The Republican Utopia

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Really???  Accusing me of reading right wing bloggers and basically parroting their views instead of actually thinking about what I've personally written about over the last few years on here?

 

At best, it was an extremely lazy argument trying to pigeon hole me into a corner that isn't appropriate with my views that I have clearly stated on here.

 

How is that different than claiming this:

 

18 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I continue to see liberals/Democrats state that what they need to do is take over the government and enact sweeping new big entitlement programs.

 

I don't understand your reaction here, especially in light of this statement.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[zoogs]

1. Wow, did he? What's he doing? I don't see it on his page right now. 

 

2. I continue to disagree with the way you characterize government spending.

 

I think that's probably the real disagreement. And I do think it's rooted in you seeing things from a fundamentally very fiscally conservative perspective -- one that aligns very, very strongly with the current Republican Party, at least the ones in power and controlling the legislative direction. Would you say this is fair?

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

How is that different than claiming this:

 

 

I don't understand your reaction here, especially in light of this statement.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Ummmm....Dude said it was him that has promoted this idea.  I believe (he can correct me if I'm wrong) he is, in fact, a liberal Democrat.  I on the other hand have talked over and over again how I have left the Republican party because of their far right idiotic stances.   I have repeatedly talked about how I am willing to study certain programs and how I am not in favor of cuts this administration has taken.

 

But....when I simply stated that I'm not in favor of ushering in a bunch of big entitlement programs, I get accused of reading too many red state bloggers...bla bla bla......When....if anyone is paying attention, it's clear I don't do that.

[knapplc]

One guy doth not a movement make.

 

Ideally it would have been better if you could have remembered who that was. Not having that instant recall of name, and saying it the way you said it, you made an offhand comment. zoogs did the same.  I don't think either of you are the bad guys, but the end result is we all post a bunch at each other over what amounts to nothing. 

 

I think you were right when you said:

 

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

now hopefully the discussion in here can get back on topic

 

Or you & zoogs can make a Vs. thread in the Shed and go at it hammer and tongs.  But somehow I don't think you're going to do that. 

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, zoogs said:

1. Wow, did he? What's he doing? I don't see it on his page right now. 

 

2. I continue to disagree with the way you characterize government spending.

 

I think that's probably the real disagreement. And I do think it's rooted in you seeing things from a fundamentally very fiscally conservative perspective -- one that aligns very, very strongly with the current Republican Party, at least the ones in power and controlling the legislative direction. Would you say this is fair?

 

 

No.

 

I am a fiscal conservative.  But, that doesn't make me automatically align with this administration nor the current Republican Party.

 

I believe government spending should be scrutinized and big government programs should be heavily studied to make sure they are implemented in an efficient manner that accomplishes their goals but as least expensive as possible.

 

Example....once again......I am not totally against a single payer health care plan.  I think it should be studied in a non partisan manner and it very well could be the answer to our problems.  See????  I'm not against a government health care answer, I'm against just believing big government programs are the answer to our problems because government spending is great and helps everyone.

 

There is a big difference there.

 

In my thoughts, a single payer plan may very well be actually the fiscally conservative thing to do because it accomplishes people having healthcare AND.....saves money in the long run which...in turn....could reduce the amount average Americans are spending on the combined taxes + healthcare that we have today....which...in turn....leaves more of THEIR money in THEIR pockets to do with it what THEY want.

Edited January 9, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[zoogs]

Yeah, this is coming back down to a "both sides" thing. Far right, meet far left. There's such an appeal to false equivalency! 

 

I don't have an issue with you saying "I am this much conservative fiscally and so these things are not acceptable to me", I think. The problem is when you imply or assert that there are these far-left whackos who are the exact other side of the coin, which I think is what you mean by "bunch of big entitlement programs". I actually think if you let go of these deep-seated suspicions and just applied "willing to study certain programs", you would find a home in the Democratic party. The established, Goldman Sachs wing that the Bernie guys would rail against, to be fair 

 

Reading your post above, for example, I feel there's a disconnect between your openness to single payer and your general view of big, bad government "entitlement". 

 

To clarify again, all RedState bloggers are to me are resolutely standard conservatives. They're not far right, they're not Breitbart, they're most certainly not white nationalist.  Maybe that's the misunderstanding? They're a stand-in for "Republican old guard", notwithstanding they are new media.

Edited January 9, 2018 by zoogs

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That graphic can be very heavily manipulated depending on exactly where you put the center point and what you use to determine where that center point is.

 

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

The graph has Bernie Sanders basically in the middle - the moderate of all moderates.  Kind of hard to believe the graph is valid.   I also find it hard to believe that Gary Johnson is a hard right - by this graph he could be a member of the alt-right.   So it would be better to supply some number's and facts behind this. 

