Basically, three choices

[Pete]

John Kasich: God Wants Ohio to Expand Medicaid

Governor John Kasich, a Republican, repeated his insistence that God wants Ohio to expand Medicaid when reporters brought up the topic on June 18. Kasich suggested anyone who opposes Medicaid expansion will have to answer for their opposition when they die.

Gov. Kasich said he recently told a state legislator, “I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do too. I also happen to know that you’re a person of faith.”

“Now, when you die and get to the, get to the, uh, to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not gonna ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor,” Kasich said. “Better have a good answer.”

So Katich's conviction to help the poor is bad because it is founded in his faith? What about non religious people who have compassion of the poor?

 

[Pete]

The problem with "free" money is that it isn't. It came with (a) deficit federal spending increased by the amount of "free" money provided, and (b) unfunded future mandates as a cost to the state.

It's ok to be a little ideological. Not partisan, ideological. When the ideology is "we shouldn't spend more than we have", that's a good ideology to follow.

I believe the point is that the citizens of Ohio would suffer the negative consequences of increased federal deficits whether Kasich took the funding or Ohio or not so Katich logically decided why make his citizens suffer 2X the pain?

 

[This_person]

I believe the point is that the citizens of Ohio would suffer the negative consequences of increased federal deficits whether Kasich took the funding or Ohio or not so Katich logically decided why make his citizens suffer 2X the pain?

Well, if you're suggesting the money would be spent anyway, I would tend to disagree. Money was budgeted for "A", and not used that means that particular money is spent on "B". More likely if the money was spent on "A", "B" would have been funded anyway, meaning MORE deficit spending would have occurred (by the amount spent on Medicare expansion).

But, as to your previous post and this one, I personally am not in favor of the government being a charity, and using "compassion for the poor" as a guiding principle. I am all for using that as a guiding principle in my personal life, but it is not a function of the federal government. The tenth amendment pretty much makes such discretionary decisions up to the people and the states. If Ohioans want to spend that more money, they should pay for it through Ohio state taxes (which, in the long run, is from where the bulk of it will come, with federal government regulation strings now). If the people want it, they can certainly donate their cash as they see fit. It is entirely irresponsible and, in my view, unconstitutional for the federal government to do that at all.

Does that mean I'd end Medicare/Medicaid? Yes, yes I would. And, I would strongly urge each and every state to take that program over as they see fit in their state.

 

[SamSpade]

What about this process is so difficult for you right wingers to understand.

Oh I understand you loud and clear. You're just wrong.

If Hillary is SO damned awful - how is it that SHE won the nomination? Bernie came pretty close. And we had Martin O'Malley running.
*SHE* won her primary. If she wins, and Dems are revolted by her election, *they* have no one to blame but themselves. If Hillary wins, it's because she was nominated first by her party.
If a dead cat or Charles Manson won the Democratic nomination, THAT nomination is on the Dems. If they got votes - it's on the Democrats who voted for them.

Now, what about THAT is so difficult for you to understand? How do you BLAME a Hillary win on a single party fielding a poor candidate?
Are you so accustomed to blaming the right, you can't see that a Hillary presidency is the "fault" of the Democrats?

If YOU want to win a general election, YOU have to field the BETTER candidate. YOU. YOUR SIDE. If Republicans want to win the Presidency, nominate a candidate who appeals TO THE MAJORITY of voters.

And if you want to win the *NOMINATION* of the party - you have to appeal to the majority of the PARTY, no matter what the general population thinks. No nomination, no White House.
Assuming that GOP membership is less than half the nation, this more or less means you win the nomination based on the wishes of 20-25% of the voters out there. Almost certainly less.

Which is precisely the reason for the familiar movement of candidates to move to the center after their nomination, unless they can count on a substantial base to carry them in without it.

This isn't about Hillary Clinton. This is squarely about the Republican nominee.

No it isn't.

If you can neither take the fact that people disagree with you without blowing a gasket or assuming we don't understand you - or are horrified at the idea of either a Clinton or Trump administration -
then go stump or vote for someone else.

This election, no matter how "universally" disliked the two main candidates are, they each have a SUBSTANTIAL base that will absolutely vote for them.
Otherwise the third party candidates would be tracking a lot better. There are people who absolutely love Hillary, and people who love Trump.
Around 130 million people will cast a vote in November, and tens of millions of them will vote for Trump or Hillary, and they will WANT to do it.
Another portion will be voting against the other major party candidate.

Me, I think Hillary IS a buffoon, as you describe Trump. She is about the most corrupt politician I've seen in my lifetime, and if she has a corrupt administration which embarrasses and humiliates the Democratic party and the left, it will be because they shamelessly promoted her at every turn.

If you want a different outcome - get Gary Johnson into the debates. His hurdle is name recognition and exposure. Even if he doesn't win, he could prevent an electoral victory. But he has to win at least one state.
This hasn't happened in almost fifty years, but it can happen.

 

[This_person]

Oh I understand you loud and clear. You're just wrong.

Sam.....

