The Republican Utopia

[Danny Bateman]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

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.

 

 

 

Dead on assessment.

 

The RNC already exists as a sycophantic political arm of Trump. If he wants them to combat phony voter fraud, they will. The good news is the good work groups like Let America Vote are doing is turning people onto the reality that the claims of widespread fraud & voting illegalities are bunk. That, and a major gerrymandering case is sitting on the Supreme Court.

 

For a long time, both parties used dirty little tricks to their advantage. Republicans over the last decade have become increasingly egregious in this regard. People are finally pissed, getting educated & swinging back at them for it. Orgs like LAV are leading the way.

[zoogs]

@BigRedBuster Because those are the same things Republicans have always said? And I'm not trying to pigeonhole you -- I'm betting on you being able to recognize that, and therefore dissociate. Or to say "actually, I want this, just not with all the Trump stuff too." 

 

This thread is called, sardonically, The Republican Utopia. Why? What is it about this utopia that we find so revolting? I don't think everyone has the same answer. I think reasonable people can say they're opposed to the posture on immigration and war but this tax cut is exactly what we need, for example. It's not a requirement to view everything that is a Republican goal as terrible by default. We should allow for a space for people, especially conservatives, to say 'these are the policy areas I agree with'.

 

Policy discussion is interesting and can be fruitful. There are things you say that are exactly standard fiscal conservative views (would it help if I avoid ascribing these, factually, to Republicans past and present?), and I do not mean this as an insult. It hardly makes you a Trump supporter or alt-right. I point them out both because it's a policy area to argue against and because I think there's a chance you (or others, reading) will be persuaded that this is one more area of Republican orthodoxy to let go.

[zoogs]

(And if I can't persuade people, that's fine. It's a looooooooong way to go for a conservative to view the world in a different way.)

 

I saw your edit above and just want to make this clear: "awful" and the like are adjectives you're adding yourself. I disagree with fiscal conservatives, but I understand that there are decent people with economic ideas across the spectrum. I'd argue that certain policies are actually awful (cutting social security, for example) but I think the conservatives who want this genuinely believe that this is necessary to keep the economy afloat, for example.

 

Second, one thing I will hold people to is their claims, and that isn't personal. You don't get to say, as Jeff Flake did, that this "isn't his party" anymore and then go vote for everything he did...without a strict analysis of what "I'm not a Republican" really means. Susan Collins can say all she likes about CHIP or healthcare, etc, but what did she do? The Republican Party is ugly right now, and there are obvious benefits to claiming dissociation. The overwhelming unpopularity of the tax bill is the best chance we've had in a long time to force a reckoning, by asking what is actually so heinous about it and on what basis it's being opposed.

 

Actually, thinking about this more, that's really the question I have for you: what is it you find to be awful about the Republicans right now on tax policy and fiscal agenda?

Edited January 9, 2018 by zoogs

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

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.

 

 

Agreed...I hope they actually change it to where high school seniors (18 or not) can vote during the school day.  Love the idea of them being registered automatically too, the sooner that starts the better off we will be (I think)...hopefully some day people will see.

Edited January 9, 2018 by teachercd

[knapplc]

32 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Agreed...I hope they actually change it to where high school seniors (18 or not) can vote during the school day.  Love the idea of them being registered automatically too, the sooner that starts the better off we will be (I think)...hopefully some day people will see.

 

We shouldn't vote during the week. Election Day should be on a Saturday when more people have off, or even two days, Saturday & Sunday.

 

Other first-world nations have figured this out. We're the laggards.

[BigRedBuster]

52 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Agreed...I hope they actually change it to where high school seniors (18 or not) can vote during the school day.  Love the idea of them being registered automatically too, the sooner that starts the better off we will be (I think)...hopefully some day people will see.

You're wanting all HS kids (even a 15-16 year old freshman) to be able to vote?

Ummmm......no.

 

I'm all for making it easier for people legally of age to vote (18).  But, I am not for people even younger being able to vote.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

You're wanting all HS kids (even a 15-16 year old freshman) to be able to vote?

Ummmm......no.

 

I'm all for making it easier for people legally of age to vote (18).  But, I am not for people even younger being able to vote.

No no no, I want seniors in high school 18 years old or not to be able to vote.  I am sure there are a few 16 year old seniors but not many.  Most of them are 17 or 18 but I like the idea of them being registered and getting to vote at school early.  

 

I would be fine if it was only 18 year old seniors, doesn't really matter to me either way.  

[teachercd]

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

We shouldn't vote during the week. Election Day should be on a Saturday when more people have off, or even two days, Saturday & Sunday.

 

Other first-world nations have figured this out. We're the laggards.

That is very true.  

 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

No no no, I want seniors in high school 18 years old or not to be able to vote.  I am sure there are a few 16 year old seniors but not many.  Most of them are 17 or 18 but I like the idea of them being registered and getting to vote at school early.  

 

I would be fine if it was only 18 year old seniors, doesn't really matter to me either way.  

I see no reason to change the voting age to be younger.  I'm all for making it easier for everyone.

