Jeb Bush Use to Smoke Marijuana and Sell Hash at Boarding School

[Gunky]

I think the character in the clip is entirely wrong in the way he equates the parties. There is a huge difference. The dems are still pretty close to center or center left. The repubs are way off in loopy land. Just look at that letter signed by all but 7 Republican senators. One half of the US Senate declared themselves ignorant, stupid, panderers who don't care what harm they do to the country as long as it looks anti-Obama! Everyone who signed that or supports it has self-disqualified for the office of senator, let alone president.

And his big point contra democrats? "They keep fucking losing". Um, could people voting for republican troglodytes have something to do with that? Could it be that a media corps which reduces the differences between the parties to he said she said and never mentions x just lied to you, almost no scientists agree with x on that, they might take some blame here? That program, for example.

 

[cybrguy]

The reason liberals (currently dems but it wasn't always so) lose more than they should is because they tend more towards honesty than ideology. Would Scott Walker have won in Wisconsin if he had told the truth about what he intended to do? Of course not. By lying about his intentions he got votes from all the suckers who fell for it. Dems, sadly, tend to be gullible, partly because they want to believe that their pols are not corrupt assholes, despite the unfortunate reality.

 

[CarolKing]

HEALTH-CARE REFORM
Jeb Bush and Florida's Medicaid Meltdown

1 MAR 16, 2015 5:17 PM EDT
By Christopher Flavelle


To appreciate what went wrong with Jeb Bush's attempts to reform Florida's Medicaid program, and why they bode so poorly for the health-care policies he would pursue as president, you could look at the state's dismal quality-of-care scores, or its sharp drop in Medicaid spending, or a judge's ruling from December that Florida is failing low-income children. But first, you should just talk to Louis St. Petery.

 

[blackisbeautiful]

I always vote D. It is nothing to do with the person running.

 

[Scott A]

I always vote D. It is nothing to do with the person running.

Party line voters are generally one of the biggest problems with our current voting system.

 

[t-dub]

Party line voters are generally one of the biggest problems with our current voting system.

If you can't pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually consider the candidates on their own merits when you vote then you are a partisan hack. I vote Democratic sometimes, hey I love Oregon and I like Peter DeFazio (D) and I vote for him, but I also, on occasion, may vote Repub IF the situation warrants it. Every candidate must be vetted on their own merits. No politician is going to please you 100% of the time. The issues we face are far too many and complex to expect this. Asking politicians to be experts on everything, and agree with you, is unrealistic. I allow them the freedom to learn and have a turning point on an issue as they gain experience. People change, especially in D.C. Local politics are more important than national. Get involved at the lower, local levels and it will open up your world.

 

[Eschient]

You didn't actually read it, did you?

Plus you are probably too young to remember a politics where this sort of dysfunction was not normal. We have accomplished great things in this country. We defeated daunting enemies. We built an economic powerhouse the like of which the world had never seen. We built a large, thriving middle class, strove to educate them to the highest standards in the world. We went to the moon and other planets. Our technology, not that of our rivals, spread to the entire globe. We didn't do all that by acting as individuals. We did it by united, cooperative efforts in which we collectively made use of our great diversity. The unions didn't just stand up for decent wages and conditions, they played a major role in building our country. In fact it was once fashionable for even Republicans to lampoon the way other countries suppressed union organization. We live in different times now and it is important to see through the false equivalencies purveyed on tv.

I did read the article, but thanks for assuming that I'm young and illiterate.

There was no dysfunction in the country in which McCarthyism whipped everyone into a frenzy of "red paranoia?" The one where Native Americans were shoved into barren wastelands that the government stole all the resources from first, then blew up one of their sacred places to tag it with the massive heads of old white men? The one where black men only counted for 3/5ths of a person and women didn't count at all? The one where we prohibited alcohol and when that didn't work, we poisoned it? It takes more than one person to allow the spread of these things, too.

If you want to be angry about how things were better in your day, that's your choice, but you're never going to convince me that progress comes from blindly choosing leaders to represent me based on a vague set of ideals held by a loose conglomeration of people under a narrow, two-party system that in reality is just puppets to corporations and lobbyists. That's the status quo and I'm not going to feed that corruption by just picking the lesser of two evils. I'd rather encourage the rise of something better, because that's what America is supposed to be about.

 

[cybrguy]

Party line voters are generally one of the biggest problems with our current voting system.

No, one of the biggest problems with our elections is PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE!!! Especially when those who didn't spend a lot of time bitching about the results.

If you won't or can't expend the effort to be informed I would MUCH rather see you vote a party line than not vote. Voting is not just a right, it is a responsibility. It is how you influence how the government behaves and what it's goals are. Voting for a direction rather than a candidate is WAY better than nothing.

