Where have all the conservatives gone?

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 03:25 PM

This is not just about RR, but conservative voices generally. I should clarify that I mean "real" conservatives who take positions on principle, and have rational (if, I will add, misguided) bases for their views, and don't spend all of their time making cock-eyed claims about "libruls", them being "pwned", and lumping everyone left of Genghis Khan into the "progressive/socialist/communist" camp because they can't discern a difference, and complain that anyone with an ounce of compassion is weak and un-American.

Will Hurd, soon-to-be-late of the House was one such. I'd put Jeff Flake in that category, too. George Will? Bill Kristol? It's not that I ever agreed with them, but at least they didn't assume anyone who didn't was the devil incarnate worthy of excommunication or worse. Those that think before they speak, and use measured tones.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 05:03 PM


Let's be honest here and rip the Band-Aid off.

As a political philosophy in America, Conservatism is on the wane. Heck, Conservatives can't even win a the presidency unless it involves the last vestige of slavery - the electoral college. MOST Americans have rejected Conservatism and continue to do so. Conservatives will...not...accept...this...fact.

Look at the GOPs numbers - they're shrinking and have been shrinking for DECADES. #GOPWalkAway

I couldn't care less whether today's "Conservatism" is a bastardized form of neo-classical post paleo Conservatism or whatever it was back in the day of Birchers. I just know what "Conservatism" means today and that means heavy doses of racism and bigotry, while paying as little of their fair share of taxes, and being a Trump supporter. Even the changing definition of what Conservative means has Conservatives in a dither.

Conservatives are having a temper-trantum of epic proportions as they realize that they are indeed dinosaurs and at they same time, trying to force their way of life onto the majority in order to make Conservatism take root, like a regular, home-grown radicalized Evangelical American ISIS-like member. Their thinking is so 20th century. Their need for a homogenous society like Russia, is so 20th century. Their need for marriage to be between a man and woman and a hot pool boy and a hot personal trainer is so hypocritical.

Diversity of all stripes is where it is at and where America is heading. Conservatives can't stop progress no matter how many idiotic "trains" which the Conservative jumps upon.

Frankly, I have no use for the Conservative - except to totally publicly humiliate one by pointedly highlighting their asinine thinking and hypocrisy in order to make them an example of how not to think and behave in polite society.

Hmm
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 07:05 PM

To be honest, I actually admired Hatrack's assertion that conservatives CONSERVE things. Too bad HE didn't actually do much of that, but at least he recognized the concept.

Conservativism is cautious thinking, preservation of useful traditions, pragmatic application of tried and true tested ideas and values, honoring the pocketbook of the taxpayers, devotion to old fashioned customs, limited or simplified government.

By the way, things like honoring the military, patriotic love of country, devotion to God and family, none of those things are the exclusive province of conservatives, no matter how much they insist they are, no matter how often they label others outside the conservative circle as godless America haters intent on destroying traditional family models.

And there is no reason to be surprised to learn that one can encounter liberals who share certain conservative values either.

But the most important thing to bear in mind is the fact that conservatives and liberals need each other, because without the loyal opposition keeping the other side honest, the other side always gets weird.

And that's what's been happening this last decade or so.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
...I actually admired Hatrack's assertion that conservatives CONSERVE things...
  • Keep America ruled by white partiarchy
  • Pay as little in taxes as possible
  • Only admit educated white immigrants
  • Promote faith over science
There's so much there to conserve. coffee
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 07:34 PM

Quote:
Conservatism is on the wane.

I have heard or read several "conservative" talk show hosts who have said conservatives have not been able to explain conservatism properly, presumably because it is too difficult to argue their case without outright lying and my conclusion is your statement.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
...honoring the military...

I suppose honoring Americans who pledge their life and blood (literally) for American imperialism abroad is a good thing.

Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 07:41 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Conservatism is on the wane.

I have heard or read several "conservative" talk show hosts who have said conservatives have not been able to explain conservatism properly, presumably because it is too difficult to argue their case without outright lying and my conclusion is your statement.

smile
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 09:40 PM

What passes for conservatism these days is pretty hard to explain.
By going all in with Trump, Republicans have set themselves up to fall with him when he goes down.

In real terms that means Democrats might keep control for four years or longer. Long enough to make a positive impact on the economy beyond just fixing what Trump screws up.

And long enough to reform the Democratic Party too. It's a little too "conservative" if you ask me.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 09:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
What passes for conservatism these days is pretty hard to explain.
By going all in with Trump, Republicans have set themselves up to fall with him when he goes down.

In real terms that means Democrats might keep control for four years or longer. Long enough to make a positive impact on the economy beyond just fixing what Trump screws up.

And long enough to reform the Democratic Party too. It's a little too "conservative" if you ask me.

Yes, the Dems need to reform too - but we are not nearly as bad as the across the aisle folks.

While we're in charge and reforming Dem ourselves, picking-up three SCOTUS seats would be ideal too. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 10:31 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Let's be honest here and rip the Band-Aid off.

As a political philosophy in America, Conservatism is on the wane. Heck, Conservatives can't even win a the presidency unless it involves the last vestige of slavery - the electoral college. MOST Americans have rejected Conservatism and continue to do so. Conservatives will...not...accept...this...fact.

Look at the GOPs numbers - they're shrinking and have been shrinking for DECADES. #GOPWalkAway

I couldn't care less whether today's "Conservatism" is a bastardized form of neo-classical post paleo Conservatism or whatever it was back in the day of Birchers. I just know what "Conservatism" means today and that means heavy doses of racism and bigotry, while paying as little of their fair share of taxes, and being a Trump supporter. Even the changing definition of what Conservative means has Conservatives in a dither.

Conservatives are having a temper-trantum of epic proportions as they realize that they are indeed dinosaurs and at they same time, trying to force their way of life onto the majority in order to make Conservatism take root, like a regular, home-grown radicalized Evangelical American ISIS-like member. Their thinking is so 20th century. Their need for a homogenous society like Russia, is so 20th century. Their need for marriage to be between a man and woman and a hot pool boy and a hot personal trainer is so hypocritical.

Diversity of all stripes is where it is at and where America is heading. Conservatives can't stop progress no matter how many idiotic "trains" which the Conservative jumps upon.

Frankly, I have no use for the Conservative - except to totally publicly humiliate one by pointedly highlighting their asinine thinking and hypocrisy in order to make them an example of how not to think and behave in polite society.

Hmm

This is a caricature of Conservatism. The only place it is accurate is in the author's egotistical closed mind. The links he used to support his views are liberal ones that reinforce his egregiously erroneous opinion of Conservatives.

If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14? The author of this comment lives in an ideological cocoon and doesn't even know it! He, like a lot of closed minded liberals, thinks Pres. Trump is the Republican Party. Trump is not the Republican Party nor is Trump much of a Conservative!

His opening statement saying that the Electoral College is the last vestige of slavery demolishes the rest of what he has to say. Without the Electoral College the city and county of Los Angeles would determine who wins our Presidential elections. Does anyone here what Los Angeles to decide who are President is? I doubt that anyone does. Anyone except for closed minded egotistical arrogant liberals.

I don't mind a vigorous political debate. However, that is impossible with someone who is as smug and obnoxious as the author of this comment. Nor is he alone in that attitude. I have temporarily returned to the Rant because this comment is so obnoxious, condescending and wrong! If my comment gets me banned from the Rant I don't care.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 11:09 PM

Remember Guantanamo prisoners and all the waterboarding and torturing endorsed by conservatives everywhere? They just love brown people in cages suffering. Good lord imagine the crowds if they were allowed to throw rotten fruit and rocks at them! They could charge admission!

And they wonder why their numbers are shrinking...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 11:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Let's be honest here and rip the Band-Aid off.

As a political philosophy in America, Conservatism is on the wane. Heck, Conservatives can't even win a the presidency unless it involves the last vestige of slavery - the electoral college. MOST Americans have rejected Conservatism and continue to do so. Conservatives will...not...accept...this...fact.

Look at the GOPs numbers - they're shrinking and have been shrinking for DECADES. #GOPWalkAway

I couldn't care less whether today's "Conservatism" is a bastardized form of neo-classical post paleo Conservatism or whatever it was back in the day of Birchers. I just know what "Conservatism" means today and that means heavy doses of racism and bigotry, while paying as little of their fair share of taxes, and being a Trump supporter. Even the changing definition of what Conservative means has Conservatives in a dither.

Conservatives are having a temper-trantum of epic proportions as they realize that they are indeed dinosaurs and at they same time, trying to force their way of life onto the majority in order to make Conservatism take root, like a regular, home-grown radicalized Evangelical American ISIS-like member. Their thinking is so 20th century. Their need for a homogenous society like Russia, is so 20th century. Their need for marriage to be between a man and woman and a hot pool boy and a hot personal trainer is so hypocritical.

Diversity of all stripes is where it is at and where America is heading. Conservatives can't stop progress no matter how many idiotic "trains" which the Conservative jumps upon.

Frankly, I have no use for the Conservative - except to totally publicly humiliate one by pointedly highlighting their asinine thinking and hypocrisy in order to make them an example of how not to think and behave in polite society.

Hmm

This is a caricature of Conservatism. The only place it is accurate is in the author's egotistical closed mind.

I deal with Conservatives day in and day out on Disqus forums. I get that the truth hurts. Self-reflection is painful.

You may not be a Christian, but as a Trump supporter, you check many of the other boxes. smile

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
He, like a lot of closed minded liberals, thinks Pres. Trump is the Republican Party. Trump is not the Republican Party nor is Trump much of a Conservative!



All you have to do is look at Trump's approval ratings in the party, then compare it to the number of Republicans leaving the party, it's just that simple. Close minded liberals aren't coming up with the idea that Trump is the Republican Party, Trump is.

More importantly, OTHER conservatives are saying it.

Other conservative publications are saying it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 11:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Without the Electoral College the city and county of Los Angeles would determine who wins our Presidential elections.

That is probably the most hyperbolic and asinine sentence you have ever written, sir.

Conservatives supposedly place value on individualism - there nothing individual about having other people vote for President for you which is exactly what an Electoral College elector does.

If your side has such great and wonderful ideas, why do your side need to cheat and steal elections?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 08/31/19 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
He, like a lot of closed minded liberals, thinks Pres. Trump is the Republican Party. Trump is not the Republican Party nor is Trump much of a Conservative!



All you have to do is look at Trump's approval ratings in the party, then compare it to the number of Republicans leaving the party, it's just that simple. Close minded liberals aren't coming up with the idea that Trump is the Republican Party, Trump is.

Exactly. Bow
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 01:41 AM

What's conservative about individuals in Wyoming having four times the voting power for President compared to individuals in New York or California? The electoral college system deifies state sovereignty way way beyond anything reasonable. Maybe the obvious solution is for a bunch of low-population states to join together into larger states, so they have populations more comparable to New York and California.

Because the trend is for people to leave those states and move to the larger cities where they can find work and resources. Ultimately, we could wind up it the same ridiculous situation as Disneyworld, where the company only lets a few Disney executives live in "their county" which gives them an out-sized degree of control in larger government.

And what exactly is wrong with individuals living in LA determining who will be President, if the majority of people live in LA?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:07 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Without the Electoral College the city and county of Los Angeles would determine who wins our Presidential elections.

That is probably the most hyperbolic and asinine sentence you have ever written, sir.

Conservatives supposedly place value on individualism - there nothing individual about having other people vote for President for you which is exactly what an Electoral College elector does.

If your side has such great and wonderful ideas, why do your side need to cheat and steal elections?

We have the Electoral College because our government is supposed to be Constitutional republic not a democracy. The statement that you think is so "asinine" is a fact. Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count. Then to win a Presidential election all a candidate would have to do is campaign in the states with large populations. The candidates could and would ignore states with small populations. The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/385...ege-think-again

Republicans stealing elections? Would that be like the 1960 election that JFK stole?
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/sco...ction-obviously
Then there is "Landslide Lyndon." There wasn't an election that LBJ was in where didn't steal votes. Or the big city Democrat machines that stole elections for decades.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-machine
When vote stealing by vote in our country's elections the difference is that of a misdemeanor, the Republicans. to multiple felonies, the Democrats.
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
I deal with Conservatives day in and day out on Disqus forums. I get that the truth hurts. Self-reflection is painful.

You wouldn't know the truth if your life depended on it! When I read your comments pdx rick I am amazed at your arrogance and your ignorance! In this reply I have shown that you do not know what the hell it is you are talking about! You are wrong about the Electoral College and you are so wrong about which party has stolen votes that you should be embarrassed. You are a shining example of what Roger Scruton talks about in his book Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Remember Guantanamo prisoners and all the waterboarding and torturing endorsed by conservatives everywhere? They just love brown people in cages suffering. Good lord imagine the crowds if they were allowed to throw rotten fruit and rocks at them! They could charge admission!

And they wonder why their numbers are shrinking...

Didn't Pres. Obama promise to close Guantanamo Bay? Yet it is still open. I guess that makes Obama a conservative.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:16 AM

Quote:
The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.


Wrong. It was a compromise between having congress elect the president and letting the people vote.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count.

Without the EC would we would have one person, one vote. Everyone's vote would count, but you Conservatives don't want everyone's vote to count. Hmm


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Then to win a Presidential election all a candidate would have to do is campaign in the states with large populations. The candidates could and would ignore states with small populations.

That's exactly how its done now with an eye towards the EC. Your gaslighting is beyond the pale. frown


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.

Doesn't that defeat your "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" argument. I'm not buying what you're selling, sir. laugh

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Republicans stealing elections? Would that be like the 1960 election that JFK stole?

We don't need to go back in time 60 years, all we have to do is look at 2018.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:52 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count. Without the EC would we would have one person, one vote. Everyone's vote would count, but you Conservatives don't want everyone's vote to count. Hmm

One of the reasons our Constitution was written was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Then to win a Presidential election all a candidate would have to do is campaign in the states with large populations. The candidates could and would ignore states with small populations.

Originally Posted By: pdx rock
That's exactly how its done now with an eye towards the EC.

Presidential candidates do spend more time in states with large population. Without the Electoral College they could completely ignore all of the small states. They can't do that with the Electoral College.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Doesn't that defeat your "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" argument. I'm not buying what you're selling, sir. laugh

No, it does not. It actually reinforces the fact that our government is a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy the majority can and does tyrannize the minority.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Republicans stealing elections? Would that be like the 1960 election that JFK stole?

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
We don't need to go back in time 60 years, all we have to do is look at 2018.

Wrong again. I even used your liberal source SLATE to prove you are wrong.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...not-stolen.html
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 04:48 AM

When people make comments like that I have to conclude they are ignorant of political realities.

Because he was unable to close it does not make him a conservative. It does make him a person with an administration which was unable to convince all the necessary powers, foreign and domestic, to close it down. He was not a dictator or a wannabe dictator like Mr Trump and so it was not closed down despite the administration trying.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 04:52 AM

Quote:
I don't mind a vigorous political debate. However, that is impossible with someone who is as smug and obnoxious as the author of this comment.

why would you not look in the mirror and realize this comment applies to you???? self righteous arrogance perhaps??

Quote:
If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14?
and why do Republicans as soon as they gain office pass laws to disenfranchise political opponents? could it be to maintain their power? I am a lot amazed you do not understand nor comprehend political realities.

o well
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 05:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count. Without the EC would we would have one person, one vote. Everyone's vote would count, but you Conservatives don't want everyone's vote to count. Hmm

One of the reasons our Constitution was written was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

ROTFMOL So many protections for black slaves and white women. You're hilarious, sir. smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Presidential candidates do spend more time in states with large population. Without the Electoral College they could completely ignore all of the small states. They can't do that with the Electoral College.

Once again, because my point has eluded you, big states already do get the presidential hopefuls, small states don't. The only reason why Iowa and NH are in play now is because they are early primary states and for no other reason. smile Nobody cares about them once their primary is over.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Wrong again. I even used your liberal source SLATE to prove you are wrong.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...not-stolen.html

...because a NOV 18, 2018 6:57 PM article is so current and up-to-date? Your stellar thinking and analysis amazes me sir. smile At least my link was written within the last 3 days and has much more current information and findings from investigations.

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:11 AM

Welcome back again, SenHat. I wish to provide a lengthy response to your tirade/posts, but I don't want to appear to be picking on you. I would suggest, however, two things: One, actually read the post before dismissing it. You are missing a lot of significant data, something that a true conservative wouldn't do. Second, we still have rules here at the Rant, and yes, they can result in sanctions. The kind of dismissive tone you have taken, and personal attack is unjustified. (See notes below) Even if you disagree, even vehemently, you should disagree with the substance (and provide citations for assertions), and not disparage and characterize the poster. That goes for everyone, BTW. We have been a bit lax about some rules recently, but that is not one that has varied.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
This is a caricature of Conservatism. The only place it is accurate is in the author's egotistical closed mind. The links he used to support his views are liberal ones that reinforce his egregiously erroneous opinion of Conservatives.
Perhaps, my friend, you can provide examples that demonstrate your point?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14?
I can answer that! The majority of States in the United States have rural populations. The most populous States, and those with more urban areas, are resoundingly Democratic. In some cases, the makeup of the State chambers and offices is an accident of geography. Increasingly, however, the makeup is skewed by virtue of gerrymandering and vote suppression. Those are topics for other threads, so I won't lard this one with citations. I will also note that "conservative" and "Republican" are not coextensive, as you have used them here.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The author of this comment lives in an ideological cocoon and doesn't even know it! He, like a lot of closed minded liberals, thinks Pres. Trump is the Republican Party.
I commend you on your mindreading prowess! But, you make a huge mistake in asserting that "Liberals" are, generally-speaking, "close minded". I am not sure what you are basing that characterization on, but, in my view, it is pretty far from an accurate assessment - indeed, it would be hard to see reality from there.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump is not the Republican Party nor is Trump much of a Conservative!
On the first point, you are decidedly wrong. On the second, I have a hard time disagreeing.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
His opening statement saying that the Electoral College is the last vestige of slavery demolishes the rest of what he has to say.
Care to elaborate? There is substantial scholarly support for the assertion.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Without the Electoral College the city and county of Los Angeles would determine who wins our Presidential elections.
Again, hyperbole does not do much to further your argument. Substantively, there is not much to work with here, as the statement has no empirical support whatever. The Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of 13,131,431, about half of whom are voting age. That represents a little less than 4% of the US population, and even less of the voting population.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Does anyone here what Los Angeles to decide who are President is? I doubt that anyone does. Anyone except for closed minded egotistical arrogant liberals.
This statement is based upon a fundamentally flawed logic. I think what you really mean (please correct me if I am wrong) is that because the greater part of the population is a) more liberal than you like, and b) concentrated in urban areas, you don't wish that majority population to make policy decisions on behalf of the United States. The problem is, that is inherently illogical. The central premise of "democracy" is that majority rules, yet you prefer that the minority dictate the rules for the majority of the population (generally and historically speaking 3-4% more than conservatives) simply because your minority views clash with their sensibilities. How is this in any way logical or in keeping with the spirit of democratic rule?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I don't mind a vigorous political debate.
[There is significant evidence to the contrary]
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, that is impossible with someone who is as smug and obnoxious as the author of this comment. Nor is he alone in that attitude. I have temporarily returned to the Rant because this comment is so obnoxious, condescending and wrong! If my comment gets me banned from the Rant I don't care.
I believe you do care, my friend, which is why I welcome your return. All I ask now is two things: Be polite (it's a rule), and put up (provide support for your assertions).
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14?
I can answer that! The majority of States in the United States have rural populations. The most populous States, and those with more urban areas, are resoundingly Democratic. In some cases, the makeup of the State chambers and offices is an accident of geography. Increasingly, however, the makeup is skewed by virtue of gerrymandering and vote suppression. Those are topics for other threads, so I won't lard this one with citations. I will also note that "conservative" and "Republican" are not coextensive, as you have used them here.

The immediate and most obvious answer is that the GOP gerrymandered their way into prominence after their 2010 TBagger take-over of Congress. Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I don't mind a vigorous political debate. However, that is impossible with someone who is as smug and obnoxious as the author of this comment.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
why would you not look in the mirror and realize this comment applies to you???? self righteous arrogance perhaps??

I know that I can be self righteous and arrogant but you had to turn my comment around because you do not think it applies to you.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14?
Originally Posted By: rporter314
and why do Republicans as soon as they gain office pass laws to disenfranchise political opponents? could it be to maintain their power? I am a lot amazed you do not understand nor comprehend political realities.

o well

Politicians, Republicans and Democrats do that because as Lord Acton said power corrupts.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 04:05 PM

Quote:
because you do not think it applies to you.
In a general setting there would or could be some validity to your comment but I don't think that is the case with my responses. In general I am not trying to convince anyone to believe what I believe or to demonstrate or argue only my argument is correct or valid, rather I have simply pointed out the many problematical statements you have made. Perhaps my arrogance would be to hope by pointing out the problems in your statements you would reconsider your position more objectively. You see, when you respond it is a blanket, I am wrong, and when I ask for specifics, you provide none.


Quote:
Republicans and Democrats
I say pooh pooh

The only thing which is true and valid is people do want to get power and maintain it. The question is how they do it. It is well known Republicans are far better at gerrymandering than Democrats, and I will not speculate n why that would be. However, Republicans as a matter of ideology, immediately try to disenfranchise opposition party voters, otherwise known as cheating, to maintain that power. So I am curious, how exactly do Democrats try to disenfranchise Republican voters?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
... Republicans as a matter of ideology, immediately try to disenfranchise opposition party voters, otherwise known as cheating, to maintain that power.

Yup. Bow

Originally Posted By: rporter314
So I am curious, how exactly do Democrats try to disenfranchise Republican voters?

By legitimately winning the election and not lowering themselves to the GOP cheating ways. GOP'ers hate that! smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count. Without the EC would we would have one person, one vote. Everyone's vote would count, but you Conservatives don't want everyone's vote to count. Hmm

You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
One of the reasons our Constitution was written was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
ROTFMOL So many protections for black slaves and white women. You're hilarious, sir. smile

When our Constitution was written the idea that men, and at the time only men, could govern themselves was an extremely radical idea. There were thoughts to include women and slaves, but the radical idea of self government had to be implemented slowly if were to survive. To judge the authors of our Constitution by today's standards is ludicrous. As with any idea it must first be made to make and then it can be improved on. Our Constitution and the idea of self government it created was limited in what it could do as a reflection of the time it was written. At that time the idea of self government, if only by men, was a radical, as I said, an extremely radical one. To extend its protections to women and slaves would have prevented it from not only being written but from creating the government that could and would include almost everyone.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Presidential candidates do spend more time in states with large population. Without the Electoral College they could completely ignore all of the small states. They can't do that with the Electoral College.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Once again, because my point has eluded you, big states already do get the presidential hopefuls, small states don't. The only reason why Iowa and NH are in play now is because they are early primary states and for no other reason. smile Nobody cares about them once their primary is over.

My point was not just about the primaries. Without the Electoral College a Presidential campaign would not need to have a campaign organization in all 50 states. In states where one party usually wins the the popular vote there are Presidential campaigns from both parties because of the Electoral College. Although they are small there were still Republican and Democrat Presidential campaign offices and staffs in all 50 states because of the Electoral College.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Wrong again. I even used your liberal source SLATE to prove you are wrong.

...because a NOV 18, 2018 6:57 PM article is so current and up-to-date? Your stellar thinking and analysis amazes me sir. smile At least my link was written within the last 3 days and has much more current information and findings from investigations.


The article I posted a link was older than the yours. But the one I posted was correct in the advice that it gave. The advice to not contest the election because in the long run doing so would only hurt those who were complaining. Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers. Being sore losers seems to be something the Democrats are becoming very good at.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Welcome back again, SenHat. I wish to provide a lengthy response to your tirade/posts, but I don't want to appear to be picking on you. I would suggest, however, two things: One, actually read the post before dismissing it. You are missing a lot of significant data, something that a true conservative wouldn't do. Second, we still have rules here at the Rant, and yes, they can result in sanctions. The kind of dismissive tone you have taken, and personal attack is unjustified. (See notes below) Even if you disagree, even vehemently, you should disagree with the substance (and provide citations for assertions), and not disparage and characterize the poster. That goes for everyone, BTW. We have been a bit lax about some rules recently, but that is not one that has varied.

Thanks for the arrogant lecture. It would be nice if you practiced what you preach. In this reply you missed or apparently didn't read my post. I have a dismissive tone? Damn near everyone of your replies to me has been written with a dismissive tone!

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
This is a caricature of Conservatism. The only place it is accurate is in the author's egotistical closed mind. The links he used to support his views are liberal ones that reinforce his egregiously erroneous opinion of Conservatives.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Perhaps, my friend, you can provide examples that demonstrate your point?
Quite the dismissive tone there, my friend.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I can answer that! The majority of States in the United States have rural populations. The most populous States, and those with more urban areas, are resoundingly Democratic. In some cases, the makeup of the State chambers and offices is an accident of geography. Increasingly, however, the makeup is skewed by virtue of gerrymandering and vote suppression. Those are topics for other threads, so I won't lard this one with citations. I will also note that "conservative" and "Republican" are not coextensive, as you have used them here.

No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/

But that people vote for Republicans is something you and others have said has been caused by gerrymandering and vote suppression. That is not true. What it is, is an excuse for the fact that people do not vote for Democrats as you believe they should. Perhaps your belief that people should vote for Democrats is an indication that you might be a little arrogant?
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The author of this comment lives in an ideological cocoon and doesn't even know it! He, like a lot of closed minded liberals, thinks Pres. Trump is the Republican Party.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I commend you on your mindreading prowess! But, you make a huge mistake in asserting that "Liberals" are, generally-speaking, "close minded". I am not sure what you are basing that characterization on, but, in my view, it is pretty far from an accurate assessment - indeed, it would be hard to see reality from there.
I am basing my statement that liberals are close minded on the replies I've received to my posts here at the Rant.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump is not the Republican Party nor is Trump much of a Conservative!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
On the first point, you are decidedly wrong. On the second, I have a hard time disagreeing.

Pres. Trump is not the Republican Party. As the highest elected Republican he is temporarily the leader of the GOP, he is not the party! When Obama was our President he was temporarily the leader of the Democrat Party, he was not the party.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
His opening statement saying that the Electoral College is the last vestige of slavery demolishes the rest of what he has to say.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Care to elaborate? There is substantial scholarly support for the assertion.
It would be nice if you were to elaborate on your claim of substantial scholarly support for the racism of the Electoral College? Here is proof that it isn't. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/p...-is-racist-need
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Without the Electoral College the city and county of Los Angeles would determine who wins our Presidential elections.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, hyperbole does not do much to further your argument. Substantively, there is not much to work with here, as the statement has no empirical support whatever. The Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of 13,131,431, about half of whom are voting age. That represents a little less than 4% of the US population, and even less of the voting population.
Hyperbole? Only when you ignore the link I posted that showed how the Electoral College does give large urban areas the power to decide who our President will be. Here is the link you ignored. But then it appears you would rather lecture me than have a discussion with me. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/385...ege-think-again
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Does anyone here want Los Angeles to decide who are President is? I doubt that anyone does. Anyone except for closed minded egotistical arrogant liberals.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
This statement is based upon a fundamentally flawed logic. I think what you really mean (please correct me if I am wrong) is that because the greater part of the population is a) more liberal than you like, and b) concentrated in urban areas, you don't wish that majority population to make policy decisions on behalf of the United States. The problem is, that is inherently illogical. The central premise of "democracy" is that majority rules, yet you prefer that the minority dictate the rules for the majority of the population (generally and historically speaking 3-4% more than conservatives) simply because your minority views clash with their sensibilities. How is this in any way logical or in keeping with the spirit of democratic rule?
The flawed logic is yours, NW and you are wrong. It is the urban areas that are predominately liberal. The rest of the country is conservative. (If I knew how to post a meme here I would post one that shows how the large liberal urban areas voted for Clinton, the liberal candidate. But the rest of country, the conservative areas voted for Trump, who compared to Clinton was the conservative candidate.) The Electoral College was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority from controlling our Presidential elections. To prevent the tyranny of the majority is why 49 out of the 50 states have bicameral legislatures. That makes our governments, state and federal, republics not democracies.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I don't mind a vigorous political debate.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
There is significant evidence to the contrary.
Lectures are not debates.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, that is impossible with someone who is as smug and obnoxious as the author of this comment. Nor is he alone in that attitude. I have temporarily returned to the Rant because this comment is so obnoxious, condescending and wrong! If my comment gets me banned from the Rant I don't care.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I believe you do care, my friend, which is why I welcome your return. All I ask now is two things: Be polite (it's a rule), and put up (provide support for your assertions).

I returned because a post so egregiously wrong that I had correct it. To be polite is show respect for the opinions of others, not to lecture them. I usually do provide support for my assertions but when you ignore them, NW, it might be a waste of time to do so. Do you ignore them so you can spend more time writing your lectures?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 05:18 PM

There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from:

Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective.

There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either.

With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from:

Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective.

There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either.

With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.

Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 05:50 PM

Taking a look at the rationales for the electoral college, it seems pretty messy on the surface, and the intended benefits are not all that clear or relevant today, in my opinion.

So I decided to take an empirical approach to see what the functional results were in the five cases where the electoral vote prevailed over the popular vote. One would assume that if there is a positive side to the electoral vote, then it should make an appearance in the quality of the presidents that were not winners of the popular vote.

Historical rankings of U.S. presidents

1824: John Quincy Adams (D/R)- Adams is an outlier due to the system being different at that time; he was actually chosen by Congress out of four candidates, none of whom won a majority of the popular vote or the required number of electoral votes.

1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile

1888: Benjamin Harrison (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile

2000: George W. Bush (R) - ranks 3rd-4th quartile

2016: Donald Trump (R) - ranks solidly within the 4th quartile

According to this information, the evidence indicates that the electoral college has never elected an average, or above average president. There also appears to be a downward trend in the quality of "popular vote loser" presidents.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 05:50 PM



This is just like a Conservative:

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers.

Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody?

crazy
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Taking a look at the rationales for the electoral college, it seems pretty messy on the surface, and the intended benefits are not all that clear or relevant today, in my opinion.

So I decided to take an empirical approach to see what the functional results were in the five cases where the electoral vote prevailed over the popular vote. One would assume that if there is a positive side to the electoral vote, then it should make an appearance in the quality of the presidents that were not winners of the popular vote.

Historical rankings of U.S. presidents

1824: John Quincy Adams (D/R)- Adams is an outlier due to the system being different at that time; he was actually chosen by Congress out of four candidates, none of whom won a majority of the popular vote or the required number of electoral votes.

1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile

1888: Benjamin Harrison (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile

2000: George W. Bush (R) - ranks 3rd-4th quartile

2016: Donald Trump (R) - ranks solidly within the 4th quartile

According to this information, the evidence indicates that the electoral college has never elected an average, or above average president. There also appears to be a downward trend in the quality of "loser" presidents.

Are you kidding? A Wikipedia poll of our Presidents?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


This is just like a Conservative:

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers.

Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody?

crazy

If the shoe fits...
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:04 PM

NWP, while all that seems to make sense, remember that the Senator has come out as un-democratic. Our nation is not a democracy and was never meant to be one.

The people are allowed to voice an opinion but the Electors decide who will actually reign. We elect our representatives, but they do as they are told by corporate interests. None of that is really here nor there.

Truth be told if they had lost two elections in recent memory to the vagueries of the EC and looked to possibly losing more in the future then I think you'd see the shoe on the other foot. We'd have that puppy throwed out in the snow pronto.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:04 PM

To all, a public apology:

It has been a long time since I have been active in Moderating. I made an error in conflating Moderation comments with substantive comments. That post is now canon in this thread, so I'm not changing it, but noting it. I ask that we, as I will, be cognizant of our rules and procedures. If we have an issue with a post or poster, PM a Moderator, we'll address it. Knock off personal comments. Thank you for your cooperation.

I now return you to our regularly scheduled thread.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick


This is just like a Conservative:

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers.

Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody?

crazy

If the shoe fits...

It's good that a Conservative validates that stealing an election is way better than whining about having an election stolen. You're so patriotic sir. Are there more Americans just like you? smile
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Are you kidding? A Wikipedia poll of our Presidents?

No. There's not a single Wikipedia poll included in the link. It's a table of polls by respectable firms published in a Wikipedia article.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:31 PM


Nuance is not the forte of The Conservative. coffee
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from:

Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective.

There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either.

With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.

Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong.
I have not ignored the links, I read them. Nor do I believe they support your arguments. I'm disagreeing with the substance of your arguments, which does not require that I refute every element of every link to a source one provides. I can do so, but I already have a tendency to pedantry, a bad habit of mine.

Let me show an example: in a previous post you asserted
Quote:
No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas.
In support of that assertion, you cited https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/. I went to the source, but it does not support the claim, or even address it. It shows that the majority of Americans live in (undefined) urban areas, but does not differentiate by States.
Quote:
This statistic illustrates the size of the urban and rural population of the United States from 1960 to 2018. In 2018, there were approximately 58.22 million people living in rural areas in the United States, compared to about 269.9 million people living in urban areas.

There is considerable academic and popular discussion of this issue. Examples: The Divides Within, and Between, Urban and Rural America (CityLab) [I highly recommend the series.];
The deep roots of America’s rural-urban political divide (CS Monitor); How America’s urban-rural divide shapes elections (Economist). From that last:
Quote:
IN NINE OF America’s 13 congressional elections between 1994 and 2018, the Republican Party won a greater share of seats than votes. In 2012, Democrats failed to garner a majority of seats while winning a broad popular vote victory. Even in the 2018 mid-terms, which were described as a “wave” election, The Economist predicted that the Democrats had to win the popular vote in the House of Representatives by 5-6 percentage points to obtain a bare majority of seats. In the Senate, the situation is worse because of the way states magnify the pro-rural bias of America’s electoral institutions.
This divide is illustrated here: How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America’s Political Fault Line (NYT, the Upshot). [I've tried to post a graphic that demonstrates the point, but software won't cooperate]

It has taken several paragraphs to refute, in detail, a claim in one sentence of your post. I could do this every time, but is it worth the effort? Or would that just demonstrate my "arrogance"? That's a sincere question.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Truth be told if they had lost two elections in recent memory to the vagueries of the EC and looked to possibly losing more in the future then I think you'd see the shoe on the other foot. We'd have that puppy throwed out in the snow pronto.

You are wrong!
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written. I might not not be happy with the results of a Presidential election because I know that my side will never win every election and I'm damn glad that it won't. As a three time candidate for political office I respect the decision made by the voters. (I never was elected but I'm not a three time loser.) If in the 2020 election Bernie Sanders, for example, won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote do you know what I called him? President Sanders.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Are you kidding? A Wikipedia poll of our Presidents?

No. There's not a single Wikipedia poll included in the link. It's a table of polls by respectable firms published in a Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia articles are not credible sources. If you had posted links to the polls that supported what you said that would have been better than citing the Wikipedia article.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick


This is just like a Conservative:

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers.

Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody?

crazy

If the shoe fits...

It's good that a Conservative validates that stealing an election is way better than whining about having an election stolen. You're so patriotic sir. Are there more Americans just like you? smile

That's a great job of taking my comment out of context. I do not condone the stealing of elections by either political party. Unfortunately both of them have done so. However, the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it.
Do you have any evidence, any at all, that proves this assertion? I give you, in refutation, The GOP Election Plan Is Simple: Even When You Don’t Win, Cheat (Rolling Stone);
Quote:
The voter disenfranchisement on display in these three states is an extension of broader Republican efforts to reject the will of those citizens who vote in ways they don’t like, the same people who are most likely to block their path to power in future elections. The devil takes many forms, as does voter suppression.

Mark Harris, a Baptist preacher who considers Islam to be “Satanic,” won May’s GOP primary for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. After the November 6th general election, the Associated Press prematurely called the race in his favor. Leading by a mere 905 votes over his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, Harris’ win seemed close but certain. However, the state’s Board of Elections has twice refused to certify the victory, citing irregularities with absentee ballots. The board may order a new election on December 21st when it meets to review the mounting evidence that Harris and his campaign engaged in illegal activity that disproportionately affected voters of color.
We see it in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Georgia, Florida. It is blatant, it is brazen, and it is pervasive. Please defend these tactics as "conservative" or "democratic". Please justify the Supreme Court's brazen partisanship as "equitable" and "fair".

Don't give me history, let's talk about here and now.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from:

Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective.

There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either.

With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.

Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong.
I have not ignored the links, I read them. Nor do I believe they support your arguments. I'm disagreeing with the substance of your arguments, which does not require that I refute every element of every link to a source one provides. I can do so, but I already have a tendency to pedantry, a bad habit of mine.

Let me show an example: in a previous post you asserted
Quote:
No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas.
In support of that assertion, you cited https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/. I went to the source, but it does not support the claim, or even address it. It shows that the majority of Americans live in (undefined) urban areas, but does not differentiate by States.
Quote:
This statistic illustrates the size of the urban and rural population of the United States from 1960 to 2018. In 2018, there were approximately 58.22 million people living in rural areas in the United States, compared to about 269.9 million people living in urban areas.

There is considerable academic and popular discussion of this issue. Examples: The Divides Within, and Between, Urban and Rural America (CityLab) [I highly recommend the series.];
The deep roots of America’s rural-urban political divide (CS Monitor); How America’s urban-rural divide shapes elections (Economist). From that last:
Quote:
IN NINE OF America’s 13 congressional elections between 1994 and 2018, the Republican Party won a greater share of seats than votes. In 2012, Democrats failed to garner a majority of seats while winning a broad popular vote victory. Even in the 2018 mid-terms, which were described as a “wave” election, The Economist predicted that the Democrats had to win the popular vote in the House of Representatives by 5-6 percentage points to obtain a bare majority of seats. In the Senate, the situation is worse because of the way states magnify the pro-rural bias of America’s electoral institutions.
This divide is illustrated here: How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America’s Political Fault Line (NYT, the Upshot). [I've tried to post a graphic that demonstrates the point, but software won't cooperate]

It has taken several paragraphs to refute, in detail, a claim in one sentence of your post. I could do this every time, but is it worth the effort? Or would that just demonstrate my "arrogance"? That's a sincere question.

Another lecture. One that misses what my comments say. The purpose of the Electoral College was and is to balance the voting power of the states with a small population to those with a large population. The Electoral College serves as the Senate in a Presidential election.

The Electoral College was not meant to force presidential candidates to campaign in every state. What it does is make it necessary for presidential campaigns have organizations in all states.

But if you want to go off on another long winded reply to something I did not don't let me stop you. In a way NW you remind me of Hubert H. Humphrey, a good man who I had the privilege to know, but one who could not say something in 100 words if he could so in 1,000 words.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it.

I'm sure you have a link to that assertion. Not even Kris Korbach could make this true. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

I'm sure you wouldn't have that opinion if the Dems benefited from it like the GOP has for the past 28 years. coffee

Clinton 1992
Won Popular vote
Won EC

Clinton 1996
Won Popular vote
Won EC

W Bush 2000
Lost Popular Vote
Won EC via Supreme Court

W Bush 2004
Won Popular Vote
Won EC

Obama 2008
Won Popular vote
Won EC

Obama 2012
Won Popular vote
Won EC

Trump 2016
Lost Popular vote
Won EC

smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it.
Do you have any evidence, any asst all, that proves this assertion? I give you, in refutation, The GOP Election Plan Is Simple: Even When You Don’t Win, Cheat (Rolling Stone);
Quote:
The voter disenfranchisement on display in these three states is an extension of broader Republican efforts to reject the will of those citizens who vote in ways they don’t like, the same people who are most likely to block their path to power in future elections. The devil takes many forms, as does voter suppression.

Mark Harris, a Baptist preacher who considers Islam to be “Satanic,” won May’s GOP primary for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. After the November 6th general election, the Associated Press prematurely called the race in his favor. Leading by a mere 905 votes over his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, Harris’ win seemed close but certain. However, the state’s Board of Elections has twice refused to certify the victory, citing irregularities with absentee ballots. The board may order a new election on December 21st when it meets to review the mounting evidence that Harris and his campaign engaged in illegal activity that disproportionately affected voters of color.
We see it in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Georgia, Florida. It is blatant, it is brazen, and it is pervasive. Please defend these tactics as "conservative" or "democratic". Please justify the Supreme Court's brazen partisanship as "equitable" and "fair".

LBJ AKA "Landslide Lyndon" there wasn't an election he was in that he didn't steal, the machine politics of New York City, Kansas City, Chicago, Athens, TN, and Boston to name a few places where Democrats stole elections on a regular basis.
I cite history and you cite an extremely biased source the magazine The Rolling Stone.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
But if you want to go off on another long winded reply to something I did not don't let me stop you. In a way NW you remind me of Hubert H. Humphrey, a good man who I had the privilege to know, but one who could not say something in 100 words if he could so in 1,000 words.
How about this: You're Wrong. You are not only wrong, you are inconsistent. Let us move the goal post again? Previously you asserted
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.
Now you say
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Electoral College was not meant to force presidential candidates to campaign in every state.
You see, I hope, how one could see that as "inconsistent" and "moving the goalposts".

You assert that my post is
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Another lecture. One that misses what my comments say.
when in fact, it was directly related to exactly the detail and substance of your post. I misquoted neither your post nor your citation. When I don't respond to links, you accuse me of "ignoring" them. When I refute them in detail, you accuse me of "lecturing". My friend, you really can't have it both ways.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I cite history and you cite an extremely biased source the magazine The Rolling Stone.

Actually, Senator Hatrack, you didn't cite anything, you simply made some extremely biased and unsupported statements.
Quote:
Overall, we rate Rolling Stone Left Biased based on strongly left leaning editorial positions and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record.

There is a difference between biased and factual, BTW.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it.
Do you have any evidence, any asst all, that proves this assertion? I give you, in refutation, The GOP Election Plan Is Simple: Even When You Don’t Win, Cheat (Rolling Stone);
Quote:
The voter disenfranchisement on display in these three states is an extension of broader Republican efforts to reject the will of those citizens who vote in ways they don’t like, the same people who are most likely to block their path to power in future elections. The devil takes many forms, as does voter suppression.

Mark Harris, a Baptist preacher who considers Islam to be “Satanic,” won May’s GOP primary for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. After the November 6th general election, the Associated Press prematurely called the race in his favor. Leading by a mere 905 votes over his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, Harris’ win seemed close but certain. However, the state’s Board of Elections has twice refused to certify the victory, citing irregularities with absentee ballots. The board may order a new election on December 21st when it meets to review the mounting evidence that Harris and his campaign engaged in illegal activity that disproportionately affected voters of color.
We see it in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Georgia, Florida. It is blatant, it is brazen, and it is pervasive. Please defend these tactics as "conservative" or "democratic". Please justify the Supreme Court's brazen partisanship as "equitable" and "fair".

LBJ AKA "Landslide Lyndon" there wasn't an election he was in that he didn't steal, the machine politics of New York City, Kansas City, Chicago, Athens, TN, and Boston to name a few places where Democrats stole elections on a regular basis.
I cite history and you cite an extremely biased source the magazine The Rolling Stone.
in short, you have no response to the substance of my post. This from someone who accuses others of not reading links? Pu-leeze!. That is, definitionally, hypocrisy.

I take it from your response (as others have previously noted) that "cheating by Republicans is okay", but Democrats are automatically bad, because they were 50 years ago. Senator, I ask, humbly, read what you write critically, and honestly.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:19 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit?

The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations.

Why, if it produces inferior results and disenfranchises individual voters?

Frankly, Senator, it sounds downright Socialist!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:27 PM

"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country."
Now you say
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"The Electoral College was not meant to force presidential candidates to campaign in every state."
There is no contradiction in those two statements. To build a large coalition of voters in every state does not require a candidate to campaign in every state. Coalitions are built by people joining together to support a cause or a political candidate. A personal visit by a presidential candidate is helpful, but not necessary, to build a coalition.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country."

The idea behind the EC was to bring slave states into the Union. This is where the 5/8 counting of black male slaves came from.

smile

We don't have slavery any longer - much to most modern Conservative's chagrin. coffee

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:35 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
in short, you have no response to the substance of my post. This from someone who accuses others of not reading links? Pu-leeze!. That is, definitionally, hypocrisy.

I take it from your response (as others have previously noted) that "cheating by Republicans is okay", but Democrats are automatically bad, because they were 50 years ago. Senator, I ask, humbly, read what you write critically, and honestly.

I replied to the substance of your post by listing the history of the Democrats stealing elections. In another comment, which you might not have read, I stated that I am vehemently opposed to the stealing of elections by either political party! I am not being a hypocrite on this subject. That you think I am is most likely because you have not read all of my posts.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit?

The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations.
let me put this succinctly: You're wrong. I'll put it another way: you're wrong. To be fair... well, you're still wrong.

Quote:
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
What is the Electoral College? (US archives).
Quote:
The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.
Electoral College (History.com). (Emphasis mine).

By elevating a minor consideration to the principle purpose of the EC, you are distorting the actual history and substance of the compromise.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
substance of your post by listing the history of the Democrats stealing elections.

