EPTAsk a Conservative Anything: Part 1, Rage Welcome - Page 5
| Blogs > SaintBadger |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 27 2012 01:28 DoubleReed wrote: What? How was that unproductive? I got you to clarify your answer. Sheesh. Calm down boy. Yes, we all know that calling someone "boy" is just oh so productive... | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
Where do you stand on the issue of judicial review, and why? Which politician that is currently serving would be your ideal President? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 27 2012 01:42 sc2superfan101 wrote: Yes, we all know that calling someone "boy" is just oh so productive... Oh come on! I didn't mean it like that! ;_; | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
There is no issue regarding cutting funding for contraception or health insurance for women. Certainly none advocated at a national level (I won't pretend to be able to keep track of 50 state legislatures). The issue is whether the funds will flow through PP or another source. I was talking about abortion because that is the real sticking point. Rick Santorum managed to gin up a huge row over contraception issues, but now that he is out of the race, I assume more moderate heads will prevail. I don't know the legislation you refer to regarding equal pay, but I absolutely will read it and comment if you point me in the right direction. I apologize, that was a bit over the top. Trying to do this while watching Salazar talk about $9 gasoline has me a bit on edge. @ Delwark RE: Copywright/Patent Issues I'm sorry I gave your first question short shrift. There is a popular suspicion that copywright laws are extended to coincide with the impending expiration of Disney's main rights to Mickey Mouse and other such content. History correlates well with that theory. I don't know enough about the conflict with the DMCA and fair use to make an educated statement, but I agree that someone in the room during the higher up meetings definitely should and I will ask around. Concerning the private rights of action, I think the term "abuse" is somewhat misleading. No one has a protected right to have anything on YouTube, so if the site decides to take the ultra-cautious approach and shut down anything remotely resembling infringement, that's basically their perrogative. I guess you could sue a reporting observer for damages if you could somehow show the report was knowingly false and could show damages, but that would be extremely difficult. I have no doubt that some parties have abused that procedure, but as Denzel Washington once said, "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove." The issue with rent-seeking behavior is a valid concern, but I am not creative enough to envision a way of legislating against any sort of licensing or patent trolling. If one were to not allow patents to be transferred as consideration, there would be zero value to invention unless the inventor also had means of reproducing whatever we're talking about for sale. The first-to-file system was heavily criticised in every class I took on the subject, but again, I don't know how one crafts an equitable alternative. I realize at this point that my main answer has been, "I don't know." There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but you bring up some points that bear discussion. I do, however, have a fairly strong opinion on the subject of the moral right to works. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. We're very comfortable with patents and copywrights after so many years of their existence, but at a basic level, these concepts are somewhat counterintuitive. If I see a guy using some sort of new tool and I think I could copy his design successfully with my own efforts, it's a somewhat interesting concept that I, in fact, can't do that without paying the inventor. Well, it's a stretched analogy, but you get the basic idea. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. As to the specifics of timeframe and exceptions, I should be able to speak more specifically than I am currently, but it has been a while since IP. On the subject of progress in international enforcement, I will confess that in my profession, one sometimes gets so focused on the coverage of politics that one can forget other things are happening unnoticed. I will try to make time to read up on these particular current events. I actually have a decent collection of stuff to read based on this forum already. As to your final question, I'll be perfectly honest. I think the majority of Americans don't care. And I don't mind, don't bother to read up on the nuances of foreign policy. I mean very literally do not believe that it matters in their life who is the POTUS. And both sides have found that the only way to even attempt to get these people out of their houses on voting days is to paint the other side in such horrible stripes that the apathetics can't help but get pissed off enough to vote for the other guy. And fixing that phenomenon involves everything we've talked about here. If a teenage girl is too busy worrying about whether she is going to be pressured and shamed into having her unwanted child, she's not considering fiscal policy when she votes Democrat. If a coal miner or an oil rig worker thinks that Obama is going to snap his fingers and end the fossil fuel industry tomorrow, they are not thinking about anti-immigration measures when they vote Republican. Who knows? I try to persuade without using fear tactics (unless of course I'm genuinely afraid of something), but beyond that, I don't have a silver bullet. | ||
