|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I literally cannot listen to political discussions anymore.
Even the bits with Soledad O'Brien trying to point out that not every reduction in funding is a cut to services (with regards to the savings in medicare generated by Obama's health care bill), which should have been, for somebody like me, a "fuck yeah," moment, are just painful. It seems like there are never honest policy discussions anymore - facts are now what are being argued. Literally half of what I hear is "that never happened / yes that happened," and the ubiquitous phrase "the fact of the matter is," which means that the speaker is about to present his interpretation of a sound byte as a fact.
A number is a fact. A statistic is a fact. A quote is a fact. Everything else is an interpretation or an opinion, and half of those could be resolved easily via actual facts. But in this country, right now, people pick their own facts.
I have never felt such despair at our political process as I do now.
I'd love to use this blog for people who regard themselves as reasonable people to commiserate over how utterly painful it is to listen to anybody on television or the radio talk about politics.
I was listening to Real Time with Bill Maher just now, and it came to the (now) old debate between Ron Christie and Soledad O'Brien (with Maher condescendingly moderating as he frequently does) about whether or not the $716 billion reduction to medicare funding constitutes a reduction in services. I noted that indeed, payouts to providers would be declining, but that providers had supported the notion because of the increased overall volume of clientele they would see from a (hopefully) near-100%-insured populace, on top of far-reduced losses from emergency care walkouts; in addition, many who would previously not have been able to afford private insurance now receive federal subsidies, which SHOULD move them off of medicare's bankroll, which would allow for a reduction in overall funding to the program. O'Brien was trying to articulate this, but there was no effort from Christie to do anything but repeat that "it's a cut it's a cut it's a cut." There was no debate. No discussion. One party was trying to argue that there was nuance to the topic, and the other was trying to present his (very limited) interpretation as fact. You see this all over, and from both sides. (Although my bias says it's from one side more than the other, we'll leave that out.) I was able to listen for about 30 seconds and then it became literally physically painful.
Has anybody else experienced this? Listening to one half of an argument which is literally without nuance, without acknowledgement of the fact that the listeners (or debaters) are all reasonably intelligent adults? Attempting to get interested in politics and literally being repulsed by what they saw?
Or am I just getting old?
|
Hong Kong9123 Posts
I think part of the reason is that your primary sources for information are either: 1) partisan (American news sources), or 2) useless (comedy). Expand your information sources and you might find current events and politics a bit more palatable.
|
You really shouldn't make assumptions as to where I get my information. I use local and world sources, everything from KCRG (local to my city) to CNN to the BBC and Asahi Shimbun.
The problem isn't that people aren't reporting well (although they're not). The problem is what happens whenever you put two people from the opposite sides of the spectrum on a podium - they disagree about which universe they live in.
|
Hong Kong9123 Posts
Well the sources you isolated in your OP led me to write what I wrote.
I don't think you will ever have fulfilling discussion and debate about any issues outside of the academic activity that is real debate. Media is too structured around marketing and entertainment to actually ever grow a backbone and moderate political discussion in ways where clear winners of arguments are made distinct and rules are put in place that discourage the traditional fallacious (but effective) invectives that dominate now.
|
That's not the way it has to be, though. It's not just media that's to blame for this - politicians have actually discovered on their own that they can choose their own facts, and their constituents will believe it. Nobody wants to even entertain the notion that they might be wrong about their worldview anymore. Nobody wants to consider that there might be nuance to an issue that they're missing. That's what I'm saying. It's us.
|
If you think politics is just a bunch of cut-and-dry debating and fairness, you're not getting old as you said, you're naïve like a youngster. What you witnessed had the desired effect; Christie was stone-walling and wanted to move on. Politics is all dirty, behind-the-scenes, under-the-table; it is very interpersonal and the TV networks do not represent what is going on in the slightest. They just want to package political news in some way to draw the most eyes, so they try and set up heated debates on their talk shows, crap like that. The two parties don't hate each other 10% as much as they make it seem to the media, and most of them are buddy-buddy both on and off The Hill.
|
I think your biggest problem is that you think that there should be a clear winner and a clear loser but the issues being discussed are way more complex then just a right and a wrong. Your example is a good one where even simple things like numbers can be presented in different ways to emphasize different sides of the same issue. Is it right to take money out of medicare to pay for something else or is it ok because the money is going to be replaced by different means? One says it's not ok, the other says it is. You are no longer dealing with facts but opinions. Also as mentioned before the networks have very little interest to make issues clear since the point of media is to entertain and the kind of conflicts that result from heated debates is entertaining.