Got any modern examples, say in the past 30 years? I have a bunch of GOP election thefts. Like Kris Korbach, I can nary find a Dem election theft. smile
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count. Without the EC would we would have one person, one vote. Everyone's vote would count, but you Conservatives don't want everyone's vote to count. Hmm

One of the reasons our Constitution was written was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Then to win a Presidential election all a candidate would have to do is campaign in the states with large populations. The candidates could and would ignore states with small populations.

Originally Posted By: pdx rock
That's exactly how its done now with an eye towards the EC.

Presidential candidates do spend more time in states with large population. Without the Electoral College they could completely ignore all of the small states. They can't do that with the Electoral College.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Doesn't that defeat your "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" argument. I'm not buying what you're selling, sir. laugh

No, it does not. It actually reinforces the fact that our government is a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy the majority can and does tyrannize the minority.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Republicans stealing elections? Would that be like the 1960 election that JFK stole?

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
We don't need to go back in time 60 years, all we have to do is look at 2018.

Wrong again. I even used your liberal source SLATE to prove you are wrong.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...not-stolen.html
I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country."

The idea behind the EC was to bring slave states into the Union. This is where the 5/8 clouting of black male slaves came from.

smile

This is another example of your ignorance pdx rick. It was the 3/5 compromise not the 5/8 compromise. That compromise was not made to get the Electoral College into our Constitution. That sad and unfortunate compromise was, very reluctantly, made in order to get our Constitution written and ratified. Before our Constitution was even thought of Virginia (the colony with the most slaves) wrote the Declaration of Rights, in 1775. It was written by George Mason, Robert Nicholas, the colonial treasurer, and James Madison, all three were slave owners yet they debated the issue of slavery. All three of them believed that slavery was a dying institution, they just didn't know how to kill it. George Mason who is consider the "Father of the Bill of Rights" said this about slavery.
"As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union." "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
We don't have slavery any longer - much to most modern Conservative's chagrin. coffee
That comment is an insult to and a lie about Conservatives.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:13 PM

A couple of additional, and short points:

First, a "constitutional republic" and a "representative democracy" are the same thing. Full stop. Conservative commentators like to run out that phrase as if it means something special and refutes the United States being a "democracy." That is rhetorical legerdemain. When the founders used the phrase "republic" they meant "representative democracy" - "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." See Webster. Sounds like democracy, doesn't it?

What this trick is intended to do is obfuscate and confuse. What is usually intended is to create confusion about the United States as a federation, elevating the interests of States over the central government, which is both historically and functionally inaccurate (in short, deceptive). [It also conveniently replaces "democrat"ic with "republic"an.] The Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had a weak central government dominated by individual colonies, and was universally considered unworkable. The new Constitution created a strong, indeed, "Supreme", central government. That is the reality these commentators wish to hide.

Second, the principle purpose of the EC was not to thwart the "plan of the convention". It was intended to create a workable mechanism to establish an Executive that represented all of the people of the United States, and NOT the parochial interests of the constituent States. At the time universal suffrage was neither practical nor desirable. That is why the "college" meets in the different States the reports to Congress. Travel, even communicating, was incredibly slow. As with all other aspects of the Constitution and the preferences of its adopters, it was created as a representative constituency, not as a functionary of individual State interests.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country."

The idea behind the EC was to bring slave states into the Union. This is where the 5/8 clouting of black male slaves came from.

smile

This is another example of your ignorance pdx rick. It was the 3/5 compromise not the 5/8 compromise...

5/8...3/5...meh - the fact remains that the EC is very much tied to slavery.

Quote:
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

...

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

...

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
We don't have slavery any longer - much to most modern Conservative's chagrin. coffee
That comment is an insult to and a lie about Conservatives.

1870s Klan Members and 1930s Jim Crow writing Conservative Southern Democrats would disagree with you. What's that thing about conserving the past? smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:27 PM

Quote:
Wikipedia articles are not credible sources.

This has long been a conservative meme. Why? Mostly because when conservatives write/edit articles they typically use highly biased opinion pieces as credible sources. Sorry but breitbart, drudge, newsmax, etc are not credible sources.

But if you really believe it, then point out the errors and edit them. I mean it is apparently well known Mr Trump lies as a matter of fact but all of his surrogates deny he ever lies. Now I can't tell if they are stupid, ignorant, or are under a spell, but one thing is certain, they lie for Mr Trump.

Now don't get me wrong (as I know you have already done) wiki admits their articles are only as good as the credibility and honesty of the people editing articles.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:32 PM

You are taking my reply to logtroll about the Electoral College out of context. As James Madison said "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." That is why I said the purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. The purpose of the Electoral College is, as your links state and I wholeheartedly agree, to balance the power of small states against the power of the big states.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Wikipedia articles are not credible sources.

This has long been a conservative meme. Why? Mostly because when conservatives write/edit articles they typically use highly biased opinion pieces as credible sources. Sorry but breitbart, drudge, newsmax, etc are not credible sources.

But if you really believe it, then point out the errors and edit them. I mean it is apparently well known Mr Trump lies as a matter of fact but all of his surrogates deny he ever lies. Now I can't tell if they are stupid, ignorant, or are under a spell, but one thing is certain, they lie for Mr Trump.

Now don't get me wrong (as I know you have already done) wiki admits their articles are only as good as the credibility and honesty of the people editing articles.

Does Pres. Trump lie? Of course he does! Show a President, any President, who has not lied. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to show me a President who hasn't lied.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:35 PM

I've been enjoying my ride on my high horse. The view from up here is marvelous. I can see everyone's faults. Anyone else wanna go for a canter?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:38 PM

Quote:
Athens, TN ... Democrats stole elections on a regular basis

and you said "you cite history". Actually I think you cite conservative beliefs and ideology. I know it is popular among conservatives to cite big cities etc as Democrat wastelands but when you say you are citing actual facts ... you better be citing real live facts. and not conservatives beliefs.

So here is a snippet about Athens (because I have been there).

Originally Posted By: American Heritage
Fraud was suspected—to this day many Athens citizens firmly believe that ballot boxes were swapped—but there was no proof.


When you make blanket statements, all I have to do is prove one part is not true nor valid to refute your whole statement ... it is the way logical argument works.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:39 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I've been enjoying my ride on my high horse. The view from up here is marvelous. I can see everyone's faults. Anyone else wanna go for a canter?

I'll ride with you. Wanna be front or back rider? laugh
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:46 PM

I think the point was not that probably all presidents have lied but the extent Mr Trump lies and ALL of his defenders deny he lies.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country."

The idea behind the EC was to bring slave states into the Union. This is where the 5/8 clouting of black male slaves came from.

smile

This is another example of your ignorance pdx rick. It was the 3/5 compromise not the 5/8 compromise...

5/8...3/5...meh - the fact remains that the EC is very much tied to slavery.

Quote:
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

...

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

...

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
We don't have slavery any longer - much to most modern Conservative's chagrin. coffee
That comment is an insult to and a lie about Conservatives.

1870s Klan Members and 1930s Jim Crow writing Conservative Southern Democrats would disagree with you. What's that thing about conserving the past? smile

Was slavery a consideration in writing our Constitution? Yes, it was. Had the 3/5 compromise not been agreed to it is very unlikely that our Constitution would have been written, ratified, and in existence so that our government could live up to the ideal promised in our Declaration of Independence. The ideal that "all men* are created equal and endowed by their Creator** with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." So your attempts to tarnish our Constitution with slavery does not work. It doesn't because our Founding Fathers had to work with the society that they lived in, not the society of today.

By that definition you are using anyone who wants to preserve any of the New Deal is a Conservative.

*Jefferson was speaking of mankind not just the male of the species.
**Jefferson was a deist, for the lack of a better word, and did not mean the Judaeo-Christian concept of god.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.

I already put you up for a raise. It's up to the mods now. smile
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You are taking my reply to logtroll about the Electoral College out of context. As James Madison said "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." That is why I said the purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. The purpose of the Electoral College is, as your links state and I wholeheartedly agree, to balance the power of small states against the power of the big states.
If that was in reply to me, my friend, it is in error. As Hamilton (or Madison, no one is entirely sure) stated, in Federalist 68, "It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture." Note, not a selection by States on behalf of States, but from the people, and "that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves."

It was Hamilton's (or Madison's) hope that "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." I think we all agree it failed to do that in this instance, which was, I think, logtroll's point. Moreover, if the only think you discerned from my link was that the EC was "to balance the power of small states against the power of the big states", then you have missed, entirely, the import of those citations. In short, you are decidedly wrong.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The purpose of the Electoral College is, as your links state and I wholeheartedly agree, to balance the power of small states against the power of the big states.

I know you are being kept quite busy, but I have asked nicely twice already - do you have any examples of the electoral college accomplishing what you claim to the benefit of the "small states" or to the Nation? When has it balanced the power between states?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.
There was only one link in your reply: to Slate. It did not support your conclusion.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.
There was only one link in your reply, to Slate. It did not support your conclusion.

That link was posted by pdx rick not me, so of course it did not support my claim.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:10 PM

This is a quote you posted NW.
"The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."
I put in italics the part of your quote that supports what I said about the balance between large and small states.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The purpose of the Electoral College is, as your links state and I wholeheartedly agree, to balance the power of small states against the power of the big states.

I know you are being kept quite busy, but I have asked nicely twice already - do you have any examples of the electoral college accomplishing what you claim to the benefit of the "small states" or to the Nation? When has it balanced the power between states?

"The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."
Giving the small states some additional leverage is to give them a benefit and to balance the power between them.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
This is a quote you posted NW.
"The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."
I put in italics the part of your quote that supports what I said about the balance between large and small states.
And ignored the most important things: The list of primary purposes, and the specific limitation of the statement that it was "to a degree" - talk about "out of context". Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:21 PM

I just want an actual example of how the electoral college balanced the power between big and little states. I think we can leave out the three elections in the 1800s that the EC gave to the loser of the popular vote.

That leaves Bush II and Trump. How have those two inept clowns helped the small states in ways that the winners of the popular vote would not have?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/01/19 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.
There was only one link in your reply, to Slate. It did not support your conclusion.

That link was posted by pdx rick not me, so of course it did not support my claim.

Excuse me, sir. You put the Slate link out. You were so proud to find a Left-Leaning online reference. smile

Then I linked to more current information.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 12:57 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[quote=NW Ponderer]I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.
There was only one link in your reply, to Slate. It did not support your conclusion.

That link was posted by pdx rick not me, so of course it did not support my claim.

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Excuse me, sir. You put the Slate link out. You were so proud to find a Left-Leaning online reference. smile

Then I linked to more current information.

I did, but it was in response to your link from SLATE. Your link was posted first.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
[quote=Senator Hatrack][quote=NW Ponderer]I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.

Which link are you referring to? It is very difficult to try to reply to you, logtroll, and pdx rick at the same time. Add to that the fact that I probably one of the world's worst typists makes it even more of a challenge.
There was only one link in your reply, to Slate. It did not support your conclusion.

That link was posted by pdx rick not me, so of course it did not support my claim.

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Excuse me, sir. You put the Slate link out. You were so proud to find a Left-Leaning online reference. smile

Then I linked to more current information.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

I did, but it was in response to your link from SLATE. Your link was posted first.

No sir, my link was not to Slate. My link was to Law and Crime. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 01:08 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
This is a quote you posted NW.
"The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."
I put in italics the part of your quote that supports what I said about the balance between large and small states.
And ignored the most important things: The list of primary purposes, and the specific limitation of the statement that it was "to a degree" - talk about "out of context". Pot, meet kettle.

By bracketing the phrase about a degree of popular participation with commas means it is an idea that can stand alone from the rest of what is being said (", provide a degree of popular participation in the election,). Then in a comment before you posted this comment I referred to the Electoral College as the Presidential election version of it being like the Senate. The quote you posted also refers to the Electoral College as being senatorial in regards to a Presidential election. Who ignored the most important things in the quote you posted NW? You did.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 04:40 AM

Bull. Just bull. I realize you don't like to be shown to be wrong, but come on.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit?

The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations.
Tell that to Hamilton and Madison. They'd be shocked you didn't understand their well written arguments,
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 03:18 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit?

The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations.
Tell that to Hamilton and Madison. They'd be shocked you didn't understand their well written arguments,

You would think that after some 240-odd years of history that there would lots of easily identifiable tangible benefits resulting from "one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written".
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
[quote=Senator Hatrack]I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written.

Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit?

The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations.
Tell that to Hamilton and Madison. They'd be shocked you didn't understand their well written arguments,

Originally Posted By: logtroll
You would think that after some 240-odd years of history that there would lots of easily identifiable tangible benefits resulting from "one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written".
That you are participating in a free and open political discussion is a very easily identifiable tangible benefit of our Constitution. The fact that 44 times the leadership of our government has peacefully changed hands is another one. The amendment process of Article V of our Constitution is another. Logtroll are you forced to be a member of the official state religion? No, you are not because there isn't an official state religion. There are lots of easily identifiable tangible benefits that come from our Constitution. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see them when they are an integral part of your life!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 06:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[/quote]That you are participating in a free and open political discussion is a very easily identifiable tangible benefit of our Constitution. The fact that 44 times the leadership of our government has peacefully changed hands is another one. The amendment process of Article V of our Constitution is another. Logtroll are you forced to be a member of the official state religion? No, you are not because there isn't an official state religion. There are lots of easily identifiable tangible benefits that come from our Constitution. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see them when they are an integral part of your life!

The subject is the electoral college, not the Constitution in general. I have made that clear numerous times.

Please reread my comments with that in mind, and respond accordingly.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 07:19 PM

In keeping with logtroll's admonition to keep the conversation to the Electoral College.

The proof that this form of electing a president is obsolete and should be replaced, comes from the Founding Fathers themselves, specifically The Federalist Papers : No. 68. "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

The 2016 Electoral College failed in their Constitutional task to prevent the unqualified from attaining the Office of President in Donald (Coward, Misogynist, Traitorous, Lying, Spiller of Secrets, etc) Trump. Best argument to move to a true Democratic Republic form of Government - one person one vote. They who has the most votes wins, now that is a true representative form of government.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 07:42 PM

I admit, I am opinionated, and even arrogant when it comes to subjects I know well. For many years I defended the Electoral College - and for certain purposes I still do (although weakly anymore). In conception it is a bulwark against things going horribly wrong. But, as with many things in government, it has not worked as advertised, and is showing its decrepitude. Trump should never have happened, that is certainly true. The "fail safe" function of the EC was the last vestige of respectability it possessed, but it failed spectacularly to keep us safe.

There are structural and social impediments to fixing things that are wrong in government, and that includes specifically, the EC; more generally, the Constitution; and even more generally, government itself. More than two-thirds of the voting population is wedded to one or another major party. That loyalty, in its current form, prevents consideration of ideas from "the other side". Even things that are universally popular among the population cannot get traction in Congress or the White House. Obama, for his faults, remained committed to keeping that dialog open, but he never had a receptive audience, and eventually had to move on.

The antidote, I thought, was going to be a strong Supreme Court opinion striking down partisan gerrymandering. That might have begun steering this ponderous ship in the proper direction. But that institution is also too far gone, now. It has been infected with hyper-partisanship, just like the other branches. It may eventually recover, with proper timing and circumstances, but I don't see a significant alteration in my lifetime, which brings on depressive thoughts.

I would have thought that conservatives would be in favor of preserving these institutions, and as a former "conservative" would have myself, but I see just how naive I was, and perhaps am, still. Laws, norms, and constitutional expectations still motivate me, though; the grand experiment may yet recover from the partisan stupidity, but I have my doubts. I think, if the next election goes well, the next generation may have a chance to right the ship. I may be around to see that happen (or falter). When I think that way, I get optimistic again. There are big things to get done, and soon. Conservatives, and conservatism, stand in the way of that, so are now obsolete. I wish them/it well in their/its dotage.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 08:07 PM

Quote:
In keeping with logtroll's admonition to keep the conversation to the Electoral College.

The proof that this form of electing a president is obsolete and should be replaced, comes from the Founding Fathers themselves, specifically The Federalist Papers : No. 68. "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."


Back in the founders day, government in general was a plaything of the wealthy. They set things up so that wealthy land and slave holders would be in charge. Wealthy land and slave holders are still in charge.(our Corporate Overlords)

The point I've made before is that the Electoral College gave voters a chance to voice their opinions but the wealthy land and slave holders made the final decision.(their Corporate Overlords)

When the FFs put their heads together there were only a handful of states and the total population was under 4 million. There was a lot they didn't and couldn't foresee, but the genius of the contract they put forth has resonated down the ages. With just a few nips and tucks it has survived intact. Because the boys made it flexible.

The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 10:07 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That you are participating in a free and open political discussion is a very easily identifiable tangible benefit of our Constitution. The fact that 44 times the leadership of our government has peacefully changed hands is another one. The amendment process of Article V of our Constitution is another. Logtroll are you forced to be a member of the official state religion? No, you are not because there isn't an official state religion. There are lots of easily identifiable tangible benefits that come from our Constitution. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see them when they are an integral part of your life!

Originally Posted By: logtroll
The subject is the electoral college, not the Constitution in general. I have made that clear numerous times.

Please reread my comments with that in mind, and respond accordingly.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I read your comments and replied to them. Here is your comment that I replied to.
Originally Posted By: logtroll
You would think that after some 240-odd years of history that there would lots of easily identifiable tangible benefits resulting from "one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written".

You asked a general question about our Constitution and I answered it. Now because you don't like my answer you are saying I'm not responding properly. Despite what you think I did respond properly.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 10:36 PM

The ONLY reason liberals want to get rid of the Electoral College is because Hillary Clinton lost! Had the results of the election been reversed, Trump winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College, they would not have anything bad to say about it. Well that's too freaking bad! Changing the rules after they cost you the election is not how a representative democracy works.

Our Founding Fathers knew that people of virtue would not always be in our government.

"Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it." George Washington
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." James Madison

That those comments were made shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention did not create the Electoral College with the idea of it being protection against unqualified people from becoming our President.

The reason that the quality of people in our government has declined is not due to the failure of anything our Founding Fathers did. We have people running our government who aren't qualified to run a small business. They are there because we have stopped doing what we should be doing. What we should be doing is reverse these numbers, the approval rating and reelection rate for members of Congress. Currently Congress has an approval rating of about 11% and a reelection rate of 95%.

Another reason the Electoral College did not fail is due how we look to whoever is the President to fix our country while we keep reelecting incompetent idiots to Congress. Congress run is supposed to run our country not our current President. How can any President, regardless of party, fix problems in four to eight years that the idiots in Congress who are, or have been, there for decades? It can't be done! Our Presidents are not the cause of what is wrong with America, WE ARE!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/02/19 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You asked a general question about our Constitution and I answered it. Now because you don't like my answer you are saying I'm not responding properly. Despite what you think I did respond properly.

You are a dishonest man. I will not engage with you any further.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/03/19 02:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The ONLY reason liberals want to get rid of the Electoral College is because Hillary Clinton lost!
You lose that argument with the first sentence. Well done! As a purported "classical liberal" that conception just doesn't work. Moreover, painting with only one color tends to be very boring. Put the labeler away and address the substance, please. There are many of us, liberal and conservative alike, who have found the EC unworkable. Do you know how long it has been argued to be unworkable? I'll give you a hint: Madison was still alive.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That those comments were made shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention did not create the Electoral College with the idea of it being protection against unqualified people from becoming our President.
Even Madison disagrees with you on that one. That's the problem with relying on conservative websites for your quotes, you miss the context (and the point).

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The reason that the quality of people in our government has declined is not due to the failure of anything our Founding Fathers did.
Well, yeah, it is. They created parties.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
We have people running our government who aren't qualified to run a small business.
Now we are getting somewhere...
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
They are there because we have stopped doing what we should be doing. What we should be doing is reverse these numbers, the approval rating and reelection rate for members of Congress. Currently Congress has an approval rating of about 11% and a reelection rate of 95%.
Yes, and how did we fix that?
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[W]e keep reelecting incompetent idiots to Congress. Congress is supposed to run our country not our current President.
See, we can find common ground.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
How can any President, regardless of party, fix problems in four to eight years that the idiots in Congress who are, or have been, there for decades? It can't be done! Our Presidents are not the cause of what is wrong with America, WE ARE!
Hmmm. So it wasn't all Obama's fault? Bravo!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/03/19 03:02 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
[quote=Senator Hatrack]The ONLY reason liberals want to get rid of the Electoral College is because Hillary Clinton lost!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
You lose that argument with the first sentence. Well done! As a purported "classical liberal" that conception just doesn't work. Moreover, painting with only one color tends to be very boring. Put the labeler away and address the substance, please. There are many of us, liberal and conservative alike, who have found the EC unworkable. Do you know how long it has been argued to be unworkable? I'll give you a hint: Madison was still alive.

My comment referred to liberals because they are currently the most actively opposed to it. I know that there are conservatives who would like to get rid of too. Mrs. Clinton's loss in the Presidential election is what has motivated liberals to to push to get rid of it.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That those comments were made shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention did not create the Electoral College with the idea of it being protection against unqualified people from becoming our President.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Even Madison disagrees with you on that one. That's the problem with relying on conservative websites for your quotes, you miss the context (and the point).
I asked you to tell me the name of my source, not just to fob it off on a "conservative website." Show me a quote of Madison's that it was meant to protect against unqualified men from becoming our President.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The reason that the quality of people in our government has declined is not due to the failure of anything our Founding Fathers did.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Well, yeah, it is. They created parties.
When they did they believed there would more than two parties. Madison did speak of factions as way to keep our government working as well as possible.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
We have people running our government who aren't qualified to run a small business.
Now we are getting somewhere...
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
They are there because we have stopped doing what we should be doing. What we should be doing is reverse these numbers, the approval rating and reelection rate for members of Congress. Currently Congress has an approval rating of about 11% and a reelection rate of 95%.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Yes, and how did we fix that?
Two things would help 1) Don't vote for any incumbents. 2) Support "third parties" to break the power of the two we have now.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[W]e keep reelecting incompetent idiots to Congress. Congress is supposed to run our country not our current President.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
How can any President, regardless of party, fix problems in four to eight years that the idiots in Congress who are, or have been, there for decades? It can't be done! Our Presidents are not the cause of what is wrong with America, WE ARE!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer[/quote
See, we can find common ground. Hmmm. So it wasn't all Obama's fault? Bravo!