|
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
A) I work for PBS in Virginia, and I watched firsthand as our Governor set off a firestorm and contributed to the "war on women." They tried to mandate that life begins at conception (which I personally believe, but you can't legislate morality). They also tried to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds when a woman goes in for an abortion, which would not be covered by insurance. This is the source of the "shaming women" comments you've seen so far. In a way it's true. For the vast majority of people, this cast conservatives in a backwards, negative light. My question is how do you feel this affects Romney in November? B) In my opinion Obama is invincible. There is actually no way he can lose. He knows this too. That's why he's on Jimmy Fallon and whispering secrets to the Russian ambassador. He can probably burn down the white house and everyone will vote for him anyway, because this crop of Republicans are seen as wishy washy, socially backwards, and--sometimes (read: Rick Perry)--stupid. What is Romney's strategy in turning this perception around? He's loaded with money, but he's out of touch with anyone in the middle class. He practiced shady business. Flip flopped on many issues. On the other hand, Obama is (in my opinion), a lame duck. How does Mitt turn things around for the election? | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 01:30 archonOOid wrote: The part about corruption and i suppose the inefficient government bodies is classical republican phrase to limit good public projects. Instead of working for an efficient and transparent government it seems that it much easier to cut the funding. So my follow question is whether it's better to focus on a stronger (efficient) and smarter (fair and open) government instead of weaker and dumber government. Government is supposed to service the public and by cutting funding you are cutting the beneficial public services. @archonOOid Let me suggest that it's classic Democrat practice to make sure that every dollar of spending is passed through as many organizations and programs as humanly possible before anyone ever starts mixing asphalt. In MOST cases, my Republican answer is "apportion the money to the states as you see fit and let them handle it." I don't say that because state governements are less corrupt; I say it because they are a little less removed than Washington D.C., and thus, hopefully, some level of accountability is possible with the electorate. In the case of these specific public works, the state answer doesn't work. It is the fed's direct responsibility. I don't really have any violent issue with that, except that you get into affirmative action in awarding contracts, earmarks which are sometimes blatantly illegal, etc. I mean the work has to be done, and it has to be done at the national level. That's my answer. All the rest is details. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On April 26 2012 14:33 SaintBadger wrote: Hello esteemed members of TL, I joined this community a few weeks ago to voice my opinion in the newly-formed Scarlett fanclub. Several of the posts in that particular club made disparaging remarks about conservatives by assigning that philosophy to those who ridicule her transgender status. This struck me as very odd, as there is no particular tenant of conservatism that addresses transgender persons one way or the other. Then I began to read the "Obama v. Romney" post in the general forum and it became painfully obvious that sincere, thoughtful individuals are grossly mistaken about some of the beliefs held by conservatives. So, at the risk of starting a wildly abusive, short-lived topic, I'd like to offer my expertise on the subject. If there is anything that a member of TL would sincerely like to ask regarding either conservative beliefs or justifications thereof, I'd like to answer to the best of my ability. Now, who the hell am I to speak for conservatives? For the past seven years, I have worked on various campaigns for conservative U.S. politicians at the state and national level. Currently, I am a manager in the North Carolina branch of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I have a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science and an MBA from Millsaps College (small liberal arts spot) and a J.D. from Tulane University School of Law. Perhaps most importantly, I have had some personal experience with a lot of the social and financial issues that plague American politics. If this takes off, I will get more explicit as necessary. I also have a fairly good understanding of constitutional law. I suspect I'm not the only law school graduate around here, but if you'd like the conservative tint to a decidedly ambiguous area of the way our legal system works, feel free to ask. From where do these answers come? Only myself. I do not propose to speak for any particular politician, including my