The Politics Thread

[Max]

Regarding the whole tax debate, I just wanted to add that it is nearly impossible to reconcile the conservative and liberal viewpoints on the matter, because both sides have a completely different definition of what "fairness" is. Conservatives don't like the progressive income tax scales we have in this country (where those earning higher salaries are taxed at a higer rates), because they think the "fair" thing to do would be to tax all people at an equal rate. Liberals believe that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate because the "fair" thing to do is for them to give (more of their income) back to the less fortunate.

While this may sound stupid, neither side is "right" or "wrong" on this matter; it's just that different people view things differently. What upsets me is when each side mocks and distors the other side's views: most conservatives don't want to piss on the poor, and most liberals don't want to punish success and turn America into a socialist state. It would be nice if all the ridicule would stop, but that never will happen due to the "blood sport" nature of politics (whereby one party has to lose whenever the other party wins).

Edited September 22, 2011 by Max

[alphanguy74]

The thing I always wonder about is this... conservatives complain over and over that they don't want to pay high taxes and have of their money redistributed to the poor, but I very rarely hear complaints from conservatives about military spending.

[Max]

Quite frankly, conservatives are complete hypocrities when they rally against government spending (except for military spending) but then spend huge amounts of money on defense (some years even giving the Pentagon more funding than they requested in the first place). The only GOP presidential candidate to point out this hypocrisy is Ron Paul. (Although I don't support Paul and some of his positions, I do find it refreshing that he is willing to say very unpopular things in front of partisan audiences.)

Edited September 22, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

Disaster aid could run out next week.

http://www.politico....0911/64102.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64085.html

I think we're thisclose to disaster victims being referred to as "welfare queens."

Edited September 22, 2011 by CarlD2

[DRW50]

This is an example of why I wasn't too sure about the celebrations over DADT ending, and soldiers coming out. The GOP base - which controls Congress and most likely, after November 2012, the White House - boo at a gay soldier.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/audience-members-at-fox-news-debate-boo-gay-solider-video.php?ref=fpa

I think this ban is going to be reinstated, or made even worse, by the GOP, especially since most of them have such hostility towards the idea.

So much for supporting the troops. Now they're being jeered.

[GoldenDogs]

Hi Carl...

I had to go elsewhere to see the video because that page wouldn't load for me... Anyway, that site and the other (Mediaite, I believe it was) stated that the "crowd" booed and you indicate in your post that the "GOP base" booed. I think to state that the "crowd" or "base" was booing the soldier is incorrect. The "crowd" sounded to be two (maybe three?) loudmouths in the audience and to suggest they comprise the "base" of the GOP is pure speculation.

This idea that those on the right are bigots who hate gays, blacks, whatever... it just isn't true. I'm not as moderate as our friend here, Max, who in my opinion represents moderates that might lean (just barely) to the right... I'm not obscenely right - as in extreme - but pretty decidedly right... and I harbor no ill will to anyone based on race, ethnicity, orientation, body type, disability, whatever and so on and on...

I just believe that personal business is just that - personal business. People should be who they are, where they come from, what they like - blah, blah... But it just shouldn't BE AN ISSUE. We all know somebody who identifies themselves as whatever category they feel they belong in, ie: "Hey baby, it's me the black lady!" -- or -- "Hey, what's up, it's me, the gay guy... helllooooo!" Okay, I'm over the top with that, but you get the idea. I don't care who is black or hispanic or gay or whatever... I don't deal with people on the basis of what column they check on an EEOC or census form - I deal with people based on their character and behavior. That's all that matters to me. Don't tell me your business and I won't ask... It's not my concern.

Anyway, that's my post for this year. :-) Good to see everyone again... hello... Things are well here. Hi Adam! I see you standing over there... Alpha, hi! I feel compelled to rip Max but I won't because he's typically the lone non-liberal in the room... LOL!

Best,

B

[alphanguy74]

The main thing is the cheers from the audience when Santorum was answering the question... that said much more than the few who booed the soldier when he was on camera. I want to know if he thinks that the straight soldiers shouldn't talk about their wives and children to other soldiers? You mean to tell me Brian... that you have never made small talk at a party and people have talked about their husbands, their children, what they do for a living? Do you discuss the weather and nothing else? Those people who booed should go to Iraq and fight for their own damn freedom, instead of letting a gay guy do it for them.

