USA Today (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

cloudboy -> USA Today (11/7/2012 4:19:45 PM)

I've taken to reading USA today for past 1.5 years. Part of this is the utter decline of the BALTO SUN and the fact that coffee shops carry USA today (where I often go out to read.)

As you know, USA Today strives to be main stream, inoffensive, and entertaining. As such, it really can't be labeled "leftist" or "right wing."

Regarding the 2012 election and the Republicans it published an OP-ED: Editorial: What the GOP should do to rebuild.

Four years ago, when Republicans were nursing their wounds after losing the White House, we offered them three pieces of unsolicited advice: focus on fiscal responsibility; stop being so angry about everything; and find ways to expand the party's appeal to people of color and young voters.

-------

(1) Fiscal Responsibility means cutting the defense budget. Hard to see Republicans going there.

(2) "Stop being so angry about everything;" -- FNC and AM radio derive their ratings from anger and getting people stirred up. Hard to see Republicans growing up into adulthood and becoming balanced, fair minded, and tolerant of their political rivals.

(3) "find ways to expand the party's appeal to people of color and young voters" --- This is a must if the REP's ever want to win the White House back. How will Republicans change their views on immigration, minorities, gays, and women? God knows there's not much flexibility with their evangelical base.

------

After this election USA Today recommends:

(1) Republicans will need to get beyond their strident positions on immigration

(2) They may also need to recalibrate their positions on reproductive issues such as birth control and Planned Parenthood that are harming it among women and young voters

(3) Most important, Republicans have to define themselves in ways that go beyond merely opposing Democrats

--------

What progress do you see the Republicans making in these areas going forward?

-------

With some simple pragmatism, the GOP can easily get back into the White House. But if it yields to its extremes, the party might be hearing the same advice every four years.






tweakabelle -> RE: USA Today (11/7/2012 5:22:18 PM)

quote:

What progress do you see the Republicans making in these areas going forward?


Very little.

I doubt there are enough moderates left in the party to ensure that the right questions are asked, the right answers put forward and with the will and skills to put those much-needed reforms into practice.

The immediate future for the GOP is prolonged internal hemorrhaging as the looney Right and centrist factions conduct separate inquests into their electoral loss yesterday, each blaming the other for the loss. Whether the GOP remains a relevant, united and viable force at the end of that process is a valid question.

The only certainty in the equation is that the far Right will be as dogmatically and uncompromisingly wrong as it always is.



cloudboy -> RE: USA Today (11/7/2012 6:26:05 PM)


When it comes time to stop complaining, the conservative posters here tend to go silent. What positive things do conservatives want the REP party to do given the makeup of United States as it is and the 2012 election result?

All I hear are crickets. When you can't make derogatory remarks about Obama, when you can't complain about "socialism," when you can't rail against Benghazi, when you can't blame the economy on the White House, when you can't push for more deportations and a fence between the USA and Mexico, what do you have left to say?



erieangel -> RE: USA Today (11/7/2012 7:02:31 PM)

quote:

what do you have left to say?


They obviously have nothing to say at present. In corners licking their wounds, maybe?




kdsub -> RE: USA Today (11/7/2012 7:16:33 PM)

quote:

Fiscal Responsibility means cutting the defense budget


This is a bold assumption and not necessarily true. Properly funding our defense would be the choice of the majority of Americans. Even if that meant war bonds and tax increases. Only a few fanatics on the far left would arbitrarily cut the defense budget.... We've too many enemies. You will not see even a Democratically dominated Congress slash the defense budget in this world climate.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking all…even the majority of Democrats…do not want, demand, and believe in a strong military.

Butch



slvemike4u -> RE: USA Today (11/7/2012 7:24:58 PM)

Nice post
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


When it comes time to stop complaining, the conservative posters here tend to go silent. What positive things do conservatives want the REP party to do given the makeup of United States as it is and the 2012 election result?

All I hear are crickets. When you can't make derogatory remarks about Obama, when you can't complain about "socialism," when you can't rail against Benghazi, when you can't blame the economy on the White House, when you can't push for more deportations and a fence between the USA and Mexico, what do you have left to say?