candidate. That's for other times and other forums. I am a practicing Catholic, but I try very hard to not allow my faith to be my sole justification for political convictions. Also, I am NOT a libertarian. The distinction between libertarians and conservatives is very important to me, and I believe to the country at large. Again, if someone is interested, I will develop that further. Why do you care? Obviously, I would love nothing more than to convince all of you that my understanding of the world is the truth and the way to approach life. Barring that, you should know that somewhere around 40% of the country self-identifies as conservative, and that 40% tends to vote quite reliably. If for no other reason than "know thy enemy", I hope you will ask anything you want to know. I'm fully aware that this could be an obnoxious disaster. Furthermore, as the campaign begins to shift to the general-election phase, my time to check and answer this blog will vary wildly. However, ICCup Tesla's recent post on female gamers has proven that this community can be reasonably respectful and coherent if sufficiently engaged. Hopefully, this post will do just that. Highest Regards I find this really pretentious because you sir cannot speak for all conservatives. You can only speak for yourself. ._. | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
1) I'd imagine most people (regardless of political/religous belief) would prefer an unwanted pregnancy to not occur in the first place to avoid any possibility of an abortion. Why do Republicans still push for abstinence only education in schools when it's been proven to be less effective than proper sex-ed in preventing unwanted pregnancies? 2) What is your opinion of the GOP's general or outright support on the various bills/laws in the past decade that a lot would say were 'attacks' on personal liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA/CISPA, etc)? 3) What is your opinion on America's role in supporting Israel? 4) Why does the GOP seem to portray the idea that getting a college/university education is a bad thing? Do you really believe that students are being intentionally 'liberalized' at these institutions or is it possible that people naturally gravitate towards liberalism as they learn and experience the world more? Thanks. | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
RE: Shaming Btw, to whomever called reed out on the "boy" thing, don't worry about that stuff here. I actually think disgusting and understandable are not mutually exclusive here. You have a massive interest group who genuinely (for the most part) believe that abortion ranks with the worst of sins and can't understand why they aren't allowed to vote under that premise. As I mentioned earlier, I personally had the privilege of being told after the fact that my girlfriend aborted a child that I very much wanted because "she didn't want to bother me with it." Things like that make people very angry. Some of them are effing crazy, and go try to target abortion providers. They are criminals, and should obviously be in jail. But a lot of this group chooses to go the legislative route. Gov. Perry (R-TX) was particularly proud of his ultrasound requirement. Personally, I don't comprehend how abortion has become a right, but I respect the law of the land. These folks who try to pass all these weird laws are all aiming to make an abortion as difficult as possbile to obtain. I think some of the means to that end are grotesque, and I, along with the VAST majority of conservaties, do not support them. But I do understand the visceral reaction. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Personally, I don't comprehend how abortion has become a right, but I respect the law of the land. These folks who try to pass all these weird laws are all aiming to make an abortion as difficult as possbile to obtain. I think some of the means to that end are grotesque, and I, along with the VAST majority of conservaties, do not support them. But I do understand the visceral reaction. Really? Vast majority you say? I'd like statistics on that honestly, because I think you are quite mistaken about that. Look, if you don't support the war on women then that's fine and good. But when you actively say that such a thing is just a ploy is when you anger people like me. No, there is a lot of anti-female legislation occurring from republicans right now. Don't dismiss such issues, as these are issues that real women have to face. It's insulting and offensive. I might as well follow up with another question. Do you feel like there is a lot of sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism and racism among conservatives and republicans right now? | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