But again your whole premise is that someone is fundamentally right and someone else is fundamentally wrong:
Nobody wants to even entertain the notion that they might be wrong about their worldview anymore.
This is a naive way of looking at things since in this case neither the republican nor the democrat's worldview is wrong. It is just different. This will cause debates that are fundamentally unsolvable and will never have a clear resolution. The only thing you can do is to try to persuade those that are still undecided on which way they like best. This is the way politics have been done since ancient Greece (and probably even before that, although it wasn't democratic and the policies were decided autocratically by those that held power) so this is nothing new and no reason to despair. Everything is working the way it was always meant to work.
|
There's two problems at work here. First is the fact that politics has become a career. All politicians care about is winning the next election, so they can keep that nice, cushy job. Second, is that the news media only cares about ratings, not actual journalism. They treat elections the same a sport. Practically no reporting gets done on the actual meat of policies. They only report on how this or that policy will affect so-and-so's election, or whichever party's position in Congress.
And FryBender, I agree it isn't always cut-and-dry right-and-wrong, but you have to admit that it IS sometimes. Look at all the people who claim Obama is either not a citizen, is a Muslim, a communist, a Zionist, or some crazy combination. They've been shown pretty thoroughly to be wrong, but they still persist.
|
One aspect of traditional Christian morality that I think readily applies itself to a great variety of situations is the acknowledgement of despair as the worst sin, as there is nothing more divisive, less positive, or more ego-centric. It requires the utmost of hubris to assume that ones' perspective is diverse and informed enough to warrant despair, and it is a noble cause to wake up each day and say, "I will not go gentle into the night of despair; I will continue searching."
|
On September 07 2012 01:49 FryBender wrote:
I think your biggest problem is that you think that there should be a clear winner and a clear loser but the issues being discussed are way more complex then just a right and a wrong. Your example is a good one where even simple things like numbers can be presented in different ways to emphasize different sides of the same issue. Is it right to take money out of medicare to pay for something else or is it ok because the money is going to be replaced by different means? One says it's not ok, the other says it is. You are no longer dealing with facts but opinions. Also as mentioned before the networks have very little interest to make issues clear since the point of media is to entertain and the kind of conflicts that result from heated debates is entertaining.
I don't think that at all, and I'm not sure that you actually read my posts; it sounds like you picked one quote and ran with it.
The issues we're talking about are extremely complex and nuanced. In order to come to some sort of understanding and agreement as to how to tackle them, we first have to acknowledge the facts present in those issues. The numbers; the empirical evidence; the measurable; where's the money coming from, where's it going, who's going to lose on it. All of that is fact. There is a right and a wrong answer. The right answer is the fact; the wrong answer is everything else. You can only start coming to a useful conclusion once you both agree on the facts.
Even your bit about medicare missed the nuance - it's not about whether it's right or wrong to take money out of medicare yet. It's acknowledging where the money from medicare is coming from; is it honestly a reduction in services to current recipients? Or is the money coming out of the system because it's no longer needed there? We can't talk about who is hurt and who benefits from money coming out of the program until we understand where the money is coming from. That's what I'm saying, and that's what you missed.
On September 07 2012 01:49 FryBender wrote:But again your whole premise is that someone is fundamentally right and someone else is fundamentally wrong: Show nested quote + Nobody wants to even entertain the notion that they might be wrong about their worldview anymore. This is a naive way of looking at things since in this case neither the republican nor the democrat's worldview is wrong. It is just different. This will cause debates that are fundamentally unsolvable and will never have a clear resolution. The only thing you can do is to try to persuade those that are still undecided on which way they like best. This is the way politics have been done since ancient Greece (and probably even before that, although it wasn't democratic and the policies were decided autocratically by those that held power) so this is nothing new and no reason to despair. Everything is working the way it was always meant to work.
And again, no it's not, and you really pulled that out of your butt.
