The Democrat’s Guide to Talking Politics With Your Republican Uncle

The DNC has a nifty website full of actual facts in case the right-wingers at your family Thanksgiving get-together start repeating stuff they heard on Faux News Channel.

  1. #1 by cav on November 29, 2013 - 9:41 am

    The True Story About How America Was First Settled By Profit-Seeking Speculators

    • #2 by brewski on November 29, 2013 - 10:35 pm

      Who held in their hand a charter from their government.

  2. #3 by Richard Warnick on December 4, 2013 - 12:06 pm

    Friends don’t let friends watch Faux News Channel.

    Knowing, Deliberate Lies: “Detroit” Bankruptcy Edition

    • #4 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 12:12 pm

      Media Matters again? Really?

      • #5 by Richard Warnick on December 4, 2013 - 12:37 pm

        And they are 100 percent correct again. Really!

      • #6 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 8:22 am

        What is laughable about this particular MM piece is that Obama in fact did exactly what Romney recommended in his op-ed piece, Obama did put GM in bankruptcy and did shed a lot of liabilities and more or less followed the Romney script to a “T”. But this is the same plan that Obama ran against and lied to the voters about what Romney’s plan was really about. He was counting on that the adoring cult of personality Authoritarians had never actually read Romney’s piece which is a good assumption because most Obama voters can’t read.

        So yes, this MM is a giant lie and and obvious one at that to anyone who knows the Romney piece and knows that Obama did put GM in bankruptcy.

        Thank your for the win.

        • #7 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 9:03 am

          Of course, Media Matters was pointing out that right-wing sources were lying about the Detroit municipal bankruptcy.

          Because you would rather talk about the auto industry, let me give you the facts:

          None of these facts can be contested:

          In November 2008, Mitt Romney opposed government assistance at that time, to save the auto industry;

          Presidents Obama and Bush supported government assistance to the auto industry;
          Those companies survived today and over a million jobs were saved; and

          Without that support, there never would have been any chance of exit financing.

          Romney’s plan was NOT the same as what the Bush and Obama administrations did.

          • #8 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 11:16 am

            The point remains that MM lied specifically about Romney’s op-ed piece and conveniently left out the fact that Obama followed Romney’s plan exactly. So the question was about the joke-ness that MM is and the joke-ness of anyone who reads it. Case closed.

          • #9 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 11:39 am

            But President Obama (and President Bush before him) did NOT follow Romney’s plan to deny a bailout to the auto industry. Responsible people knew the consequences of just letting it all collapse.

            Anyway, the point is that Obama never promised that the City of Detroit would not go bankrupt. The right-wing media are lying again.

          • #10 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 1:20 pm

            Romney never said to let it all collapse. You are either showing your total ignorance of the op-ed piece in question, or you are being willfully dishonest.

            What Romney was arguing against was a pre-bankruptcy bailout to the automakers and not requiring any change. Romney did propose a managed bankruptcy, Federal support, and a new restructured GM. That is exactly what Obama did.

            “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

            So you seem totally ignorant of the actual facts and the actual plan and the actual actions Obama actually did. Please educate yourself before you embarrass yourself any further.

          • #11 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 1:35 pm

            Romney’s op-ed opposed a bailout of the auto industry, at a time when Wall Street billionaires were getting government bailouts. The result of his “managed bankruptcy” plan would have been the loss of roughly 1 million jobs, in addition to the massive job losses already occurring as a result of Bush’s Great Recession. Basically, Romney was offering us Great Depression 2.0.

          • #12 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 1:44 pm

            False. Romney was opposing the proposed bailout under the conditions that we were being requested at the time of the op-ed piece which was being requested by the then-current management with no restructuring. So what Romney recommended and what Obama did was to put GM into a Federally administered bankruptcy, replace management, shed some liabilities and emerge stronger.

            You are either really dishonest about the facts or you have no clue about the facts. Your choice.

          • #13 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 1:51 pm

            You obviously have no interest in the facts. You are just making shit up or reading Obama campaign talking points. Romneys plan was exactly as Obama executed. Here is what Obama did:

            The General Motors Chapter 11 sale of the assets of automobile manufacturer General Motors and some of its subsidiaries was implemented through section 363 of Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The United States government-endorsed sale enabled the NGMCO Inc. (“New GM”) to purchase the continuing operational assets of the old GM.[2][3][4] Normal operations, including employee compensation, warranties, and other customer service were uninterrupted during the bankruptcy proceedings.

            So yes, Obama did put GM into bankruptcy. Period. Deal with it.

            All this shit about 1 million jobs being lost is total campaign scare tactics which of course never happened because Obama followed Romney’s plan.

          • #14 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 2:02 pm

            I think the facts support what I am saying.

            Romney says, and his op-ed indicates, that he wouldn’t have extended loans to the carmakers before putting them through bankruptcy. Bush and Obama did. Could they have survived through the bankruptcy without those loans? It’s not clear, and maybe there was no scenario in which they wouldn’t have needed the feds to bridge them over the bankruptcy process. Remember, late 2008 and early 2009 were the depths of the financial crisis.

            Romney’s plan wasn’t viable. It would have resulted in a catastrophe at a time when the economy was already in a state of collapse.

          • #15 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 2:14 pm

            Obama did put GM in bankruptcy.

