|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 05 2015 14:37 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 14:18 zlefin wrote:On June 05 2015 13:50 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2015 13:26 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 12:49 zlefin wrote:On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify? There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates. As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies. What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level? Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections. And that you would also support. are there any republicans that advocate for and actually practice that? Also, that's a questionable set of policies, as they're almost mutually unsatisfiable, unless they're willing to touch the big social welfare programs (which they generally aren't). I wish I were in congress, then I could propose a long term fiscally sound budget which fixes the entitlement programs. It'd never get passed of course, but at least I could submit it. Its basically the old Ryan budget. And its the Romney/Ryan platform with subtle rhetoric on the entitlement side. Curbing entitlement spending is baked into reality regardless of who is in power long term. GH, I can really only understand the first half of your post (pre spoiler + spoiler).
I just reviewed the ryan budget; it does not appear to actually be a sound budget. It relies on several extremely questionable assumptions. as such, it's a piece of hope pretending to be a budget, rather than an actual sound plan.
edit: at least for the versions I looked at; it seems he keeps calling it the ryan budget, with multiple budgets submitted over multiple years having the same moniker. If you'd like to argue over one, please link to which one you're talking about.
|
On June 05 2015 14:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 14:13 Danglars wrote:On June 05 2015 13:50 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2015 13:26 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 12:49 zlefin wrote:On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify? There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates. As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies. What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level? Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections. And that you would also support. Hear hear. People that outright reject your cores (and they're pretty much on-mark. Maybe add govt agency power/regulation-writing) aren't the types that would ever be persuaded to vote for them HAD they not made that cah-ray-zeeeee point in one of their speeches. The divide is real. Most people don't point to the "cah-ray-zeeee" shit republicans say as anything except evidence of extreme stupidity or of cynical pandering to the extremely stupid (which is arguably worse). It's just a fact that Palin is a very poor thinker and a very poor judge of anything. Her "policies," if you can call them that, stand to the side; it's her character which is being called into question. This is mainly in reference to what cLutZ said initially.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I also have to say that your obsession with the monolithic State is a bit disappointing, because you always cast yourself as an educated, nuanced conservative thinker. Like why are you referring to a State when talking about Jesus's socialistic policies? Are the only two reference points on your ideological spectrum the hundred-million-strong State and the atomistic individual? What about voluntary associations of free individuals? You know, something like churches?
On the monolithic state and recurring points: I consider it an important distinction what constructions are the results of a free people choosing membership in a church and choosing what percentage of their money to donate to which charitable cause. We see that problems develop when this compassion for your neighbor is pushed towards that guy at the end of the block, and that dude the city over. That's when we exit the village model and need something better suited for a diverse and large populace. The basic principle, if I may channel some Sowell, is that reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
Sorry if a lot of these latest topics revisit some of the same fundamentals. High redistribution, liberty versus security, hell I'm getting fined-taxed-penalized if I don't freely purchase personal health insurance--all in service of that mighty societal good.
Secondly, I know you (sometimes) and other resident conservative-whisperers have this extra broad paintbrush that you apply liberally (pun unintended) to conservatives that wavers between straw-manning, association fallacies, and ludicrous characterizations. Every time I urge people to wait and just hold on a minute, that's not quite protesting some intellectual nuance. It's that an extremely dismissive left wing has written a great work on what conservatives think and why, and it can't really be trusted.
On January 05 2015 02:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question. Anything remotely successful to this President undermines their attempts to make him a do nothing President, which is why they block anything and everything he tries to do. Not to mention the casual racism/nationalism that flows through the GOP right now with among it's most outspoken and Conservative members. Ask an honest question, get a dishonest answer. Case in point.
You actually have to listen to conservatives tell you what they think and why. I don't think many of you will be persuaded just on this forum topic that all the policies you favor were the wrong way of going about things from the start. You might, however, get a better understanding of your fellow citizens from across the aisle.
|
On June 05 2015 16:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 14:46 IgnE wrote:On June 05 2015 14:13 Danglars wrote:On June 05 2015 13:50 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2015 13:26 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 12:49 zlefin wrote:On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify? There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates. As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies. What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level? Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections. And that you would also support. Hear hear. People that outright reject your cores (and they're pretty much on-mark. Maybe add govt agency power/regulation-writing) aren't the types that would ever be persuaded to vote for them HAD they not made that cah-ray-zeeeee point in one of their speeches. The divide is real. Most people don't point to the "cah-ray-zeeee" shit republicans say as anything except evidence of extreme stupidity or of cynical pandering to the extremely stupid (which is arguably worse). It's just a fact that Palin is a very poor thinker and a very poor judge of anything. Her "policies," if you can call them that, stand to the side; it's her character which is being called into question. This is mainly in reference to what cLutZ said initially. Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
Show nested quote +I also have to say that your obsession with the monolithic State is a bit disappointing, because you always cast yourself as an educated, nuanced conservative thinker. Like why are you referring to a State when talking about Jesus's socialistic policies? Are the only two reference points on your ideological spectrum the hundred-million-strong State and the atomistic individual? What about voluntary associations of free individuals? You know, something like churches? On the monolithic state and recurring points: I consider it an important distinction what constructions are the results of a free people choosing membership in a church and choosing what percentage of their money to donate to which charitable cause. We see that problems develop when this compassion for your neighbor is pushed towards that guy at the end of the block, and that dude the city over. That's when we exit the village model and need something better suited for a diverse and large populace. The basic principle, if I may channel some Sowell, is that reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation. Sorry if a lot of these latest topics revisit some of the same fundamentals. High redistribution, liberty versus security, hell I'm getting fined-taxed-penalized if I don't freely purchase personal health insurance--all in service of that mighty societal good. Secondly, I know you (sometimes) and other resident conservative-whisperers have this extra broad paintbrush that you apply liberally (pun unintended) to conservatives that wavers between straw-manning, association fallacies, and ludicrous characterizations. Every time I urge people to wait and just hold on a minute, that's not quite protesting some intellectual nuance. It's that an extremely dismissive left wing has written a great work on what conservatives think and why, and it can't really be trusted. On January 05 2015 02:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question. Anything remotely successful to this President undermines their attempts to make him a do nothing President, which is why they block anything and everything he tries to do. Not to mention the casual racism/nationalism that flows through the GOP right now with among it's most outspoken and Conservative members. Ask an honest question, get a dishonest answer. Case in point.You actually have to listen to conservatives tell you what they think and why. I don't think many of you will be persuaded just on this forum topic that all the policies you favor were the wrong way of going about things from the start. You might, however, get a better understanding of your fellow citizens from across the aisle.
Conservatives seem to be having a hard enough time just getting the Republican party to understand and represent their positions.
Hillary just suggested we have 20 early voting days nationwide and automatic registration.
What is the Conservative position on 20 early voting days and automatic registration?
+ Show Spoiler +You can't ask that people listen to conservatives and then not have anything to say about it.
|
You can when people have tried to explain things multiple times and everyone forgets in two days (or just doesn't believe you). So it's not worth explaining something every time someone asks about it.
|
On June 05 2015 18:02 Introvert wrote:
You can when people have tried to explain things multiple times and everyone forgets in two days (or just doesn't believe you). So it's not worth explaining something every time someone asks about it.
Refresh my memory? Indulge people who might of missed it, or started creeping in the thread more recently (elections are more in the news)?
+ Show Spoiler +I searched and didn't really find anything also.
|
I mean in general, I haven't seen any posts about whatever new thing Hilary said.
|
On June 05 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 13:50 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2015 13:26 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 12:49 zlefin wrote:On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify? There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates. As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies. What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level? Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections. And that you would also support. Well see I think you may have a point. The reason I wouldn't support a Republican isn't because of the "little minor" crazy things they say. Pointing out the crazy is because positions like "low/minimal loss of military spending" are also crazy but harder to explain why. This is a short summary of a fraction of what makes that crazy: + Show Spoiler +Because of its persistent inability to tally its accounts, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a law that requires annual audits of all government departments. That means that the $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China’s economic output last year.
Congress in 2009 passed a law requiring that the Defense Department be audit-ready by 2017. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 tightened the screws when he ordered that the department make a key part of its books audit-ready in 2014.
