Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 17:08:58 GMT -5
If you could link to the post, I'd appreciate it. But you're right to suggest this discussion thus far has been about what isn't suitable, not what is. i will see if i can find it. i have to remember the exact title, or at least come close. If you don't find it, I'll put it in the YMAM scavenger hunt. I already know what the hardest find (a score of 100 points) will be: Find a post where DJ endorses the Republican party or a Republican candidate, and where the endorsement is i) three sentences or longer in its entirety, ii) not immediately preceded or succeeded by an equally favourable endorsement of a Democratic candidate, and iii) not posted in response to a criticism that DJ is not truly a Republican.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 17:17:21 GMT -5
i will see if i can find it. i have to remember the exact title, or at least come close. If you don't find it, I'll put it in the YMAM scavenger hunt. I already know what the hardest find (a score of 100 points) will be: Find a post where DJ endorses the Republican party or a Republican candidate, and where the endorsement is i) three sentences or longer in its entirety, ii) not immediately preceded or succeeded by an equally favourable endorsement of a Democratic candidate, and iii) not posted in response to a criticism that DJ is not truly a Republican. am i eligible, because i can find that in under two mins.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 17:26:49 GMT -5
bush thread post 654.
it was not the one i was looking for (where i endorsed rand paul), which was even shorter.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 17:55:26 GMT -5
bush thread post 654. it was not the one i was looking for (where i endorsed rand paul), which was even shorter. The Rand Paul one wouldn't count because it was four words, not "three sentences or more in its entirety". If memory serves, it was "I like Rand Paul." I'm looking for something where you actually exhibit some passion in supporting or defending a Republican candidate. Something where you come out strongly in favour of candidate, articulate your reasons for doing so, and defend your advocacy in the face of criticism. That's why I put in the three qualifications. I can recall at least a half-dozen instances where you've given a perfunctory nod of approval to a Republican candidate, but none that showed any depth, passion, or undeniable sincerity. I'm looking for something halfway comparable to the vigor with which you attack Republican policies you don't approve of or defend Democratic policies you do approve of. "I like Rand Paul." need not apply. I don't know what the "Bush thread" is, but if it contains DJ being passionate about Republicanism in a positive way, point me to it and shut me up for good. ETA: I'm not insinuating that you should be a Republican supporter or that your criticisms of Republicans aren't valid, but for somebody with more than 40,000 posts who calls himself "Republican", you ought to be able find at least one or two instances where you passionately endorse or defend something that the Republican Party stands for.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 18:18:50 GMT -5
bush thread post 654. it was not the one i was looking for (where i endorsed rand paul), which was even shorter. The Rand Paul one wouldn't count because it was four words, not "three sentences or more in its entirety". If memory serves, it was "I like Rand Paul." I'm looking for something where you actually exhibit some passion in supporting or defending a Republican candidate. Something where you come out strongly in favour of candidate, articulate your reasons for doing so, and defend your advocacy in the face of criticism. That's why I put in the three qualifications. I can recall at least a half-dozen instances where you've given a perfunctory nod of approval to a Republican candidate, but none that showed any depth, passion, or undeniable sincerity. I'm looking for something halfway comparable to the vigor with which you attack Republican policies you don't approve of or defend Democratic policies you do approve of. "I like Rand Paul." need not apply. I don't know what the "Bush thread" is, but if it contains DJ being passionate about Republicanism in a positive way, point me to it and shut me up for good. ETA: I'm not insinuating that you should be a Republican supporter or that your criticisms of Republicans aren't valid, but for somebody with more than 40,000 posts who calls himself "Republican", you ought to be able find at least one or two instances where you passionately endorse or defend something that the Republican Party stands for. oh, ok. in that case: bush thread post 654. but for the record, i support Rand Paul for the same reason i supported his dad: his non-interventionism and his pro-legalization positions. that is as much as i can expect from any candidate these days, and certainly more from any Democrat. i am sure i have articulated that elsewhere, but