The Republican Party of the USA

[FormerMod-a1]

Discuss the Republican party here.

[Danny Franks]

They're on a long, slow road into obscurity, unless they modernise and rediscover fiscal conservatism without the moralistic hatred. A slower road than many thought (and hoped), granted, but they're still heading that way.

This election may well be the last hurrah of the baby boomer generation. And I think a better candidate than Clinton would have won over a lot more Latinos and African-Americans. Hopefully the Republicans will see this win as a vindication of everything they do, and carry on the same course.

If Obama can unscrew the gerrymandering, then they'll find themselves in real trouble in the House, and it can only be a matter of time before they lose the Senate.

[b2H]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

....

If Obama can unscrew the gerrymandering, then they'll find themselves in real trouble in the House, and it can only be a matter of time before they lose the Senate.

Obama and Holder will never get the chance.  No one will respond to them.  Funding won't be available.  It would have been fine under an HRC presidency, but one may as well suggest to the GOP that they cancel their own paychecks.  They are where they are by gerrymandering.  They will certainly never agree to anything changing their meal ticket, especially from these two.

[dougfir]

In a post-election column, George Will writes how the GOP is alienating minority voters at its own peril, pointing out that Hillary performed better in Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas than Obama did in 2012.

Quote

In 2016, Republicans won a ruinous triumph that convinced them that they can forever prosper by capturing an ever-larger portion of an ever-smaller portion of the electorate.

[mythoughtis]

As I have gotten older( younger female baby boomer only in late 50s), I've actually moved left of center as it pertains to people's personal lives.  The only thing I seem to have in common with the GOP these days is fiscal conservatism, and the desire for a smaller government. Oddly, I think that should mean stay out of my bedroom and medical decisions as well as my wallet.  The Tea Party and the religious right have chased me out of my own party.  I think I'm not the only one. They have got to quit trying to run everyone's personal lives to their own values, or their only supporters will be hate filled judgemental people.  I don't agree with the Democrats  on monetary matters or immigration( the law is the law). So I have no party. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by mythoughtis

[FuriousStyles]

I think when the KKK and the Russians are thrilled with the candidate you nominated (and ultimately elected)....you've got to seriously reevaluate the Party. 

On a more serious note, I agree with the poster above....get out of my bedroom and medical decisions.  Your religious views should have absolutely no bearing on MY life. The US doesnt even have an official religion so why do Republicans think that (selective) Christianity is the religion that should be adhered to? 

[katha]

I don't know why this amuses me so much, but it just does. Perhaps I'm trying to look for any kind of humour or levity in this depressing situation. Still: Somehow, the Republican party with their total spinelessnes when it comes to Trump, has made Mitt "flip flopping milquetoast" Romney come across as one badass outlaw renegade. And now Omarosa going on about Romney is Trump's enemy number one or whatever. And of course Romney's own hilariously shady tweet after the election that basically read "We're all fucked with this Ooompa Loompa" in slightly politer terms. Idk, it's one of the curious stories of this election cyle IMO. And slightly less depressing than a lot else, so I come back to it when the rest makes me anxious.

Trump was spouting a lot of bigoted nonsense and pandering to the basests instincts of voters and he's obviously not qualified. Yet the Republican party as a whole just wouldn't call him out on any of it, and I do think this is something that will be their legacy now. Except for Romney. He had to have known that he was basically taking a flamethrower to possible future career aspirations with that speech. He tore down everything about Trump, his campaign, his peddling of hatred, his shady businesses, his lack of competence, his foul temper, and he tore it down good. Trump was a sort of trial by fire for the Republicans and for the most part they failed spectacularly. It's interesting about the ones who didn't.

[Duke Silver]

I'd post this in the Republican Party subforum, but it has zero traffic.  If you are questioning what is going on inside the GOP, this is wortha few minutes of your life.  Friends & I were discussing this last winter, so it's good to see mainstream media talking about it so much.  We need to understand the opposition.  It's sometimes distasteful, but I encourage people to step outside our personal echo chambers, read things, watch things, understand what is going on. 

