What Does The GOP Have To Offer Me?

[sealybobo]

I'm selling my vote. Democrats promise affordable healthcare. Insurance went up 1000% on bush watch. The aca isn't perfect but what are Republicans going to do to lower healthcare costs? I don't want to hear about competition and regulations.

Are Republicans ready to bring jobs back home and pay more than $10 hr?

How the GOP going to make college more affordable?

How they gonna beat Isis? By going to war with Iran?

Are Republicans going to bankrupt social security?

Republicans don't seem pro worker. They always defend owners and call us lazy. Sup wit dat?

Why does anyone have to offer you anything?

The rich and corporations get something if the GOP win. What do I get? Nothing is your answer? Ok I'll vote Hillary or Bernie then. Bye!

 

[sealybobo]

Democrats promise a lot, the problem is they are hardly ever successful living up to their promises or being held accountable for failures by their lemmings.

Cons think Bush was a great president and want to take us back to the wonderful years of 2007 and 2008 again.

saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

But it is true. The GOP never admitted they got us in the mess and I don't see the difference in their policies from then and now.

Because of their policies, the rich have never been richer. So I can see why they would want to go back to those policies. What I don't understand is you.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm selling my vote. Democrats promise affordable healthcare. Insurance went up 1000% on bush watch. The aca isn't perfect but what are Republicans going to do to lower healthcare costs? I don't want to hear about competition and regulations.

Are Republicans ready to bring jobs back home and pay more than $10 hr?

How the GOP going to make college more affordable?

How they gonna beat Isis? By going to war with Iran?

Are Republicans going to bankrupt social security?

Republicans don't seem pro worker. They always defend owners and call us lazy. Sup wit dat?

Why does anyone have to offer you anything?

The rich and corporations get something if the GOP win. What do I get? Nothing is your answer? Ok I'll vote Hillary or Bernie then. Bye!

Really? Got news for you.. so are the Democrats.. stop lying to yourself. If you thing Sanders and Clinton won't be in bed with Wall Street, you're delusional.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think republicans are there for people who aspire to more than the same job at a higher rate and for universities to set their own tuition. We should declare bankruptcy on Social Security, but I don't think any party is willing to take that on the nose politically.

I disagree, there is no evidence that you think (at least on the issues upon which you commented).

Shut your ass or say what you think. Or do you?

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I think republicans are there for people who aspire to more than the same job at a higher rate and for universities to set their own tuition. We should declare bankruptcy on Social Security, but I don't think any party is willing to take that on the nose politically.

I disagree, there is no evidence that you think (at least on the issues upon which you commented).

Shut your ass or say what you think. Or do you?

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I think chasing Social Security is political and not pragmatic. After the baby boom (no offense) thins out of politics on either end of the ballot, this will also be politically popular. Working people nowadays don't have their hopes set on government retirement in the way that they were 40+ years ago.

I'll let the crabbiness slide on account of mistaken identity. I'm not even a Republican.

You don't know what you posting about. First of all, SS is a safety net, no one expects to retire on such a meager payout. It does however, keep people out of poor houses and fed, as does Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

If you look back on census records you will see large rolls of persons who live at the same address, aka as poor houses. These were common before SS; if one is interested in learning history from primary sources not demagogues or charlatans primary sources are instructive and require thought and perspective.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm selling my vote. Democrats promise affordable healthcare. Insurance went up 1000% on bush watch. The aca isn't perfect but what are Republicans going to do to lower healthcare costs? I don't want to hear about competition and regulations.

Are Republicans ready to bring jobs back home and pay more than $10 hr?

How the GOP going to make college more affordable?

How they gonna beat Isis? By going to war with Iran?

Are Republicans going to bankrupt social security?

Republicans don't seem pro worker. They always defend owners and call us lazy. Sup wit dat?

Why does anyone have to offer you anything?

The rich and corporations get something if the GOP win. What do I get? Nothing is your answer? Ok I'll vote Hillary or Bernie then. Bye!

Really? Got news for you.. so are the Democrats.. stop lying to yourself. If you thing Sanders and Clinton won't be in bed with Wall Street, you're delusional.

In bed? Not! If you were honest and educated you would understand Realpolitik.

 

[auditor0007]

Democrats promise a lot, the problem is they are hardly ever successful living up to their promises or being held accountable for failures by their lemmings.

Cons think Bush was a great president and want to take us back to the wonderful years of 2007 and 2008 again.

Bush was an okay President, I believe he did his best, sadly for him, Democrats were out for his blood from the very beginning and he made little effort to defend himself (not much of a whiner).

I'd have a lot easier time accepting the liberal main stream news opinions in regards to the Bush years if they were even somewhat honest about the Obama years.

The biggest problem I have with cons is that they blame the debt on spending, when in fact the vast majority of the debt was created in years when the bottom dropped out of tax revenues. This happened under GW and Obama. The difference is that GW was responsible for this due to his tax cuts. Obama never got any tax increases until the Bush tax cuts expired and that is when revenues began to rise again and the yearly deficits began to lessen.

If you look at the totals for Clinton, Bush, and Obama, Clinton saw revenues that averaged 18.5% of GDP during his two terms in office, Bush had revenues that averaged 16.5% of GDP during his two terms, and Obama has had revenues that have averaged 16.1% of GDP over his first six years. Clinton ran very small deficits, but Bush and Obama ran much higher deficits due to the lower tax rates and reduced tax revenue.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Last of all, while spending did take a big jump as a percentage of GDP during the first few years of Obama's presidency, it is now back down to normal historic levels. The bottom line is that if we increase revenues just a little bit more, and hold the line on spending, then our debt should shrink as a percentage of GDP. The big problem now is SS and Medicare, and yes we must come up with a solution that will prevent Americans from losing the bulk of these benefits without added tax increases. There are many potential solutions to this, but it is something that must be tackled by both parties together. Unfortunately, with so much divisiveness currently, I'm not sure that will be possible.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm selling my vote. Democrats promise affordable healthcare. Insurance went up 1000% on bush watch. The aca isn't perfect but what are Republicans going to do to lower healthcare costs? I don't want to hear about competition and regulations.

Are Republicans ready to bring jobs back home and pay more than $10 hr?

How the GOP going to make college more affordable?

How they gonna beat Isis? By going to war with Iran?

Are Republicans going to bankrupt social security?

Republicans don't seem pro worker. They always defend owners and call us lazy. Sup wit dat?

Why does anyone have to offer you anything?

The rich and corporations get something if the GOP win. What do I get? Nothing is your answer? Ok I'll vote Hillary or Bernie then. Bye!

Really? Got news for you.. so are the Democrats.. stop lying to yourself. If you thing Sanders and Clinton won't be in bed with Wall Street, you're delusional.

We all know Dems and GOP are almost the same thing. Only difference is every once in awhile the Dems give a dog a bone.

 

[Programmer]

I disagree, there is no evidence that you think (at least on the issues upon which you commented).

Shut your ass or say what you think. Or do you?

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I disagree, there is no evidence that you think (at least on the issues upon which you commented).

Shut your ass or say what you think. Or do you?

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I think chasing Social Security is political and not pragmatic. After the baby boom (no offense) thins out of politics on either end of the ballot, this will also be politically popular. Working people nowadays don't have their hopes set on government retirement in the way that they were 40+ years ago.

I'll let the crabbiness slide on account of mistaken identity. I'm not even a Republican.

You don't know what you posting about. First of all, SS is a safety net, no one expects to retire on such a meager payout. It does however, keep people out of poor houses and fed, as does Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

If you look back on census records you will see large rolls of persons who live at the same address, aka as poor houses. These were common before SS; if one is interested in learning history from primary sources not demagogues or charlatans primary sources are instructive and require thought and perspective.

We have stamps, welfare and section 8. SS should be reframed from this pay-in/pay-out promise to honest tax and spend on a means-tested basis.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Shut your ass or say what you think. Or do you?

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

Shut your ass or say what you think. Or do you?

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I think chasing Social Security is political and not pragmatic. After the baby boom (no offense) thins out of politics on either end of the ballot, this will also be politically popular. Working people nowadays don't have their hopes set on government retirement in the way that they were 40+ years ago.

I'll let the crabbiness slide on account of mistaken identity. I'm not even a Republican.

You don't know what you posting about. First of all, SS is a safety net, no one expects to retire on such a meager payout. It does however, keep people out of poor houses and fed, as does Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

If you look back on census records you will see large rolls of persons who live at the same address, aka as poor houses. These were common before SS; if one is interested in learning history from primary sources not demagogues or charlatans primary sources are instructive and require thought and perspective.

We have stamps, welfare and section 8. SS should be reframed from this pay-in/pay-out promise to honest tax and spend on a means-tested basis.

Food Stamps and Welfare are archaic terms, AFDC no longer exists, it changed to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and neither AFDC nor TANF has anything to do with Social Security.

The food stamp program, which was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in October 2008, gives eligible families food money. Benefit amounts, which are determined by a family's need, are deposited onto a state debit card for the recipient to use. Benefits carry over from one month to the next and are usable for nearly any food purchase.

The TANF program gives families cash to help pay bills, utilities and anything else necessary, according to the USDA. Only very low-income households qualify for TANF. The goals of TANF are to give families the boost they need to become independent, to discourage pregnancy outside of marriage and to encourage two-parent familie

The major difference between SNAP and TANF is time, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. SNAP benefits are considered an "entitlement" program, meaning anyone who needs food assistance can receive it for as long as they need it. TANF, on the other hand, is deliberately temporary. Recipients can get benefits for only 60 months during their lifetimes, and they must find work either immediately, if they have no dependents, or within 24 months if they do have dependents.

 

[Programmer]

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

Temper temper, and leave my ass out of it (lol). I think, therefore, I am! Are you an am? Or an am not? I suppose an echo exists, but is it matter, dark matter or no matter?

I think suggesting a declaration of bankruptcy on SS is thoughtless as is your assessment of this new iteration of Republicans (the anti RINO set) who seem focused on howling at at the moon and expecting the moon to change into blue cheese.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I think chasing Social Security is political and not pragmatic. After the baby boom (no offense) thins out of politics on either end of the ballot, this will also be politically popular. Working people nowadays don't have their hopes set on government retirement in the way that they were 40+ years ago.

I'll let the crabbiness slide on account of mistaken identity. I'm not even a Republican.

You don't know what you posting about. First of all, SS is a safety net, no one expects to retire on such a meager payout. It does however, keep people out of poor houses and fed, as does Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

If you look back on census records you will see large rolls of persons who live at the same address, aka as poor houses. These were common before SS; if one is interested in learning history from primary sources not demagogues or charlatans primary sources are instructive and require thought and perspective.

We have stamps, welfare and section 8. SS should be reframed from this pay-in/pay-out promise to honest tax and spend on a means-tested basis.

Food Stamps and Welfare are archaic terms, AFDC no longer exists, it changed to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and neither AFDC nor TANF has anything to do with Social Security.

The food stamp program, which was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in October 2008, gives eligible families food money. Benefit amounts, which are determined by a family's need, are deposited onto a state debit card for the recipient to use. Benefits carry over from one month to the next and are usable for nearly any food purchase.

The TANF program gives families cash to help pay bills, utilities and anything else necessary, according to the USDA. Only very low-income households qualify for TANF. The goals of TANF are to give families the boost they need to become independent, to discourage pregnancy outside of marriage and to encourage two-parent familie

The major difference between SNAP and TANF is time, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. SNAP benefits are considered an "entitlement" program, meaning anyone who needs food assistance can receive it for as long as they need it. TANF, on the other hand, is deliberately temporary. Recipients can get benefits for only 60 months during their lifetimes, and they must find work either immediately, if they have no dependents, or within 24 months if they do have dependents.

Rather than getting into the latest semantics in the welfare game let's say we have a means tested social safety net, we don't need Social Security except for the political pain suffered by whoever succeeds in toppling it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

Generally I'm pragmatic, unless I'm in the mood to mock someone like you.

I think chasing Social Security is political and not pragmatic. After the baby boom (no offense) thins out of politics on either end of the ballot, this will also be politically popular. Working people nowadays don't have their hopes set on government retirement in the way that they were 40+ years ago.

I'll let the crabbiness slide on account of mistaken identity. I'm not even a Republican.

You don't know what you posting about. First of all, SS is a safety net, no one expects to retire on such a meager payout. It does however, keep people out of poor houses and fed, as does Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

If you look back on census records you will see large rolls of persons who live at the same address, aka as poor houses. These were common before SS; if one is interested in learning history from primary sources not demagogues or charlatans primary sources are instructive and require thought and perspective.

We have stamps, welfare and section 8. SS should be reframed from this pay-in/pay-out promise to honest tax and spend on a means-tested basis.