Some people are wrong about their worldview. When part of your worldview is based on a non-fact, on something that is blatantly false, your worldview is wrong. A fiscal conservative is not wrong about his worldview, nor is a fiscal progressive. Somebody who thinks that Obama is untrustworthy and Obama's government is evil because he is anti-American and a secret Muslim is wrong about their worldview, because their worldview is based on absolutely nothing that is true.
There are no right answers, but there are wrong answers.
In the past, facts were nowhere near as hotly disputed as they are now. Arguments have always been made, and persuasion has always happened, and always will happen, but one of the reasons that we are seeing unprecedented levels of divisiveness across the aisle is because in the past, some things simply weren't an issue, because the facts were agreed on by both sides. The fight over raising the debt ceiling has never happened in the past because in the past, nobody ever even entertained the idea that holding America's credit rating hostage for any reason was ever a worthwhile trade, because they based their worldview on facts.
|
On September 07 2012 02:11 Millitron wrote:
And FryBender, I agree it isn't always cut-and-dry right-and-wrong, but you have to admit that it IS sometimes. Look at all the people who claim Obama is either not a citizen, is a Muslim, a communist, a Zionist, or some crazy combination. They've been shown pretty thoroughly to be wrong, but they still persist.
Fair enough. Of course there will be outrageous things said that are ridiculous (No Obama is not planning to give control of the Federal Government to the UN and Bush is not a war criminal). But luckily they don't get too much traction in mainstream discussion and are used much more by the fringe. I believe the OP was complaining more about the fact that politics seem to be much more about arguing then trying to come to a conclusion but that's how it's always been and is actually the point of political discussion. It is not to persuade the other person (everyone knows that's impossible) but to persuade those that are still undecided. Therefore there is no need to have an open mind when you're having a political discussion. That would actually be counterproductive.
|
On September 07 2012 02:41 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:11 Millitron wrote:
And FryBender, I agree it isn't always cut-and-dry right-and-wrong, but you have to admit that it IS sometimes. Look at all the people who claim Obama is either not a citizen, is a Muslim, a communist, a Zionist, or some crazy combination. They've been shown pretty thoroughly to be wrong, but they still persist. Fair enough. Of course there will be outrageous things said that are ridiculous (No Obama is not planning to give control of the Federal Government to the UN and Bush is not a war criminal). But luckily they don't get too much traction in mainstream discussion and are used much more by the fringe.
You clearly did not watch the Birther debacle unfold on CNN.
I believe the OP was complaining more about the fact that politics seem to be much more about arguing then trying to come to a conclusion but that's how it's always been and is actually the point of political discussion. It is not to persuade the other person (everyone knows that's impossible) but to persuade those that are still undecided. Therefore there is no need to have an open mind when you're having a political discussion. That would actually be counterproductive.
Further support for my claim that you didn't actually read the OP.
It's not that I'm upset that we can't come to a conclusion. I'm upset that we can't even acknowledge where fact lives. We invent and substitute our own facts to fit our worldview, rather than inventing our worldview to fit our facts.
Also, the idea that having an open mind is counterproductive to politics is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Maybe you are incapable of being persuaded, but those of us who know enough to know that we don't know much of anything are quite open to the idea that our ideas are wrong. If I'm supporting climate change legislation and I find definitive proof supported by the vast bulk of scientific research, which is widely accepted in peer-reviewed and respected scientific journals, that climate change is natural and has no manmade components, I'm going to stop supporting climate change legislation.
I think it might just be you that wouldn't.
|
On September 07 2012 02:48 Vega62a wrote:
Also, the idea that having an open mind is counterproductive to politics is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Maybe you are incapable of being persuaded, but those of us who know enough to know that we don't know much of anything are quite open to the idea that our ideas are wrong. If I'm supporting climate change legislation and I find definitive proof supported by the vast bulk of scientific research, which is widely accepted in peer-reviewed and respected scientific journals, that climate change is natural and has no manmade components, I'm going to stop supporting climate change legislation.
I think it might just be you that wouldn't.
