|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 02 2018 20:27 pmh wrote:
Yes I mean information.
Almost all the media are biased to some extend,some more then others. My benchmark for usa media is cnn which I have on the cable here. It is not the best benchmark,cnn is throwing everything they got against trump. Maybe 50% of time on cnn is spend on coverage that can be described as anti trump. Doesn't mean that it is false, I could report very negatively about democrats without being wrong. Simply pick out all the bad things and don't report the good things.
Other media are probably not as extreme as cnn is with this,and there are also media who give a similar one sided positive vieuw about trump. It goes both ways.
There are objective media,but they are not the most popular media. Majority of population in the usa doesn't get their world vieuw from those media I think. The impact of the mainstream pulp media on the opinion of a large part of the population is quiet big and the influence of the sensible media is declining. Cnn for example has always been rather sensible and objective in my experience.even during the bush years. Now they have gone crazy. Everything is getting more and more extreme,maybe its a struggle to retain influence I don't know.
I'd like to think that when a news outlet which have previously been mostly unbiased suddenly paints everything on one side negatively, it's worth noting why that is. Maybe they haven't changed as much as you imagine they have?
For instance if, completely hypothetical, Hitler ressurected tried to run for presidency, and previously unbiased media painted him in a bad light, maybe it's because he's actually a bad person?
|
I would point out that news agencies have reported on the good things that have happened during Trump's administration. But the White House never focuses on those and just complaints about the bad things, because they want to act like the news media is biased against them.
|
On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture.
I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world.
Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting.
Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good.
|
|
|
On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good.
I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases.
Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife.
|
On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two?
Yeah, that's a sticky one.
Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations.
Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium.
The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue.
On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife.
Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D
I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol.
But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently.
|
On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good.
do you think in your own ranking driving you towards Cruz, that him being on your page in that one area necessarily means he’s doing over all good?
whether it means so necessarily or not- is your personal opinion that Cruz is doing over all good?
oh it sounds like i misunderstood again, killing it today with the reading comprehension. though i’d present the same question more generally: do those who vote on one issue see that as ‘overall good,’ or would a one issue voter vote on someone overall bad but since s/he won’t take my guns they get my vote?
|
|
|
On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently.
The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut.
Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically.
|
On November 02 2018 23:55 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. do you think in your own ranking driving you towards Cruz, that him being on your page in that one area necessarily means he’s doing over all good? whether it means so necessarily or not- is your personal opinion that Cruz is doing over all good? oh it sounds like i misunderstood again, though i’d present the same question more generally: do those who vote on one issue see that as ‘overall good,’ or would a one issue voter vote on someone overall bad but since s/he won’t take my guns they get my vote?
I can definitely see that affecting 1 issue voters, yeah. For example, my grandpa is a super religious conservative dude who in his own words "doesn't give a crap who wins the 2016 republican primary, as long as I can keep my guns away from bleeding heart liberals, id vote for mickey mouse." In his opinion, the only major issue he saw affecting us all was gun control. Do I agree with him? NUUUUUUPE. But to him any person who didn't take his guns was overall good, regardless of their other flaws.
My wifes aunt and uncle are both also super religious and are of the opinion that the entire Democratic party is in a war against god, so they vote blanket republican across the board. Do I agree with them? NUUUUUUUPE. But its whats important to them.
In my personal opinion, I think Cruz is OVERALL leaning towards good. I also think Beto is OVERALL leaning towards good. The difference is one of them aligns closer to the more important issues in my mind.
|
In that case, isn't the issue would be that your grandfather and your wife's aunt and uncle are operating under false information? That's is if what they said is to be taken at face value. To me it sounds like they want to vote Republican and then afterwards justified it.
|
|
|
Vaccinations are also tough because people don’t want to write laws prohibiting un-vaccinated children from attending public schools or other events. And it puts children with serious health conditions at far greater risk than the un-vaccinated children. These are not full adults, they don’t have the right to make their own decisions and we have a number of laws requiring them to attend schools. No one wants to pass laws that limits un-vaccinated children, but in the interest of public safety and social cohesion, it would become necessary with laws requiring kids to be vaccinated.
Should the government be involved? It would be nice if they were not. But the alternative is filing a lawsuit against the school or anti-vaccination family if my kid comes down with measles. Which is just another, less efficient, more combative and harmful version of government involvement.
|
On November 03 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote:
Vaccinations are also tough because people don’t want to write laws prohibiting un-vaccinated children from attending public schools or other events. And it puts children with serious health conditions at far greater risk than the un-vaccinated children. These are not full adults, they don’t have the right to make their own decisions and we have a number of laws requiring them to attend schools. No one wants to pass laws that limits un-vaccinated children, but in the interest of public safety and social cohesion, it would become necessary with laws requiring kids to be vaccinated.
Should the government be involved? It would be nice if they were not. But the alternative is filing a lawsuit against the school or anti-vaccination family if my kid comes down with measles. Which is just another, less efficient, more combative and harmful version of government involvement.
I can't imagine it would be very troublesome to require a proven medical condition which makes your kid unable to get vaccinations for them to be allowed in schools alongside vaccinated kids. That is what herd immunity is for after all. The problem comes from parents who doesn't want to do it because they watched a youtube video about it. Their kids should not be allowed in schools, and schools should/is mandatory, which would let you charge parents with negligence and take their kids away.
|
On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically.
You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D
The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance.
In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending.
I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has.
|
On November 03 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one.
Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations.
Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium.
The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue.
On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. Appreciate the answer. Vaccinations are a tough one, because if enough people choose to not get them, then they become ineffective to even those who did get them. Based on the current science I believe they should be required because the last thing I want is my kid getting polio because someone didn't want there kid to get a needle. If they have a strong religious belief it becomes much more complicated as it always does with religion. I used to be a conservative voter in Canada, I should preface that with our conservative party is probably still left of the Dems so it is a different world here. A big reason why I did was fiscal responsibility. I believe the government should oversee and regulate and private business should run things. Especially the things the entire public requires, roads, garbage collection, parks, electric, so on. I am fine with full government control of health care, education so on but I would like occasional audits of the management as it tends to get bloated. What actually moved me away from voting for them as we had a conservative government for over 50 years preaching fiscal responsibility but over the last 3 and about 20 years we had become the highest spending government, constantly going further into debt. I see this a little with trump, he talks the talk, but he is sending massive bailouts, wasting money sending troops to the border way early, who can't even really do much. The spending on him and his wife's travel and security alone is out of control. He mocked Obama for his Golfing, he now does it way more, that is not cheap when he needs a full security team and houses them at his resorts.
I think it comes down to I often like what I hear but I don't like what I see being done. Our next provincial election is going to be a difficult one for me because I'm truly and independent. I can only imagine how much more challenging it is to get behind a party when there is so many issues and only 2 parties to turn to.
Mother. Friggin. Bingo.
I made it a point to become annoying on facebook to a few conservative friends after Trumps spending plan was preposterously large. Turns out at least a few Republicans aren't actually in favor of limited spending and limited Gov, they just don't want the Democrats to spend and have Gov power.
EDIT: Rephrasing a point for clarity.
|
On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has.
Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training.
In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I.
|
This is kind of just an addendum to my previous post. The bias and falsehoods are real.
Remember the last midterms in 2014? I'm sure you do, that was the year Republicans won the senate and won MORE house seats (adding to their majority).
They ran on Obama's "lagging" economy, the "terrible recovery", horrible growth, and so on. Right? Sound familiar?
Well if you believed that, then you must believe things are even worse under Trump, or you can just keep lying to yourself.
See, here's the hard, cold REALITY.....
In 2014, GDP growth was a whopping 5.1 and 4.9% in the 2nd and 3rd quarters leading up to the midterm election - Trump hasn't come CLOSE to that kind of growth.
As for job numbers, in 2014 job creation in the months leading up to November were 261, 311, 252, 306, 196, 226, 284, 255 and 307. Again, Trump has NEVER had a run like that.
So the FACT is the economy was better under Obama on 2014 that it is today under Trump.
There's a reason Trump supporters are considered cult members.
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/11/02/the-economy-created-250000-jobs-in-october/
|
On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I.
Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less.
The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong.
Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr,
""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms.""
Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant.
|
On November 03 2018 00:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In that case, isn't the issue would be that your grandfather and your wife's aunt and uncle are operating under false information? That's is if what they said is to be taken at face value. To me it sounds like they want to vote Republican and then afterwards justified it.
Yes and no. Misinformation is yuge (hehe), but like I said earlier, its not my place to tell someone else what should be important to them. A buddy of mine whos not super well off suffers from REALLY bad sickle cell and is very much in favor of government healthcare that would provide for his immediate needs, i.e. blood transfusions and other medical care required to not be in near-constant pain and live as close to a healthy life as possible. I doubt he gives a shit about the crisis facing Oklahoma's public education when compared to something like that. I imagine someone whos struggling to be able to eat or find work due to any number of circumstances would be more in favor of collective/socialist policies in order to provide his basic necessities to continue in life rather than focus on the merits of the ideology I promote regarding limited Government. All these issues are important, but certain ones will certainly be FAR more important to different people with different social and economic backgrounds.
I think my grandpa and the aunt and uncle are hyper-focusing on certain issues, and to me those issues may or may not have merit, but to them they do. Just so happens Republicanism is the party that has strong stances on these issues. I don't think its false information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