Nice post cloud,don't expect much response from the right though [8|]



cloudboy -> RE: USA Today (11/7/2012 8:22:17 PM)

quote:

This is a bold assumption and not necessarily true. Properly funding our defense would be the choice of the majority of Americans. Even if that meant war bonds and tax increases. Only a few fanatics on the far left would arbitrarily cut the defense budget.... We've too many enemies. You will not see even a Democratically dominated Congress slash the defense budget in this world climate.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking all…even the majority of Democrats…do not want, demand, and believe in a strong military.

Butch


Discretionary Spending:

$895 Billion - Defense
$520 Billion - Discretionary

Mandatory Spending:

$730B Social Security
$788B Medicaid

-------

First off, please try to justify why we need a $895B defense budget? If you don't cut that, what are you going to cut?



Yachtie -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 5:51:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


When it comes time to stop complaining, the conservative posters here tend to go silent. What positive things do conservatives want the REP party to do given the makeup of United States as it is and the 2012 election result?

All I hear are crickets. When you can't make derogatory remarks about Obama, when you can't complain about "socialism," when you can't rail against Benghazi, when you can't blame the economy on the White House, when you can't push for more deportations and a fence between the USA and Mexico, what do you have left to say?



Bye Bye Miss American Pie...



cloudboy -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 7:32:01 AM)


Don't you guys have any ideas?



DomKen -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 7:55:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Fiscal Responsibility means cutting the defense budget


This is a bold assumption and not necessarily true. Properly funding our defense would be the choice of the majority of Americans. Even if that meant war bonds and tax increases. Only a few fanatics on the far left would arbitrarily cut the defense budget.... We've too many enemies. You will not see even a Democratically dominated Congress slash the defense budget in this world climate.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking all…even the majority of Democrats…do not want, demand, and believe in a strong military.

Butch

Nonsense. I'm as hawkish as they come and I know we can and have to cut the defence budget drastically.

For instance do we really need 18 active ballistic missile submarines? These are strictly weapons for use during an all out nuclear war.

Do we need 9000 M1 Abrams? We're no longer facing the Soviet Army in central Germany. Wouldn't we be better served with fewer super heavy forces that are extremely hard to move around the planet and more light forces we can deploy when and where needed.

We could certainly reduce the silo based ballistic missile arsenal. Maybe just maintain enough missiles and warheads to kill all life on the planet twice over?



kdsub -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 9:42:25 AM)

quote:

Nonsense. I'm as hawkish as they come and I know we can and have to cut the defence budget drastically


Yes we have...but in different times...not in this world climate. Thank heavens we have learned our lesson about cutting a defense and, at least for now, will not be caught with our pants down.

I am all for demanding our allies pick up some slack. For too long we have sacrificed our wealth in their defense while they build their infrastructure and wealth.. Check out the relative percent of GNP spent in defense by our allies compared to us.

OK not on subject so I’ll let that rant go but…I am all for reduction where possible as long as it does not affect our abilities and readiness. We cannot fight the wars we have chosen, which I am against, and cut defense without putting our children at more risk.

I believe, and recent history agrees, that America, liberal and conservative, do not want our defense cut. I however believe and I think many Americans would agree with me that we should properly fund this defense through a tax increase if necessary.

ps... I do understand your point on defense systems and the need for them. But... I think we must realize that in the near future those systems may be needed again. Our military is changing all the time and addressing new challenges... that takes money and time. We did not build a fleet of subs over night or 9000 tanks.

You also seem to have faith in the good will of Russia...China....and Korea let alone Iran. Those systems may not have a target but they still provide a deterrent.

Butch



DomKen -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 10:14:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Nonsense. I'm as hawkish as they come and I know we can and have to cut the defence budget drastically


Yes we have...but in different times...not in this world climate. Thank heavens we have learned our lesson about cutting a defense and, at least for now, will not be caught with our pants down.

I am all for demanding our allies pick up some slack. For too long we have sacrificed our wealth in their defense while they build their infrastructure and wealth.. Check out the relative percent of GNP spent in defense by our allies compared to us.

OK not on subject so I’ll let that rant go but…I am all for reduction where possible as long as it does not affect our abilities and readiness. We cannot fight the wars we have chosen, which I am against, and cut defense without putting our children at more risk.