This is irony at its finest. You are so upset that I acknowledge the fact that political talking heads are not open minded and don't care what the other side has to say that you think it's impossible that I am right. You prove my point that most people enter discussions with an already formed opinion and don;t care what the other side has to say. Instead you will come up with more reasons of why you are right and I'm wrong. Clearly I must be wrong and I must have not read the OP because I disagree with you. I am also dumb and do not understand what facts are because, again I disagree with you. I hope you do realize that just as I originally stated most discussions are not designed to change the opinion of the person you are arguing with but to persuade the undecided. Are you honestly telling me that you can see a scenario where you would ever agree with me? Or will you keep coming up with different reasons of why I am wrong: I didn't read the OP I don't know what I'm talking about, I must be a child, or I...gasp... would dare not support legislation on climate control that does nothing to actually solve the problem but makes us all feel so much better that we're saving the planet by driving our Priuses.
Also just to address the whole birther/muslim/Romney-tortures-small-animals-in-his-spare-time argument about how politics have all of a sudden went to the gutter and people don't care about facts:
How many people do you actually think changed their minds after hearing that Obama might not have actually been born in the USA? Or that Romney put his dog in a dog carrier on a roof of a car? I can tell you how many. None. Are you telling me that if Donald Trump actually had proof positive that Obama was born in the US that he would all of a sudden become an Obama supporter???? No of course not. It's just an easy and catchy thing to talk about as his reason for not liking Obama. Is that the actual reason he doesn't like Obama? Of course not. He hates Obama because Obama is going to require him to provide health insurance for all his maids in all of his Trump towers. But if he says that then he looks mean so he uses the birther excuse. Fine whatever who care. As far as the whole birther debate on CNN (or Fox news, or MSNBC) it's already been pointed out to you earlier by someone other then me that those channels are entertainment. You want real policy debate watch CSPAN-2 (CSPAN1 actually has commentary and opinion programs). If you can stay awake through the 45th procedural roll call of the day followed by a 45 minute riveting discussion of the budget proposal of next year's Department of Agriculture expenditure on ethanol allocated soy bean production you'll be begging for the birthers.
|
Politicians are just absoltely horrible. Both parites straight up lie, and really bend the truth when they are debating, or giving speeches.
Political commentators are even worse. They have to try and make a story. I argue it is impossible to know the truth. No one reads the fine print, or footnotes in politics without a biased eye.
This is why, for now the third election, I will vote for myself. I did not win the last two elections. But probablilty states I most likely got more votes than you did.
|
On September 07 2012 02:37 Vega62a wrote:
And again, no it's not, and you really pulled that out of your butt.
On September 07 2012 02:37 Vega62a wrote:
There are no right answers, but there are wrong answers.
As usual, frustrated OP writes emotionally charged critical post of dubious merit, then is highly critical of those taking the time to read and reply to said post. Don't forget to include plenty of language that makes OP sound like they're a college sophomore.
If you just want to hear that you're right in every way, you probably should avoid webforums ...
|
One of the difficulties is that facts are hard to get. For instance, economics discussions oftentimes revolve around interventionism vs. free market. There's no clear cut answer right now. Economics PhDs from both sides write "scientific" papers and books dedicated to defending one side of the argument. Which bunch of PhDs is right? People barge in here and pretend to have an answer (I'm guilty) when people who are actually competent* are split on the issue. I'm sure they're both right on some levels, but when we're talking about handling the economy, who's got the answer that'll better support human development?
Same thing about moral arguments, except it's worse. For economics, nobody has a perfect answer but perhaps one exists - for morality, there's no perfect answer.
Everything is hard to defend because there's no possible objectivity and no answers, and people are very defensive of their opinions. I know that personally I'm a man of principles and I have a hard time letting go of an argument when I'm basically trying to change someone's mind (which is futile), because I can't conceive that a person would live their life believing in things that I consider ridiculous.
I'll admit that I'm getting burned out on political argument even though politics is my field of study, because I'm increasingly running into people who clearly don't know what they're talking about. There's a difference between someone whom I consider to be wrong and someone who's obviously an ignorant shit, pardon my language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
I used to have long back-and-forth arguments with intelligent people who actually challenged and frankly quite often CHANGED my way to look at things, even occasionally in significant ways, and made me realize that my views were immature and while they reflected my morals and values, they needed to be refined to reflect an extremely complex reality that needs to be thoroughly studied to be understood. Morals alone don't allow for countries of hundreds of millions of citizen to flourish.
|
On September 07 2012 02:53 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:48 Vega62a wrote:
Also, the idea that having an open mind is counterproductive to politics is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Maybe you are incapable of being persuaded, but those of us who know enough to know that we don't know much of anything are quite open to the idea that our ideas are wrong. If I'm supporting climate change legislation and I find definitive proof supported by the vast bulk of scientific research, which is widely accepted in peer-reviewed and respected scientific journals, that climate change is natural and has no manmade components, I'm going to stop supporting climate change legislation.