Food Stamps and Welfare are archaic terms, AFDC no longer exists, it changed to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and neither AFDC nor TANF has anything to do with Social Security.

The food stamp program, which was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in October 2008, gives eligible families food money. Benefit amounts, which are determined by a family's need, are deposited onto a state debit card for the recipient to use. Benefits carry over from one month to the next and are usable for nearly any food purchase.

The TANF program gives families cash to help pay bills, utilities and anything else necessary, according to the USDA. Only very low-income households qualify for TANF. The goals of TANF are to give families the boost they need to become independent, to discourage pregnancy outside of marriage and to encourage two-parent familie

The major difference between SNAP and TANF is time, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. SNAP benefits are considered an "entitlement" program, meaning anyone who needs food assistance can receive it for as long as they need it. TANF, on the other hand, is deliberately temporary. Recipients can get benefits for only 60 months during their lifetimes, and they must find work either immediately, if they have no dependents, or within 24 months if they do have dependents.

Rather than getting into the latest semantics in the welfare game let's say we have a means tested social safety net, we don't need Social Security except for the political pain suffered by whoever succeeds in toppling it.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Freewill]

With a GOP majority you can expect a loss of SS, Medicare, unemployment insurance, disability insurance and health insurance.. While they give corporations tax breaks, subsidies and a free pass at passing more regulations to stifle small business creation...

Halloween has pasted no need to be fear mongering. Oh right there is a reason, the left wing has nothing else to offer.

 

[Freewill]

The problem is that you're an idiot. Politicians run the government, the government doesn't run the economy, nor should it. History proves that government intrusion typically makes things worse. The fact that you want politicians to give you things proves you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Health insurance has been going up with regulations, state mandates and intrusion, lack of competition since the state calls the shots, sky high malpractice insurance, a focus on testing for that reason and now even more government. The opposite solution to lowering costs.

The rich got richer, more people under employed and more people dependents of the state in the last 7 years and you think the problem is the GOP?

Yes I do think the problem is/was the GOP. Yes. The answer is a resounding YES. I'm not going to tell you all the reasons again and again. Just read HW Bush's book. It's all in their how the GOP from 2000-2008 caused our economic woes.

For example, the Ford worker who's job went to Mexico. He's still under employed working at Walmart. Lost his home. Obama didn't cause that. And yes Bill Clinton signed Nafta but you guys created it. And GW Bush sent 700,000 jobs a month overseas. And for years you were hiring illegals to fuck with the American worker.

Of course it's not the GOP's fault. Nothing ever is.

Buck up and be a man and accept the FACT that the example you gave was Clinton's doing. He pushed for nothing more then his "free trade" agreements. It was predicted what would happen if they were passed and now they have. Maybe, maybe the republicans would have done the same but I doubt they could have convinced the democrats to screw the working man like they did with Clinton's free trade agreements. No way you can be allowed to change history, Clinton was the worse president ever in my opinion. Nice guy persona while he stabs the working man squarely in the back. Of course Obama isn't far behind with his open borders BS taking even more jobs from the working man.

It was drafted by Newt and HW would have signed it had he not been a 1 term president.

This is one thing we hate about the Clintons. They triangulated with the GOP much too much. It wasn't just this NAFTA deal either. He deregulated a lot in order to get the GOP to give him something in return. He should have been tougher with them like Obama. Obama don't give them nothing except for this new bad trade deal.

I hope you are not going to suggest Republicans are anti free trade. PLEASE don't try to pull that one off.

Bottom line, CLINTON signed it and the democrats voted for it.

I admitted that the Republicans might have tried the same thing but it took a democrat president to stab the working man in the back. At least the Republicans are doing what they do, the democrats say one thing and do another.

Clinton signed the bill in 1993, circumstances since then prove Perot was right when he argued that the bill would suck jobs from the US into Mexico.

Experiments such as this ought to have a sunset clause, IMO.

That said, why haven't the opinions on the pending fair trade agreement been vetted by those seeking each parties nomination?

Do any of us know what the LT consequences of such a deal with have?

See: From the Trans-Pacific Partnership to a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific?

You want it explained to you? Really? How are the rank and file congressman going to explain it to you when they don't know themselves? Besides the democrat party thinks so little of people I am sure the think we are too stupid to understand. Too stupid to get id, too stupid to find a polling place, too stupid to not be on welfare..,..etc. The democrat left sure doesn't think much of Americans.

