Hillary or Generic GOP Candidate?

[PharmtoCS]

Yet millions of American's choose to enter the WORSE of the two buyers' markets. It's clear that the only way you can insure these people is by offering them something for nothing, which is what the average liberal believes they are entitled to anyways in aspects beyond just healthcare.

Pretty spot on there, which played a large role in garnering support of the ACA. We were promised that we could 1) keep our plans if we liked it, period, 2) keep our doctors if we liked them, period, and 3) be able to save an average of $2500/year on insurance premiums. Millions of us who were otherwise happy with our plans ended up losing our insurance plans and forced to purchase ACA-complaint plans that have much higher premiums (even with subsidies) and deductibles, and have ultra-narrow networks that that greatly limit your choices of doctors and hospitals, hence many were not able to keep their doctors either. So far it has only helped about a net 5% of Americans gain insurance, which takes into account the newly uninsured who cannot afford the new premiums or are otherwise healthy and find it cheaper to just pay the fine.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Old Timer]

When everyone gets free healthcare someone has to pay for it right? Obama doesn't pay for your Ability out of his own pocket.

But the thing is, when healthcare is handled by the private sector prices drop due to competition. Obamacare eliminates this opportunity to a large extent.

That is a complete and total load of crap. All you have to do is look at generic prices, look at Airline prices. They collude and merge and low and behold, profits and prices are both up. Generic Temovate, old price $12.00. Consolidation in the generic market place Generic Temovate over $200.00. Airline mergers left and right and low and behold if you travel with a 4 year old you can guarantee to set next to your child for an extra $88.00.

Yep before Obamacare all that private insurance drove down costs.....


So how is socialist Europe doing it?

 

[Old Timer]

You do realize the the role of government is to make the private sector a fair playing field and protect the consumer, not replace it altogether...

That's why I pointed to Friedman's book. Which makes that arguemtn exactly.

You also state that healthcare is too expensive, then proceed to enforce a bill costing a trillion dollars that you have clearly never read to fix the problem. But you read some journal written by some liberal on prozac and watched them talk about it on msnbc so you are in fact an expert.

I did read the article in the Liberal rag, Bloomberg, a bastion of liberalism. Next, if reason is what you are after, I expect you to answer my argument. The cost of our healthcare system per capita and the cost of Obamacare are two different things. Please explain away the fact we spend more per capita and more as a percent of GDP with lesser outcomes than any other country on the planet? And this was before Obamacare, so don't try that canard. By the way unless you by your own insurance privately, I am subsidizing that too as employer healthcare is tax deductible if your employer deducts your share from your check that's also tax deductible you socialist pig living off the government teet. So it's ok for you to get government subsidized insurance, but some poor shmo making $25.00 per hour is getting a hand out. Reality, you wouldn't know it if it jumped up and smacked you in the head. If you are a pharmacist the following things are not subject to Federal Income Tax:

Your health care premiums
Your mortgage interest (costs the Treasury 70 billion a year and goes predominately to people making over 100K per year)
Your 401 K contributions
Your State and local taxes

People like you never meet anyone who can face you with reality... then you can shoot your mouth off somewhere with some communist/socialist/progressives types and everyone says amen and you think you're a real genius.

No I understand perfectly. I understand reality perfectly. Our system is stupid and it's broken. It costs too much and get's bad results and too many people are getting rich off it. If I were king I would either abolish all insurance except for major medical or put everyone in Medicare and charge them whatever the cost of Medicare is. The problem with our system is the payer and the consumer are not the same people. Whenever the person who consumes the service does not directly pay for service, you have a problem. That is basic capitalism. Our medical insurance system is not capitalist.

You continue to spread your ignorance like a disease until someone calls you out on it. Then you simply ignore it and revert back to spewing nonsense about "evil greed and capitalism". See the thing is, you don't like to hear reality... you'd much rather hear about how some "rich corporation" is doing you wrong. The most ironic part is that you make your living working for a 115 billion dollar company.

Please explain one fact I pointed out that is not true. Go for it. You can't. My employer is making plenty of money from Obamacare. I got a nice bonus from Obamacare. But so what. They react to the marketplace. Anything that gives people more coverage would be good for CVS. It's not what I would have passed. So because I work for CVS I think they are paragons of virtue? That's a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with whether Obamacare is good or bad or our healthcare system is good or bad.

You're a really sick person and I truly pity you. A man once defined Hell as a place where there is no reason, and you just dragged me into it.

Typical of an ideologue, when confronted with facts, call people names, disparage them. Can't disparage the argument, disparage the person. Ig I have no reason, my argument has no reason.....

 

[Old Timer]

Yet millions of American's choose to enter the WORSE of the two buyers' markets. It's clear that the only way you can insure these people is by offering them something for nothing, which is what the average liberal believes they are entitled to anyways in aspects beyond just healthcare.

Except for the people on Welfare, the people are getting either a subsidy or the benefit of being in a bigger pool. They have to pay a monthly premium and they have copays and deductibles, just like everybody else. It's not free.

 

[W19]

Except for the people on Welfare, the people are getting either a subsidy or the benefit of being in a bigger pool. They have to pay a monthly premium and they have copays and deductibles, just like everybody else. It's not free.

I think you are wasting your time arguing with someone who is just repeating what he hears... and doesn't spend time to analyze things...

 

[RxStudentatUB]

lol same garbage at the state level. Christie, McDonnell, Sanford, Spitzer, etc, states are as corrupt as feds on every level, even worse many times. problem is people in power can't be held accountable. yes there are a lot of uneducated people voting on emotional highs/lows generated by the loudspeaker for the rich & wealthy media. i see it in this thread. either make people take an exam to qualify to vote or just have a benevolent dictatorship. our democracy is crap compared to others in terms of freedom. honestly i don't think americans are qualified to deserve a democracy anymore.

i very rarely believe anything the media says anymore. even government reports such as the BLS are garbage. you have to sift thru the trash and make your own observations and conclusions and think. since well over 95% of the people don't do that, i don't think americans should have a democracy anymore as it's not the best system anymore. let sheep vote and you get this mess. when you have garbage people coming into government, you're going to get garbage results coming out. the quality of people has gone down, so has leadership and results. of course there are things the government cannot control such as the advance of innovation, globalization, which are inevitable but people don't account for. somehow that becomes the president's or congress's fault.

Politicians, president, all corporate puppets.

As for the sheep, can't hate on them so much. I believe many of us are making a buck or two on the NYSE thanks to these same people that listen to Jim Kramer!

 

[Sparda29]

Laws that mandate a pharmacist be present inside the pharmacy at all times with no regard to lunch breaks or bathroom breaks is as close to slave labor law as it gets. Does anybody else want to know why I left Oklahoma? Because I didn't want to wear diapers to work.

At the independent where I work, I just tell the tech that I'm going to the bathroom or I'm going to Starbucks or the pizzeria and to just lock the doors until I get back.

 

[SClENCE]

That's why I pointed to Friedman's book. Which makes that arguemtn exactly.


I did read the article in the Liberal rag, Bloomberg, a bastion of liberalism. Next, if reason is what you are after, I expect you to answer my argument. The cost of our healthcare system per capita and the cost of Obamacare are two different things. Please explain away the fact we spend more per capita and more as a percent of GDP with lesser outcomes than any other country on the planet? And this was before Obamacare, so don't try that canard. By the way unless you by your own insurance privately, I am subsidizing that too as employer healthcare is tax deductible if your employer deducts your share from your check that's also tax deductible you socialist pig living off the government teet. So it's ok for you to get government subsidized insurance, but some poor shmo making $25.00 per hour is getting a hand out. Reality, you wouldn't know it if it jumped up and smacked you in the head. If you are a pharmacist the following things are not subject to Federal Income Tax:

Your health care premiums
Your mortgage interest (costs the Treasury 70 billion a year and goes predominately to people making over 100K per year)
Your 401 K contributions
Your State and local taxes

Well first off, just because employer coverage is tax deductible doesn't mean I am relying on the tax dollars of others for my coverage. That's an absurd implication to make and again reflects your ignorance. And nobody is disputing the fact that healthcare costs are too high in America... I am simply stating that Obamacare does absolutely nothing to lower these costs so why you are even bringing this up to support your imaginary argument remains a mystery.

No I understand perfectly. I understand reality perfectly. Our system is stupid and it's broken. It costs too much and get's bad results and too many people are getting rich off it. If I were king I would either abolish all insurance except for major medical or put everyone in Medicare and charge them whatever the cost of Medicare is. The problem with our system is the payer and the consumer are not the same people. Whenever the person who consumes the service does not directly pay for service, you have a problem. That is basic capitalism. Our medical insurance system is not capitalist.

Obamacare is the epitome of what you are describing when you state "whenever the person who consumes the service does not directly pay for service, you have a problem." How the hell do you think Obamacare is funded?

Please explain one fact I pointed out that is not true. Go for it. You can't. My employer is making plenty of money from Obamacare. I got a nice bonus from Obamacare. But so what. They react to the marketplace. Anything that gives people more coverage would be good for CVS. It's not what I would have passed. So because I work for CVS I think they are paragons of virtue? That's a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with whether Obamacare is good or bad or our healthcare system is good or bad.

