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.
The labels from "the Right" (whatever that means nowadays) don't so much concern me. It's more the lack of focus on policy substance. Bush came into office with very clear policy objectives (even if you didn't agree with them). Obama came into office with a very clear policy objective (healthcare reform, clean energy). Trump is coming into office with no real policy agenda and even the things he staked his candidacy on (building the wall, slapping China with 35% tariffs) he's already equivocated on.
You're kidding? Trade policy, healthcare (fixing Obama's garbage), taxes, regulations, education? ring a bell? or was that not reported on Salon/Huffpo?
Ouch. You hurt my feelings. Now I understand how CaptainNJ felt. We will have to start a support group to help us overcome the vicious attacks on our self esteem by your quick and cruel wit.
Ouch. You hurt my feelings. Now I understand how CaptainNJ felt. We will have to start a support group to help us overcome the vicious attacks on our self esteem by your quick and cruel wit.
Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings.You made the statement that Labeling is done more by the left and my sarcasim is to point out that the republican side has been doing it for some time now.Lets no forget they came up with the term the "Christian right" themselves wasn't the dems that did it,same for the "Tea party".I do understand that you and the captain are factually challenged and I will try and help whenever I can.
Thanks for providing a perfect example to support doc's point.
I've never been a big fan of Van Jones, mostly because of his politics. But lately, he has gained my respect because he has begun a quest to bring civility back to political discussions. With social media, it has become mainstream to demonized people with opposing views, and we end up, as he puts it, "talking past each other instead of TO each other". So nothing of any substance ever gets discussed.
You're kidding? Trade policy, healthcare (fixing Obama's garbage), taxes, regulations, education? ring a bell? or was that not reported on Salon/Huffpo?
There is no focus on policy substance. "Job creation" is not a policy. That's an end, which is not at all controversial. Policy is the means to that end.
Trump's campaign was never about policy details. And the discussions in these forums are rarely about policy details. At some point (which was on November 9, 2016 IMO), Hillary and her emails became completely irrelevant, and the focus now needs to be on policy specifics rather than litigating partisan disputes.
Trump, for example, wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I can't ever recall a thread where anyone asks "Is this a good idea?" I usually hear the "we need to get rid of regulation trope," but nobody ever asks whether it's a good idea to further deregulate an industry that nearly destroyed the global economy 8 years ago.
There is no focus on policy substance. "Job creation" is not a policy. That's an end, which is not at all controversial. Policy is the means to that end.
Trump's campaign was never about policy details. And the discussions in these forums are rarely about policy details. At some point (which was on November 9, 2016 IMO), Hillary and her emails became completely irrelevant, and the focus now needs to be on policy specifics rather than litigating partisan disputes.
Sure there was. For example: Job creation via renegiotiation of trade deals, lower taxes/regs. It's already happening.
And why should policy details be #1? Every pundit says that, but lets be honest here...the president can learn policy in a month or so with advisors if you are president. It's not difficult in that case. And if it was, then why is the public deciding which policy is best? How is the public going to decide of axing Dodd-Frank is good? Most people voting aren't financial experts. And many "Experts" in the media are total shills and scum.
The key is to see which candidate is CAPABLE of executing their ideas and is BENEVOLENT to our country. I can make the case that Obama was malevolent to America. Hillary the same, she is just a mercenary for the highest ibdder.
Thanks for providing a perfect example to support doc's point.
I fined it funny now after winning the election the right wingnuts decide that the "left is the party of labels",go back to the start of this thread and see what hypocrites you are .
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.
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.
