|
|
On May 02 2012 00:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican.
Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption. Just like preserving the status quo because they need the power and the money of the corporations backing them? Face it, corruption is not something limited to the Democrats in American politics.
Yes, both parties are corrupt. I don't think I suggested otherwise. But I find it slightly disturbing that people are so partisan that any criticism of either party results in defensive criticisms of the other party. I have to question the critical thinking of people who personally identify with either of these corrupt organizations.
On May 02 2012 00:15 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican.
Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption. It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power. (Vouchers are not a progressive idea. A progressive idea would be setting up an education system where no matter the income of your parents, you enjoy the same shot at a quality education as everyone else. The way voucher systems are currently implemented leads to a situation where the vouchers do not cover the cost of private schools, and it benefits children to richer parents more than poor ones. School vouchers won't make a poor student capable of attending a private school. Progressive would be creating an education system based on merit rather than social class.)
It is true that past attempts at implementation of vouchers have been particularly poor, but that's because you can't transform a system like education over night. The ideal voucher system would provide more funds for poor parents, not equal funds for all parents including the wealthy.
In the Netherlands around 70% of students attend schools which are government subsidized and privately run, and I think they rank third in the international educational PISA rankings. It is a system that does work very well, and compared to the current state of education in the United States, I would call reform of this sort very progressive.
|
On May 02 2012 00:20 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 00:12 ZasZ. wrote:On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner.
I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption. Just like preserving the status quo because they need the power and the money of the corporations backing them? Face it, corruption is not something limited to the Democrats in American politics. Yes, both parties are corrupt. I don't think I suggested otherwise. But I find it slightly disturbing that people are so partisan that any criticism of either party results in defensive criticisms of the other party. I have to question the critical thinking of people who personally identify with either of these corrupt organizations. Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 00:15 Derez wrote:On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner.
I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption. It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power. (Vouchers are not a progressive idea. A progressive idea would be setting up an education system where no matter the income of your parents, you enjoy the same shot at a quality education as everyone else. The way voucher systems are currently implemented leads to a situation where the vouchers do not cover the cost of private schools, and it benefits children to richer parents more than poor ones. School vouchers won't make a poor student capable of attending a private school. Progressive would be creating an education system based on merit rather than social class.) It is true that past attempts at implementation of vouchers have been particularly poor, but that's because you can't transform a system like education over night. The ideal voucher system would provide more funds for poor parents, not equal funds for all parents including the wealthy. In the Netherlands around 70% of students attend schools which are federally subsidized and privately run, and I think they rank third in the international educational PISA rankings.
Those schools are almost universally free of charge for all students (both elementary and high school), are all not-for-profit, and regulated to a point where you would be hard pressed to find an actual difference between the average public and the average private school, besides an hour of religion studies. Private schools are not referred to as private here, they're referred to as 'special'; private, for-profit schools are rare and receive no government funding. The government funds both public and special schools on a per capita basis (equal funding per student, with extra funding for problem schools, not students), teacher wages are set through collective bargaining at a nationwide level and the curriculum is decided at a national level.
I fail to see how the Netherlands are in any way a reasonable comparison for a voucher system based on private schools (private schools in the US sense that is). The dutch system is very flexible when it comes to creating a school adjusted to your own personal beliefs on education, due to our once fragmented social structure, but it is a highly coordinated, centrally governed whole with severe restrictions placed on the competition between schools. That's not what republicans are aiming for when they're talking about school vouchers; they want to use the marketplace to bring down costs. That's not at all what the dutch education system is about, as with everything in dutch politics it is based on corporatism and the inclusion of everyone that has a stake, including very significant union power.
|
On May 02 2012 00:15 Derez wrote:
It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power.
