segnosaur

It was quite some time ago, and I don't think Chong was particularly well known at the time, so I doubt whether a lot of Quebecers will know (or care) about Chong standing up to Harper.

Jebus taught tolerance and acceptance (e.g. the good samaritan). Of helping your fellow man. He ran around feeding the multitudes and healing the sick. What evangelical Trump supporters are doing is running around voting for a man who, instead of tolerance, preaches racism (blacks are lazy), and intolerance (can't trust those Mexican immigrants). Instead of the message of helping your fellow man, Trump suggests "Screw those other guys. They can suffer". The bible has a section on "thou shalt not bear false witness", yet there is trump tweeting about non-existant wiretapps. The bible has a section on not stealing, but there is Trump having to shell out millions because he defrauded dozens of people through Trump University. Too bad there weren't at least a few Evangelicals who actually realized that they made a mistake in voting for trump. You know, here's the thing... if you really don't think Trump is racist, then maybe you should take a good long look at your own beliefs; perhaps the only reason he doesn't seem racist is because you yourself are racist. Trump has: Called black people lazy, claimed someone was untrustworthy because of their heritage. His organization got in trouble twice because of racial discrimination in renting to minorities. If you don't think any of that is a sign of being racist, then perhaps there is a problem with your preception. No, actually it is that shallow. Evangelicals (trump supporters) are hypocrites. End of story. They may try to justify their hypocracy but they are still hyopcrites. Its a question of degrees. One person who purposely defrauded dozens of people, who made racist comments and who lies more often than not is more of a sinner than someone who has lied only occasionally. The policy and intention of Trump is to be racist and to bring in policies which are both racist and which provide no assistance for people needing help. If you consider that to be "christian" then you are proving me to be right.

I didn't claim it would be revenue-neutral for everyone. The idea is that it would be revenue neutral for the government. People who burn lots of fossil fuel pay more in taxes, those that burn less fossil fuel pay less. And if they are paying "most of the carbon tax", a good question that they should ask themselves is "why"? Very true. But then you have to ask yourself... why exactly are those people living in rural areas? Many people like to live out in the country because they like the quiet, and then commute to the city. For those people they don't NEED to drive as much, they've just made a decision to pattern their lifestyle around it. Actually its not discriminatory. It hits certain people who use more fossil fuels. Most people have ways they can cut down the amount of carbon output, whether its something small (replacing your lightbulbs with CFL or LEDs) or something major (buy a smaller car, or move closer to the city to reduce the commute.) Without carbon taxes, people who burn more fossil fuels end up causing environmental harm than people who use less. Do you think its fair for someone to have to pay to fix the environment just because someone wants to commute 100km each day in a Hummer? So, if you're paying >$2000, what exactly are you doing to generate that much carbon dioxide?

Sorry, but I suspect that if I spent my time listening to that, it would be 20-30 minutes that I would be closer to death with nothing useful to show for it. Yes the evidence is the same... there is nada, zip, ziltch. That this one broadcaster on one radio station is the only source for your "evidence" should be setting off alarm bells. Heck, if you can't even point to something on Fox News' web site (which tends to be more supportive of Trump and critical of Obama) then that should indicate that perhaps your source of information is flawed. As for Nunes... I think the reason people want him to step down is because they think he's too friendly with Trump... having worked for his campaign, and brought evidence to the whitehouse before bringing it to the committee. In other words, they don't want him to step down because they fear he'll expose Obama, but because he WON'T properly investigate Trump.

Here's a question... can you actually provide evidence from written sources (textual web pages)? Not all of us can watch/listen to videos, and even when we can, its not easy to address any issues that are brought up (in case we want to debunk anything written.) ETA: I'm not sure when your particular video was uploaded, but looking at the broadcaster's website, it looks like the video is over half a week old... its possible that his claims of "Trump being wiretapped" are outdated. (As Kimmy says, of of what Nunes has said he has retracted.)

Ok, here's an exercise for you... in all the things you've posted (either on this forum, or others), can you honestly say there is absolutely nothing that you've ever said that might upset someone in some way (even if it was a joke that you did not mean seriously, or some difference of opinion.) I seriously doubt anyone is that clean. And if you think that someone might be upset.. under your suggested "rules" you would be libel to be sued.

