|
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 October 23 2013 02:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Trains Running Again In San Francisco As BART Strike Ends
Commuters in the San Francisco area should see things start returning to normal Tuesday, thanks to an overnight agreement that has ended a strike by workers at the transit system known as BART.
The walkout began Friday. Around 10:30 p.m. local time Monday (1:30 a.m. ET Tuesday), Bay Area Rapid Transit management and representatives of the workers' unions announced they had reached a deal. ... LinkIt's good to hear that the BART union is no longer holding the city hostage and putting a gun to commuter's heads  Nice attempt tho somewhat falling flat considering the unions demands were not nearly as unrealistic as those made by the Republicans.
The union demands were very unrealistic. Regardless, the jab was at the methods.
|
On October 23 2013 02:16 renoB wrote:Was I the only one who laughed out loud at bakersfield being the top for the US?
I chuckled 
The only thing I know about Bakersfield is that an old acquaintance from the area said it was a shitty place, so it was nice to have my preconceptions reinforced.
|
On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology.
Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center.
I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
Man this thread haha. I actually feel bad for xDaunt, I dont agree with him at all but holy shit do people like to misrepresent his writing to attack ideologies that he isnt attached to.
Kwarks observations are as usual extraordinarily astute, articulate, and hilarious.
|
On October 23 2013 02:24 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology. Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center. I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing.
When you say that Bob Dole proposed a version of Obamacare do you mean that it was very similar or that it contained a just a couple similarities? From the data I've seen, Obamacare contains very little that has had Republican support in the past.
|
On October 23 2013 02:24 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology. Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center. I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing.
So you don't see the problem in singling out one issue on which republicans never really agreed as a means of disproving my assertion that the republican party platform hasn't really changed? I thought initially that you were actually a reasonable poster. Looks like that's out the window.
|
Dole's healthcare platform merely illustrates the law that you only need to be one step away from your enemy to outflank him. The crisis mentality of "no enemies to the right" is precisely the tradition by which the American Conservatives embrace exactly the same ideology as American Progressives, they're only 20 years behind.
P.S. As a favour, I googled Welfare State and Slavery, and undertook to read the first article that I hit. It's from a real Tea Party Extremist: http://cslewisjrrtolkien.classicalautographs.com/cslewis/bookexcerpts/willingslaveswelfarestate.html
|
On October 23 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:24 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology. Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center. I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing. When you say that Bob Dole proposed a version of Obamacare do you mean that it was very similar or that it contained a just a couple similarities? From the data I've seen, Obamacare contains very little that has had Republican support in the past.
It was a version of it and similar it lacked the individual mandate. It was close enough that the comparison can be made and shows a fundamental shift further right afterwards. A republican presidential candidate was willing to make that compromise now there's no compromise and they were willing to bring down a government to fight what has already been passed into law and upheld 21 times thus far. That is the only point I was trying to make; that the republican's have changed they have moved further from center and as a result moderates are alienated.
And answering something said earlier; you never split your political party if you have intentions of winning a federal election again. In Canadian politics, we had a split between our conservative party into the conservatives and the alliance.That was the best thing our conservatives ever did for their political opponents because it split the vote and guaranteed that it was impossible for anyone except our liberal party at that time to be elected.
|
On October 23 2013 02:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:24 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology. Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center. I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing. So you don't see the problem in singling out one issue on which republicans never really agreed as a means of disproving my assertion that the republican party platform hasn't really changed? I thought initially that you were actually a reasonable poster. Looks like that's out the window.
Holy crap I never said or made the point that their platform changed just that the party has. There are Democrats that don't agree with everything Obama or even Clinton did does that mean the Democratic platform has changed? Politicians vote along party lines, and although not agreeing with Dole on that, it didn't stop him from being the republican candidate and being supported by the party back then. Its not unreasonable to assert that the republican parties candidate proposing something similar to Obamacare back then shows the change. Again quote me on where I said their written platform changed, show me where I said it. I am 100% sure I never said it at all.
