare... GOP, what say you? Ohhhh, you're just gonna throw your own feces?! I guess we'll go with Obamacare."

The GOP was anything BUT caving in. Do you not remember the record setting number of filibusters caused by the GOP? That's caving in?! WTF?!

Trump is going to get destroyed in the electoral college. You're out of your damn mind if you think he's going to win, much less in a landslide. Clinton is on track for over 330 electoral votes. And she's closer to flipping Texas than Trump is to flipping Pennsylvania. Trump is going to get dunked on Vince Carter in the Olympics style by Clinton. He's down by almost double digits in the popular vote. It's more likely she gets over 400 electoral votes than him winning the election.

Trump in a landslide?!?!?! ROFLMFAO!

I don't sit on the fence. I just recognize like a sane adult that no political ideology has practical solutions that will fix every problem society faces. Not liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, capitalism, absolutely none of them. That should be obvious by now, but it's clear why you can't understand that considering overwhelming data for example that shows Clinton is going to destroy Trump.

I need to grow a pair? I already have a pair. Unlike you, I formulate my political beliefs with my brain instead of my balls.

The origins of the flint water is conservatism.Electing people to run your government who openly declare their hatred for government.Electing people to work with and oversee unions who openly declare their hatred of unions. Electing people to run your government based solely on their hatred of gay marriage. We can't drink the water, but those evil gay people can't get married ! Yeehaa!

Agreed.

They managed to turn a treatise on Nietzsche's abyss and the nature of Anarchy & Fascism; into a one sided fairytale about extreme neo-conservatism vs pseudo-liberal collectivism.

& don't get me started on the fucking "eggy in a basket"!

V is supposed to be a god-damned monster, not a relatable hero.

Reading V after seeing this film was what made me truly understand why Alan Moore wants nothing to do with film adaptations.

The GOP has had problems since at least 2008, and they keep building up and up on the same issues.

The problem is the party is sort of stuck, and the split that it desperately needs would hurt it. Fox and the right wing talk radio aren't really on the classic GOP (of the Reagan and prior eras) side. Fox and talk radio and the social media that surround their viewers/listeners has shifted very far to the right. So much so that Reagan would in no way win the nomination today. Today's far right Republican party sees governing, and negotiating with the other side of the isle as a weakness. They don't want a representative democracy, they want a theocratic dictatorship while calling it democracy.

A party split is needed though. They need to split the two elements of the party from one another. Let the Tea Party form on it's own and let Fox and talk radio follow it. They'll find that the mass media is still far more central and closer to them than what they've been led to believe via Fox and talk radio, who accuses it of being far liberal. The party would be hurt for a couple election cycles, but as people start to wise up, they'd come back to the GOP from the Tea Party and the Tea Party would eventually become a footnote. As it stands, leaving the Tea Party elements in it will destroy the party in full.

The GOP keeps trying too hard to appeal to the far right element of it self and abandoning the central core. They are appealing to the hate mongers and bigots rather than the compassionate conservatism that Reagan at least pretended to have (though didn't).

I still think that McCain made two major errors when he ran. First was stepping too far to the right of where his voting record was while running. Had he stuck to what his record showed, he would have stood a semi-decent chance of winning... had he not made a second major fatal error and that was putting a batshit crazy, way far to the right, person as his VP candidate. Even if she wasn't crazy, or had a brain, she was far too the right for most Americans. Now, even if he had stayed true to himself, and used a centrist VP candidate he may have lost as Obama tapped into something... and I don't think anybody saw that coming.

Then the GOP embraced the hatred of Obama too much. Obama could cure cancer and they'd decry it as a bad thing, he can do nothing right so far as they are concerned. They should have toned that down. They also messed up the messaging on Obamacare. They should have embraced it, noting that they invented it, and tried to pass the same thing into federal law 3 times prior, twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton and each time it was the Democrats who wouldn't take it. Showing how the Democrats embraced your idea would have shown, "look, we were right the whole time. We could have had this ages ago but the Democrats said 'No' and now they realized we were right." Rather than take the high rode though, they rode the crazy train of hate, and pushed more and more to become obstructionist.

Now side note, obstructionism works. Many Republican and non-affiliated voters, blame Obama for the lack of progress, though none of his ideas really got to be tried since they were bound and determined to obstruct everything and have done everything they can to ruin the Nation so they can blame him for the state of affairs, knowing full well most Americans don't know Congress controls the purse and pretty much all things related to it.