Now if there were just a way to punish pols who lie. Oh, wait, there is. YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT!!!

If you want to be angry about how things were better in your day, that's your choice, but you're never going to convince me that progress comes from blindly choosing leaders to represent me based on a vague set of ideals held by a loose conglomeration of people under a narrow, two-party system that in reality is just puppets to corporations and lobbyists.

Yeah, right, WAY better to let them be chosen by other people. If you are choosing blindly, exactly whose fault is that?

 

[Scott A]

No, one of the biggest problems with our elections is PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE!!! Especially when those who didn't spend a lot of time bitching about the results.

If you won't or can't expend the effort to be informed I would MUCH rather see you vote a party line than not vote. Voting is not just a right, it is a responsibility. It is how you influence how the government behaves and what it's goals are. Voting for a direction rather than a candidate is WAY better than nothing.

Now if there were just a way to punish pols who lie. Oh, wait, there is. YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT!!!


Yeah, right, WAY better to let them be chosen by other people. If you are choosing blindly, exactly whose fault is that?

Ignorantly voting is worse than not voting at all. Its funny to me that you are trying to validate being a party line voter. I bet you are one of those people who think you are better person for being a Democrat than a Republican as well. Countless local elections get ruined by people like you who care more about the letter next to the candidates name than the actual candidate.

 

[Chill Dude]

I bet you are one of those people who think you are better person for being a Democrat than a Republican as well.

IDK about @cybrguy, but I do!!

 

[lwien]

While I too will typically vote for Democrats, I do so because, for the most part, they reflect my feelings about most things. But I think it's more of aligning myself with liberals rather than conservatives for these two mindsets are typically diametrically opposed to one another and it doesn't just manifest itself in politics but is rather a totally different perspective on just about everything.

Example: Most conservatives see the world in black and white whereas most liberals see the world in shades of gray. This has a MAJOR impact on just about everything that they/we do.

This, however, was not always the case. It used to be that there was such a thing as liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats but the religious conservative right hijacked the Republican Party and it hasn't been the same since.

 

[cybrguy]

I bet you are one of those people who think you are better person for being a Democrat than a Republican as well.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that. There is nothing BETTER about me than anyone else. Smarter, maybe. More aware of what the parties are after and their methods of getting it. Less likely to throw out groups of people like so much trash. Less likely to tell people how to feel and how to act. Less likely to push my religion on them. Less likely to tell them where they can live or how. Less likely to try to KEEP them from voting. Less likely to pigeonhole them based on their race, ethnicity, religion or who they love.
I can see how you might make that mistake. Clearly the republicans think they are better than others. They believe that they are morally superior. They believe in ideological purity. They believe in their way or the highway. So projection is certainly something that republicans are about. But that is the Rs, not the Ds. Maybe you should read more.

 

[His_Highness]

More often than not I do vote for the dems.... but I take the time to read and 'understand' the ballot and investigate those running beyond what their PAC puts out. I can't vote the straight party line in any direction because there are plenty on both sides that make me . So while I might lean toward the dems I do have a prerequisite that anyone I vote for has a working brain and not just a strong back capable of pulling hard on the party line.

What's a boy to do when you feel strongly that:
- A woman has a right to choose
- Income redistribution is wrong
- We need smaller government
- MJ should be legalized NOW

I'll tell you what the boy does....a lot of reading before pulling the lever.

 

[Scott A]

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that. There is nothing BETTER about me than anyone else. Smarter, maybe. More aware of what the parties are after and their methods of getting it. Less likely to throw out groups of people like so much trash. Less likely to tell people how to feel and how to act. Less likely to push my religion on them. Less likely to tell them where they can live or how. Less likely to try to KEEP them from voting. Less likely to pigeonhole them based on their race, ethnicity, religion or who they love.
I can see how you might make that mistake. Clearly the republicans think they are better than others. They believe that they are morally superior. They believe in ideological purity. They believe in their way or the highway. So projection is certainly something that republicans are about. But that is the Rs, not the Ds. Maybe you should read more.

Oh yeah here just let me list off the things that make me better than a republican... but yeah clearly it is the republicans that think they are better. Its just hilarious that you are projecting traits on to the republican party meanwhile you say "projection is something that republicans are about"... sure they might do it sometimes but here you are doing it as well. Whats that old thing about rocks in a glass house?