My comment was not at all intended to relate CVS to Obamacare. Once again you are responding to an argument that I never made. You have mentioned "big corporations" in a negative tone multiple times; I was just pointing out the irony of it when you decided to brag about your CVS bonus in another thread and make a living working for the company while at the same time you seem to think big companies are inherently bad. Don't get me wrong, the goal of any company is to make money and I am 100% behind that, and I have no issue with CVS or any large company aiming to profit. I just find your statements about big corporations to be in bad taste given your place of employment.

Typical of an ideologue, when confronted with facts, call people names, disparage them. Can't disparage the argument, disparage the person. Ig I have no reason, my argument has no reason.....

Whenever I respond your your ignorant posts you literally come back with some argument that has nothing to do with the point that I made. You are either illiterate or know you are wrong so just start putting words in my mouth and responding to them.

Examples:

We agree that healthcare is too expensive. You say the solution is Obamacare... I point out that Obamacare does nothing to lower per capita costs and if anything increases it. You respond by telling my that my insurance coverage is tax deductible and I am therefore wrong. WTF?

You imply that big corporations are bad. I point out the irony of this statement with the fact that you work for a 115 billion dollar company. You responding by stating that Obamacare is good for CVS. WTF?

After doing this about 10 times you declare that I cannot disparage your arguments? You simply choose to respond to what you wish I said.

 

[Old Timer]

Well first off, just because employer coverage is tax deductible doesn't mean I am relying on the tax dollars of others for my coverage. That's an absurd implication to make and again reflects your ignorance..

It is not an implication. Anything that is deductible is shielded from taxes that could be used to provide a benefit for others or lower taxes. Simply eliminating the deduction for home mortgage interest would be a 70 billion dollar tax cut.

And nobody is disputing the fact that healthcare costs are too high in America... I am simply stating that Obamacare does absolutely nothing to lower these costs so why you are even bringing this up to support your imaginary argument remains a mystery.

You never allow the facts to get in the way of your Fox News Narrative. There are many cost savings as part of Obamacare. ACO's have been formed. There also a reduced payments to hospitals who do not provide quality care.

Obamacare is the epitome of what you are describing when you state "whenever the person who consumes the service does not directly pay for service, you have a problem." How the hell do you think Obamacare is funded?

No genius, ALL insurance is like that.

We agree that healthcare is too expensive. You say the solution is Obamacare... I point out that Obamacare does nothing to lower per capita costs and if anything increases it. You respond by telling my that my insurance coverage is tax deductible and I am therefore wrong. WTF?.

No I don't say Obamacare is the solution I would choose. It's just not the devil you claim it is. It does attempt to lower costs, and costs were lower in 2014. Now whether those 2014 costs were due to the ACA are not fully known and whther the ACA will lower costs over time have yet to be determined, but there are cost controls in the law.

 

[PharmacistReb]

I don't understand the notion that government is all bad and the market is all good. Go back to the days of Upton Sinclair and the Jungle. Greed is not good. People will poison other people, market defective products that harm people in order to make money.



That's government that does that. If there was not a Mother F***** Law that required a pharmacist to be on duty all of the time, the chains would cut us out in a heart beat and have super techs filling rxs and a tele pharmacist available by phone.



Again, you never allow facts to get on the way of a good story. Medicare works fine and spends way less than private insurance in processing costs. If it were funded properly it would work fine.



Just bull-****. Do you have any idea how much things would cost if the government did not bankroll basic science research. Do you have any idea who many drugs were basically discovered by government funded research?http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/10/news/la-heb-drug-development-taxpayers-20110210



Only when republicans are in charge. The R's hate government and they starve the SH** out of it and then say see, it doesn't work.

Before you go crazy, I don't think the government does everything well and there are many things that need to be done by the private sector. I suggest you read Tom Friedman's Book the World is Flat and he offers a pretty clear idea of the role of government.



It's just not so. Healthcare costs have not soared as the ACA opponents have predicted. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/obamacare-effect-linked-to-lower-medical-cost-estimates.

Steve Brill does not blame this on the ACA but on corporate greed. Again, it is corporate greed that is driving employers to offload the costs of health insurance to the employees.

In my post, I put forth this quiote "There is corruption in the private sector just like there's corruption in the public sector.". And then I read your first statement to me that I think all government is bad and all private sector is good. Thus, you very obviously did not truly read or comprehend anything I said.

Good day, sir.

 

[Rouelle]

Well guys, this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[SClENCE]

It is not an implication. Anything that is deductible is shielded from taxes that could be used to provide a benefit for others or lower taxes. Simply eliminating the deduction for home mortgage interest would be a 70 billion dollar tax cut.

YOU ARE LITERALLY THE BIGGEST IDIOT I'V EVER MET. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE RESPONDING TO SOMETHING THAT I NEVER SAID. Just because I can shield money from taxes that could be used to provide a benefit for others DOES NOT MEAN that I am relying on others to subsidize my insurance. That was your initial statement and you were proven wrong. There's nothing you can do about it so stop changing the argument.