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/798588893931048960

Quote

A former Breitbart editor on what Trump's victory means for the alt-right

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Removed twitter embed

[Danny Franks]

On 11/15/2016 at 1:40 PM, Duke Silver said:

I'd post this in the Republican Party subforum, but it has zero traffic.  If you are questioning what is going on inside the GOP, this is wortha few minutes of your life.  Friends & I were discussing this last winter, so it's good to see mainstream media talking about it so much.  We need to understand the opposition.  It's sometimes distasteful, but I encourage people to step outside our personal echo chambers, read things, watch things, understand what is going on. 

Jesus. When Ben Shapiro is appearing as the voice of reasonable caution and speaking out against Bannon, you know it's bad.

So Beck and Shapiro, and Megyn Kelly has shown signs of genuine human empathy too. How many other firm right wingers will Trump and his parade of assclowns drive towards the centre?

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Removed twitter embed

[ari333]

Beck ? has changed? OMG I cant believe it.

[Danny Franks]

16 minutes ago, ari333 said:

Beck ? has changed? OMG I cant believe it.

He's actually been critical of Trump throughout this election. Some think it's because he's genuinely mellowing, some think it's because he sees Trump as an opportunist conman and not a true conservative, and some think that he's just trying to make money out of liberal fears now, instead of conservative fears.

If only the Republicans in Congress had the strength of their convictions to speak out in the same way. But Paul Ryan continues to prove he is a worm of a man. The great Republican hope? He's utterly worthless.

[ari333]

I stopped watching Beck long ago ,so I had no idea he had mellowed (somewhat)

[Duke Silver]

Institutions like the media have been under attack for so long, this is where we are.  Bannon & his army of trolls are winning.  I'll allow myself to be depressed for a few minutes, then I'll get back to my planning with a large group of friends to coordinate donations to various groups.

https://twitter.com/ReutersZengerle/status/798599952712679424

Quote

Just called a Republican congressional office I deal with often and was told the press relations staff is no longer speaking to reporters.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Removed twitter embed

[Danny Franks]

On 11/15/2016 at 2:34 PM, Duke Silver said:

Institutions like the media have been under attack for so long, this is where we are.  Bannon & his army of trolls are winning.  I'll allow myself to be depressed for a few minutes, then I'll get back to my planning with a large group of friends to coordinate donations to various groups.

If the Trump administration and the complicit Republicans are intent on ignoring the precepts of American society and democratic law, then the branches of society should simply refuse to carry out their orders. The mayors of New York and Denver, the head of the LAPD and various other public figures have already spoken out against some of Trump's plans, and said they will not comply. More will come.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Removed twitter embed

[partofme]

The Republican party is the personification of evil.  Their economic and social policies are all shit.  I've never understood why anyone not a one-percenter votes for them.

[Ceindreadh]

On 11/15/2016 at 2:34 PM, Duke Silver said:

Institutions like the media have been under attack for so long, this is where we are.  Bannon & his army of trolls are winning.  I'll allow myself to be depressed for a few minutes, then I'll get back to my planning with a large group of friends to coordinate donations to various groups.

So if they don't speak to reporters, then what function do the press realtions staff serve?

Edited November 19, 2016 by Lisin
Removed twitter embed

[Duke Silver]

Just now, Ceindreadh said:

So if they don't speak to reporters, then what function do the press realtions staff serve?

Fielding inquiries from Macedonian teenagers?

[kokapetl]

I find it bizarre that a party with almost no discipline ended up with a candidate they really didn't want, and then their candidate won. 

[roamyn]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 3:24 PM, partofme said:

The Republican party is the personification of evil.  Their economic and social policies are all shit.  I've never understood why anyone not a one-percenter votes for them.

I disagree.

John Kasich & I are both Republicans, who lean more left of center, than left.

You can believe in the Party and it's fiscal responsibility  (minus Reaganomics), and still be empathetic and support LGBTQ and abortion rights.

