Mitt Romney gone from the Senate

5,357 Views | 152 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by FLBear5630
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

historian said:

Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.

Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.

That is the Republican line, but it is demonstrably not true. There is a role for government to play in daily life. Tell me the government shouldn't be involved in our national defense, road and bridge building, preventing theft and murder. Tge government has those responsibilities. If people vote for the government to take over health care, or at least the administrative aspect, that will also become the role of the government.

And there is a way for it to do so. I do not really have a good answer to it, because though it would be very efficient (cheaper) for all Americans to simply be covered, all the time, and taxes pay for health care, it would also lead to the government being overly involved in private health care decisions.

I think there is probably still a way to do it well. And that is simply the direction we are headed. The health care industry is really shooting itself in the foot. Not that the CEOs care. They will have their tens of millions when the insurance side goes boom.

The problem is the liberal politician is so corrupt that you always end up with less. Tell me how the hurricane care went in NC? I'll use that as an example. Your boy Biden is more concerned about funneling $$$ to Hunter than to take care of America.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.

Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.


I believe in limited government however don't believe government is inherently evil or useless.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First, no one is saying we should not have any government. So your contention is false ab initio.

Second, all honest people agree that we are spending way too much on government, and we have way too much in the way of federal rules.

Third, our elected 'representatives' do not make themselves available to their constituents who have questions, but regularly meet with lobbyists and end up supporting those private interests over the public good.

So what we are debating here is not whether government needs a strict budget but what kind of budget and how to put it into effect.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

First, no one is saying we should not have any government. So your contention is false ab initio.

Second, all honest people agree that we are spending way too much on government, and we have way too much in the way of federal rules.

Third, our elected 'representatives' do not make themselves available to their constituents who have questions, but regularly meet with lobbyists and end up supporting those private interests over the public good.

So what we are debating here is not whether government needs a strict budget but what kind of budget and how to put it into effect.
Did you even read what I was responding to? Or, as usual, just start lecturing? This is what he said:

" the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.

Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc."

Nobody said a thing about spending levels. It was a general statement about whether Govt in itself is evil, parasitic and inherently means you will pay more for less. Something I disagree with about.

As for your statement, the question is not whether there needs to be spending limits or that we need to reign in spending, we do. No argument we all agree. The argument, well there are several!

1 - Should Musk, a big recipient of Fed contracts, and Vivek have the power they do. His threats to "primary" anyone that goes against him is out of bounds. If Soros did that you would be going nuts.

2 - What should be cut and who picks up those services, if at all.

3 - Should there be a spending cap? Trump is asking for something they would never give the other side.

All legitimate points for a University Political Message Board.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was indeed responding to what you have been saying, FLBear.

You have attacked a straw man, would be nice to see you address the topic.

Or, you can continue to just throw a tantrum.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I was indeed responding to what you have been saying, FLBear.

You have attacked a straw man, would be nice to see you address the topic.

Or, you can continue to just throw a tantrum.




Ok Jill... Did you get your Trump watch and fragrance? He would want you to
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

I was indeed responding to what you have been saying, FLBear.

You have attacked a straw man, would be nice to see you address the topic.

Or, you can continue to just throw a tantrum.




Ok Jill... Did you get your Trump watch and fragrance? He would want you to
So you chose door #2, then.

You do you, I guess.

But just as a reminder, I am not and have never been a Trumpster, I just accept that he's our best hope to fix the mess that is our Federal Government.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

historian said:

Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.

Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.

That is the Republican line, but it is demonstrably not true. There is a role for government to play in daily life. Tell me the government shouldn't be involved in our national defense, road and bridge building, preventing theft and murder. Tge government has those responsibilities. If people vote for the government to take over health care, or at least the administrative aspect, that will also become the role of the government.

And there is a way for it to do so. I do not really have a good answer to it, because though it would be very efficient (cheaper) for all Americans to simply be covered, all the time, and taxes pay for health care, it would also lead to the government being overly involved in private health care decisions.

I think there is probably still a way to do it well. And that is simply the direction we are headed. The health care industry is really shooting itself in the foot. Not that the CEOs care. They will have their tens of millions when the insurance side goes boom.

There is a role for govt in daily life if you want to be a slave. The more powerful govt is, the less freedom we will have. The tyranny the fascists have demonstrated over the past several years has made that abundantly clear: censorship, spying on Americans, lawfare, stolen elections, violating people's constitutional rights recklessly, & so on.

The only legitimate roles of the federal govt are those defined by the constitution, such as defense. Transportation infrastructure, fighting crime, etc are better done by the states with minimal federal involvement. Again, the fascists have made it very clear that the federal govt cannot be trusted to do these jobs, at least when Dems are in control: the Dem crime wave (defunding the police, open borders, refusing to prosecute violent criminals, prosecuting heroes like Daniel Penny, their repeated attempts to prevent Americans from defending themselves, etc.

It's a no brainer.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Undoubtedly a good guy. One of the few in the city. He gets a lot of flak from the more zealous of his party, because his tribe is America, not Republicans. Often working across the aisle, always getting things done.

D.C. cannot replace him with anyone of similar character and ethics, but Republicans will be glad to have a better fighter for their tribe replace him. I am sad to see him go.
who is the good guy on the Democrat side of the House or Senate always attacking his/her own party, frustrating the agenda of their own party to cooperate with the other?

((....crickets....))
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Porteroso said:

Undoubtedly a good guy. One of the few in the city. He gets a lot of flak from the more zealous of his party, because his tribe is America, not Republicans. Often working across the aisle, always getting things done.

