|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers?
Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women).
There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear.
|
For the second time in a week, Medicare is complicating an already fraught debate over the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
A recent draft of the healthcare transparency section of TPP released by Wikileaks on Wednesday reveals the deal would make Medicare vulnerable to legal challenges from pharmaceutical companies and jeopardize future attempts by the insurer to negotiate lower drug prices.
In a modest victory for global health care advocates, however, the leaked draft does not contain previous language explicitly protecting prescription drug prices from being marked down by government insurers.
Athough the TPP section requiring national-government health authorities to abide by “transparency and procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products and medical devices” was long suspected to apply to Medicare, the draft text released Wednesday, which dates to December 2014, marks the first explicit mention of Medicare. The new rules would not apply to state or provincial health authorities, which in the U.S. include Medicaid.
The TPP section requires countries to share decisions about pricing and regulation of drugs with pharmaceutical manufacturers, provide opportunity for comment on those decisions and create a process through which those decisions can be reviewed at the request of affected companies.
Source
|
On June 11 2015 07:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +For the second time in a week, Medicare is complicating an already fraught debate over the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
A recent draft of the healthcare transparency section of TPP released by Wikileaks on Wednesday reveals the deal would make Medicare vulnerable to legal challenges from pharmaceutical companies and jeopardize future attempts by the insurer to negotiate lower drug prices.
In a modest victory for global health care advocates, however, the leaked draft does not contain previous language explicitly protecting prescription drug prices from being marked down by government insurers.
Athough the TPP section requiring national-government health authorities to abide by “transparency and procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products and medical devices” was long suspected to apply to Medicare, the draft text released Wednesday, which dates to December 2014, marks the first explicit mention of Medicare. The new rules would not apply to state or provincial health authorities, which in the U.S. include Medicaid.
The TPP section requires countries to share decisions about pricing and regulation of drugs with pharmaceutical manufacturers, provide opportunity for comment on those decisions and create a process through which those decisions can be reviewed at the request of affected companies. Source
Note: this is not an objective news story.
|
On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear.
If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position.
That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point.
|
On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
I sincerely doubt it.
|
On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point.
Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition.
If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad?
|
On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point.
If we get a candidate that is not Karl Rove approved, then probably. Bush II ran as a conservative and did fine, whereas he governed way to the left of his campaigns, McCain was (before running against Obama) a NYT/WaPo approved "Maverick"/moderate, he lost, and lets face it, had 0% chance based on the economy. Romney is also a (before the campaign) moderate who was incapable of articulating conservative positions, or even really attacking liberal positions. Bush III seems to be nothing different than a Romney when it comes to being a moderate with no rhetorical skill or appreciation for conservative ideas.
The Tea Party has, electorally, been the successful wing of the Republican Party, while the "establishment" wing has been holding it back by mounting personal attacks and overwhelming it with money in primaries. Plus the establishment has attempted to brand all failing Republican candidates as "Tea Party" such as Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock, then they claim "successes" like Mcconnel winning a general election that the Tea Party candidate also would have won (probably even more handily).
Presidentially, Perry was the Tea Party candidate in the last round, and he was just a poor debater (some people think he had some sort of back thing), but they had a weak bench because of the 06 and 08 disasters so it was a bunch of weirdos + Romney + Perry. So, if its like Walker vs. Sanders, and Sanders wins, I'd really say the party needs to evaluate whether their ideals can win a Presidential election.
|
On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad?
I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual.
|
On June 11 2015 08:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. If we get a candidate that is not Karl Rove approved, then probably. Bush II ran as a conservative and did fine, whereas he governed way to the left of his campaigns, McCain was (before running against Obama) a NYT/WaPo approved "Maverick"/moderate, he lost, and lets face it, had 0% chance based on the economy. Romney is also a (before the campaign) moderate who was incapable of articulating conservative positions, or even really attacking liberal positions. Bush III seems to be nothing different than a Romney when it comes to being a moderate with no rhetorical skill or appreciation for conservative ideas. The Tea Party has, electorally, been the successful wing of the Republican Party, while the "establishment" wing has been holding it back by mounting personal attacks and overwhelming it with money in primaries. Plus the establishment has attempted to brand all failing Republican candidates as "Tea Party" such as Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock, then they claim "successes" like Mcconnel winning a general election that the Tea Party candidate also would have won (probably even more handily). Presidentially, Perry was the Tea Party candidate in the last round, and he was just a poor debater (some people think he had some sort of back thing), but they had a weak bench because of the 06 and 08 disasters so it was a bunch of weirdos + Romney + Perry. So, if its like Walker vs. Sanders, and Sanders wins, I'd really say the party needs to evaluate whether their ideals can win a Presidential election.
Just for the record, Ron Paul started the Tea Party and then it got hijacked by the other wings of the party (Neo-Cons/Social Cons). Those people who call themselves Tea Party now are a joke. They cheered on all the Bush years. We were there protesting in 2004 and 2005, the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, etc.
|
On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual.