Sadly, unlike many Republicans/conservatives I may have disliked Pres. Obama's policies but I always respected him.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/03/19 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
My comment referred to liberals because they are currently the most actively opposed to it. I know that there are conservatives who would like to get rid of too. Mrs. Clinton's loss in the Presidential election is what has motivated liberals to to push to get rid of it.
I challenge you on that. I think you said it because, in your view, "liberals" are inferior and dishonest. No need to apply a label to make the argument.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Show me a quote of Madison's that it was meant to protect against unqualified men from becoming our President.
I refer you to Federalist 68. The authorship is presumed to be Hamilton, with Madison an alternate possibility, but it is certain that he, at the time, approved of it. I say this based upon the report of the convention itself (although not a direct quote):
Quote:
Mr. Madison: If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

Moreover, he expressed misgivings about the Electoral College himself in this Letter to George Hays in 1823. What bothered him most, though, was the advent and influence of "factions" (parties) that distorted the will of the people, and the use of "winner take all" apportionment of Electors that resulted.

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/04/19 12:45 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
[quote=Senator Hatrack]My comment referred to liberals because they are currently the most actively opposed to it. I know that there are conservatives who would like to get rid of too. Mrs. Clinton's loss in the Presidential election is what has motivated liberals to to push to get rid of it.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I challenge you on that. I think you said it because, in your view, "liberals" are inferior and dishonest. No need to apply a label to make the argument.

No, I do not think liberals are inferior and dishonest. There are dishonest conservatives and liberals. The only conservative that isn't dishonest is the author of this comment.
wink wink grin grin
I said liberal because they are not happy with the results of the election. Their dissatisfaction with the results has made the elimination of the Electoral College a bigger issue for them than it is for the others who would to get rid of it. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the results but the two realistic choices we had were not that great.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Show me a quote of Madison's that it was meant to protect against unqualified men from becoming our President.
I refer you to Federalist 68. The authorship is presumed to be Hamilton, with Madison an alternate possibility, but it is certain that he, at the time, approved of it. I say this based upon the report of the convention itself (although not a direct quote):
Quote:
Mr. Madison: If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

It helps to remember that The Federalist Papers were written to influence the people of NY to ratify our Constitution. Therefore, the best possible light is put on who will be our future elected officials. They were not intended to be, although they have become, explanations of how to interpret our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were politicians and they were not above putting a little spin on what they wrote.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Moreover, he expressed misgivings about the Electoral College himself in this Letter to George Hays in 1823. What bothered him most, though, was the advent and influence of "factions" (parties) that distorted the will of the people, and the use of "winner take all" apportionment of Electors that resulted.

That Madison had misgivings about what was done during hot summer when he and the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention is to be expected. While the convention was in session the doors and windows were closed which made the room hotter. That 55 men were in a protracted sometimes heated political also made they endeavor difficult. Yet, despite those difficulties they wrote the greatest legal/political documents in human history. Is there nothing you have done in your life NW that you don't have misgivings about?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/04/19 06:30 PM

<with fingers crossed and tongue firmly planted in cheek, doing best Trump impression> Of course I have no regrets...

I am pleased to see you acknowledge that Madison's views were "flexible" over the course of his lifetime. So, quoting one particular aspect of his views at one particular time for one particular purpose does not end the debate. I get frustrated at - and this is not specific to you, my friend - the citation to "founders" with cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes that don't reflect their far-more-nuanced views. That gets my back up. Done with that, now.

But, making an effort to get back to the original thread topic -

I found this article, The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, interesting. I particularly liked his typology graphic:
He makes, I think, a very valid point about the misuse of the term "Classical Liberal" in the modern context. Why the ‘Classical Liberal’ is Making a Comeback (Politico)
Quote:
Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776 ...., which formed the basis of the free-market capitalist system as we understand it today, [it] also featured the most prominent use to its date of the newly coined modifier “liberal.” “Liberal” policies, in Smith’s conception and that of his contemporaneous predecessors, stemmed from the Enlightenment concept of “liberty”—"Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way,” as he wrote in “The Wealth of Nations.”

The idea caught on. The debate, however, over to whom that liberty is extended or denied, and under what circumstances, was no less robust at the idea’s inception than it is today.


Accepting your previous assertions that "conservatism" is intended to "conserve", and that both the modern "liberal" and "conservative" traditions flow from the same philosophical source, where do you feel the current modern conservative or classical liberal would/should stand on current issues, such as separation of church and state, economic inequality, and social justice reform? (Feel free to address other topics.)
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
<with fingers crossed and tongue firmly planted in cheek, doing best Trump impression> Of course I have no regrets...

laugh Fifty thousand out of work comedians and I get stuck with you! laugh

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I am pleased to see you acknowledge that Madison's views were "flexible" over the course of his lifetime. So, quoting one particular aspect of his views at one particular time for one particular purpose does not end the debate. I get frustrated at - and this is not specific to you, my friend - the citation to "founders" with cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes that don't reflect their far-more-nuanced views. That gets my back up. Done with that, now.

"Either you are flexible or you eventually break from the changes in your life." (Me)
When I post a quote from one of Founding Fathers, especially Madison, due to the research I have done I know the quote is not out of context nor has it been cherry picked. As surprising as it might be, to you, there are people who are very knowledgeable about our Founding Fathers. I am one of them.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
But, making an effort to get back to the original thread topic -

I found this article, The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, interesting. I particularly liked his typology graphic:
He makes, I think, a very valid point about the misuse of the term "Classical Liberal" in the modern context. Why the ‘Classical Liberal’ is Making a Comeback (Politico)
Quote:
Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776 ...., which formed the basis of the free-market capitalist system as we understand it today, [it] also featured the most prominent use to its date of the newly coined modifier “liberal.” “Liberal” policies, in Smith’s conception and that of his contemporaneous predecessors, stemmed from the Enlightenment concept of “liberty”—"Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way,” as he wrote in “The Wealth of Nations.”

The idea caught on. The debate, however, over to whom that liberty is extended or denied, and under what circumstances, was no less robust at the idea’s inception than it is today.


Accepting your previous assertions that "conservatism" is intended to "conserve", and that both the modern "liberal" and "conservative" traditions flow from the same philosophical source, where do you feel the current modern conservative or classical liberal would/should stand on current issues, such as separation of church and state, economic inequality, and social justice reform? (Feel free to address other topics.)

Those are both very interesting articles and need to be read and reread quite carefully. It is not my assertion that conservatism means to conserve. The root word of conservatism is conserve.
https://www.etymonline.comword/conservatism#etymonline_v_28676
The separation of church and state should not be a current issue. That was resolved by the First Amendment. There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 04:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.


attn Straw man alert detected attn

Yes, there HAS always been income inequality...some income inequality.
In some time periods there was massive income inequality and in other times there was less massive income inequality, but only a numbskull would seriously ever expect there to be equal incomes for everybody, or equal outcomes for everything.

That's totally disingenuous.
No amount of finger pointing pedagogy about Marx, spare us ALL, please. Nobody here is interested in Marx. The most you will ever see who are nationwide probably number less than Arby's employees by several orders of magnitude.

NOBODY ever expects equal outcomes, even in the most ultra/uber egalitarian wet dream.
Equal opportunity on the other hand is another matter, and I am tired of endlessly drawing this important distinction to people who respond like zombies from The Walking Dead, endlessly insisting that I, a lefty, DO INDEED subscribe to Marx, while at the same time not even knowing I do. [/sarcasm] rolleyes

You claim in one post that some things are a matter of degree.
In your post above, you trot out a one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
It might be Karl Marx, or it might be one of The Smith Brothers, of cough drop fame. It doesn't matter to you because you're in a hurry to point out some perceived failing of a socialist/communist ideology that isn't even part of the discussion on the Left.

A matter of degree in things like, say perhaps, human productivity, might be important. Or for instance, matters of degree in things like income inequality might also be considered important, and worthy of a closer look.

I think degrees in income inequality down through the ages follow a familiar pattern. When matched carefully to historic events both good and bad, one begins to see a pattern of human nature.

In today's economy, we are at or near enough to an extreme imbalance...several of them.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 04:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.


attn Straw man alert detected attn

Yes, there HAS always been income inequality...some income inequality.
In some time periods there was massive income inequality and in other times there was less massive income inequality, but only a numbskull would seriously ever expect there to be equal incomes for everybody, or equal outcomes for everything.

That's totally disingenuous.
No amount of finger pointing pedagogy about Marx, spare us ALL, please. Nobody here is interested in Marx. The most you will ever see who are nationwide probably number less than Arby's employees by several orders of magnitude.

NOBODY ever expects equal outcomes, even in the most ultra/uber egalitarian wet dream.
Equal opportunity on the other hand is another matter, and I am tired of endlessly drawing this important distinction to people who respond like zombies from The Walking Dead, endlessly insisting that I, a lefty, DO INDEED subscribe to Marx, while at the same time not even knowing I do. [/sarcasm] rolleyes

You claim in one post that some things are a matter of degree.
In your post above, you trot out a one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
It might be Karl Marx, or it might be one of The Smith Brothers, of cough drop fame. It doesn't matter to you because you're in a hurry to point out some perceived failing of a socialist/communist ideology that isn't even part of the discussion on the Left.

A matter of degree in things like, say perhaps, human productivity, might be important. Or for instance, matters of degree in things like income inequality might also be considered important, and worthy of a closer look.

I think degrees in income inequality down through the ages follow a familiar pattern. When matched carefully to historic events both good and bad, one begins to see a pattern of human nature.

In today's economy, we are at or near enough to an extreme imbalance...several of them.

If you spot it, even when its not there, you've got it.
Nowhere in my comment do I make even a passing reference to Karl Marx but you keep seeing references to him. To repeat, there is not a single reference to Karl Marx in my comment!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 06:46 AM

I'm going to focus on just this part of your response:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The separation of church and state should not be a current issue. That was resolved by the First Amendment. There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.


A) Given the spate of separation cases recently decided that have expanded the sphere of "acceptable" interposition of religious beliefs on others, and in contravention of generally applicable laws, I'm not sure that assertion is currently accurate.

B) Not putting words into your keyboard, but is it your contention that only talent determines economic outcome? Factors like, say family wealth, race, and luck don't play a role? I'm genuinely interested in your take. Expect pushback.

C) Does society, generally, and government specifically, have an interest or responsibility to ensure justice is administered fairly?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm going to focus on just this part of your response:[quote=Senator Hatrack]The separation of church and state should not be a current issue. That was resolved by the First Amendment. There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.


Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
A) Given the spate of separation cases recently decided that have expanded the sphere of "acceptable" interposition of religious beliefs on others, and in contravention of generally applicable laws, I'm not sure that assertion is currently accurate.

Those cases, I believe, are based on a Supreme Court decision that misinterpreted what the is a governmental support of religion. Since I don't know which cases you are talking about that is why I said "I believe" they are based on an cases about Christmas decorations on city property.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
B) Not putting words into your keyboard, but is it your contention that only talent determines economic outcome? Factors like, say family wealth, race, and luck don't play a role? I'm genuinely interested in your take. Expect pushback.

The factors you mentioned do have an effect om how much money somebody might make. There are a lot of very talented musicians who will never make anywhere near what the Rolling Stones do. However, to try to eliminate those factors to make everyone's income equal is not possible.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
C) Does society, generally, and government specifically, have an interest or responsibility to ensure justice is administered fairly?

Yes, government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly. The problem is that our justice system is operated by human beings. To expect human beings to completely set aside their biases when called upon by our government to administer justice.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 03:40 PM

Keeping with the previous rubric: A) So, if I understand correctly, separation of church and state should not be an issue, but you agree (with me) that it is. And that it is an issue because the current SCOTUS majority is improperly interpreting the plain language of the Constitution? How do we "fix" this?

B) I have never suggested that we "eliminate those factors to make everyone's income equal" (nor am I aware of anyone here, ever, doing so). However, one of the aspirations of the nation is to make opportunity as equally available as possible. Rather than adopting policies that exacerbate inherent inequality (e.g., cutting taxes for the richest), I favor policies that enhance equity, (e.g., the Unified Gift and Estate Tax). I believe in progressive tax systems, and social safety net programs for that reason. There are many other policies that I believe will enhance the future of the majority of our population and are consonant with the principles our nation was founded upon. Rich Kids Stay Rich, Poor Kids Stay Poor (FiveThirtyEight); Opportunity Insights (Harvard) - See Which policies improve social well-being the most?

C) Since we agree that "government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly." The question is, are we? (I think we can acknowlege that we are not. The Injustice System of America (Kellogg Foundation)) Shouldn't we do better? Can we do better? How do we do better? If, as you say, the problem is "our justice system is operated by human beings", I see two potential solutions - be better human beings, or eliminate human foibles as much as possible.

But, I think, with regard to both B and C, we have to start by acknowledging realities. One of those realities is the persistence of racial division as a matter of policy. When 49% of incarcerated adults come from 13% of the population, something is clearly wrong. When this prevails:
There is something that needs to be addressed. See, for example, Wealth taxation: An introduction to net worth taxes and how one might work in the United States (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Keeping with the previous rubric: A) So, if I understand correctly, separation of church and state should not be an issue, but you agree (with me) that it is. And that it is an issue because the current SCOTUS majority is improperly interpreting the plain language of the Constitution? How do we "fix" this?

It is not an issue because of decision by the current Supreme Court. It is because of decisions made by the Supreme Court decades ago. Decisions that misinterpreted the idea of the separation of church and state. This can be fixed by the Supreme Court making decisions based on what is the state supporting a religion. When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
B) I have never suggested that we "eliminate those factors to make everyone's income equal" (nor am I aware of anyone here, ever, doing so). However, one of the aspirations of the nation is to make opportunity as equally available as possible. Rather than adopting policies that exacerbate inherent inequality (e.g., cutting taxes for the richest), I favor policies that enhance equity, (e.g., the Unified Gift and Estate Tax). I believe in progressive tax systems, and social safety net programs for that reason. There are many other policies that I believe will enhance the future of the majority of our population and are consonant with the principles our nation was founded upon. Rich Kids Stay Rich, Poor Kids Stay Poor (FiveThirtyEight); Opportunity Insights (Harvard) - See Which policies improve social well-being the most?
Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions, and the first $50,000 of income is not taxed. The rich already pat most of the income taxes collected. Increasing the taxes on them will not help anyone.
The rich pay MORE than their fair share!
The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed! It was taxed when the people who have it earned it! Why should our government get up to 55% of someone's estate just because they die? Double taxation is wrong! If you really want to improve people's lives get our government out of their lives! Wealth can be created even under the worst possible circumstances. The original Avon lady Our country was founded on the principle of the opportunity to create wealth. It was not created on the principle of government helping people!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
C) Since we agree that "government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly." The question is, are we? (I think we can acknowlege that we are not. The Injustice System of America (Kellogg Foundation)) Shouldn't we do better? Can we do better? How do we do better? If, as you say, the problem is "our justice system is operated by human beings", I see two potential solutions - be better human beings, or eliminate human foibles as much as possible.

Neither of the solutions you suggested are possible! Human nature has not changed since man first started living together. It will not be changed by anything any government does.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
But, I think, with regard to both B and C, we have to start by acknowledging realities. One of those realities is the persistence of racial division as a matter of policy. When 49% of incarcerated adults come from 13% of the population, something is clearly wrong. When this prevails:
There is something that needs to be addressed. See, for example, Wealth taxation: An introduction to net worth taxes and how one might work in the United States (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).

Government confiscation of wealth, taxes, does not help anyone improve their financial situation. Expecting our government to solve a problem it created is wishful thinking. The problem of minority incarceration is a problem a caused government policy. More government programs are not the answer! Walter Williams
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 06:51 PM


Republican strategist Rick Wilson defines the modern conservative:

Quote:
...[F]luent in the language of whining, dickish grievance-mongering...

I whole-heartedly agree. I will also add incessantly trolling in order to "own" the Liberals.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 07:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.


attn Straw man alert detected attn

Yes, there HAS always been income inequality...some income inequality.
In some time periods there was massive income inequality and in other times there was less massive income inequality, but only a numbskull would seriously ever expect there to be equal incomes for everybody, or equal outcomes for everything.

That's totally disingenuous.
No amount of finger pointing pedagogy about Marx, spare us ALL, please. Nobody here is interested in Marx. The most you will ever see who are nationwide probably number less than Arby's employees by several orders of magnitude.

NOBODY ever expects equal outcomes, even in the most ultra/uber egalitarian wet dream.
Equal opportunity on the other hand is another matter, and I am tired of endlessly drawing this important distinction to people who respond like zombies from The Walking Dead, endlessly insisting that I, a lefty, DO INDEED subscribe to Marx, while at the same time not even knowing I do. [/sarcasm] rolleyes

You claim in one post that some things are a matter of degree.
In your post above, you trot out a one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
It might be Karl Marx, or it might be one of The Smith Brothers, of cough drop fame. It doesn't matter to you because you're in a hurry to point out some perceived failing of a socialist/communist ideology that isn't even part of the discussion on the Left.

A matter of degree in things like, say perhaps, human productivity, might be important. Or for instance, matters of degree in things like income inequality might also be considered important, and worthy of a closer look.

I think degrees in income inequality down through the ages follow a familiar pattern. When matched carefully to historic events both good and bad, one begins to see a pattern of human nature.

In today's economy, we are at or near enough to an extreme imbalance...several of them.

If you spot it, even when its not there, you've got it.
Nowhere in my comment do I make even a passing reference to Karl Marx but you keep seeing references to him. To repeat, there is not a single reference to Karl Marx in my comment!


Hatrack, your continual reference to what YOU perceive is "liberal expectation of equal outcomes" is the marxism you refer to all the time, both BY name and NOT by name.

If you're not careful, I will corner you into repeating your old saws about how you think so much of Democratic Party ideology is marxism based.

So, playing a four year old's game of "I didn't actually SAY Karl Marx" isn't going to work.

We know that far out ultra leftists dream of equal outcomes, and equalized wealth, with no nail sticking up and nonconforming.

One only need dig up a few copies of your old newsletter The Militant, for examples.
Your problem is, you WERE a former Socialist Workers Party member, so you continue to assume that you understand everyone on the Left.
You write all of your arguments as if you're talking to (or talking DOWN to) another SWP member...A MARXIST.

So I will try one more time to let you know: There are NO MARXISTS here and your argument about equal outcomes and equal wealth are a STRAW MAN.

Would you like for me to pull up three or four of your past posts where you imply and then later outright SAY that Democrats are all marxists at heart, or something similar?

We can start with your "Rolling Stones" reference in case you already forgot that one, and work backwards.


Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
We know that far out ultra leftists dream of equal outcomes, and equalized wealth, with no nail sticking up and nonconforming.

Yes, a far out leftist like Kamala Harris, the junior Senator and former Attorney General of California.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...a far out leftist like Kamala Harris...

I like that Kamala frightens you. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 08:29 PM

Why don't far right nut jobs send shivers of fear through the Senator?

The left is looking for equality for all people, so why is that scary.

The right is trying to legislatively ensure inequality, now that should be very scary for any person.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 08:43 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Why don't far right nut jobs send shivers of fear through the Senator?

The left is looking for equality for all people, so why is that scary.

The right is trying to legislatively ensure inequality, now that should be very scary for any person.

Because the far right nut jobs only exist in you fevered mind. Why should I let your nightmares scare me? The only way to legislate equality for all people is by putting everyone in prison. Pass enough laws so everyone breaks one and is then put in prison, that is very scary. The right cannot legislate inequality, it already exists.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 08:52 PM

Quote:
When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion.
So you are calling that support of mangers? A manger scene is symbolic of one of THE iconic events in Christianity, so how is that not supporting Christianity???

I don't have a problem if cities states of the federal government "honored" everyone who has a religious preference with a blurb about their religion (or lack thereof), be it wiccan, voodoo Christianity or Islam. There is no need for a SC case as every religion is supported.

Quote:
Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions, and the first $50,000 of income is not taxed. The rich already pat most of the income taxes collected. Increasing the taxes on them will not help anyone.
You should read county tax books from the 1790's and on. There has always been a progressive tax on wealth in this country. Whether it is good bad or ugly is not the question. It tries to be equitable. If you are wealthy it was presumed you could afford to pay more. After all most of the wealthy were business men or large farmers who prevailed on local, state and federal governments to enacts laws to benefit them in their pursuit of wealth. And guess what? government was more than happy to comply.

Quote:
The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed!
Based on that argument no money should be taxed. Brilliant. See if you can figure out how nothing is taxable.



Quote:
Human nature has not changed since man first started living together.
and so we should live like animals?

You ARE trying to convince me I am correct when I concluded conservatives simply do not want government but a Darwinian death match.

Quote:
More government programs are not the answer!
You are correct.

BETTER PROGRAMS ARE REQUIRED!!!!
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 09:00 PM

Sounds like the only fevered mind is yours. Yes you are scary.

Quote:
The right cannot legislate inequality, it already exists.

You said it incorrectly. Inequality exists in nature but not as a result of anyone's attempt to legislate inequality. However more progressive people see the equality and try to fix it through legislation, so at least there is LEGAL equality. (You can't fix the bigotry of Trump supporters.) However the fevered minds of the right want to ensure there is LEGAL inequality by enacting laws which guarantee certain people do not have the same rights and privileges I do. Why doesn't that enrage you???
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 09:04 PM

Quote:
Does society, generally, and government specifically, have an interest or responsibility to ensure justice is administered fairly?
If i does not, then what good is society or government?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 09:25 PM

My friend, this may get complicated because you've embedded so many mathematical and statistical errors in your response they will be difficult to tease out. Let me start by responding to your first point.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It [Separation of church and state] is not an issue because of decision by the current Supreme Court. It is because of decisions made by the Supreme Court decades ago. Decisions that misinterpreted the idea of the separation of church and state. This can be fixed by the Supreme Court making decisions based on what is the state supporting a religion. When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion.


I apologize for my mischaracterization of your previous post. I thought you were being reasonable. My mistake. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court
Quote:

established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[4] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
Factors.
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Is pretty straightforward, and was an 8-1 decision. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the so-called "manger" case, however, they ruled the other way in allowing the nativity scene to be placed. In my view, it's been downhill ever since. I don't think it is appropriate for a government to display religious symbols in this manner.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The right is trying to legislatively ensure inequality, now that should be very scary for any person.

The Republican Party has no governing philosophy, no values system that is interesting - except the fear of others.

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds. Simply put, the brains of Conservatives are hardwired to over-respond to fear and other threats. It turns out, the amygdala is larger in the Conservative than those who do not respond to fear. With study findings like these, it's no wonder that Conservatives hate science. coffee
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 10:16 PM

Thank you for showing you are not the expert know it all you think you are. The Lemon v. Kurtzman decision was an misinterpretation of the First Amendment. I suggest you do some research and find out what the establishment of a religion was for our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court got it wrong.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 10:21 PM

The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival. Since the amygdala in conservatives is bigger than in others that means they have a better chance at survival than those whose amygdala is smaller than a conservative's is. Thanks for brightening my day by telling me that conservatives have a better chance at survival than liberals do.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival.