I cannot speak to your exact situation, since I obviously don't have access to your Tax returns. But, from what I understand, while B.C. has introduced a carbon tax, they have also cut income taxes and corporate taxes to compensate. (By law everything must be revenue neutral.) From: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too. If you are really paying more in carbon taxes, then one of 2 things probably applies: - You are either ignoring a reduction in taxes that benefit you or: - You are paying more because you actually burn more fossil fuel than the average person (maybe you drive a Hummer, or leave all your doors open in the winter time to drive up your heating bill.) In which case while it may seem unfair to you, if you weren't paying more it would be unfair to people who are negatively affected more by global warming than you are. As for me paying the B.C. government for the carbon tax... fine. Only if they can have my income taxes cut to the level they are in B.C. I'd probably make out fairly well in such a scheme... I drive a relatively small car, live close to work, and live in a townhome (minimizing my heating requirements.)

You mean the ignorance of the Evangelical christian? Yeah, that was the point. I think you're overthinking things a bit too much. I doubt the writers of the Simpsons bothered trying to make a reference to some ancient city in their joke. They were just trying to portray Homer's foolishness by not getting the name right. Rather ironic isn't it... Atheist use a false name "Jebus" but usually act in a manner that is consistent with what Jesus would have preached. (At least politically.) Evangelical christians use the correct name "Jesus", but screw up the message and end up supporting a racist bigot who is everything that Jesus would have condemned (had he existed).

As another poster pointed out, it comes from an episode of the Simpsons. Yes, its done as a way to show condescension to those who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet act in a manner that is inconsistent with what was preached. Do you want Christians to be treated with more respect? Then fine... talk to the evangelicals and get them to quit being such raging hypocrites. Get them to condemn trump just as much (if not more) as they condemned Hillary during the election. Get them to actually oppose Trump's policies that are opposed to what Christians are supposed to believe in... refugee bans, foreign aid cuts, the wall, etc. As long as you have this big block of Trump-voting right-wing Evangelical christians. they will always be mocked.

How do you know if someone's life is truly harmed in a "bad manner"? Do just hurt feelings count? Reputation with others? Or do you have to demonstrate a tangible loss (such as financial loss)? And do you apply the same rules to a famous person as you would to a relatively anonymous person? And how believable does it have to be? For example, if I say "Altai is really a space reptile from Mars who has come to earth to enslave us all", would that be considered something that would be valid to sue anyone over. After all, its pretty obvious that Altai is not a space reptile from Mars (since most people know that most space reptiles come from Venus.) If you set the bar too low and say "my hurt feelings are enough to count", then basically you end up with a chilling effect on all speech, on the chance someone might be offended. There was a very famous legal case a few years ago when Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine after they published a satirical (and rather crude) piece making fun of Falwell. The U.S. supreme court deemed that such a piece was protected free speech, because 1) it was satire and obvious to a reasonably intelligent person that it was not accurate, and 2) Falwell was a public figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Not really sure where this is coming from.. Technically such a situation wouldn't be criminal (i.e. one over which you could get arrested by the government), but in many countries a person could be sued for libel or slander for making false statements. (Libel/Slander is not part of criminal law, but part of civil law.) In court, there would be the need to demonstrate that the statement 1) actually was false, and 2) actually caused harm. There may also be a need to illustrate that the intent in making the statement was malicious (i.e. that you deliberately intended to hurt someone). Its always a balance... the need to prevent someone from being harmed by false accusations, vs. the need to allow free speech in all its forms (including satire).

It solves the problem in proportion to the amount of problems we are causing in the first place. Depends on how carbon taxes are implemented. Chong's plan is to offset carbon taxes with reductions in other taxes, which would offset much of the negative economic impact of the taxes. This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about... rather than dealing with the science, conservatives picking some non-issue (i.e. that a non-climatologist supports the concept of global warming), rather than actually dealing with the actual evidence. I don't base my understanding of the science of Global warming because David Suzuki or Al Gore say so... I base it on (for example) the people of NASA, who don't perhaps get the spotlight but have the knowledge and abilities to actually analyze the problem. And I base it upon people like Phil Plait, a.k.a. the Bad Astronomer, who has both substantial experience with astronomy (so has knowledge of planetary systems), AND is active in the skeptical movement. Yes, people like Suzuki are not climatologists, but they aren't necessarily doing the research themselves, just passing on information from those who DID do the research. We pay more attention to experts in the field because, well, they're actual experts. Science can be hard, and what many people think makes sense doesn't actually stand up to proper scrutiny. But hey, if a non-scientist came up with real evidence that global warming wasn't an issue, then they should be listened to. Unfortunately, all the evidence that they seem to provide is as vacuous as "it snowed a lot so global warming is false", or "David Suzuki things global warming is real but he's not a climatologist so it must be false". This illustrates perfectly the problem with the political right... Earlier in your post you hint strongly that its not a problem... "Suzuki is a biologist so climate change must be wrong". Then you turn around and say "Carbon taxes are not a solution". So, since you seem to be so dismissive of the issue, then why exactly should anyone listen to you when you try to actually claim "carbon taxes aren't a solution"? Being a conservative should not mean someone is automatically dismissive of science. You mean some are conservative? As I said before, its a tragedy that being conservative seems to equate with being anti-science. I voted conservative in the last federal election. I voted conservative in the previous federal election. I also vote conservative in the provincial elections. I have spent time criticizing previous and the current Liberal governments. And I think there were a lot of ways that Harper failed by not going far enough (such as eliminating the CBC). But when I see so many on the political right condemning basic science, it certainly makes it difficult to justify my vote.

