I agree with much of that, but I'm certainly not voting for Obama in response. If the GOP lost its way by becoming the light beer version of the Democrats, I don't see how electing real Democrats solves anything. Time to look elsewhere.
I agree with much of that, but I'm certainly not voting for Obama in response. If the GOP lost its way by becoming the light beer version of the Democrats, I don't see how electing real Democrats solves anything. Time to look elsewhere.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Just throwing this out there:
What about a principle of voting for the honest evil? I mean, if they are both going to do the same things, why not pick the ones that at least tell you upfront about their government-growing policies, rather than you ones who plan it, but lie to our faces about it?
Unfortunately, there's not a really worthwhile 3rd party choice this cycle. I guess you can always write-in a candidate..
The problems the Republicans have is not becoming like Democrats, it's the opposite. That's just Mursalis drinking way too much Republicans kool-aid against the democrats.
CK's got something of a point - I do think the Dems have a higher correlation between what they say in their platform and what they do, but that doesn't really speak to me, because I can't really stand their platform either. If Party A wanted to bring back slavery and admitted it, they might be more honest than Party B, who secretly also wanted to bring back slavery but denied it in their platform, but I still couldn't support either party. Party A might be most honest about being evil, but they're still evil. Instead, I'm going with None of the Above, or Party C, if that option's out there.
And Craig234, weren't you just lecturing me on being nicer or something in that other thread? Fine example you set in raising the civility factor.
Yes, I was, and you rather nastily and falseley in my view claimed I go around attacking less informed posters who ask 'honest questions' in response.
As I said, people asking 'honest questions' are not the same as other things.
Also, my comment here is not the attack you might think it is - what I'm saying is that on the spectrum of political messages, when you have the upper hand, you say you do, but when you have an indefensible party platform, you are pushed instead to try to get people to think that while you suck, the alternative is worse. That's what I'm saying Republicans have done with Demcorats with many people - Republicans could club and eat babies, and some people would still say, 'that's horrible but the democrats are worse'.
What I'm saying is that I see many people who have gotten to the point that the assumption democrats are worse is so ingrained, that they all but cannot consider democrats as a positive alternative to the Republicans - all they can do is say 'those darn Republicans fell short' and *maybe* not vote or vote third party, wasting their vote.
In my view, the problems the Republicans have are NOT 'Democrat light' problems, but theirown problems which the Democrat Party is largely opposed to, especially the progressive wing, and I've predicted for years that the screwups of the corrupted Republican party would not get the proper response of 'are the democrats better? but instead of 'that's terrible but democrats are worse' as an assumption. So you will understand my frustration when the prediction is proven true.
I'm not criticizing you so much for having fallen for that well-designed well-funded propaganda as I am pointing out my opinion that that's what's going on.
It's meant constructively to help others, even you, to see through it and reconsider.
How is UHC efficient? Good God. When has anything the Federal Govt run been efficient? The USPS is your classic case. We throw money at it and it always has troubles and has to raise postage prices, consider cutting Saturday operations, etc. The post office has the longest lines, and is just plain terrible. Yes we guarantee mail service, so that's why we stuff the post office with hundreds and thousands of employees to ensure that it works. Is it efficient? Hell no. Is it even self sufficient fiscally? Hell no. Privatize it and the USPS will tear itself apart.
Private health care is great simply because it's more efficient. When you let something go market driven, it's far more efficient. Now, efficient doesn't mean fair and good. The problem with healthcare today is that costs are just too high. You can talk about drug costs, malpractice lawsuits, blah blah blah, and that's EXACTLY why our healthcare is too expensive.
Just because not everyone is covered doesn't mean the federal government needs to step in to help out. Yes, people deserve health care, but before we jump into UHC, let's find other ways to make health care more affordable so that MORE people can join the system.
I would've thought in AT you would have a bunch of people in the computer/semiconductor industry raking in 6 figures. How are your insurance plans from say IBM, HP, Intel, etc? Not bad right? UHC would probably only be a step down for you guys, and certainly would compromise the quality of our current healthcare we receive. Look at Medicare. Most people buy supplemental insurance on top of Medicare because it just doesn't cover enough.
Don't you see how condescending that tone is? You think only those who agree with you have achieved your level of "enlightenment"? Sorry, I disagree. I've been where you are now, I've been progressive and voted hard left, but I've changed on some issues, and have a different view on the role of government now. And this change wasn't because of Karl Rove's GOP Kool-Aid, but because of age, experience, and careful thought. You may not believe it, but intelligent people can carefully think things over and reasonably come to conclusions with which you may not agree.
Yes, I do see that, but the main alternative I see is even worse, pretending not to be saying that to you, and treating you like a child. I give you the respect of a blunt comment.
I certainly think that there are great reasons to form different views, and welcome those differences and hope to learn from them.
If you want me to say the politically correct lie that it happens much, sorry.
It's one thing to have a well-informed difference of opinion and exchange views. But I do view your mistake on claiming the Republicans flaws are 'Democrat light' as so perverse and so dangerous, that I respond more harshly to the basic ignorance in it, IMO, than I otherwise would. It's like seeing a sick people and someone starts a rumor that the antidote is poison, even if they are well-intended, you need to shut that down.
It's precisely because of my long-held concern that the perversity of blaming the alternative party could wreck the fix to the Republican problem that I come down harder.
I don't mean any offense, but I understand you might take some.