You never allow the facts to get in the way of your Fox News Narrative. There are many cost savings as part of Obamacare. ACO's have been formed. There also a reduced payments to hospitals who do not provide quality care.

Meanwhile the per capita costs of healthcare has risen since the inception of this garbage. Don't let the facts get in the way of the details that you are presenting to me.

No genius, ALL insurance is like that.

Nobody here is sating that it isn't. Let me be more clear: I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T. Let me remind you what you were saying:

You: "Whenever the person who consumes the service does not directly pay for service, you have a problem."
Me: If that's the problem, Obamacare does nothing to fix it seeing as Obamacare is the epitome of that you just described as a problem
You: "No genius. All insurance is like that"

WTF? Are you are the Special Olympics???????????????

 

[SClENCE]

In my post, I put forth this quiote "There is corruption in the private sector just like there's corruption in the public sector.". And then I read your first statement to me that I think all government is bad and all private sector is good. Thus, you very obviously did not truly read or comprehend anything I said.

Good day, sir.

He has been doing this for the entire 3 pages that I have talked to him. He doesn't comprehend anything that is said, and when he responds he ALWAYS responds to an argument/point that was never even made in the first place to divert attention from that fact that he has just been disproved.

Par for the course considering his political alignment and base intelligence.

 

[owlegrad]

Keep it civil. No name calling, please.

Also if you are going to ask someone "Are you are the Special Olymics", maybe check the grammar first.

 

[SClENCE]

Keep it civil. No name calling, please.

Also if you are going to ask someone "Are you are the Special Olymics", maybe check the grammar first.

My most sincere apologies, though you spelled Olympics wrong. Maybe check your spelling.

 

[W19]

.

 

[owlegrad]

My most sincere apologies, though you spelled Olympics wrong. Maybe check your spelling.

Oh snap!

 

[Caverject]

All I am going to say is Rand Paul would be the *worst* candidate for anyone working in the DoD...

 

[Old Timer]

I think you are wasting your time arguing with someone who is just repeating what he hears... and doesn't spend time to analyze things...

I gave it the old college try. But if you can't use an analogy to make a point, there is little you can do. It doesn't matter anyway. Unless they find pictures of Hillary sleeping the King of Saudia Arabia, the Republicans will never see the White House again. They are now the minority party nationwide. Since 1988, they only won the popular vote twice (1988 and 2004 losing 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 20012). The country is getting browner and younger and old white folk will not be able to hold on to power for much longer. If it weren't for gerrymandering the wouldn't have such a lock on the Congress.

 

[SClENCE]

There is one good thing that came out of Obama's presidency

 

[PharmacistReb]

I gave it the old college try. But if you can't use an analogy to make a point, there is little you can do. It doesn't matter anyway. Unless they find pictures of Hillary sleeping the King of Saudia Arabia, the Republicans will never see the White House again. They are now the minority party nationwide. Since 1988, they only won the popular vote twice (1988 and 2004 losing 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 20012). The country is getting browner and younger and old white folk will not be able to hold on to power for much longer. If it weren't for gerrymandering the wouldn't have such a lock on the Congress.

"They are now the minority party nationwide"

What happened in the 2014 election cycle? Who controls the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court, 31 state governorships, and the majority of state legislatures?

Come again?

""The country is getting browner and younger"

The country may be getting 'browner' but it's certainly not getting younger. This is a fact you sort of just fabricated for your own liking. Sort of like your claim of a minority party.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Keep it civil. No name calling, please.

Also if you are going to ask someone "Are you are the Special Olymics", maybe check the grammar first.

This one made my day. "Olymics". Check your grammar.

 

[Sparda29]

I gave it the old college try. But if you can't use an analogy to make a point, there is little you can do. It doesn't matter anyway. Unless they find pictures of Hillary sleeping the King of Saudia Arabia, the Republicans will never see the White House again. They are now the minority party nationwide. Since 1988, they only won the popular vote twice (1988 and 2004 losing 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 20012). The country is getting browner and younger and old white folk will not be able to hold on to power for much longer. If it weren't for gerrymandering the wouldn't have such a lock on the Congress.

Nah, her sleeping with the King of Saudi Arabia, she could still get elected since this government loves the Saudis just because of their oil and that they'll do anything for money.

I hate the hypocrisy in the Middle East. Anti-Iran/Pro-Saudi Arabia (Iran is the more democratic/free country. The difference between Iran and Saudi other than the Sunni/Shia issue is that Iran isn't willing to do whatever we ask them to do and won't sell out, that and yeah, Iran is anti-Israel, but that should not matter to the US.)

