Eric Cantor: did nothing about jobs, now has to find a new one

[A Theist]

Got some news for ya: Virginia doesn't require you to register a party affiliation, and Democrats can vote in Republican primaries. And Democrats love helping unelectable Tea Party lunatics defeat established Republicans. It has a habit of opening up otherwise unassailable territory.

Yeah, but I don't think that was the case here. Cantor's district, as described by some news sources, (USA Today, for one), is very conservative. I just don't see democrats wasting their time on that one. At least not in that district.

[Ryantology]

He is obviously allowing this grandfathering grudgingly? Stop talking out of your ass crack. He said absolutely nothing to indicate this. MotherJones indicated this. You are letting motherjones think for you. Shame Shame Shame.

"So, maybe the next ten years we have to grandfather some folks in"

Maybe. I don't want to, but we probably don't have a choice.

Why don't you read the goddamn article. I'm quoting his actual words. Mother Jones didn't write the guy's speeches for him.

I want a negative income tax or universal basic income. I want the government to provide health care to anyone who wants it(not health insurance). You claiming I want let people die who can't afford to live is just another attempt to demonize people who oppose your ideology by spreading lies about them. You're getting to be as bad as Minimalist in this regard.

You say you want health care for everybody who wants it, yet you say this while your lips are around the dick of a guy who can't wait to take it away form anybody who wants it but can't afford it.

Don't blame me because you're being inconsistent.

Having lost the argument, Ryantology quickly tries to change the subject to something completely different.

Lies don't win arguments, I'm afraid.

Yeah, but I don't think that was the case here. Cantor's district, as described by some news sources, (USA Today, for one), is very conservative. I just don't see democrats wasting their time on that one. At least not in that district.

Cantor's district, as described by someone who lived there most of his life, has been historically red, but not so decisively that a Tea Party lunatic's obvious shortcomings don't present a great chance for a solid Democrat running against him. Virginia isn't Mississippi.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, but I don't think that was the case here. Cantor's district, as described by some news sources, (USA Today, for one), is very conservative. I just don't see democrats wasting their time on that one. At least not in that district.

Cantor's district, as described by someone who lived there most of his life, has been historically red, but not so decisively that a Tea Party lunatic's obvious shortcomings don't present a great chance for a solid Democrat running against him. Virginia isn't Mississippi.

I don't know that I really believe this explanation. I've heard it claimed by either party when a candidate they consider extreme is elected in the primary. I don't know, I think it would require a well organized campaign to do such and I've never seen any real evidence of a secret underground campaign to vote in less electable candidates. Also it doesn't really make sense, could you really imagine a dyed in the wool Democrat going out and voting for the more extreme Republican just because he might be more beatable? Seems like a stretch. What if the gamble doesn't pay off? Then you end up with someone you disagree with more in office.

[Raeven]

Cantor's district, as described by someone who lived there most of his life, has been historically red, but not so decisively that a Tea Party lunatic's obvious shortcomings don't present a great chance for a solid Democrat running against him. Virginia isn't Mississippi.

I don't know that I really believe this explanation. I've heard it claimed by either party when a candidate they consider extreme is elected in the primary. I don't know, I think it would require a well organized campaign to do such and I've never seen any real evidence of a secret underground campaign to vote in less electable candidates. Also it doesn't really make sense, could you really imagine a dyed in the wool Democrat going out and voting for the more extreme Republican just because he might be more beatable? Seems like a stretch. What if the gamble doesn't pay off? Then you end up with someone you disagree with more in office.

Then you are naive. The crossover voting tactic has been around for decades. There are even some people who will register for a party they despise just to crossover vote in primaries to enhance their own candidate's chances. Frankly, it was the first thing I thought of when I heard about Cantor's "big surprise" defeat.

[Heywood]

He is obviously allowing this grandfathering grudgingly? Stop talking out of your ass crack. He said absolutely nothing to indicate this. MotherJones indicated this. You are letting motherjones think for you. Shame Shame Shame.

"So, maybe the next ten years we have to grandfather some folks in"

Maybe. I don't want to, but we probably don't have a choice.

Why don't you read the goddamn article. I'm quoting his actual words. Mother Jones didn't write the guy's speeches for him.

I read the article and I watched the video. Apparently you did not. Brat wants a sustainable system. He acknowledges a need to grand father people because he does not want to screw them over. He doesn't want to deny people healthcare. The claim that he does is an outright lie.

I want a negative income tax or universal basic income. I want the government to provide health care to anyone who wants it(not health insurance). You claiming I want let people die who can't afford to live is just another attempt to demonize people who oppose your ideology by spreading lies about them. You're getting to be as bad as Minimalist in this regard.

You say you want health care for everybody who wants it, yet you say this while your lips are around the dick of a guy who can't wait to take it away form anybody who wants it but can't afford it.

Don't blame me because you're being inconsistent.

I'm not endorsing Brat. I don't know a lot about him. What I am doing is being critical of people who let MotherJones do their thinking instead of thinking for themselves.

[Cato]

In Brat's mind a fair system is one that doesn't run a deficit. He wants Medicare recipients(all of them as a group) to receive only what they(all of them as a group) pay into it. He isn't talking about an individual input to output parity....at least not that I can see from watching his statements made in the video Motherjones used as a source to mischaracterize his position.