Indeed, but Conservatives don't have to be drama queens about immigrants and brown people. coffee
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Thank you for showing you are not the expert know it all you think you are. The Lemon v. Kurtzman decision was an misinterpretation of the First Amendment. I suggest you do some research and find out what the establishment of a religion was for our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court got it wrong.
Interesting that the vast majority of the legal and historical community, including most Supreme Court justices (past and current) are "wrong," but your view is the "right" one... because? And you accuse me of being arrogant? (Kinda rich, that. And why did you jump back on that wagon, again. I thought you'd grown up a bit.) Did I misstate the cases in any way?

I would suggest, instead, that I am the one taking the conservative view, endorsed by none other than Thomas Jefferson, that no religion should be promoted by government - especially funded by government - and you are taking the radical view. Which "founders" are you suggesting endorse your view?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 11:01 PM

Lemon v. Kurtzman was wrong because it did not establish a religion. By citing Lemon v. Kurtzman you did not use the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment clause. None of the three prongs in the Lemon test deal with the funding of a religion. That is why I said that Lemon v. Kurtzman was wrong. If you truly do believe in the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment of religion you would also say that Lemon v. Kurtzman is wrong. But you didn't. Instead you cited it as a good example of how the Supreme Court has correctly ruled on the separation of church and state.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/05/19 11:03 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival.

Indeed, but Conservatives don't have to be drama queens about immigrants and brown people. coffee

Only in your fevered mind are Conservatives drama queens about immigrants and brown people.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 02:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If you truly do believe in the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment of religion you would also say that Lemon v. Kurtzman is wrong. But you didn't. Instead you cited it as a good example of how the Supreme Court has correctly ruled on the separation of church and state.
I'm sorry, SH, but you missed the principle point of the First Amendment Establishment clause. It does not say "a religion". Any where. Go look... I'll wait.

Okay, no I won't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"... Establishment comes in many forms, which is why the SCt established the Lemon test. Funding is just the most obvious. Putting up religious iconography is another (easy) one (Ten Commanments, Crosses). How about if the government established a policy of not serving pork or beef in any government cafeterias or exempting pork or beef products from FDA or USDA regulation?

Your interpretation of Jefferson is... Unique. I see no conflict between Lemon and Jefferson.
Quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Maybe you can explain that?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 02:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival.
Indeed, but Conservatives don't have to be drama queens about immigrants and brown people. coffee

Only in your fevered mind are Conservatives drama queens about immigrants and brown people.

Your opinion on the SF Board of Supes thread validates my point above. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 03:56 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If you truly do believe in the Jeffersonian definition of the establishment of religion you would also say that Lemon v. Kurtzman is wrong. But you didn't. Instead you cited it as a good example of how the Supreme Court has correctly ruled on the separation of church and state.
I'm sorry, SH, but you missed the principle point of the First Amendment Establishment clause. It does not say "a religion". Any where. Go look... I'll wait.

As an atheist the principle of the First Amendment is very important to me. A principle I understand quite well. What you missed is that in order or our government to fund something, whether it is a charity or a religion it must first chose the one it is to fund. That is why I said "a religion." My comment was about the action our government would take after it had chosen a religion.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Okay, no I won't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"... Establishment comes in many forms, which is why the SCt established the Lemon test. Funding is just the most obvious. Putting up religious iconography is another (easy) one (Ten Commanments, Crosses). How about if the government established a policy of not serving pork or beef in any government cafeterias or exempting pork or beef products from FDA or USDA regulation?
In regards to the First Amendment the word establishment only means to fund a religion with taxes. Again, my saying "a religion" is that the funds cannot given until after one has been chosen. The phrasing of the First Amendment was to prevent Congress from choosing any religion.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Your interpretation of Jefferson is... Unique. I see no conflict between Lemon and Jefferson.
Quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Maybe you can explain that?
That's because there isn't a conflict between them. The problem here is not the Lemon Test. The problem is caused by those who want turn our country into the Christian nation they think it is. They want to make our government a Christian government. These "Christians" constantly claim that because the words separation of church and state are not in our Constitution that they should not be kept apart. These "Christians" don't understand that when Jefferson wrote that phrase he was talking about the First Amendment.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 04:39 AM

Taking your statements slightly out of order, you say, "The phrasing of the First Amendment was to prevent Congress from choosing any religion." I completely agree. It does not require it to decide to support any particular religion, but religion in general (otherwise they would have said so). As Jefferson stated, it was not picking one religion over another (although that is prohibited too), but simply promoting religion. (I can go into detail as to why chaplains and such are not prohibited, but I don't think that is necessary here.)

"In regards to the First Amendment the word establishment only means to fund a religion with taxes." I don't find support for that anywhere. Perhaps you can provide a citation to something? Again, yes, that would be expressly prohibited, but it is hard to reconcile that view with either the language of the Constitution itself or its interpretation for about 200+ years. Indeed, I can give a few examples of "Establishment" that do not require expenditure of funds, some of which I mentioned earlier but you did not address.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 05:58 AM

Because I left the other points for later, I feel obliged to address them now. In response to my contention:
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
B) ... [O]ne of the aspirations of the nation is to make opportunity as equally available as possible. Rather than adopting policies that exacerbate inherent inequality (e.g., cutting taxes for the richest), I favor policies that enhance equity, (e.g., the Unified Gift and Estate Tax). I believe in progressive tax systems, and social safety net programs for that reason.
You replied:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions, and the first $50,000 of income is not taxed. The rich already pat most of the income taxes collected. Increasing the taxes on them will not help anyone. ....
The rich pay MORE than their fair share!
The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed! It was taxed when the people who have it earned it! Why should our government get up to 55% of someone's estate just because they die? Double taxation is wrong! If you really want to improve people's lives get our government out of their lives! Wealth can be created even under the worst possible circumstances. The original Avon lady Our country was founded on the principle of the opportunity to create wealth. It was not created on the principle of government helping people!
I need to address this in detail, starting with the last - with which I completely disagree. There are two specific provisions that contradict your contention: The Preamble, and Art. I, Section 8 - the "General Welfare" clauses. Now, I know you are going to once again quote Madison to say that "general welfare" doesn't mean anything, but that view a) was expressed after-the-fact, and b) not the majority view of the founders or commentators (See, e.g., Federalist 30 and 34; Justice Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States), nor the one that has prevailed in the Supreme Court (See U.S. v. Butler (1936); Helvering v. Davis (1937) (upholding the Social Security Act); and South Dakota v. Dole (1984) (upholding the National Minimum Drinking Age Act).

Having laid that out in detail, let me get to the other points. I'm going to take them in reverse order: You claim, "The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed!" Almost entirely untrue. I have addressed this issue at length in numerous posts, but the short answer is, that taxes are only imposed upon a "taxable event". (This was my area of practice for most of my career.) In most Estate and Gift Tax scenarios, that "taxable event" has never happened. As an example: Parents buy a house for $30,000.00. 30 years later, they die. The $350,000 house passes to their son. That $320,000 "gain" has never been taxed. The same would be true for a 401(k), an IRA, and most capital assets, such as stocks or bonds. In short, it's just not true. That is why I favor treating Estate and Gift transfers just like any other income - as it is always income to the recipient.

RE: "The rich pay MORE than their fair share!" Also, not "true." The argument is usually supported by misleading statistics. (See, e.g., Tax Foundation) "The rich already pay most of the income taxes collected." While true, in general, it depends heavily on what one means by "rich" and by "most". In gross dollar figures, it can be true, but in tax rate, it is not:
Quote:
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.
The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.
FACT SHEET: TAXING WEALTHY AMERICANS (Americans for Tax Fairness). Those figures are old, but the situation has actually gotten worse. The reality is that the "rich" earn more than the average taxpayer, but pay less tax on their income, largely because more of their income is in tax-benefited forms (like capital gains, dividends, and pass-throughs).

Where you and I might agree is with the proposition that all income should be taxed the same way regardless of form.

Finally, you stated "Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions." First, there is no empirical evidence that income taxes are a disincentive to create wealth. Indeed, the opposite is demonstrably true. Second, a 5% tax would not begin to cover even the majority of government expenses. Finally, you realize that when you create an "exemption" for the first $50,000.00, that is progressive, right?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 06:12 AM

In response to my last point...
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
C) Since we agree that "government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly." The question is, are we? (I think we can acknowlege that we are not.)
You responded... well, basically, you didn't respond at all, but ducked this issue.

I said
Quote:
If, as you say, the problem is "our justice system is operated by human beings", I see two potential solutions - be better human beings, or eliminate human foibles as much as possible.
You replied
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Neither of the solutions you suggested are possible! Human nature has not changed since man first started living together. It will not be changed by anything any government does.


Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
But, I think, with regard to both B and C, we have to start by acknowledging realities. One of those realities is the persistence of racial division as a matter of policy. When 49% of incarcerated adults come from 13% of the population, something is clearly wrong. ...
You responded
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Government confiscation of wealth, taxes, does not help anyone improve their financial situation. [A complete non-sequitur] Expecting our government to solve a problem it created is wishful thinking. The problem of minority incarceration is a problem a caused government policy. More government programs are not the answer!
That, my friend, is just asinine. If one acknowledges that a problem exists, and that the government created it... one can only expect the government to correct it by public pressure. "WE" ARE THE GOVERNMENT (Remember that whole "representative democracy" thing?). At the very least, "they" can stop doing the stupid/illegal thing. At best, we can create programs and incentives to counteract the bad things that the government is doing. (Your reference, by the way, was neither germane nor reasonable.)
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 11:01 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Having laid that out in detail, let me get to the other points. I'm going to take them in reverse order: You claim, "The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed!" Almost entirely untrue. I have addressed this issue at length in numerous posts, but the short answer is, that taxes are only imposed upon a "taxable event". (This was my area of practice for most of my career.) In most Estate and Gift Tax scenarios, that "taxable event" has never happened. As an example: Parents buy a house for $30,000.00. 30 years later, they die. The $350,000 house passes to their son. That $320,000 "gain" has never been taxed. The same would be true for a 401(k), an IRA, and most capital assets, such as stocks or bonds. In short, it's just not true. That is why I favor treating Estate and Gift transfers just like any other income - as it is always income to the recipient.

In-Come: a combination of two words representing money or other assets being received.

In-come tax: one method of raising funding for the operations of the government.

Two comments on this. First, you explained the gain on an asset as a taxable event, but you didn’t as strongly make the point that the transfer of assets is a taxable event in itself. The “double taxation” notion forgets that the dead person is not the one paying estate taxes, it is the new owner of the dough who is getting income. A transaction takes place that isn’t so different than receiving a paycheck, except that the recipient didn’t trade work for the income.

That leads to comment #2 - I think it is so incredibly strange that people unquestioningly accept that income from working, which is a matter of trading chunks of one’s life for money, is okay to be taxed, but that income from windfalls (including inheritance) and gains from investments (where the capital, or luck does the work) should be exempted. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 01:26 PM

"In regards to the First Amendment the word establishment only means to fund a religion with taxes."

Senator Hatrack, I think you may be mistaken in your equating establishment of religion to funding "a religion with taxes."

I submit for your perusal and the review of other ranters' this wonderful read Religious Freedom, by Matthew J. Franck, hosted on the Roots of Liberty website.

Good discussion above popcorn2
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 01:34 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I think it is so incredibly strange that people unquestioningly accept that income from working, which is a matter of trading chunks of one’s life for money, is okay to be taxed, but that income from windfalls (including inheritance) and gains from investments (where the capital, or luck does the work) should be exempted. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
I couldn't agree more.

In my view, all "income" should be taxed the same. But an exemption for an exchange of labor seems a reasonable policy. A payroll tax, however, also seems reasonable to me, for particular programs like SS and Medicare.

I also think Warren's wealth tax is a reasonable approach, much like the AMT, to capturing income gains that have otherwise gone untaxed. The wealthy have the ability to hide/disguise/defer income "gains" that ordinary citizens do not. (I have no offshore accounts, for example.) That was my bailiwick for some time (estate & financial planning). It's a way of reexamining what a "taxable event" is.

I have never understood (except as a sop to rich donors) what justifies a "capital gains" rate. It's even worse for dividends and inheritance. It's based on a false financial argument and always has been - just like arguments against a progressive tax system. In a tax-neutral economy, people are going to make investments they feel are sound, regardless of tax consequences, and that is how it should be.

Giving tax "incentives" is the worst kind of "market manipulation", yet is favored by so-called "conservatives" all the time. As long as it favors their people.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/06/19 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
...
I submit for your perusal and the review of other ranters' this wonderful read Religious Freedom, by Matthew J. Franck, hosted on the Roots of Liberty website.

Good discussion above popcorn2
I commend you on the find, Ujest. That was, indeed, an excellent read! (I wish I'd written it.)
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 03:59 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Taking your statements slightly out of order, you say, "The phrasing of the First Amendment was to prevent Congress from choosing any religion." I completely agree. It does not require it to decide to support any particular religion, but religion in general (otherwise they would have said so). As Jefferson stated, it was not picking one religion over another (although that is prohibited too), but simply promoting religion. (I can go into detail as to why chaplains and such are not prohibited, but I don't think that is necessary here.)

"In regards to the First Amendment the word establishment only means to fund a religion with taxes." I don't find support for that anywhere. Perhaps you can provide a citation to something? Again, yes, that would be expressly prohibited, but it is hard to reconcile that view with either the language of the Constitution itself or its interpretation for about 200+ years. Indeed, I can give a few examples of "Establishment" that do not require expenditure of funds, some of which I mentioned earlier but you did not address.

To understand why Madison and Jefferson thought that religions were established by getting funds from the state it helps to read biographies of about them. (I've read about six or seven biographies of Madison and several biographies of Jefferson.) By reading biographies of these two, as I'm sure you have, you learn about the influences on their lives. For Madison and Jefferson one of the things that motivated them was that the Anglican Church was the established religion in the colony of Virginia. The Anglican (Church) religion was established because it was supported by taxes. All Virginians paid taxes to support the Anglicans. They could be members of the religion of their choice but had to pay taxes to support the Anglicans. The Anglicans were [i]the[/i established religion because was supported by taxes while no other religions were.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 04:13 AM

Hat, you would be correct (I've read biographies of both). I would point out, moreover, that both were strident supporters of anti-religious-establishment - in all forms. As noted briefly in the Ujest's reference, they both advocated for the strict separation. Madison was responsible for getting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, written by Jefferson, passed.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The response to fear is an instinct necessary for human survival. Since the amygdala in conservatives is bigger than in others that means they have a better chance at survival than those whose amygdala is smaller than a conservative's is. Thanks for brightening my day by telling me that conservatives have a better chance at survival than liberals do.


No, an oversized hormonal gland is not the key to survival and, in some cases, it may trigger behavior which threatens not only survival of the individual, but maybe even the species. How large do you suppose the amygdala on the average lemming might be?
What about cassowaries or emus?

Sorry, but when it comes to the higher species, we should be measuring their cerebral cortex, not the gland that pumps cortisol.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 07:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
We know that far out ultra leftists dream of equal outcomes, and equalized wealth, with no nail sticking up and nonconforming.

Yes, a far out leftist like Kamala Harris, the junior Senator and former Attorney General of California.


You're beginning to sound like Cleon Skousen. Anyone he didn't like was automatically tagged a far out Marxist.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 11:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=Senator Hatrack][quote=Jeffery J. Haas]We know that far out ultra leftists dream of equal outcomes, and equalized wealth, with no nail sticking up and nonconforming.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Yes, a far out leftist like Kamala Harris, the junior Senator and former Attorney General of California.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
You're beginning to sound like Cleon Skousen. Anyone he didn't like was automatically tagged a far out Marxist.

Since I don't know and have never met Sen. Harris I neither like nor dislike her. That her father was an avowed Marxist is a strong indication that her views are very far to the left.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 11:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That her father was an avowed Marxist is a strong indication that her views are very far to the left.

It is?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 11:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That her father was an avowed Marxist is a strong indication that her views are very far to the left.


Woody Harrelson's father is a convicted serial killer.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/07/19 11:57 PM

Quote:
That her father was an avowed Marxist is a strong indication that her views are very far to the left.


District attorney and state AG: Yep, sure signs of Marxism.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 02:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That her father was an avowed Marxist is a strong indication that her views are very far to the left.


Woody Harrelson's father is a convicted serial killer.
That explains his well-known murder streak. Oh wait, that was a movie!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 04:55 PM




Ms. Harris said America was not working for working people, that health care costs were driving people to near bankruptcy and that she supported “Medicare for all.”

She railed against gun violence, described climate change as man-made and endorsed the Green New Deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/us/politics/kamala-harris-town-hall.html

Quote:
The plan must include a federal jobs guarantee and large-scale public investments.

Again, the GND is not just climate policy. It’s about transforming the economy, lifting the up the poor and middle class, and creating a more muscular, active public sector.

The GND “opens an opportunity to renegotiate power relationships between the public sector, the private sector, and the people,” says Gunn-Wright. “We are interested in solutions that create more democratic structures in our economy.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme...a-ocasio-cortez

Medicare for all and the Green New Deal are steps toward Socialism. When the only provider of health care is our government that is Socialism. When the energy industry is run by our government that is Socialism. Since Sen. Harris supports both Medicare for all and the Green New Deal she is a Socialist.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 07:48 PM

My dear friend Senator H,

It must be nice to live in a world where you get to define your terms (and thus your enemies) willy-nilly without regard to standards or rationality. Most of us are constrained by the real world, and are thus at a disadvantage. I suppose, though, that gives everyone the equal right to describe your views as they like, too.

You have, I understand, voted Republican. That means that the list of horribles Greger previously supplied are now verified as applicable. I appreciate that concession. It clarifies so much. I'm sure this discussion will be so much simpler in the future.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Medicare for all and the Green New Deal are steps toward Socialism.

The Green New Deal is a concept, it doesn't actually exist yet. Do you think the things I have suggested for the Green New Deal are steps toward Socialism?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
My dear friend Senator H,

It must be nice to live in a world where you get to define your terms (and thus your enemies) willy-nilly without regard to standards or rationality. Most of us are constrained by the real world, and are thus at a disadvantage. I suppose, though, that gives everyone the equal right to describe your views as they like, too.

You have, I understand, voted Republican. That means that the list of horribles Greger previously supplied are now verified as applicable. I appreciate that concession. It clarifies so much. I'm sure this discussion will be so much simpler in the future.

If, because I have voted for Republicans, I am guilty by association of everything Republican elected officials have done, then you and Greger are guilty by association of everything the Democrats have done. The list of sins committed by the Democrats is much longer than the sins committed by the Republicans. Thanks for admitting that you and Greger have and do wallow in the pig sty of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack



Ms. Harris said America was not working for working people, that health care costs were driving people to near bankruptcy and that she supported “Medicare for all.”

She railed against gun violence, described climate change as man-made and endorsed the Green New Deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/us/politics/kamala-harris-town-hall.html

Quote:
The plan must include a federal jobs guarantee and large-scale public investments.

Again, the GND is not just climate policy. It’s about transforming the economy, lifting the up the poor and middle class, and creating a more muscular, active public sector.

The GND “opens an opportunity to renegotiate power relationships between the public sector, the private sector, and the people,” says Gunn-Wright. “We are interested in solutions that create more democratic structures in our economy.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme...a-ocasio-cortez

Medicare for all and the Green New Deal are steps toward Socialism. When the only provider of health care is our government that is Socialism. When the energy industry is run by our government that is Socialism. Since Sen. Harris supports both Medicare for all and the Green New Deal she is a Socialist.


The Green New Deal isn't a law, it's a proposal.
As such, 100% or as little as zero percent of it will be considered in any conversation about energy and environmental concerns.
And, as a proposal (and a rather vague and loosely defined one at that) everything in it is open to debate.

Now, please do us all a favor and illustrate how you believe that "the only provider of health care is our government" under ANY plans put forth by anyone in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 09:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Now, please do us all a favor and illustrate how you believe that "the only provider of health care is our government" under ANY plans put forth by anyone in the Democratic Party.

Medicare is a government run healthcare plan. If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...-all/ar-AAGU5jA
More than half of House Democrats now support Medicare for all. When over half the Democrats in the House of Representatives that means it is a plan supported by the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
The Green New Deal isn't a law, it's a proposal. As such, 100% or as little as zero percent of it will be considered in any conversation about energy and environmental concerns. And, as a proposal (and a rather vague and loosely defined one at that) everything in it is open to debate.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro...-green-new-deal
If the Democrats take control of our government most, if not all, of the New Green Deal will (eventually) become law.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/08/19 10:45 PM

What do you think should be in a Green New Deal, Senator?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 12:31 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
What do you think should be in a Green New Deal, Senator?
Nothing. Whatever is proposed will only make our government bigger than it needs to be.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 12:40 AM

Did you read my recommendations?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 03:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Medicare is a government run healthcare plan.


Show me the list of all the government owned and operated Medicare hospitals, clinics and doctor offices. Tell me what GS grade a Medicare doctor is. Since you claim it's government run, the definition of that is, doctors and all other healthcare people are government employees, and the government built, runs and owns all the facilities.
Show me.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.


You're saying Medicare is exactly like the British NHS.
Prove it or admit that you like to play fast and loose with your definitions.

By the way, in debates, you don't GET to make up your own definitions.
The VA is a government run healthcare plan. Everyone at the VA is a government employee, the government built the hospitals and runs them and they are on federal property.

So in essence, you're misinformed.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
This is not just about RR, but conservative voices generally.

Did a bunch of them get off the Conservative Train at Perot Junction?

Perotistas circa 2009
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
What do you think should be in a Green New Deal, Senator?
Nothing. Whatever is proposed will only make our government bigger than it needs to be.


The problem we run into is that you don't want government to interfere with your life but you really don't care how much they interfere with the lives of others. In fact, you encourage them to interfere with millions of lives so that you can personally profit.

That's not how things were meant to be Senator. Government is supposed to work for everyone. It does a pretty good job overall.
But it needs a few tweaks. Those tweaks will neither make the government "bigger" than it currently is nor will they make it more "socialist".

I haven't got a freaking clue what Trump is doing that might somehow Make America Great Again. All he's doing is making farmers commit suicide because they can't keep up with their loans.

Perhaps we should think of Republicanism in general as the The Brown New Deal
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
My dear friend Senator H,

It must be nice to live in a world where you get to define your terms (and thus your enemies) willy-nilly without regard to standards or rationality. Most of us are constrained by the real world, and are thus at a disadvantage. I suppose, though, that gives everyone the equal right to describe your views as they like, too.