Pro-rebels in Syria/Anti-rebels in Iraq (the rebels are the same ****ing group = ISIS)
Anti-rebels in Yemen (rebels are anti-ISIS)

I don't get how our foreign policy changes so frequently.

 

[Old Timer]

"They are now the minority party nationwide"

What happened in the 2014 election cycle? Who controls the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court, 31 state governorships, and the majority of state legislatures?

Come again?

""The country is getting browner and younger"

The country may be getting 'browner' but it's certainly not getting younger. This is a fact you sort of just fabricated for your own liking. Sort of like your claim of a minority party.

You can believe whatever you want. Yes they can take the Senate and the House. They will never sniff the White house again. The demographics are against them starting in 1992 the D's have a lock on 209 electoral votes. They will Never ever ever win:

California: 55
New York: 29
Pennsylvania: 20
New Jersey: 14
Illinois: 21
Minnesosta: 10
Wisconson: 11
All of the Northeast

The only large state the R's can count on is Texas. Florida flips back and forth depending on the election.

Your base is out of touch with the country. Gay marriage is a loser issue for the republicans with now 60% of the public now supporting gay marriage. Abortion is a loser issue for them.

The GOP Is Dying Off. Literally

Why The Republican Party Died

The Republicans can't get the millennials to vote for them in any numbers. You still have not explained how they have only won the popular vote twice since 1988. They elect Paul Ryan to Congress n Wisconson but Voted for Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and Obama. Minnesota elected Michelle Bachman to the house but repeated the above for President except for the two Reagan elections.

Pennsylvania, where I live, used to be a swing state. It's now as blue as blue can be.

 

[SClENCE]

Social issues are a distraction from the real issues at hand. To say that the Republicans will never win the presidency again is quit ignorant in my opinion... then again if retail pharmacy has taught me anything it's that ignorance/stupidity is par for the course with the general public. Though I will agree that the next generation seems as a whole quite liberal in aspects well beyond social issues (And of course all of the Mexicans flooding in are going to vote liberal).

 

[BidingMyTime]

All I am going to say is Rand Paul would be the *worst* candidate for anyone working in the DoD...

I assume you are basing that off of what he *says* and not his actual voting record, or his actual campaign finance record. Or perhaps you are basing it off his dad's Ron Paul's reputation. Rand Paul is not his dad, and his history seems that he would be more "pro-war" than his words would lead you to believe.

I gave it the old college try. But if you can't use an analogy to make a point, there is little you can do. It doesn't matter anyway. Unless they find pictures of Hillary sleeping the King of Saudia Arabia, the Republicans will never see the White House again. They are now the minority party nationwide. Since 1988, they only won the popular vote twice (1988 and 2004 losing 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 20012). The country is getting browner and younger and old white folk will not be able to hold on to power for much longer. If it weren't for gerrymandering the wouldn't have such a lock on the Congress.

Yeah, you seem to think there is a real difference between the 2 parties. I remember reading a book in the mid-90's called "Why there will never be another Democrat in the white house" or maybe it will be "Why there will never be another Republican in the white house." Haha, I don't even remember for sure now, either way, the book was wrong. And you will be wrong, the Democrats & Republicans literally take turns being in the white house, 8 - 12 years at a time (they have to make it slightly unpredictable.) Either a democrat or republican might get it this time...in 4 years, it will definitely be the Republican's turn. Not to fear though, neither party does anything different from the other party, so things will continue on, as they currently are.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Actually this was the book:

The Last Democrat. Why Bill Clinton Will Be The Last Democrat Americans Elect President.

Amazon product

The authors were completely wrong. Everyone has fantasies that the "other" party will fix all the mistakes the current party is doing.....but the cold reality is when the "other" party gets in office, they continue all of the policies of the former party. It's been this way, without fail for the last 50 years (OK, maybe Carter had some quirks of his own, but he didn't substantiate in any significant way from the Republicrat/Demopublican mandate.)

 

[PharmacistReb]

You literally ignore the fact that I state that nation has 31 Republican governors, control of the U.S. House and Senate, and the majority of state legislatures. And states like Maryland and Massachusetts just elected Republican governors in 2014.

In addition, gay marriage is being adopted by a great deal of Republicans and the Supreme Court likely makes it legal nationwide this year.

As much as you hate the GOP, your argument is not based in any kind of factual evidence. Let's at least have an honest debate on reality. Millenials not voting for GOP doesn't matter because the GOP has lost out on young vote for the last 25 years. This generation of Millenials is no different. And in addition, Millenials are not a potent voting bloc because of their lack of voting. The nation is getting much older and the country has become much redder and more GOP-dominated since Obama's election.

No party is going away. And you can't, with a straight face, say that the Democrats have anyone viable for 2016 other than Hillary. If Hillary's heart stops tomorrow, who would have a prayer against the GOP in Fall 2016?