That may be a fair assessment. And that's why I want the conservatives to actually be involved in the discussion about climate change... so they can approach the issue with a more fiscal/business oriented mindset.

Keep in mind that Chong's policies involve more than just carbon taxes. He wants to offset it by (for example) reductions in income taxes. The end result is that the average Canadian will end up with about the same level of taxation. However, those who choose to use more fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a hummer to work every day) will end up paying more, and those that use less fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a civic) will pay less. From a purely libertarian/economic point of view, that's actually the fairest thing to do. If you accept the science (which is neither conservative nor liberal, but, well, science), global warming will have an effect that will impact people in different ways. Either way, the government (and ultimately the taxpayer) will end up paying for it somehow, whether its immediately (carbon taxes, cap and trade, subsidized green energy) or in the future (higher food prices, loss of property in coastal areas through rising sea levels). The idea that people's contribution to the solution to the problem should be proportional to how much they caused the problem in the first place actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. Leitch is too close to being a Donald Trump-lite for my liking.

Of course, how could he give the country away now? He's already given it to Putin. Can't give it away twice now, can he. It will suck billions of dollars out of the US economy... money that could be spent on (for example) high-tech research and development, or schools, or roads and similar infrastructure; all things which will actually benefit Americans.Or he could give everyone tax rebates, and have people spend the money that way. And then there are the other issues: - The wall will cause environmental problems, as a wall will sub-divide many animal species and possibly leading to extinction. Do you think baby Jebus likes it when animals go extinct? - In order to build his wall, Trump will likely need to expropriate (i.e. take away from people involuntarily) people's property. Do you think Baby Jebus likes it when people's stuff is taken away from them? No, it won't. As has been pointed out before... Proportionally, illegal immigrants are involved in fewer crimes (theft, murder, etc.) than natural born Americans. And even then, most illegal immigrants do not cross the US/Mexico boarder by land anyways. You know, I noticed a pattern here: I have pointed out many serious moral failings with Trump. Yet time and time again you seem to ignore those failings. just so you can go back and repeat stuff that's already been debunked. These moral failings are why many people look down with revulsion at Christians. Supposedly, Baby Jebus preached messages of tolerance, of helping your fellow man. The bible has messages about not lying. You have this large group of evangelical Christians, who claim to believe in Jebus. Yet those same people who claimed to believe in Jebus: - Voted for a man who, prior to the election exhibited some very non-Christian behavior (racism, adultery) - During the election, made statements and made promises that were very non-Christian (racist, such as bringing back "stop and frisk") and lied on a regular basis (i.e. "I will bring back manufacturing jobs"), far in excess of his political opponents - Following the election, continued to lie (e.g. Obama's wiretapping). So much for the commandment about "bearing false witness" - Has tried to enact policies that are very non-christian (such as cutting foreign aid, and trying to stop refugees. So much for helping your fellow man.) All so that he could supposedly appoint a Supreme court judge who would curtail abortion, although as I pointed out, overall Trump's policies may actually cause more abortions in the long term. I think its pretty fair to say, christian=raging hypocrite, is it not?