 

[Siete]

the GOP candidates continue to offer "I will " but fail to offer how they will ... the Romney effect ... and the Romney results.

offer away chumps ..

 

[Slyhunter]

The government just needs to get out of the way.

 

[jasonnfree]

Republicans offer the pain, frustration and failure of liberty.

..and the joy, satisfaction and success of liberty. Too many leave that part out.

Liberty like the patriot act.

 

[jasonnfree]

The government just needs to get out of the way.

When government gets out of the way, the economy usually crashes. Usually when republicans are in office.

 

[rdean]

I'm selling my vote. Democrats promise affordable healthcare. Insurance went up 1000% on bush watch. The aca isn't perfect but what are Republicans going to do to lower healthcare costs? I don't want to hear about competition and regulations.

Are Republicans ready to bring jobs back home and pay more than $10 hr?

How the GOP going to make college more affordable?

How they gonna beat Isis? By going to war with Iran?

Are Republicans going to bankrupt social security?

Republicans don't seem pro worker. They always defend owners and call us lazy. Sup wit dat?

Why do you start off with a lie?

 

[rdean]

The government just needs to get out of the way.

When government gets out of the way, the economy usually crashes. Usually when republicans are in office.

I didn't say Republicans were Midas. I said they were like Midas. Only everything they touch turns to shit. It's not like we can't list their failures.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes I do think the problem is/was the GOP. Yes. The answer is a resounding YES. I'm not going to tell you all the reasons again and again. Just read HW Bush's book. It's all in their how the GOP from 2000-2008 caused our economic woes.

For example, the Ford worker who's job went to Mexico. He's still under employed working at Walmart. Lost his home. Obama didn't cause that. And yes Bill Clinton signed Nafta but you guys created it. And GW Bush sent 700,000 jobs a month overseas. And for years you were hiring illegals to fuck with the American worker.

Of course it's not the GOP's fault. Nothing ever is.

Buck up and be a man and accept the FACT that the example you gave was Clinton's doing. He pushed for nothing more then his "free trade" agreements. It was predicted what would happen if they were passed and now they have. Maybe, maybe the republicans would have done the same but I doubt they could have convinced the democrats to screw the working man like they did with Clinton's free trade agreements. No way you can be allowed to change history, Clinton was the worse president ever in my opinion. Nice guy persona while he stabs the working man squarely in the back. Of course Obama isn't far behind with his open borders BS taking even more jobs from the working man.

It was drafted by Newt and HW would have signed it had he not been a 1 term president.

This is one thing we hate about the Clintons. They triangulated with the GOP much too much. It wasn't just this NAFTA deal either. He deregulated a lot in order to get the GOP to give him something in return. He should have been tougher with them like Obama. Obama don't give them nothing except for this new bad trade deal.

I hope you are not going to suggest Republicans are anti free trade. PLEASE don't try to pull that one off.

Bottom line, CLINTON signed it and the democrats voted for it.

I admitted that the Republicans might have tried the same thing but it took a democrat president to stab the working man in the back. At least the Republicans are doing what they do, the democrats say one thing and do another.

Clinton signed the bill in 1993, circumstances since then prove Perot was right when he argued that the bill would suck jobs from the US into Mexico.

Experiments such as this ought to have a sunset clause, IMO.

That said, why haven't the opinions on the pending fair trade agreement been vetted by those seeking each parties nomination?

Do any of us know what the LT consequences of such a deal with have?

See: From the Trans-Pacific Partnership to a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific?

You want it explained to you? Really? How are the rank and file congressman going to explain it to you when they don't know themselves? Besides the democrat party thinks so little of people I am sure the think we are too stupid to understand. Too stupid to get id, too stupid to find a polling place, too stupid to not be on welfare..,..etc. The democrat left sure doesn't think much of Americans.

Wow, did your brainwash come with blue chip stamps?

The Democratic Party includes members of the power elite and the hoi polloi and every class in between; thus it is not of one mind, but an aggregate of disparate elements.

Anyone who watched the Democratic Forum last night saw a moderator asking mostly recondite questions which elicited insightful responses - no matter if one agreed with them or not - as opposed to the embarrassments put on by the RNC and responses by member of the aptly defined clown car.