Watching both Republican debates yesterday, in addition to the first two 5.5 weeks ago, I'm starting to wonder if the party lives in an alternate reality. Once in a while, a candidate would say something which made logical sense, but 9 times out of 10, that simply wasn't the case. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about:
- Many of the candidates, Jeb Bush in particular, laid claim that we're more at risk today than we were under President George W. Bush and that we're worse off economically than we were under Dubya. They contended that President Obama was the reason for this, and in order to create more jobs, we needed to go back to the ways of W. I'm sorry, but under whose watch did 9/11 occur? It wasn't Obama, who entered the Oval Office almost 7.5 years later. It was George W. Bush. Not only that, but under whose watch did the Great Recession start? Once again, it wasn't President Obama; it was George W. Bush. In this country's 8 years under President Bush, 1.3 million jobs were created, which comes out to an average of 13,542 per month. Through 6 years and 8 months into Obama's presidency, 8.6 million jobs have been created, which comes out to an average of 107,500 per month. In other words, with 1 year and 4 months left in his presidency, Barack Obama has helped create 7.3 million more jobs than George W. Bush (93,958 per month). To put it another way, with almost a year and a half left in his presidency, Obama has created 6.6 times the number of jobs as Bush overall and 7.9 times the number of jobs as Bush per month. So, yeah, let's go back to those Bush years again!
- A majority of the candidates felt that we shouldn't have made the Iran deal, should have gone on the offensive, and potentially invaded the country. Yes, how well has that strategy worked for us previously? These candidates said such things all the while denouncing radical Islamic terrorists. Isn't this a seemingly never-ending cycle? We invade a Middle Eastern country, mistakenly kill innocent civilians, make thousands more enemies in the process, who then go on to hate our country and become terrorists themselves? What, do these candidates feel that one of these days the stars will line properly, we'll bomb Middle Eastern countries, kill all the terrorists without wounding any innocent civilians, and all will be right in the world? Give me a break... How about we give diplomacy a chance instead?
- While not all of the candidates said the government should shutdown over the funding of Planned Parenthood, most all of them did say they were adamantly opposed to the family planning organization, all the while spouting off debunked claims and conspiracies. The "pro-life" movement cracks me up. They're adamantly opposed to abortion, yet many also oppose comprehensive sex education, contraception coverage for women in their employer-based healthcare plans, and Planned Parenthood, all of which decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and with that, abortions. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services go to abortions, while almost 34% of their services go toward contraception. Education about sex and contraception makes people more prone to using contraception, which in turn makes them less apt to getting unexpectedly pregnant and having an abortions. I don't know anybody who's an abortion enthusiast, yelling on the street, "I love abortion! Abortions rock! Hell yeah to abortions!" Moderates, liberals, and conservatives alike would like to see a decrease in the number of abortions, but a majority of the public wants to do that without taking away women's right to undergo the procedure if she and her doctor feel it's the right thing to do. So, how do we accomplish that? Uphold the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, all the while substituting abstinence-only education with comprehensive sex education, making contraception more accessible, and providing more funds to family planning providers such as Planned Parenthood. What are these Republicans thinking? "I hate abortion; I just hate it! Sex education decreases abortions, so I'm against that. Contraception decreases abortions, so I'm against that too. Planned Parenthood decreases abortions, so I'm really against that. So, even though those three things decrease abortions, if we do away with them all, abortions will no longer exist!"
- With regard to guns, study after study shows more guns equal more gun violence (deaths in particular), inside or outside of the home. It also shows the stricter the gun-control laws, the less gun violence. Yet, while unborn fetuses are of the utmost importance to these very politicians, born individuals are of less importance than firearms. Even when certain Republican politicians express their support on specific gun-control measures, you won't hear them say they support gun control. During his appearance on the debut of Stephen Colbert's Late Show last week and during the debate last night, Jeb Bush said he opposed gun control and suggested that, in order to decrease gun violence, we should do like he did as governor of Florida and extend background checks and waiting times. Those are two of the exact measures President Obama and other "left-wing anti-gun wackos" have been proposing! Not only that, but many of these candidates believe the more guns we have, the less gun violence there will be. Right, just like with more drivers, there will be fewer car accidents; with more junk food consumption, there will be less obesity; and with an increase in smokers, there will be a decrease in cases of lung cancer...
- Even though 97% of climate scientists have said they believe human activity plays a large factor in global warming (and that global warming exists), most of these candidates will say, "Well, but there isn't a consensus." I've even heard some say, "I'm not a scientist, so we should let the scientists decide on this matter." They already did! So what if 100% of the climate scientists don't agree? Is there a 100% link between smoking and cancer? No, yet do these same candidates want to look me in the eyes and say, "Smoking doesn't cause cancer"? I highly doubt it...