I think it might just be you that wouldn't. This is irony at its finest. You are so upset that I acknowledge the fact that political talking heads are not open minded and don't care what the other side has to say that you think it's impossible that I am right. You prove my point that most people enter discussions with an already formed opinion and don;t care what the other side has to say. Instead you will come up with more reasons of why you are right and I'm wrong. Clearly I must be wrong and I must have not read the OP because I disagree with you. I am also dumb and do not understand what facts are because, again I disagree with you. I hope you do realize that just as I originally stated most discussions are not designed to change the opinion of the person you are arguing with but to persuade the undecided. Are you honestly telling me that you can see a scenario where you would ever agree with me? Or will you keep coming up with different reasons of why I am wrong: I didn't read the OP I don't know what I'm talking about, I must be a child, or I...gasp... would dare not support legislation on climate control that does nothing to actually solve the problem but makes us all feel so much better that we're saving the planet by driving our Priuses.
I don't even think you know what you're arguing about. You're arguing to the side of me instead of at me.
The idea that people SHOULD NOT be open-minded in political discussions is absurd. I did not dispute that they ARE NOT. I challenge you to prove that they SHOULD not be open-minded.
I never declared my political allegiances one way or the other. My example was hypothetical.
On September 07 2012 03:40 pigmanbear wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:37 Vega62a wrote:
And again, no it's not, and you really pulled that out of your butt.
Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:37 Vega62a wrote:
There are no right answers, but there are wrong answers.
As usual, frustrated OP writes emotionally charged critical post of dubious merit, then is highly critical of those taking the time to read and reply to said post. Don't forget to include plenty of language that makes OP sound like they're a college sophomore. If you just want to hear that you're right in every way, you probably should avoid webforums ...
The first quote was certainly a mistake on my part. I won't edit it out because I won't avoid accountability, but I'll apologize.
The second quote was actually really legitimate, and I'm curious as to how you're using it to denote that I'm frustrated. There are no right answers to how to solve our nations problems, but there are a bunch of wrong answers.
|
I was tired of politics before I could even vote.
|
On September 07 2012 04:05 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:53 FryBender wrote:On September 07 2012 02:48 Vega62a wrote:
Also, the idea that having an open mind is counterproductive to politics is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Maybe you are incapable of being persuaded, but those of us who know enough to know that we don't know much of anything are quite open to the idea that our ideas are wrong. If I'm supporting climate change legislation and I find definitive proof supported by the vast bulk of scientific research, which is widely accepted in peer-reviewed and respected scientific journals, that climate change is natural and has no manmade components, I'm going to stop supporting climate change legislation.
I think it might just be you that wouldn't. This is irony at its finest. You are so upset that I acknowledge the fact that political talking heads are not open minded and don't care what the other side has to say that you think it's impossible that I am right. You prove my point that most people enter discussions with an already formed opinion and don;t care what the other side has to say. Instead you will come up with more reasons of why you are right and I'm wrong. Clearly I must be wrong and I must have not read the OP because I disagree with you. I am also dumb and do not understand what facts are because, again I disagree with you. I hope you do realize that just as I originally stated most discussions are not designed to change the opinion of the person you are arguing with but to persuade the undecided. Are you honestly telling me that you can see a scenario where you would ever agree with me? Or will you keep coming up with different reasons of why I am wrong: I didn't read the OP I don't know what I'm talking about, I must be a child, or I...gasp... would dare not support legislation on climate control that does nothing to actually solve the problem but makes us all feel so much better that we're saving the planet by driving our Priuses. I don't even think you know what you're arguing about. You're arguing to the side of me instead of at me. The idea that people SHOULD NOT be open-minded in political discussions is absurd. I did not dispute that they ARE NOT. I challenge you to prove that they SHOULD not be open-minded. I never declared my political allegiances one way or the other. My example was hypothetical.