Fair enough.
If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to?
|
The reason why no one wants to admit when they are wrong is because then the other side will use that to justify saying that they are wrong about everything. Both sides have their flaws but they are so afraid to lose large amounts pf credibility that they will staunchly refuse to admit when something about their ideology needs to be reworked because it isn't working. People view politics as if its a fucking competition instead of people coming together to decide on the best policies.
|
On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to?
Which "police policies" are you referring to?
I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at.
It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other.
Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede?
|
On June 11 2015 09:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 08:56 cLutZ wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. If we get a candidate that is not Karl Rove approved, then probably. Bush II ran as a conservative and did fine, whereas he governed way to the left of his campaigns, McCain was (before running against Obama) a NYT/WaPo approved "Maverick"/moderate, he lost, and lets face it, had 0% chance based on the economy. Romney is also a (before the campaign) moderate who was incapable of articulating conservative positions, or even really attacking liberal positions. Bush III seems to be nothing different than a Romney when it comes to being a moderate with no rhetorical skill or appreciation for conservative ideas. The Tea Party has, electorally, been the successful wing of the Republican Party, while the "establishment" wing has been holding it back by mounting personal attacks and overwhelming it with money in primaries. Plus the establishment has attempted to brand all failing Republican candidates as "Tea Party" such as Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock, then they claim "successes" like Mcconnel winning a general election that the Tea Party candidate also would have won (probably even more handily). Presidentially, Perry was the Tea Party candidate in the last round, and he was just a poor debater (some people think he had some sort of back thing), but they had a weak bench because of the 06 and 08 disasters so it was a bunch of weirdos + Romney + Perry. So, if its like Walker vs. Sanders, and Sanders wins, I'd really say the party needs to evaluate whether their ideals can win a Presidential election. Just for the record, Ron Paul started the Tea Party and then it got hijacked by the other wings of the party (Neo-Cons/Social Cons). Those people who call themselves Tea Party now are a joke. They cheered on all the Bush years. We were there protesting in 2004 and 2005, the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, etc.
I think its a simple situation. You think of the GOP like a bunch of hot dog restaurants, and they weren't doing so great. All the sudden a couple think of this awesome thing called the "hamburger" and do really well with it. 3 things essentially happen: A bunch of hot dog places start calling their hot dogs "hamburgers", a couple of old hot dog shops attack the hamburger as unsafe (and point to all cases of food poisoning at hamburger shops), and a couple of hot dog places legitimately start making hamburgers.
|
On June 11 2015 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to? Which "police policies" are you referring to? I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at. It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other. Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede?
I'm not sure which policies are to blame, but you've been quite critical of police practices, or at least outcomes, in major liberal cities lately.
As for your clarification, both parties have things that are supported by the base and things that are supported more broadly. I don't think either D's or R's will suddenly reject what appeals to their core voters. If you take an issue like gay marriage, R's will slowly accept it as younger voters and politicians replace the old. I think it's the same for D's as well when it comes to something like women's issues that are still stuck in the 1960's.
|
On June 11 2015 09:33 Slaughter wrote:
The reason why no one wants to admit when they are wrong is because then the other side will use that to justify saying that they are wrong about everything. Both sides have their flaws but they are so afraid to lose large amounts pf credibility that they will staunchly refuse to admit when something about their ideology needs to be reworked because it isn't working. People view politics as if its a fucking competition instead of people coming together to decide on the best policies.
lol, yep. pretty much 
|
On June 11 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to? Which "police policies" are you referring to? I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at. It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other. Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede? I'm not sure which policies are to blame, but you've been quite critical of police practices, or at least outcomes, in major liberal cities lately. As for your clarification, both parties have things that are supported by the base and things that are supported more broadly. I don't think either D's or R's will suddenly reject what appeals to their core voters. If you take an issue like gay marriage, R's will slowly accept it as younger voters and politicians replace the old. I think it's the same for D's as well when it comes to something like women's issues that are still stuck in the 1960's.
So you didn't have any policy in mind? Surely if I was critical of them you would be able to recall one?
|
On June 11 2015 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to? Which "police policies" are you referring to? I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at. It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other. Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede? I'm not sure which policies are to blame, but you've been quite critical of police practices, or at least outcomes, in major liberal cities lately. As for your clarification, both parties have things that are supported by the base and things that are supported more broadly. I don't think either D's or R's will suddenly reject what appeals to their core voters. If you take an issue like gay marriage, R's will slowly accept it as younger voters and politicians replace the old. I think it's the same for D's as well when it comes to something like women's issues that are still stuck in the 1960's. So you didn't have any policy in mind? Surely if I was critical of them you would be able to recall one?
