Darwin is coming for the GOP

[Pete F.]

There’s an election coming and it’s only getting worse.

In 1964, 80 percent of Republican House members and 82 percent of Republican senators voted for the Civil Rights Act. In 1980, GOP presidential candidates spoke of Mexico as “our neighbor to the south” and supported schooling for illegal immigrant children so they wouldn’t be “made to feel that they’re living outside the law.” And throughout the 1980s, congressional Republicans had slightly more women in their caucus than the Democrats did.

Today, Republicans drag their feet before punishing a fellow member of Congress who espouses white nationalism, the GOP president has shut down the government over his demands for an expensive wall to keep out mythical terrorists, and, oh, by the way, Democratic women in the House of Representatives outnumber Republican women 89-13.

That’s the bad news.

The worse news is that the kids are noticing.

From a policy perspective, conservatism is on a lonely walk in the wilderness right now. But that creates an opportunity to emerge with a more modern, reformed conservatism—one that rejects both corporate imperatives and blood-and-soil nationalism. One that focuses on the importance of freedom and individual liberty, two things that are limited by government.

But if conservatives fail to offer ideas or solutions for the problems that voters care about, government is exactly where those voters will turn.

https://thebulwark.com/darwin-is-coming-for-the-gop/

[Nebe]

Devolution
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s an election coming and it’s only getting worse.

In 1964, 80 percent of Republican House members and 82 percent of Republican senators voted for the Civil Rights Act. In 1980, GOP presidential candidates spoke of Mexico as “our neighbor to the south” and supported schooling for illegal immigrant children so they wouldn’t be “made to feel that they’re living outside the law.” And throughout the 1980s, congressional Republicans had slightly more women in their caucus than the Democrats did.

Today, Republicans drag their feet before punishing a fellow member of Congress who espouses white nationalism, the GOP president has shut down the government over his demands for an expensive wall to keep out mythical terrorists, and, oh, by the way, Democratic women in the House of Representatives outnumber Republican women 89-13.

That’s the bad news.

The worse news is that the kids are noticing.

From a policy perspective, conservatism is on a lonely walk in the wilderness right now. But that creates an opportunity to emerge with a more modern, reformed conservatism—one that rejects both corporate imperatives and blood-and-soil nationalism. One that focuses on the importance of freedom and individual liberty, two things that are limited by government.

But if conservatives fail to offer ideas or solutions for the problems that voters care about, government is exactly where those voters will turn.

https://thebulwark.com/darwin-is-coming-for-the-gop/

conservatism is in a lonely walk in the woods..

nebe, instead of asking teenagers what they think, how about you
look at the map, at who controls what, at the federal, state, and local level. the gop took a jab to the face in 2018, and may take another one in 2020.

the gop was obliterated in 2008. they
made a monstrous comeback in the next 8 years, and gave some back in november.

the gop offers solutions. the democrats respond with insults.

jesus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Reagan would not win nomination these days with the current Republican Party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Reagan would not win nomination these days with the current Republican Party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

reagan was more conservative than Trump. what are you talking about?

the gop nominated likeable
moderates in 2008 and 2012. the media said one was a senile old racist, the other hated women because he kept their resumes handy. you’re just making up jibberish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Reagan raise taxes and Grover norquist would have went ballistic. That alone would have disqualified Reagan. Never mind his views on the environment immigrants Etc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

ok. you’re right, reagan endorsed some policies that, 40 years later, aren’t in vogue. and bill clinton kicked
millions of people
off welfare to pay for cuts to capital gains taxes. how would that fly in today’s democratic party?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Every year more Republicans die of old age and the majority of young people are not joining the Greyhaired Old Party
Ask Mia Love why they are looking elsewhere
Ask a millennial what they think of the line: Black and Hispanic unemployment has never been lower
Ask them if they are willing to take a gamble on climate change, for that matter ask the Pentagon what they see the effects of climate change to be
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Are Democrats currently promoting looser welfare eligibility requirements?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Every year more Republicans die of old age and the majority of young people are not joining the Greyhaired Old Party
Ask Mia Love why they are looking elsewhere
Ask a millennial what they think of the line: Black and Hispanic unemployment has never been lower
Ask them if they are willing to take a gamble on climate change, for that matter ask the Pentagon what they see the effects of climate change to be
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the young people
flock to the gop when they acquire a speck of wisdom. that’s nothing new. that cycle is as old as the republic. churchill said, if you’re young and you’re not a democrat, you don’t have a soul. if you’re older and you’re not a republican, you don’t have a brain.

think he said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Are Democrats currently promoting looser welfare eligibility requirements?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my point was, they would
not
like what clinton did. and they hate his crime bill. both parties are different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok. you’re right, reagan endorsed some policies that, 40 years later, aren’t in vogue. and bill clinton kicked
millions of people
off welfare to pay for cuts to capital gains taxes. how would that fly in today’s democratic party?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton campaigned on welfare reform and had to take the best deal he could get as the GOP held the house. It’s not that Clinton loved the deal he had to get the issue off the table before the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton campaigned on welfare reform and had to take the best deal he could get as the GOP held the house. It’s not that Clinton loved the deal he had to get the issue off the table before the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And if someone campaigned on that kind of welfare reform today (kicking off deadbeats who could be working), the democrats would crucify that person as hating poor blacks.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And if someone campaigned on that kind of welfare reform today (kicking off deadbeats who could be working), the democrats would crucify that person as hating poor blacks.

And what you are citing right there is close to what happens in congress and makes it unable to come up with bipartisan decisions.
Just change to word campaigned to compromised, is true to type for both parties and is why the far sides of both wings have so much power, politicians can't negotiate and compromise or they will get taken out in a primary.

[Cool Beans]

Are we there yet?????

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the young people
flock to the gop when they acquire a speck of wisdom. that’s nothing new. that cycle is as old as the republic. churchill said, if you’re young and you’re not a democrat, you don’t have a soul. if you’re older and you’re not a republican, you don’t have a brain.

think he said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I always heard it as: ‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’

BUT

There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University made this comment: ‘Surely Churchill can’t have used the words attributed to him. He’d been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Are we there yet?????

No, but soon!!

[Pete F.]

Perhaps since Winston Churchill is so impressive, you could consider his view on Britain’s National Health Service
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps since Winston Churchill is so impressive, you could consider his view on Britain’s National Health Service
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, as soon as we have the same population and demographics as Great Britain.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Every year more Republicans die Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not a new phenomenon, nor is it limited to the GOP, I hate to break it to you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure, as soon as we have the same population and demographics as Great Britain.

If you are referring to foreign born they are within a half percent of the US.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you are referring to foreign born they are within a half percent of the US.

i mean everything. and absolute
numbers matter, not just percentages. but percentages do matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i mean everything. and absolute
numbers matter, not just percentages. but percentages do matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What about ratios?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i mean everything. and absolute
numbers matter, not just percentages. but percentages do matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I realize that you believe Americans are exceptional, but we are human beings and our DNA is very similar to other humans.
For what unique reason would we be untreatable?
What other countries might have this unique issue that you claim we have with health care?
Would not Canada have similar issues, if not what is missing from their demographics?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I realize that you believe Americans are exceptional, but we are human beings and our DNA is very similar to other humans.
For what unique reason would we be untreatable?
What other countries might have this unique issue that you claim we have with health care?
Would not Canada have similar issues, if not what is missing from their demographics?

what’s the longest
you can go, without responding to something i never said? i never said we are biologically different. i said the math isn’t the same, because there are a lot
more of us, and we have millions and millions who need it provided. we also have out of control
plaintiffs attorneys driving up
costs, i don’t know if they have that in england. medical
schools here are insanely expensive, docs need to make that back.

here’s a tip. read what i write. respond to what i actually say. no point in responding to gibberish that no one said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

we also have out of control
plaintiffs attorneys driving up
costs, i don’t know if they have that in england. medical
schools here are insanely expensive, docs need to make that back.

So what you’re saying is that a single payer system that simplifies tort reform and free college education for those qualified would solve both issues?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

If it could be so simple..
There is more to this puzzle than you seem to comprehend Jeff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what’s the longest
you can go, without responding to something i never said? i never said we are biologically different. i said the math isn’t the same, because there are a lot
more of us, and we have millions and millions who need it provided. we also have out of control
plaintiffs attorneys driving up
costs, i don’t know if they have that in england. medical
schools here are insanely expensive, docs need to make that back.

here’s a tip. read what i write. respond to what i actually say. no point in responding to gibberish that no one said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read what you wrote and it was gibberish
So I asked you a question so that perhaps you could explain why what works in Great Britain is impossible here and as usual, since you can’t answer the question rationally you claim you didn’t say that.
Then you spout some idiocy that a larger pool somehow increases costs per capita (better explain this to the rest of the insurance industry) and health care costs are all the fault of educators and trial lawyers.
Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I asked you a question so that perhaps you could explain why what works in Great Britain is impossible here

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/w...h-service.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So what you’re saying is that a single payer system that simplifies tort reform and free college education for those qualified would solve both issues?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm saying those things would help, sure (not 'free' college education, but less expensive). Would they be enough? Beats me.

I agree that we should have a better safety net for those in need. I have no idea how to pay for it.