- According to many of these candidates, the national debt needs to be addressed, yet we need to reduce taxes, especially for the wealthiest among us. Okay, how exactly will this mathematical magic trick work? We reduce taxes, provide tax breaks, the national debt increases as a result... Mm... Will Jesus bless us by dropping cash or gold from the sky? Will we simply cut off all government spending, leaving us without schools, a police force, or drivable roads? Newsflash, GOP: in order to reduce the debt, we'll need to both cut spending and raise taxes. You're welcome.
- When the Kim Davis matter got brought to the forefront, while a minority of candidates said, whether we agree with it or not, we all have to respect the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage rights (you know, the law), a majority of them defended Ms. Davis and "religious freedom." Is there not the separation of church and state? Do these candidates not believe in equality? When someone is outside the workplace, they can believe and worship whatever they'd like; they can say whatever they'd like. However, while we have the freedom of speech and religion in this country, that doesn't detract from possible repercussions for utilizing those freedoms at the wrong place or wrong time. When we accept a job, we can't be going around constantly saying, "Excuse me, boss? I can't do this project because it goes against my religious beliefs." Our freedoms are condensed in school, at the workplace, pretty much anywhere in public. We can be as naive as we'd like, but freedoms are not without limitations. A person can't say "bomb" on an airplane and not expect to be questioned and/or punished. An individual can't yell "fire" in a packed theater and not expect to face some kind of penalty. When Kim Davis accepted the job as a Kentucky county clerk, gay marriage wasn't legal nationwide, but her job was to provide marriage licenses to couples, and once the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was to be recognized as legal nationwide, Ms. Davis would thereby need to follow the law and provide marriage licenses to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. She can be as adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage as she'd like, she was hired to do a job, and if she can't follow through, she should be working some place else. If one's religion prevents them from doing a job, they shouldn't be working that job. That's not discrimination against religion; it's being smart from a business and image standpoint. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee (among others) comparing Kim Davis to Martin Luther King is even more laughable. MLK fought for African-Americans to attain equal rights in this country. The LGBT community has been fighting to attain equal rights as well. Kim Davis is fighting to prevent gay and lesbian couples from attaining equal rights. She's more like George Wallace than Martin Luther King.
Yeah, studies, facts, and logic seem to be quite foreign to the modern-day Republican Party. The GOP likes to substitute them with opinions, fallacies, and conspiracies, all of which they seem to take for fact, no matter how many times they've been debunked by reputable sources. It's like I said, in 2015, it seems that the Republican Party is living in an alternate reality.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/us-economy-created-six-times-many-jobs
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/04/sandra-smith/fox-business-reporter-95-planned-parenthoods-pregn/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/12/what%E2%80%99s-behind-latest-significant-decline-in-abortion-rates/
- Many of the candidates, Jeb Bush in particular, laid claim that we're more at risk today than we were under President George W. Bush and that we're worse off economically than we were under Dubya. They contended that President Obama was the reason for this, and in order to create more jobs, we needed to go back to the ways of W. I'm sorry, but under whose watch did 9/11 occur? It wasn't Obama, who entered the Oval Office almost 7.5 years later. It was George W. Bush. Not only that, but under whose watch did the Great Recession start? Once again, it wasn't President Obama; it was George W. Bush. In this country's 8 years under President Bush, 1.3 million jobs were created, which comes out to an average of 13,542 per month. Through 6 years and 8 months into Obama's presidency, 8.6 million jobs have been created, which comes out to an average of 107,500 per month. In other words, with 1 year and 4 months left in his presidency, Barack Obama has helped create 7.3 million more jobs than George W. Bush (93,958 per month). To put it another way, with almost a year and a half left in his presidency, Obama has created 6.6 times the number of jobs as Bush overall and 7.9 times the number of jobs as Bush per month. So, yeah, let's go back to those Bush years again!
- A majority of the candidates felt that we shouldn't have made the Iran deal, should have gone on the offensive, and potentially invaded the country. Yes, how well has that strategy worked for us previously? These candidates said such things all the while denouncing radical Islamic terrorists. Isn't this a seemingly never-ending cycle? We invade a Middle Eastern country, mistakenly kill innocent civilians, make thousands more enemies in the process, who then go on to hate our country and become terrorists themselves? What, do these candidates feel that one of these days the stars will line properly, we'll bomb Middle Eastern countries, kill all the terrorists without wounding any innocent civilians, and all will be right in the world? Give me a break... How about we give diplomacy a chance instead?