if not, i have certainly endorsed them elsewhere, and have articulated it, here. if that is not good enough for you, the bush thread, post 654 will have to do. i can't get passionate about politics, Virgil. i am not some dewey eyed teen. i am pragmatic. sorry, but if you are looking for that, you will not find me endorsing ANY candidate that way- either right, left, or center. people are flawed, and so are candidates. and to deal with your ETA, i am not that interested in parties. however, the Democrats have not run one that i could endorse in 20 years, and the GOP has, so that is why i am a Republican. i have explained that in probably 0.1% of my posts, but hopefully it will sink in this time so i won't have to add to that. edit: you are a clever fellow. find a thread with Bush in the title than has at least 654 posts, and you will find it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2015 18:21:47 GMT -5
To put it in the words of the two legal immigrants there that voted for Obama twice: "we were DONE with Democrats. Enough illegals. Enough islamic extremism. Enough debt. Enough!!!" DJ has a point that Mr. Trump's plan makes even less financial sense than Mr. Sanders'. And that... almost... defies the laws of physical reality. Aren't there any other candidates that want to avoid suicidal spending increases while simultaneously avoiding suicidal tax cuts? Can't you point people in that direction. Maybe buy yourselves a few years? There's no such thing as "suicidal tax cuts", so I'm afraid I'll have to reject the premise. Trump's plan just barely returns us to essentially the post 1986 Reagan-era tax code. Left in place, and with the corresponding spending cuts which were promised, but never delivered on by the Democrat controlled House, we'd have been fine. There are a number of ways to deal with out of control spending- from eliminating and consolidating federal agencies, to more moderate plans like the penny plan. The critical principle we have to embrace is that there IS a moral as well as practical limit to government's authority to tax, spend, and borrow. I reject the premise of people that speak of tax cuts as though they are "spending". If your income is cut, you make adjustments. We The People will decide what we'll allocate to government, and then government must live within its means just like us. The entitlement mentality of our government, our politicians, and their endless number of defenders is almost unbearable. Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Overspending does.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2015 18:24:17 GMT -5
BINGFUCKINGGO. Go back to your side of the aisle, dj.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 18:25:31 GMT -5
DJ has a point that Mr. Trump's plan makes even less financial sense than Mr. Sanders'. And that... almost... defies the laws of physical reality. Aren't there any other candidates that want to avoid suicidal spending increases while simultaneously avoiding suicidal tax cuts? Can't you point people in that direction. Maybe buy yourselves a few years? There's no such thing as "suicidal tax cuts", so I'm afraid I'll have to reject the premise. Trump's plan just barely returns us to essentially the post 1986 Reagan-era tax code. Left in place, and with the corresponding spending cuts which were promised, but never delivered on by the Democrat controlled House, we'd have been fine. There are a number of ways to deal with out of control spending- from eliminating and consolidating federal agencies, to more moderate plans like the penny plan. The critical principle we have to embrace is that there IS a moral as well as practical limit to government's authority to tax, spend, and borrow. I reject the premise of people that speak of tax cuts as though they are "spending". If your income is cut, you make adjustments. We The People will decide what we'll allocate to government, and then government must live within its means just like us. The entitlement mentality of our government, our politicians, and their endless number of defenders is almost unbearable. Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Overspending does. tax cuts don't cause balanced budgets. cutting spending does. aren't word games fun?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 18:25:47 GMT -5
BINGFUCKINGGO. Go back to your side of the aisle, dj. i answered his challenge. twice. and i AM on my side of the aisle. stop crowding me out, bro.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2015 18:26:53 GMT -5
And btw, the fact that you can find and point to "an" example, actually strengthens the point. Which points of the Republican Party platform do you agree with? Smaller government? Not that I can tell. Lower taxes? Anathema! Fewer regulations? You actually defend ObamaCare and have gone so far as to say it should have been full blown socialized medicine. There's simply no doubt about it, djAdvocate you support a VERY, not just middle of the road, but VERY liberal / socialist / democratic agenda.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2015 18:28:32 GMT -5