Being a Republican means a way that we grew up - not wanting or expecting anything from the Government, having a tighter set of morals, not allowing funding for every Tom & Dick & Harry's non-profit or plan, setting firm goals on illegal immigration (and a wall is not pne of those goals) but still seeing the value that legal immigrants bring to our society.

The alt-right and heavy conservatives have corrupted our Party.

We wouldn't be in this situation if people had STOPPED TO THINK and voted for Kasich, Bush, Rubio or any other 1/2 doz Republican leaders who DO CARE.

But no...white trash American wanted to screw everyone & themselves over by voting for the Homophobic, Racist, Mysognist Psycopath and his orange sidekick.

Edited November 23, 2016 by roamyn

[Hanahope]

It's not a"tighter set of morals," its morals that apply to others, but not all to my personal life. For example,   It's why the claim of "sanctity of marriage" to oppose gay marriage is meaningless when the same people get divorced to marry younger women.  

[Danny Franks]

15 hours ago, roamyn said:

John Kasich & I are both Republicans, who lean more left of center, than left.

You can believe in the Party and it's fiscal responsibility  (minus Reaganomics), and still be empathetic and support LGBTQ and abortion rights.

From what I can tell, you're a rarity in this day and age. I would say that the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell do not care one bit about the people of America. They care about themselves and their careers and they care about beating Democrats.

Most moderate Republicans seem to be gone, either hounded out by the Tea Party or, like Olympia Snowe, quit because the polarisation in Washington is such that there simply is no middle ground any more. Even those who do hold moderate views seem to either conform or keep quiet, just to stay in office.

Politics on both sides of the Atlantic seems to be suffering from this. An ever stricted need to adhere to the 'accepted' views of the party, and a growing intolerance of those who veer away from those views. It's happening on the left and the right, but the right seems to be far further along in the process.

[roamyn]

18 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

From what I can tell, you're a rarity in this day and age. I would say that the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell do not care one bit about the people of America. They care about themselves and their careers and they care about beating Democrats.

This is exactly the problem, and it's also a problem in the Democratic Party, too.  There's little desire to work on both sides so they balance and keep check in each other.  It's all abt who can thwart the other side.

McConnell, Huckabee, Ryan, Palin et al are destroying the party of Lincoln, TR, Bush Sr.  Rubio, Boehner, Kasich, Christie formerly, McCain all still care to work together to get things done.

And yes, many of my Democratic friends have asked why I still remain in the Republican Party.  It's not so easy to give up 50 years of leaning to one way, but I'm very tempted - except for Obamacare which has destroyed our health care system for the middle class, and doesn't help the people it's purported to help (those that make kess than.11K a year).

[Rae Spellman]

5 hours ago, roamyn said:

And yes, many of my Democratic friends have asked why I still remain in the Republican Party.  It's not so easy to give up 50 years of leaning to one way, but I'm very tempted - except for Obamacare which has destroyed our health care system for the middle class, and doesn't help the people it's purported to help (those that make kess than. 11K a year).

Can you tell me more about how the Affordable Care Act has destroyed the health care system? Or point me in the direction of reputable sources for finding out the answer for myself.

$11K/year is below the poverty line. And, half what someone earning the minimum wage and working 40 hrs/week in my city would earn. Typically that group  qualifies for Medi-Cal/ Medicaid. Before ACA, many of those low income, able bodied 18-64 year olds didn't qualify for Medi-Cal/ Medicaid.

Pre-ACA, I was an elementary school teacher in a system where we paid our own health care costs. The lowest cost premium was about $600/month. Since I was younger and had preexisting conditions, I purchased health insurance on the free market for about half that. Most other young teachers did the same. Others went without health care insurance. I remember health care costs growing drastically during the 10 years pre-ACA. 

I mention the expansion of Medi-Cal and my experience with health care costs because while I get that many are unhappy with ACA, I don't get how it's MORE terrible than the system that was in place pre-ACA. Or worse than HSAs and other Republican alternatives. I'm also wondering which poor people and which middle class people the system isn't working for. And, if the system changed would the replacement help more people or just change the people who are poorly served? Basically, I'm interested in learning more.