FWIW, the democrats are far from perfect - they have a major corporatist wing, Clinton was largely a corporatist president, and the leadership now blocked alternatives.
But a blanket condemnation of the democrats IMO is you being a pied piper leading people towards only cynicism that allows the corrupt to remain in power, and away from the consideration of the solution, the progressive agenda, IMO. You say you 'used to vote hard left'; that would be an interesting discussion, to hear your views that changed on why that was no longer a good idea. I might learn something, I might disagree.
Understand that what I'm saying you drank kool aid on is not that you have moved to the right, not that you have other opinions, but that you are mischaracterizing the incredibly huge and devastating Reublican corruption as being the sort of corruption the demcorats are even worse about. That's the lie of the desperate Republican propagandists that I'm calling kool-aid you drank.
MikeyLSU
Platinum Member
- Dec 21, 2005
- 2,747
- 0
- 71
I'm late to the game but you just have to vote with your beliefs.
There is a lot more to it that what you have brought up alone.
You just have to go through the points of each candidate and pick who you believe in. I am a conservative and don't try to hide it by saying I am Independent.
I think welfare, Social Security, and many other government plans are horrible and way too big. SS will fail in my lifetime yet Dems are opposed to fixing it now. I am against abortion. I believe we should work on paying off the national debt, I think NASA should be better funded, and the military should not be cut.
Republicans keep promising smaller government but didn't have the balls to stand up to Dems when they had the chance. The Repubs held both legilatures and the executive offices and grew the government. Dems have controlled the house and senate the past 2 years and have done nothing. It seems both are incompetent when in control.
Neither is perfect, but republicans are closer to my beliefs than Democrats.
You just need to find what you believe in and vote for the candidate that fits your beliefs best.
There is a lot more to it that what you have brought up alone.
You just have to go through the points of each candidate and pick who you believe in. I am a conservative and don't try to hide it by saying I am Independent.
I think welfare, Social Security, and many other government plans are horrible and way too big. SS will fail in my lifetime yet Dems are opposed to fixing it now. I am against abortion. I believe we should work on paying off the national debt, I think NASA should be better funded, and the military should not be cut.
Republicans keep promising smaller government but didn't have the balls to stand up to Dems when they had the chance. The Repubs held both legilatures and the executive offices and grew the government. Dems have controlled the house and senate the past 2 years and have done nothing. It seems both are incompetent when in control.
Neither is perfect, but republicans are closer to my beliefs than Democrats.
You just need to find what you believe in and vote for the candidate that fits your beliefs best.
Just to tell you where I am now, I generally lean libertarian. On social issues, I'm very conservative in my personal life, but socially liberal as a matter of public policy. For example, I've never done any drugs, don't smoke, and almost never drink, but I don't care who does. Fiscally, the gov't needs to balance the books, first and foremost. I'm generally a low taxes/low services type, but I'm open to compromise there, as long as the numbers balance in the end. And that's what offended me most about the GOP years - they abandoned all fiscal responsibility. You may imagine the Dems are different in this regard because Clinton (and a GOP Congress) got lucky for a few years and took in more than they could spend, so we got surpluses for once, but I remember the 70's and 80's, when the Dems ran Congress and authorized years of deficits. They could've stood up to Reagan but did not. Until a Democratic Congress passes a balanced budget, I won't give them the fiscally responsible label either. On other issues important to me like civil liberties, the Dems are no better than the GOP. Yes, Bush abused civil liberties, but then, so did the liberal wing of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London and most cases involving affirmative action issues. And which side has pushed harder for free speech restrictions like hate speech codes and alleged "campaign finance reform"? I can't go with the Dems on 2nd Amendment issues either. And progressives spit all over the 10th Amendment and any concept of enumerated powers. Eh, I could go on, but I've got to go for now. I'm sure you can have some fun with what I've given you.
Even if Obama wants it, he can't propose it. All he can do is not veto it if it comes to his desk. Keep that in mind.
The thing to remember is that Obama is very practical and very intelligent. He has a sense for nuances that a lot of politicians lack. If he's president, he'll be able to see the big picture. If our budget can't possibly support UHC, I'm certain he'll veto a bill that proposes it.
Empirical evidence says you're wrong. Other countries with UHC spend small fractions of what we do per capita and yet they have healthier populations.
Are you for or against gun rights?
Obama supports the democratic party's platform which is for a new "assault weapons" ban.
With a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president I think its very likely to happen if Obama wins, Biden voted for it the first time around.
Myself I'd prefer a divided congress and president that way less laws will be passed. We already have too many regulations.
Obama supports the democratic party's platform which is for a new "assault weapons" ban.
With a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president I think its very likely to happen if Obama wins, Biden voted for it the first time around.
Myself I'd prefer a divided congress and president that way less laws will be passed. We already have too many regulations.
This remains my only objection to the Obama ticket. I lean pretty far to the right, but after Palin's debate last night, I just can't vote for them. I held out hope that they she really would show that McCain had made a good decision, but after last night I give up. Now all I can do is save up my money so that if he does pass a ban I can stock up and grandfather my guns in.
On the plus side, any gun ban is sure to bring the NRA voters out of the woodwork, and maybe the democrats will leave the guns alone just to avoid that.
It will be to late any gun ban will last several decades. Obama will get to appoint 2-4 anti-gun justices. I doubt your guns will be grandfathered in under Obama and a democratic congress and future liberal Supreme Court.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter