Discussion: GOP Sen. Says Sanders Accuses O’Care Repeal Supporters Of Murder

What is the difference between murder and genocide? Killing a “large group of people”, I presume 44,000 plus dead people, would constitute a “large group”.

1 Like

Orin Hatch used to beam with pride about working with Ted Kennedy on health care. In the 90’s he helped to get CHIP passed because Utah, Mormans, big families. He even spoke at Kennedy’s memorial service. Now he’s gone all crazy or he fears a primary opponent.

Also, if the foo shits, wear it!

Can anyone remember the joke that goes with this punchline? Asking for a friend.

Say it loud and say it proud

Orin Hatch is a murderer!

2 Likes

IOKIYAR, y’all.

I’m pretty sure Trumpleorangeskin was proposing child labor.

1 Like

The brief time when we were not accusing those we disagree with of murder was nice while it lasted.

Right on, Orrin! Bernie shouldn’t be accusing Republicans of murder when it’s technically involuntary manslaughter.

You’re confusing winning over rural, white voters and ignoring/vilianizing them. The latter is what the democrats did after they went all in with gender and race politics in an election that was about the economy. Even if you don’t pander to them, don’t turn them into the villains because one of the impressive things Trump did was turn those type of voters and make them vote like a minority bloc. That’s the sort of thing that ensures the democrats will have trouble in elections in the future. And you’re right about voter turn out. Hillary was a horrible candidate who couldn’t motivate anyone outside of her devoted base who still thinks she’s not to blame for losing the election. (Doesn’t matter if the press and Russians were out to get you, you LOST to DONALD TRUMP.)

Also it’s Pelosi’s fault because while she does great work behind the scenes, she’s is now the red cape the Republicans wave in front of their base to get them out to vote because she is the last known democrat from the Obama area standing. As I said before, the reason the Republicans were able to get out the votes to win in Georgia (outside of the fact that they didn’t learn that going to the right NEVER wins.) is because the Republicans ran ads 24/7 linking Ossoff to Pelosi, and it got enough apathetic republicans to vote for some mook.

As for your idea that Democrats shouldn’t get into the mud, that’s where you’re wrong. In politics you need a clear villain to face off against. And the democrats are always weak willed to cast the Republicans as villains and to expose them for all their sins. Even if it’s a lie, it doesn’t matter if they get it to stick. Just keep saying Trump colluded with the Russian’s attack on the America, and that he’s stealing tax payer money by enriching himself and his family. Give people a reason to fight because as Maher pointed out ‘Let’s wait for all the facts to come out’ Is a terrible campaign slogan.

Your slogan, while more to the point, is to long, and overthought. Branding the republicans as murders is what would get people to turn their heads and look into why they hate the poor. And that won’t backfire unless you’re a spineless moderate who would be a retard to vote for Trump if the ‘tone’ is their problem.

Considering the Democratic message in the GA-6 was about attempting to win those voters over, which is what I said, no, I’m not confusing anything. Nor do Secretary Clinton’s faults as a candidate (which many people, myself included, have pointed out in the past) have any bearing on this election. But please, feel free to rage against the failures of eight months ago while not making any point about this month.

Pelosi is the red cape the Republicans wave because she’s effective. If she weren’t there, the Republicans would focus on Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, or any number of other Democratic voices they want to shut up. They’d focus on them for years, just as they’ve focused on Nancy Pelosi. If you want effective leadership, then you need to accept that the other side is going to make ‘OPPOSE THIS JERK’ their rallying cry.

So what’s the option there? Be ineffective? Be non-threatening? That’s the only kind of (D) they’re not going to use as a bludgeon. They’re gonna spend years building up anyone who is effective and who poses a danger to their agenda as a threat to the well-being of their base. It doesn’t matter who it is. Saying we need to ditch Pelosi because gasp Republican voters who’ve been spoon-fed lies don’t like her?!? That’s basically validating their tactics through capitulation.

And I never said don’t get into the mud. I said don’t lie. And don’t say things they can disprove, even on technicalities. It’s like the gun control debate: Democrats speak in terms like ‘assault weapon’ that send a clear signal to gun owners that they don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about. So they get ignored. Don’t be stupid. Don’t make stupid mistakes.

‘Leading’ people by lying to them, by selling them bullshit, by giving them an all new Benghazi probe to rally behind is bullshit. It is weakness. It may give the illusion of strength, and it may be able to motivate people in the short term, but if you’re fighting for the short term, you’re already surrendering. Lying to people, treating them like they’re stupid, that only works for so long. And it doesn’t produce an environment where you can be effective later. It produces an environment where you can control all three branches of Government, but you can’t get a single thing accomplished, because suddenly you need to actually live up to all the bullshit you were spouting.

People who are still party-line Republicans don’t care why they hate the poor. All they care about is their delusion that all they need is that one lucky break, and then they can be part of the 1%, too! That’s the appeal of it all. Americans are culturally steeped and saturated in this insane idea that YOU TOO CAN MAKE IT RICH. And the less you have, the more they sell that to you. It’s like economic heroin, and Republican voters are chasing the dragon.

Specific intent. While we may disagree with the policy goals it’s not in any way accurate to say that they republicans are supporting repeal BECAUSE it would potentially cause death. Here the deaths could be potentially prevented by coverage as indicated but it’s not the direct cause of any deaths. Since negligence is broadly defined as a breach in one’s duty that causes harm. Any deaths attributed to lack of insurance for medical care are more accurately noted as negligence.

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available