[roamyn]

I can tell you exactly.

My husband's company dropped their insurance due to premium payments, and for us to get it on our own, it would cost $700+/mo and we'd STILL have to meet a $7K deductible.  I'll be damned if I'm paying a penalty on my taxes.

Also, our 26yr old son makes $10K per year.  He's not eligible for a subsidy because you have to make $11K per year.  But w/insurance,  school, rent & clothes/sundries, he can't afford insurance WITHOUT the subsidy.  So the poor still get messed over.

That's f*d up.

Plus, I know many Seniors whose medicare & Part B plans are increasing tremendously.

Edited November 24, 2016 by roamyn

[shok]

On 11/23/2016 at 1:01 PM, roamyn said:

You can believe in the Party and it's fiscal responsibility  (minus Reaganomics), and still be empathetic and support LGBTQ and abortion rights.

If you want to believe in the party that represents fiscal responsibility, then you should be a card carrying Democrat. Whenever the Repubs are in office, they fuck up the nations finances terribly and the Democrats have to come in and fix them. Statistics prove this over and over again but the canard remains that the Repubs are more responsible. The greatest part of the country's current deficit was run up by Republicans. Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Bush Sr and handed Bush Jr a surplus and he promptly ran it into the ditch and left Obama with the worst recession in 80 years. Obama has finally turned that all around and stats show that unemployment is down, the deficit as a ration to GDP is way down, wages are slowly rising, the housing market has mostly recovered - all sorts of stats could be quoted to show how the economy has improved. Wonder how long it will take for the right wing nutjobs to screw it all up again.

[Danny Franks]

3 hours ago, shok said:

 Whenever the Repubs are in office, they fuck up the nations finances terribly and the Democrats have to come in and fix them. Statistics prove this over and over again but the canard remains that the Repubs are more responsible. 

You even have two current examples of Republican economics vs Democrat economics on a state level.

Kansas Republicans implemented what I believe is close to Paul Ryan's tax plan in their state in 2010 (the governor of Kansas himself said it was a test case to prove how good Republican economics are). It was, of course, massive tax cuts for the wealthy that are supposed to grow the economy, and reducing sales and income tax (possibly across the board, I've not found confirmation of that), while cutting welfare funding. Trickle down economics, which has been proved, again and again, not to work. Because the rich don't let it trickle down. They keep it all. Kansas' economy crashed, with huge deficits due, and still has not recovered.

Meanwhile, Democrats in California (a state that had run up huge deficits under... you guessed it... a Republican governor) actually increased their taxes, specifically for millionaires. They turned their deficit into a budget surplus that continues to grow.

Now, you can argue that Kansas and California are two very different states, with very different human, natural and financial resources. But they're still contained economies using two different systems, and the fact remains that the current Republican economic model of letting the rich get away with as much money as they can is an abject failure, while California's model of asking the rich to pay their fare share and investing that money wisely, has proved to work.

The Democrats should be hammering this into the heads of everyone in the media. Show the American people that they are the ones who should be trusted with the economy, not the Republicans. Yes, they will tax you more, but you'll get more back in return. Isn't that a pretty good deal, at the end of the day?

[fishcakes]

22 hours ago, roamyn said:

My husband's company dropped their insurance due to premium payments, and for us to get it on our own, it would cost $700+/mo and we'd STILL have to meet a $7K deductible.  I'll be damned if I'm paying a penalty on my taxes.

Also, our 26yr old son makes $10K per year.  He's not eligible for a subsidy because you have to make $11K per year.  But w/insurance,  school, rent & clothes/sundries, he can't afford insurance WITHOUT the subsidy.  So the poor still get messed over.

That's f*d up.

Plus, I know many Seniors whose medicare & Part B plans are increasing tremendously.

Your son isn't eligible for a subsidy because if he makes $10k a year, he's eligible for Medicaid, which for him would likely be a $0 premium. People who make slightly more might pay up to a $30/month premium.