Try and at least dilute your partisan nonsense with some facets of reality. To say that one party will never again control the White House is utterly deluded. Especially a party that dominates the nation in political seats with the exception of the presidency.

You can believe whatever you want. Yes they can take the Senate and the House. They will never sniff the White house again. The demographics are against them starting in 1992 the D's have a lock on 209 electoral votes. They will Never ever ever win:

California: 55
New York: 29
Pennsylvania: 20
New Jersey: 14
Illinois: 21
Minnesosta: 10
Wisconson: 11
All of the Northeast

The only large state the R's can count on is Texas. Florida flips back and forth depending on the election.

Your base is out of touch with the country. Gay marriage is a loser issue for the republicans with now 60% of the public now supporting gay marriage. Abortion is a loser issue for them.

The GOP Is Dying Off. Literally

Why The Republican Party Died

The Republicans can't get the millennials to vote for them in any numbers. You still have not explained how they have only won the popular vote twice since 1988. They elect Paul Ryan to Congress n Wisconson but Voted for Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and Obama. Minnesota elected Michelle Bachman to the house but repeated the above for President except for the two Reagan elections.

Pennsylvania, where I live, used to be a swing state. It's now as blue as blue can be.

 

[W19]

@PharmacistReb If voting was compulsory here, the GOP would be in big trouble. The GOP is dominating the political arena now because democrats usually don't vote in off-year elections..

I also got to give it to the GOP because they usually give their supporters things to go out to vote for (or against)...

 

[Caverject]

I assume you are basing that off of what he *says* and not his actual voting record, or his actual campaign finance record. Or perhaps you are basing it off his dad's Ron Paul's reputation. Rand Paul is not his dad, and his history seems that he would be more "pro-war" than his words would lead you to believe.

Don't assume. Of all the potential candidates, he's the worst. Ted Cruz is a close second...

 

[Sparda29]

There is a local Republican party headquarters near my house. I walked in there one time, saw it was literally all old white dudes and walked right out. Only reason Republicans are in power in my area of Long Island is because of the ridiculous property taxes that were put in place by the previous Democrat county chief.

 

[BenJammin]

There is a local Republican party headquarters near my house. I walked in there one time, saw it was literally all old white dudes and walked right out. Only reason Republicans are in power in my area of Long Island is because of the ridiculous property taxes that were put in place by the previous Democrat county chief.

Is this what they call "white guilt"?

 

[Sparda29]

Is this what they call "white guilt"?

I dunno but the douchiest representative from New York is from my area, Pete King. Such a ****ing war hawk and Patriot Act tool.

 

[Old Timer]

You literally ignore the fact that I state that nation has 31 Republican governors, control of the U.S. House and Senate, and the majority of state legislatures. And states like Maryland and Massachusetts just elected Republican governors in 2014.

I don't ignore it. In fact I pointed out the R's may be able to control Congress but will not capture the White House again unless the D's self destruct (It's always possible, they could nominate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren) It's easy. Most D's don't vote in off year elections. Once the R's conquered the state house they Gerrymandered the congressional map.

In addition, gay marriage is being adopted by a great deal of Republicans and the Supreme Court likely makes it legal nationwide this year.

Not a single Republican running for president supports Gay Marriage. The platform will be staunchly anti Gay Marriage. The base will not permit a pro Gay Marriage candidate to emerge as the presidential nominee. The Supreme court made abortion legal, how did the Republican base take that?

As much as you hate the GOP, your argument is not based in any kind of factual evidence. Let's at least have an honest debate on reality. Millenials not voting for GOP doesn't matter because the GOP has lost out on young vote for the last 25 years. This generation of Millenials is no different. And in addition, Millenials are not a potent voting bloc because of their lack of voting. The nation is getting much older and the country has become much redder and more GOP-dominated since Obama's election.

No, you are 100% wrong. I don't hate the Republicans. It is based on factual evidence, you just chose not to read either of the articles I posted. The millenials will show up and vote in a Presidential election and they will not vote for a candidate that will be able to win the support of the base of the party. The country has gotten more independent and the far right pablum does not appeal to them. The problem for the republicans is your party is getting older and whiter. The country is not going this way. The parts of the country that are Red are getting redder. That gains you no extra electoral votes. The Blue states are betting bluer and the swing states are purple (leaning blue).

No party is going away. And you can't, with a straight face, say that the Democrats have anyone viable for 2016 other than Hillary. If Hillary's heart stops tomorrow, who would have a prayer against the GOP in Fall 2016?

Well the old straw man rears his ugly head. I never said the Republican Party is going away. I said it would be almost impossible for them to regain the White House.