 

[Gunky]

- Income redistribution is wrong

Nonsense. The continued existence of a democracy requires it. Without it, capitalism reverts to type and becomes like a monopoly game: one person ends up owning everything and the rest of us are serfs. People have been pointing this out for quite some time, from Teddy Roosevelt to Albert Einstein. It's embedded in our system of progressive taxation and the country would soon become an oligarchy if we went to a flat tax. Yet ever since Reagan we have been headed in that direction. Recent republican supreme court decisions have cast the future of democracy in considerable doubt, now that there are few limits on campaign contributions and spending. Yet modern day Ayn Rand true believer repubs want to cast off everything we have learned about this over centuries and just let the rich and powerful rule over the rest and justice becomes the will of the strong.


- We need smaller government

Smaller than what? This is a nonsensical formulation. If small is such an absolute goodness, why have any government at all? The presumption that whatever the size of government is, it will be better if it is smaller, is stupid. (Similar to the idea that taxes can always go lower, but must never go up. Only a simpleton could subscribe to this yet Fox News proclaims this stupidity daily without shame.) You have been brainwashed into thinking this. This is like someone saying they need to lose weight so it's time to cut off their head. Size in and of itself is an idiotic measure to judge the effectiveness or quality of government.

 

[cybrguy]

There is a big difference between projection and description. Huge.

 

[Scott A]

\

- Income redistribution is wrong

Nonsense. The continued existence of a democracy requires it. Without it, capitalism reverts to type and becomes like a monopoly game: one person ends up owning everything and the rest of us are serfs. People have been pointing this out for quite some time, from Teddy Roosevelt to Albert Einstein. It's embedded in our system of progressive taxation and the country would soon become an oligarchy if we went to a flat tax. Ever since Reagan we have been headed in that direction. Recent republican supreme court decisions have cast the future of democracy in considerable doubt, now that there are few limits on campaign contributions and spending. Yet modern day Ayn Rand true believer repubs want to cast off everything we have learned about this over centuries and just let the rich and powerful rule over the rest and justice becomes the will of the strong.


- We need smaller government

Smaller than what? This is an nonsensical formulation. If small is such an absolute goodness, why have any government at all? The presumption that whatever the size of government is, it will be better if it is smaller, is stupid. (Similar to the idea that taxes can always go lower, but must never go up. Only a simpleton could subscribe to this yet Fox News proclaims this stupidity daily without shame.) You have been brainwashed into thinking this. This is like someone saying they need to lose weight so it's time to cut off their head. Size in and of itself is an idiotic measure to judge the effectiveness or quality of government.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

There is a big difference between projection and description. Huge.

Oh im sorry I must have just been confused by your very fair descriptions of what makes you better than a republican. Carry on. "cleary they think they are better" now let me describe how I am better...

 

[cybrguy]

I understand that you are confused, but let me see if I can help. Nowhere in what I have posted have I said that Dems are BETTER than repubs. Not once. But they, as a party, are certainly DIFFERENT than repubs. For example, as far as I know, no Dem (since passage of the CRA) has ever tried to keep ANYONE from voting. No Dem has tried to keep anyone from marrying. No Dem has told anyone that their religion is unacceptable or that America is a "fill in the blank with your religion" nation. No Dem has ever told a woman what she is (medically) allowed to do with her body and what she is not. Need I really go on? And this from the party of "smaller government"? Please.
Listen, I give you room to believe whatever you want. Why can't I have that room?

 

[Scott A]

I understand that you are confused, but let me see if I can help. Nowhere in what I have posted have I said that Dems are BETTER than repubs. Not once. But they, as a party, are certainly DIFFERENT than repubs. For example, as far as I know, no Dem (since passage of the CRA) has ever tried to keep ANYONE from voting. No Dem has tried to keep anyone from marrying. No Dem has told anyone that their religion is unacceptable or that America is a "fill in the blank with your religion" nation. No Dem has ever told a woman what she is (medically) allowed to do with her body and what she is not. Need I really go on? And this from the party of "smaller government"? Please.
Listen, I give you room to believe whatever you want. Why can't I have that room?

No dems arnt better than repubs... here I can just make another list of reasons why I think they are better though. Its cool man, you obviously have an issue with the republican party as a whole. As an independent its just funny to me to see people who hang far either to the left or right and are so stubbornly stuck in their ways. Especially funny to see how hypocritical you guys can get when discussing the other party.

 

[lwien]

But he does bring up some good points, Scott. Could you address each one of them? I'm curious as to how you see those specific issues and how they do seem to separate the parties.

 

[Gunky]

So if R says "2 + 3 = 6" and D says "2 + 3 = 5", the politically correct thing to do is say "they are entitled to their opinions." If you say D is correct you are a partisan. Fair and balanced.

 

[His_Highness]

I love these kind of threads...hope this one remains off the lock down....

