Paul Ryan

[TheGame]

Prof,

You're right there is a kernel o truth, but they twist it into something way more vicious and extreme than it really is. People who take what they say litterally think Obama is guting the life out of Medicare and trying to give out more welfare to lazy people... You and I know that's just misrepresenting what is actually happening, but your average guy who just kicks back and watches Fox news doesn't know.

And Republicans DID tie him to domestic terror... LMAO. That doesn't change the fact that Romney misrepresented himself.

As for the taxes... I know he has his reasons to hide it, but he should just be upfront about it. That expectation comes with the territory. Just have it out in the open, explain it.. boom issue dead. He's getting exactly what he has coming by him hiding the records. (And I notice you didn't comment on the birther thing, which was 1000x worse...)

And the ad was only ran on TV once.. idk about youtube or anything.. but in the end Obama didn't approve the ad. But of course, that's an example of the inside lobed soft ball. An ad that indirectly makes romney responsible for someone not being able to afford their healthcare (and that isn't even approved by Obama) turns into "OMG OBAMA ACCUSED ROMNEY OF MURDER".

I don't mean to be partisan here. Both sides are guilty of advertising that stretches the truth, or breaks it completely, but to say the Republicans are somehow uniquely guilty of this in this election cycle isn't accurate, IMO.

The Republican party is the strong/aggressive party, the Democratic party is the weak/passive party. To me it's not equal. I don't think the end result of getting Obama or Romney into office is going to make a difference, because they're both corporatists and both going to continue to lead the country down the wrong path.

If you want me to go back to youtube and drag some stuff up I can. Democrats don't use that kinda alarming/hateful langage. On the issues where it counts, I'm not even saying what side is right or wrong... but c'mon you have to admit that it's not even.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The Republican party is the strong/aggressive party, the Democratic party is the weak/passive party.

You and I have completely different perspectives on this. I doubt we'll find agreement.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You and I have completely different perspectives on this. I doubt we'll find agreement.

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

To me the whole situation with health care reform proves it. You give the other party (who had NO SAY at the time) concession after concession after concession until the bill turned into something the republican party was trying to push in the mid 90's... just to get 0 votes.... I consider that weak. I've never seen a more epic failure in leadership.

When Bush was pres, he'd basically scare the other party into doing what he wanted. "You don't vote for this you don't want to protect the country" and "You don't vote for this and the whole economy will crash and we'll blame you"... weak.

Sorry, I can't follow you two on this one. Give me some examples of when the democrats pushed the republicans into getting exactly what they want... maybe I'm closed minded...

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I'm pretty sure you're both wrong if either one of you thinks either party is passive and weak.

Oh, I don't think either is weak. The Republicans have done an effective job of trying to shape policy while only having 1/3 of government under their influence since 2010. They can't really create policy, but they can block what they disagree with. Meanwhile the Democrats spent a great deal of political capital from 2008 - 2010 to pass some of the farthest reaching regulatory reforms and entitlements since the Great Society of the 1960's.

I don't think the Republicans are weak, but to say the Dems are weak is insane, IMO. If anything they are more united and focused than the Republicans (mainly due to the divergent interests of tea party organizations, and in the influence of the Libertarian wing).

[Bond]

I'd say both parties are equally strong, but exercise "strength" in different ways. Seems rather cut and dry.

[TheGame]

None of you guys are even going to try to back up your statements and answer my question? lol

To me, political strength/weakness is based on the fear that the opposition party has. Have the republicans ever been too scared to vote against a democratic bill because of the political ramifications it may have in the last 15 years? (No) How about the democrats, have they been scared? (Yes) Heck, the Democrats were SCARED when they were in power to pass their OWN agenda that happened to be POPULAR at the time.

Hate to harp on it, but back to the healthcare bill... if they would have created something strong that would have benifitted the middle and lower class more, they could have forced republicans to vote for it. But instead they "worked" with the republican party to make it into something weak enough with enough unpopular ideas that the whole Republican party could vote against it on a united front. To me that was pure 100% weak.

But like I said.. maybe I'm closed minded. But since nobody is giving any specific examples I'm going to just assume I'm right.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Hate to harp on it, but back to the healthcare bill... if they would have created something strong that would have benefited the middle and lower class more, they could have forced republicans to vote for it. But instead they "worked" with the republican party to make it into something weak enough with enough unpopular ideas that the whole Republican party could vote against it on a united front. To me that was pure 100% weak.