There's no such thing as "suicidal tax cuts", so I'm afraid I'll have to reject the premise. Trump's plan just barely returns us to essentially the post 1986 Reagan-era tax code. Left in place, and with the corresponding spending cuts which were promised, but never delivered on by the Democrat controlled House, we'd have been fine. There are a number of ways to deal with out of control spending- from eliminating and consolidating federal agencies, to more moderate plans like the penny plan. The critical principle we have to embrace is that there IS a moral as well as practical limit to government's authority to tax, spend, and borrow. I reject the premise of people that speak of tax cuts as though they are "spending". If your income is cut, you make adjustments. We The People will decide what we'll allocate to government, and then government must live within its means just like us. The entitlement mentality of our government, our politicians, and their endless number of defenders is almost unbearable. Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Overspending does. tax cuts don't cause balanced budgets. cutting spending does. aren't word games fun? It's not word games at all. Tax cuts aren't spending. They simply represent the money the citizens allocate to government. It's up to government to do it's legitimate duties with the money allocated.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 18:32:13 GMT -5
And btw, the fact that you can find and point to "an" example, actually strengthens the point. only if you can find more than zero in support of Democrats. good luck with that.Which points of the Republican Party platform do you agree with? Smaller government? Not that I can tell. then you didn't read my post on the presidential platform thread.Lower taxes? Anathema! i am in favor of balanced budgets, not huge Reaganeque deficits.Fewer regulations? You actually defend ObamaCare and have gone so far as to say it should have been full blown socialized medicine. you are mistaking me for loving the government when, in fact, it is my hatred of private insurance that drives this argument.There's simply no doubt about it, djAdvocate you support a VERY, not just middle of the road, but VERY liberal / socialist / democratic agenda. i am quite liberal. undeniably. but i am far too libertarian to have much in common with the "democratic agenda", whatever that is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 18:36:53 GMT -5
tax cuts don't cause balanced budgets. cutting spending does. aren't word games fun? It's not word games at all. yes it is, because if you cut taxes to zero, you will have a deficit, no matter how little you spend.Tax cuts aren't spending. They simply represent the money the citizens allocate to government. It's up to government to do it's legitimate duties with the money allocated. agreed. we just differ on what those legitimate purposes are.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 19:35:40 GMT -5
The Rand Paul one wouldn't count because it was four words, not "three sentences or more in its entirety". If memory serves, it was "I like Rand Paul." I'm looking for something where you actually exhibit some passion in supporting or defending a Republican candidate. Something where you come out strongly in favour of candidate, articulate your reasons for doing so, and defend your advocacy in the face of criticism. That's why I put in the three qualifications. I can recall at least a half-dozen instances where you've given a perfunctory nod of approval to a Republican candidate, but none that showed any depth, passion, or undeniable sincerity. I'm looking for something halfway comparable to the vigor with which you attack Republican policies you don't approve of or defend Democratic policies you do approve of. "I like Rand Paul." need not apply. I don't know what the "Bush thread" is, but if it contains DJ being passionate about Republicanism in a positive way, point me to it and shut me up for good. ETA: I'm not insinuating that you should be a Republican supporter or that your criticisms of Republicans aren't valid, but for somebody with more than 40,000 posts who calls himself "Republican", you ought to be able find at least one or two instances where you passionately endorse or defend something that the Republican Party stands for. oh, ok. in that case: bush thread post 654. but for the record, i support Rand Paul for the same reason i supported his dad: his non-interventionism and his pro-legalization positions. that is as much as i can expect from any candidate these days, and certainly more from any Democrat. i am sure i have articulated that elsewhere, but if not, i have certainly endorsed them elsewhere, and have articulated it, here. if that is not good enough for you, the bush thread, post 654 will have to do. i can't get passionate about politics, Virgil. i am not some dewey eyed teen. i am pragmatic. sorry, but if you are looking for that, you will not find me