 

[Pete]

Oh I understand you loud and clear. You're just wrong.

If Hillary is SO damned awful - how is it that SHE won the nomination? Bernie came pretty close. And we had Martin O'Malley running.
*SHE* won her primary. If she wins, and Dems are revolted by her election, *they* have no one to blame but themselves. If Hillary wins, it's because she was nominated first by her party.
If a dead cat or Charles Manson won the Democratic nomination, THAT nomination is on the Dems. If they got votes - it's on the Democrats who voted for them.

Now, what about THAT is so difficult for you to understand? How do you BLAME a Hillary win on a single party fielding a poor candidate?
Are you so accustomed to blaming the right, you can't see that a Hillary presidency is the "fault" of the Democrats?



And if you want to win the *NOMINATION* of the party - you have to appeal to the majority of the PARTY, no matter what the general population thinks. No nomination, no White House.
Assuming that GOP membership is less than half the nation, this more or less means you win the nomination based on the wishes of 20-25% of the voters out there. Almost certainly less.

Which is precisely the reason for the familiar movement of candidates to move to the center after their nomination, unless they can count on a substantial base to carry them in without it.



No it isn't.

If you can neither take the fact that people disagree with you without blowing a gasket or assuming we don't understand you - or are horrified at the idea of either a Clinton or Trump administration -
then go stump or vote for someone else.

This election, no matter how "universally" disliked the two main candidates are, they each have a SUBSTANTIAL base that will absolutely vote for them.
Otherwise the third party candidates would be tracking a lot better. There are people who absolutely love Hillary, and people who love Trump.
Around 130 million people will cast a vote in November, and tens of millions of them will vote for Trump or Hillary, and they will WANT to do it.
Another portion will be voting against the other major party candidate.

Me, I think Hillary IS a buffoon, as you describe Trump. She is about the most corrupt politician I've seen in my lifetime, and if she has a corrupt administration which embarrasses and humiliates the Democratic party and the left, it will be because they shamelessly promoted her at every turn.

If you want a different outcome - get Gary Johnson into the debates. His hurdle is name recognition and exposure. Even if he doesn't win, he could prevent an electoral victory. But he has to win at least one state.
This hasn't happened in almost fifty years, but it can happen.

I respectfully disagree.

We all know how Hillary won the nomination. 1. The democrats still adhere to the "my turn" mentality and deals were made then they purposely screwed her in 2008. 2. the DNC skewed the primary process against Bernie and for Hillary because a "Lannister pays his debts". Pure and simple. It was rigged for her.

She also won because her primary was not diluted with others. It was her against Bernie with Martin O'Malley and Webb who when combined have the charisma of a stale Ritz cracker. Now to your point Al Gore and Kerry ARE the fault of democratic primary voters. Different election.

The problem with the GOP this time around was a diluted field of 16 and everyone ignoring the "then" part of "if not X then Y". Trump had widespread support as many voters primary choice, he was their X. His number of X votes was not as big as the other X's plus the Y's of not Trump. The vote was diluted into 2 segments, Trump and not trump with the not Trump being spread 15 ways. Had it been Trump and 3 or 4 others who narrowed down to 2 in a reasonable amount of time he likely would not have been the nominee.

 

[vraiblonde]

Which Republican candidate would you have voted for over Hillary, Blue?

None. Any Democrat who says they'd have voted for a Republican over whoever the Dems put up is lying. Democrats vote for Democrats - no exceptions, the end.

The new narrative - which isn't a lot different than narratives in past elections - is: "Well you stupid Republicans should have nominated a better candidate instead of the dolt you did choose."

The translation:

"If you Republicans would all kill yourselves and stop trying to oppose the Democrat party, we...would still never ever say anything nice about your candidate and we would do everything we could to demonize him and try to manipulate the sheeple into not voting for him."

All their "if you had only nominated so-and-so, we'd have voted for him and thought it was great" bull#### is just that: bull####. In 2000, they were never going to vote for John McCain like they said they would have. How we know that is because in 2008 they actually had a chance to vote for McCain...and they didn't. They voted for the Democrat, just like they always do.

So all this "If you'd nominated (insert loser here) instead of Trump, we'd have voted for him" is complete and utter horse####. No matter who the Republican was, the media and the Dems would have gone after him/her like the rabid hyenas they are and eviscerated them as thoroughly as possible. They do it every single election.

 

[vraiblonde]

I like the way he handled himself as Gov and I like the way he handled himself in the debates and yes I did vote for him.

Liar. The only reason you "like" Kasich is because he isn't running. If he had gotten the nomination, you'd be saying the same things about him that you're saying about Trump, and you know it.

 

[Pete]

None. Any Democrat who says they'd have voted for a Republican over whoever the Dems put up is lying. Democrats vote for Democrats - no exceptions, the end.

The new narrative - which isn't a lot different than narratives in past elections - is: "Well you stupid Republicans should have nominated a better candidate instead of the dolt you did choose."

The translation:

"If you Republicans would all kill yourselves and stop trying to oppose the Democrat party, we...would still never ever say anything nice about your candidate and we would do everything we could to demonize him and try to manipulate the sheeple into not voting for him."