|
On October 23 2013 02:44 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2013 02:24 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology. Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center. I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing. When you say that Bob Dole proposed a version of Obamacare do you mean that it was very similar or that it contained a just a couple similarities? From the data I've seen, Obamacare contains very little that has had Republican support in the past. It was a version of it and similar it lacked the individual mandate. It was close enough that the comparison can be made and shows a fundamental shift further right afterwards. A republican presidential candidate was willing to make that compromise now there's no compromise and they were willing to bring down a government to fight what has already been passed into law and upheld 21 times thus far. That is the only point I was trying to make; that the republican's have changed they have moved further from center and as a result moderates are alienated. And answering something said earlier; you never split your political party if you have intentions of winning a federal election again. In Canadian politics, we had a split between our conservative party into the conservatives and the alliance.That was the best thing our conservatives ever did for their political opponents because it split the vote and guaranteed that it was impossible for anyone except our liberal party at that time to be elected.
What was similar about it? I mean if you reach broadly enough Bush's proposed reforms were "similar" to Obama's and the Democrats flatly rejected Bush's plan.
|
On October 23 2013 02:48 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:24 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 23 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare. Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology. Because the republican's were willing to bring down the US government over Obamacare which was Bob Dole a Republican's solution to the problem back then. And maybe not all Republican's agreed with his compromise; but that didn't prevent him for running against Clinton in the presidential election or have you forgotten that he was the republican candidate back then? To me that's pretty damn significant; because of the aforementioned crisis that literally just happened. And that one policy show's that the party has moved right of center. I don't even know why the hell you argued with me if you were going to say not even a page later that the party is changing from the inside out. That's arguing for the sake of arguing. So you don't see the problem in singling out one issue on which republicans never really agreed as a means of disproving my assertion that the republican party platform hasn't really changed? I thought initially that you were actually a reasonable poster. Looks like that's out the window. Holy crap I never said or made the point that their platform changed just that the party has. There are Democrats that don't agree with everything Obama or even Clinton did does that mean the Democratic platform has changed? Politicians vote along party lines, and although not agreeing with Dole on that, it didn't stop him from being the republican candidate and being supported by the party back then. Its not unreasonable to assert that the republican parties candidate proposing something similar to Obamacare back then shows the change. Again quote me on where I said their written platform changed, show me where I said it. I am 100% sure I never said it at all.
If you aren't challenging my assertion that the Republican Party hasn't really changed, then why do you keep bringing up Obamacare/Dolecare?
|
So, long term spending cuts; we know we need 'em. Let's talk about what to cut.
Some proposed plans:
Military spending cuts, substantial. Instead of keeping a pointlessly huge standing army; keep a more moderate standing army, and adjust spending to reflect what I think our 2 main uses are:
Use1; fighting small-medium targets. Most of our actual fighting these days is vs weaker opponents and insurgencies; these are wars where we mostly need infantry, with some air support. There's often heavier air use in the opening of a campaign as well.
Use2; stalling a large war. If we get into a war with china (I sure hope we don't) or another large power; then our warplan should be to stall/hold the line while we shift to wartime production of materiel. Keep a lot less active vehicles, but a sizeable number of things in an inactive but activateable state; and setup contracts and such so that we can VERY quickly shift to wartime production if a war happens.
Social Security -
raise retirement age. Instead of having a fixed retirement age; the retirement age should automatically increase over time as healthy lifespans increase (not having laws automatically scale is one common source of problems). So people can plan their lives, the retirement age for people born in a given year will be set 20 years before they'd retire; i.e. if it's determined your retirement age will be 72, you'll be told at 52. This means you always get 20 years notice, so even as the age changes, people have enough time to adjust their plans. This won't kick in savings very fast, but it should help in the long run as long as it's set appropriately. Exact setting would take quite a bit of work to negotiate; maybe something like average life expectancy minus 5 or so? Alternately you could tie it to the point when old age wear and tear starts really disabling people on average.
|
A gay Oklahoma couple was married under tribal code in a first for the state that does not legally recognize same-sex marriages, Oklahoma City news station KOCO reported Monday.
Jason Pickel told KOCO he and his partner Darren Black Bear were prepared to travel to Iowa, which does recognize same-sex marriage, before inquiring at the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe's Courthouse where they received a marriage license for $20.
Tribal code only requires that both people live within the tribe's jurisdiction and be of Native American descent to issue a marriage license, making no mention of gender, according to the news station. Since state laws don't apply on tribal land, the Supreme Court's June decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act presented an opportunity for the couple.
“I do know at the end of the day the state offices won't recognize it, but they kind of have to,” Pickel told KOCO.
Source
|
On October 23 2013 03:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A gay Oklahoma couple was married under tribal code in a first for the state that does not legally recognize same-sex marriages, Oklahoma City news station KOCO reported Monday.
Jason Pickel told KOCO he and his partner Darren Black Bear were prepared to travel to Iowa, which does recognize same-sex marriage, before inquiring at the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe's Courthouse where they received a marriage license for $20.
Tribal code only requires that both people live within the tribe's jurisdiction and be of Native American descent to issue a marriage license, making no mention of gender, according to the news station. Since state laws don't apply on tribal land, the Supreme Court's June decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act presented an opportunity for the couple.
“I do know at the end of the day the state offices won't recognize it, but they kind of have to,” Pickel told KOCO. Source
What an incredibly niche loophole. They ONLY have to live on tribal land and both be native American. Im sure there are at least 10 other couples in the world this helps lol. Anyways Im super glad they got their happy ending and hope the rest of OK comes along for the ride shortly.
|
For the first time, more than half of Americans think that marijuana usage should be made legal, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans now back legalizing marijuana. That represents an 8-point increase from the previous record of 50 percent in 2011, and a 10-point increase from November 2012, just after Colorado and Washington voted for legalization.
"With Americans' support for legalization quadrupling since 1969, and localities on the East Coast such as Portland, Maine, considering a symbolic referendum to legalize marijuana, it is clear that interest in this drug and these issues will remain elevated in the foreseeable future," wrote Art Swift, Gallup's managing editor.
Much of the new support for legalization comes among independent voters, 62 percent of whom now support it, up from just 50 percent last November. Majorities of all age groups up to age 64 also support legalization, including two-thirds of those from 18 to 29.
Source
|
IRS paid more than $110 billion in improper tax credits: Investigator
The Internal Revenue Service paid out more than $110 billion in tax credits over the past decade to people who didn't qualify for them, according to a Treasury report released Tuesday.
The Earned Income Tax Credits were intended for poor working families. In his report, IRS inspector general J. Russell George said more than one-fifth of all credits paid under the program went to people who didn't qualify.
Link
Ouch. Sounds like a place where improvements can be made.
|
Yeah, extra money given to the middle and lower class is the first place we should look! I'm sure they can afford the hit more than the corporations who use similarly lax tax incentives to put away far more than 110 billion.
|
On October 23 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, extra money given to the middle and lower class is the first place we should look! I'm sure they can afford the hit more than the corporations who use similarly lax tax incentives to put away far more than 110 billion.
Going after one tax code abuse doesn't mean you can't go after another.
What corporate tax credit would you like to get rid of? Solar panel credits?
|
I found an interesting video and article to match.
+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/the_rights_hidden_victory_ideologues_win_even_if_gop_loses/
It is possible that conservatism had a major ideological win within our political system as a result of the shutdown. As we all know, most all of the tea party republicans are elected in heavily gerrymandered districts. There is no way they can't lose an election unless an even more extreme right wing conservative comes to challenge them, which is already happening to some republicans in the house who voted to end the shutdown. Quoted from the article above:
"...the GOP is now a largely regional party that has effectively gerrymandered itself a separate country - one that is politically insulated from national public opinion."
It's part of a trend where the actions of the US government are drifting further and further right of what the majority of public opinion actually says.
There is also this question: Why is ideological extremism currently so prevalent in the right and not the left?
“The extreme right has 90 seats in the House,” Mr. Echevarria said. “Occupy Wall Street has no seats.”
There is/was broad public support for many of the agenda of Occupy Wall Street yet there is no broad support for the tea party at all and yet the political spectrum has shifted further right.
|
I was the party captian for a federalist party on a online politics simulator for a while. Now thats an ideology I would be okay coming back in america.
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/air-pollution-by-city%20%28311x640%29.jpg)