Medicare Part B premiums have increased very little over the last eight years since the enactment of the ACA in 2009.

This is a chart of Medicare Part B premiums published by the Social Security Administration. The ninth column, headed "For enrollee (aged and disabled)" (and that should actually read "aged or disabled") shows the out-of-pocket monthly premium for seniors. That chart only goes up to 2012 (the year the ACA was upheld by SCOTUS) when the premium was $99.90, but since I have relatives on Medicare, I can tell you that in 2013, the premium was $104.90. There were no increases in 2014 (the year the ACA took full effect), 2015, or 2016. Their premiums in 2017 will be $109 per month.

For people who were new to Medicare in 2016, their monthly premium was $121.80 and their 2017 premium will be $126.67. Those who made more than $85,000/year had a premium of $170.50.

For people new to Medicare in 2017, their monthly premium will be $134 unless their annual income is more than $85,000, in which case they'll pay $187.50.

By contrast, I started buying private health insurance on the individual market in 2002. In terms of benefits, the plan was equivalent to what a Silver Plan looks like now, i.e., a $500 deductible; nominal copays on primary care visits; labs, imaging, and prescriptions paid at at least 80%. My premium at that time was $136 a month. Five years later in 2007, my premium for the same plan was $500-something. In 2008, the premium was increasing to $769 per month -- this is for one person with no major health problems -- so I had to switch to a cheaper plan. None of the cheaper plans available to me on the individual market in 2008 had prescription drug coverage, but I chose the best one I could find and paid about $350. The deductible on that plan was $3000. In 2009, my insurance company offered a new plan that was exactly like the one I had except it had a prescription drug benefit on preferred generic drugs only, and the premium would be $3 more per month than my current plan. As this was before the ACA had been enacted and I was trying to switch to a plan with (barely) increased benefits, I had to fill out a new application, which included a 25-page list of possible pre-existing conditions. I filled it out and was denied on the basis of having slightly elevated cholesterol, for which my doctor did not recommend medication. However, I was able to keep my old plan and premiums continued to rise about 8-10% a year, and I was paying $500-something a month in 2013.

In 2014, I signed up for a Silver Plan from Blue Cross under the ACA. I don't qualify for a subsidy, so I was paying the entire premium, which was about $400 for much better benefits than I had before. In 2015, my premium actually decreased. In 2016, my premium went up 4%. For 2017, my plan was discontinued and for some reason Blue Cross will not sell an individual plan to anyone who does not receive a subsidy (even though they would collect the same amount in premiums, but go figure), so I switched to an HMO and will be paying $374/month. Buying insurance on the individual market after the ACA has not been a perfect, bliss-inducing experience by any means, but the yearly premium increases have been significantly lower and the protections and benefits far greater than pre-ACA.

Had Hillary been elected and been successful in expanding Medicare so that people 55 and older could buy in, not only would this extend the life of Medicare because it would now have a younger, healthier population paying premiums into the system and taking fewer benefits out, but for me personally, although I'm not 55 yet, I probably would have been by the time the expansion was implemented, it would have meant good benefits and a lower premium.

Under Trump, if the ACA is fully repealed, or if Congress simply cuts off subsidies using reconciliation, the insurance market will collapse and it's entirely possible that beginning in 2018, I and millions of others who buy individual plans either won't be able to get insurance at all or that it will be too expensive for to afford. With fewer people buying into the individual market, employee-based health care plans will also see premium increases as insurance companies try to recoup that lost revenue. In addition, with Paul Ryan wanting to privatize Medicare and put it back into the hands of an unfettered private insurance for-profit system, then when I'm 65 (or, more likely 67 since Ryan also wants to raise the eligibility age) I likely won't be able to afford that either.