Challenge Accepted:
Pigmanbear wrote:
If you think politics is just a bunch of cut-and-dry debating and fairness, you're not getting old as you said, you're naïve like a youngster. What you witnessed had the desired effect; Christie was stone-walling and wanted to move on. Politics is all dirty, behind-the-scenes, under-the-table; it is very interpersonal and the TV networks do not represent what is going on in the slightest. They just want to package political news in some way to draw the most eyes, so they try and set up heated debates on their talk shows, crap like that. The two parties don't hate each other 10% as much as they make it seem to the media, and most of them are buddy-buddy both on and off The Hill.
I hope that that proves my point.
But if it doesn't, my point is that policy decisions should not, and are not, made on cable news. What you don't like is that a political party is trying to prove it's point (most likely because you disagree with it). If you're trying to persuade others to your view it would be counterproductive to agree with someone who is arguing with you. Chrisitie was not asking O'Brien what the Republican platform should be. He was saying cuts cuts cuts because that is the Republican position. Period. There is no discussion there. He should not be open minded because that would be a diservice to his party which he represents.
|
On September 07 2012 04:32 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:05 Vega62a wrote:On September 07 2012 02:53 FryBender wrote:On September 07 2012 02:48 Vega62a wrote:
Also, the idea that having an open mind is counterproductive to politics is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Maybe you are incapable of being persuaded, but those of us who know enough to know that we don't know much of anything are quite open to the idea that our ideas are wrong. If I'm supporting climate change legislation and I find definitive proof supported by the vast bulk of scientific research, which is widely accepted in peer-reviewed and respected scientific journals, that climate change is natural and has no manmade components, I'm going to stop supporting climate change legislation.
I think it might just be you that wouldn't. This is irony at its finest. You are so upset that I acknowledge the fact that political talking heads are not open minded and don't care what the other side has to say that you think it's impossible that I am right. You prove my point that most people enter discussions with an already formed opinion and don;t care what the other side has to say. Instead you will come up with more reasons of why you are right and I'm wrong. Clearly I must be wrong and I must have not read the OP because I disagree with you. I am also dumb and do not understand what facts are because, again I disagree with you. I hope you do realize that just as I originally stated most discussions are not designed to change the opinion of the person you are arguing with but to persuade the undecided. Are you honestly telling me that you can see a scenario where you would ever agree with me? Or will you keep coming up with different reasons of why I am wrong: I didn't read the OP I don't know what I'm talking about, I must be a child, or I...gasp... would dare not support legislation on climate control that does nothing to actually solve the problem but makes us all feel so much better that we're saving the planet by driving our Priuses. I don't even think you know what you're arguing about. You're arguing to the side of me instead of at me. The idea that people SHOULD NOT be open-minded in political discussions is absurd. I did not dispute that they ARE NOT. I challenge you to prove that they SHOULD not be open-minded. I never declared my political allegiances one way or the other. My example was hypothetical. Challenge Accepted: Show nested quote + Pigmanbear wrote:
If you think politics is just a bunch of cut-and-dry debating and fairness, you're not getting old as you said, you're naïve like a youngster. What you witnessed had the desired effect; Christie was stone-walling and wanted to move on. Politics is all dirty, behind-the-scenes, under-the-table; it is very interpersonal and the TV networks do not represent what is going on in the slightest. They just want to package political news in some way to draw the most eyes, so they try and set up heated debates on their talk shows, crap like that. The two parties don't hate each other 10% as much as they make it seem to the media, and most of them are buddy-buddy both on and off The Hill.
I hope that that proves my point. But if it doesn't, my point is that policy decisions should not, and are not, made on cable news. What you don't like is that a political party is trying to prove it's point (most likely because you disagree with it). If you're trying to persuade others to your view it would be counterproductive to agree with someone who is arguing with you. Chrisitie was not asking O'Brien what the Republican platform should be. He was saying cuts cuts cuts because that is the Republican position. Period. There is no discussion there. He should not be open minded because that would be a diservice to his party which he represents.
The republican party is smarter than that. They fully well understand that the $716 billion reduction in medicare is not a reduction in services. They are using it to hit the Obama administration with. Policy is not made on cable news, but that's not what I'm saying either. Policy is discussed on cable news, and new minds are applied to it, but they can't even get past what's fact and what's not. Lying on television about what is the truth is a disservice to the country which his party represents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