With all due respect, in America, legally speaking, Corporations ARE people. I know it sounds super confusing, but that's how corporations are treated under the law. What Mitt said was 100% accurate. What people think that saying means... is not what it means.
|
On May 02 2012 00:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 00:20 liberal wrote:On May 02 2012 00:12 ZasZ. wrote:On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:
[quote]
It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption. Just like preserving the status quo because they need the power and the money of the corporations backing them? Face it, corruption is not something limited to the Democrats in American politics. Yes, both parties are corrupt. I don't think I suggested otherwise. But I find it slightly disturbing that people are so partisan that any criticism of either party results in defensive criticisms of the other party. I have to question the critical thinking of people who personally identify with either of these corrupt organizations. On May 02 2012 00:15 Derez wrote:On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:
[quote]
It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption. It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power. (Vouchers are not a progressive idea. A progressive idea would be setting up an education system where no matter the income of your parents, you enjoy the same shot at a quality education as everyone else. The way voucher systems are currently implemented leads to a situation where the vouchers do not cover the cost of private schools, and it benefits children to richer parents more than poor ones. School vouchers won't make a poor student capable of attending a private school. Progressive would be creating an education system based on merit rather than social class.) It is true that past attempts at implementation of vouchers have been particularly poor, but that's because you can't transform a system like education over night. The ideal voucher system would provide more funds for poor parents, not equal funds for all parents including the wealthy. In the Netherlands around 70% of students attend schools which are federally subsidized and privately run, and I think they rank third in the international educational PISA rankings. Those schools are almost universally free of charge for all students (both elementary and high school), are all not-for-profit, and regulated to a point where you would be hard pressed to find an actual difference between the average public and the average private school, besides an hour of religion studies. Private schools are not referred to as private here, they're referred to as 'special'; private, for-profit schools are rare and receive no government funding. The government funds both public and special schools on a per capita basis (equal funding per student, with extra funding for problem schools, not students), teacher wages are set through collective bargaining at a nationwide level and the curriculum is decided at a national level. I fail to see how the Netherlands are in any way a reasonable comparison for a voucher system based on private schools (private schools in the US sense that is). The dutch system is very flexible when it comes to creating a school adjusted to your own personal beliefs on education, due to our once fragmented social structure, but it is a highly coordinated, centrally governed whole with severe restrictions placed on the competition between schools. That's not what republicans are aiming for when they're talking about school vouchers; they want to use the marketplace to bring down costs. That's not at all what the dutch education system is about, as with everything in dutch politics it is based on corporatism and the inclusion of everyone that has a stake, including very significant union power.
In either case the distinguishing characteristic is choice, the rest are details. In the United States, poor parents whose kids go to absolutely terrible schools have no options and no recourse. Vouchers are the simplest and fastest way to solve this issue. The monopolistic nature of the American educational system is the most significant reason for it's failings.
|
On May 02 2012 00:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 00:15 Derez wrote:
It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power.
With all due respect, in America, legally speaking, Corporations ARE people. I know it sounds super confusing, but that's how corporations are treated under the law. What Mitt said was 100% accurate. What people think that saying means... is not what it means.
Corporations can't literally vote.
|
On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you.
Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans.
Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat.
|
On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat.
Like what?
Sounds more like the Republicans. No you can't have an abortion, because it's against God. No you gays can't get married, because it's very against God.
|
On May 02 2012 00:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 00:54 BluePanther wrote:On May 02 2012 00:15 Derez wrote:
It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power.
With all due respect, in America, legally speaking, Corporations ARE people. I know it sounds super confusing, but that's how corporations are treated under the law. What Mitt said was 100% accurate. What people think that saying means... is not what it means. Corporations can't literally vote.
Amazingly, that has nothing to do with it.
|
On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:
[quote]
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. I didn't know he was a libertarian, he said he was a liberal. But does it matter? The GOP have a habit of labeling everything other than conservatism as socialism. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. Edit: the comment about me being libertarian. I am to a degree. I hate to use the term "moderate libertarian", but in the current political climate that's probably the best way to describe me. A far more sane version of Ron Paul (notice which party he is part of btw). I only called myself a liberal because you did... and you're right, I am. But liberal doesn't mean "liberal" in American politics, which is why I didn't use it earlier and why you might be confusing yourself. True liberals are split between the parties based on whether they place more emphasis on economic liberalism (Reps) or civil liberalism (Dems). It's a paradigm shift that will likely change in the next generation as those two coalesce into a single party. Which that will be or when it will be I cannot say. There is a good chance a political schism happens in the US in the next 15 years or so if a frontrunner candidate of one of these two decides to run as an independent. It will tear the parties apart in a major election and set the stage for either new parties to form, or for the existing parties to rework their platform.