endorsing ANY candidate that way- either right, left, or center. people are flawed, and so are candidates. and to deal with your ETA, i am not that interested in parties. however, the Democrats have not run one that i could endorse in 20 years, and the GOP has, so that is why i am a Republican. i have explained that in probably 0.1% of my posts, but hopefully it will sink in this time so i won't have to add to that. edit: you are a clever fellow. find a thread with Bush in the title than has at least 654 posts, and you will find it. I found: "i am sure i will draw the ire of Paul for this, but i like Rubio AS A CANDIDATE. he polls well against Clinton, and he knows how to campaign. i think he has a shot at winning." Wow. There's burning hot passion right there. You want to see DJ being passionate about politics? ymam.proboards.com/post/2368208/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2365147/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2089446/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2138574/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2281916/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2346632/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1732310/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2341165/threadThis is a tiny sample of recent months. Issues you were passionate about. Issues you debated for days, weeks, months. A sure sign is the proliferation of bold, ALLCAPS, and 4+ posts in a row. Note that you were against the GOP position on every single issue: torture, immigration, government shutdown, voter ID, religious freedom vs. public accommodation, gun control, pro life vs. pro choice, deregulation, social security reform, raising vs. lowering taxes, and on and on. I can't rightly think of one issue besides possibly climate change (which you aren't passionate about) where you do side with the Republican Party. And I'm not convinced you even side with them there. I'm not sure what your vision of Republicanism is exactly, but I guarantee you that it bears no resemblance to the real stuff from past 25 years. I'd have an easier time believing Paul is a "conservative Democrat", only he has the sense not to call himself that. If YMAM truly is how you show your support for Republicanism, please, for the love of sweet snowy leopards, don't support the campaign of any decent Independent candidate in future. He or she won't be able to survive your "support".
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 27, 2015 20:31:54 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 20:33:47 GMT -5
oh, ok. in that case: bush thread post 654. but for the record, i support Rand Paul for the same reason i supported his dad: his non-interventionism and his pro-legalization positions. that is as much as i can expect from any candidate these days, and certainly more from any Democrat. i am sure i have articulated that elsewhere, but if not, i have certainly endorsed them elsewhere, and have articulated it, here. if that is not good enough for you, the bush thread, post 654 will have to do. i can't get passionate about politics, Virgil. i am not some dewey eyed teen. i am pragmatic. sorry, but if you are looking for that, you will not find me endorsing ANY candidate that way- either right, left, or center. people are flawed, and so are candidates. and to deal with your ETA, i am not that interested in parties. however, the Democrats have not run one that i could endorse in 20 years, and the GOP has, so that is why i am a Republican. i have explained that in probably 0.1% of my posts, but hopefully it will sink in this time so i won't have to add to that. edit: you are a clever fellow. find a thread with Bush in the title than has at least 654 posts, and you will find it. I found: "i am sure i will draw the ire of Paul for this, but i like Rubio AS A CANDIDATE. he polls well against Clinton, and he knows how to campaign. i think he has a shot at winning." yep, that's it. you added the "passionate" qualifications after the fact**. 654 meets your initial qualifications: Find a post where DJ endorses the Republican party or a Republican candidate, and where the endorsement is i) three sentences or longer in its entirety, ii) not immediately preceded or succeeded by an equally favourable endorsement of a Democratic candidate, and iii) not posted in response to a criticism that DJ is not truly a Republican.
three sentences about a republican candidate, supportive, and...not posted as a criticism of my lack of party position. so, yeah. search over. note: i am going to delete all of the personal remarks out of your posts from now on before i respond to you. you are welcome to do the same. **i want you to note that you did this, because i am adding qualifiers to my politics remark, which didn't come out as i intended, EITHER.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2015 20:35:34 GMT -5
Might we please get back to discussing the possibility of President Trump and away from discussing other posters? Thank you in advance.
mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 20:37:12 GMT -5
You want to see DJ being passionate about politics? sorry, i meant politicians, not politics. and i meant in a POSITIVE way. when someone says "passionate" i think of LOVE, not HATE. but i realize now that is not correct. i have lots of bad things to say about politicians, and lots of good AND bad things to say about politics, i just don't have a lot of (positive) passion FOR politicians. if that is your claim about me, you are absolutely right. i don't. so my half hearted endorsement of Rubio is about as good as it gets. but here is my claim: i might not be passionate about Republicans but i am certainly not passionate about Democrats, either. you won't find many (any?) Democrats that back my positions. Sanders is close, but he is nowhere near as fiscally conservative as i am. is he a social liberal? you bet. but Rand Paul is also a social liberal. and way more of a fiscal conservative than Sanders. if i were to vote party line, i would never vote, Virgil. so, please, gmafb.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 27, 2015 20:37:45 GMT -5
Might we please get back to discussing the possibility of President Trump and away from discussing other posters? Thank you in advance. mmhmm, Politics Moderator If that is trolling I demand all emoticons be removed from this board. Everyone uses these emotiocons to agree with posts they see. ty
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2015 20:38:55 GMT -5
Okay, that's quite enough. Any further discussion that isn't somewhere approaching the topic of this thread will be removed. This is getting stupid, boys.
mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,240
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 27, 2015 20:45:50 GMT -5
Virgil, I know this may be hard to accept, but the only requirement to be a Republican or a Democrat is to register as one. That's it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 20:53:36 GMT -5
Virgil, I know this may be hard to accept, but the only requirement to be a Republican or a Democrat is to register as one. That's it.
i have stated before, many times, that i am a registered Republican so that i can vote for libertarians that run on the ticket in our CLOSED PRIMARY SYSTEM. i don't know why that is so hard to understand. Virgil seems to think that getting mad about my party is somehow disqualifying. that wanting the politics of my party to change is disqualifying. well let me ask you this: when you have a friend that is abusing themselves, to you celebrate in their abuse? or do you give them the hard truth? there is a difference between the sort of caring that prohibits critique, and the kind of caring that requires it. am i harder on my own party than Democrats? YES I AM. that is because it is MY PARTY, and i am embarrassed by it! if others aren't, that is for them to deal with. i don't get this crap about "you criticize Obama less than you do Bush" at all. i have less misgivings about Obama. it is not partisan. Carter was a crap president and a war criminal. if i had my way he would be tried in the Hague for his crimes. i have better feelings for Clinton, because i had a really good ride in the 90's. but he is also a war criminal and should be tried in the Hague for his crimes. what do you want from me? you want me to GUSH OVER ROMNEY? forget it! and i sure as hell am not going to gush over Trump.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,212
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 27, 2015 22:32:04 GMT -5
... what do you want from me? ... What I read was a request for people, including you, to post about Trump.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2015 22:59:01 GMT -5
Where would you put me, Virgil?
1. Torture - Don't really care. If I allowed myself to think of the humanity of it I would probably be a lot more against it. Does it work? Who really knows? Do I devote any real thought to it? No.
2. Immigration - All illegal immigrants should be deported. No path to amnesty ever. This country was built on and by immigrants, but help the ones who are doing it the right way. Help the ones who show that they respect our laws before they even get here. Rid ourselves of those who don't.
3. Government shutdown - Unbelievably stupid. Pretty much always. Congress should be adults and do their jobs, which, as I am sure they have either forgotten or never knew in the first place, is to serve the American public.
4. Voter ID - Not a problem in theory, but generally used to suppress the vote of those of the other party. It is that corruption of the process that makes voter ID invalid.
5. Religious freedom vs. public accommodation - We have religious freedom in this country. It is guaranteed and is not at risk. "Religious freedom" cannot generally be used to justify harming another through discrimination.
6. Gun control - There is nothing in the Second Amendment that guarantees an individual right to own guns, and nothing that prevents such measures as registration or licensing. Do I care if someone owns a gun? Not really. I only begin to care when guns are used.
7. Pro-life (Anti-abortion) vs. pro-choice - I regret that abortion ever has to be performed, but it is not my right nor anyone else's to impose any beliefs onto the person actually in that situation, and whose life is impacted by it.
8. Deregulation - Depends on the context, but we have clearly seen what industry will do when left to their own devices. Some regulation seems to be necessary, though the amount of it is arguable.
9. Social Security reform - Not sure exactly which reforms you are talking about, but when I was younger I used to argue for abolishing (phasing out) the system. I've softened that position since it would be so difficult to do.
10. Raising vs. lowering taxes - Neither is an absolute. The idea that tax cuts are always good or that they are in any way a panacea for anything is just mind-bogglingly stupid. Sometimes tax cuts are appropriate. Sometimes raising taxes is appropriate. The bigger issue is the relationship of revenues to spending and that we are trillions of dollars in debt. I blame Reagan for creating the belief that debt and deficits were acceptable. I blame Bush II for squandering an opportunity to perhaps knock down our debt for good. (And the dumbest thing Bush the elder ever did was his No New Taxes pledge. You have to be a complete idiot to take any option off the table, and a gutless person to not make a real attempt to explain that to a stupid public. He was RIGHT in 1980.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 28, 2015 7:02:29 GMT -5
Where would you put me, Virgil?
1. Torture - Don't really care. If I allowed myself to think of the humanity of it I would probably be a lot more against it. Does it work? Who really knows? Do I devote any real thought to it? No. This is a party-neutral position.
2. Immigration - All illegal immigrants should be deported. No path to amnesty ever. This country was built on and by immigrants, but help the ones who are doing it the right way. Help the ones who show that they respect our laws before they even get here. Rid ourselves of those who don't. This is the Republican Party position.
3. Government shutdown - Unbelievably stupid. Pretty much always. Congress should be adults and do their jobs, which, as I am sure they have either forgotten or never knew in the first place, is to serve the American public. This has been the Democratic Party position in all recent standoffs.
4. Voter ID - Not a problem in theory, but generally used to suppress the vote of those of the other party. It is that corruption of the process that makes voter ID invalid. This is the Democratic Party position.
5. Religious freedom vs. public accommodation - We have religious freedom in this country. It is guaranteed and is not at risk. "Religious freedom" cannot generally be used to justify harming another through discrimination. This is the Democratic Party position.
6. Gun control - There is nothing in the Second Amendment that guarantees an individual right to own guns, and nothing that prevents such measures as registration or licensing. Do I care if someone owns a gun? Not really. I only begin to care when guns are used. This is the Democratic Party position.
7. Pro-life (Anti-abortion) vs. pro-choice - I regret that abortion ever has to be performed, but it is not my right nor anyone else's to impose any beliefs onto the person actually in that situation, and whose life is impacted by it. This is the Democratic Party position.
8. Deregulation - Depends on the context, but we have clearly seen what industry will do when left to their own devices. Some regulation seems to be necessary, though the amount of it is arguable. This is a party-neutral position.
9. Social Security reform - Not sure exactly which reforms you are talking about, but when I was younger I used to argue for abolishing (phasing out) the system. I've softened that position since it would be so difficult to do. This is a party-neutral position.
10. Raising vs. lowering taxes - Neither is an absolute. The idea that tax cuts are always good or that they are in any way a panacea for anything is just mind-bogglingly stupid. Sometimes tax cuts are appropriate. Sometimes raising taxes is appropriate. The bigger issue is the relationship of revenues to spending and that we are trillions of dollars in debt. I blame Reagan for creating the belief that debt and deficits were acceptable. I blame Bush II for squandering an opportunity to perhaps knock down our debt for good. (And the dumbest thing Bush the elder ever did was his No New Taxes pledge. You have to be a complete idiot to take any option off the table, and a gutless person to not make a real attempt to explain that to a stupid public. He was RIGHT in 1980. This is a party-neutral position. tallguy : Comments inline. djAdvocate : I'd respond, but our spirited discussion seems to be upsetting mmhmm. And she has a big stick, so we'd best mind her. You should create a thread entitled "My Vision of Republicanism" where you elucidate on your views on what Republicanism ought to be. Use it to explain why you're so invested in changing the Republican party as opposed to, e.g., promoting a third party, or steering the Democratic Party towards a more fiscally conservative agenda.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 28, 2015 7:26:46 GMT -5
dj needs to do nothing of the kind. He is defending himself against "accusations" and allegations of his lack of Republicanism. The line of "questioning" is out of line, and a Moderator has asked for it to stop. Please stop it.
Thank You.
deminmaine- Moderator. It is stopped. My suggestion about creating a thread where the inquiry is on topic is a suggestion, not an order. If DJ feels the questioning is out of line, if he's not engaged by the conversation, he'll reject the suggestion and avoid creating the thread. In any case, Tall has specifically asked for an analysis of where his views stand vis a vis official party positions, hence I trust we can carry on that arc uninhibited.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 28, 2015 9:40:53 GMT -5
Is there something inherently wrong with discussing the subject of the thread instead of each other? Political party positions of various posters have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, or any of the other candidates in either party. This thread is not about dj, it's not about tallguy, and it's not about you, Virgil. How many posters do you believe are actually all that interested in discussing any of the three of you in a thread that's supposed to be about a presidential candidate? Really?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2015 11:58:54 GMT -5
dj needs to do nothing of the kind. He is defending himself against "accusations" and allegations of his lack of Republicanism. The line of "questioning" is out of line, and a Moderator has asked for it to stop. Please stop it.
Thank You.
deminmaine- Moderator. It is stopped. My suggestion about creating a thread where the inquiry is on topic is a suggestion, not an order. If DJ feels the questioning is out of line, if he's not engaged by the conversation, he'll reject the suggestion and avoid creating the thread. In any case, Tall has specifically asked for an analysis of where his views stand vis a vis official party positions, hence I trust we can carry on that arc uninhibited. "avoid" is not the right term. it implies that it is something i SHOULD do, and that i am choosing not to do, with some effort. no, i will be ignoring your request. i have already stated my reasons for being a Republican, and that is the last comment i intend to make on the matter. i am not out to save the GOP or any other party. i am just voting my interests. just like most people. i also plan on deleting any personal remarks directed at me in my future responses. this constitutes post editing, and may get me kicked off the board. if so, that is just as well, because after four years of near continuous nagging about my private life, i have had enough. edit: archive post 1367 for future reference. if you want to discuss topics, that is just great. when it gets into party affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, etc, it is none of your doggone business.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 28, 2015 12:12:33 GMT -5
dj is absolutely right! If you can't discuss political matters without delving into the personal lives and choices of other posters, you've got an attention deficit that should be treated forthwith. Leave other people alone. They've got every right to be who they are, believe what they believe, and march to their own drummers. It's not the business of any of the rest of us to harangue them about it. Discuss the damned topic!
mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 28, 2015 23:27:49 GMT -5
So...I dug into the Reuters poll that shows a 12 point drop in support for Trump. Notice anything?
1299 respondents: Trump 40%- 11/19
981 respondents: Trump 38.5%- 11/20
636 respondents: Trump 42.4%- 11/21
464 respondents: Trump 42.9%- 11/22
441 respondents: Trump 42.6%- 11/23
381 respondents: Trump 38%- 11/24
362 respondents: Trump 37%- 11/25
358 respondents: Trump 31%- 11/26
346 respondents: Trump 31%- 11/27
I'll just leave this here for folks to chew on.
|
|