I grew up post-racism and post-reproductive rights in the Northeast.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I have a VERY straight face. I will NOT be another domino because I have said to much already.

You expect me to believe that you know about a Presidential document about which nobody else knows, but you don't know about the attempt to rescue the American Embassy officials held hostage in Iran?

I expect you to respect that I am an anononymous person responding to your post based upon my DC "coffee talk." That's it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well that's a different question entirely. One I can't help you with because I'm a white, well-educated, new rich, usually Republican voter who doesn't want to see more and more of my hard-earned money being taken by Democrats and going to God-knows-what and not doing much good. And, yes, I'm a woman and I have daughters.

This is something I see lots of -- lots of seemingly educated people who vote Republican mostly because they're rich and want to keep their money. Okay, I get it. That's the priority for some -- hell, if I were rich, who knows? Maybe I too wouldn't want to share a tiny percentage of my wealth with people who really need it. But anyway, what about all of the lower-to-middle class people who vote for R/R? That I don't get. The rich and greedy people, okay, maybe I can understand your position a bit. But those who aren't rich - why are you voting for R/R?

ANd nobody has chimed in on that PP who asked a R/R supporter to provide some basics on these candidates' positions/plans on some of the top issues. I can't find that information anywhere!!

No rational definition of 42% (paid in taxes last year) is considered "tiny."

Good point. I didn't realize the percentage was so high. Was it lower under Bush?

I don't know, we weren't earning as much when Bush was president. But it's certain that it will be higher in the next 4 years under OB than it would be under RR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well that's a different question entirely. One I can't help you with because I'm a white, well-educated, new rich, usually Republican voter who doesn't want to see more and more of my hard-earned money being taken by Democrats and going to God-knows-what and not doing much good. And, yes, I'm a woman and I have daughters.

This is something I see lots of -- lots of seemingly educated people who vote Republican mostly because they're rich and want to keep their money. Okay, I get it. That's the priority for some -- hell, if I were rich, who knows? Maybe I too wouldn't want to share a tiny percentage of my wealth with people who really need it. But anyway, what about all of the lower-to-middle class people who vote for R/R? That I don't get. The rich and greedy people, okay, maybe I can understand your position a bit. But those who aren't rich - why are you voting for R/R?

ANd nobody has chimed in on that PP who asked a R/R supporter to provide some basics on these candidates' positions/plans on some of the top issues. I can't find that information anywhere!!

No rational definition of 42% (paid in taxes last year) is considered "tiny."

Good point. I didn't realize the percentage was so high. Was it lower under Bush?

I don't know, we weren't earning as much when Bush was president. But it's certain that it will be higher in the next 4 years under OB than it would be under RR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't find their positions anywhere? Really.....

Educated non-rich and voting for RR for sure.

Why? What is it that makes you a supporter?

I support less government, less taxes, school choice and repeal of Obamacare. All things RR support.

Oh look, everybody! Another republican listed the Official List of Republican Talking Points! How fun!

Less gov't - gov't actually grows under republican leadership. Big fat myth that it grows under the dems. Sure, the money moves around, and dems give more money to those that didn't get much from the repubs and vice versa, so spare me the list of agencies and programs that have grown in the past 4 years because I will counter that with a list of those that have been cut. but overall, gov't is almost always bigger under repubs.

Less taxes - has Obama raised your taxes? Are you sure that you did not benefit from any of his tax cuts? How will R/R lower your taxes? I know that they keep telling you they will, but surely you have more to go on then that. So, what makes you think they will cut your taxes more then Obama?

School choice - this issue seems to have come from out of nowhere. From what I understand, it has several definitions, depending on who you ask. Most people seem to define it as getting vouchers from the gov't to help pay for private education. This is my favorite little quirks that repubs have. You want less spending/taxes/gov't for everyone else, but then you keep asking for more gov't money and programs. If you want tax payer dollars to pay for private education, then you apparently don't want smaller gov't/lower taxes. How is this not obvious?

Repeal of Obamacare - Ok, we get it. You guys don't like Obamacare. Can you give us even one really good reason for not liking it? Of course it's not perfect at this point, but we will work out the kinks as we go. And some of us will suffer some minor inconveniences (see PP sad story about having to fill out a form to buy someone a $20 lunch and pay a 2.3% tax to pay for the millions of potential clients she will gain), but I have yet to hear anything even remotely worthy of justifying denial of health care to millions of Americans. You guys like to call it socialism and think that it's an infringement on your rights to force you to have healthcare. If you make this argument, I will assume you are a Christian Scientist and I will concede that your particular group could/should possibly be exempt. The rest of us participate in the health care field at some point so it makes sense that we all pay for it, right? Do you realize that you are already footing the bill for those who walk into the ER without coverage, even though they can afford it? Are you cool with that? I'm not, so I'm thrilled that Obamacare eliminates this. What about you? If you don't have coverage and can afford it, do you have millions of dollars set aside just in case you become ill and undergo years of treatment? You wouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for that, would you? So, please tell me what you have issue with...the fact that your kids can stay on your plan until 26? not being able to discriminate against pre-existing conditions? No lifetime cap?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well that's a different question entirely. One I can't help you with because I'm a white, well-educated, new rich, usually Republican voter who doesn't want to see more and more of my hard-earned money being taken by Democrats and going to God-knows-what and not doing much good. And, yes, I'm a woman and I have daughters.