I think you are somewhat right except on a few issues that will stick to the parties like glue (needed stances to appeal to niche groups and here global warming and in broader terms sustainable pracsices will most likely still be issues dividing for at least the next 50 years). I am however interested in why you think it will be the republicans taking the "liberal stances" on economy. I would guess that libertarianism is probably the cause. However I see issues like immaterial rights as a huge dividing factor in the immediate future and at the moment the immaterial rights are being defended ademantly by the conservatives around the world. The mere existence of immaterial rights are extremely far removed from what I consider liberal economics. How do you look at that issue? Also, there are other issues around economy in politics where both libertarians and statists agree that it is very problematic, but how can these problems be dealt with? In europe, anything center to right wing do not really care about the issue further than not taking a stance will push away voters and since the US election system is so resiliantly 2-party it will take a miracle for an extreme person getting pushed even for the next 10-20 years.
|
On May 02 2012 01:09 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat. Like what?
I'm rather tired, so I'll just give you one example: Renewable Portfolio Standards. There are many others, but I don't like this type of governance and I believe it's rather paternalistic. It's a very fundamental disagreement over what government is and how it should function. I may write a book about this at some point, I'll be sure to send you a copy if I do 
|
On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat.
Some questions.
You said that you believe in global warming. Do you believe humans are the cause? Would you support a carbon tax or cap and trade? If not, what sort of climate policy (if any) do you support?
Do you believe that fiscal stimulus should be used to get out of a recession? If not, then what do you suggest we do about the recession?
Do you believe that large income inequality is a problem? Do you believe that income inequality is too large in the US currently? If so, what do you propose to do about it (if anything)? Why is income inequality a problem (or not a problem)?
Do you trust the advice and judgement of academics and scientist in general?
|
On May 02 2012 01:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat. Like what? I'm rather tired, so I'll just give you one example: Renewable Portfolio Standards. There are many others, but I don't like this type of governance and I believe it's rather paternalistic. It's a very fundamental disagreement over what government is and how it should function. I may write a book about this at some point, I'll be sure to send you a copy if I do
That's an economic/environmental policy not a social "I'm destroying your personal freedom" type policy.
I've never received a free book from anyone, but I wouldn't mind receiving yours (one day), as I'm intrigued by your apparent "doublethink".
Also, I think more moderate and rational conservatives would be good thing in general. As I'm liberal, at least then we would probably agree on most issues apart from maybe economics. But I think you're dreaming.
|
Most Republicans are moderate, thats why Mitt Romney is the nominee 
|
Let's straighten it out - corporations are "people" in the sense that they are entitled to all of the Constitutional protections of individuals. So when Google makes an editorial on its front page about SOPA (probably the most widely viewed political ad in history), they're allowed to do it as free speech and the government can't force them to stop. If a corporation was not a person, then Congress could pass a law banning Google from making any future ads like that.
|
On May 02 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat. Some questions. You said that you believe in global warming. Do you believe humans are the cause? Would you support a carbon tax or cap and trade? If not, what sort of climate policy (if any) do you support? Do you believe that fiscal stimulus should be used get out of a recession? If not, then what do you suggest we do about the recession? Do you believe that large income inequality is a problem? Do you believe that income inequality is too large in the US currently? If so, what do you propose to do about it (if anything)? Why is income inequality a problem (or not a problem)? Do you trust in the advice and judgement of academics and scientist in general?
1. Not sure. I'll be honest, my knowledge on that topic is rather limited, but it seems obvious to me that humans aren't helping the situation. I feel like we know too little about the direct causes to simply state that "x" policy will fix the problem. And the policies proposed are usually expensive and drastic with minimal guarantee on success at any level. I think so much investment into something we don't really understand that well is foolish. And without participation from every productive country in the world, it means nothing. What good is cutting emissions in the US by 20% when China grows exponentially over that? There are more deeper debates I'd have over that as well, but that's the gist of it.
2. Depends. TARP I oppose. But if a fairer way to do it that doesn't line the pockets of those who failed at running their business... I'm not adamantly opposed to anything down this road. But I don't see many situations or solutions that address this issue adequately.