Try and at least dilute your partisan nonsense with some facets of reality. To say that one party will never again control the White House is utterly deluded. Especially a party that dominates the nation in political seats with the exception of the presidency.

Look at the electoral Map I showed you. When was the last time the Republicans carried one of the states in a Presidential election?

 

[BidingMyTime]

Don't assume. Of all the potential candidates, he's the worst. Ted Cruz is a close second...

What do you think I'm assuming? I'm not even sure what you are saying, you think he and Cruz are the worst candidate because they are the most pro-war, or are you saying they are the worst candidates because they are not pro-war? Cruz is far more pro-war than Rand-who I think based on his voting record is more pro-war then his words claim to be. (not assumptions, although I am giving some personal interpretation.) Even if either one of these were the worst candidate for someone employed by the DOD, I'm not sure how that applies to anyone here, as I'm pretty sure no one here works for the DOD (or do they have an in-house pharmacy I'm not aware of?)

Either way, you can rest assured I will not be voting for either of them, even if they were the only candidate on the ballot (I would probably write in WVC, eh, maybe I would write in SHC, her attitude isn't that much different from many presidential candidates, she is at least honest about it.)

 

[sosoo]

Paul Ryan wants to give a flat tax. that means more money in your pocket.... also if you buy /sell stocks and make profit, you will not have capital gains tax.... why aren't business minded folks in favor?

 

[BidingMyTime]

Paul Ryan wants to give a flat tax. that means more money in your pocket.... also if you buy /sell stocks and make profit, you will not have capital gains tax.... why aren't business minded folks in favor?

Maybe because we think he's lying? He has a history of being a HUGE spender, and I say that in comparision to his fellow politicians who are all, at the minimum *big* spenders. Hey, and for anyone who isn't happy with Obamacare, lets not forget that Ryan voted for the forerunner, Medicare Part D. And he also voted for building the Alaska "bridge to nowhere." I'm not sure if there wasn't any bail-out or spending increase that he didn't vote for.

Yea, he talks a good talk about restricting taxes....well, that won't work unless he is willing to cut back on spending (in case you have forgotten, then US is trillions of dollars in debt.) His actual voting history shows that he will give taxpayer money to any and all pet projects or bank bailouts who request it (apparently he doesn't believe fiscal responsibility extends to banks), and you expect me to believe he is going to actually cut or at least not raise taxes? I don't believe it.

If I had a boss that I knew was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and I knew that he was charging up the company credit card with useless items each week, and he promised me a raise if I kept working for him and put in a good word with the board for him to get a promotion to CEO.....no only wouldn't I believe him, I wouldn't risk the health of the already shaky business I worked for, by recommending him for CEO. Likewise, I won't be voting for Ryan.

Really people, quit listening to the clever speeches politicians give, and look at their actual voting records and histories.


[edited to fix funny typo]

 

[Old Timer]

Paul Ryan wants to give a flat tax. that means more money in your pocket.... also if you buy /sell stocks and make profit, you will not have capital gains tax.... why aren't business minded folks in favor?

Really, it would kill me. Sure the rate is flat but almost all deductions go away. Every time I look at one of these proposals in detail, I have to reach for the KY jell because I am about to get screwed.

 

[FarmD711]

Really, it would kill me. Sure the rate is flat but almost all deductions go away. Every time I look at one of these proposals in detail, I have to reach for the KY jell because I am about to get screwed.

As a single guy, I don't qualify for most deductions anyway, so I'm all for it. I get the mortgage interest and tax paid deductions. Don't qualify for child tax credits, earned income, student loan interest, don't have medical expenses. I'm all about flat rates and no deductions.

 

[PharmacistReb]

I don't ignore it. In fact I pointed out the R's may be able to control Congress but will not capture the White House again unless the D's self destruct (It's always possible, they could nominate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren) It's easy. Most D's don't vote in off year elections. Once the R's conquered the state house they Gerrymandered the congressional map.


Not a single Republican running for president supports Gay Marriage. The platform will be staunchly anti Gay Marriage. The base will not permit a pro Gay Marriage candidate to emerge as the presidential nominee. The Supreme court made abortion legal, how did the Republican base take that?



No, you are 100% wrong. I don't hate the Republicans. It is based on factual evidence, you just chose not to read either of the articles I posted. The millenials will show up and vote in a Presidential election and they will not vote for a candidate that will be able to win the support of the base of the party. The country has gotten more independent and the far right pablum does not appeal to them. The problem for the republicans is your party is getting older and whiter. The country is not going this way. The parts of the country that are Red are getting redder. That gains you no extra electoral votes. The Blue states are betting bluer and the swing states are purple (leaning blue).



Well the old straw man rears his ugly head. I never said the Republican Party is going away. I said it would be almost impossible for them to regain the White House.



Look at the electoral Map I showed you. When was the last time the Republicans carried one of the states in a Presidential election?

