U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Table Rock Lake
971 posts, read 1,133,872 times
Reputation: 939

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Vermonter View Post
Those are good points. I think that Social Security and Medicare both need to be reformed. You should not have to pay those kinds of premiums.
Again we are in agreement but I will go a step further in saying that I believe the Health Care System needs reforming more and Obamacare isn't going to do that. IMO

In the 12 years I have had Medicare, I have used it once. BUT it took me three trips to the doctor to have an item removed from my eye. The Medicare statement said they paid $1,710 total of which I might be billed for 10%. ( I wasn't billed) In my mind $171.00 would have been too much to pay for the service much less what they originally paid.

We need to reform from the government on down. IMHO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Table Rock Lake
971 posts, read 1,133,872 times
Reputation: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline View Post
You mean like Medicare (which everybody LOVES and fights to protect) or like the free medical system that every U.S. soldier enjoys? You must want to do away with those as well if you are consistent.
There it is again, indicating that Medicare is free. I pay for mine and I am more than willing for the U. S. soldier to get it free, if they do, but I really don't believe that happens. IMO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:40 PM
 
10,115 posts, read 6,731,230 times
Reputation: 3408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Good point. Rather than saying the OP sounds like a democrat or is a transparent democratic plant, we might realize that many people in the center are pragmatists, not ideologues. In other words, we choose our battles. No, we will not end abortion, marijuana use through punitive means. We already failed with alcohol. Single payer is also good, both for businesses and for individuals.

However, you have to recall that move Tea Partiers will view Ex-Vermonter is a yankee, goody goody socialist anyway, right?
That's just it--the line between moderate republicans and conservative democrats is pretty thin. I'm a moderate, although I don't claim the republicans on a national level anymore (or at least I won't until they stop acting like fanatics.) I believe lots of things that a conservative democrat might, but, for example, I'm not a fan of legalizing marijuana (although if there really is firm data on it reducing violent crime, I might reconsider). I believe in wide access to low cost birth control so that people don't have babies that I have to pay for. I think making people buy health insurance gets rid of the freeloaders in the system. You are absolutely correct that most people in the center are pragmatists, and the ideologues on either side scare us to death. Most people in the center just want to do the most common sense thing to get the results we all want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 10:28 PM
 
Location: California
29,602 posts, read 31,914,576 times
Reputation: 24736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluff_Dweller View Post
I agree with your first paragraph. I don't quite understand your statement about providing health care to veterans and seniors. If we (tax payers) provide health care for veterans, that would be fine with me, but FYI I pay over $3000 in premiums per year for my Medicare so how are you providing that? My Medicare premiums are deducted from my ponzi sceme social security check but I still pay income tax on my social security and retirement checks.
If you're only paying $3000 year ($250 a month) for full coverage it's being supplimented by ALOT so I guess that's where "providing" comes into play. My cost for insurance is 3x that becasue I'm under 65 and not collecting SS. There is much room for reform all over the place but I'd be happy if I could pay under $300, especially as I get older and probably have stuff wearing out and needing upgrading . I don't think we can reasonably expect anyone at any age to get free coverage, reasonable costs are all I hope for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 11:57 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,441,833 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
Precisely. Although unfortunately, despite all of the more "realistic" or moderate positions being discussed here, that very same attitude also represents the mindset of a very large constituency, which the GOP cannot afford to do without (aka, their current "base").
If they had the guts to deep six the TP, they would win a base of disenfranchised moderate Repubs and similar independents even larger in size. This base is directly responsible for 5 popular vote POTUS losses in the last 6 elections, and the worst is yet to come with this base, as it is several decades behind in responding to the 21st century America. Demographics, demographics, demographics are why even a GOP result as tepid as 2000 is too high a goal for them now for POTUS.

W/O change, the nomineess to come, far right , moderate, whatever..will keep faring like the prior nominee with 1 or 2 former GOP states being lost each time over demographics each time.

Why hang on tight to a LOSING formula?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2012, 12:50 AM
 
33,142 posts, read 39,090,825 times
Reputation: 28493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
You sound like a Democrat to me, not a "frustrated Republican".
The op represents a moderate Republican expressing common sense viewpoints with out the addition of name calling and hate for opposing views and disrespect for fellow Americans, for anyone on a steady diet of Limbaugh,FOX and Beck it probably does come across as rather tame but its an attitude that will win over voters and not scare them away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2012, 01:05 AM
 
33,142 posts, read 39,090,825 times
Reputation: 28493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
The real Americans are the ones who work and have worked, sacrificed, and served to make this the great country that it used to be. They are not the takers and moochers who have their hand out to the government to give them what they are too lazy to earn for themselves. There are fewer and fewer real Americans, but there are still enough to elect a candidate who truly represents their values and put this country back on the tracks again. It is high time the Republicans get back to basics and nominate someone like that.

If you are wondering whats wrong with America today Ponderosa just encapsulated it perfectly.
Republicans=Real Americans
Every one else=the takers and moochers who have their hand out to the government to give them what they are too lazy to earn for themselves.
Getting rid of Ponderosa's pompous self righteous rightwing media generated attitude will go a long way to fixing much of whats wrong with America today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2012, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Mille Fin
410 posts, read 494,739 times
Reputation: 465
As long as the republican primaries feature live audiences booing gay soldiers and loudly cheering high death penalty counts, I don't see how this party won't be f*cked. In the very least, the GOP machine needs to turn its attention away from issues that shed light on the bigotry inherent to some factions of the right wing. Never has it been more obvious the Tea party is a horrible scourge for the Republican party.

I find the notion that Romney was too moderate outlandish and laughable.

Suppose Repubs took a hard left turn on social issues... I'm talking full support for gay marriage, marijuana, contraceptive rights, etc. Where would that leave the 20-30% of voters staunchly opposed to such policies? Who would they vote for? A more conservative independent? Thankfully, even bigots aren't that stupid. And to all those GOPers claiming they'd leave the country if America was any more socially progressive... where would they go? Virtually all of the Western world presents more progressive (honestly, more advanced) social policies than the US. Canada? Every bigot's worst nightmare. The only advanced countries that are more socially conservative than the deep south are found, ironically, in the middle-east. These countries are advanced only thanks to their rich resources, and by all measures, they are highly undemocratic. (think Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai)

So really, bible belt voters have no where to go, and no one to vote for strategically, other than the Republican party. They should be the ones pandering to the GOP, not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2012, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC and Gaithersburg, MD
113 posts, read 155,847 times
Reputation: 214
I think that we need more politicians who can appeal to those voters like myself that are in the middle. I am not sure what would happen to voters who are on the extremes of both parties. They could form their own party, but they would never get enough votes to win an election. They may stay home altogether and not vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,398,899 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
like fanatics.) I believe lots of things that a conservative democrat might, but, for example, I'm not a fan of legalizing marijuana (although if there really is firm data on it reducing violent crime, I might reconsider).
There IS data on it being less harmful than, say, cigarettes. There is also data on the amount of money the war on drugs costs, the amount of arrests for simple marijuana possession and an idea of how much tax revenue that consumes, and how much states are hurting for money in their budgets AND how much debt the federal government is in.

We are basically throwing a bunch of money to keep people from recreationally using marijuana when it's not working, when marijuana isn't as bad health wise as some things that ARE legal, and when there are other way more important priorities to spend government money on. Why should we wish to continue to waste taxpayer money this way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top