3. It's a problem, and it needs to be addressed. I think a reformulation of the tax brackets and rates is due. Although I don't think taxes are too low/high, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more uniformity on tax breaks and having income taxed highly. I also wouldn't mind to see higher taxes assessed to those who routinely pull in large incomes. The end goal should be to have the super rich paying more, but not to increase federal income through taxes. I would completely rework government medical coverage.
The truth is that income inequality isn't even the underlying problem here. A lot of it has to do with poor education and a host of problems resulting from mental incapacity (such as psychological problems among the poorest Americans) that our society and government is simply not equipped to deal with efficiently.
4. Most academics are complete morons. I would know. I do some work as an editor for an academic journal and screen submission for publication. Some are very very brilliant people, and I have a lot of respect for them. But many are self-entitled ass wipes. It's tough to filter out the good from the bad when you're not actually reading the work they produce. Too many "scientific reports" get quoted by the media that just aren't what they purport them to be. I respect true academics, but much of it is diluted or out of touch.
|
On May 02 2012 01:26 rapidash88 wrote:Most Republicans are moderate, thats why Mitt Romney is the nominee
This really depends on your definition of "moderate" I think many Americans might agree, but most Europeans would say most republicans are VERY far to the right, I have even heard many Europeans say that the dems are too conservative, albeit less so than the republicans.
|
On May 02 2012 01:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:14 BluePanther wrote:On May 02 2012 01:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat. Like what? I'm rather tired, so I'll just give you one example: Renewable Portfolio Standards. There are many others, but I don't like this type of governance and I believe it's rather paternalistic. It's a very fundamental disagreement over what government is and how it should function. I may write a book about this at some point, I'll be sure to send you a copy if I do That's an economic/environmental policy not a social "I'm destroying your personal freedom" type policy. I've never received a free book from anyone, but I wouldn't mind receiving yours (one day), as I'm intrigued by your apparent "doublethink". Also, I think more moderate and rational conservatives would be good thing in general. As I'm liberal, at least then we would probably agree on most issues apart from maybe economics. But I think you're dreaming.
On it's face, it purports to be entirely environmental. But your mandates solution affects me in small ways, such as in fuel prices. To observe your pet project, you're essentially asking me to pay the costs. It dilutes my money, and indirectly my freedom to do with it what I wish (we're talking non-taxed income expenditures here).
I'm not saying both sides don't engage in this behavior. I'm just saying that Dems do it in a far more subtle and powerful ways. It's far better politically as well.
|
On May 02 2012 01:31 coverpunch wrote:
Let's straighten it out - corporations are "people" in the sense that they are entitled to all of the Constitutional protections of individuals. So when Google makes an editorial on its front page about SOPA (probably the most widely viewed political ad in history), they're allowed to do it as free speech and the government can't force them to stop. If a corporation was not a person, then Congress could pass a law banning Google from making any future ads like that.
They are also able to file suit in courts, have suits filed against them, and have all the same legal standings as person would under the constitution. In all economic matters they are treated as a third party person. There are very few boundaries for coporations... I can only think of two distinctions off the top of my head: ability to vote, and ability to be prosecuted for crime (that is done to the individual who committed it).
ok nap time, I'll get back to you guys later once i sleep some and clear my mind.
|
On April 19 2012 18:01 feanor1 wrote:Somehow I managed to defeat TL anti double post technology. Damn it. Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 17:54 ioFilip wrote:
I'm curious how many liquipedians would be in favor of Ron Paul as an alternative to both. I like a lot of Ron Paul ideas, but his idea of destroying the banking system is way too risky.
for one if i have to write Ron Pauls name down on the ballot i will!
It is my believe from what i have researched that the current banking system IS what is destroying American Economy. The federal reserve should never have existed and wouldn't have if the 4 powerfull opponents to it werent killed with the sinking of the titanic.
Any candidate that supports banker bailouts is owned by the banks.
|
Ugh, unless you live in a swing state there's no real point on voting on national matters or even state. My friend back in 2008 went to the ballot in California only to see Obama has already won. Feinstein and Boxer have a iron grip on the senate seats no matter what they do. My own community is one of the most liberal in California, and really while I do agree with most liberal policies it just leads to apathy over the whole system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
