Politics

[ACamp1900]

All money belongs to government wiz... We're all just lucky our noble lords allow us to pay the rent before they take what is theirs... you should know that...

 

[irishog77]

The bolded is silly on a fundamental level. You don't have to "pay for" tax cuts because tax cuts aren't spending. Tax cuts are letting people keep more of the money that was theirs in the first place.

I know it comes down to semantics because the point you were trying to make is about replacing that revenue in the budget, but please don't say "unpaid for" tax cuts.

This drives me nuts.

We heard so much talk in barry's 1st term about "extending the Bush tax cuts." The proper term should be, "extending the current tax rate."

Any % lower than the highest in history is an extension of a tax cut, technically.

It's another way for the media/liberals to try and manipulate a situation. "Income Inequality," is one I loathe, but is what dems have purposely called their latest crusade. An inequality alludes to a right and wrong, an injustice. Framing the conversation to their liking is a way to garner support from those that have been "wronged." Of course the grandaddy of 'em all is "pro choice" instead of pro abortion.

I realize all of us are guilty, to an extent, of trying to manipulate a discussion in our own favor. But ultimately, call a spade a spade. There's certainly nothing noble nor honorable of euphemising and manipulating our way through life.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Ukraine violence continues with officers now given the green light to use live ammo. Reports are that protestors have been killed via sniper. This is some serious shit.

Edit: Lawmakers in Lviv on the Polish border yesterday ousted their Yanukovych-appointed governor, established an autonomous government and declared allegiance to the opposition in Kiev. Protesters seized government and security headquarters in at least four other regions, while Poland’s premier warned of civil war and European leaders threatened sanctions.

Ukraine Death Toll Mounts as Renewed Clashes Break Truce - Bloomberg

 

[T Town Tommy]

Ukraine violence continues with officers now given the green light to use live ammo. Reports are that protestors have been killed via sniper. This is some serious shit.

Edit: Lawmakers in Lviv on the Polish border yesterday ousted their Yanukovych-appointed governor, established an autonomous government and declared allegiance to the opposition in Kiev. Protesters seized government and security headquarters in at least four other regions, while Poland’s premier warned of civil war and European leaders threatened sanctions.

Ukraine Death Toll Mounts as Renewed Clashes Break Truce - Bloomberg

And sadly our President has stood on the sidelines too long for the US to have any leverage in dealing with any solution.

 

[Ndaccountant]

And sadly our President has stood on the sidelines too long for the US to have any leverage in dealing with any solution.

This is what I find fascinating considering our discussion earlier this week wrt military funding. For conflicts like this, which appears to heading to Civil War if something is not resolved soon, we would be observers or needing international cooperation to intervene with anything besides economic sanctions.

I am not sure what is the correct approach. I feel for the people that will potentially give their life so they can be free.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This is what I find fascinating considering our discussion earlier this week wrt military funding. For conflicts like this, which appears to heading to Civil War if something is not resolved soon, we would be observers or needing international cooperation to intervene with anything besides economic sanctions.

I am not sure what is the correct approach. I feel for the people that will potentially give their life so they can be free.

Yeah the US is in a pretty tough spot. I believe Obama waited on the EU to lead and they took the long term approach to psuedo nation building. Meanwhile, Putin hands Ukraine a boat load of money and has been able to keep the less than 20% ethnic Russian population in control.

The military of Ukraine remains the wildcard. I think they are roughly split down the middle on their allegience. As far as international military intervention, the passive European countries want no part. And the US can't afford to get caught up in it. The Pres is in a tough situation here.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is what I find fascinating considering our discussion earlier this week wrt military funding. For conflicts like this, which appears to heading to Civil War if something is not resolved soon, we would be observers or needing international cooperation to intervene with anything besides economic sanctions.

Prior to the Cold War, that's how virtually every nation without a compelling interest in the conflict would have acted. It's only recently that we've taken on the mantle of global cop, and decided that everything everywhere is vital to American interests.

And even if we were in a good position to intervene, what good would it do? How could an American military presence in Ukraine possibly improve the situation over there?