1. What about the Grover Norquist "taxpayer protection pledge"? I had hoped we had learned the whole "read my lips" lesson when President HW Bush went down to Clinton after taking the oath and breaking it. People like Norquist are only out for themselves, and my evidence for that assertion is that no one with half a functioning brain who has been around politics as long as he has would fail to realize that he is seriously hurting his party's chances for election. To pretend we know everything that's going to happen between now and 2016 with regards to the fiscal state of the US is stupid, and signing onto such a pledge is begging to get it thrown in your face later. Unfortunately, that's how primary politics works. Who knows if Romney would have even gotten the opportunity to face Obama if he didn't make that concession to the party? Don't get me wrong, the party obviously helps the campaign to the point where they do have a say in his platform, but this is just dumb politics. 2. What about factcheck/politifact? Are politicians deliberately lying or just misinformed? I love Politifact. My favorite they've ever done is taking an in-depth look at the research as to whether Jon Stewart's audience tends to be more informed than Fox News and other network watchers. Good read. More to your point, I think it's often that they've found a way to say something which is grossly misleading, but not technically false. For example, right now they've got a Mitt Romney quote rated "mostly false". The quote is: "The total unemployment rate for Hispanic or Latino workers has increased from 10% to 10.3%" between January 2009 and March 2012." That quote is 100% true. However, if you start the metric at February 2009 (Obama's first full month in office), Obama's numbers look much better. So Politifact calls it "mostly false" for being misleading, yet he is telling the truth. Most of them fall under that sort of heading. Another example was when the Democrats claimed the Affordable Care Act cost less than a trillion dollars. Technically that was true, but only because about 400 billion in costs had randomly been severed into a second bill that was passed in tandem with the first. In other words, they can play all sorts of games with what is "true". Some of them are deliberately based on a single outlying poll or study which is often contradicted by other work. And some of them, I just can't reconcile. When Michelle Bachmann went off on Perry about how his vaccinations were causing birth defects or autism or whatever it was, she clearly had no evidence to back this up. I imagine she took the shot, ready to fall back on "Well, I'm not a doctor but I've been told . . . " Who knows? | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
RBKeys
Canada196 Posts
I just wanted to say (like many others) that this is a great idea! As a conservative myself, I've often thought about something like this because I feel like proper representation of conservative ideals is lacking and, therefore, many of the discussions are often one sided -- devoid of any balance. In Canada we've had an election every year for the past three years (at least where I live) and they've been at all levels of government. It's been a great experience because I've been able to get out and work on all sorts of conservative campaigns. I wanted to ask, though: other than the Romney camp., what other experience do you have with politics/campaigns? Also, what are your thoughts on the Keystone pipeline connecting Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico? I don't get to talk to many Americans about it . . . | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On April 27 2012 01:06 SaintBadger wrote: @ Deathly Rat RE: Conservative philosophy a la Christianity It's possible. I think both parties tend to couch their arguments in the same thematic elements of Christianity because we all sort of assume that those ideas carry some power with our listeners. And it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that no conservative or liberal tows the party line all the time. Sometimes, as with my issue with the death penalty, I am reassured by the notion that we aren't all mindless drones. Other times, as with President Bush's addiction to deficit spending, I just realize that some people see the political parties as means to an end. I started this because I am a true believer in what I understand to be conservative principles. An important consequence of that, however, is that I find myself disowning Republicans from time to time. I think that's just a part of the two-party system. I think it is the product of a sane mind that realises that you don't have to believe everything your own political party believes at that moment because policies and the political environment can change, but to change your own personal views based on this is the sign of a lack of personality. As a life-long Liberal I hope you will look at what Liberalism actually is and means, because it has scant resemblence to Socialism and Communism (which you seem to think is so), indeed there is such a thing as Liberal Conservatism, which is basically taking the moral position of Liberalsm such as divorcing religion from state, and prioritising the rights of the individual over that of the collective state (a 'la Guantanamo Bay, no thanks!), but having a Conservative view on managing the economy with a small civil service and low taxes. By contrast, I cannot imagine how you could have Conservative Socialism, because the demands of Socialism, in that the state actually takes care of it's citizens, demand higher taxes and an enlargened civil service. | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
