Politics

[RDU Irish]

This is why the GOP is dead in the water. Everyone outside of Bullshit Mountain looks around and sees 10000000000000 things more important than school lunches for the poor.

Exactly why we have this monstrosity of a federal government with their hands in all kinds of places it doesn't belong. Incrementally adding 10000000000000 things to their responsibilities as if those 10000000000000 things don't detract from the handful of things they actually SHOULD be doing.

If local school boards can't be trusted to feed the poor starving kids (who happen to be obese through some miracle of nature) then some dip in Washington like Joe Biden is surely the only answer and we should cede ALL school decisions to him and abolish all local school boards.

Chicken Little much fellas?

 

[wizards8507]

Yes, I live in a Republican district.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

In the color of money,
 red staters more charitable than blues - Washington Times

Study: Red states more charitable - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com

Watch out. Those articles include the New York Times and Politico, well known as the propaganda arms of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

You're so f***ing generous with other people's money. Tax the rich and give it all away, look how f***ing generous GoIrish and his idiot liberal friends are.

 

[GoIrish41]

THE PEOPLE! The people at my church who fill backpacks full of food to make sure that poor kids have meals for breakfast, dinner, and on the weekends, not just at school. The people at my work who literally donate warehouses full of school supplies, Christmas gifts, and food for the poor people in our communities. Do you really have so little faith in humanity? This isn't even political any more. It makes me sad that you HONESTLY think kids would starve if charity weren't mandated by politicians.

There are citizens in communities all over this country are charitable and giving people. Yet, despite their generosity, millions of kids go to bed hungry every night -- even with a safety net in place. I find it sad that you are so naive to think that when that safety net is pulled away that people will rush in and make sure that everyone is taken care of -- the same people, mind you, who regularly denegrate the poor who "don't have the motivation or drive to piick themselves up by the bootstraps and make something of themselves." Government programs are put in place to solve problems that exist in society. if there wasn't a problem -- if the generosity of Americans was substantial enough to erase hunger, there woudn't have been a problem in the first place.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yes, I live in a Republican district.

Hahahahhah.

 

[wizards8507]

There are citizens in communities all over this country are charitable and giving people. Yet, despite their generosity, millions of kids go to bed hungry every night -- even with a safety net in place. I find it sad that you are so naive to think that when that safety net is pulled away that people will rush in and make sure that everyone is taken care of -- the same people, mind you, who regularly denegrate the poor who "don't have the motivation or drive to piick themselves up by the bootstraps and make something of themselves." Government programs are put in place to solve problems that exist in society. if there wasn't a problem -- if the generosity of Americans was substantial enough to erase hunger, there woudn't have been a problem in the first place.

Government programs are incapable of nuance. They can't distinguish between someone who is truly needy and those people who DO "lack the motivation or drive to pick themselves up by the bootstraps." That's where waste comes from. Again, if you do these things at the local level, you can make those distinctions. I don't donate to a charity unless I've verified with Charity Navigator and confirmed that the money actually goes to help the people who need it, but I'm forced to support this "safety net" that's way too comfortable for the people who don't need to be there in the first place.

Another thing, cut the crap about "denigrating the poor." There's a difference between "poor people who are lazy" and "poor people, who are lazy."

 

[GoIrish41]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

In the color of money,
 red staters more charitable than blues - Washington Times

Study: Red states more charitable - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com

Watch out. Those articles include the New York Times and Politico, well known as the propaganda arms of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

You're so f***ing generous with other people's money. Tax the rich and give it all away, look how f***ing generous GoIrish and his idiot liberal friends are.

Yes, those articles are about me personally. You, my deranged and conclusion-jumping friend, know absolutely nothing about me or my charitable giving. I can assure you, I do a little more than show up at church in my Sunday best with some canned corn in tow to make myself feel like I'm doing my part to help those poor children on the other side of the tracks. Don't forget, it's MY money too, jackass! And I get a vote just the same as you do.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes, those articles are about me personally. You, my deranged and conclusion-jumping friend, know absolutely nothing about me or my charitable giving. I can assure you, I do a little more than show up at church in my Sunday best with some canned corn in toe to make myself feel like I'm doing my part to help those poor children on the other side of the tracks. Don't forget, it's MY money too, jackass! And I get a vote just the same as you do.

You get a vote on YOUR dollars, not mine.

 

[GoIrish41]

You get a vote on YOUR dollars, not mine.

Once you pay your taxes, they are OUR dollars.

 

[JughedJones]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UkmHk2CEAOs?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Never forget: When you complain so vehemently about 'the government', it's you.

 

[wizards8507]

Once you pay your taxes, they are OUR dollars.

This is so fundamental. You just assume that taxation is legitimate because government is legitimate and they say you shall be taxed. You have no problem being a wage slave to a group of 546 people, five of which you might have had some say in electing. "Confiscation of private property" means absolutely nothing to you, nor does "consent of the governed."

 

[RDU Irish]

If I remember correctly, it started because right before World War II, when the US was drafting people to prepare for the obvious, something like 40% of the people the Army was drafting qualified for a level of malnourishment.

Cool trivia. It is always interesting to find out where programs are born. The source was to address a defense concern, provide an able bodied populace to drive our tanks and shoot our guns.

We are now an obese nation and it is in the national interest to put everyone on a diet. Therefore, we should now outlaw lunch. See, I just did it as a caring liberal instead of a cold hearted republican.

I really don't know why the federal Department of Education is anything more than a couple of event planners putting together a national conference annually for state education leaders to talk about what works for them and what doesn't.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The government and the people are not indistiguishable. People ARE the government and have the capability of changing the direction in which the country moves. Many on here speak fondly of the Reagan years and how he seized a moment in history and fundamentally changed our path. He couldn't have done that by the strength of his own will. He needed the citizens of the country to come together around his point of view. That took some convincing (and some ineffective governing before he came of political age). Look around you Leppy. The country is changing. The Reagan legacy was one of a declaration of war on drugs, and today votes are going on across the country in states to legalize mariguana use. Homosexuals were cast offs and objects of ridicule back then but are sprinting toward social acceptance. Trickle down economics and ultra-low taxes have been proven over the last decades to be detrimental forces in the economy. These are not functions of government so much as they are functions of societal change. Our republic conforms to such social changes and always has (albeit sometimes it happens painfully slow). Your venom toward Chicago and his thoughts are too narrowly focused. You must look at the entire society of Americans. If there is someone who needs a one-way ticket to another place, I could argue that person may be you. The breeze is pushing the sails of this country in a direction that you refuse to acknowledge or accept. Instead of capturing the wind and using it to drive you closer to the will of the people in the republic so that you may convince them to chance course, you choose to stand toe to toe and argue with the wind. Those who dig their heels in in the face of a breeze will only be pushed over when the gusts begin.

That's cute, Hawthorne, but no thanks. I'm not going with the wind or flow or whatever the hell you're talking about.

1) War on drugs was centered on crack and heroine because of its spiking use and impact. Weed is weed, and while I support it for medical reasons I fear its legalization. How about the 3rd graders who were caught high in school this week in your great state of CA?

2) Homosexuals: Who the hell was casting them off and why? Socially we're far more tolerant, yes, and states, not the feds, should determine if they want it or not.

3) Trickle down economics: Compare the Reagan Recovery to Obama's "hope and change" and the numbers speak for themselves, pal.

I'll agree with you that this country is changing rapidly on various fronts, but is it all really good? Give me a break. Fundamental transformation...I'll fight it however I can no matter how strong the tide is because history and economics are on the side of limited, constitutional government.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is so fundamental. You just assume that taxation is legitimate because government is legitimate and they say you shall be taxed. You have no problem being a wage slave to a group of 546 people, five of which you might have had some say in electing. "Confiscation of private property" means absolutely nothing to you, nor does "consent of the governed."

welcome to society

 

[chicago51]

3) Trickle down economics: Compare the Reagan Recovery to Obama's "hope and change" and the numbers speak for themselves, pal.

Despite an uptick during the stimulus there are now 800,000 fewer federal government employees than the day Obama took office. Reagan hired over a million federal workers. That is 1.8 million worker difference. Had 1.8 million to the workforce and unemployment is under 6 percent.

We are still in a Reaganomics economy anyway it is not like Obama or Bill Clinton (who got lucky with .com tech bubble) changed things from Regan if anything Clinton expand Reaganomics despite raising taxes a little.

Compare the Reagan recovery to Kennedy/LBJ recovery, FDR recovery (yes it took WWII to end the depression but the economy did grown from 32-37 at 4th fastest rate in history it just had a really low starting point), the TR recovery from the Gilded Age.

 

[BobD]

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

 

[Cackalacky]

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

In a word.... yes

 

[Wild Bill]

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

In a word.... yes

I heard all about the party dying in 2008. Then they gained 60 plus seats in the house during the 2010 election.

 

[GoIrish41]

In a word.... yes

Not without a fight ... anirite leppy and wizards?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

EDITORIAL: Democrats flee Obamacare before midterm elections - Washington Times

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Despite an uptick during the stimulus there are now 800,000 fewer federal government employees than the day Obama took office. Reagan hired over a million federal workers. That is 1.8 million worker difference. Had 1.8 million to the workforce and unemployment is under 6 percent.

We are still in a Reaganomics economy anyway it is not like Obama or Bill Clinton (who got lucky with .com tech bubble) changed things from Regan if anything Clinton expand Reaganomics despite raising taxes a little.

Compare the Reagan recovery to Kennedy/LBJ recovery, FDR recovery (yes it took WWII to end the depression but the economy did grown from 32-37 at 4th fastest rate in history it just had a really low starting point), the TR recovery from the Gilded Age.

So we were booming in the 1980's because Reagan hired a million federal workers? lol you do provide great entertainment on here

 

[JughedJones]

EDITORIAL: Democrats flee Obamacare before midterm elections - Washington Times

lolWashingtonTimes

 

[chicago51]

So we were booming in the 1980's because Reagan hired a million federal workers? lol you do provide great entertainment on here

We weren't booming in the 80s GDP growth and the average unemployment rate were worse in the 80s than the 70s and the 90s. Not to mention in the 80s median income stopped growing with productivity.

 

[Cackalacky]

I heard all about the party dying in 2008. Then they gained 60 plus seats in the house during the 2010 election.

I have been watching CPAC this week. Hardly anyone was even clapping at all the one liners McConnell was laying down. The response thus far has been tepid.

 

[chicago51]

Sorry boys on the left but saying the Republican Party is dead is just silly.

The Democrats have virtually no chance to retake the Hous and are in serious jeopardy of losing the Senate. At least according to the corporate media (I say it ain't over till it is over).

Yes it has a lot do to gerrymandering and population patterns and the fact the majority of the Senate seats up for election happen to be in GOP friendly states.

Yes the Democrats poll better on a lot issues.

Yes age and demographic trends look good..

However this ain't the time to be cocky on the left. We got a lot of work to do.

Let's not kid ourselves to think the Democrat Party has been so great. We got a lot of work to do on the left to undo the damage the Reagan revolution did to values of the Democratic Party to take it back to where it was during the Kennedy and LBJ years in terms of economic values.

 

[Cackalacky]

I should clarify that the moderate Republicans are going to get pushed out by the fringe. Their obvious disdain for minorities, women, gays, etc. and their intolerance is only going to force moderates into the independent category. The party as a whole is shrinking . Look at what Arizona did recently. Once the fringe passed basically a hate bill the business community revolted. It lasted two days. The fringe is marching on....

Btw the democrats are shrinking too. I am interested to see what comes from it. The moderate voters will be the major voting bloc.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sorry boys on the left but saying the Republican Party is dead is just silly.

The Democrats have virtually no chance to retake the Hous and are in serious jeopardy of losing the Senate. At least according to the corporate media (I say it ain't over till it is over).

Yes it has a lot do to gerrymandering and population patterns and the fact the majority of the Senate seats up for election happen to be in GOP friendly states.

Yes the Democrats poll better on a lot issues.

Yes age and demographic trends look good..

However this ain't the time to be cocky on the left. We got a lot of work to do.

Let's not kid ourselves to think the Democrat Party has been so great. We got a lot of work to do on the left to undo the damage the Reagan revolution did to values of the Democratic Party to take it back to where it was during the Kennedy and LBJ years in terms of economic values.

Well I'm not on the left. But while I voted for McCain and Romney, I'm fully aware of the fact that the GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections. When the only candidate you "beat" is John Kerry, you suck as a political party.

The GOP has no one outside of Rand Paul who is even honestly discussing real problems with the federal government. The rest of them are just blowhards trying to wedge their name into as many TV sets as possible for money and power. This is also true with the Democrats, but Democrats don't cling to hating gays, have criticized the wars, and are leading the way on legalizing marijuana. They look like they're fixing wrongs and the GOP doesn't. That's really the only difference: the GOP is tied down by the evangelical morons and can't be progressive at all, so they've resorted to mere insults and criticisms and the result has been a House that wants to just stop everything. No good ideas, no good solutions, just bullshit. That's the GOP these days.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I should clarify that the moderate Republicans are going to get pushed out by the fringe. Their obvious disdain for minorities, women, gays, etc. and their intolerance is only going to force moderates into the independent category. The party as a whole is shrinking . Look at what Arizona did recently. Once the fringe passed basically a hate bill the business community revolted. It lasted two days. The fringe is marching on....

Btw the democrats are shrinking too. I am interested to see what comes from it. The moderate voters will be the major voting bloc.

100% true.

Honestly, sometimes (read: basically when I'm in the shower) I think about running for Representative, as an independent, for the hell of it and see how much fun it would be. I've done stand up enough times to know I could get in front of a crowd and lampoon the government's endless bullshit constructively, there is literally an endless amount of material. Line up a few billboards on major highways, spaced out 100 yards, reading: "Republicans are red," "Democrats are blue," "neither of them," "care about you." Create a YouTube account with dozens of YouTube videos that actually explain your position on issues in a light but in-depth manner. Do a couple of Reddit AMAs if ya get any real attention. Ask humbly and jokingly "what's the worst that could happen?" because a Representative is .229% of one house of one branch of the federal government government...and for just two years. etc etc etc

I think there are ideas that everyone basically agrees upon (e.g. transparency is good, corporatism is bad, get the money out of politics, lobbying reform, etc etc etc) that an independent can seize of he's bold enough charismatically. It's not hard to point out how much the current guy is either sitting on his thumbs or in line with corporatism. Again, there is justs o much ammunition.

I think a message of honesty and humility (humility being the desire to think about every issue, not clinging to "values" like the GOP brainwashes), running simply to raise the level of discussion in this country, would killlllll in a campaign. The crazy thing is how easy it is to do. The internet makes it so undeniably easy to communicate one's position honestly, and we fucking blow at it.

And then the hot water runs out and I get out of the shower... fun to think about though. haha

 

[IrishLax]

I should clarify that the moderate Republicans are going to get pushed out by the fringe. Their obvious disdain for minorities, women, gays, etc. and their intolerance is only going to force moderates into the independent category. The party as a whole is shrinking . Look at what Arizona did recently. Once the fringe passed basically a hate bill the business community revolted. It lasted two days. The fringe is marching on....

Btw the democrats are shrinking too. I am interested to see what comes from it. The moderate voters will be the major voting bloc.

100% true.

In general, the premise that a fringe can push people out is a bit flawed... it's more that you have a platform that only the "fringe" or "radical" arm still identifies with, while it no longer appeals to people who are "moderate." They're not forced out by the fringe, per se... it's that the fringe still finds the home habitable, while the other end of the party thinks the one down the street better reflects what they want. But for argument's sake let's just accept that yes, moderate Republicans are identifying more and more with Democrats, Libertarians, and independents every day. I don't even know if that's debatable.

So now let's talk about if the concept of people being pushed out long-term is a real thing, and if there's actually a chance for the "downfall" or "collapse" of a party. According to my American Congress professor at ND, there is no scenario where a mass exodus from a party to another in our two-party system is more than temporary. In our two party system, a fringe cannot logically dominate the identity and platform of a party for an extended period of time. It's not sustainable on many levels.

The moderate Republicans may get "pushed out" in the short term to "independent" or "democrat"... but then what happens is as you push more and more towards one party being unpopular and the other being overly-popular, you get implicit redefinition of the party platform such that the population is once again close to "evenly" split.

Imagine that lunatics in the Republican party continue to force out moderates to the point where 67% of the country identifies as "democrat." At this point, you've effectively got people segmented 1/3 Republicans, 1/3 Democrat-moderate, and 1/3 Democrat-liberal. The "Republican" third would fail to have any clout, and simultaneously the Democrat blob would not be homogeneous enough. What happens every time in the history of two-party representative republican (not the party, the system) government is that as you approach this point the fringe loses their grip/influence, and the dwindling party gradually and seamlessly adopts a platform that is more popular. This is why in our two-party system there has also never been one perennially dominant party and the dominance is cyclical.

So let's talk for a second about a concrete example of an issue that is driving people away from the Republican party: gay rights. Once it gets to a point where a vast majority of people believe in certain gay rights, then it is no longer an issue where each party will pick a side. There will not be a "pro rights" party and a "anti rights party"... both parties will be "pro rights" in their platform. And once that issue comes off the table, a hypothetical gay people or pro-gay rights people driven away from Republicans because of that issue who agrees with whatever else is in the platform will gradually drift back to the party. And so on and so forth with every issue until all of the beliefs held by the "fringe" aren't part of the party's identity anymore.

 

[Cackalacky]

In general, the premise that a fringe can push people out is a bit flawed... it's more that you have a platform that only the "fringe" or "radical" arm still identifies with, while it no longer appeals to people who are "moderate." They're not forced out by the fringe, per se... it's that the fringe still finds the home habitable, while the other end of the party thinks the one down the street better reflects what they want. But for argument's sake let's just accept that yes, moderate Republicans are identifying more and more with Democrats, Libertarians, and independents every day. I don't even know if that's debatable.

So now let's talk about if the concept of people being pushed out long-term is a real thing, and if there's actually a chance for the "downfall" or "collapse" of a party. According to my American Congress professor at ND, there is no scenario where a mass exodus from a party to another in our two-party system is more than temporary. In our two party system, a fringe cannot logically dominate the identity and platform of a party for an extended period of time. It's not sustainable on many levels.

The moderate Republicans may get "pushed out" in the short term to "independent" or "democrat"... but then what happens is as you push more and more towards one party being unpopular and the other being overly-popular, you get implicit redefinition of the party platform such that the population is once again close to "evenly" split.

Imagine that lunatics in the Republican party continue to force out moderates to the point where 67% of the country identifies as "democrat." At this point, you've effectively got people segmented 1/3 Republicans, 1/3 Democrat-moderate, and 1/3 Democrat-liberal. The "Republican" third would fail to have any clout, and simultaneously the Democrat blob would not be homogeneous enough. What happens every time in the history of two-party representative republican (not the party, the system) government is that as you approach this point the fringe loses their grip/influence, and the dwindling party gradually and seamlessly adopts a platform that is more popular. This is why in our two-party system there has also never been one perennially dominant party and the dominance is cyclical.

So let's talk for a second about a concrete example of an issue that is driving people away from the Republican party: gay rights. Once it gets to a point where a vast majority of people believe in certain gay rights, then it is no longer an issue where each party will pick a side. There will not be a "pro rights" party and a "anti rights party"... both parties will be "pro rights" in their platform. And once that issue comes off the table, a hypothetical gay people or pro-gay rights people driven away from Republicans because of that issue who agrees with whatever else is in the platform will gradually drift back to the party. And so on and so forth with every issue until all of the beliefs held by the "fringe" aren't part of the party's identity anymore.

I definitely see what you are getting at. I just think at some point there may be the emergence of moderate party because both the Dems and Repub's have such unappealing brands right now. With all the turnover of Republicans recently (I mean McConnell is currently being primaried) I could totally see the Tea Partiers taking over the Republicans. Would they still call themselves Republicans? Maybe but philosophically they are different.

 

[magogian]

This is so fundamental. You just assume that taxation is legitimate because government is legitimate and they say you shall be taxed. You have no problem being a wage slave to a group of 546 people, five of which you might have had some say in electing. "Confiscation of private property" means absolutely nothing to you, nor does "consent of the governed."

This is getting to a key issue. Namely, the conservative world view considers a person's wealth/money/etc. to be their property. It can be taxed, but it is fundamentally that person's. And the government needs a damn good reason to trump that person's right to their property. OTOH, the liberal world view does not consider a person's wealth/money/etc. to really be that person's. Rather, it really belongs to society. Our society allows people to keep some portion of what they make, but it is essentially because society just chooses not to make that a greater demand from that person. It is a very fundamental difference.