You never answered my question -- If Hillary Clinton's heart stops tomorrow, do the Democrats have a prayer in 2016? And who would be the candidate? Martin O'Malley? Liz Warren? Joe Biden (late night comedy's choice)? Bernie Sanders?

The Democratic party has the most shallow bench of the two parties and it's not close. Republicans are absolutely evolving on marriage regardless of your baseless opinion. In 2008, Obama was anti-gay marriage and said so repeatedly. He didn't come out as pro-gay marriage until his VP jumped the gun in early 2012.

The Republican party is the only party this election season with Hispanic candidates and candidates who are fluent in Spanish. The Democrats are traipsing out a relic of the 1990's and putting all their eggs in Hillary's aging basket.

I hope the Hillary camp adheres to such wisdom as yours.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Also, Old Timer, I will see your two articles and raise you an even newer one. May 22, 2015. "Democrats vanishing future" http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-vanishing-future-20150521

 

[PharmacistReb]

"By one new catch-all measure, a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler, Democrats are in their worst position since 1928. That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democratic presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination."

"This isn't an assessment of Democratic chances for a Senate majority in 2017; it's a glaring warning for the party's longer-term health. If Clinton can't extend the Democrats' presidential winning streak—a fundamental challenge, regardless of the political environment—the party's barren bench will cause even more alarm for the next presidential campaign. And if the Democrats' core constituencies don't show up for midterm elections—an outlook that's rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—Democrats have serious challenges in 2018 as well. It's why The New Yorker's liberal writer John Cassidy warned that a Clinton loss next year could "assign [Republicans] a position of dominance."

When the New Yorker starts making the case of a Republican-dominated America, then you know something is not going right for the left.

Obama's historic candidacy following the Bush wars and the economic decline is not the norm in presidential politics.

I'm not suggesting it's going to be a sure-win for either side in 2016. But I would probably tamp down the enthusiasm, Old; otherwise, you may be sorely disappointed.

 

[BenJammin]

Why do liberals not vote in midterm elections?

 

[W19]

Why do liberals not vote in midterm elections?

The fact of the matter is that democrats don't give their supporters something to vote for or against. On the flip side, the republicans are very good at that. If you listen to conservatives on the radio, you would think that the world is about to end, and Armageddon is near.

 

[PharmacistReb]

The fact of the matter is that democrats don't give their supporters something to vote for or against. On the flip side, the republicans are very good at that. If you listen to conservatives on the radio, you would think that the world is about to end, and Armageddon is near.

Which party is it that says we have to legislate against the Earth's changing climate? And if we don't, then we will cause a self-inflicted Armageddon? Which party always creates victims -- be it the climate, financial circumstance, work conditions, etc.

The Democratic party has made its existence by creating Armageddon. Obama's candidacy in 2008 was once based on his ability to lower the sea levels -- his own words. I'm not sure you can get much more "world is about to end" than that.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Here's the fact of the matter -- the GOP typically nominates as its candidate the most middle of the road, middle America, establishment type candidate. In the last fifty years, see Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, The Bush family, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan (before you say anything about Reagan, see his governance in California as it relates to pro-choice and raising taxes -- he was for it).

The Democrats typically elect the most brazen, far left nut-jobs that their party has to offer. In the last 60 years, see Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis. Some exceptions are Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy, and Walter Mondale.

It's always been the case and it's even moreso now. The Democratic party used to have the self-titled "Blue Dogs" in the middle. This contingent of the party has been pushed aside for the fringe element.

Take a look at the current leadership in Congress. The Republican puts up its centrists with Boehner and McConnell. The Democrats hoist up the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Who's closer to the middle?

The Republican party and the Democratic party both have fringe elements. But there is no doubt that the Democratic party is controlled by the fringe and the Republican party is controlled by the center. This is why you see Republicans winning gubernatorial seats in such states as Maryland and Massachusetts. When the alternative is some borderline socialist, the GOP has the upper hand.

 

[Jibby321]

Thoughts on Bernie sanders?

 

[PharmacistReb]

Thoughts on Bernie sanders?

He is a self-proclaimed socialist. He is an independent that caucuses with the Democrats. I like making money and think I'm already taxed too much. So my thoughts are he sucks.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Thoughts on Bernie sanders?

He'd probably fix the economy. Its been mismanaged for about 30 years now and needs a decisively leftist shift of some sort or else this economy will never get back on track.

 

[PharmacistReb]

He'd probably fix the economy. Its been mismanaged for about 30 years now and needs a decisively leftist shift of some sort or else this economy will never get back on track.

That would do it. Higher taxes is the best way to get the economy revved up. That way when pay more to the IRS, we'll have all that extra cash leftover for economic stimulus.

Brilliant.