This is something I see lots of -- lots of seemingly educated people who vote Republican mostly because they're rich and want to keep their money. Okay, I get it. That's the priority for some -- hell, if I were rich, who knows? Maybe I too wouldn't want to share a tiny percentage of my wealth with people who really need it. But anyway, what about all of the lower-to-middle class people who vote for R/R? That I don't get. The rich and greedy people, okay, maybe I can understand your position a bit. But those who aren't rich - why are you voting for R/R?

ANd nobody has chimed in on that PP who asked a R/R supporter to provide some basics on these candidates' positions/plans on some of the top issues. I can't find that information anywhere!!

No rational definition of 42% (paid in taxes last year) is considered "tiny."

Good point. I didn't realize the percentage was so high. Was it lower under Bush?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't find their positions anywhere? Really.....

Educated non-rich and voting for RR for sure.

Why? What is it that makes you a supporter?

I support less government, less taxes, school choice and repeal of Obamacare. All things RR support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't find their positions anywhere? Really.....

Educated non-rich and voting for RR for sure.

Why? What is it that makes you a supporter?

I support less government, less taxes, school choice and repeal of Obamacare. All things RR support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't find their positions anywhere? Really.....

Educated non-rich and voting for RR for sure.

Why? What is it that makes you a supporter?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 7:36 and I want to add it is insulting to claim the war on women only involves policy about reproduction. The War on Women is being conducted by people who do not respect the fact that people support different candidates. I have been a pro-choice Republican my entire life. I do not like being told there is a war on everything that is surrounding me and in me in order to vote for a man who campaigned against war and certainly couldn't win one.

Why don't you compare the number of Americans killed defeating Qaddafi to the number of Americans killed in Bush's invasion of Iraq. Then, let's have a discussion about who is capable of winning a war.

Bush said he didn't care very much about OBL. Romney said, "It’s Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth And Spending Billions Of Dollars Just Trying To Catch One Person."

When Obama said that if he had actionable intelligence about the location of OBL, he would deploy forces to an allied country to attack him, Romney said, "I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama To Enter An Ally Of Ours."

Yeah, Obama didn't win that one, did he?

They got lucky on that very lucky and they know it and so do you. None of the past presidents could catch him, not one would give one credit for getting it done.

You know what they say, "you make your own luck." Obama explicitly said that if he had actionable intelligence, he would not hesitate to enter an allied country to get OBL. When he became President, he raised the priority of going after OBL. Sure, most intelligence operations involve a certain amount of luck, but the break wouldn't have come if the US hadn't been trying. Both Bush and Romney down-played getting OBL. Romney explicitly criticized Obama for his stated policy of being willing to enter an allied nation. When the time came, Obama did what he said that he would do. You are putting a lot of faith in Romney being a liar and doing what he said he wouldn't do. I'll grant you, it's a good bet that Romney is lying anytime he is talking. But, Obama made his own luck. Everyone should give him credit for that.

Our President had no substantial role in offing him other than saying YES when asked to proceed on an operation that was planned for years/months, by highly skilled leaders and special forces teams. You or I would have done the same, when presented by such a complete plan, with all kinds of mitigations and backups, using the best or intelligence and best resources, with a decent risk factor, all built by one Admiral.   Note - our president , in his usual way, also had a document signed that said he was abdicating responsibility if anything went wrong.  That's our President - taking credit when all goes well, but blameless, not engaged , not involved, if it goes badly. In the military,  the Commander is responsible and accountable.  Our president is only selectively accountable . He cherry picks.. and this was one of his cherry picks. He doesnt have many, because pretty much everything he has touched during the last 4 years has been a disaster .   Therefore, I'll stand by my statement. I will give you this: it is difficult to ascertain the truth with all the PR smoke and mirrors. 

As a follow on, what president would have gone on national TV , before all the intelligence was assessed, to proclaim victory and reveal details that should not have been revealed? Is it any wonder a member of the Seal team, following our President's lead and the Administration's lead, with the numerous national security leaks, writes a book to reveal the story? The SEAL member didn't push the first domino of ubiquitous leaks and I doubt he'll be the last until our nation's extreme divisions heal. If he and his team starts to do this, then, I will give him credit.