A group is a collection of individuals. The group 'Medicare recipients' is nothing more than a collection of individual 'Medicare recipients'. If none of the individuals receiving Medicare can afford healthcare costs then what could possibly be the reasoning behind the notion that the group comprising these individuals can?

The group can't, which is why the program exists and is subsidized by a larger group...all taxpayers. Again, Brat's desire to make Medicare recipients pay the full burden of healthcare costs is equivalent to denying care since they as a collection of individuals cannot afford it.

[Anomalocaris]

I am sure heywood would never participate in any form of insurance, because he would never attempt to receive anything more than what he paid into it.

No home owner's insurance, no renter's insurance, no automobile insurance, no health insurance, no travel insurance, no disability insurance, nothing.

This is good and should be adopted by all those like him because because it increases the chance they would actually be useful to humanity in the sense they would improving the human gene pool by eliminating themselves early.

[A Theist]

I don't know that I really believe this explanation. I've heard it claimed by either party when a candidate they consider extreme is elected in the primary. I don't know, I think it would require a well organized campaign to do such and I've never seen any real evidence of a secret underground campaign to vote in less electable candidates. Also it doesn't really make sense, could you really imagine a dyed in the wool Democrat going out and voting for the more extreme Republican just because he might be more beatable? Seems like a stretch. What if the gamble doesn't pay off? Then you end up with someone you disagree with more in office.

Then you are naive. The crossover voting tactic has been around for decades. There are even some people who will register for a party they despise just to crossover vote in primaries to enhance their own candidate's chances. Frankly, it was the first thing I thought of when I heard about Cantor's "big surprise" defeat.

As I said before, I don't belive that's the case here. Cantor's district has been described by some news sources as very conservative. I don't see a democratic challenger having much of a chance there. Also, since the conservatives in his district are discontented with Cantor it would have made more sense for democrats to cross over and support him instead of Brat. This was just a local issue between Cantor and the voters in his district.

[Heywood]

In Brat's mind a fair system is one that doesn't run a deficit. He wants Medicare recipients(all of them as a group) to receive only what they(all of them as a group) pay into it. He isn't talking about an individual input to output parity....at least not that I can see from watching his statements made in the video Motherjones used as a source to mischaracterize his position.

A group is a collection of individuals. The group 'Medicare recipients' is nothing more than a collection of individual 'Medicare recipients'. If none of the individuals receiving Medicare can afford healthcare costs then what could possibly be the reasoning behind the notion that the group comprising these individuals can?

The group can't, which is why the program exists and is subsidized by a larger group...all taxpayers. Again, Brat's desire to make Medicare recipients pay the full burden of healthcare costs is equivalent to denying care since they as a collection of individuals cannot afford it.

Does the government deny poor people cars they can't afford by not buying those cars for them? Of course not. Not purchasing something for someone is not the same as denying that thing to someone. The claim that Brat wants to deny health care to seniors is ludicrous. Brat made no such claim. Liberaltards twisting his words to try to get others to hate him make that claim.

---

I am sure heywood would never participate in any form of insurance, because he would never attempt to receive anything more than what he paid into it.

No home owner's insurance, no renter's insurance, no automobile insurance, no health insurance, no travel insurance, no disability insurance, nothing.

This is good and should be adopted by all those like him because because it increases the chance they would actually be useful to humanity in the sense they would improving the human gene pool by eliminating themselves early.

Chuck, I have no problem with the concept of Medicare. I believe the younger generation has a moral obligation to care for the elderly and Medicare is one vehicle by which we do that. I am not defending Brat's position. I am calling Bullshit on the mischaracterization of it.

The problem I am complaining about in this thread is two fold.
A)Certain people let liberaltard sites like MotherJones think for them.
B)Certain people are so immoral that they lie and slander and distort the position of those who have a differently ideology then they do so as to formant hate.

Chuck...I'm not sure about A....but your post above...definitely puts you in the B category.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't know that I really believe this explanation. I've heard it claimed by either party when a candidate they consider extreme is elected in the primary. I don't know, I think it would require a well organized campaign to do such and I've never seen any real evidence of a secret underground campaign to vote in less electable candidates. Also it doesn't really make sense, could you really imagine a dyed in the wool Democrat going out and voting for the more extreme Republican just because he might be more beatable? Seems like a stretch. What if the gamble doesn't pay off? Then you end up with someone you disagree with more in office.

Then you are naive. The crossover voting tactic has been around for decades. There are even some people who will register for a party they despise just to crossover vote in primaries to enhance their own candidate's chances. Frankly, it was the first thing I thought of when I heard about Cantor's "big surprise" defeat.

People have claimed it for years, I've never really seen any hard proof though. Such a thing would have to be organized and for it to be organized there would be some sort of paper trail. Also now you have a good chance of a more extreme candidate being elected. It might be true that it happens, but it's a pretty stupid tactic. Also if it were really a common tactic, I think we would all personally know someone who had done that. I know lots of primary voters obviously, but nobody who does that. It's always just a bunch of hearsay that's more designed to try to smear a candidate as unelectable.