You have, I understand, voted Republican. That means that the list of horribles Greger previously supplied are now verified as applicable. I appreciate that concession. It clarifies so much. I'm sure this discussion will be so much simpler in the future.

If, because I have voted for Republicans, I am guilty by association of everything Republican elected officials have done, then you and Greger are guilty by association of everything the Democrats have done. The list of sins committed by the Democrats is much longer than the sins committed by the Republicans. Thanks for admitting that you and Greger have and do wallow in the pig sty of the Democratic Party.
I'll gladly take that mantle, as the list of accomplishments so outstrips the "horribles" that they become almost irrelevant. Let's compare notes, shall we? Starting at the top, and sticking with the last century:

Warren G. Harding: Known for -Tepot Dome. 'nuff said.
Calvin Coolidge: The Great Depression.
Quote:
Along with Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, Coolidge won the passage of three major tax cuts. Using powers delegated to him by the 1922 Fordney–McCumber Tariff, Coolidge kept tariff rates high in order to protect American manufacturing. He blocked passage of the McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Bill, which would have involved the federal government in the persistent farm crisis that affected many rural communities. The strong economy combined with restrained government spending to produce consistent government surpluses, and total federal debt shrank by one quarter during Coolidge's presidency. Coolidge also signed the Immigration Act of 1924, which greatly restricted immigration into the United States. In foreign policy, Coolidge continued to keep the United States out of the League of Nations, but he engaged with foreign leaders and sponsored the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928.
...
Coolidge has often been criticized for his actions during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the worst natural disaster to hit the Gulf Coast until Hurricane Katrina in 2005
(Wikipedia) (Sound familiar?)
Hoover: Smoot-Hawley; Hoovervilles. On the plus side, Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 (predecessor to the Glass-Steagall we know); and the socialist programs of Reconstruction Finance Corporation; Federal Home Loan Bank Act; Emergency Relief and Construction Act.
Franklin Roosevelt... Well, too many to list, New Deal (SSA, among others).
Harry Truman: Finished WWII, brought US into UN; The Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift.
Quote:
The president set forth an ambitious social reform agenda, known as the Fair Deal, which included national medical insurance, federal housing programs, a higher minimum wage, assistance for farmers, repeal of the Taft-Hartley labor act, increases in Social Security and civil rights reforms. Truman’s proposals were largely blocked by conservatives in Congress; however, he had some legislative successes, such as the Housing Act of 1949, and also issued executive orders (at the end of his first term) to end segregation in the U.S. armed forces and to prohibit discrimination in federal government jobs.

Eisenhower: NASA, Interstate Highway System;
Quote:
Throughout his presidency, Eisenhower adhered to a political philosophy of dynamic conservatism.[129] He described himself as a "progressive conservative"[130] and used terms such as "progressive moderate" and "dynamic conservatism" to describe his approach.[131] He continued all the major New Deal programs still in operation, especially Social Security. He expanded its programs and rolled them into the new cabinet-level agency of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, while extending benefits to an additional ten million workers. He implemented racial integration in the Armed Services in two years, which had not been completed under Truman.
Richard Nixon (whom he tried to jettison), the Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs.
Kennedy: Space program; Cuban Missle Crisis; Green Berets; proposed tax reductions; Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Johnson: Great Society programs (Medicare, Medicaid); Civil Rights Act.
Quote:
Department of Transportation.[32] The department was authorized by Congress on October 15, 1966 and began operations on April 1, 1967. Congress passed a variety of legislation to support improvements in transportation including The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 which provided $375 million for large-scale urban public or private rail projects in the form of matching funds to cities and states and created the Urban Mass Transit Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration), High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 which resulted in the creation of high-speed rail between New York and Washington, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
(Wikipedia)
Nixon: Spiro Agnew; Watergate; Clean air, Clean Water Acts, EPA; Bombing of Laos; Cambodia; Vietnam escalation; SALT treaties; stagflation; end of the gold standard; and a mixed bag of other legislation and vetoes. Oh, and Watergate.
Ford:?
Carter: ??
Reagan: Iran-Contra. Recession.
Bush: Iraq I. Recession.
Clinton: little blue dress; a lotta nuttin.
Bush: Iraq II; Great Recession.
Obama: Recession recovery; ACA
Trump: the Scandal a Day Program.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/09/19 09:42 PM

I shall reply to your list later. There are a lot of errors in the list. Which is not surprising.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 03:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I shall reply to your list later. There are a lot of errors in the list.
Good luck with that. I actually have references, I don't make **** up (unlike some I know).
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 04:55 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'll gladly take that mantle, as the list of accomplishments so outstrips the "horribles" that they become almost irrelevant. Let's compare notes, shall we? Starting at the top, and sticking with the last century:

Warren G. Harding: Known for -Teapot Dome. 'nuff said.

Yes, the Harding administration is known for the Teapot Dome scandal. However, it was the people in his administration who are responsible for the scandal not Harding. Being inept and an overly trusting person was Harding's crime, not the Teapot Dome scandal.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Calvin Coolidge: The Great Depression.

You are trying to blame Coolidge for the Great Depression? You are blaming Coolidge for something that did not start until he had been out of office for almost two years? If he is then the ALL of the economic recovery we are currently enjoying is due to Trump and Obama had nothing to do with it!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Hoover: Smoot-Hawley; Hoovervilles. On the plus side, Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 (predecessor to the Glass-Steagall we know); and the socialist programs of Reconstruction Finance Corporation; Federal Home Loan Bank Act; Emergency Relief and Construction Act.

You will get no debate from me on Hoover, Smoot, and Hawley for being primarily responsible for the Great Depression. Your “plus” side is only a plus if you believe that government intervention solves economic problems. Since you call the other programs socialist I imagine that there probably isn’t a government intervention in our economy you would oppose.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Franklin Roosevelt... Well, too many to list, New Deal (SSA, among others).

The New Deal? Without the help of viruently racist southern Democrats the New Deal programs would not have passed. In order to get some of the New Deal programs passed FDR convinced Democrats from other states to allow the southern Democrats to prevent anti-lynching laws from being passed. Also the conditions of southern blacks were made much worse due many of the New Deal programs, such as the AAA, the WPA, the NIRA (AKA the NRA), and Social Security. Then there is FDR’s appointment of a member of the KKK, Hugo Black, to the Supreme Court. And you have the gall to call Republicans racist? The programs you cherish would not have been created without the help of the racist Southern Democrats!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Harry Truman: Finished WWII, brought US into UN; The Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift.

In July of 1945 a Swedish diplomat, Allen Dulles, and the Japanese Army legation, headed by Lt. Gen. Seigo Okamoto, in Basle, Switzerland created a peace treaty that would have ended WWII that month and without dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Swedish diplomat was my grandfather, Per Jacobsson. (He missed my parents wedding to work on the peace treaty.) There would not have been a UN for the US to join if FDR did not pick former Governor Harold Stassen (R-MN) to be on the Founding Conference. Stassen was a primary author of the UN’s Charter. He was also a friend of my family and me. The UN has become a corrupt club run by third world dictators. It is not the organization that Stassen helped create.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Eisenhower: NASA, Interstate Highway System;
No argument there.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Kennedy: Space program; Cuban Missle Crisis; Green Berets; proposed tax reductions; Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Richard Nixon (whom he tried to jettison), the Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs.

The Cuban Missile Crisis would probably not have happened if Kennedy, NOT Nixon, had not launched the Bay of Pigs invasion! Giving Kennedy credit for pulling his ass out of crisis he created is hardly something to brag about.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Johnson: Great Society programs (Medicare, Medicaid); Civil Rights Act.

The Great Society is a complete failure! Our government spent over $17 trillion to eliminate poverty and poverty is still as bad today as it was before the Great Society started is not a successful program. Medicare is a success? That program is a $70 to $100 trillion unfunded liability for our government. It was LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution is what escalated the Vietnam War. The ONLY reason LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law was because Senate Republicans led by Everett Dirksen broke the filibuster of the southern Democrats!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 06:20 AM

I suspected I would get virulently partisan and historically dubious responses, and you did not disappoint, my friend. Thanks for that.

1) Harding gets a pass because he only appointed the crooks to his cabinet. That's unique. I suppose it's because he didn't personally profit, like Trump does.

2) Your ignorance of Coolidge and his policies does not surprise me. March 1929 (left office)-October 1929 (stock market crash) does not 2 years make, even using "conservative" math. Even Coolidge admitted he bore partial responsibility for the crash.
Quote:
Although Coolidge had received a great deal of credit for the prosperity of the 1920s, he recognized that he bore some responsibility for the severe economic downturn. He admitted to friends that he had spent his presidency “avoiding the big problems,” as William Allen White quoted him as saying in his biography, “A Puritan in Babylon.” Coolidge died of a heart attack at the age of 60 at his Northampton home on January 5, 1933.
History Had he not died during the depth of the Depression, he might have taken more blame. But, it was his laissez faire policies from 1923-1929, love of tariffs, and cheerleading for reckless stock speculation that created the conditions that led to the failures. Hoover actually saw it coming and tried to warn him. (It seems funny/typical to excuse Republican presidents who serve multiple terms from responsibility for their policies, but blame Democrats for conditions before they even assume office...)

3) I actually give Hoover credit for trying to do something, if way too late. But all three, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, had a marked disdain for the downtrodden and an overweening belief in the goodness of business.

4) Then, deflect, defame, obfuscate and misrepresent (why am I not surprised?) to avoid the reality of FDR's success, despite Republican intransigence and interference. (And you have the temerity to make accusations about claims of racism you know I never made. Dishonest, much?)

5) Eisenhower (not Nixon) created both the Vietnam crisis and the Bay of Pigs plan (in March 1960 he allocated $13.1 million to the CIA to plan Castro's overthrow. The CIA proceeded to organize the operation with the aid of various Cuban counter-revolutionary forces, training Brigade 2506 in Guatemala. Eisenhower's successor), or did you forget that part of history for convenience sake? It's true that John F. Kennedy approved the final invasion plan on 4 April 1961, only 2 1/2 months after taking office. He was snowed by the CIA about its likelihood of success, and was badly hurt by its failure.

"And the rest," as they say, "is fantasy..." You do make it hard to catalog all your mischaracterizations, but it keeps me occupied.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 12:07 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I suspected I would get virulently partisan and historically dubious responses, and you did not disappoint, my friend.

That is The Way of the Tarbaby.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
"And the rest," as they say, "is fantasy..." You do make it hard to catalog all your mischaracterizations, but it keeps me occupied.

I can give you some far more productive ways to keep occupied...
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

5) Eisenhower (not Nixon) created both the Vietnam crisis...


With everything else you have written in your above post. I have little issue or doubt. However, with Vietnam being one of my wars, I feel the need to point out the Vietnam War was caused by the failings of Woodrow Wilson at Versailles France at the end of WW I. Watch the first episode of Ken Burn's "The Vietnam War" documentary, available through Netflix. Yes Eisenhower, did expand or begin American involvement, by assisting the French at Dien Bien Phu, and Kennedy sent in the Advisors, and Johnson sent in the troops, and Nixon negotiated our out. Despite this, I still dislike Nixon; He was a Crook.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 02:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

5) Eisenhower (not Nixon) created both the Vietnam crisis...


With everything else you have written in your above post. I have little issue or doubt. However, with Vietnam being one of my wars, I feel the need to point out the Vietnam War was caused by the failings of Woodrow Wilson at Versailles France at the end of WW I. Watch the first episode of Ken Burn's "The Vietnam War" documentary, available through Netflix. Yes Eisenhower, did expand or begin American involvement, by assisting the French at Dien Bien Phu, and Kennedy sent in the Advisors, and Johnson sent in the troops, and Nixon negotiated our out. Despite this, I still dislike Nixon; He was a Crook.

I don't object to your chronology, and Eisenhower is one of my favorite Presidents, but his failure, in my book, was interceding to prevent an election in South Vietnam. That, rather than Dien Bien Phu, is why I blame him for Vietnam. He sided with the colonialists.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 02:40 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I suspected I would get virulently partisan and historically dubious responses, and you did not disappoint, my friend.

That is The Way of the Tarbaby.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
"And the rest," as they say, "is fantasy..." You do make it hard to catalog all your mischaracterizations, but it keeps me occupied.

I can give you some far more productive ways to keep occupied...
Of this I have no doubt. wink
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/10/19 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I suspected I would get virulently partisan and historically dubious responses, and you did not disappoint, my friend. Thanks for that.

Your responses are as virulently partisan as mine are. However I don't hide my partisanship by claiming to be an "unbiased educated voice of reason" as you do. Your pretense of being an "unbiased educated voice of reason" is extremely obnoxious!
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

1) Harding gets a pass because he only appointed the crooks to his cabinet. That's unique. I suppose it's because he didn't personally profit, like Trump does.

I wasn't giving Harding a pass just saying why the scandal happened. He did pay a price for for the scandal, he died of heart attack.
Quote:
The 29th U.S. president, Warren Harding (1865-1923) served in office from 1921 to 1923 before dying of an apparent heart attack. Harding’s presidency was overshadowed by the criminal activities of some of his cabinet members and other government officials, although he himself was not involved in any wrongdoing.

History
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
2) Your ignorance of Coolidge and his policies does not surprise me. March 1929 (left office)-October 1929 (stock market crash) does not 2 years make, even using "conservative" math. Even Coolidge admitted he bore partial responsibility for the crash.
Quote:

Although Coolidge had received a great deal of credit for the prosperity of the 1920s, he recognized that he bore some responsibility for the severe economic downturn. He admitted to friends that he had spent his presidency “avoiding the big problems,” as William Allen White quoted him as saying in his biography, “A Puritan in Babylon.” Coolidge died of a heart attack at the age of 60 at his Northampton home on January 5, 1933.
History Had he not died during the depth of the Depression, he might have taken more blame. But, it was his laissez faire policies from 1923-1929, love of tariffs, and cheerleading for reckless stock speculation that created the conditions that led to the failures. Hoover actually saw it coming and tried to warn him. (It seems funny/typical to excuse Republican presidents who serve multiple terms from responsibility for their policies, but blame Democrats for conditions before they even assume office...)

While the crash of 1929 was the start of Great Depression at that time it was still believed to be a recession. Coolidge did avoid problems. He did so because he realized and accepted the fact that there were many he could not solve and it is best to let those who can do so. He knew that our country's economy was not something he could fix. No, President can fix the economic problems our country will have. Did some of things he did and did not do help create the Great Depression? Yes, they did. But it is only with hindsight that that knowledge is obtained. Coolidge did what he thought was best at the time. But like everyone else he made mistakes. Trying to pin all, or even most, of the blame for the Great Depression on Coolidge is a biased partisan view, not an educated one.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
3) I actually give Hoover credit for trying to do something, if way too late. But all three, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, had a marked disdain for the downtrodden and an overweening belief in the goodness of business.

What Hoover tried, and FDR continued to do, only made the Great Depression worse. Hoover's and FDR's policies also extended the length of the Great Depression. (Just in case you don't notice it I am blaming both a Republican and a Democrat for the Great Depression.) If you think Coolidge had a "marked disdain" for the downtrodden you don't know much about his life. That you think so makes your quote from William Allen White's biography of Coolidge, “A Puritan in Babylon" dubious.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
4) Then, deflect, defame, obfuscate and misrepresent (why am I not surprised?) to avoid the reality of FDR's success, despite Republican intransigence and interference. (And you have the temerity to make accusations about claims of racism you know I never made. Dishonest, much?)

FDR's success? His policies made the Great Depression worse! Deflect? To say how the New Deal was created is an important part of the history of it. To ignore how it was created is partisan. An educated person looks at all of the contributing factors to a historical event. A partisan person ignores the factors that make his or her side look bad. The New Deal was a success in extended the depth and lengthening duration of the Great Depression. What FDR was doing was bad for our country and Republican opposition to it was the right thing to do.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
5) Eisenhower (not Nixon) created both the Vietnam crisis and the Bay of Pigs plan (in March 1960 he allocated $13.1 million to the CIA to plan Castro's overthrow. The CIA proceeded to organize the operation with the aid of various Cuban counter-revolutionary forces, training Brigade 2506 in Guatemala. Eisenhower's successor), or did you forget that part of history for convenience sake? It's true that John F. Kennedy approved the final invasion plan on 4 April 1961, only 2 1/2 months after taking office. He was snowed by the CIA about its likelihood of success, and was badly hurt by its failure.

Eisenhower ordered the creation of the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion. As a general and President he ordered the creation of plans for a lot of things. He was wise enough to know which plans to implement and which ones should sit on the shelf. Eisenhower knew that the invasion would not be successful, he was great military strategist knew a bad plan when he saw one. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion is Kennedy's fault not Eisenhower's. It is because Kennedy put Eisenhower's plan into action. Kennedy was hurt because he foolishly believed the CIA. He also did not completely follow Eisenhower's plan which was why the invasion failed.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
"And the rest," as they say, "is fantasy..." You do make it hard to catalog all your mischaracterizations, but it keeps me occupied.

Only according to your virulently partisan biased opinions.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/12/19 01:11 AM

I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 01:44 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 02:10 PM

Thanks, perotista. Sounds like a pretty sane set of principles that can play well in any discussion.

Seems like the main problem today with political discussions is the destructive use of lying, incivility, hyperbole, dishonesty, and intentional obtuseness. Clear those things away and we could likely solve some problems in this world.

RR is far better at honest discussion than any other political site I have visited, largely due to a set of rules designed for civility and honesty. I think the rules have slipped a bit in the past few years, partly due to the passing of some of our chief enforcers, and partly due to a general erosion of public discourse.

I appreciate your interest in discussing, and not just looking for a fight.

To butcher an old saying, "Books are for learnin', and the internet's for fightin'!"
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.

While I agree with most of what you said, perotista, it is the "policeman of the world" that I take issue with. If America is not the policeman of the world who do you think should have that job? China? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The European Union? Nature abhors a vacuum and if America is not the policeman of the world some other country will try to take our place. Throughout history that change in power has been accomplished by war with very detrimental results for the country that lost the position.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Medicare is a government run healthcare plan.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Show me the list of all the government owned and operated Medicare hospitals, clinics and doctor offices. Tell me what GS grade a Medicare doctor is. Since you claim it's government run, the definition of that is, doctors and all other healthcare people are government employees, and the government built, runs and owns all the facilities.
Show me.

Medicare is A government run healthcare plan. It is one of many healthcare plans available. Our government runs it by paying doctors in the private sector that those on Medicare chose to see. Since our government (under)pays the doctors, even though they are in a private practice, it makes rules they must follow when they treat Medicare patients.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
You're saying Medicare is exactly like the British NHS.
Prove it or admit that you like to play fast and loose with your definitions.

No, I did not say that. That is what YOU thought I said.
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
By the way, in debates, you don't GET to make up your own definitions.
In a debate people respond to what the other person says, not what they thought the other person said.
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
The VA is a government run healthcare plan. Everyone at the VA is a government employee, the government built the hospitals and runs them and they are on federal property.

That it is.
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
So in essence, you're misinformed.
No, I am not. You think I am because when you read something into my comments that isn't there and then respond to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 03:53 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.
That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.

I've written extensively on the "criminal mindset" in other threads and forums in the past. It is not as pejorative as it seems here, and I'll elaborate briefly: at the time of committing a crime, a criminal is not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the impact on their victims. For some, this is a transitive thing - the passion of the moment, a lark, peer pressure, etc. They "act out". For others it is a social defect - psychopathy. For many (most?) it is circumstances, but becomes a habit. That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.

Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.

I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.

When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 04:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.

While I agree with most of what you said, perotista, it is the "policeman of the world" that I take issue with. If America is not the policeman of the world who do you think should have that job? China? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The European Union? Nature abhors a vacuum and if America is not the policeman of the world some other country will try to take our place. Throughout history that change in power has been accomplished by war with very detrimental results for the country that lost the position.
With this, I wholeheartedly agree. Policemen and soldiers follow that path largely out of an interest in humanity and an insinct to protect. Do we trust Russia or China to run the police force?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
The Green New Deal isn't a law, it's a proposal. As such, 100% or as little as zero percent of it will be considered in any conversation about energy and environmental concerns. And, as a proposal (and a rather vague and loosely defined one at that) everything in it is open to debate.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro...-green-new-deal
If the Democrats take control of our government most, if not all, of the New Green Deal will (eventually) become law.
One can only hope and pray that is true.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 04:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You think I am because when you read something into my comments that isn't there and then respond to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.
Then clarify your thoughts rather than complain about being misunderstood, my friend. You threw out a position, "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.", but didn't specify what you mean, and how that is accurate. Nothing Jeff said was wrong, just a different interpretation of meanings. Medicare isn't "government run healthcare", it is government funded healthcare. There is a vast difference between funding and control. Just ask any governor.

In your response you didn't really clarify what you meant. I'm asking you to clarify what you mean.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 04:17 PM

Quote:
Do we trust Russia or China to run the police force?


I trust them every bit as much as I trust the USA.

And I strongly disagree that a world police force is necessary.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You think I am because when you read something into my comments that isn't there and then respond to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.
Then clarify your thoughts rather than complain about being misunderstood, my friend. You threw out a position, "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.", but didn't specify what you mean, and how that is accurate. Nothing Jeff said was wrong, just a different interpretation of meanings. Medicare isn't "government run healthcare", it is government funded healthcare. There is a vast difference between funding and control. Just ask any governor.

In your response you didn't really clarify what you meant. I'm asking you to clarify what you mean.

When I said "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare." he claimed that was saying it would be identical the British healthcare system. Since I don't know much about the British system I cannot say that ours would be identical to theirs. That is where Jeffery was wrong. I did not make any comparison of Medicare for all with the British system. When our government funds something, be it Medicare or anything else, it makes the rules. Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 05:16 PM

Quote:
Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.


As long as they use reason, logic, and facts to write the regulations and they fall under Constitutional guidelines I'm not sure I see a problem with this. You trust them to be the world's police force but not enough for them to do much of anything else. Why don't we privatize the world's police force and save the US Gov a lot of money?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.
quote=NW Ponderer]That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.

I've written extensively on the "criminal mindset" in other threads and forums in the past. It is not as pejorative as it seems here, and I'll elaborate briefly: at the time of committing a crime, a criminal is not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the impact on their victims. For some, this is a transitive thing - the passion of the moment, a lark, peer pressure, etc. They "act out". For others it is a social defect - psychopathy. For many (most?) it is circumstances, but becomes a habit. That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.

It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.

No, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.) shocked

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.

The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil. The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy. No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can. If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist. When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.

Originally Posted By: MW Ponderer
When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.

It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.


