The President went around the country saying that HIS estimates were that for the average family, the premium under his plan would be $200 dollars LESS per month ($2,400/year).
REPEATEDLY. Many said it is impossible to do that considering the changes he was forcing. We were repeatedly told it was just our partisan "talking points" that it wouldn't happen. So I would like to ask democrats, liberals, others who voted for Obama. What happened? Why was his execution THAT far from his estimate? What to you think of that level of governmental performance, and what about it deserves your ongoing support?
So I would like to ask democrats, liberals, others who voted for Obama. What happened? Why was his execution THAT far from his estimate? What to you think of that level of governmental performance, and what about it deserves your ongoing support?
I've already seen at least one person on here blame it on Republicans. If mean old Republicans weren't trying to hard to repeal 0bamaCare, it would be working as advertised.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-07-2014).]
You know, one of the problems we all have is a tendency to pigeonhole people. I guess it's human nature.
To be clear, I wasn't a sheep before this event. I consider myself to be a levelheaded, informed citizen. Conservative ideas and practices fit best with my worldview but I would vote for a Democrat who I didn't agree with on most issues over a sleazy Republican.
I now believe I was wrong on that account.
It doesn't trouble those on the left to vote for sleazy candidates and they've been very successful advancing their agenda with the herd mentality.
Let's face it, Conservatives are at a tactical disadvantage due to their own philosophy which advances the individual over the group.
So now I have to "join up" and see if I can help reverse the progressives' damage.
You know, one of the problems we all have is a tendency to pigeonhole people. I guess it's human nature.
To be clear, I wasn't a sheep before this event. I consider myself to be a levelheaded, informed citizen. Conservative ideas and practices fit best with my worldview but I would vote for a Democrat who I didn't agree with on most issues over a sleazy Republican.
I now believe I was wrong on that account.
It doesn't trouble those on the left to vote for sleazy candidates and they've been very successful advancing their agenda with the herd mentality.
Let's face it, Conservatives are at a tactical disadvantage due to their own philosophy which advances the individual over the group.
So now I have to "join up" and see if I can help reverse the progressives' damage.
You are correct about "pigeonholing" people, although I think by and large, no one really thinks "all" democrats or liberals think one way or another, or refuse to recognize that Obama is far more sleazy than Romney was. Although, I'll add that it's the fault of the GOP that they lost the last election. They overestimated just how many people would admit that Obama was (is) a spectacular failure. So they figured they could parade just any knucklehead out for the voters and still take the white house. Hopefully in 2016 they'll be a bit more particular about who they put on the podium. You are definitely in a minority in admitting that you made a mistake, but it's a little too late. We tried to tell you.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 05-07-2014).]
I didn't say I voted for BO. In fact, I was sorely disappointed in the last national election. I said occasionally I would vote for a Democrat if the candidate exhibited the ability to stick to his principles even if I disagreed with him.
For example, here in Virginia we had a gubernatorial election last November. It pitted a principled guy but too far right for my tastes against an absolutely execrable ideologue. I though it would be no contest as the Democrat's record of sleazy business dealings would be too much for the citizens. I mean, who would vote for anyone who carried the "unindicted co-conspirator" label?
I was wrong.
The Democrats hit the Republican with all of the usual accusations and sure enough, we now have an unindicted co-conspirator running the state. Although the over/under on the label changing to indicted co-conspirator is 2 1/2 years. And thank God we have the sense to restrict governors to one term.
The upshot of all of this is that I have to become an ideologue.
I didn't say I voted for BO. In fact, I was sorely disappointed in the last national election. I said occasionally I would vote for a Democrat if the candidate exhibited the ability to stick to his principles even if I disagreed with him.
For example, here in Virginia we had a gubernatorial election last November. It pitted a principled guy but too far right for my tastes against an absolutely execrable ideologue. I though it would be no contest as the Democrat's record of sleazy business dealings would be too much for the citizens. I mean, who would vote for anyone who carried the "unindicted co-conspirator" label?
I was wrong.
The Democrats hit the Republican with all of the usual accusations and sure enough, we now have an unindicted co-conspirator running the state. Although the over/under on the label changing to indicted co-conspirator is 2 1/2 years. And thank God we have the sense to restrict governors to one term.
The upshot of all of this is that I have to become an ideologue.
Actually, I just mis-read your comment regarding who you did/didn't vote for. Although, even if I hadn't, I don't know exactly what I would have been "still doing"
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 05-07-2014).]
I didn't say I voted for BO. In fact, I was sorely disappointed in the last national election. I said occasionally I would vote for a Democrat if the candidate exhibited the ability to stick to his principles even if I disagreed with him.
For example, here in Virginia we had a gubernatorial election last November. It pitted a principled guy but too far right for my tastes against an absolutely execrable ideologue. I though it would be no contest as the Democrat's record of sleazy business dealings would be too much for the citizens. I mean, who would vote for anyone who carried the "unindicted co-conspirator" label?
I was wrong.
The Democrats hit the Republican with all of the usual accusations and sure enough, we now have an unindicted co-conspirator running the state. Although the over/under on the label changing to indicted co-conspirator is 2 1/2 years. And thank God we have the sense to restrict governors to one term.
The upshot of all of this is that I have to become an ideologue.
I remember watching that one. I don't think he won by a lot if I remember correctly. I was surprised also. Unfortunately, again everybody that want's this crap out of here needs to get out and vote. I have family around Culpeper. I remember texting them that day to get out and vote. They couldn't make it. We also had someone working here in Baltimore that was still a resident of Virginia. They didn't take the time to send in a absentee ballots. That was 4 votes right there for the other guy, and I know without a doubt that they would have voted Republican.
Originally posted by RayOtton: Conservative ideas and practices fit best with my worldview but I would vote for a Democrat who I didn't agree with on most issues... I now believe I was wrong on that account.
.
Yes you were. You even went against yourself. Brave to take ownwership of that publicly. In reality we only know what what we know about cantidates, and its best to go with that. I know I sure wouldnt vote for someone I thought really stood by their principles if I disagreed with their principles, or thought their principles would lead to something I disagreed with, or was bad for the country. That said most politicians lie, intentionally or not.
Actually, I just mis-read your comment regarding who you did/didn't vote for. Although, even if I hadn't, I don't know exactly what I would have been "still doing"
It sounded like you were still pigeonholing me, that's all, no big deal.
Let's face it, written communications are severely lacking when it comes to the true meaning we're trying to convey. I think it's something like 80% of our face to face communications is non-verbal. So there's a lot we miss when talking on a forum.
I doubt it. Some will just dig a deeper hole and blame the repubs for everything. IF they were waking up, they would be calling out obama on SEVERAL more lies.
You know, I think we do create an unfortunate dichotomy for most politicians. We say we admire their conviction to certain principals, even if we don't agree with them, until something like that actually effects us. Then we aren't so happy about them being so committed. But then, if a politician decides to be flexible (as some say they want) if he "flexes" on an issue that they don't like, then he's a spineless jellyfish who doesn't stand behind his principals, or he's a flip-flopper. Now having said that, I guess that's where it matters that we actually know what a guy stands for, and if he's "flexible" or has conviction. That's why I liked Ron Paul so much, there was absolutely no question where he stood on things, he had a 30 year record of consistent voting. There was no guessing with Ron.
Let's face it, Conservatives are at a tactical disadvantage due to their own philosophy which advances the individual over the group.
So now I have to "join up" and see if I can help reverse the progressives' damage.
you see that's where liberals logic falls short. Advancement of the individual props up groups for success, providing opportunity for others to do the same. Liberal backing of "groups" shackles masses in the name if equality, except for those elites at the top......