            How exactly was Romney’s plan not viable if that is exactly what Obama did?

          • #16 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 2:23 pm

            We’re lucky Romney wasn’t President in 2008-2009. Without a bailout, the auto industry would not have lasted long enough for a “managed bankruptcy.” The vulture capitalists would have taken it away in pieces, for pennies on the dollar.

            Anyway, the bankruptcy process the Obama administration put the companies through is what is known as a “363 sale.” That was not Romney’s plan. No matter how many times you make the claim, it’s not true.

          • #17 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 2:35 pm

            Thank you Mr. Axelrod.

          • #18 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 2:50 pm

            All you were doing was repeating the same lame excuses we heard from Willard (“Mitt”) Romney in the last election. Which he lost.

          • #19 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 5:21 pm


            Romney said no bailout under the old terms then proposed by GM’s old management. His op-ed piece including the bankruptcy included a bailout. He was right and Obama did what he said.

        • #20 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 3:40 pm

          Romney recommended bankruptcy on Nov 18, 2008.

          Obama put GM in bankruptcy on June 1, 2009.

          It just took Obama that long to catch up.

          • #21 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 4:00 pm

            Both plans involved bankruptcy, but only one of them included a bailout. Without the bailout – Great Depression 2.0. Therefore, I consider there is a large difference!

          • #22 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 4:16 pm

            False. Romney proposed financing as well.

          • #23 by Richard Warnick on December 5, 2013 - 5:00 pm

            Romney said no bailout. Even the Bush administration understood the dire consequences to the economy if the auto industry was denied a bailout. Meanwhile, the Wall Street billionaires who crashed the financial sector were getting bailed out right and left, with no complaints from Romney!

          • #24 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 5:21 pm

            oops, moved it:


            Romney said no bailout under the old terms then proposed by GM’s old management. His op-ed piece including the bankruptcy included a bailout. He was right and Obama did what he said.

          • #25 by brewski on December 5, 2013 - 5:23 pm

            Obama voted for the Wall Street bailouts. Can’t single out Romney for that. Basically Obama IS Romney.

  3. #26 by brewski on December 4, 2013 - 6:06 pm

    I don’t think MM has ever said anything correct. Citing them is like citing the NRA.

    • #27 by Richard Warnick on December 4, 2013 - 7:29 pm

      You must have dozens of examples to share with us, where Media Matters repeated false information. Oh, wait, they do that all the time – when they quote the lies from right-wing media sources. 😉

  4. #28 by cav on December 5, 2013 - 7:25 pm

    WASHINGTON — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took aim at the corporate-backed think tank Third Way on Thursday, deepening her feud with the group that attacked her Social Security plan in the Wall Street Journal.
    The WSJ op-ed said that Warren was ignoring Social Security’s “undebatable solvency crisis.”

    “It’s just flatly wrong,” Warren said of Third Way’s critique. “We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it … The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind.”

    Warren made her comments in an interview with HuffPost as members of Congress on Third Way’s board faced questions about their support of the group’s attack. “The Social Security system is not adding to the debt at all,” she said. “More importantly, if we made no changes at all, Social Security would pay out at its current level for about 20 years, at which point it would drop by about 25 percent and pay out forever into the future.”

    Warren responded to Third Way earlier this week by challenging Wall Street banks to be transparent about donations they have made to think tanks.

    The Massachusetts Democrat said that Wall Street’s push to cut Social Security is part of a broader agenda. “It’s part of the larger issue about a rigged playing field. They don’t wanna pay more, they don’t wanna pay a fair share. I believe everybody should pay a fair share,” she said. “That’s how we make sure people can retire with dignity. That’s not what Wall Street wants to do.”

    Third Way’s spokesman responded by saying that under Warren’s plan, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, would be entitled to a higher Social Security payout.

    “Oh please. I’m out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment,” Warren said.

    “I believe that we need to be talking about how we can expand Social Security benefits,” she continued. “We need to keep in mind that two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security to put groceries on the table and for 14 million seniors, Social Security is all that stands between them and poverty.”

  5. #29 by Larry Bergan on December 5, 2013 - 8:02 pm

    Bernie Sanders would like Elizabeth to run for president and I agree. Anyone who puts themselves up against this awesome machine of deceit and greed, is one brave dude or gal.

    • #30 by Richard Warnick on December 6, 2013 - 7:49 am

      Senator Warren has said she won’t be a candidate for President in 2016. The best we can hope for is a “re-invented” Hillary that rejects Wall Street/Third Way. Kind of like the re-invented President Obama who suddenly says he’s worried about inequality for the 99 Percent.

    • #31 by brewski on December 6, 2013 - 10:02 am

      Warren is Exhibit A of deceit and greed. She is the 1%.

  6. #32 by Larry Bergan on December 7, 2013 - 10:24 pm

    Whoever the opposition to democracy comes up with in 2016 it won’t succeed unless it cheats.

  7. #33 by brewski on December 8, 2013 - 3:37 am

    Obama is the opposition to democracy.

    • #34 by cav on December 8, 2013 - 8:57 am

      What’s this I keep hearing about this plan being a simple rewrite of Romney’s Heritage Foundation program?

      • #35 by Sean on December 11, 2013 - 6:32 am

        Did Romney bribe his bill through his legislature too?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: