IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gop , republicans

Reply
Old 28th November 2009, 08:15 PM   #121
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
The only upside I see to this situation is that, in the long run, it could break the logjam of our two-party system. As a guy who voted Reform Party more than once, I wouldn't mind seeing something else on the table (if for no other reason, such as in the case of the TP nuts, to get some entertainment value out of it).
Not going to happen. It could be that a party will die and be replaced but no political group is going to rewrite the constitution to limit their own power. With out the backing of one party at least there is no way to get the constitution changed to permit multiple parties.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 08:19 PM   #122
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This doesn't follow from what I said. We could be living in the early 19th century and I'd point out how insane it is that blacks are counted as 3/5ths of a person. You could dig out your Constitution and point but it's rather meaningless in the context of my moral outrage.
And moral outrage is pointless here. Unless you are proposing violent revolution things are the way they are.

Quote:
It seems that at least two cities have adopted preferential voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
And it means squat nationally.


Quote:
It's a rotten system. Our elections are ********** up all the way down the line. The Patrician anti-democratic Senate, the gerrymandered House (where politicians choose voters rather than voters choosing politicians), and the antiquated Electoral College. It's all crap.
Sure so is anything you care to name. Trial by jury, income tax...
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 08:21 PM   #123
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by cwalner View Post
Paging Ralph Nader. Al Gore is on the line, he wants his election back.
Or George Bush and Ross Perot, Or Teddy Roosevelt and Taft.

And then there are all the local elections.

Two parties is the stable solution to American voting procedures.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 08:25 PM   #124
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by willhaven View Post
It's been, what, 150 years since we've had a viable 3rd party? I wish there were one.

Better than two. None would be best of all.
The US never really had a viable 3rd party. Three parties are unstable, hence why they do show up on occasion they don't last. They can supplant a major party but three parties is not tenable in the long term.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 08:48 PM   #125
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?
Only if you think you have a political party that represents you.

Remember republicans know that the best time for increasing the debt is when the economy is doing well. That way when there are problems you can use the debt to hammer your opponents. This is fiscal conservative in the US.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 09:31 PM   #126
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
Re: unifying principles:
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Wrong again.

I invite you to go read the party platforms. You'll find they're a list of platitudes.
This isn't much of an argument. A political party is ostensibly organized around a set of ideas. We can call them principles, or if we're less charitable we can call them "platitudes" but they represent ideas that animate party adherents.

Quote:
In the USA, the last thing you want is unifying principles, because that's limiting.

What you want are vague talking points, emotion-based slogans, and a platform that's loose enough to allow disparate (even opposed) factions to get under the tent.

The movement toward a genuine set of unifying principles is a serious threat to the Republican party.
It's amusing how people almost seem to think the Republican Party must, for the good of the country, attempt to broaden its base of support. If the GOP marginalizes itself, then a new party can arise, one that appeals to center-right voters.

In any event, the greater concern, what's in far more need of reform, are the anti-representative, anti-democratic institutions by which the public (supposedly) expresses its will.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 12:14 AM   #127
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy

Fact is, the failed strategies of the extreme right have managed to decimate our party when their anti-reality stance got its ass kicked by reality (e.g., military quagmires, financial collapse, and denial of environmental truths which even "big business" now generally accepts) and as a result the large majority of those who are still left happen to be from dead-ender districts and therefore are beholden to folks who persist in their fantasies of a workable unregulated market and other such pipe dreams.
I listed the three primary Republican principles above. A number of things done by Republicans in the past decade or so have actually been contrary to our stated objectives. You need not look far to see what I mean. This is why we have failed.

Originally Posted by Piggy
Where did you get that idea?

(I suspect datum ex rectum.)

There are many reasons for shifts in party power, but losing ideological purity ain't one of them.
Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 12:50 AM   #128
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
With out the backing of one party at least there is no way to get the constitution changed to permit multiple parties.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 12:58 AM   #129
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.
Yep, I do. According to Wiki:
Quote:
On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:

* require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
* select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.
Did that happen. Nope. Newt's contract was electioneering pablum, nothing more. Just like this latest litmus test.

BTW, looking at the other side, I heard a funny comment about Dems the other day. Paraphrasing: "The Dems have one major accomplishment. They've learned to walk upright without a spine."
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 01:29 AM   #130
Whiplash
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Only if you think you have a political party that represents you.

Remember republicans know that the best time for increasing the debt is when the economy is doing well. That way when there are problems you can use the debt to hammer your opponents. This is fiscal conservative in the US.

This is simply your opinion, and very cynical.

A vast number of Republican's were unhappy with the spending that went on during Bush.

I'm tempted to make an ivory towers type comment because the fact that so many people insist that they never saw that sort of thing doesn't prove it didn't happen. I was still listening to Rush for the first few years of Bush's presidency. And he was lambasting the moderate Republicans constantly. And he started out very apprehensively with regards to Bush. We all did, his record was that of someone who was very moderate ("reaching across the isle" and "bringing both parties together in Texas"). It's funny how he turned out to be Hitler incarnate.

There are some Republican's who do believe in some of the social engineering that many others do not. And some of them are simply pandering to special interests and other voting blocks in the same manner so many politicians on the left also do. These are not the core of the party. These people do not stand up for the true conservative values. There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only). But sadly, many on the left want to just believe that we are all one big block and that we all stood by without any negative comments or unhappiness in the Bush years whatsoever. It's pure ********.

If some of you would expand your horizons a bit you'd see that was the case.

Last edited by Whiplash; 29th November 2009 at 01:31 AM.
Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 01:45 AM   #131
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
 
KoihimeNakamura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,958
Originally Posted by Whiplash View Post
There are some Republican's who do believe in some of the social engineering that many others do not. And some of them are simply pandering to special interests and other voting blocks in the same manner so many politicians on the left also do. These are not the core of the party. These people do not stand up for the true conservative values. There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only). But sadly, many on the left want to just believe that we are all one big block and that we all stood by without any negative comments or unhappiness in the Bush years whatsoever. It's pure ********. .
This is sorta the problem: If you adopt this, you WILL be one big block. Incidentally, good No True Scotsman.
__________________
Don't mind me.
KoihimeNakamura is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:29 AM   #132
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
An argument could be made to ban abortion on nonreligious terms. For example, murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. You don't have to crab about the soul to realize that. (I don't believe in the discrete, personalized existence of a soul.) Second, you can refuse gay marriage and still pass the test.
I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:30 AM   #133
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.
Don't forget Regan as well.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:38 AM   #134
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.
How is that a mark of backbone? How much of the contract with america did they even make an effort to get passed into law?

It was great propaganda but pretty meaningless in terms of legislation.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:41 AM   #135
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties.
So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs? A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:44 AM   #136
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Whiplash View Post
This is simply your opinion, and very cynical.

A vast number of Republican's were unhappy with the spending that went on during Bush.
Not enough to actually say do anything about it or not tow the party line. Just enough to make quips now and then to make it seem like they have the balls to do anything.
Quote:
I'm tempted to make an ivory towers type comment because the fact that so many people insist that they never saw that sort of thing doesn't prove it didn't happen. I was still listening to Rush for the first few years of Bush's presidency. And he was lambasting the moderate Republicans constantly. And he started out very apprehensively with regards to Bush. We all did, his record was that of someone who was very moderate ("reaching across the isle" and "bringing both parties together in Texas"). It's funny how he turned out to be Hitler incarnate.
Nice godwin there.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:40 AM   #137
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This isn't much of an argument. A political party is ostensibly organized around a set of ideas. We can call them principles, or if we're less charitable we can call them "platitudes" but they represent ideas that animate party adherents.
So you still haven't read the platforms, eh? Well, ok.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:44 AM   #138
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It's amusing how people almost seem to think the Republican Party must, for the good of the country, attempt to broaden its base of support. If the GOP marginalizes itself, then a new party can arise, one that appeals to center-right voters.
So you're saying that people don't actually think this, they don't even seem to think it, but they almost seem to think it?

Actually, I agree that the GOP needs to broaden its base of support for the good of the country (because if they don't, we'll have single-party rule by the Democrats, which will invite groupthink and corruption) but the topic at hand is what the party needs to do for its own good, and if it continues down the path of ideological purity it will find itself at a dead end.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:47 AM   #139
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
I listed the three primary Republican principles above. A number of things done by Republicans in the past decade or so have actually been contrary to our stated objectives. You need not look far to see what I mean. This is why we have failed.
And what makes you think ideological purity is going to put us in any position to have enough muscle to push your ideals?

Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.
Oh, yeah. Nice piece of marketing thought up by Frank Luntz.

It wasn't backbone, it was public relations.

Let's not confuse campaign rhetoric with the process of governing.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:50 AM   #140
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Whiplash View Post
There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only).
Well, the primary reason for the term RINO is that it helped radio personalities whip up their audiences, and therefore sell more advertisements, which makes them rich.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:52 AM   #141
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.
That has always been the stance of the far left and right wings.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:53 AM   #142
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs? A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.


I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 11:54 AM   #143
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
so, what is the status of this Republican Aryan...I mean litmus test?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 12:43 PM   #144
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.
Submit platitudes, and you shall receive: You don't want government screwing around in your life women's lives, but screwing around in the lives of others babies is fine with you.

Quote:
How is that a mark of backbone? How much of the contract with america did they even make an effort to get passed into law?

It was great propaganda but pretty meaningless in terms of legislation.
That's the point. Once they got into office, Republicans forgot about their principles. Their legislative dominance was, from then on, as much of a liability as an asset.

Originally Posted by Piggy
And what makes you think ideological purity is going to put us in any position to have enough muscle to push your ideals?
I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.


By the way, why make four separate posts in a row? Same goes to ponderingturtle...
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 01:27 PM   #145
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs?
Of course not. But you've been talking about needing to amend the Constitution to allow more parties. Right now, numerous parties run presidential candidates such as the Greens. That they don't get many votes does not mean they don't exist.



Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.
Again, we do NOT have a two party system. We have a multi-party system dominated by the two largest parties.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 02:24 PM   #146
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.


By the way, why make four separate posts in a row? Same goes to ponderingturtle...
Re the split posts, I find them easier to read. I hate slogging through epic posts on a dozen different points, and prefer it if folks split up the points and deal with them separately. Just my style.

As for what you consider "basic Republican principles", seems to me you're merely pointing out that the campaign rhetoric is just that.

But perhaps the problem is with the campaign rhetoric. I mean, look where it's gotten us... beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads.

To say that we actually need to follow through on a radical reduction of government (a decidedly non-conservative way to go about things, btw) in order to make things match up just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, consider what would happen if we really did that, throwing thousands of people out of work, cutting many tax-funded programs that are working fine (which would have to be done) and further reducing regulatory oversight while constricting the social safety net. There'd be outrage.

People like the idea of small government, but they're not too hot about the reality of small government.

Also consider that we just got trounced by a campaign that did not use that tack, and that the most adored Republican icon is a textbook 20th-century big-government Republican, Ronald Reagan, who ballooned both the size of government and federal deficits.

No, I just don't see any reason to believe that attempting to follow thru on the talking points would work at all.

Like him or not, Obama was right when he said that a choice between "big government" and "small government" is not the issue. The question is how much government we need to do the things we want government to do.

And when you consider that this is a nation of 300 million people, encompassing 50 states, and spanning an entire continent, the very notion that a shoestring government could effectively administer the country is dubious at best.

That's probably why the notion of small government is more popular among talk show hosts and campaign managers than it is on Pennsylvania Avenue.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 02:25 PM   #147
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Now, what happens if the Democrats offer to let in those Republicans who fail the litmus test, or decide they cannot be a member of a party that has a litmus test?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 02:30 PM   #148
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
Now, what happens if the Democrats offer to let in those Republicans who fail the litmus test, or decide they cannot be a member of a party that has a litmus test?
Then they form a coalition with the Blue Dogs and take the party away from the traditional liberals. Which means that such an offer is not forthcoming.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 02:57 PM   #149
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Piggy
Re the split posts, I find them easier to read. I hate slogging through epic posts on a dozen different points, and prefer it if folks split up the points and deal with them separately. Just my style.
Ah, gotcha.

Quote:
As for what you consider "basic Republican principles", seems to me you're merely pointing out that the campaign rhetoric is just that.

But perhaps the problem is with the campaign rhetoric. I mean, look where it's gotten us... beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads.
(I'll address the point about rhetoric later.) First, Palin and Beck aren't (currently) running for office, so they aren't running us aground directly. Second, are we really beholden to them? Given how eclectic the mix of Tea Partiers is, I don't buy that they all take marching orders from either. That is simply a stereotype read into the news by liberals. Third, are they actually following through with basic conservatism in their proposals? (this is not a rhetorical question, just something I would like to hear your opinion on.) And fourth, if they are, is that a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Piggy
To say that we actually need to follow through on a radical reduction of government (a decidedly non-conservative way to go about things, btw) in order to make things match up just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, consider what would happen if we really did that, throwing thousands of people out of work, cutting many tax-funded programs that are working fine (which would have to be done) and further reducing regulatory oversight while constricting the social safety net. There'd be outrage.

People like the idea of small government, but they're not too hot about the reality of small government.
Hold up: you're saying that one way to move in the direction of small government is too drastic and unwarranted. Perhaps it is. But would it be too much to ask that those who proclaim themselves Republicans would avoid big-government solutions and actually try to come up with conservative answers?

We can argue about whether reducing our dependency on social help/handouts is a bad thing or not. Perhaps it is - perhaps our society has been incorrigibly altered. But it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me to run with intelligent small-government proposals, instead of going "moderate" (read: deficit spending). We've had plenty of examples of that in the past decade.

To give you an idea of how I believe Republican principles can work in practice, I'll give some examples:

1: Small, nonintrusive government. We get government out of people's sexual preferences wrt gay marriage (by legalizing it or getting out of marriage altogether) and submit to the rights of private American citizens in regards to wiretapping by making sure we do it legally.

2: Fiscal conservatism. We stop signing costly boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the bailouts into law. We let capitalism take its course, e.g. allowing firms to fail. We actually move to balance the budget.

3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.

I don't think those proposals are too far from the mainstream.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 02:59 PM   #150
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Then they form a coalition with the Blue Dogs and take the party away from the traditional liberals. Which means that such an offer is not forthcoming.
well, if social liberal/fiscal conservatives are no longer welcome in the RNC, and the Democrats won't have them, then new party we shall see!!



or, they could stay Republican, but vote with the Democrats. boy..would that sting.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 03:01 PM   #151
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.
and how about, getting American troops out of Europe and Japan? that might save us a good $100 billion a year.

or do you think we still need to protect the Europeans from the USSR, and the Japanese from Mao?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 03:02 PM   #152
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
Cain: This doesn't follow from what I said.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And moral outrage is pointless here.
And yet, your original argument still doesn't follow. I'm just putting my words in a context.

Quote:
Unless you are proposing violent revolution things are the way they are.
How is a violent revolution even implied?

Quote:
And it means squat nationally.
You were talking about unspecified elections. Local level politics is subject to institutional reform; such reforms have to start somewhere and then work their way up.

Quote:
Sure so is anything you care to name. Trial by jury, income tax...
Now you're just ********ting. There are varying degrees of **********-up-ness. Moreover, there's also a huge chasm between where people are today philosophically -- "my vote for president should count, all votes should count equally" -- and the way institutions actually function. Voting is also, um, sort of important, because it's how we change everything else -- provided you do want to avoid violent revolution.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 03:08 PM   #153
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
and how about, getting American troops out of Europe and Japan? that might save us a good $100 billion a year.

or do you think we still need to protect the Europeans from the USSR, and the Japanese from Mao?
I believe the reality is a little more complicated. For example, Poland and other Eastern European countries threw a fit when we appeared to withdraw the missile shield...because of Russian aggression. Ahem.

Also, those bases allow us to respond flexibly to threats that occur anywhere in the world, and they provide a convenient midpoint for both supplies and wounded troops.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 03:11 PM   #154
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
I believe the reality is a little more complicated. For example, Poland and other Eastern European countries threw a fit when we appeared to withdraw the missile shield...because of Russian aggression. Ahem.
Russian aggression..against whom??

since when does our national security decisions depend on the temporary political needs of Poland and the Czech Republic?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 03:16 PM   #155
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
Russian aggression..against whom??

since when does our national security decisions depend on the temporary political needs of Poland and the Czech Republic?
Don't take it from me.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 04:21 PM   #156
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Right....Czar Nicholas is gonna send his troops into neighboring Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

uh huh.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 04:33 PM   #157
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
Right....Czar Nicholas is gonna send his troops into neighboring Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

uh huh.
It's more complicated than that, parky. Although I do notice your need to reduce everything to a caricature of Palin's thought process.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:32 PM   #158
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
It's more complicated than that, parky. Although I do notice your need to reduce everything to a caricature of Palin's thought process.
funny...i didn't even think of that.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 09:11 PM   #159
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
First, Palin and Beck aren't (currently) running for office, so they aren't running us aground directly. Second, are we really beholden to them? Given how eclectic the mix of Tea Partiers is, I don't buy that they all take marching orders from either. That is simply a stereotype read into the news by liberals. Third, are they actually following through with basic conservatism in their proposals? (this is not a rhetorical question, just something I would like to hear your opinion on.) And fourth, if they are, is that a bad thing?
I'm not saying that Beck and Palin in particular are calling any shots.

When I say that the party is beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads, I mean that most Republicans in office now cannot continue to hold their seats if they lose the support of the kind of people who are the core audience for folks like Beck and Palin -- that is, people who buy into conspiracy theories and extreme rhetoric, and don't have any clear grasp of political, economic, environmental, and cultural realities.

That's who we've wound up in bed with. And now we find that there's no one else to shack up with, so most Republican office-holders dare not risk getting kicked out of that flea-infested bed for fear of being left out in the cold altogether.

Do I consider Beck and Palin to be core conservatives? Hell no! They're radicals. And disengagement from reality, which is the hallmark of their agenda, is decidedly not a basic conservative tenet. It's mere populist nuttery wrapping itself in the conservative banner.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 09:14 PM   #160
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Sporanox View Post
Hold up: you're saying that one way to move in the direction of small government is too drastic and unwarranted. Perhaps it is. But would it be too much to ask that those who proclaim themselves Republicans would avoid big-government solutions and actually try to come up with conservative answers?
Where did you get this idea that the core of conservative governance is a devotion to abandoning the responsibility to govern at all?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.