Even with its influence much diminished since the collapse of the USSR, Russia is still a very powerful nation. Antagonizing Putin is in no one's best interest; least of all ours, given the stake we have in maintaining global stability. So what right do we have to meddle in the internal politics of one of Russia's border states? If tomorrow Putin declared that, "Something must be done about the drug violence in Mexico", would you feel comfortable with a large Russian military presence on our own southern border? I know I wouldn't.

 

[Cackalacky]

Prior to the Cold War, that's how virtually every nation without a compelling interest in the conflict would have acted. It's only recently that we've taken on the mantle of global cop, and decided that everything everywhere is vital to American interests.

And even if we were in a good position to intervene, what good would it do? How could an American military presence in Ukraine possibly improve the situation over there?

Even with its influence much diminished since the collapse of the USSR, Russia is still a very powerful nation. Antagonizing Putin is in no one's best interest; least of all ours, given the stake we have in maintaining global stability. So what right do we have to meddle in the internal politics of one of Russia's border states? If tomorrow Putin declared that, "Something must be done about the drug violence in Mexico", would you feel comfortable with a large Russian military presence on our own southern border? I know I wouldn't.

Hearkens back to the Cuban Missile crisis and the CIA propping up puppets in Central and South America. I do not care to do that over again.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Prior to the Cold War, that's how virtually every nation without a compelling interest in the conflict would have acted. It's only recently that we've taken on the mantle of global cop, and decided that everything everywhere is vital to American interests.

And even if we were in a good position to intervene, what good would it do? How could an American military presence in Ukraine possibly improve the situation over there?

Even with its influence much diminished since the collapse of the USSR, Russia is still a very powerful nation. Antagonizing Putin is in no one's best interest; least of all ours, given the stake we have in maintaining global stability. So what right do we have to meddle in the internal politics of one of Russia's border states? If tomorrow Putin declared that, "Something must be done about the drug violence in Mexico", would you feel comfortable with a large Russian military presence on our own southern border? I know I wouldn't.

Like I said, I am not sure which approach is best. I am certainly not advocating military intervention now. But in the event we would ever need to, we would need the resources.

The one thing that worries me personally is that while Russia has power now, if the whole Euroasia Union thing were to advance, their power & influence becomes even more so. That would certainly enhance the possibility of decreased global stability.

 

[wizards8507]

Government Monitors in Newsrooms? | Free Speech, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Like I said, I am not sure which approach is best. I am certainly not advocating military intervention now. But in the event we would ever need to, we would need the resources.

Can you give me an example of such an event? Because I can't conceive of one.

The one thing that worries me personally is that while Russia has power now, if the whole Euroasia Union thing were to advance, their power & influence becomes even more so. That would certainly enhance the possibility of decreased global stability.

Any change in the balance of power has the potential to cause instability. But there's evidence that the current uni-polar dynamic-- US as global hegemon-- is inherently unstable, and that a multipolar dynamic based around several regional hegemons would be more predictable.

Russia was a major global power long before the Bolshevik Revolution, and barring some unforeseen catastrophe, will remain one indefinitely. Just as with China, containment and diplomacy are the way to go. Unless one is viewing our international relations from an odd perspective (Cold War, moral duty, etc.), there no justification for intervention.

 

[wizards8507]

Prior to the Cold War, that's how virtually every nation without a compelling interest in the conflict would have acted. It's only recently that we've taken on the mantle of global cop, and decided that everything everywhere is vital to American interests.

Will you pretty please join the Republican Party so you can vote for Rand Paul in the primary? Seriously, guys like you are the people we need to save the party from the cowboys and gunslingers who want to police the world.

Rand Paul Outlines Foreign Policy in South Carolina - US News

Sen. Paul Issues Dear Colleague Opposing Syrian Intervention Rand Paul | United States Senator

I treat the question of war as if it would determine the fate of my son or daughter. War is not some geopolitical chess game. It is, at best, a necessary evil. It should never be the first option. It should occur only when America is attacked or threatened, or when American interests are attacked or threatened. And only when all other options have been played out.

Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake, but no evidence is ever presented to convince us of that assertion. The assertion itself is thought to be sufficient. I disagree. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war.

 

[irishog77]

Will you pretty please join the Republican Party so you can vote for Rand Paul in the primary? Seriously, guys like you are the people we need to save the party from the cowboys and gunslingers who want to police the world.

Rand Paul Outlines Foreign Policy in South Carolina - US News

Why does one need to join a party to vote a certain way?

There are many things I detest about the GOP and will never join. However, I'll essentially always vote for a Republican...usually as a vote against his counterpart.

 

[GoIrish41]

Will you pretty please join the Republican Party so you can vote for Rand Paul in the primary? Seriously, guys like you are the people we need to save the party from the cowboys and gunslingers who want to police the world.

Rand Paul Outlines Foreign Policy in South Carolina - US News

Rand Paul will never win the Republican primary. Too much of an outlier in the party. His only chance to get in the coversation (however short that conversation would be) is to break off from the GOP and run on a third-party ticket. Even if he did wit the GOP primary, he'd get crushed in a national election. He's simply not likeable. .

 

[wizards8507]

Why does one need to join a party to vote a certain way?

Well that depends on your state law. In most states, you have to BE a Republican to vote in the Republican primary.

There are many things I detest about the GOP and will never join. However, I'll essentially always vote for a Republican...usually as a vote against his counterpart.

It's fine and dandy to vote for the Republican over the Democrat, but wouldn't you like a say in choosing WHICH Republican gets the nomination in the first place?

Rand Paul will never win the Republican primary. Too much of an outlier in the party.

You put too much faith in the media. Fox News are the biggest culprits when it comes to libertarian conservatives. The Karl Rove wing of the GOP wants you to believe that Rand Paul is out of touch with the base, but in many ways Rand Paul IS the base. I believe he gets the nomination unless we end up with a primary with ONE "establishment" guy (Romney/Bush) and six different libertarian-leaning guys.

I agree with you that he's an outlier in relation to GOP politicians, but he's not an outlier in relation to GOP voters.

Even if he did wit the GOP primary, he'd get crushed in a national election. He's simply not likeable.

Neither is Hillary.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Can you give me an example of such an event? Because I can't conceive of one.



Any change in the balance of power has the potential to cause instability. But there's evidence that the current uni-polar dynamic-- US as global hegemon-- is inherently unstable, and that a multipolar dynamic based around several regional hegemons would be more predictable.

Russia was a major global power long before the Bolshevik Revolution, and barring some unforeseen catastrophe, will remain one indefinitely. Just as with China, containment and diplomacy are the way to go. Unless one is viewing our international relations from an odd perspective (Cold War, moral duty, etc.), there no justification for intervention.

Russia concerns me in two ways.

1. Arab countries prefer Russia to the US. This was true during the Soviet Union and is true now. The U.S. retreat from the Middle East could damage American credibility with traditional allies, which will severely hamper America’s long-term interests. Russia is capitalizing and bolstering their interests as these opportunities arise. Look at Iran and Syria.

2. Currently, China dominates the SCO. While the goal of that organization is to off-set American interests in the region, Russia in of itself doesn't hold the same weight as China and probably never will. However, if Russia was able to unite old bloc nations together, while continuing to team up with the Middle East, their presence would be more meaningful and could help sway Asian economic policy. This could be very damaging to Americans given the vast resources ties to the area. Whether we like it or not, Americans need China and the growth of China.

Again, please do not take this for more than what it's worth. I am a firm believer that we are over-extended militarily. I am simply trying to present arguments from a different vantage point.

 

[GoIrish41]

You put too much faith in the media. Fox News are the biggest culprits when it comes to libertarian conservatives. The Karl Rove wing of the GOP wants you to believe that Rand Paul is out of touch with the base, but in many ways Rand Paul IS the base. I believe he gets the nomination unless we end up with a primary with ONE "establishment" guy (Romney/Bush) and six different libertarian-leaning guys.
.

Any Republican has an uncomfortable journey ahead of them if they are going to get the GOP nomination. That party has long since stopped following Reagan's Golden Rule -- Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican" -- and took up political cage match fighting. Its your party, so I'll back away from my statement that Paul could indeed be the last man standing when the primary is over (even though he isn't likely to have near the financial backing as some who will run against him) but I retain my personal doubts. Kind of a moot point anyway IMHO, because he would get crushed in the general election. Again, he's not likeable now, let alone after taking punches from members of his own party for months before stepping into the ring with Hillary.

 

[connor_in]

Well that depends on your state law. In most states, you have to BE a Republican to vote in the Republican primary.


It's fine and dandy to vote for the Republican over the Democrat, but wouldn't you like a say in choosing WHICH Republican gets the nomination in the first place?


You put too much faith in the media. Fox News are the biggest culprits when it comes to libertarian conservatives. The Karl Rove wing of the GOP wants you to believe that Rand Paul is out of touch with the base, but in many ways Rand Paul IS the base. I believe he gets the nomination unless we end up with a primary with ONE "establishment" guy (Romney/Bush) and six different libertarian-leaning guys.

I agree with you that he's an outlier in relation to GOP politicians, but he's not an outlier in relation to GOP voters.


Neither is Hillary.

Why does that matter when Native American Liz Warren will get the D nom?

 

[irishog77]

Well that depends on your state law. In most states, you have to BE a Republican to vote in the Republican primary.


It's fine and dandy to vote for the Republican over the Democrat, but wouldn't you like a say in choosing WHICH Republican gets the nomination in the first place

You put too much faith in the media. Fox News are the biggest culprits when it comes to libertarian conservatives. The Karl Rove wing of the GOP wants you to believe that Rand Paul is out of touch with the base, but in many ways Rand Paul IS the base. I believe he gets the nomination unless we end up with a primary with ONE "establishment" guy (Romney/Bush) and six different libertarian-leaning guys.

I agree with you that he's an outlier in relation to GOP politicians, but he's not an outlier in relation to GOP voters.


Neither is Hillary.

Yeah, it varies widely from state to state. And my brief answer is no, I'm not going to join a political party based on my relative geography at a certain point in time.

I do know a conservative guy that joined the democratic party (I believe in Arkansas) because most state and local politicians are still democrats in the south, so he had a say in those. But mainly because it allowed him to vote in both parties' primaries. So he could vote for the R he wanted and for the d he believed would fare worst in the general election. Good for him and I'm glad he did it, but that's just not my style.

 

[GoIrish41]

Why does that matter when Native American Liz Warren will get the D nom?

She'd crush Paul too.

 

[connor_in]

She's crush Paul too.

 

[wizards8507]

She's crush Paul too.

Come on, are you serious? Rand Paul has the most crossover appeal of any Republican candidate in my lifetime. I'm much more concerned about his ability to make it out of the primary with the Jesus voters in the south than I am about his chances in the general election. Think about the candidates that automatically vote Democrat because they vote on single issues:

1. Gay-rights voters: They'll still predominately vote Democrat but it won't be as automatic as it would be if the Republicans nominated a constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage candidate. Rand Paul sees it as a federalism issue that should be left to the states.

2. Anti-war voters: Rand Paul has the most libertarian / classical liberal stance on foreign policy of any Republican not named Ron Paul.

3. Pro-drug voters: Rand Paul acknowledges that the War on Drugs is absurd and supports the decriminalization of marijuana, including for recreational use.

If any folks within those groups of people are fiscally conservative, Rand Paul might be able to pick up some of their support in a general election. With a "traditional" Republican nominee, those voters would automatically vote Democrat for social reasons, while ignoring many of their fiscal concerns about big-government spending and debt.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Will you pretty please join the Republican Party so you can vote for Rand Paul in the primary? Seriously, guys like you are the people we need to save the party from the cowboys and gunslingers who want to police the world.

Rand Paul Outlines Foreign Policy in South Carolina - US News

Man, that's a tall order; but Paul the Younger is one of the few politicians I can (mostly) get behind. (In related news, I just finished reading this short article from Slate)

Tell you what, if he's polling close in Arizona, I'll register for the GOP to help him in the primary*. But I'm going right back to Independent status after! Even for those who lean conservative (like me), the Republican brand is straight toxic these days...

To quote Professor Farnsworth: "The evil I could tolerate... but the stupidity!"

*Arizona does indeed have closed primaries, so the only thing that could ever get me to join one of the two parties is if a candidate I really liked was polling close and my vote might actually matter.

 

[GoIrish41]

Come on, are you serious? Rand Paul has the most crossover appeal of any Republican candidate in my lifetime. I'm much more concerned about his ability to make it out of the primary with the Jesus voters in the south than I am about his chances in the general election. Think about the candidates that automatically vote Democrat because they vote on single issues:

1. Gay-rights voters: They'll still predominately vote Democrat but it won't be as automatic as it would be if the Republicans nominated a constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage candidate. Rand Paul sees it as a federalism issue that should be left to the states.

2. Anti-war voters: Rand Paul has the most libertarian / classical liberal stance on foreign policy of any Republican not named Ron Paul.

3. Pro-drug voters: Rand Paul acknowledges that the War on Drugs is absurd and supports the decriminalization of marijuana, including for recreational use.

If any folks within those groups of people are fiscally conservative, Rand Paul might be able to pick up some of their support in a general election. With a "traditional" Republican nominee, those voters would automatically vote Democrat for social reasons, while ignoring many of their fiscal concerns about big-government spending and debt.

My wife may be the most non-political person I've ever met. Every time he comes on television, she says "I don't like that guy" and she walks away. She feels like he doesn't talk to people or answer questions, but he is always in lecture mode -- like he has an auditorium full of freshmen in front of him and he can't help but talk down to them as if he knows he is smarter than everyone in the audience. Not that my wife's reaction to him is a measuring stick for the entire country, but it is my observation that he comes off as a smug, know-it-all who is generally unlikable. What I'm saying has nothing to do with his views and everything to do with his electability on the national stage. I don't think his personality plays well to the masses. For whatever its worth, that does matter.

 

[wizards8507]

Tell you what, if he's polling close in Arizona, I'll register for the GOP to help him in the primary*. But I'm going right back to Independent status after! Even for those who lean conservative (like me), the Republican brand is straight toxic these days...

Why not try to fix the party? Get candidates who think like you elected. A viable third party isn't going to happen any time soon and being a member of the party isn't going to do you any harm. You live in Arizona and your big-government Republican senior senator will hopefully be facing a primary challenger in 2016.

 

[irishog77]

My wife may be the most non-political person I've ever met. Every time he comes on television, she says "I don't like that guy" and she walks away. She feels like he doesn't talk to people or answer questions, but he is always in lecture mode -- like he has an auditorium full of freshmen in front of him and he can't help but talk down to them as if he knows he is smarter than everyone in the audience. Not that my wife's reaction to him is a measuring stick for the entire country, but it is my observation that he comes off as a smug, know-it-all who is generally unlikable. What I'm saying has nothing to do with his views and everything to do with his electability on the national stage. I don't think his personality plays well to the masses. For whatever its worth, that does matter.

Many could say the same thing about barry. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.


I think likability should matter (hell, it definitely helped dubya get elected twice)...but really only so much. I think what you wrote represents an underlying problem with our country and elections-- people would rather vote for somebody that they "like" or "seems good," as opposed to what's truly best. Wether it's sports, business, or politics, I don't personally care that much if I actually "like" my coach, manager, owner, or politician...as long as those people are good at what they're doing.

(This post isn't an attack on you nor your wife, nor singling out-- just using this as an example.)

 

[chicago51]

Why not try to fix the party? Get candidates who think like you elected. A viable third party isn't going to happen any time soon and being a member of the party isn't going to do you any harm. You live in Arizona and your big-government Republican senior senator will hopefully be facing a primary challenger in 2016.

I do agree with this philosophy to an extent as I intend do this on the left side of the political spectrum.

I am personally not on the Obama train right now and for 2016 I am not on the Hillary Clinton train at this point. I would rather have our first female president be Elizabeth Warren. I support the Warren, Sherrod brown, Ron Widen (who has really blasted Obama on the NSA) wing of the party. I have been trying to do a little bit at the state of level by promoting a view primary candidates to beat the Chicago politics machine who has transformed the Democratic Party at the Illinois state level into a monster I do not support, although my state Senator did come through for the installation of the new scoreboard we brought for the youth /jr high football program I am a part of so I do support him.

Be aware though this strategy cost the GOP Senate races is in Missouri and Indiana. The former GOP incumbent Richard Lugar regularly won Indiana with 65% of the vote. Then they ousted him Richard Mourdock who proceed to offend the vast majority of the woman in the state of Indiana and lose the vote.

Not to mention the horrible nomination in Nevada in 2010 of Sharon Angle. Harry Reid was really vulnerable. Seriously the Republican party has nominated some people. With Citizens United vs FEC effecting making the Tillman Act and McCain Feingold both unconstitutional they should have been able to buy democracy by now. They got most of the mega transnational corporations and foreign governments behind them they should be able to win these alot of these tight races.

 

[chicago51]

Rand Paul economically is a kiss a$$ to billionaires. His love display to Apple back when there was evidence that they committed tax fraud was pathetic.

Although I support his stance on social issues he is sellout to the gun lobby, oil industry, and most transnational corporations. Which doesn't mean I totally hate him as they are all pretty much sellouts.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Why not try to fix the party?

I'm not sure it can be fixed. Pat Deenen, a professor at ND, recently published a great article on the real division within the American Church; it's not about right v. left (regardless of what Fox News reports), but about whether liberal democracy is fundamentally compatible with Catholicism at all. I definitely lean toward Deenen, McIntyre (another badass ND prof), and Schindler in thinking it's not.

Besides, I've got my hands full trying to shield my kids from the consumerist nihilism most of the country is swimming in, and finding wholesome and challenging alternatives for them. If the GOP decides federalism and religious freedom are worth fighting for, they'll have my support. But as things stand now, I'd just be an impotent voice in the wilderness.

Get candidates who think like you elected.

I can't remember the last time Arizona had a competitive Republican primary. Such is republicanism; individual votes are worth far more in some states than in others.

A viable third party isn't going to happen any time soon and being a member of the party isn't going to do you any harm.

One could argue a second viable party hasn't been on offer in this country for decades (if ever); just different flavors of liberalism. And registering with the GOP means: (1) I'd have to self-identify as a Republican; and (2) I'd start receiving all sorts of obnoxious mail from Reince Priebus and other partisan hacks. That's harmful to my sense of self-respect.

You live in Arizona and your big-government Republican senior senator will hopefully be facing a primary challenger in 2016.

Random aside: Jack McCain went to my high school, and I tutored him in Latin. I wasn't allowed to be directly compensated for my services, but I did receive a $250 gift card to Best Buy as a "Christmas gift". Paid for my PS2. Thanks, John!

 

[GoIrish41]

Many could say the same thing about barry. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.


I think likability should matter (hell, it definitely helped dubya get elected twice)...but really only so much. I think what you wrote represents an underlying problem with our country and elections-- people would rather vote for somebody that they "like" or "seems good," as opposed to what's truly best. Wether it's sports, business, or politics, I don't personally care that much if I actually "like" my coach, manager, owner, or politician...as long as those people are good at what they're doing.

(This post isn't an attack on you nor your wife, nor singling out-- just using this as an example.)

I do not disagree with anything you said in this post. I didn't say that my observation was how it SHOULD be, but instead how it is. It is unfortunate, indeed, that people aren't a bit more politically aware in this country. While I do not believe Rand Paul is the best candidate, I think we could (and have) done worst in our history. I think that given the reality that we live in, the one you described above, beliieving that Rand Paul is going to win is not unlike the homer feeling that comes across most of us leading into every football season. We might want to believe so badly that they have a chance to grab the brass ring, but a few trips around the merry go round and we all come down to reality. I personally would like to clean political house and start from scratch with a whole new set of Congressmen, Senators, Justices and a President who have not been corrupted by the system. But, that too is a pipe dream. All we really have is the reality that we have, and in that reality, Rand Paul's chances of winning are slim to none.

* I didn't take any offense to your post at all, no worries.