I would prefer Knapp's idea of doing it over two days (Saturday and Sunday).  It's stupid that it's during the week.

[teachercd]

Yeah, why isn't it on the weekend?  Why is it only one day?  

 

It will be online, someday-somehow, but shoot...make it easy for people to vote.

[Landlord]

3 hours ago, zoogs said:

I've read your stances on economic issues and I think I'm reflecting the gulf of your aversion to the Democrats' stance accurately.

 

 

While also calling it "sinister" and lightly implying that BRB shares a monolith of perspective with Paul Ryan and his ilk, and also in a very nice and polite way suggesting, "You're wrong and uneducated on this matter, you should become a Democrat because we know better."

 

 

[zoogs]

^Why are you so drawn to "both sides" arguments?

 

The caricature of Democrats presented is a sinister one. It's "the Democrats want to take over and impose big entitlement programs and this will be harmful." You could argue from a certain perspective that it's not a caricature at all, and that it really is the nature of the party to give more and more handouts because the populace will gladly support being given entitlements, and that this will be our ruin. This point is worth arguing, and it's the genesis of this entire debate. I think I among many wouldn't agree with it at all. One of the more logical explanations for why someone might is that they are traditionally Republican on economics.

 

I do not say that he shares a monolith of perspective with Paul Ryan. He appears to share a fundamental view of how economics works based on the things he said. In fact, the last time we were talking about taxes I offered emphatically that BRB and I don't really come from very different places when it comes down to it. He responded in no uncertain terms that this was extremely incorrect. This doesn't make him an awful person, but I do think "traditionally Republican" / "fiscal conservative" / etc are reasonable terms to describe that gulf.

 

I do think people who have that view: that corporate tax cuts need to be cut to unlock growth, entitlements are the bane of productivity, etc....are wrong.   Not awful as human beings, but incorrect. Naturally, these people think the liberal model is the wrong one. But they do not view GOP fiscal policy as the reason the Republican Party has abandoned them, or the reason Republicans right now are terrible. At least, I'd be fascinated to hear an explanation for why they do.

 

You're looking for a personal drama here and I am sorry that what I want instead is an exploration of policy stances.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, zoogs said:

^Why are you so drawn to "both sides" arguments?

 

The caricature of Democrats presented is a sinister one. It's "the Democrats want to take over and impose big entitlement programs and this will be harmful." You could argue from a certain perspective that it's not a caricature at all, and that it really is the nature of the party to give more and more handouts because the populace will gladly support being given entitlements, and that this will be our ruin. This point is worth arguing, and it's the genesis of this entire debate. I think I among many wouldn't agree with it at all. One of the more logical explanations for why someone might is that they are traditionally Republican on economics.

 

I do not say that he shares a monolith of perspective with Paul Ryan. He appears to share a fundamental view of how economics works based on the things he said. In fact, the last time we were talking about taxes I offered emphatically that BRB and I don't really come from very different places when it comes down to it. He responded in no uncertain terms that this was extremely incorrect. This doesn't make him an awful person, but I do think "traditionally Republican" / "fiscal conservative" / etc are reasonable terms to describe that gulf.

 

I do think people who have that view: that corporate tax cuts need to be cut to unlock growth, entitlements are the bane of productivity, etc....are wrong.   Not awful as human beings, but incorrect. Naturally, these people think the liberal model is the wrong one. But they do not view GOP fiscal policy as the reason the Republican Party has abandoned them, or the reason Republicans right now are terrible. At least, I'd be fascinated to hear an explanation for why they do.

 

You're looking for a personal drama here and I am sorry that what I want instead is an exploration of policy stances.

 

 

 

Bold:  You seem to have a real problem with "both sides".  To my knowledge, the only "both sides" statement I might have made is that I don't want to be associated with either party.

 

The rest of the time you try to tie me to the Republican Party in some way to prove that my fiscal views are somehow all disgustingly wrong.

 

Since, I haven't been a member of the Republican party for years, I would rather discuss issues individually and not go through and exercise of you trying to discount my views because they are somehow tied (in your mind) to the Republican Party.

 

I have proven over and over again that I am more than willing to break from the modern Republican Party on issues.

 

So, stop trying to equate me with them.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

We shouldn't vote during the week. Election Day should be on a Saturday when more people have off, or even two days, Saturday & Sunday.

 

Other first-world nations have figured this out. We're the laggards.

Yes  I like that option.  I think it is even better than absentee  ballots when it comes to security.  I'd rather spread it out 2 days when people don't have work, school and a host of so many other distractions to get in the way.  Weekend or a 2 day National Holiday when everyone  can be off one of those days would be best. 

[zoogs]

Let's discuss GOP fiscal policy individually, then. Why do you find it "disgustingly wrong"? Again -- you added the adjective. I don't. I do think -- emphasize on "think" -- that it is mistaken.

 

We aren't arguing over whether or not you are willing to break from the modern Republican issue, by the way. What I want to talk about here is economic policy. Where we all differ, how far we differ, from whom we differ, for what reasons, and so on. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by zoogs