The new party of no?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I haven't refused. I answered it in my first post on this thread.

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the democratic party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the democratic party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

Where do you get this more from? Same people involved here. WTF? The premise is simply not factual.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Where do you get this more from? Same people involved here. WTF? The premise is simply not factual.

Quote from the original link

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House


Anyone who believes that the President is center-right is seeing the world through very far left colored glasses. The Progressive Caucus is the far left of the party and when they are speaking for you as the minority leader, well you dont have to be a math whiz to add 2 and 2 together.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Quote from the original link

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House


Anyone who believes that the President is center-right is seeing the world through very far left colored glasses. The Progressive Caucus is the far left of the party and when they are speaking for you as the minority leader, well you dont have to be a math whiz to add 2 and 2 together.

She's talking about his position while compromising. 2 weeks ago, he was considering extending the tax break for the rich (a far Right position.). If he extends any of that tax break for them(at all,) guess what? That's Center-Right.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

She's talking about his position while compromising. 2 weeks ago, he was considering extending the tax break for the rich (a far Right position.). If he extends any of that tax break for them(at all,) guess what? That's Center-Right.

Tax cuts are now considered a far right position?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Tax cuts are now considered a far right position?

For people making over 250k, yes, extending the Bush tax cut is a far right position.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

See, this is a good example of how Republicans aren't into negotiation, or compromise. The President freezes Fed Gov't workers pay, and what happens? They simply call for more cutting of the Federal workers pay etc. There's no new offer to have the rich give up something, only more attack on the middle.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

For people making over 250k, yes, extending the Bush tax cut is a far right position.

The vast majority of people making over 250k are hardly considered the mega rich.

[Riot]

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

My opinion is no less half baked than your own

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

I answered all that in my post. Seriously, if you can't understand any political discussion more nuanced than yes or no answers, I don't see the point of you jumping into political discussions.

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

My opinion is no less half baked than your own



I answered all that in my post. Seriously, if you can't understand any political discussion more nuanced than yes or no answers, I don't see the point of you jumping into political discussions.

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

No you didnt answer the question. Saying you answered the question when you clearly didnt is another form of avoiding a question.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No you didnt answer the question. Saying you answered the question when you clearly didnt is another form of avoiding a question.

Then I can only assume you don't have the ability to read.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer.

I dont agree that the GOP has shifted further right the last 2 years, where they are now is about where they have been.
I dont agree that the stated goal of the last 2 years of GOP political tactics were to prevent the reelection of the President.
I don't believe the GOP is becoming more attached to its radical side.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer.

I dont agree that the GOP has shifted further right the last 2 years, where they are now is about where they have been.
I dont agree that the stated goal of the last 2 years of GOP political tactics were to prevent the reelection of the President.
I don't believe the GOP is becoming more attached to its radical side.

I do believe the GOP is more right than two years ago with the tea party element.

I also think the Dems are shifting more to the left.

There are very few people in the middle anymore.... they place they SHOULD be.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I do believe the GOP is more right than two years ago with the tea party element.

I also think the Dems are shifting more to the left.

There are very few people in the middle anymore.... they place they SHOULD be.

I think that type of polarization is historically a pretty common response after one party has a big White House win. It keeps the average in the middle over time.

I'm in the middle. You just get hit repeatedly with flaming bags of dog shiat from both sides. The concept of "middle" has gerrymandered all over the map. When GOP to the right of me (both fiscal and social conservatives) are called "liberals", it's gone beyond silly. Ronald Reagan would be too left for the GOP nowadays, and Eisenhower would be called a screaming liberal for his social programs!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer. .

It's your question