Edited September 23, 2011 by alphanguy74

[DRW50]

You're right, only a few people booed. But there was no negative reaction towards this. Santorum's answer essentially validated the negative reaction. He got a huge positive reaction. Can you imagine if Democrats in a debate booed a soldier, never properly addressed him, etc.?

The idea that the military shouldn't have any sexual activity is either a blatant lie or some type of fantasy. What he meant was the military should not ever have any homosexual activity or discussion of homosexual activity. If he feels that way, fine, then say it.

They only want people to stay quiet when those people are saying what they don't want to hear. Of course they want gay soldiers to not talk about this. But the coarse reaction this man received shows how ugly our culture has become. And it makes me very wary of what the GOP will do if they get even more control of the government. That reaction is pretty much what you get from today's Congress. You get knee-jerk anger against the idea of gays in the military - people who were trying until the last minute to block repeal. Nothing will ever change their mind. What bothers me most is the increasing feeling I get that those in this base see anyone who is not like them as being subhuman. Whether it's cheering executions, cheering the deaths of the uninsured, or booing this soldier - it just makes me worry about what is next.

[Max]

Hi, Brian! I hope everything is well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as I always enjoy reading your well-reasoned posts. And you are entitled to criticize me as much as you want, so please don't hold back in the future!

In the latest political news, Perry finishes a distant second to Cain in a Florida GOP straw poll:

http://politicaltick...poll/?hpt=hp_t1

This is a humilating defeat for Perry, as he was expected to win the straw poll. But, this is good news for the Republicans--and the country as a whole--since perhaps there now is a glimer of hope for a Romney or Huntsman nomination.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

The elites are pushing for Chris Christie again, the bestest governor ever - he'll yell at everyone and America will fix itself.

Another article about this Congress and how it can't do anything.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64330.html

[Max]

Those hoping Christie will run for president in 2012 are going to be sorely disappointed: he's made a political calculation to sit this election out (realizing that Obama is going to be difficult to beat) and to wait for 2016. At this point in time, I am shocked that so many still cling to this hope.

While Christie is far from the "bestest governor ever," he is easily superior to his crap Democratic predecessors, James McGreevey and Jon Corzine. Additionally, while liberals trashed Christie for using the state helicopter for personal use, they were completely silent when Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York (who, like Christie, ran as a reformer willing to take on the unions and government employees) later did the same thing.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Max

[Max]

In breaking news, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan has just dropped out of the presidential race:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110922/POLITICS03/109220448/McCotter-drops-out-of-race-for-GOP-presidential-nomination

McCotter has thrown his support to Romney. The Congressman was the second GOP candidate--after Pawlenty--to drop out.

McCotter's campaign never had a chance, because he never received the minimum of one percent in national polls required for one to participate in the debates. The other candidate plagued by this problem has been former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. Also, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson just met this one percent threshold in time to participate for the last debate. Needless to say, all the other GOP candidates--Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Pawlenty, Perry, Romney, and Santorum--have been able to participate in every debate since their campaigns began and (in the case of Pawlenty) ended.

[Max]

I find all of this speculation over whether or not Christie will run to be absolutely disgusting (given that he has made tons of denials in the past, and made another denial again last night). I believe that liberals in the media are fueling this speculation because they want to point out just how dreadful the current crop of GOP candidates are (which, of course, is intended to make Obama look good by comparison). Likewise, I believe that conservatives in the media are fueling this speculation simply because it is wishful thinking on their part, given how dreadful the current crop of GOP candidates are (except for Huntsman, who has no chance of winning the nomination).

I hold Christie himself to be somewhat responsible for this media circus. Even though he obviously is not going to run in 2012, he never seems to miss an opportunity to upstage all of the declared GOP hopefuls. If Christie himself really believes that Obama's defeat is of the utmost importance to the future of the country (as he stated last night in his speech), then it is time for him to put up or shut up. However, in a political calculation that is completely repulsive and opportunistic, it appears as if Christie is hoping that Obama gets re-elected so that he himself can be perfectly positioned for 2016. In my opinion, this is extremely similar to how the Clintons were behaving in 2004: it seemed as if they were hoping for a Kerry loss so that Hillary could be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2008. (Perhaps like the Clintons, Christie's "perfect" plan will later come back to explode in his face.)

Edited September 28, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

I don't even know where these liberals in the media are at this point.

[GoldenDogs]

They're interviewing the enlightened Janeane Garofalo, who states:

"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/janeane_garofalo_racist_republicans_support_herman_cain.html