As long as they use reason, logic, and facts to write the regulations and they fall under Constitutional guidelines I'm not sure I see a problem with this. You trust them to be the world's police force but not enough for them to do much of anything else. Why don't we privatize the world's police force and save the US Gov a lot of money?

Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government. Therefore, while they might use reason, logic, and facts to write the rules for healthcare they do not have the Constitutional authority to write them. Show where in our Constitution it specifically mentions healthcare.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When I said "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare." he claimed that was saying it would be identical the British healthcare system. Since I don't know much about the British system I cannot say that ours would be identical to theirs. That is where Jeffery was wrong. I did not make any comparison of Medicare for all with the British system. When our government funds something, be it Medicare or anything else, it makes the rules. Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.
Thank you for that clarification. Now, I think, I can fill in some blanks.

Not speaking specifically for Jeff, but I and other "liberals" are used to the word "socialism" being bandied about loosely by so-called "conservatives" for any policy that smacks of human consideration or government support, generally. As a result, I think we have been habituated to "going there" whenever some issues, like Medicare, are raised and criticized broadly.

The UK, somewhat uniquely, has a National Health Service, doctors employed by the government in government-operated hospitals and clinics. It is true "socialized medicine". In the United States we only have a few such services - e.g. military hospitals, the Veterans hospitals and the Indian Health Services - where the "means of production" are actually government-owned and operated.

Other countries, like Canada, have single-payer health insurance systems. That is vastly different. Medical decisions are made independently of government, but payments are made directly or of government funds. While government may influence the system, it does not control it.

The United States has an amalgamation of "systems" (which is why it is so broken). Some services, as noted above, are government provided. Some are provided by private medical services. Some are paid by government agencies (e.g., Medicaid, FEBP), or third parties (e.g., business, unions, insurance systems), who make coverage decisions. Medicare is actually a hybrid system. Some is paid directly by the government; some by the government, but through private insurance providers; some directly by third party insurance providers.

There are several versions of "Medicare for all" being proposed, so it is pretty hard to make definitive arguments about what it means. Mostly it is about "universal coverage" as a goal.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 08:34 PM

A lot to unpack here:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.
... That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.

It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

Reagan-worship was not, and is not, bipartisan. Nixon also won reelection overwhelmingly... shortly before impeachment proceedings began.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
o, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. [NOPE.
Not even close.] Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. [ANCIENT history. Really.] I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.) shocked


Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. [Agreed, but... current history (post 1960s) is quite different. That has to be acknowledged.] Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. [For some. As well as poverty, inequality, and unemployment, which was my point.] A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil.
Now interlineations and asides will not suffice. I disagree. A thriving, growing economy will be disruptive and dynamic, but does not inevitably require turmoil. If approached intelligently, disruptions can be minimized, not exacerbated, and dynamism harnessed and directed. But, that requires consideration of "externalities" - something that definitely exists, but is assiduously ignored and denied by capitalists of a certain ilk.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy.
Um, no. (Actually kind of a non sequitur.) Often, and most destructively, precisely no. Laissez faire policies are born of economic theorems, and not practical intelligence. They assiduously avoid dealing with realities in favor of preferred expectations.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can.
Now we're into rote recitation of party-line nostrums. Evidence? SUPPORT? Or is the statement intended to be a tautology? I can provide a direct contradiction to the Statement: China. China Used More Concrete In 3 Years Than The U.S. Used In The Entire 20th Century. Indeed, if we don't accept the lesson of, and adapt to, China's aggressive economic posture, China will absolutely eat our lunch.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? [Sometimes, yes. Did you never see/read Les Miserables?] If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist.
Again, evidence? SUPPORT? What is your "theory of justice"? What is the purpose of the penal system? Do the issues of compassion, causality or reformation/rehabilitation have any bearing?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.
In an ideal, or just world, I agree. That, unfortunately, is not (as Dr.King was stressing in that quote) the world in which we currently live, but aspire to.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: MW Ponderer
When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.

It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.
What utter nonsense. An epidemic of inhumanity is what we have under the current rubric of "conservatism".
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 09:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government.
On what do you base this assertion? (I acknowledge up front that this is a trap.)
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 10:02 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Thanks, perotista. Sounds like a pretty sane set of principles that can play well in any discussion.

Seems like the main problem today with political discussions is the destructive use of lying, incivility, hyperbole, dishonesty, and intentional obtuseness. Clear those things away and we could likely solve some problems in this world.

RR is far better at honest discussion than any other political site I have visited, largely due to a set of rules designed for civility and honesty. I think the rules have slipped a bit in the past few years, partly due to the passing of some of our chief enforcers, and partly due to a general erosion of public discourse.

I appreciate your interest in discussing, and not just looking for a fight.

To butcher an old saying, "Books are for learnin', and the internet's for fightin'!"

Over the last 20-30 years it seems our election campaigns have become name calling and mud slinging. No room for new ideas, possible solutions to our problems or visions on where the candidates want to take our country. It's negative personal attack after negative personal attack.

I sick and tired of Republicans automatically opposing anything put forward by Democrats and vice versa, Democrat automatically opposing anything suggested by Republicans. The merits of the proposals or legislation are never considered anymore, just who proposed them.

This era of polarization and ultra high partisanship very well could be the beginning of our downfall. I've been interested in politics since watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV way back in 1956. I never seen the likes or the hateful politics of today before.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 10:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.

While I agree with most of what you said, perotista, it is the "policeman of the world" that I take issue with. If America is not the policeman of the world who do you think should have that job? China? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The European Union? Nature abhors a vacuum and if America is not the policeman of the world some other country will try to take our place. Throughout history that change in power has been accomplished by war with very detrimental results for the country that lost the position.
I think it could very well be the European Union if it wanted to fill the position. It doesn't and won't as long as the good old USA does it.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/13/19 10:47 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

If you mean racism you are wrong! If you are talking about a “criminal mindset” that too is wrong. Yes, Nixon was a crook but his "criminal mindset" did not spread into the Republican Party any more than it did into entire American population. To think that “welfare queens” is racist is not true. The percentage of welfare recipients is 39.8% white and 38.8% blacks. That means the “welfare queens” are white women. The saying “A rising tide lifts all boats.” was first said by Pres. Kennedy. Was JFK a racist?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Reagan-worship was not, and is not, bipartisan. Nixon also won reelection overwhelmingly... shortly before impeachment proceedings began.

Apparently you have forgotten about the REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. [ANCIENT history. Really.]

If the Democrat’s political machines are ancient history why are 45 out of 50 wards in Chicago predominately Democrat?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now interlineations and asides will not suffice. I disagree. A thriving, growing economy will be disruptive and dynamic, but does not inevitably require turmoil. If approached intelligently, disruptions can be minimized, not exacerbated, and dynamism harnessed and directed. But, that requires consideration of "externalities" - something that definitely exists, but is assiduously ignored and denied by capitalists of a certain ilk.

A disruption of someone’s life can throw it into turmoil. To minimize, harness, and direct a thriving and growing economy means government intervention. Most, but not all, government interventions stop economic growth. While economic growth can be painful the market can and does control them better than government does.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Um, no. (Actually kind of a non sequitur.) Often, and most destructively, precisely no. Laissez faire policies are born of economic theorems, and not practical intelligence. They assiduously avoid dealing with realities in favor of preferred expectations.

Laissez faire is an economic theorem. A theorem that rejects government interventions because the preferred expectations of government interventions cannot achieved in realty.

Originally Posted By: NW Pondere
Now we're into rote recitation of party-line nostrums. Evidence? SUPPORT? Or is the statement intended to be a tautology? I can provide a direct contradiction to the Statement: China. China Used More Concrete In 3 Years Than The U.S. Used In The Entire 20th Century. Indeed, if we don't accept the lesson of, and adapt to, China's aggressive economic posture, China will absolutely eat our lunch.

That is a false analogy. When the US was using all of the concrete it did from 1901 – 2000 the decision of how and for what it was used was made mostly by the private sector. The decision of how and for what it the concrete is used for in China in the last three years was made by its government. Governments build large dams, like the Three Gorges Dam, the private sector doesn’t. Should China ever become a Capitalist country it probably will eat our lunch. But dictatorships rarely disappear quietly.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, evidence? SUPPORT? What is your "theory of justice"? What is the purpose of the penal system? Do the issues of compassion, causality or reformation/rehabilitation have any bearing?

I asked a rhetorical question which I answered. I did read the Cliff Notes of Les Miserable. As for my theory of justice it is that ours can be improved and I welcome a vigorous discussion how it can be done.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
In an ideal, or just world, I agree. That, unfortunately, is not (as Dr. King was stressing in that quote) the world in which we currently live, but aspire to.

Thomas Jefferson’s statement all men are created equal is an ideal that we haven’t lived up to and Dr. King reminded us of that in his excellent, moving, and sadly very necessary I HAVE A DREAM speech.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What utter nonsense. An epidemic of inhumanity is what we have under the current rubric of "conservatism".

It is because that is how you want to see conservatism in order to justify your being a liberal. Like the saying “There none more pious than a reformed sinner.” you see conservatism as sinful and liberalism as redemption.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If the Democrat’s political machines are ancient history why are 45 out of 50 wards in Chicago predominately Democrat?

Because Chicago is predominantly Democrat? I don't see how this correlates to Democratic "political machines".
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 01:27 AM

Friend, your posts sometimes remind me of ricocheting bullets - they travel off on wild tangents and I have trouble following the trajectory.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

If you mean racism you are wrong! If you are talking about a “criminal mindset” that too is wrong. Yes, Nixon was a crook but his "criminal mindset" did not spread into the Republican Party any more than it did into entire American population. To think that “welfare queens” is racist is not true. The percentage of welfare recipients is 39.8% white and 38.8% blacks. That means the “welfare queens” are white women. The saying “A rising tide lifts all boats.” was first said by Pres. Kennedy. Was JFK a racist?
I'm not sure exactly how we got here, or what path we traveled to get here. I acknowledge that I did mention Reagan's racism - which was always apparent to me. He was a consummate huckster, too. But that was far from the point I was aiming at. Let me adjust the sights.

Yes, Nixon was a crook, but the point was that his behavior was symptomatic. Nor was it corrected by the actions of the other "carriers". The point of the "criminal mindset" is not, specifically criminality, but the attitude it represents: not caring about consequences.


More later. Got work to do.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Thanks, perotista. Sounds like a pretty sane set of principles that can play well in any discussion.

Seems like the main problem today with political discussions is the destructive use of lying, incivility, hyperbole, dishonesty, and intentional obtuseness. Clear those things away and we could likely solve some problems in this world.

RR is far better at honest discussion than any other political site I have visited, largely due to a set of rules designed for civility and honesty. I think the rules have slipped a bit in the past few years, partly due to the passing of some of our chief enforcers, and partly due to a general erosion of public discourse.

I appreciate your interest in discussing, and not just looking for a fight.

To butcher an old saying, "Books are for learnin', and the internet's for fightin'!"

Over the last 20-30 years it seems our election campaigns have become name calling and mud slinging. No room for new ideas, possible solutions to our problems or visions on where the candidates want to take our country. It's negative personal attack after negative personal attack.

I sick and tired of Republicans automatically opposing anything put forward by Democrats and vice versa, Democrat automatically opposing anything suggested by Republicans. The merits of the proposals or legislation are never considered anymore, just who proposed them.

This era of polarization and ultra high partisanship very well could be the beginning of our downfall. I've been interested in politics since watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV way back in 1956. I never seen the likes or the hateful politics of today before.

It was worse. In 1798 the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it a crime to criticize anyone in the government, with the exception of VP Jefferson, who was a Democrat-Republican. (Even our Founding Fathers ignored the Constitution they wrote.) That law even got a member of Congress Timothy Lyons of Vermont put in jail. During the Wilson administration over 1,200 people went to jail for being "disloyal" to our government. Compared to Wilson's "Red Scare" the Communist witch hunt of Sen. McCarthy (R-WI) was tame. While the level of animosity between people of different political views has gotten worse lately it is nowhere near as bad as it once was.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:08 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government.
On what do you base this assertion? (I acknowledge up front that this is a trap.)

Why do you think the assertion is wrong?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:18 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If the Democrat’s political machines are ancient history why are 45 out of 50 wards in Chicago predominately Democrat?

Because Chicago is predominantly Democrat? I don't see how this correlates to Democratic "political machines".

The wards were run by Democratic political bosses. If your ward didn't vote for and contribute to the machine your ward didn't get services from the city. The snow wasn't plowed, the garbage wasn't picked up, the police & fire departments were slow to respond. Then to get a job with the city you had to vote for and contribute to the machine. If people do that for 70 years or so it becomes a habit. That is why 90% of the wards became and stayed Democrats.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:27 AM

A link would be nice, then I could do some independent research.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:31 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Friend, your posts sometimes remind me of ricocheting bullets - they travel off on wild tangents and I have trouble following the trajectory.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

If you mean racism you are wrong! If you are talking about a “criminal mindset” that too is wrong. Yes, Nixon was a crook but his "criminal mindset" did not spread into the Republican Party any more than it did into entire American population. To think that “welfare queens” is racist is not true. The percentage of welfare recipients is 39.8% white and 38.8% blacks. That means the “welfare queens” are white women. The saying “A rising tide lifts all boats.” was first said by Pres. Kennedy. Was JFK a racist?
I'm not sure exactly how we got here, or what path we traveled to get here. I acknowledge that I did mention Reagan's racism - which was always apparent to me. He was a consummate huckster, too. But that was far from the point I was aiming at. Let me adjust the sights.

Yes, Nixon was a crook, but the point was that his behavior was symptomatic. Nor was it corrected by the actions of the other "carriers". The point of the "criminal mindset" is not, specifically criminality, but the attitude it represents: not caring about consequences.


More later. Got work to do.

If Reagan was a racist it was only because he grew up in a time when the entire country was. But to call anyone who grew up before the 1960's civil rights movement a racist is to judge them by today's standards not the standards of their time. If you grew up before then, like Reagan, you NW are a racist. But then I am too. (I wonder long it will take for this to be taken out of context.)

The criminal mindset of which you speak is something every politician has regardless of which party they are a member of. They are because the only consequence they care about is not getting reelected. They just might "shining examples" of the ends, reelection, justifying the means, criminal behavior.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:40 AM

Okay, I’m convinced, let’s all just say woe is we and give up.

Or do you have a constructive point?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The wards were run by Democratic political bosses. If your ward didn't vote for and contribute to the machine your ward didn't get services from the city. The snow wasn't plowed, the garbage wasn't picked up, the police & fire departments were slow to respond. Then to get a job with the city you had to vote for and contribute to the machine. If people do that for 70 years or so it becomes a habit. That is why 90% of the wards became and stayed Democrats.


And you know what? Last time Karen and I went up to Chicago, we saw HELP WANTED and NOW HIRING signs ALL over the stinking place.
That was in 2015.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 05:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The wards were run by Democratic political bosses. If your ward didn't vote for and contribute to the machine your ward didn't get services from the city. The snow wasn't plowed, the garbage wasn't picked up, the police & fire departments were slow to respond. Then to get a job with the city you had to vote for and contribute to the machine. If people do that for 70 years or so it becomes a habit. That is why 90% of the wards became and stayed Democrats.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
And you know what? Last time Karen and I went up to Chicago, we saw HELP WANTED and NOW HIRING signs ALL over the stinking place.
That was in 2015.

I was talking about how Chicago was back in the 1940's not in 2015.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 02:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

If Reagan was a racist it was only because he grew up in a time when the entire country was. But to call anyone who grew up before the 1960's civil rights movement a racist is to judge them by today's standards not the standards of their time. If you grew up before then, like Reagan, you NW are a racist. But then I am too. (I wonder long it will take for this to be taken out of context.)


Though not as old as you, I do remember things from the 50s and the term racist was used back then and meant the same as it does today. One who looks down upon another, because of their color, ethnic or national origin and could even be applied to someone because of their religion.

I think the prior three are self-supporting, so I will only give an example of Racism based upon religion. The questions about President John F. Kennedy during the campaign and his time in office; his being a papist and the influence the Vatican would have over the US because Kennedy was Catholic.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 04:23 PM

I didn't get a chance to follow up fully (and still can't, yet), but here's more response
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Apparently you have forgotten about the REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
Wiff! Some democrats voted for Reagan in 1984, it is true, but that has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the Reagan-worship that pervades the current Republican party. I can't fathom how that is not obvious to you, unless it is willful blindness. Apples-zuchini.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Laissez faire is an economic theorem. A theorem that rejects government interventions because the preferred expectations of government interventions cannot achieved in realty.
I'm not sure you realize you directly contradicted your previous post, and confirmed my point entirely. I'll leave it at that, and thank you.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That is a false analogy. When the US was using all of the concrete it did from 1901 – 2000 the decision of how and for what it was used was made mostly by the private sector. The decision of how and for what it the concrete is used for in China in the last three years was made by its government. Governments build large dams, like the Three Gorges Dam, the private sector doesn’t. Should China ever become a Capitalist country it probably will eat our lunch.
Again, thanks for proving my point explicitly, although I'm not sure you realized it, given your opening comment. The point was that governments can do big economic projects efficiently (which you conceded), some things that capitalist efforts won't/can't do.

I wish, my friend, you could just concede a point, rather than pretending it's still a fight.

More to come. Gotta run.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government.
On what do you base this assertion? (I acknowledge up front that this is a trap.)

Why do you think the assertion is wrong?
Because it is. Are you avoiding answering the question?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 04:39 PM

White Supremacy is not just racism. I'd even venture to say that racism might be just a small part of it.
For one reason or another the white skinned tribes of Europe became the most dominant on the world stage. Along the way they picked up Christianity which lent even more fervor to their race to world domination. They tended to be hoarders because the winters were cold and slackers would starve. Life was cruel to them, and they learned to be cruel right back. They were a patriarchal society and would brook no nonsense from women. Any sort of deviant from the norm, mentally or physically was considered defective. Everyone was a racist, a misogynistic, a homophobe, a religionist, a xenophobe, a culturist who saw anything outside the realm of white skinned European tribal customs and norms as something to be dominated and ruled over.

And that's where we find ourselves today. When all the tribes have come together, when all the cultures merged, when we have come together as a single civilization. White folks still wanna be boss.

White folks wanna f*cking lord it over everybody else. They wrote their rules into Christianity. Made Jesus into a white boy and insisted that white boys were dominant over anything and everything they could see. People of color were subjugated and enslaved. People of other religions converted or killed. Either you conform or you are shunned.

Yeah, racism is only one facet of the nasty thing. Racist white folks are taught to hate black people from an early age. Black people are taught to fear white folks at an early age. I was taught, back in the 50s to respect everyone. Even though I grew up in Apartheid America I was not a racist. Some people were, some weren't. Depended mostly on their parents.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 04:58 PM

Reagan Worship.

Republicanism has become a religion to many these days, it's an all white, Bible thumping, flag wrapping embodiment of everything that is White Supremacy. Old Ronnie is one of its Saints. Ronald of Hollywood.

As big a fraud as ever lived. A saint to the fraud that is Republicanism.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government.
On what do you base this assertion? (I acknowledge up front that this is a trap.)

Why do you think the assertion is wrong?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Because it is. Are you avoiding answering the question?

Since your "trap" is based on only part of my comment it is not the trap you think it is. Here is my entire comment.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government. Therefore, while they might use reason, logic, and facts to write the rules for healthcare they do not have the Constitutional authority to write them. Show where in our Constitution it specifically mentions healthcare.


You ignored, by deleting, the rest of what I said. So your question "trap" is BS. No one can show me where in our Constitution it specifically mentions healthcare. No one can because healthcare is not mentioned in our Constitution! This is not about any interpretation of the general welfare clause. It is about the idea that providing healthcare for anyone is not what the authors of our Constitution ever considered something our government is or would be authorized to do.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 06:18 PM

Does the Constitution specifically mention being the policeman of the world? Does it mention abortions? Does it mention nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction? Does it mention Capitalism and Free Markets?

At least healthcare fits nicely under "the General welfare".
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I didn't get a chance to follow up fully (and still can't, yet), but here's more response[quote=Senator Hatrack]Apparently you have forgotten about the REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Wiff! Some democrats voted for Reagan in 1984, it is true, but that has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the Reagan-worship that pervades the current Republican party. I can't fathom how that is not obvious to you, unless it is willful blindness. Apples-zuchini.

Yes, the Reagan Democrats do have something to do with the "Reagan worship" that you mistakenly see as dominating the entire GOP. The Reagan Democrats were part of the reason he won 49 of the 50 states. The respect for, not the worship of, Reagan exists because of his landslide victory and his skillful diplomacy that brought about the end of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR. Those are accomplishments that deserve respect. Worship? No. Respect? Yes!

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Laissez faire is an economic theorem. A theorem that rejects government interventions because the preferred expectations of government interventions cannot achieved in realty.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm not sure you realize you directly contradicted your previous post, and confirmed my point entirely. I'll leave it at that, and thank you.
You seem to have a very strong tendency to see things as you want them to be not as they are. Here is the definition of laissez faire. Government intervention is rejected because the expected results cannot be achieved. The belief that "practical intelligence" is part of the laissez faire economic theorem is based on the erroneous idea that the free market can be controlled. There was no "practical intelligence" in the creation of personal computers. If "practical intelligence" had been there would not be the personal computers we have today. There wasn't a market for personal computers until they were created. "Practical intelligence" would not take the chance to make a product for which a market does not and may not exist.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That is a false analogy. When the US was using all of the concrete it did from 1901 – 2000 the decision of how and for what it was used was made mostly by the private sector. The decision of how and for what it the concrete is used for in China in the last three years was made by its government. Governments build large dams, like the Three Gorges Dam, the private sector doesn’t. Should China ever become a Capitalist country it probably will eat our lunch.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, thanks for proving my point explicitly, although I'm not sure you realized it, given your opening comment. The point was that governments can do big economic projects efficiently (which you conceded), some things that capitalist efforts won't/can't do.

China's efficiency in building the big projects that it has is due to its authoritarian government and the use of slave labor. Are you in favor of an authoritarian government like China's? I'm not. I'll take the inefficiency and freedom of the private sector over China's efficient authoritarian government.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I wish, my friend, you could just concede a point, rather than pretending it's still a fight.

More to come. Gotta run.

I thought you got off your high horse. I guess not. But then supporters of authoritarian governments don't like it when someone argues with them.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 09:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Reagan Worship.

Republicanism has become a religion to many these days, it's an all white, Bible thumping, flag wrapping embodiment of everything that is White Supremacy. Old Ronnie is one of its Saints. Ronald of Hollywood.