Re: Social Conservatives not REAL conservatives No, I don't agree. You're using the phrase "expand government" regarding social legislation in a way that I don't see as applicable. For one thing, there is a heavy distinction between state and federal levels. The state goverments can have as much power and money as its people will allow, subject to the proscriptions of the Bill of Rights and certain specific duties (like interstate commerce) reserved to the feds. There are many reasons why it is good to have a state government with more power than a federal government. States were designed to be "grand experiments" on the designs of democracy. Texans decide they don't want an income tax, so maybe businesses move there. Seeing that, maybe Louisiana decides to have no income tax. Conversely, maybe Texas goes bankrupt and Louisiana chuckles and says, "phew, glad we had that income tax." Perhaps the most important difference between state and federal levels is that if you don't like the state you're in, you can "vote with your feet" and GTFO. Some would stupidly argue that you can just as easily leave the US, but we live in a country based on privileges of citizenship, and the whole reason the federal goverment was supposed to be so limited is so we would not end up forcing the minority to renounce their country. I've said MANY TIMES in the past few hours that the federal government was not meant to have the power to legislate abortion one way or the other. It was even worse when the Supreme Court said, "oh you don't even have to legislate. It's all right here in this Constitution." But conceptually, whether you or I or anyone agrees with the Court, the expansion of government involved refers to the feds taking a piece of state power and reserving it for themselves. If the Court had decided that abortion was cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore illegal in all fifty states, conservatives would have the same philosophical objection. And before the obvious, "yeah, but they'd have been happy," we're all human. It's difficult to order our principles such that one clearly comes out ahead of another (e.g. federalism vs. moral belief on abortion). This subject could go on for pages, but I hope I've answered the basic question. | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 01:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: What exactly would you look for in a Supreme Court Justice nominee? Where do you stand on the issue of judicial review, and why? Which politician that is currently serving would be your ideal President? Gotta love the straightforward questions. I'd want a Justice that I felt was smarter than me. I mean wiser, more experienced, in a way that I couldn't possibly deny. Because like it or not, the Supreme Court is collectively more powerful than any domestic or foreign body in terms of US government. As I imagine a candidate, I would assume he or she is on my page with regards to understandings of constitutional law, but only because I believe I have some of the black and white correct answers. However, I'm fairly good at knowing when I'm in the presence of someone who grossly outclasses me in intelligence or wisdom. And if he or she had something differnt to say, I'd be all ears. On the subject of judicial review, I have to say this is where I think President Obama has conducted himself embarassingly. He didn't miss his opportunity to get in the jab, "zomg, I thought Reublicans didn't like activist judges". Of course, he knows as well as I do that an activist judge isn't defined by whether or not he or she upholds a law in question. Judicial activism is characterized by increasing an accepted scope of law by fiat. For example, the concept of privacy rights is a judicially-created construct. No one passed a law or drafted an amendment that says anything about privacy. In fact, the listing of six or seven specific privacies (search and seizure, quartering of troops, etc) suggests to me that there was no general "privacy" intended as a fundamental right. But, all of that is a long standing argument. In the case of healthcare, the Court will have to decide whether "regulating" commerce will be increased in scope to include "creating" commerce. If it is, that's my concept of activism, and it's an unfortunate thing. In a more general sense, it's hard to envision a nation like this without a court system. I suppose someone has to be that final arbiter of the differing factions of government. As many problems as I have with past jurisprudence, this system has held together alright for going on 300 years now. As to who is currently serving that I like for President, honestly Romney is not my "ideal" in the sense of what I would create if I could imagine a politician out of thin air, but he's proving to be capable and I believe he's sincere. I like that we're running a rich guy in this day and age, because I want to pound home the point that wealth is not a cause for shame or apology. I suppose if I had to pick one other person, I'd tell Gov. Christie to get on the treadmill. I suspect Rubio and Nikki Haley will get their turn in future years, but they don't have the chops just yet. Christie hasn't been around long, but he's made such a splash (no fat joke intended) that he might have a shot. And I imagine he'd be fun to work with. | ||
|
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