Anyhow, then Romney too shifted far to the right of what his record as Governor showed, and again went with somebody who's too far to the right (who oddly enough is now seen as too establishment by the Tea Party element) as a VP candidate... though Obama's popularity, and the popularity of Obamacare would have made it hard to overcome... though again, if the GOP had handled Obamacare properly, as their invention, then Romney would have ridden that strongly as his state used the previous Republican led efforts to create the same program, to do so on the state level. He could have ridden the fact his state had it before anyone else... again they let hatred of Obama override the logical move.

The party in the end is too afraid to do what it needs to do. It's too afraid of the short term losses and doesn't realize that the far goal is obtainable.

I have to say I lost patience with the video quickly. What is the point? Such careful production of a simple joke stretching it out to almost 9 minutes only to hear the one politician asked say "Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard". And it was.

I find Bob (and indeed Trump) more entertaining and real.

Danny: Socialism is not a plan as such, rather an ideology. Originally it was an ideology that definitely wanted good things for most people. With all due respect I don't believe (see what I did there? basically I am admitting I haven't a clue) Bernie has a plan. I also dont believe he is a socialist. He has some good (partly socialist) ideas but would IMHO lack the mechanisms to put them in place. Much like Obama but more so.

If I were voting I would probably be tempted to throw in a protest vote for Bernie just to show all the others what I think. But Bernie will not get the nomination, would lose the election and would only make a small impact if somehow elected. I will eat my keyboard if he makes any real impact on big banks. But if he wants to try I would support him for want of a better option.

Trump fascist? Big business running government, nationalist, crackdown on minorities, violent supporters at rallies, apparent ultra-conservatism with dubious own morality, rich, stupid, arrogant. Check. Lacks balls though, so no.

@gorillaman, I admit I'm veering close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but equally, I never claimed that all feminists were sane and moral people.

The difference is, I think most people these days are reasonably feminist and I think the vast majority of them are not man-hating nutjobs. There's undoubtedly a lunatic fringe, but that's the case for every group/ideology.

I also agree that meanings change over time. "national socialism", shorn of its historic baggage, doesn't sound that terrible. But we know that what it actually signifies is actually national fascism, racism and other abhorrent concepts.

The question is at what point the lunatic fringe comes to represent the whole. For example, at one point the Republicans were once the party of small government and fiscal conservatism, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to describe them as anything other than the party of religious nutjobs and idiots.

I don't feel feminism has been hijacked to the same extent. I believe there are still a lot of normal rational people who describe themselves as feminists (I'd like to think I'm one, for a start).

Finally, I'm with Joss Whedon.... "feminism" is a terrible word, but ultimately, "You either believe women are people or you don't. It's that simple."

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.

Liberals oppose totalitarian ideologies automatically.

Read that sentence again. As far as I'm concerned, it's axiomatic. Consequent to that principle, no liberal will ever support or apologise for islam.

What we're seeing with our 'regressive leftists' is people who've been raised in an environment, the educated middle class say, in which liberalism is associated with goodness. Since they define themselves as good, they naturally also define themselves as liberal. They know that among the intellectual set to which they aspire, any admission of social conservatism will quite properly be met with contempt.

So, even while calling for censorship, even while defending the brutal and mindless suppression of individual freedom that is inherent in islam, these reactionaries delude themselves into believing that they're liberal.

This made me laugh. Too funny.

Just like a liberal claiming to be a victim and seeking a higher power for justice. Go to Dag with your closed minded opinions of me being unfair, racist, bigot. Boo Fking Hoo.

You sifters berate me day in and day out and I don't bitch and scream unfair to Dag or Lucky.

Sure I represent .00000000x% at this site but by your ( Liberal Sifters ) standards I should get EXTRA protection from bullies like you and you should be banned for picking on such a minority.

You hypocrite. Maybe it is time for me to have Dag to step in due to you incessant bullying. No - I'm better that that.


liberals except all forms of opinions and diversity only if it agrees with liberal views. How closed minded.

Out of hundred of accounts there are only about 5 speak wisdom and conservatism into this dismal abyss in hopes that you might actually wake up from you liberal stupor.

Remember Howard Stern's movie "Private Parts"? a quote:
Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How could this be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."