- While not all of the candidates said the government should shutdown over the funding of Planned Parenthood, most all of them did say they were adamantly opposed to the family planning organization, all the while spouting off debunked claims and conspiracies. The "pro-life" movement cracks me up. They're adamantly opposed to abortion, yet many also oppose comprehensive sex education, contraception coverage for women in their employer-based healthcare plans, and Planned Parenthood, all of which decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and with that, abortions. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services go to abortions, while almost 34% of their services go toward contraception. Education about sex and contraception makes people more prone to using contraception, which in turn makes them less apt to getting unexpectedly pregnant and having an abortions. I don't know anybody who's an abortion enthusiast, yelling on the street, "I love abortion! Abortions rock! Hell yeah to abortions!" Moderates, liberals, and conservatives alike would like to see a decrease in the number of abortions, but a majority of the public wants to do that without taking away women's right to undergo the procedure if she and her doctor feel it's the right thing to do. So, how do we accomplish that? Uphold the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, all the while substituting abstinence-only education with comprehensive sex education, making contraception more accessible, and providing more funds to family planning providers such as Planned Parenthood. What are these Republicans thinking? "I hate abortion; I just hate it! Sex education decreases abortions, so I'm against that. Contraception decreases abortions, so I'm against that too. Planned Parenthood decreases abortions, so I'm really against that. So, even though those three things decrease abortions, if we do away with them all, abortions will no longer exist!"
- With regard to guns, study after study shows more guns equal more gun violence (deaths in particular), inside or outside of the home. It also shows the stricter the gun-control laws, the less gun violence. Yet, while unborn fetuses are of the utmost importance to these very politicians, born individuals are of less importance than firearms. Even when certain Republican politicians express their support on specific gun-control measures, you won't hear them say they support gun control. During his appearance on the debut of Stephen Colbert's Late Show last week and during the debate last night, Jeb Bush said he opposed gun control and suggested that, in order to decrease gun violence, we should do like he did as governor of Florida and extend background checks and waiting times. Those are two of the exact measures President Obama and other "left-wing anti-gun wackos" have been proposing! Not only that, but many of these candidates believe the more guns we have, the less gun violence there will be. Right, just like with more drivers, there will be fewer car accidents; with more junk food consumption, there will be less obesity; and with an increase in smokers, there will be a decrease in cases of lung cancer...
- Even though 97% of climate scientists have said they believe human activity plays a large factor in global warming (and that global warming exists), most of these candidates will say, "Well, but there isn't a consensus." I've even heard some say, "I'm not a scientist, so we should let the scientists decide on this matter." They already did! So what if 100% of the climate scientists don't agree? Is there a 100% link between smoking and cancer? No, yet do these same candidates want to look me in the eyes and say, "Smoking doesn't cause cancer"? I highly doubt it...
- According to many of these candidates, the national debt needs to be addressed, yet we need to reduce taxes, especially for the wealthiest among us. Okay, how exactly will this mathematical magic trick work? We reduce taxes, provide tax breaks, the national debt increases as a result... Mm... Will Jesus bless us by dropping cash or gold from the sky? Will we simply cut off all government spending, leaving us without schools, a police force, or drivable roads? Newsflash, GOP: in order to reduce the debt, we'll need to both cut spending and raise taxes. You're welcome.
- When the Kim Davis matter got brought to the forefront, while a minority of candidates said, whether we agree with it or not, we all have to respect the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage rights (you know, the law), a majority of them defended Ms. Davis and "religious freedom." Is there not the separation of church and state? Do these candidates not believe in equality? When someone is outside the workplace, they can believe and worship whatever they'd like; they can say whatever they'd like. However, while we have the freedom of speech and religion in this country, that doesn't detract from possible repercussions for utilizing those freedoms at the wrong place or wrong time. When we accept a job, we can't be going around constantly saying, "Excuse me, boss? I can't do this project because it goes against my religious beliefs." Our freedoms are condensed in school, at the workplace, pretty much anywhere in public. We can be as naive as we'd like, but freedoms are not without limitations. A person can't say "bomb" on an airplane and not expect to be questioned and/or punished. An individual can't yell "fire" in a packed theater and not expect to face some kind of penalty. When Kim Davis accepted the job as a Kentucky county clerk, gay marriage wasn't legal nationwide, but her job was to provide marriage licenses to couples, and once the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was to be recognized as legal nationwide, Ms. Davis would thereby need to follow the law and provide marriage licenses to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. She can be as adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage as she'd like, she was hired to do a job, and if she can't follow through, she should be working some place else. If one's religion prevents them from doing a job, they shouldn't be working that job. That's not discrimination against religion; it's being smart from a business and image standpoint. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee (among others) comparing Kim Davis to Martin Luther King is even more laughable. MLK fought for African-Americans to attain equal rights in this country. The LGBT community has been fighting to attain equal rights as well. Kim Davis is fighting to prevent gay and lesbian couples from attaining equal rights. She's more like George Wallace than Martin Luther King.
Yeah, studies, facts, and logic seem to be quite foreign to the modern-day Republican Party. The GOP likes to substitute them with opinions, fallacies, and conspiracies, all of which they seem to take for fact, no matter how many times they've been debunked by reputable sources. It's like I said, in 2015, it seems that the Republican Party is living in an alternate reality.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/us-economy-created-six-times-many-jobs
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/04/sandra-smith/fox-business-reporter-95-planned-parenthoods-pregn/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/12/what%E2%80%99s-behind-latest-significant-decline-in-abortion-rates/
Comments
Post a Comment