Canada may not be able to solve the problem globally. We can hopefully reduce our own contribution to the problem, in proportion to the amount that we cause the problem in the first place. Actually, the point of Carbon taxes is to increase the price of fossil fuels to reflect their true costs (by taking in externalities). By doing so, it will hopefully put other technologies (I favor nuclear, but others may like solar or wind) on a more even footing. So, carbon taxes may or may not work. But again, the thing is, if conservatives don't like carbon taxes, then come up with alternatives, and lets judge each possible solution appropriately. (Carbon taxes may end up being a giant tax grab... that's why I want conservatives involved... because if they are implemented I want them to be revenue neutral.) Probably because those challenging climate science are often not equipped to debate the science in a reasonable rational matter. (Its sort of like a creationist trying to claim that they have "proof" that evolution is false, when really its their own ignorance being demonstrated.) And yes, there may be the occasional problem with people making mistakes, or making exagerations. But that really doesn't affect the bulk of the research that has been done. (Again, its sort of like the creationist who points to the Piltdown man, but ignores the thousands of other pieces of evidence that support evolution.) Trying to get this back to the main thread topic... I have no idea whether Chong would be a good choice. Yes, his stance on carbon taxes might harm him in the leadership race. It might have less of an effect in a general election however, since it might allow the conservatives to pick up a few votes from moderates. Admittedly, I haven't been paying much attention to the leadership race. But, from glancing at some of the potential leaders, at least some would actually drive me to vote the the Liberals if they were to win. Chong seems pretty reasonable at least policy wise.

Sure, because people who are totally innocent end up getting sued and have to settle for millions upon millions of dollars. By obsticales do you mean things like the constitution? You keep claiming that. I don't think you know what the definition of that word means. Under Obama, the American immigration system announced they would: "prioritize convicted criminals and threats to public safety, border security, and national security." Sounds to me like they had an interest in dealing with those who commit crimes. First of all, any refugee attempting to get into the U.S. goes through a rather significant screening process... Typically over a year long, and involving interviews by multiple agencies. (And often those refugees are taken from refugee camps where they have been living for months.) While you can never be completely sure, the chance that any of those refugees would be a "radical endangering America" is tiny. We are talking a chance of 1 in billions. You're many more times likely to be struck by lighting than killed in a terrorist attack organized by a refugee from Syria/Iraq. http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong Secondly, those refugees are often fleeing some truly horrific conditions.... women are sexually abused, children are indoctrinated. Men can be killed if they don't fold their hands correctly in prayer. It seems to me that the "christian" thing to do would be to recognize when someone is suffering, and to try to help those people (even if the result is microscopically tiny chance of being harmed as a result. Ironic... Trump gets much of his support from supposed evangelical christians, and enacts a policy that seems to fly in the face of what Jebus would actually want. I guess the big take-away from this is: Evangelical Christians=Stark-raving Hypocrites. At least those women who are sexually abused by Isis won't have to worry about having abortions. He may want to, but those jobs are not coming back. Even if he managed to get some factories to relocate back to the U.S., automation means that they will not be employing as many people. Those jobs are gone for good.. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/21/why-trumps-factory-job-promises-wont-pan-out-in-one-chart/ Trump should have known that. His repeated claim that he was going to bring back the jobs is a lie. Lying makes baby Jebus cry. Do you want baby Jebus to cry? Yes, because nothing makes Baby Jebus smile more than the thought of millions of people on the earth subject to scorching temperatures and poisoned air. All praise baby Jebus!

I think you might be confusing Carbon taxes with Carbon credits/offsets. It is true, Canada contributes a relatively small amount to the amount of Carbon released. But, in the grand scheme of things we will also be paying a very small portion of the total cost of fixing the issue I say this as someone who has voted conservative in the last election... This is one of the major problems within the political right wing... Global warming is happening, and humans are contributing to it. There is more than enough evidence to support that. And there are no easy solutions to dealing with the problem. Ideally, I would love for the conservatives to be involved in solving the problem... help pick out a solution that makes the most economic (as well as scientific) sense. Instead, far too many Canadian conservatives (or American republicans) keep ignoring the problem. They dismiss it as a "hoax", or suggest that because it snowed during the spring that Global warming isn't happening. Or they will nitpick, pointing out how "it used to be called global warming now its called climate change so its obviously not an issue". Or, they will say things like "we don't contribute that much to the problem". The longer that conservatives sit on the sidelines making non-scientific claims and sniping at scientists and environmentalists, the less moral authority that we have in proposing solutions.