1. Re: VA life at conception; shaming women I almost went to school at William and Mary. Awesome state. They tried the same thing in Mississippi with regards to passing a state law that defines life beginning at conception. If that had passed, within about 12 hours of the votes being counted, the ACLU or a NOW chapter would have filed for and received a temp injunction against enforcement of the law until a hearing could be convened. The state court would have found the constitutional questions too profoud, and kicked it up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (in the case of MS) which would have laughed the state's lawyer out of the building. As long as the Supreme Court stands by its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which, btw, pretty much overturned Roe and introduced a new standard regarding abortion laws, there is no chance that state law can somehow circumvent the abortion ruling. They can try to nibble at the edges of things with parental consent (with bypass, of course) or these bizarre ultrasound requirements, but as far as trying to outlaw abortions again, it is never going to happen at the state level. Furthermore, if the ultrasounds aren't paid for by the gov, that's just a sitting duck for a court challenge. The law may be in effect for a while, but sooner or later that's going to be struck down. You can't require that much added cost as a preventative measure. So, with no hope of success and possibly the worst PR in history, are Republicans in VA just that stupid in terms of politics? Nope, they're just gambling. I think what's happening is that they know Obama is going to come out swinging in 2012, and his race and charisma guarantee him a segment of usually apathetic voters that is not usually counted on by the Dems. So, now, while it's still early in election season, they're bringing up a number of issues which they know can't pass, but will rile up the religious right. They know they can count on the religious vote, but they need the money. And money comes most readily from outrage. So, the short version is, it's a calculated risk against a master opponent. You want a really stupid analogy? The VA Republicans are bronzies up against Nestea. What's the only chance of victory? Well, clearly a six-pool. It's not pretty, it's not popular, but it's a shot, and you're going to lose the macro game anyway. Btw, don't for one second believe this is a Republican-only practice. Remember in 2004 when slavery reparations were on the dockett while the Dems were trying to get Sharpton out of the race to endorse Kerry? Same basic idea. Politics get ugly. We play to win. 2. Re: Obama can't lose There have been moments in the pas year when I've agreed with this sentiment. Let's say for a moment you're right. What do we do? Just concede the race? Nah, we fight the fight because most of us believe in what we're doing. Even if we don't win the Presidency, I have high hopes for the Senate this year. Also, the Obama administration has made some really serious blunders. He came in on such a high in 2008, but he lost a lot of influence by not catering to representatives and senators who needed to avoid the spotlight during unpopular battles. That's one of the reasons we won so convincingly in 2010. If Gingrich and Santorum had gotten out a month or two ago, I'd say we'd be 50-50 to win. As of now, we've got some ground to make up, but it's not as hopeless as you might imagine. He's got more money, more free air time via the Jimmy Fallons of the world, and a very devoted following. I like to think we have the right way of going about the business of the world on our side, but that's for November voters to decide. On a brief side note, decisions are made by those who show up. I've spent about seven hours straight typing responses in a SC2 forum after staying up till 4a.m. doing the same last night. I do it because I want someone's vote and I want someone's understanding. Whether you agree with me or not, just remember . . . Show up. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 26 2012 17:16 SaintBadger wrote: you'll have to be a bit more specific on the consumer culture question Do you think increasing GDP is in and of itself the fundamental goal of government economic policy? | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On April 26 2012 23:48 I wrote: Why did people assume you were conservative ? Do you see this as a bad prejudice ? On April 27 2012 01:00 SaintBadger wrote: @Otolia I was fairly outspoken about my beliefs, but I did so in a way that I thought was unobtrusive. For example, 14th Amendment professor would say something neutral and unbiased, like, "people who are pro-life also believe that contraception should be illegal because it's all just privacy rights and you can't be for one without the other. They also believe the state can jail homosexuals." I would respond that I don't accept the premise that all three of these things simply refer to some nebulous legal concept of "privacy", and suddenly I hated women. Whatever works. After some of the insults James Carville and Debbie Schultz have thrown at us over the years, you better have a hell of a vocabulary if you think you can insult me more deeply than them. I didn't have it nearly as bad as the evangelists. You didn't answer my questions  | ||
| ||
