What's The Difference?

[Guest]

Now that there is a large slate of GOP contenders that have announced their hope and desire to be President, we have to hear from them to know how they stand different from each other to find the best ONE.

It seems all are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and in favor of reducing the size of federal government, sealing the Mexican border, and ensuring a safe America.

What are some other issues and how does each feel about it so we can make the best choice?

[Guest]

Now that there is a large slate of GOP contenders that have announced their hope and desire to be President, we have to hear from them to know how they stand different from each other to find the best ONE.

It seems all are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and in favor of reducing the size of federal government, sealing the Mexican border, and ensuring a safe America.

What are some other issues and how does each feel about it so we can make the best choice?

HOW to solve those issues and within the debate, allowing discussion of those methods.

Never hard to tell folks what you think is wrong....let us listen to how to fix it.

[Guest]

They will all take similar positions designed to pander to the far right voters who generally swing the primaries. Then whomever comes out of this pander party with the nomination will backtrack and soften all those positions somewhat in an effort to attract less right leaning general election voters. The ideologues who would not back off their primary stances won't be nominated. In the end the best financed candidate will probably get the nomination and lose the general election. Enjoy the show.

[Guest]

You are probably right about the general election. The tide has turned as the uninformed who want free stuff outnumber the informed who provide the free stuff at the polls during the presidential elections. The reverse seems to be true during the mid-terms.

They will all take similar positions designed to pander to the far right voters who generally swing the primaries. Then whomever comes out of this pander party with the nomination will backtrack and soften all those positions somewhat in an effort to attract less right leaning general election voters. The ideologues who would not back off their primary stances won't be nominated. In the end the best financed candidate will probably get the nomination and lose the general election. Enjoy the show.

[Guest]

You are probably right about the general election. The tide has turned as the uninformed who want free stuff outnumber the informed who provide the free stuff at the polls during the presidential elections. The reverse seems to be true during the mid-terms.

You sound reasonable until you mention "The uninformed who want free stuff vs the informed who provide free stuff". I am a left leaning centrist who is informed and has paid a large amount of taxes that provide free stuff for more rich than poor, and police and fire protection, and infrastructure that benefit all. Many people who vote for democrats are successful, well informed, and moral people, and many are not. Many people who vote for republicans are poorly informed, takers, who lack morals, and many are not. Underestimating the opposition is a mistake. Making an effort to understand the legitimacy of the opposition positions makes you better able to counter those positions.

[Guest]

This is the most positive dialogue I have witnessed since this new forum has been open.

Differences of opinion expressed, acknowledged, counterpoint offered, all with respect for each other's positions.

This is the way it should be.

[Guest]

This is the most positive dialogue I have witnessed since this new forum has been open.

Differences of opinion expressed, acknowledged, counterpoint offered, all with respect for each other's positions.

This is the way it should be.

Must be the usual antagonist(s) are away....all at the same time? Could it be just one playing multiple roles....

[Guest]

It has become quite clear that the majority of people prefer an expansion of the role of Government. This is, by definition, "free stuff" because the Government practices wealth redistribution. How do I know this? Because they voted a party into power that ran on a platform of expanding government. You see this philosophy on a regular basis with proposals for free college for 2 years, free child care, etc. Why wouldn't people vote that way? You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing but it is true. You can try to slip the police and fire fighters into the argument but we both know that is not relevant. A large number of people derive substantial benefits with very little skin in the game. They are a big component of the democratic voters. What is amazing is that they are not mobilized for the mid-terms. This suggests that they are not well informed as the mid-term elections often have huge impacts on local and state governments. It is what it is.


You sound reasonable until you mention "The uninformed who want free stuff vs the informed who provide free stuff". I am a left leaning centrist who is informed and has paid a large amount of taxes that provide free stuff for more rich than poor, and police and fire protection, and infrastructure that benefit all. Many people who vote for democrats are successful, well informed, and moral people, and many are not. Many people who vote for republicans are poorly informed, takers, who lack morals, and many are not. Underestimating the opposition is a mistake. Making an effort to understand the legitimacy of the opposition positions makes you better able to counter those positions.

[Guest]

I see that Rick Santorium is going to join the field of GOP contenders in a couple of weeks. He, also, shares the beliefs of the others. How soon are we going to hear from them how they differ from each other?

In their talking points, all sound alike. Repeal Obamacare, reduce size of government, secure borders, no citizenship for illegals, etc.

Come on guys - and lady - make some statements to give us a clear choice of purpose instead of only NOT to vote for the Democrat.

[Guest]

A very big negative in my opinion is too many candidates with fairly common goals can only differentiate themselves by going after the democratic candidate/party and each other.

It is the political discredit the other guy mode that is destructive. Not enough, you should vote for me because..........and coming across as more capable, more qualified, more energetic, more likely candidate of choice.

Unfortunately, current politics is all about sticks and stones and digging dirt and slinging mud, etc.

[Guest]

It has become quite clear that the majority of people prefer an expansion of the role of Government. This is, by definition, "free stuff" because the Government practices wealth redistribution. How do I know this? Because they voted a party into power that ran on a platform of expanding government. You see this philosophy on a regular basis with proposals for free college for 2 years, free child care, etc. Why wouldn't people vote that way? You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing but it is true. You can try to slip the police and fire fighters into the argument but we both know that is not relevant. A large number of people derive substantial benefits with very little skin in the game. They are a big component of the democratic voters. What is amazing is that they are not mobilized for the mid-terms. This suggests that they are not well informed as the mid-term elections often have huge impacts on local and state governments. It is what it is.

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

I see that Rick Santorium is going to join the field of GOP contenders in a couple of weeks. He, also, shares the beliefs of the others. How soon are we going to hear from them how they differ from each other?

In their talking points, all sound alike. Repeal Obamacare, reduce size of government, secure borders, no citizenship for illegals, etc.

Come on guys - and lady - make some statements to give us a clear choice of purpose instead of only NOT to vote for the Democrat.

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.

[Guest]

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.


And the losers will get what they're really after, a gig on the Fox channel.

[Guest]

I don't see how you can say that: Democrats, in my opinion, toe their own party line as well or better than Republicans. At the very least, the point has no definitive answer.

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.

[Guest]

At least they want to go work for a channel that has ratings. Loser Democrats can only go MSNBC, which nobody watches. Check the cable news ratings - it is a real eye opener as to how low the MSNBC ratings are.

And the losers will get what they're really after, a gig on the Fox channel.

[Guest]

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.

I think it's the other way around personally. Dems seem to get literally enraged, not just upset, when one of their candidates is not pure enough. This question is a matter a personal perception more than some topics are ... ie hard to factually support either side of assertion.

[Guest]

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society did not turn out too greatly and free stuff only continues to corrupts and de-motivates people. Baltimore is a prime example. For those of you who believe I am being a bit bias let me give you another example the coal mining region in Appalachia. People in both regions look forward to their government checks as did their parents and their parents' parents.

Contrast that with a country like South Korea with its focus on trade and competition now ranking the 12th largest economy.

Clearly capitalism works. Yes it does have some blemishes but there is not a better system to allow people to shape their destiny. Dirt poor immigrants have been proving that since the discovery of America.

The problem with campaigning is that the media likes to sex it up and rational discussion about foreign policy or the economy won't do. So the media plays to the all the fringe groups and candidates have to play along in order to stay in the game.

It once was that you had conservative/liberals in both parties but somewhere along the line Democrats made a hard left so hard that the gap in philosophy between the parties widened because of how far left the Democrats moved. The Democratic Party is ruled exclusively by this hard left and its their way or the highway because they mendaciously claim an intellectual authority...with unintended consequences resulting in a waste of valuable time and resources.

If I were a candidate when someone asked me my position on a social issue I would counter with can we stay on topic with issues such as foreign policy and the economy as priorities because if we don't this nation will fail and social issues won't matter.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

At least they want to go work for a channel that has ratings. Loser Democrats can only go MSNBC, which nobody watches. Check the cable news ratings - it is a real eye opener as to how low the MSNBC ratings are.

Fox is the old peoples network, which fits right in with the geriatric crowd of white right wingers in The Villages.

Half of Fox News' Viewers Are 68 and Older - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/)

[Guest]

Fox is the old peoples network, which fits right in with the geriatric crowd of white right wingers in The Villages.

Half of Fox News' Viewers Are 68 and Older - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/)

A one for one amplifier for what ever just read...of course tainted by the usual nasty prejudiced, rude crude attitude.

[Guest]

I believe Fox beats all other cable news in all age groups in ratings.

Fox is the old peoples network, which fits right in with the geriatric crowd of white right wingers in The Villages.

Half of Fox News' Viewers Are 68 and Older - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/)

[Guest]

if i were a candidate when someone asked me my position on a social issue i would counter with can we stay on topic with issues such as foreign policy and the economy as priorities because if we don't this nation will fail and social issues won't matter.

personal best regards:

Bingo!! I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head with that comment.

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Fox is the old peoples network, which fits right in with the geriatric crowd of white right wingers in The Villages.

Half of Fox News' Viewers Are 68 and Older - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/)

And your point is? In most cultures seniors are revered for their valuable contribution to society given their pragmatic experience, maturity and insight.

Based on your response you wouldn't fare well viewing Fox and might want to embrace social media to get your news

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

And your point is? In most cultures seniors are revered for their valuable contribution to society given their pragmatic experience, maturity and insight.

Based on your response you wouldn't fare well viewing Fox and might want to embrace social media to get your news

Personal Best Regards:

Don't Eskimos set them on ice floes and just let them drift away?

In The Villages, the seniors could be drifted out to the middle of Lake Sumter and wait for a hungry alligator. Take along a battery powered television so Bill O'Reilly would be the last image you see.

[Guest]

Fox is the old peoples network, which fits right in with the geriatric crowd of white right wingers in The Villages.

Half of Fox News' Viewers Are 68 and Older - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/)

Nasty, insensitive, inconsiderate :censored: fool.

I bet your cahones are not so big in a face to face encounter.....and if a woman same comments apply........hiding behind anonymously insolent dialogue.

:cus:

[Guest]

I liked the Lake Sumter post. Good humour. Anyhow, let's get back on topic.

Does Jeb have better ideas than Cruz or Carrly or what? I still like the ideas of Cruz and he is super smart. It does bother me a little, though, he was born in Canada instead of the USA. It just doesn't seem right that a person actually born outside the country could be President. Legally, it is okay but still feels wrong somehow.

[Guest]

Don't Eskimos set them on ice floes and just let them drift away?

In The Villages, the seniors could be drifted out to the middle of Lake Sumter and wait for a hungry alligator. Take along a battery powered television so Bill O'Reilly would be the last image you see.

This was a thoughtful and interesting thread .... until you showed up and spread your hateful personality all over it.

You're good at doing undesirable things, but seem to be a carbuncle on our collective a**. How about if you just go away and climb under a rock?

[Guest]

Nasty, insensitive, inconsiderate :censored: fool.

I bet your cahones are not so big in a face to face encounter.....and if a woman same comments apply........hiding behind anonymously insolent dialogue.

:cus:

Oh, that is not nice to say. Why not name a place to meet and talk?

[Guest]

This was a thoughtful and interesting thread .... until you showed up and spread your hateful personality all over it.

You're good at doing undesirable things, but seem to be a carbuncle on our collective a**. How about if you just go away and climb under a rock?

I don't know who you think I am, but I am the OP and thought that little bit of humor about drifting out on Lake Sumter was funny. I really like O'Reilly. I am sorry that it offended you. Accept my apology.

[Guest]

Well this thread has gone into the toilet. Don't you people realize that some people like to interject an incendiary post just to stir things up, and when you fall for it and respond in kind they are sitting there laughing and congratulating themselves for upsetting you.

[Guest]

Well this thread has gone into the toilet. Don't you people realize that some people like to interject an incendiary post just to stir things up, and when you fall for it and respond in kind they are sitting there laughing and congratulating themselves for upsetting you.

As what you say certainly does seem to be the case, I can only say it is a great example of the evil that truly exists in our world. It's unfortunate that these types of people use their time and energy in this way instead of using it to try to make a difference for good. Very sad indeed.

[Guest]

Nasty, insensitive, inconsiderate :censored: fool.

I bet your cahones are not so big in a face to face encounter.....and if a woman same comments apply........hiding behind anonymously insolent dialogue.

:cus:

Please disregard this post. My emotion got ahead of my thinking!

[Guest]

Please disregard this post. My emotion got ahead of my thinking!

I admire you for your post. We all make mistakes and, if honest, will admit we have all done the same thing at one time or another. What I truly find to be evil though is not so much a person's reaction to what one might see as righteous indignation from time to time, but as one poster put it - "some people like to interject an incendiary post just to stir things up, and when you fall for it and respond in kind they are sitting there laughing and congratulating themselves for upsetting you"- now that to me is nasty and evil, not to mention pathetic. A true waste of one's time, gifts, and talents.

[Guest]

Don't Eskimos set them on ice floes and just let them drift away?

In The Villages, the seniors could be drifted out to the middle of Lake Sumter and wait for a hungry alligator. Take along a battery powered television so Bill O'Reilly would be the last image you see.

Dear Guest: Unfortunately you represent a good portion of the voting public in that you actually believe unloading insults is your argument. Intelligent discussion is too tacking for you as you get lost and frustrated in the maze of facts, statistics and formulas and hence Eskimo folklore is all that you can muster. Please stay away from threads such as this they are not good for your emotional well being. May I recommend The View

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Dear Guest: Unfortunately you represent a good portion of the voting public in that you actually believe unloading insults is your argument. Intelligent discussion is too tacking for you as you get lost and frustrated in the maze of facts, statistics and formulas and hence Eskimo folklore is all that you can muster. Please stay away from threads such as this they are not good for your emotional well being. May I recommend The View

Personal Best Regards:

Dear guest,

Please go back and read Post 28. It is from me. May I make it any clearer?

Regards to you.

[Guest]

You are probably right about the general election. The tide has turned as the uninformed who want free stuff outnumber the informed who provide the free stuff at the polls during the presidential elections. The reverse seems to be true during the mid-terms.
Agree with you except the "informed " like free stuff just as well as uninformed.