Are you now telling me that you have zero criticisms of police in the US?
|
On June 11 2015 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would conservatives admit it was their policies and not their politicians that are losers if Bernie Sanders managed to win (as remote as a possibility as that seems to some people)?
Or would they continue to blame their messengers? Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women). There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to? Which "police policies" are you referring to? I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at. It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other. Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede? I'm not sure which policies are to blame, but you've been quite critical of police practices, or at least outcomes, in major liberal cities lately. As for your clarification, both parties have things that are supported by the base and things that are supported more broadly. I don't think either D's or R's will suddenly reject what appeals to their core voters. If you take an issue like gay marriage, R's will slowly accept it as younger voters and politicians replace the old. I think it's the same for D's as well when it comes to something like women's issues that are still stuck in the 1960's. So you didn't have any policy in mind? Surely if I was critical of them you would be able to recall one? Are you now telling me that you have zero criticisms of police in the US?
No, I'm not. I'm asking what policies or criticisms you think would be 'errors' that liberals would/should admit to (in this hypothetical agreement)?
|
On June 11 2015 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Wouldn't it depend on how things play out? When Romney lost it was due in no small part to a very dirty primary, Romney coming off as cold, and Democrats pushing messages that felt good, but were sometimes dishonest (ex. War on Women).
There were policy errors as well (ex. Romney's tax plan didn't get the details right) but how one differentiates and weights those errors isn't really clear. If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position. That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to? Which "police policies" are you referring to? I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at. It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other. Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede? I'm not sure which policies are to blame, but you've been quite critical of police practices, or at least outcomes, in major liberal cities lately. As for your clarification, both parties have things that are supported by the base and things that are supported more broadly. I don't think either D's or R's will suddenly reject what appeals to their core voters. If you take an issue like gay marriage, R's will slowly accept it as younger voters and politicians replace the old. I think it's the same for D's as well when it comes to something like women's issues that are still stuck in the 1960's. So you didn't have any policy in mind? Surely if I was critical of them you would be able to recall one? Are you now telling me that you have zero criticisms of police in the US? No, I'm not. I'm asking what policies or criticisms you think would be 'errors' that liberals would/should admit to (in this hypothetical agreement)?
Well you've been critical of police forces in liberal cities, so I would think that the liberals running those police forces would bear responsibility. I take it you object to that?
|
On June 11 2015 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 09:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2015 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2015 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If it were Hillary they lost to (by less than 5% or so) I might buy that. But Bernie stands in such stark contrast to so much of what the GOP stands for and clearly is going to have to work harder than any top tier Republican to both expose and explain his position.
That being the case a loss to Bernie is far beyond a loss based on messenger. Even if the blame is to be placed on the messenger, one has to look to the GOP and it's constituents for not presenting the 'right' messenger at this point. Well if you lose an election it's probably some combination of bad policy / bad messaging / bad candidate. There really isn't anything new there, even if Bernie runs in opposition. If the GOP wins do you think that liberals like yourself will admit that your policies are bad? I don't think they are really the same situation, but I'd take that deal if it was mutual. Fair enough. If that happens do you think that the police policies that you've been critical of will be one of the errors that liberals admit to? Which "police policies" are you referring to? I think Slaughter makes a good point as your comment kind of hints at. It might not have been clear but I'm talking about policies that the party pushes but the majority of Americans oppose or don't support. Not just any policy position mostly supported by one party over the other. Of course the question would go right back in that if Democrats won would the other side of the police debate also concede? I'm not sure which policies are to blame, but you've been quite critical of police practices, or at least outcomes, in major liberal cities lately. As for your clarification, both parties have things that are supported by the base and things that are supported more broadly. I don't think either D's or R's will suddenly reject what appeals to their core voters. If you take an issue like gay marriage, R's will slowly accept it as younger voters and politicians replace the old. I think it's the same for D's as well when it comes to something like women's issues that are still stuck in the 1960's. So you didn't have any policy in mind? Surely if I was critical of them you would be able to recall one? Are you now telling me that you have zero criticisms of police in the US? No, I'm not. I'm asking what policies or criticisms you think would be 'errors' that liberals would/should admit to (in this hypothetical agreement)? Well you've been critical of police forces in liberal cities, so I would think that the liberals running those police forces would bear responsibility. I take it you object to that?
No, they certainly share responsibility with the police forces themselves. Considering what has been the response from police unions and officers in contentious departments to criticisms about their practices I personally put more blame on the police themselves than one party or the other.
The exception to that might be draconian drug laws they are forced to enforce despite many of them trying desperately to tell politicians it's a waste of their time and resources and financing their department through extorting citizens. I mostly blame politicians for that, doesn't really matter their party affiliation for me.
If you're asking if I put all of the responsibility for bad policing on the politicians the answer is no, but that's also not limited to party.
EDIT: So I'm still unclear on what 'errors' it is you think I/liberals would be admitting regarding the police? Which under this construction seems like a very curious and tangential place to even start?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