All their "if you had only nominated so-and-so, we'd have voted for him and thought it was great" bull#### is just that: bull####. In 2000, they were never going to vote for John McCain like they said they would have. How we know that is because in 2008 they actually had a chance to vote for McCain...and they didn't. They voted for the Democrat, just like they always do.

So all this "If you'd nominated (insert loser here) instead of Trump, we'd have voted for him" is complete and utter horse####. No matter who the Republican was, the media and the Dems would have gone after him/her like the rabid hyenas they are and eviscerated them as thoroughly as possible. They do it every single election.

I think the point is if the republicans had nominated a different "loser" less GOP would stay home and more Independents would break to the right. Democrats voting exclusively for democrats despite what they say is a given.

 

[This_person]

None.
They do it every single election.

Zero arguments from me.

I was trying to get Blue to admit that he wants lower taxes, pro-economic growth regulations, is against Obamacare, etc., etc.

That's why he gave me style points. All they have against Trump is style points, so they call them "racist" and such in the hopes it will stick.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think the point is if the republicans had nominated a different "loser" less GOP would stay home and more Independents would break to the right. Democrats voting exclusively for democrats despite what they say is a given.

We have no idea if Republicans will stay home instead of voting. It hasn't happened yet, and all those media speculations and assertions are just so much bull####.

We have no idea how Independents are going to vote because they haven't voted yet.

Don't you know by now that most of the polls you see are only so much bull#### and media manipulation? "100 college coeds polled say they are going to vote for...whats her name again? That woman? Oh yeah, her - Hillary. Wasn't she a vice-president?" Headline on the front page of USAToday: "100% of college students support Hillary Clinton".

Polls are bull####.

 

[GURPS]

But, as to your previous post and this one, I personally am not in favor of the government being a charity, and using "compassion for the poor" as a guiding principle. I am all for using that as a guiding principle in my personal life, but it is not a function of the federal government.

exactly the point I was trying to make ... don't rob me at gun point

 

[Larry Gude]

I am not arguing that Trump is not status quo, except for his flagship stance on immigration that is going through a transformation to ....the status quo response....What I am saying is that there are 55M who would not vote for Trump period and assuming the 15M voters who are angry enough with the status quo to vote for Trump in the primary stay solid, there are another 45M voters who have to pinch their nose and vote Trump. Many won't because Trump is a terrible candidate and makes himself more detestable with nearly every tweet.

That said I do not believe Trump would be a bad president. Honestly I do not know but wouldn't mind seeing how it went. I am saying the first hurdle in a presidential election is being "electable" and I do not believe Trump is. His campaign is being run like an episode of The Apprentice.

I think at of people think like you do and a lot are not saying so or being polled. At the end of the day it's Trump's words against her entire career of actions.

 

[GURPS]

So Katich's conviction to help the poor is bad because it is founded in his faith? What about non religious people who have compassion of the poor?

Nope, but that is not a function of Government - Federal, State, County or local township

 

[GURPS]

No matter who the Republican was, the media and the Dems would have gone after him/her like the rabid hyenas they are and eviscerated them as thoroughly as possible. They do it every single election.

during the last 2 election cycles - 08 and 12 - you could always tell who was up in any given week during the GOP Primary

that would be the Candidate getting eviscerated in the State Run Media - and with the most negative nhboy /nono posts of the week as well

 

[awpitt]

None. Any Democrat who says they'd have voted for a Republican over whoever the Dems put up is lying. Democrats vote for Democrats - no exceptions, the end.

This is incorrect. I have first hand knowledge of at least one Dem who has voted for Republicans on the ballot.

 

[vraiblonde]

during the last 2 election cycles - 08 and 12 - you could always tell who was up in any given week during the GOP Primary

that would be the Candidate getting eviscerated in the State Run Media - and with the most negative nhboy /nono posts of the week as well

Exactly. Even during the 2016 primaries you could tell who was leading the Republicans because they would be the star of umpteen million negative news stories, insulting memes, and social media hysteria. I'll bet it was a relief for the progbots when all the other GOP candidates dropped out so they could focus their vitriol on one person.

 

[vraiblonde]

This is incorrect. I have first hand knowledge of at least one Dem who has voted for Republicans on the ballot.

For president? How about governor? Maybe the senate? Have you ever voted for any Republican who was opposing Steny Hoyer?

Voting for a county Republican doesn't count. They are party neutral, for all intents and purposes.

 

[vraiblonde]

At the end of the day it's Trump's words against her entire career of actions.

Exactly, which is why it's so stunning that she has all this high profile support.

And those who say they'd have voted for Kasich if he'd gotten the nomination, but now will be voting for Hillary: that speaks volumes about Kasich, and none of it good. So stop lying.

 

[awpitt]

For president?

Yes.

How about governor?

Yes.

Maybe the senate?

I can't remember for sure so I'll say No.

Have you ever voted for any Republican who was opposing Steny Hoyer?

No.