If a person is changing their stance so often in a short period of time (from pro choice to anti-abortion to sometimes pro-choice but not really) then it suggests that their attachment to a policy may not be as strong as you might think. Go read the link I provided. It talks about Trump signing an order ending funding for any family planning organization that even TALKS about abortion to women in the 3rd world. The problem is, without access to birth control, women often end up with unwanted pregnancies and end up having an abortion when simple access to birth control might have prevented that. This is typical of the religious right... engage in a knee-jerk reaction (ban funding abortions!) without realizing that the real world is much more complex than that. Provide a complete range of family planning (including birth control and abortion), and ultimately the number of abortions go down as women gain more control over their reproductive life. He probably is. Of course, the democrats may fillibuster so who knows whether he'll actually make it. You see, this is why Trump supporters are often held in such low regard. Trump has lied more often than Clinton. If you look at Politifact, you'll see them at almost polar opposites; most of Trump's statements are rated as false/pants on fire, where as more of Clinton's statements are rated as true/mostly true. (And lies make baby Jebus cry.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/ And yes, there are some issues with the Clinton foundation, but they pale in comparison to the Trump foundation. Whatever "scandal" you can find that Clinton was involved with, if you poke around you can find Trump was involved in problems that were far worse. Yet here you are, saying that you "don't trust Clinton". Fine if you think abortion is wrong. Just remember that you are voting for someone who plans to enact racist policies. I guess saving babies are good until they grow up to be minorities, in which case you can start to abuse them. Is that what you really think Jebus would want? And once again... you are falsely assuming that Trump actually had policies that will make America better/safer. As I pointed out, most of his election promises were completely vague (He'll bring in a great health care plan but has no idea how to do so), contradictory, or even counterproductive. (Did you know that his muslim ban will actually kill more americans than it saves? http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-ban-medical-20170201-story.html Or more likely it will drag us down too,.. - His economic deregulations may sound good in the short run, but he could be setting us up for another 2008-style economic meltdown that could affect the entire global economy. Likewise, his economic protectionism is something seen by most businessmen/economists as a huge mistake. - His environmental policies (in particular those involving global warming) will affect the entire globe Fact: People in the U.S. illegally actually engage in less crime on a per-capita basis than natural born Americans. Fact: Clinton did have policies to tackle drug addiction, which makes more sense as a way to stop the illegal drug trade over anything Trump suggested. Trump's suggestion of building a wall is stupid both economically and environmentally, and building a wall will mean the government will have to seize the property of hundreds of Americans. Does that sound like something Jebus would approve of? Not sure about you, but I've never engaged in fraud (see: Trump University), or bribery (see: Pam Bondi). I certainly can't say that I'm not a sinner... but I think its pretty clear that Trump is a bigger sinner than I am, and probably a bigger sinner than the vast majority. (He is certainly a bigger sinner than Clinton.) I'm pretty sure if someone's sins involve multi-million dollar fraud, and/or huge bribes to political figures, your sins are going to be pretty visible regardless of who you are.

I've already dealt with that in my previous post, when I pointed out that 1) he HAD no policies (or at least very few that were concrete, instead relying on vague promises), and 2) personal behavior may be an indication about how reliable the person will be in carrying out his policies. Yes there can be good reasons for divorce. There are problems here however: - There is no evidence that abuse was an issue (at least against trump.. if trump was an abuser himself then that hardly means his divorce makes him "moral") - Many hardcore religious types are against all divorce, and even ones that think divorce is acceptable in some situations probably wouldn't think those situations were met in Trump's case. - Trump was unfaithful in at least one of his marriages All indications are that Trump simply wanted to "trade up" to a new model of wife. Yes, Hillary and the democrats were pro-choice. Supposedly Trump was anti-abortion. For some far-right religious people, that may be enough to justify voting for Trump, regardless of all of Trump's other immoralities. However: - Trump has not always been anti-abortion, and at various points he has been pro-choice http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/11/carly-fiorina/fiorina-trumps-abortion-flip-flop/ - Trump's plans may actually increase the number of abortions in some cases. Granted, this may not matter to your regular hard-right religious voter, who probably isn't too smart to begin with. https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-anti-abortion-order-is-actually-likely-to-increase-abortions/ - Even if someone on the religious right abortion is a key issue, Trump supporters still voted for a bigoted (see: Trump's statements on black people) con-man (see: Trump University) who is far less moral than Clinton. I doubt that if Jebus existed, he'd support calling black people lazy or conning innocent people out of money. In theory those on the religious right should be criticizing Trump over these issues, saying "we are voting for him over the abortion issue even though we disagree with everything else". But they're not doing so... instead, they are spending their time talking about how god is working for Trump, or similar idiocy.

It may be hyperbole. I don't think it rises to the level of "hate speech", since I doubt anyone thinks Trump is literally Satan. (If he were, I'd actually have more respect for him, since Satan does something useful... he punishes wrongdoers.) Errr... not really. We have more than enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist, bigot, and sexist. That he regularly lies more frequently than his political opponents. And some were not. And even if you ignore the groping, you have his multiple divorces, his infidelities, and things like walking into the dressing rooms at beauty pagents. It is true that policies should be considered more important than personal behavior. There are 2 issues here though: - Personal behavior may serve as a guideline about how well a person will follow through with his policies. Are they claiming they're for "family values" but have multiple divorces? Then they are hypocritical and you will need to judge their policies appropriately. - If someone is judging policy over personality, then they actually need policies to judge. Most of what Trump said was incredibly vague... he was going to "Fix health care" but gave no plans on how to do it. He was going to "defeat ISIS" but said he was going to keep his plans hidden. In the absence of policies, all you have to go on is personality and past actions. I think this comic says it all:

Errr... not really. Most of what Trump has done is sign a bunch of executive orders, some of which 1) got blocked by the courts (I guess Trump didn't realize that he actually has to pay attention to the consitution), or 2) were pretty vacuous, or 3) trump had no idea what was in them. His first major attempt at "governing" (the health care bill) ended in failure, and his tax reform plans may end up the same way. Which intellectual center is that? Kelly Anne "My microwave is spying on me" Conway? Betty Ann "We need to arm students in case of bear attacks" Devos? Or how about Jeff "Ooops I forgot to tell you I talked to the Russians" Sessions? Here's a suggestion... instead of trying to justify how smart he is by the clever use of quotes in his tweets in order to distract people from Trump's Russian ties... maybe he shouldn't have had such ties in the same place. I doubt that Trump's claims of wiretapping are doing to distract people from the Russian issues, and instead will just remind people just how full of BS Trump actually is. If you shoot yourself in the foot to distract yourself from a gaping head wound, you have not fixed the head wound, and now you're bleeding from 2 different places.

- “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow... I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.” - Chuck Hagel (Republican) - “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe” - Mike Lofgren (Republican) So even some republicans recognize the problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.682786c43763 - “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” - Mitch McConnell (Republican) - “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” - John Boehner (Republican), commenting on Obama's policies http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311 The republican party has been drifting into extremism for years.They have their core supporters, and are holding on to them tight. So they loose the support of Moderates, meaning they have to hold on to their core supporters even tighter with even more extremism. Not only is that a bad way to run a country, it may also be ultimately defeating, since driving away moderates might mean many electoral losses in the future if and when demographic shifts catch up with them.

That's the thing... most of those who opposed Trump didn't wonder how he could come up with a new plan in a short time, because we knew he was lying during the election when he said he was going to replace Obamacare with "something great". Yes, it is true... most of the withdraw health care bill was authored by people other than Trump. However: - Trump still supported the bill and claimed he was using his great negotiating skills to get people to support it. - If the bill was Ryan's, and Trump was campaigning throughout the election about how he had all these great health care plans, why didn't he present his own ideas rather than using Ryan's plan? , Nor is he an expert in politics, nor is he an expert in business (as his multiple business failings show). This should be a warning to anyone who foolishly voted for Trump because he was "an outsider"... Bringing someone in to "shake things up" is not necessarily a good plan if their lack of skills and knowledge actually prevent anything useful from being done. Then Trump is an idiot. I'm not American, and even I knew that the republicans had no idea what they were doing, other than "Obama was evil so we must kill Obamacare". You would hope that the man elected to run the country would at least know enough about politics to realize that. Yet he still went along with the claim that he could quickly bring in a plan that was better. By "made him look bad", do you mean "make trump look like the incompetent liar that he truly is"? It wasn't just the republican's failure, It was Trumps. Trump claimed he could easily replace Obamacare with something better. Trump ignored the lack of useful proposals coming from the republicans prior to the election. Trump actually got behind the bill. Perhaps if Trump wasn't so busy golfing every chance he gets, he could have looked at Health care and said "You know, maybe we'll just fix Obamacare".

Remember when the polls said he wouldn't be President? I take them with a grain of salt. Just in case it hasn't been discussed enough... The polls taken immediately before the election were actually very accurate... Clinton beat Trump by ~2% in the popular vote, whereas most opinion polls prior to the elect had Clinton's victory in the 1-4% range. Now, it is true that many political writers gave Trump little chance to win, but that was not the fault of the polls... it was a problem of bad analysis (in particular, concentrating on the federal popular vote rather than state polls that would have an effect on the electoral college.) In short, I think the polls are probably an accurate assessment (depending on the question that was actually asked in the poll.)