The Politics Thread

[juppiter]

This is ridiculous. The fact is, to be a mainstream Republican these days you HAVE to be intellectually inconsistent. Big government is bad unless we are making more laws about abortion or DADT, Obamacare sucks even though it's essentially identical to the Republican counterargument to Hillarycare, tax cuts are great but Obama wanting to extend pay roll tax cuts is bad, spending sprees are wrong and the Bush presidency never happened. I could go on and on. Max is making more sense than most Republicans.

The fact that you seem to believe that you have to agree with the Republican mantra du jour which makes no sense when you really look at it to be an "ideologically consistent" conservative is what's really weak. You're basically asking Max to go with truthiness.

[DRW50]

What bothers me is - and I'm sure this happens in both parties but I'm just using this as an example - someone who is very influential basically goes and says something without knowing anything about what it means, because they are much more focused on the delusion behind the idea. For instance, Michelle Bachmann wants to go back to the tax rates we had when Reagan was in office. Did she know what those were?

http://caucuses.desm...illing-in-anwr/

Edited October 19, 2011 by CarlD2

[GoldenDogs]

Actually, I'm asking Max to be consistent, regardless of his political stripes. Have you read this thread, Juppiter? Back on October 11, Max said to me:

Brian, I concede that some of my messages are contradictory, and you have every right to call me out on it.

Those are his words, not mine. The point I'm making is that I see Max melt like butter when engaged in many debates - like a kid who did the report but didn't really think too much about when he did it, then stands up in front of the class to recite it but can't remember the facts of it.

I've known for years, back to WoST days, that Max tends to be all over the map with his viewpoints. We probably agree some 40% of the time (correct me if it's more like 50% or 60%, Max). I think I've known Max long enough to identify certain traits in not just his posting style, but the questionable attributes to his posting style, as well. Again, he can correct me if I'm way off base.

You tend misrepresent my personal views, Juppiter. The fact is that, like Max, I don't always agree with the Republican line and I'm probably more independent right now than Republican. I lean further right than Max - or at least the Max of today (he seemed more right-leaning a few years ago, frankly). My wife and I are both considering registering as independents.

If you want to know my REAL views on issues, just ask. But please don't assign me to a specific column on the electoral sheet unless you know for sure. And as for Max, I call it like I see it... and admitted to presenting contradictory information. Just the facts, sir. :-)

If you're telling me Democrats are making sense these days, then you've definitely lost me in this. Harry Reid said yesterday that the private sector jobs market was fine... but it's the GOVERNMENT JOBS that need help? SERIOUSLY? You agree with that, Juppiter? MORE MONEY to boost the GOVERNMENT PAYROLL? Intellectually inconsistent is the liberal call for an end to the death penalty while promoting government-funded abortions for one and all upon request. Tax cuts ARE great when they are permanent enough to allow employers to depend upon them thereby removing some uncertainty in the market, etc., rather than a temporary extension to pay roll tax cuts that don't really help long term (employers want assurance that their taxes won't skyrocket next year rather than hire someone, then lay them off a year or so later!) Yes, the Bush presidency happened and it is absolutely true that there was never a spending bill Bush wanted to veto - however, don't forget that the budget was crafted, promoted and pushed forth by the Democrat-controlled Congress who has fairly earned the reputation as tax and spend Liberals.

But all of those points don't really mean much... Obama has been in control for nearly three years now, the majority of his time with his party in complete control. How's that working out for us? Good times all around? The fact of the matter is that Obama and his party have more than quadrupled the debt. When Bush left office, the debt had grown by $6.7 billion a year. After three years of Obama, the debt has risen by some $1.116 trillion per year.

Not good and indefensible. No doubt, Bush stood by and let the deficit balloon. No defense for that. Can you say the same for Obama's performance on the budget or do you defend his actions?

[Roman]

Well, Brian, I'm not taking up for anyone, because there are people in this thread and on this board who I KNOW can speak for themselves. LOL But, one thing I learned and have tried to apply is that politicians are people just like us. Flawed, yes Lord. But I personally can't paint everyone of them with a broad brush. John Huntsmann is a man that, even though I don't agree with all his views (and no one will always agree with anyone else 100% of the time) he is what feel the Party needs to regain a foothold in politics. A moderate voice whose willing to call out he own party. He gets no play from the CNM and, because his views maybe are more to the center than those running for POTUS, he seems like some outsider who could never do a good job helping the American people.