I agree that the graph isn't a solid source, but I can't find the one that's backed by research as I noted in the post. Also, political science is a study of human behaviors, so there isn't going to be the same kind of hard data like in math or physics.

 

As for Bernie being in the middle and Gary Johnson being on the right, keep in mind the left-right axis is (usually) economics and the top-bottom axis is authoritarian-liberarian. Bernie is pretty much in the middle on those two axes, and Johnson is an extreme supporter of capitalism putting on the far right (not the alt-right, which would be the upper right on that graph).

[knapplc]

13 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I do think it's rooted in you seeing things from a fundamentally very fiscally conservative perspective -- one that aligns very, very strongly with the current Republican Party, at least the ones in power and controlling the legislative direction. Would you say this is fair?

 

I think, as BRB said a page ago, we know him better than that. I think it's fair to say he leans conservative, and ***in general*** aligns more with the Republican party than the Democrats. But then, so do I, and I'm probably more liberal than half the posters here. 

 

I think BRB's Republican alignment is loose, not "very very strong," and that's where the message is getting lost here.  And as he said, we know him better than to say this.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I actually think if you let go of these deep-seated suspicions

Interesting since this is what you did to start this.

 

As for the...."bunch of big entitlement programs".  This is basically what Bernie campaigned on and he remains one of the top candidates for the Democratic party.

[Danny Bateman]

Make no mistake, when I talk about progressive reforms, I'm not talking wildly radical, Marxist type socialism. I'm not clamoring for the workers to seize the means of production just yet.

 

What I am talking about is making a broader group of people more receptive to the idea that the government can be a tool of good. As zoogs pointed out, rhetorical salvos on the evils of big government have been a staple of the Republican party (particularly hard-right ideologues) since at least the 60s and stretching almost unabated throughout modern history. Americans have had 50+ years of sustained messaging from people that government is inefficient, bad for the economy or outright evil.

 

What I am talking about is a handful of key moves that would benefit society as a whole rather than the select few the GOP has increasingly catered to ever since Reagan:

1. Increase taxes on the wealthy, since by all metrics I've seen, they've got it better here than almost anywhere else in the world, despite the rhetoric you hear from Trump & Republicans. The tax bill exacerbated this problem greatly by giving them further relief they don't need. Close loopholes & end giveaways they've gained over time or through the Trump tax bill.
2. Restore the ability of unions to help workers address low wages and marginalization by management & right-to-work laws.
3. Push for universal healthcare. Support Medicare/Medicaid if they are a part of that framework.
4. Expand, improve or at least find ways to address stability of Social Security. 
5. Consider new government welfare options suited for 21st century. UBI is intriguing. I oscillate on it personally.
6. Campaign finance reform. Expansion of voting rights - a second Voting Rights Act would be appropriate. Fair redistricting - end gerrymandering.

Do any of these seem untenable or radical to you? Or do they just seem like good policy? Just a list off the top of my head - feel free to add your own ideas.

[Fru]

Donald Trump Renominates Environmental Pick Democrats Called ‘Extreme’ And ‘Embarrassing’

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-re-nominates-kathleen-hartnett-white_us_5a53fae5e4b0efe47ebbfa19

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well....here's my chance for my feelings about the Republican Party to go even farther in the toilet.  The results of this election will be interesting to follow.

 

 

[knapplc]

These are attacks on the fundamental bedrocks of democracy.  Every person of legal age should be allowed to vote. They should be registered automatically, they should be given free ID which they should show at the door, and all of these purges and hoops and witch hunts need to stop.

 

Instead, Republicans are going to continue to suppress votes, install poll taxes, intimidate or outright lie to voters, all in a bid to stay in power. 

 

It's all about power. Not about serving the people.  Power.

 

Quote

 

Court Ends Consent Decree Against RNC “Ballot Security” Activities, Raising New Risks of Voter Suppression

 

As I expected, a federal district court has ended a consent decree in place since 1981 against the Republican National Committee against so-called “ballot security” measures which seemed aimed at suppressing minority voter turnout.

 

I recently explained in Slate why this worries me:

With the consent decree gone, the RNC will for the first time in 35 years be free to begin anew efforts to spur purges of voter rolls and take potentially suppressive ballot security measures in the name of preventing voter fraud. No doubt RNC lawyers would advise against taking these steps, at least for a while, to forestall the DNC from running back to court seeking to have the consent decree reinstated.

 

But with Trump the real head of the Republican Party these days, it is quite possible he could order a national effort to combat phantom voter fraud, just like he did with his own campaign. Indeed, making false claims about Democratic and minority voter chicanery is a cornerstone of Trump’s divisive agenda. Yelling voter fraud riles up the base, helps with fundraising, and can depress minority voter turnout.

 

The Trump era has caused voting rights activists to be extra vigilant against efforts to suppress the vote, from Trump’s faux “election integrity” commission to the Department of Justice’s reversal of an Obama-era position against a particular form of voter purging in Ohio. But the removal of the consent decree could supercharge voter suppression efforts, offering Trump the opportunity to hijack the RNC and direct it toward his own efforts to explain away his 3 million voter loss in the American popular vote and rile his base against poor and minority voters.

 

 

[zoogs]

BRB, I don't have deep-seated suspicions about you, I just update my understanding of your views from what I see you post. 

 

I think it's important to you that your alignment to the GOP be loose. The way you get when you talk about government spending, or Democrats' fiscal policy, though, there is a disconnect here. I think at some point you have to choose between being a non-Repubilcan open to the massive new expenditure that would be single-payer and regarding people who campaign on single payer as entitlement-granting loons.

 

There's a play here on the definition of 'entitlement', which speaks to the power of rhetoric. In the Ryan model of the world, the language is stuff like lazy people on the government dole, e.g, "millenials! They're so entitled." The liberal argument, the one in which single payer is rooted, is that "this is a human right" -- we are entitled insofar as ours is a country where everyone is entitled to what we regard as human rights protected by our government. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, these are all "a bunch of big entitlement" programs. The kind that Democrats support preserving or expanding, and the kind that Republicans have been trying to cut for decades. The current tax cuts are precisely aimed to create a situation where Republican legislators will throw up their hands in a few years and say, "we just don't have the revenue. We must gut SS/etc." This is what I mean by strong alignment. That attitude towards spending is the bedrock of Paul Ryan's dream. And look, Trump is a loon, but Ryan is the distillation of Republican economic agenda for the past however many decades.

 

I appreciate a lot that you don't automatically subscribe to the GOP; that you are, in fact, quite hostile to them by default. But I think it's worth exploring what that means, and why often it seems your hostility is pointed instead in the opposite direction. And I think there's good room for movement here, so long as your negative appraisal of the current GOP is stronger than your attachment to the Ryan school (which, if you're really contemplating single-payer, I would say is on its last legs).

 

To be clear, it makes a lot of sense to me that strongly fiscal conservative people would never make this jump, however much else they oppose Trump and the current GOP in areas that aren't e.g tax bill. So this was never about "you're crazy/evil/etc if you think this way".

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by zoogs

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, zoogs said:

BRB, I don't have deep-seated suspicions about you, I just update my understanding of your views from what I see you post. 

 

I think it's important to you that your alignment to the GOP be loose. The way you get when you talk about government spending, or Democrats' fiscal policy, though, there is a disconnect here. I think at some point you have to choose between being a non-Repubilcan open to the massive new expenditure that would be single-payer and regarding people who campaign on single payer as entitlement-granting loons.

 

There's a play here on the definition of 'entitlement', which speaks to the power of rhetoric. In the Ryan model of the world, the language is stuff like lazy people on the government dole, e.g, "millenials! They're so entitled." The liberal argument, the one in which single payer is rooted, is that "this is a human right" -- we are entitled insofar as ours is a country where everyone is entitled to what we regard as human rights protected by our government. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, these are all "a bunch of big entitlement" programs. The kind that Democrats support preserving or expanding, and the kind that Republicans have been trying to cut for decades. The current tax cuts are precisely aimed to create a situation where Republican legislators will throw up their hands in a few years and say, "we just don't have the revenue. We must gut SS/etc." This is what I mean by strong alignment. That attitude towards spending is the bedrock of Paul Ryan's dream. And look, Trump is a loon, but Ryan is the distillation of Republican economic agenda for the past however many decades.

 

I appreciate a lot that you don't automatically subscribe to the GOP; that you are, in fact, quite hostile to them by default. But I think it's worth exploring what that means, and why often it seems your hostility is pointed instead in the opposite direction. And I think there's good room for movement here, so long as your negative appraisal of the current GOP is stronger than your attachment to the Ryan school (which, if you're really contemplating single-payer, I would say is on its last legs).

 

 

 

 

Why do you continue to try to pigeon hole me into some form of conservative REPUBLICAN?  This is exactly what is wrong in American politics.  I made a statement on here earlier this morning and ever since you have been trying your hardest to paint me into some form of awful conservative Republican.  Interesting, because in the same post where you cherry picked the statement out, I specifically stated that I'm without a party....meaning...the Republican party too.

Edited January 9, 2018 by BigRedBuster