How about we try to use less generic rhetoric and use more real world examples....I'll assume I can forego my stance on a woman's right to choose and legalizing MJ.

Income Redistribution...We don't need government to oversee it is my point. It should happen naturally. I worked for a company who instituted a company benefits program where the more you made the more you paid for said benefits. When I asked why the CEO would have to pay more than me and why someone else would pay less than me the answer was ... because the CEO makes more than you and you make more than the person paying less so you can afford to pay more. My next question was 'if you simply totaled the company wide benefit cost and divided it by the number of people getting the benefits would I pay more or would I pay less? The answer was 'I'd pay less'. My next question was - 'Did everyone paying less than me for these same benefits work two jobs while going to college full time and strap their child to them in a snuggy while using the subway to attend classes in their senior year'? Did anyone paying less than me stay up for 36 hours to meet the last deadline that I hope will earn me a nice raise? Here's where the rubber meets the road....I'm not saying we aren't all responsible to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times physically or mentally and I'm the first in line to make sure that happens. What I don't want is someone or some entity deciding whether the redistribution is warranted based on income alone. The facts are that training and education in this country is given away, and rightly so, to those who can show they can't afford to pay for the education and are willing to sacrifice. That's right .. getting an education, even without paying for it yourself, is a sacrifice because everything has an opportunity cost. If you're working and going to college and don't have time to play video games the opportunity cost is not playing the latest Grand Theft Auto which seems like a fair trade off to me ... hard work should be the catalyst for income redistribution not the government.

Smaller Government...The government can be made smaller. We all know that there is enough pork in just about every political endeavor to supply Texas with ribs for a lifetime. I won't bother listing the examples but will suggest googling 'pork barrel spending'. What is often overlooked is the real cost of these policies .... the future maintenance cost. Every contractor knows the real money is not in building something ... its in the decades of maintenance money that follows. When times get tough some of the first things to get cut are education, policing and social services. There's much lower hanging fruit than that available but the education, policing and services that are cut are in lower income neighborhoods whose voice is not loud enough. I can't understand how anyone could think that ending pork barrel politics and revisiting existing programs that are failing wouldn't cause a smaller government.

 

[Gunky]

hard work should be the catalyst for income redistribution not the government.

The problem with that is in very short order one person or a group of families, or something like that, have all the marbles and democracy is lost. Your idea: just let everybody keep what they earn and let the chips fall where they may results in kings and feudalism. It's not necessary to repeat the experiment.

You have been brainwashed, meanwhile, to believe that wealth is being redistributed downward in society, towards those poor people and blacks. But the actual big redistribution nowadays is upward, not downward. The rich are getting fantastically richer and paying less in taxes than you or me (remember Romney's tax returns?). They get the big government subsidies and it's the repubs who are doling them out, all the while decrying those "takers" at the bottom who actually get chicken feed compared to the top.

 

[His_Highness]

The problem with that is in very short order one person or a group of families, or something like that, have all the marbles and democracy is lost. Your idea: just let everybody keep what they earn and let the chips fall where they may results in kings and feudalism. It's not necessary to repeat the experiment.

You have been brainwashed, meanwhile, to believe that wealth is being redistributed downward in society, towards those poor people and blacks. But the actual big redistribution nowadays is upward, not downward. The rich are getting fantastically richer and paying less in taxes than you or me (remember Romney's tax returns?). They get the big government subsidies and it's the repubs who are doling them out, all the while decrying those takers at the bottom who actually get chicken feed compared to the top.

I didn't say anything near 'let the chips....' In fact what I wrote was 'I'm not saying we aren't all responsible to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times physically or mentally and I'm the first in line to make sure that happens. What I don't want is someone or some entity deciding whether the redistribution is warranted based on income alone'. The government is already doing what they should ... making opportunity available for those who want it.

Gunky...Are you saying that in America hard work and sacrifice will not make it possible to earn a good living because the repubs are rigging the game? Because I gotta tell ya .... someone will have to wake up the myriad of brainwashed people and family I know who are doing well for themselves that started with little to nothing except the drive to succeed.

 

[Gunky]

Gunky...Are you saying that in America hard work and sacrifice will not make it possible to earn a good living because the repubs are rigging the game? Because I gotta tell ya .... someone will have to wake up the myriad of brainwashed people and family I know who are doing well for themselves that started with little to nothing except the drive to succeed.

Show me where I said anything remotely like that? I'm saying you have been taught by Fox News and the repubs to view your own welfare as being under attack by greedy takers at the bottom of society. You feel like your hard earned is being distributed away to slackers at the direction of politicians and government bureaucrats. I'm saying the redistribution is mainly going the other direction: you are subsidizing rich people.