I find myself a center-left person in my political ideas, but I now don't just say "all liberals" or "all conservatives" because that would be wrong. I never had and will not vote for any of these candidates running, because there isn't one thing any of them have said that even remotely reflects my POV. All politicians pander, but to just say anything and hope something sticks is not a person who I want in the big chair with their finger on the button.

As a vox populi, we all need to hold all elected officials accountable for any and everything, regardless of if we agree with then or not. JMO. I feel once a person can truly do that, I will listen to what they have to say.

And......I will also listen if they keep the personal attacks out of the discussion, which is what I did myself and which I saw certain members do 3 years ago. I this thread...it may not help you make your point.

Just saying.

[DRW50]

Democrats only had control of all branches of government for a few months, since most of the time they didn't have to votes in the Senate to break filibuster, with the Republicans keeping Al Franken in court, and then not too long after that, Ted Kennedy passing away.

The economy is being dragged down because of all the cuts in jobs that went to state employees and federal employees. Those losses are offsetting growth in the private sector.

Here's an article about what this type of thing does in Ohio.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/columbus-cleveland-ohio-unemployment

[Max]

Brian, what I meant (by the comment that you highlighted) was that my political philosophy was "contradictory" in the sense that I often depart from conservative orthodoxy. By stating that you had every right to call me out on it, I meant that you were free to criticize me for my beliefs. (If you recall, you chose not to initially criticize me, beacause--as you stated--you and I are the only non-liberals in this thread. While I appreciated your gesture of kindness, I felt that it should not prevent you from speaking your mind.)

I concede that I am not a strong debater, which is why I would suck as a politician. For me (unlike most others), it is not about "scoring points" against those whom I disagree with. Rather, I am looking for the best solution to our problems, and I have no problem praising somebody from the opposite party if what he is saying makes sense.

You are correct in stating that I'm not as conservative today as I was back in the WoST days. The only reason why this is the case is because (since then) some conservatives have done very stupid things like (1) insisting that Obama was born in Kenya and (2) nominating total nut-cases--like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle--for senate seats that the GOP would have easily won otherwise. Right now, my number one priority is to defeat Obama, but many conservatives would rather nominate somebody who ins't "mushy" and "sticks to his principles" (but who nonetheless scares the hell out of swing voters) instead of nominating a right-of-center moderate who actually has a chance of getting elected.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Max

[Kylie]

I still just don't get it. Max, you really think it's all as simple as defeating Obama? As putting a Republican in office? We had one of those for 8 years, and he's got a worse track record than Obama.

This isn't about the parties, whom are only out for themselves and don't give a [!@#$%^&*] about us, it's about fixing what's broken at the heart of the system. IMO every time control of this country is given to the "other" party...NOTHING happens. Nothing changes. Things get worse, or marginally better. That's because it's not about ideology and that nonsense anymore.

It should be about admitting that the system is broken and doing what needs to be done to fix it, and give the America people back some hope.

Ugh you don't even know how much I despise party politics. It will be the death of this country. And at the rate we're going, sooner rather than later.

[Max]

Kylie, it's not as simple as defeating Obama, but with him around for another four years, we're guaranteed to have a crappy leader. If we replace him with a moderate Republican such as Romney or Huntsman, perhaps there is a chance for the economy to improve. I have no major delusions, however; like you, I realize our political system will be unethical and dirty no matter who controls the presidency or Congress. (This is why I still am amazed why so many people--and I am not suggesting that you are one of those people, Kylie--were gullible enough to believe Obama's "hope and change" message back in 2008.)

I really don't believe that Bush's track record is any worse than Obama's, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. However, assuming that what you said is true, it really doesn't have any relevance in predicting what type of job Romney or Huntsman would do as president (given that they happen to be in the same political party as Bush). I remember back in 1992, Republicans were telling everyone not to vote for Clinton because of the horrible experience the country had when a Democrat (Carter) was last president. Telling people to vote against the GOP in 2012 because Bush was such a s#itty leader is just as "logical" as what Republicans were saying back in 92.