D.C. cannot replace him with anyone of similar character and ethics, but Republicans will be glad to have a better fighter for their tribe replace him. I am sad to see him go.
who is the good guy on the Democrat side of the House or Senate always attacking his/her own party, frustrating the agenda of their own party to cooperate with the other?

((....crickets....))
I thought Manchin, Sienna (sp). When I looked it up this is what came up based on data from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

The top 10 senators were:
  • Maine Republican Susan Collins
  • Michigan Democrat Gary Peters
  • New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan
  • West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin
  • Texas Republican John Cornyn
  • Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen
  • Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski
  • Kansas Republican Jerry Moran
  • Indiana Republican Todd Young
  • Montana Democrat Jon Tester


The top 10 House lawmakers were:
  • Pennsylvania Brian Fitzpatrick
  • New York Republican Marcus Molinaro
  • New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas
  • New York Republican Mike Lawler
  • North Carolina Democrat Don Davis
  • Puerto Rico Republican Delegate Jenniffer Gonzlez-Coln
  • Nevada Democrat Susie Lee
  • Nebraska Republican Don Bacon
  • New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer
  • Iowa Republican Zach Nunn

xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Hard to hate the guy...but hard to love him





Goodbye RINO. Don't blet the door hit you on the way out!
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

Porteroso said:

Undoubtedly a good guy. One of the few in the city. He gets a lot of flak from the more zealous of his party, because his tribe is America, not Republicans. Often working across the aisle, always getting things done.

D.C. cannot replace him with anyone of similar character and ethics, but Republicans will be glad to have a better fighter for their tribe replace him. I am sad to see him go.
who is the good guy on the Democrat side of the House or Senate always attacking his/her own party, frustrating the agenda of their own party to cooperate with the other?

((....crickets....))
I thought Manchin, Sienna (sp). When I looked it up this is what came up based on data from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

The top 10 senators were:
  • Maine Republican Susan Collins
  • Michigan Democrat Gary Peters
  • New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan
  • West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin
  • Texas Republican John Cornyn
  • Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen
  • Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski
  • Kansas Republican Jerry Moran
  • Indiana Republican Todd Young
  • Montana Democrat Jon Tester


The top 10 House lawmakers were:
  • Pennsylvania Brian Fitzpatrick
  • New York Republican Marcus Molinaro
  • New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas
  • New York Republican Mike Lawler
  • North Carolina Democrat Don Davis
  • Puerto Rico Republican Delegate Jenniffer Gonzlez-Coln
  • Nevada Democrat Susie Lee
  • Nebraska Republican Don Bacon
  • New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer
  • Iowa Republican Zach Nunn


Not one of those Democrats have criticized their own party remotely as roundly or as often as Romney has done with Trump/GOP. With the possible exception of Manchin, not one of them have ever positioned themselves as "that Senator we cannot count on" ala Murkowski & Collins. None of them have publicly savaged the top their ticket or the more notable grassroots activists the way GOP moderates do.

The dynamic of attacking the base is a peculiarly Republican obsession. GOP moderates perceive such moral imperative to bipartisanship that they end up in constant warfare with their own base. Dems never do that. They advance policies palatable to their base and let the GOP moderates duke it out with conservatives to beat out enough votes.

Ironically, Romney's recent statements clearly indicate he thinks the GOP has changed, that it is now a MAGA party. In reality, it's always been a MAGA party. He just never wanted to work with them. He always wanted to fight with them, to tone them down, etc.... Finally, we have a GOP leader who is not ashamed of the GOP base.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

Porteroso said:

Undoubtedly a good guy. One of the few in the city. He gets a lot of flak from the more zealous of his party, because his tribe is America, not Republicans. Often working across the aisle, always getting things done.

D.C. cannot replace him with anyone of similar character and ethics, but Republicans will be glad to have a better fighter for their tribe replace him. I am sad to see him go.
who is the good guy on the Democrat side of the House or Senate always attacking his/her own party, frustrating the agenda of their own party to cooperate with the other?

((....crickets....))
I thought Manchin, Sienna (sp). When I looked it up this is what came up based on data from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

The top 10 senators were:
  • Maine Republican Susan Collins
  • Michigan Democrat Gary Peters
  • New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan
  • West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin
  • Texas Republican John Cornyn
  • Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen
  • Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski
  • Kansas Republican Jerry Moran
  • Indiana Republican Todd Young
  • Montana Democrat Jon Tester


The top 10 House lawmakers were:
  • Pennsylvania Brian Fitzpatrick
  • New York Republican Marcus Molinaro
  • New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas
  • New York Republican Mike Lawler
  • North Carolina Democrat Don Davis
  • Puerto Rico Republican Delegate Jenniffer Gonzlez-Coln
  • Nevada Democrat Susie Lee
  • Nebraska Republican Don Bacon
  • New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer
  • Iowa Republican Zach Nunn


Not one of those Democrats have criticized their own party remotely as roundly or as often as Romney has done with Trump/GOP. With the possible exception of Manchin, not one of them have ever positioned themselves as "that Senator we cannot count on" ala Murkowski & Collins. None of them have publicly savaged the top their ticket or the more notable grassroots activists the way GOP moderates do.

The dynamic of attacking the base is a peculiarly Republican obsession. GOP moderates perceive such moral imperative to bipartisanship that they end up in constant warfare with their own base. Dems never do that. They advance policies palatable to their base and let the GOP moderates duke it out with conservatives to beat out enough votes.

Ironically, Romney's recent statements clearly indicate he thinks the GOP has changed, that it is now a MAGA party. In reality, it's always been a MAGA party. He just never wanted to work with them. He always wanted to fight with them, to tone them down, etc.... Finally, we have a GOP leader who is not ashamed of the GOP base.
Fair enough assessment. Romney has some personal issues with Trump...
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.