I believe, and recent history agrees, that America, liberal and conservative, do not want our defense cut. I however believe and I think many Americans would agree with me that we should properly fund this defense through a tax increase if necessary.

ps... I do understand your point on defense systems and the need for them. But... I think we must realize that in the near future those systems may be needed again. Our military is changing all the time and addressing new challenges... that takes money and time. We did not build a fleet of subs over night or 9000 tanks.

You also seem to have faith in the good will of Russia...China....and Korea let alone Iran. Those systems may not have a target but they still provide a deterrent.

Butch

They would still provide a deterrent with many fewer items.

Consider the ballistic missile arsenal. Why did we need so many? Primarily because we could not easilt change the targeting data in each warhead. Now we can do that at a press of a button. So why keep all the redundant warheads?



kdsub -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 12:25:24 PM)

DomKen I would like to see world nuclear disarmament but until that happens we need the deterrent we have today. Who knows in 5 years what will happen to Russian and or China relations.

I agree with you whole heartedly we should eliminate our nuclear arsenal…but in a responsible manner not an arbitrary one based on cutting the budget only.

Butch



joether -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 12:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
DomKen I would like to see world nuclear disarmament but until that happens we need the deterrent we have today. Who knows in 5 years what will happen to Russian and or China relations.

I agree with you whole heartedly we should eliminate our nuclear arsenal…but in a responsible manner not an arbitrary one based on cutting the budget only.


And who wins in an 'all-out-nuclear-war'? What percentage of the 7.3 billion people on this planet will be left alive?

What should happen is not 'how big is your dick' but 'how intelligent and wise you behave'. The 1960's Cuban Missile Crisis showed the world on the verge of a nuclear exchange between the two heavy weights at the time. And would have, if not for a White House that was wise to let 'cooler heads prevail', most of us wouldnt be around to talk about this or any other issue. Imagine if G. W. Bush or Romney (and their administrations) were in Kennedy's White House. Any question in your mind there WOULDN'T be a nuclear war?



DomKen -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 1:08:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

DomKen I would like to see world nuclear disarmament but until that happens we need the deterrent we have today. Who knows in 5 years what will happen to Russian and or China relations.

I agree with you whole heartedly we should eliminate our nuclear arsenal…but in a responsible manner not an arbitrary one based on cutting the budget only.

Butch

You're not getting it. We have more than 2000 nuclear weapons. Surely we could deter our enemies with 1000. No one is anywhere near developing much less deploying an effective ballistic missile defence so every warhead will reach its target so the question is does any potential enemy have more than 1000 targets we might feel the need to nuke?



kdsub -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 1:16:56 PM)

joether we are agreeing



Kana -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 1:17:01 PM)

Read The Post-it may be biased, but anythings better than USA Today...which is just a comic strip masquerading as a paper



kdsub -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 1:23:47 PM)

DomKen I don't know the capabilities of Russia and China...I don't know what is required...but I believe you don't either.

I am just trying to separate nuclear disarmament from arbitrary budget cuts. Two different things

Now if I had my way I would pull all military personnel and equipment from all foreign soil and end all foreign wars. I would then have plenty of money to support a large modern military and tell the rest of the world have at it. Just leave us out of it….but I am a realists…lol

Butch



Politesub53 -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 4:46:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Fiscal Responsibility means cutting the defense budget


This is a bold assumption and not necessarily true. Properly funding our defense would be the choice of the majority of Americans. Even if that meant war bonds and tax increases. Only a few fanatics on the far left would arbitrarily cut the defense budget.... We've too many enemies. You will not see even a Democratically dominated Congress slash the defense budget in this world climate.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking all…even the majority of Democrats…do not want, demand, and believe in a strong military.

Butch


Big difference between a strong military and the increased year on year spending Romney proposed though Butch. I doubt the right would be happy with the tax increases needed to pay for more spending.



erieangel -> RE: USA Today (11/8/2012 4:56:35 PM)

We spend more for our military than the next 10 countries combined. At least 7 of them are our allies.

We have been spending money on an amphibious tank which doesn't work and which the Pentagon no longer wants--because it doesn't work. But Congress refuses to end the funding for it because it would "mean fewer jobs". Actually, it would mean less money for the military contractors who fund certain congress-critters' campaigns.

Eisenhower warned us about the power of the military-industrial complex. We didn't listen.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875