[DRW50]

I'm not sure what's moderate about Romney. He was to the left of Ted Kennedy not all that long ago. He just changes with the wind.

[GoldenDogs]

I appreciate all your comments, Roman, and look forward to chatting again with you. As a matter of fact, I look forward to starting over with you and would like to get to know you better, if that's okay with you. PM me or I can PM you... whatever you're most comfortable with. Let's put politics aside for a bit and just get to know one another... Sound good?

Thanks,

Brian

[GoldenDogs]

Not sure I understand the government job cuts affecting private sector... I have always believed that private enterprise - entrepreneurship (spelling sucks and I don't wanna check it! LOL) - was what drove growth in this country, not the government. I believe the best opportunity is to build wealth and security on your own rather though through a gift of the government... Perhaps we differ on that idea, Carl...

Either way, I believe Democrats had a wonderful opportunity when Obama took office to do some great work and they blew it. But I will say that it can't all be on Obama's shoulders... Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi share the burden. Reid is simply out of touch and Pelosi had delusions of grandeur, in my opinion.

Mind you, I realize anyone here can pick any Republican out of the crowd (myself included) and same the same for them... but I'm not singing to the choir here. :-)

[DRW50]

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the animal catastrophe in Ohio, or the Gaddhafi stuff.

[GoldenDogs]

Thanks for the clarifications, Max. I admit to be confused, though, by the idea that stupid conservatives or Republicans make you less conservative... I mean, your beliefs and principles are what they are, stupid comments notwithstanding. Liberals that today say they are disenchanted with Obama based on his performance, failure to keep promises, etc. don't state they are less liberal because they are disappointed with Obama - and certainly I don't hear viewpoints signficantly changing, ie: "I'm no longer for gay marriage because Obama's record on the economy sucks." Okay, that's an exaggeration, but you get my point.

Whatever your beliefs today, I'm cool with that. My own beliefs on many social issues have evolved, or at least I don't find those issues to be so black and white anymore.

With regard to your comments on moderate candidates... I'm afraid the country is so polarized right now that it doesn't really matter who gets elected. A significant base in both parties with resist an elected President of an opposing party and will be unwilling to work together. What kind of individual will we need to make things happen? Perhaps a hybrid of Reagan and Clinton? I don't see anybody like that on either side...

[Roman]

There's something behind that Ohio thing. That just doesn't sound right. Was it suicide or was he murdered? And was it him who let those animals out?

As for today's killing in Libya....what's goes around comes around.

[Max]

Brian, I hope that this makes some sense, but after some conservatives did those stupid things, I did begin a period of introspection where I questioned the entire ideology, and I found some logical inconsistencies in it. For example, how is it consistent for one to be opposed to government spending and yet be unwilling to cut the defense budget? Likewise, how can conservaties claim to be tough on illegal immigration if they constantly sing the praises of a president who granted amnesty to three million illegals back in 1986? Thus, after realizing the inconsistencies in conservatism, I then decided to no loger be an ideologue. (I still hold right-of-center viewpoints on most issues, but am willing to consider the liberal solutions if they make sense.)

I want to assure you, however, that my above comments (knocking conservatism) were not made in an effort to pander to the liberal crowd here. Liberalism itself has tons of logical inconsistencies in it, three of which are as follows:

*Many liberals claim to be huge proponents of the First Amendment, yet don't seem to realize that this means bigots have the right to make hate speech.

*Liberals preach how "evil" Wall Street is, yet have no problem watching MSNBC (whose current and former owners--GE and Comcast--get much of their financing from Wall Street) or supporting Obama (who received huge amounts of money from Wall Street fat cats).

*Wealthy liberals like Warren Buffett claim that they don't pay enough taxes, yet seldom (if ever) give more of their money to the government (in the form of charitable contributions), which they are free to do.

There's only one ideology that's consistent: libertarianism. While I am not a libertarian, I give these folks credit for always being consistent: according to them, there should be as little government involvement as possible in the economy, in defense, in our social lives, and in the bedroom.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Max