Maybe Trump has the same thing going for him. He's crazy enough and ego-inflated enough to serve the "Ross Perot" or "Ralph Nader" role in losing the election for his party.

I'm all in favor of that, as someone who would tend to agree with a lot of the foundation principles of the Republican party, like "small government" and "fiscal conservatism". The problem is that the modern Republican party has exchanged those "foundation principles" with batshit crazy counterparts. It needs to go ahead and implode already to let some measure of sanity back in.

What's the difference between God and a Democrat?

A: God knows He's not a Democrat.
------------------------------------------
You might be a liberal if…

you break out in a cold sweat at the mention of the Constitution.


you believe the Constitution is living but unborn babies aren’t.


you believe that a democrat freed the slaves and a republican created the KKK.

you abhor censorship unless it’s censoring race, religion, Conservatism, Western culture or Rush Limbaugh.

you believe 59% of whites who voted for Romney are racists but 96% of blacks who voted for Obama are not.

Once again you just spew hyperbole trash.

You can apologize after your read facts. You do know hat a fact is. It is truth. AS of 2014 24% of Americans describe themselves as Liberals and 37% conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx


As for you call me a Necon. then you add you own definition is just stupid on your part.

From Webster Dictionary.
Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
------------
Clearly I am not nor ever Item 1
Item 2 is promoting National interest abroad. clearly not what you defined. and B) you would probably fit under this definition.

Please if you are going to insult me please me intelligent about it.

Take your time take off you Liberal rose-colored glasses and realize the if it was not for Republicans there would be no civil rights legislation.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Once again you talk smack.

You are not a black person.

You have no idea "what's good for" black people.

You're a racist.

You're a bigot.

You think that Republicans & the "Conservative Agenda" are the answer to EVERY question.

You're such a dolt, you think that just because White Racist of one political affiliation started the KKK..

That somehow White Racists from every other political affiliation are absolved from their bigotry & racism.

Ignorant, Already-Made-up-their-mind people like you and @lantern53 and @quantumushroom are the problem.

Privileged, Foolhardy, Uncultured, Willfully-ignorant, Hypocritical humans..
who will scream murder if the ANYTHING interferes with the pretty picture you have painted in your minds...

.. are the fucking problem that all minorities have to deal with.

Not liberalism or conservatism. Not Democrats or Republicans.

STFU. Go away. Please and thank you.

I don't particularly like O'Reilly's conservatism and warmongering, but about this, Colbert is simply ignorant or worse. "OMG, mercenaries going rogue!" Because, y'know, the state's armies never go "rogue" or cause any "mayhem." Nope! Not in WW 1. Not in WW 2. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. Not in Latin America. Not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan, or anywhere else!. Nope. Not ever.

The American forces never goes rogue and Bradley/Chelsea Manning is not being locked up for exposing the never-rogue nature of the American forces.

I don't think Colbert is an idiot. So I'm inclined to think that Hoppe may be correct and Colbert is just part of the "intelligensia," paid to promote stupidity among the masses. (OMG, I'm beginning to sound like "OMG Bernays!")

They talk and talk and talk, but can't provide any specific charges. Even Boehner's "lawsuit" was just....rambling with no actual specific charges.

Every time you hear nutcases talking about impeachment it's the same thing, lots of rhetoric, nothing specific, nothing that would ever hold up in a court of law. They're just being a good trained parrot.

you want to whine about the whole "lie" about keeping your doctor nonsense. Prove it...prove to me that Obama is some mustache-twirling villain that deliberately intended to deceive us and he would have gotten away were it not for those meddling Republicans. Stop treating life like it's some sort of 1980s cartoon.

Even if you could prove it..using the example of Bill Clinton deliberately lying about getting a blowjob. We then go back to the "is this really worth impeaching him over?" I believe there was a poll done at some point that supports the idea that the public wants their president to be a good liar. So make up your mind, do you want a liar or don't you?

And it's just never going to succeed and it would make the Republicans look worse than they are already. The public as a whole blame republicans for the gov't shutdown. An impeachment would be a absolute waste of time and money and for the Republicans who claim to be about fiscal conservatism, please explain to me the return on investment for this endeavor? Numerous people have argued that an impeachment would actually raise Obama's approval numbers. It's just lose lose for the republicans.

And again, we go back to the "why do we care what Quitter Palin think again?" argument.

The death of the republican party continues. I continue to wait patiently for moderate Republicans to retake their party.