This is your recollection of events surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Funny, I didn't think abuse of the reconciliation procedure to avoid filibuster was an example of Democrats bending backwards to bring in Republicans...

Honestly, reading your version of the passage of the bill is a work of revisionist history that was created by those who still live in an alternate dimension where the American people want government run, single-payer healthcare. The truth is they want "free" healthcare, but only if they can keep the care level and choices they have now. As has been proven by fact checkers, they can't even do what with the ACA.

The Democrats are not victims or weak. They created that plan to make the American people more comfortable, not Republicans. They knew they would be fought tooth and nail to the end because as Paul Ryan pointed out in the summit, the two parties simply have two different visions of what America is and should be.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

This is your recollection of events surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Funny, I didn't think abuse of the reconciliation procedure to avoid filibuster was an example of Democrats bending backwards to bring in Republicans...

By the time the bill was put up for vote, it was so weak and filled with consessions for the right wing that democrats had issues bringing their own party on board in the house. You're right, how the bill was passed was the democratic party (at least the senate and executive office) being united and 'strong', but how the bill came to be after over a year of trying to work with the republicans was WEAK.

Honestly, reading your version of the passage of the bill is a work of revisionist history that was created by those who still live in an alternate dimension where the American people want government run, single-payer healthcare. The truth is they want "free" healthcare, but only if they can keep the care level and choices they have now. As has been proven by fact checkers, they can't even do what with the ACA.

The Democrats are not victims or weak. They created that plan to make the American people more comfortable, not Republicans. They knew they would be fought tooth and nail to the end because as Paul Ryan pointed out in the summit, the two parties simply have two different visions of what America is and should be.

Americans voted the president/party into power that ran on having a public option, or 'at least' a single payer system. Generally speaking, americans do NOT like the idea of the mandate. How can you even pretend that's revisionist history? Or better yet, how does a MANDATE make the american people more comfortable than a public option?

And keep in mind, the most unpopular idea in the whole bill (cough THE MANDATE) has been supported by republicans for longer than I've been alive. In the mid 90's the republican party was trying to push something similar to the affordable care act to counter what Clinton was trying to push. And don't get me started on Romney.

The way the right wing tries to make it sound, is like the left didn't give any consessions and just shoved the bill down everyone's throats.. when this bill is way more "republican" than candidate Obama ran on. Fox news and the right wing are the revisionists. (And now they run adds like they don't support a mandate, hilarious)

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Americans voted the president/party into power that ran on having a public option, or 'at least' a single payer system.

Pres. Obama didn't really run on health care reform at all. He ran on the economy with healthcare a minor part of their platform and virtually nonexistent in their campaign, and then once elected he basically ignored the economy and spent all their political capital on healthcare reform pretending it was an economic issue.

And just look at polls and you'll see that while people say they want free or single-payer healthcare, they don't want anything that comes with it when implemented. They want a free lunch, but once they find out they can't choose what they want to eat, they find it unpalatable. This isn't opinion, it's polled fact.

There really is no point in arguing about this because we have two very different recollections of what happened in the campaign and over his nearly 4 years as President. If you believe this administration has been conciliatory or compromising, there is literally nothing for us to debate.

[Vampyr]

So is it true that Ryan spent this entire speech telling lies at the last convention?

[Bond]

Just watched Clinton's speech; he is a master at politics.

Any thoughts on Obama's speech? I've only seen the first ten minutes, but so far it's terrible.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

Just watched Clinton's speech; he is a master at politics.

Any thoughts on Obama's speech? I've only seen the first ten minutes, but so far it's terrible.

Obama has a lot of charisma, but after listening to Clinton's speech it's going to sound pointless. Clinton was a lot more direct.

[TheGame]

I can't see how you can spin it into being even on everything prof. It's like you're just trying to rationalize what the right is doing. But we can just agree to disagree.

The funny part about clinton's speech 'issues' is that most of what he was missing was arguements against the plan he was supporting. It's like a car dealer bringing up that what you're buying is still a car, and you have to pay for tags, and gas, and a wheel might blow up if you drive over glass... like things unnessicary for him to bring up.

Much different from Ryan directly misleading people about Obama's failures. The one thing Clinton was labeled as "True but misleading" would have been used against the party if there was record high spending since 'Obamacare' passed. That's just politics.. something historic happens on your watch and you take credit (unless it's historically bad, then you get attacked for it). Doesn't matter who caused/fixed it...