Reuters has found that the Pentagon probably won’t meet its deadlines. The main reason is rooted in the Pentagon’s continuing reliance on a tangle of thousands of disparate, obsolete, largely incompatible accounting and business-management systems. Many of these systems were built in the 1970s and use outmoded computer languages such as COBOL on old mainframes. They use antiquated file systems that make it difficult or impossible to search for data. Much of their data is corrupted and erroneous. Whereas it's really easy to point at statements on foreign policy like: "Well, it's not nation-building. We are assisting them in building their nation." --- Future former Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) or “I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt?" -- Ben Carson (R) or a fun one every once in a while like "Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE,"
"I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.' ." -- Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) or one that makes you wonder if it's a joke or a serious idea... "The 40 percent of the people that have come illegally came with a legal visa and overstayed their bounds. We ought to be able to find where they are and politely ask them to leave." Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) Although, even the Palestinian one is a little tough because you know Americans don't have a clue about geography let alone the actual regional issues. When Rand Paul isn't pandering he generally sounds like someone in the Republican party I could support if by some freak occurrence all the better candidates on the left died in a plane crash or something. I'd really like if he came clean on his hair though. That would get mad respect from me and I might vote for him over Hillary if he just ripped that rug off and stuck it to his podium and said something to the effect of "I'm willing to be honest and put it all out there for the American people. Which one of these chumps is man enough to do the same?" Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 14:10 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2015 13:52 IgnE wrote:
Those policies are brain dead policies, so it's not surprising that most people wouldn't vote for them. My point is that you hate those policies, and thus your potential to vote for a candidate who espouses them is nearly 0%, so your opinion on Republicans is meaningless. You have proven said point. Edit: I don't go around posting videos of Democrats advocating for 90% top marginal tax rates, raising the minimum wage, and silencing documentaries about political candidates followed by "Lol", because I know those are fundamental Democratic policies. That's the difference. I think what republicans are going to get a crash course in is the majority of America is closer to Bernie Sanders than they are stuff like lowering taxes in anyway for people making 7 figures. That's why Hillary just threw down the gauntlet on voting. 20 days nationwide early voting and automatic registration. I can't wait to see how republicans handle that. So far the best argument is "huh? What about ISIS!" I actually think it might be the best way to get Republicans to sign on to education reform.
Heh, most of America is definitely not on the Bernie side of the scale. Vermont, sure, the same as NH and NV are way on the Rand side of the scale. As for the voting...I don't see any objection to early voting, but automatic registration is laughable. There's a reason a huge % of majority abstains from the voting duopoly farce, so these purulent politicians want to edge closer to a mandatory voting regime. Ha. Besides, there are a ton of ways we can improve our voting process, but the parties stand in the way. We could strip party affiliations off the ballot for one, but that'll never get anywhere since the duopoly hold the power to do this. Of course, though, Hillary jumps to the registration jib instead of addressing fundamental solutions to the % of voters. Not surprising as the solution to most things in Government is mandate backed by fines, force, and guns.
|
On June 05 2015 12:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote:
My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm pretty sure everyone wants smaller government, it's just a matter of what you want smaller.
Not me  Small government is for small people, and I'm not building a school for ants here.
|
On June 05 2015 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 18:02 Introvert wrote:
You can when people have tried to explain things multiple times and everyone forgets in two days (or just doesn't believe you). So it's not worth explaining something every time someone asks about it. Refresh my memory? Indulge people who might of missed it, or started creeping in the thread more recently (elections are more in the news)? + Show Spoiler +I searched and didn't really find anything also.
How would auto registration even work? People move all the time. I know Florida did a registration purge prior to one of the last elections because some huge % of registered voters didn't live in Florida anymore. Same-day-registration with a photo ID + 2 pieces of mail requirement is probably a superior way of getting lazy voters, and voters who can't sacrifice the time to register to vote, to vote.
20 days is probably a waste of money. But all states should have some because it is much nicer. Since voting is on Tuesday, 10 days means you have 2 weekends to early vote on.
|
On June 06 2015 01:26 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2015 18:02 Introvert wrote:
You can when people have tried to explain things multiple times and everyone forgets in two days (or just doesn't believe you). So it's not worth explaining something every time someone asks about it. Refresh my memory? Indulge people who might of missed it, or started creeping in the thread more recently (elections are more in the news)? + Show Spoiler +I searched and didn't really find anything also. How would auto registration even work? People move all the time. I know Florida did a registration purge prior to one of the last elections because some huge % of registered voters didn't live in Florida anymore. Same-day-registration with a photo ID + 2 pieces of mail requirement is probably a superior way of getting lazy voters, and voters who can't sacrifice the time to register to vote, to vote. 20 days is probably a waste of money. But all states should have some because it is much nicer. Since voting is on Tuesday, 10 days means you have 2 weekends to early vote on.
Presuming that's representative of the conservative position, which candidate is going to represent it?
|
I don't think its a conservative position, its just a criticism of how Hillary's idea is unworkable, which I assume they will all take the stance of, reflexively. I actually think the position many of them will take is "leave it to the states" or something along those lines.
|
On June 06 2015 02:11 cLutZ wrote:
I don't think its a conservative position, its just a criticism of how Hillary's idea is unworkable, which I assume they will all take the stance of, reflexively. I actually think the position many of them will take is "leave it to the states" or something along those lines.
That doesn't seem to be what happened. Maybe Perry's response could be considered close, but the rest just snapped back at Clinton and defended voter id laws that include things like making it harder for students and others to vote by restricting acceptable ID's or locations, hours, and days.
Again to fix a problem that we know isn't really a problem.
|
Registration fraud is a fairly large problem. In-person voter fraud is likely not, but we don't know because there is no published FBI sting operation where they attempt on a large scale to vote fraudulently and fail.
|
On June 06 2015 02:30 cLutZ wrote:
Registration fraud is a fairly large problem. In-person voter fraud is likely not, but we don't know because there is no published FBI sting operation where they attempt on a large scale to vote fraudulently and fail.
They offered cash to anyone who could find any evidence of it and came up empty handed. There is no reason to think in-person voter fraud (the only fraud prevented by voter ID itself, without the other voting restrictions) is a problem.
What do you think the consequences of voter registration fraud are regarding elections?
|
On June 06 2015 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2015 02:30 cLutZ wrote:
Registration fraud is a fairly large problem. In-person voter fraud is likely not, but we don't know because there is no published FBI sting operation where they attempt on a large scale to vote fraudulently and fail. They offered cash to anyone who could find any evidence of it and came up empty handed. There is no reason to think in-person voter fraud (the only fraud prevented by voter ID itself, without the other voting restrictions) is a problem. What do you think the consequences of voter registration fraud are regarding elections?
To claim the cash reward, you would have to commit a felony...
Registration fraud is a simple tactic that likely doesn't influence elections above the local level (because that large of a conspiracy would be nearly impossible to hide), but Troy, N.Y and Lincoln County, W.V. are two examples where it is known to have changed the outcome of elections via absentee voting.
|
There's just no reason to do in-person voting fraud, when the other methods are superior.
|
On June 06 2015 02:52 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2015 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2015 02:30 cLutZ wrote:
Registration fraud is a fairly large problem. In-person voter fraud is likely not, but we don't know because there is no published FBI sting operation where they attempt on a large scale to vote fraudulently and fail. They offered cash to anyone who could find any evidence of it and came up empty handed. There is no reason to think in-person voter fraud (the only fraud prevented by voter ID itself, without the other voting restrictions) is a problem. What do you think the consequences of voter registration fraud are regarding elections? To claim the cash reward, you would have to commit a felony... Registration fraud is a simple tactic that likely doesn't influence elections above the local level (because that large of a conspiracy would be nearly impossible to hide), but Troy, N.Y and Lincoln County, W.V. are two examples where it is known to have changed the outcome of elections via absentee voting.
Wait in order to find evidence of voter fraud you have to commit a felony? Why were republican groups encouraging people to commit a felony?
What do you mean it changed the outcome?
|
On June 06 2015 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2015 02:52 cLutZ wrote:On June 06 2015 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2015 02:30 cLutZ wrote:
Registration fraud is a fairly large problem. In-person voter fraud is likely not, but we don't know because there is no published FBI sting operation where they attempt on a large scale to vote fraudulently and fail. They offered cash to anyone who could find any evidence of it and came up empty handed. There is no reason to think in-person voter fraud (the only fraud prevented by voter ID itself, without the other voting restrictions) is a problem. What do you think the consequences of voter registration fraud are regarding elections? To claim the cash reward, you would have to commit a felony... Registration fraud is a simple tactic that likely doesn't influence elections above the local level (because that large of a conspiracy would be nearly impossible to hide), but Troy, N.Y and Lincoln County, W.V. are two examples where it is known to have changed the outcome of elections via absentee voting. Wait in order to find evidence of voter fraud you have to commit a felony? Why were republican groups encouraging people to commit a felony? What do you mean it changed the outcome?
Walking up to a voting booth and voting for someone else in a state without a voter ID law is a felony.
Also:
Definitively stolen election in WV
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/west-virginia-sheriff-fal_n_1242248.html
Possibly stolen in NY
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/
Possible in MN (statewide election)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud
|
It's pretty un-American the way some people try to keep others from voting because they don't share the same political ideology.
|
On June 06 2015 03:24 heliusx wrote:
It's pretty un-American the way some people try to keep others from voting because they don't share the same political ideology.
Sounds very American Politics tho which is very much 'with us or against us'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