Edited November 25, 2016 by fishcakes

[Menrva]

I hope this is the correct place to put this, but I found this article offered an interesting perspective. I, for one, am a little weary of hearing people complain about how the white working class voters were ignored and overlooked. You can't convince people to vote for you if they don't want to listen. And these voters live in their own bubble, listening to any and all wacko conspiracy theories that bolster their beliefs that they are being exploited by evil democrats and their army of brown people out to steal their jobs and taxes.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/the-dark-rigidity-of-fundamentalist-rural-america-a-view-from-the-inside/

[Rae Spellman]

2 hours ago, fishcakes said:

Buying insurance on the individual market after the ACA has not been a perfect, bliss-inducing experience by any means, but the yearly premium increases have been significantly lower and the protections and benefits far greater than pre-ACA.

Thanks for your responses roamyn and Fishcakes. I wonder how much what people perceive as negatives of ACA, like increased premium costs, are really caused by ACA and if these negatives would really be remedied by "repealing and replacing" ACA.

[PatsyandEddie]

Great article Menrva ! Thank you for sharing. The author is spot on IMO. 

[slf]

The most common criticism of the effort to get the electors to not vote for Trump is that even if they did flip their vote the decision would just be sent to the House and they'd absolutely elect Trump. Which is true. But it pisses me off because what do they have to lose by rejecting Trump? Many of them hate him, they won't have to give up their seats, they still have the Senate, and there's no way HRC would elect some hard left-leaning justice to the Supreme Court. Maybe they're afraid of blowback during the mid-terms but really, is that likely? Republicans never fail to vote and it's not like they're going to vote Dem just to piss of their own party. For many if not most House Reps. they don't have viable rivals to worry about and Republicans don't generally do grassroots candidates; Trump's the closest they've come in decades and he's a well-known "billionaire". They won't risk what power they have to get back at their own party.

Okay, vent over.

Edited November 27, 2016 by slf

[stormy]

ITA.  I'm waiting to see how long it takes for the republicans to be outraged (like they would be if Hillary had been elected) when we poor, honest, tax paying Americans have to foot the bills for this pile of shit.

[AntiBeeSpray]

And don't forget the voters who voted for him since they were anti abortion. George Carlin did a good take on (some of) them back in 96' that's still relevant today. 

It's honestly scary to see how many people share this view, and then drop the ball as the children grow up.

[Padma]

So Tubby and Ryan are going to privatize everything they can"

the Veterans Administration
Medicare
Social Security
Education
Health Care

I guess I "understand" the social issues warfare on the Voting Rights Act, marriage equality and abortion rights.  but I don't understand this enthusiasm for privatizing things that work better through the government. When you look around the world, you see models where things work better than ours because government is MORE involved not less.

Where is a country where everything is privatized to great success for all people, rich and poor alike?

I don't understand the drive to privatize all this by Republicans.  Do private companies mainline donations to them

[Hanahope]

In a word, yes.  

Either they will get campaign donations from lobbyists for the businesses and/or they have friends/business relationships that will profit and donate.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Hanahope

[Bastet]

Because in today's Republicans, we have a government being run by people who think the market is good and government is bad.  Chuck Schumer described it as an "ideological and visceral hatred of government."  They don't want the government telling businesses what to do, and they don't want it telling people what to do -- their people, anyway; it's fine and dandy to tell people who they can marry or tell women what they can do with their bodies.  (Government just small enough to fit in your uterus.)

And looking to how things work in other countries?  That's just crazy talk!  America, being a young country in this world, has come to remind me of a teenager -- thinks the lessons learned by those who've been around longer and been down these roads before are totally irrelevant, and he knows best, dammit.

[callmebetty]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

In a word, yes.  

Either they will get campaign donations from lobbyists for the businesses and/or they have friends/business relationships that will profit and donate.

 

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

Because in today's Republicans, we have a government being run by people who think the market is good and government is bad.  Chuck Schumer described it as an "ideological and visceral hatred of government."  They don't want the government telling businesses what to do, and they don't want it telling people what to do -- their people, anyway; it's fine and dandy to tell people who they can marry or tell women what they can do with their bodies.  (Government just small enough to fit in your uterus.)

And looking to how things work in other countries?  That's just crazy talk!  America, being a young country in this world, has come to remind me of a teenager -- thinks the lessons learned by those who've been around longer and been down these roads before are totally irrelevant, and he knows best, dammit.

So I'm curious and probably dumb, but if they want limited government , why are they in it? and if they are going to get kick backs from businesses by throwing people and their money,their way by privatizing then that is corrupt right? So basically these politicians have money,  have friends with money but told their constituents who most likely don't have a lot of money trust me I'm going to make it better for you? But that doesn't seem to be what they are going to do. If you can't afford to pay more or have a reduction in income then you are basically screwed?

Am I inferring that right?  

[bittersweet4149]

Congratulations @callmebetty! By breaking it down so even an eight year old (or a member of Congress) can understand, you just won the internet! *golf clap*

But on a serious note, those are the type of straight-forward questions that everyone should be asking the repubs. In fact, with your permission, I'd like to borrow them for the next time I contact my congressional rep, Speaker Ryan. And I'm going to ask him those questions in person. I'm also going to ask him how his proposal differs from Obamacare, which I know isn't perfect, but what is. It should be an interesting conversation.

Edited November 30, 2016 by bittersweet4149

[callmebetty]

4 minutes ago, bittersweet4149 said:

Congratulations @callmebetty! By breaking it down so even an eight year old can understand, you just won the internet! *golf clap*

But on a serious note, those are the type of straight-forward questions that everyone should be asking the repubs. In fact, with your permission, I'd like to borrow them for the next time I contact my congressional rep, Speaker Ryan. And I'm going to ask him those questions in person. I'm also going to ask him how his proposal differs from Obamacare, which I know isn't perfect, but what is. It should be an interesting conversation.

Well in all fairness I have to think like an 8yr old cause my mind needs simplicity to understand complex things. I don't know what that says about me :) I guess that I'm a simpleton . 

Second by all means please do use those questions ,  I would love to ask him the same things and any other politician who acts that way.

I don't know why we can't just help each other out? why does it have to be you vs. me in such selfish ways?

 I really am naive because I truly don't want anyone getting hurt by what is being proposed even the Trump supporters . It hurts me to see anyone being held down or back and wish that we could all be on even playing grounds. I know that is Pollyanna and it isn't how the world works but it's how I feel.

[bittersweet4149]

@callmebetty, I would never call you a simpleton, and please don't call yourself one, either. I believe keeping things simple is the best way to minimize people trying to twist words. And if they try, I always ask them to tell me "who, what, where, when, how, and why", and go slow so I can keep up. ;)

It's not naive to want peace. I'd like to think most of us do, too, it just may take a while to get there. Especially now. In the meantime, since the Republicans have the White House and the majority in both the House and Senate, we need to do everything we can to hold them publicly accountable for whatever decisions they make. And we need to be persistent. and loud about it.*

*BTW, I'd say the same thing if the Dems had a lopsided majority, too.

[Hanahope]

They want to be in government so they can limit it as much as possible, except as you say, telling us who we can marry, or when we can have a baby, or not, etc. 

[kokapetl]

On 27/11/2016 at 11:21 PM, slf said:

The most common criticism of the effort to get the electors to not vote for Trump is that even if they did flip their vote the decision would just be sent to the House and they'd absolutely elect Trump. Which is true. But it pisses me off because what do they have to lose by rejecting Trump? Many of them hate him, they won't have to give up their seats, they still have the Senate, and there's no way HRC would elect some hard left-leaning justice to the Supreme Court. Maybe they're afraid of blowback during the mid-terms but really, is that likely? Republicans never fail to vote and it's not like they're going to vote Dem just to piss of their own party. For many if not most House Reps. they don't have viable rivals to worry about and Republicans don't generally do grassroots candidates; Trump's the closest they've come in decades and he's a well-known "billionaire". They won't risk what power they have to get back at their own party.

Okay, vent over.

The tea party movement and their superPACs will fight tooth and nail to ensure that those they consider disloyal have a very difficult time getting nominated again.

[slf]

11 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

The tea party movement and their superPACs will fight tooth and nail to ensure that those they consider disloyal have a very difficult time getting nominated again.

But what, realistically, would be their chance of success? 

[potatoradio]

15 hours ago, bittersweet4149 said:

I'd like to borrow them for the next time I contact my congressional rep, Speaker Ryan. And I'm going to ask him those questions in person

You have a chance to speak to Ryan in person? Does he have a local office with hours where people can come in and talk to him? That's great if you get a chance to do that face to face. 

(And bonus points if you can do it without spitting in his face....I know, I know, temper, temper....)

I've been to a few local meetings like that and I found them very helpful in terms of humanizing the people, even if I disagreed with them. 

Let us know how it goes!

[callmebetty]

When Ryan does get the ability to make the changes to Medicare and social security and in say two years time I would love to see an update to the political ad I had to keep seeing for his re-election where his neighbor Becky or Jane or whatever was talking about what a great guy he is and that he comes home to see his family every weekend.  When she goes to talk to him and start asking him about what happened to her parents or grandparents money and insurance.  They always had a great plan were covered for all their ailments, but now they are being denied and they can barely make ends meet because they don't have the amount of money coming in and coverage is higher, and they have to choose between dying of hunger or stroking out,  what's he going to tell them?

Soon it will be a quick handwave as he darts in the door of his house as soon as he sees Becky or Jane crossing the lawn to talk to him.  Will the community be there having picnics with him in the park?

Maybe he can tell them so sad to bad when their child gets cancer and they might not be able to get the medical treatment to save them, but hey maybe he'll donate a buck or two to the fundraiser the neighbors are having to help raise funds for the rising medical costs.

I'm sure he'll make sure there are enough provisions in his government backed health care that don't get touched so that he and his aren't affected.  Maybe he can explain how they should have planned better or their parents and gotten richer so they could have a huge nest egg kind of like him. 

Then he can do another photo op at a soup kitchen where all the neighbors are now at because they have to take care of their ailing and broke parents or grandparents and they are stretched thin with all the other taxes and cutbacks that have been implanted, but hey he's a great guy back in his community helping out.

[bittersweet4149]

18 minutes ago, potatoradio said:

You have a chance to speak to Ryan in person? Does he have a local office with hours where people can come in and talk to him? That's great if you get a chance to do that face to face. 

(And bonus points if you can do it without spitting in his face....I know, I know, temper, temper....)

I've been to a few local meetings like that and I found them very helpful in terms of humanizing the people, even if I disagreed with them. 

Let us know how it goes!

One of his district offices happens to be in the town where I live. If I can't catch him at that location, he has a mobile office he uses when he tours the district. Once the 2017 schedule is published, I'll call and make an appointment.

I promise I won't spit in his face (he's not worth the jail time), but I reserve the right to give him the side-eye when the lies start flowing from his mouth.

I'll keep y'all posted.

[kokapetl]

39 minutes ago, slf said:

But what, realistically, would be their chance of success? 

They've done it in the past, but they're power has declined a fair bit. But underestimating wound up yokels is a bad idea. 

[Hanahope]

1 hour ago, slf said:

But what, realistically, would be their chance of success? 

They've been successful in several districts because many moderate republicans left the party and thus no longer vote in the republican primary.  When the majority of the republican party is now made up of those tea-party loyalists, the elected officials feel they have to follow them, or get replaced by someone else who will.

[AntiBeeSpray]

Just came across this article about a conservative site. A bit of an informative read for what it's worth.

Source: msn.com

[slf]

6 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

They've done it in the past, but they're power has declined a fair bit. But underestimating wound up yokels is a bad idea. 

6 hours ago, Hanahope said:

They've been successful in several districts because many moderate republicans left the party and thus no longer vote in the republican primary.  When the majority of the republican party is now made up of those tea-party loyalists, the elected officials feel they have to follow them, or get replaced by someone else who will.

Still sounds like for the majority of Republicans this isn't a threat.