As big a fraud as ever lived. A saint to the fraud that is Republicanism.
Republicans are all white? White Supremacy? Elizabeth Heng Jennifer Carnahan
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 09:03 PM

Quote:
supporters of authoritarian governments don't like it when someone argues with them.

They certainly don't! The US Government is and has been an authoritarian government for a long time. We have the largest prison population in the history of the world.
Workers are paid a pittance and all benefits denied.
Our infrastructure is crumbling
Our water and air polluted
Deficit spending just topped a $Trillion Bucks
Wartime industries are booming even though it is a time of peace.
Workers are in debt up to their asses
Farmers are committing suicide
We have homeless beggers in our streets "alms for the poor? Alms for the poor."
And jackbooted thugs trample through them seeking the ones with brown skin.
Yes, Senator, DemonRats do it too! But at least some of them recognize the problem.

You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. There is no neutral ground.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
supporters of authoritarian governments don't like it when someone argues with them.

They certainly don't! The US Government is and has been an authoritarian government for a long time. We have the largest prison population in the history of the world.
Workers are paid a pittance and all benefits denied.
Our infrastructure is crumbling
Our water and air polluted
Deficit spending just topped a $Trillion Bucks
Wartime industries are booming even though it is a time of peace.
Workers are in debt up to their asses
Farmers are committing suicide
We have homeless beggers in our streets "alms for the poor? Alms for the poor."
And jackbooted thugs trample through them seeking the ones with brown skin.
Yes, Senator, DemonRats do it too! But at least some of them recognize the problem.

You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. There is no neutral ground.

Greger, considering how your comments about the Republican Party are not true anything else you have to say is questionable if not completely wrong.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 09:53 PM

Yeah, there's a few tokens in there. A few Herman Kane's and..uh..oh, that sleepy old black guy in the Supreme Court, I can't think of his name right now. Married to a white woman...who supports racist causes...LOL yeah.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Yeah, there's a few tokens in there. A few Herman Kane's and..uh..oh, that sleepy old black guy in the Supreme Court, I can't think of his name right now. Married to a white woman...who supports racist causes...LOL yeah.

Thank you for showing that what you know about the Republican Party is wrong. You don't know how much you don't know about the Republican Party.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 10:07 PM

Quote:
anything else you have to say is questionable if not completely wrong.


I'm sure that everything I say is questionable and I am often wrong. This is not a court of law, your honour, and I am not under oath. I write political opinions in reaction to political opinions that I read.

Isn't that what we do here?

I also play a "Predict The Future" game where I look into my Cracked Crystal Ball and make predictions.

Bloodbath.2020.DEM
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Thank you for showing that what you know about the Republican Party is wrong. You don't know how much you don't know about the Republican Party.

Hyar's a Reepublickan:

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Does the Constitution specifically mention being the policeman of the world? Does it mention abortions? Does it mention nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction? Does it mention Capitalism and Free Markets?

At least healthcare fits nicely under "the General welfare".

That America has become the "policeman of the world" is not directly mentioned in our Constitution. However, Article I, Section 8, clause 12 it states that our government has the authority "To provide and maintain a Navy..." One of the first tasks of our Navy was to protect our trade in the Mediterranean Sea. In essence it was "policing" that body of water. Abortions? No, because there aren't any medical procedures mentioned in our Constitution. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are necessary for our government to protect our country. Since the book that started Capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, was first published in 1776 we still had a mercantile economy. Capitalism became our economic system due to the fact that the resources for a Capitalist economy were in abundance. And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 11:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
anything else you have to say is questionable if not completely wrong.


I'm sure that everything I say is questionable and I am often wrong. This is not a court of law, your honour, and I am not under oath. I write political opinions in reaction to political opinions that I read.

Isn't that what we do here?

I also play a "Predict The Future" game where I look into my Cracked Crystal Ball and make predictions.

Bloodbath.2020.DEM

Judging from your "opinions" about Republicans you were probably convinced that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016. Your prediction of a bloodbath in 2020 with the Democrats as the winners is possibly as accurate as the belief that a Clinton victory was.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That America has become the "policeman of the world" is not directly mentioned in our Constitution. However, Article I, Section 8, clause 12 it states that our government has the authority "To provide and maintain a Navy..." One of the first tasks of our Navy was to protect our trade in the Mediterranean Sea. In essence it was "policing" that body of water. Abortions? No, because there aren't any medical procedures mentioned in our Constitution. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are necessary for our government to protect our country. Since the book that started Capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, was first published in 1776 we still had a mercantile economy. Capitalism became our economic system due to the fact that the resources for a Capitalist economy were in abundance. And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.

Wonderful! We strongly agree that there is a lot going on today that the Constitution did not address. I am curious, though, as to why the health of Americans is not a subject of the general welfare. Seems like purt'near a definitional situation.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/14/19 11:36 PM

Quote:
You don't know how much you don't know about the Republican Party.


Apparently you don't either, Senator. It just is what it is, I won't hold it against you. What you think the Republican Party is and what I think the Republican Party is....well, let's just say we're never gonna agree.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 03:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You don't know how much you don't know about the Republican Party.


Originally Posted By: Greger
Apparently you don't either, Senator. It just is what it is, I won't hold it against you. What you think the Republican Party is and what I think the Republican Party is....well, let's just say we're never gonna agree.
As someone who has been a member of the Republican Party for over 50 years, and whose family has been members of the party since 1910, my knowledge of it is better than someone who has never been a member of it. Also I was a Republican endorsed candidate for the MN Legislature three times. Have you ever been an endorsed candidate for any office, by any political party, Greger? You have your opinions while I have over a century's worth of experience to back up what I say about the Republican Party.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 04:04 AM

Hyar’s another Reepublicken, the leader of the party:

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
That America has become the "policeman of the world" is not directly mentioned in our Constitution. However, Article I, Section 8, clause 12 it states that our government has the authority "To provide and maintain a Navy..." One of the first tasks of our Navy was to protect our trade in the Mediterranean Sea. In essence it was "policing" that body of water. Abortions? No, because there aren't any medical procedures mentioned in our Constitution. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are necessary for our government to protect our country. Since the book that started Capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, was first published in 1776 we still had a mercantile economy. Capitalism became our economic system due to the fact that the resources for a Capitalist economy were in abundance. And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Wonderful! We strongly agree that there is a lot going on today that the Constitution did not address. I am curious, though, as to why the health of Americans is not a subject of the general welfare. Seems like purt'near a definitional situation.

It might be due to the quality of healthcare back then. But probably it was because our Constitution was written to limit what our government could do. That limitations on what a government could do was something that hadn't been done before.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 04:13 AM

What are the Constitutional limits on the General welfare?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:00 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
What are the Constitutional limits on the General welfare?

To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it. Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of it has been used to expand it beyond what Madison intended. Hamilton's interpretation is not reliable for three reasons.
1) Hamilton wasn't at the Constitutional Convention for the entire time it was in session.
2) Hamilton wasn't an active participant in the convention.
3) Hamilton wasn't a voting member of the convention.
Voting in the convention was done by states and a majority of the delegates from a state had to agree on the vote. The delegation form New York consisted of three men, John Lansing, Robert Yates, and Alexander Hamilton. Lansing and Yates were at the convention from May 25th to July 10th. When they left they never returned. Since 2/3 of the NY delegation was not there Hamilton was not allowed to vote on what was being debated. Hamilton was at the convention from May 25th to June 30th. He returned for 1 day August 13th and then returned on September 6th. The general welfare clause was debated on August 22 when Alexander Hamilton was not there. In that he did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:10 AM

I see... there are no limits, then.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:16 AM

Quote:
What are the Constitutional limits on the General welfare?

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the SCOTUS agreed that Congress has broad powers to spend federal money on our Country's general welfare, but with limited funding. The decision essentially combined Madison's interpretation of the clause that "spending is not unlimited" and Hamilton's interpretation of the clause to mean Congress the power to spend without limitation for the broader general welfare of the nation.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:29 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.
On what do you base this (erroneous) opinion, my friend? I know the answer, actually, but it is based upon an ideological, not legal or constitutional basis. The framers would be surprised by your position:
Quote:
On July 16, 1798, President John Adams signed the first Federal public health law, "An act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen." This assessed every seaman at American ports 20 cents a month. This was the first prepaid medical care plan in the United States. The monies were used for the care of sick seamen and the building of seamen's hospitals. This act created the Marine Hospital Service under the Department of the Treasury. In 1802 Marine Hospitals were operating in Boston; Newport; Norfolk; and Charleston, S.C. and medical services were contracted in other ports
History of Health Care Reform (Wikipedia) Hmmm. That sounds kinda familiar, actually.

The Supreme Court has, on various occasions, disagreed with your position as well.
Quote:
In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, the Court sustained a tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits to individual workers. It was argued that the tax and a state credit that went with the state’s tax were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States.” The Supreme Court, however, held that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal spending under the “general welfare” clause, and that the Social Security Act, which also included old age benefits for individuals so they might not be destitute in their old age, as well as provisions for child welfare and maternal child health projects, was a legitimate attempt to solve these problems in cooperation with the states. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have not questioned Congress’s policy decisions as to what kinds of spending programs are in pursuit of the “general welfare,” and so numerous programs have been funded in such diverse areas as education, housing, veterans’ benefits, the environment, welfare, health care, scientific research, the arts, community development, and public financing of election campaigns. The Supreme Court accords great deference to a legislative decision by Congress that a particular spending program provides for the general welfare. Indeed, the High Court has suggested that the question whether a spending program provides for the general welfare is one that is entirely within the discretion of the legislative branch.
Health Care: Constitutional Rights and Legislative Powers (Congressional Research Service)

And, trust me, I have argued, and will argue, that numerous decisions of the Supreme Court are just wrong, constitutionally - as they have been egregiously wrong regarding campaign finance, the Second Amendment, and Gerrymandering - so I am sympathetic to legal precedence not going where I want it to. But, since this has been federal practice for over 200 years, that horse left the barn a very, very long time ago.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
I get so tired of shooting down this same erroneous and, frankly, idiotic claptrap over and over again. The purpose of the Constitution was not to limit our government, but the opposite: to create and expand the role of the central government. That is just incontrovertible fact.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
What are the Constitutional limits on the General welfare?

To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it. Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of it has been used to expand it beyond what Madison intended. Hamilton's interpretation is not reliable for three reasons.
1) Hamilton wasn't at the Constitutional Convention for the entire time it was in session.
2) Hamilton wasn't an active participant in the convention.
3) Hamilton wasn't a voting member of the convention.
Voting in the convention was done by states and a majority of the delegates from a state had to agree on the vote. The delegation form New York consisted of three men, John Lansing, Robert Yates, and Alexander Hamilton. Lansing and Yates were at the convention from May 25th to July 10th. When they left they never returned. Since 2/3 of the NY delegation was not there Hamilton was not allowed to vote on what was being debated. Hamilton was at the convention from May 25th to June 30th. He returned for 1 day August 13th and then returned on September 6th. The general welfare clause was debated on August 22 when Alexander Hamilton was not there. In that he did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant.
Make a note of this post, my friends. This is a shining example of what is known as "sophistry".
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:04 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
I get so tired of shooting down this same erroneous and, frankly, idiotic claptrap over and over again. The purpose of the Constitution was not to limit our government, but the opposite: to create and expand the role of the central government. That is just incontrovertible fact.

What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes, but not as much as you erroneously think it did. When our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution they lived in the state of Virginia or the state of New York or the state of Massachusetts, etc. Our Founding Fathers were citizens of their respective states first and the United States of America second! To them the word state was synonymous with the word country. They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power. That is why our Constitution was sent to conventions of delegates from the various states to be ratified. The IX and X Amendments to our Constitution are limitations on the power of our central government.
Quote:
The IX Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The X Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What you should be tired of is shooting yourself in the foot. You do so when claim that our Constitution was not written to limit the power of "slightly enlarged" central government.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:24 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[quote=logtroll]What are the Constitutional limits on the General welfare?

To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it. Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of it has been used to expand it beyond what Madison intended. Hamilton's interpretation is not reliable for three reasons.
1) Hamilton wasn't at the Constitutional Convention for the entire time it was in session.
2) Hamilton wasn't an active participant in the convention.
3) Hamilton wasn't a voting member of the convention.
Voting in the convention was done by states and a majority of the delegates from a state had to agree on the vote. The delegation form New York consisted of three men, John Lansing, Robert Yates, and Alexander Hamilton. Lansing and Yates were at the convention from May 25th to July 10th. When they left they never returned. Since 2/3 of the NY delegation was not there Hamilton was not allowed to vote on what was being debated. Hamilton was at the convention from May 25th to June 30th. He returned for 1 day August 13th and then returned on September 6th. The general welfare clause was debated on August 22 when Alexander Hamilton was not there. In that he did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Make a note of this post, my friends. This is a shining example of what is known as "sophistry".

John Lansing
Robert Lansing
Alexander Hamilton
What I wrote about the debate about Hamilton and the general Welfare clause at the Constitutional Conventions was taken from James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Sophistry? No, documented history of the writing of our Constitution. NW Ponderer calls it sophistry because the facts about what our Constitution was written for, to create a limited central government does not agree with his incorrect interpretation of it. His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it. Thus he is not the expert on it that he thinks he is.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 09:56 AM

I thought the reason for the Constitution was to create a framework for a system of government.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 10:05 AM

Hold the phone! I did some deep research and I think that I found the true and correct purpose for the Constitution!! Seems it’s one of those secrets hidden in plain sight...

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 01:15 PM

After hours of bone-wearying investigation, reading the astute and incisive opinions written herein, and even perusing Madison’s copious notes journaling the drafting of the Constitution - (did he really say that the phrase “to provide for the common defence and general welfare” was accidentally left in the text because it “went unnoticed”?) - a powerful thought came into my mind, “Why would anyone think that providing for the common defence and the general welfare of Americans is not an excellent idea?” And that it should be done at the national level makes sense, too, because, as with all forms of insurance, a larger pool works better to spread the burden of cost and lessen the overhead of management.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 02:01 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I thought the reason for the Constitution was to create a framework for a system of government.
Exactly.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 02:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
I forgot to amend this note previously:* Madison did not write the Constitution. He proposed numerous provisions of it, many of which were debated, discarded, adopted and/or modified by a group of individuals at the Constitutional Convention, which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals. His opinion, therefore, of its meaning and purpose is... one opinion. Persuasive, perhaps, but most assuredly not definitive. There were literally hundreds of others whose opinions affected the adoption and interpretation of the words contained in it. (Remember the Federalist papers? What was that all about?)

Which brings me to my second point: Apparently, friend, you didn't follow the link I provided, so don't understand the definition of "sophistry". It is a fallacious mode of argumentation; specifically, "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." It is sometimes referred to as "specious reasoning." When you say, "To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it." and that "In that [Hamilton] did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant." - that is an example of specious reasoning or sophistry. It is full of logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority), and omissions (e.g., that the only discussions/debates were those recorded by Madison).

Now, I will also admit that I love it, which is not charitable of me, when you write things that prove my point, but disprove your own. It's a habit of yours that I take guilty pleasure in.
Quote:
What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes[.]
Which was exactly my point. You then reload the shotgun and point it at your... well, you get the metaphor - and assert "They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power." Who is this "they", Kemo sahbee? And why did they do exactly that, if it was not their intention? Maybe you meant to say, "some of them"? Or, "some argued against it"?

What chaps my hide is your broad generalizations and surety that you are "right" about things, when you are not, and even when you are proved in error, refusal to recognize it as such. Yes, there are limitations on the central government - I've never argued elsewise - but the argument that "To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution." Is. Just. Not. True.


* I originally mistyped that as "Peeviously". I thought that was an apt descriptor, and a freudian slip. Made me laugh.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 03:04 PM

Señor NWP,

You would do well to recall this quip of Ms. Parker:

“You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.”
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 03:07 PM

If that don’t cut the mustard, try this:

“You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.” - D. Parker
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Thank you for showing that what you know about the Republican Party is wrong. You don't know how much you don't know about the Republican Party.

Hyar’s one more TopDawg Reepublurkin’:

New sexual assault allegations against Hizzoner Kavanaugh
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 05:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.
Thanks for that acknowledgment, my friend.

I wrote a little bit about this on another thread. Rather than cross-posting, I'll just note the relevant point, here: a government is given authorities and restrictions, as its denizens are. The Constitution gave the central/federal government certain powers, and left others to the States. Within its authority it can create requirements, prohibitions, restrictions and permissions. Examples might be: a requirement to file taxes; a prohibition on lying to Congress; a restriction on political donations; permission to drill on public lands.

Friend Hatrack has stated on several occasions that the Constitution was created "to limit government." I have also, on several occasions, pointed out the error of the statement as a generality. That there are "restrictions" on the power of the federal government has never been contested. It is the asserting that this was the "purpose" of the Constitution that is both erroneous and ridiculous. (The most succinct demonstration is the supremacy clause.) For example, the federal government is given authority to conduct foreign affairs. States can't do it, citizens can't do it. There are prohibitions with penalties (Logan act); there are limited authorizions (e.g., States given permission to negotiate trade compacts). But, in that sphere, federal authority is plenary.

In other areas the federal government shares authority. In some areas, it is specifically restricted (e.g., establishment of religion or prohibition thereof). Yet, even in those areas, the government may have some influence or impact. No such constitutional proscription is absolute, no matter how definitive the language may seem. For example "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech" seems pretty definitive, yet time, place and manner restrictions are upheld, and some speech is actually prohibited (incitement to riot).
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
I forgot to amend this note previously:* Madison did not write the Constitution. He proposed numerous provisions of it, many of which were debated, discarded, adopted and/or modified by a group of individuals at the Constitutional Convention, which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals. His opinion, therefore, of its meaning and purpose is... one opinion. Persuasive, perhaps, but most assuredly not definitive. There were literally hundreds of others whose opinions affected the adoption and interpretation of the words contained in it. (Remember the Federalist papers? What was that all about?)

I did not say that Madison was the sole author of our Constitution! What I did say was that he was the author of the general Welfare clause. Then you make the mistake of saying;
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States.

Our Constitution was not ratified by the state legislatures! Natioonal Archives
Quote:
On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals.
Our Constitution was not ratified by the state legislatures! It was ratified by special conventions called for the purpose of ratifying our Constitution. Madison did not participate in most of the convention, he participated in ALL of it! He was one of the few delegates to it that was there every day that the convention met. Was Madison persuasive? Of course he was. He was the author of the Virginia Plan, which was the plan that our Constitution is based on. Yes, I do remember The Federalist Papers. I also remember that they were written to convince the people of the various states, originally New York but then were used in other states, to support the ratification of our Constitution. It was in 1810 that The Federalist Papers as we know them today were published as a book. It was after The Federalist Papers were published as a book that there use to interpret our Constitution began. That is what The Federalist Papers were all about.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Which brings me to my second point: Apparently, friend, you didn't follow the link I provided, so don't understand the definition of "sophistry". It is a fallacious mode of argumentation; specifically, "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." It is sometimes referred to as "specious reasoning." When you say, "To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it." and that "In that [Hamilton] did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant." - that is an example of specious reasoning or sophistry. It is full of logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority), and omissions (e.g., that the only discussions/debates were those recorded by Madison).
That Madison did write the general Welfare clause is not a fallacious argument, it is a fact. That Hamilton didn't participate in the debate of the general Welfare clause means that he did not have any influence on the writing of it. That is not a fallacious argument, it is a fact. Is not asking about The Federalist Papers an appeal to authority? Why, yes it is! There were other delegates to the Constitutional Convention who took notes. Robert Yates also took notes of the convention. His notes are informative but since he did not attend the entire convention they are not a complete record of the convention. Madison did attend the entire convention which makes his notes a complete record of it.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I will also admit that I love it, which is not charitable of me, when you write things that prove my point, but disprove your own. It's a habit of yours that I take guilty pleasure in.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes, but not as much as you erroneously think it did. [.]
https://uslawessentials.atavist.com/the-constitution-and-the-distribution-of-power-clone-19pbj
Quote:
To each branch, the Constitution assigns certain powers. No branch of government may exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. By assigning powers to each branch, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government and also tries to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful.
The checks and balances in our Constitution were put there to limit the power of our government.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Which was exactly my point. You then reload the shotgun and point it at your... well, you get the metaphor - and assert "They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power." Who is this "they", Kemo sahbee? And why did they do exactly that, if it was not their intention? Maybe you meant to say, "some of them"? Or, "some argued against it"?

The "they" I was referring to were the members of the Constitutional Convention. Those men had just lived through a war to get rid of the powerful British government. The idea that they would create a powerful government for them to live under is ludicrous!

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What chaps my hide is your broad generalizations and surety that you are "right" about things, when you are not, and even when you are proved in error, refusal to recognize it as such. Yes, there are limitations on the central government - I've never argued elsewise - but the argument that "To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution." Is. Just. Not. True.

My "broad generalizations" have been backed up with citations. My "surety" that I am right is also backed up with citations. In this reply I have shown, with citations, where you were in error NW. Your "proof" that I am in error is your claim that you are. Your error in saying the state legislatures ratified our Constitution shows that you are not as knowledgeable about it as you think you are. Then my link to and quote fromThe Constitution and the Distribution of Power shows that our Constitution was written to limit the power of our government. So, yes my saying our Constitution was written to limit the power of our government
IS TRUE!

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
* I originally mistyped that as "Peeviously". I thought that was an apt descriptor, and a freudian slip. Made me laugh.

I see you are still riding your high horse, NW. Perhaps you should get off your horse before you fall and hurt yourself.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.

That comment was written around 2 AM after having been up since 7 AM the previous day. When I wrote it I was tired and the tedious process of writing a reply and quoting it caused me to make a mistake. Had NW quoted the second sentence that I wrote he would not be thanking me for it. Here are both of the sentences.
Quote:
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it. Thus he is not the expert on it that he thinks he is.

Because I was tired I forgot to put the word "not" between the words is and supported. With the word "not" in the sentence its meaning is changed. NW omitted quoting my second sentence because it reinforces what my first sentence meant to say but didn't due to my leaving out a very important word.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
As someone who has been a member of the Republican Party for over 50 years, and whose family has been members of the party since 1910, my knowledge of it is better than someone who has never been a member of it.
Well, not really. Sometimes the view from inside (of one element) can be just a little bit skewed. It could, perhaps, even be infected with a bit of bias. Sometimes the best observers are those from the outside. In my humble opinion, this is such a case.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:09 PM

Example of Republican thinking today:

"Liberals believe that the government should make all of your health care decisions for you, but when socialism came to Cambodia, it resulted in the deaths of millions."

Never mind that the Khmer Rouge only came to power because Tricky Dick (whom the Rethugs would worship had he not resigned) overthrew Cambodia's government and started bombing the countryside. As a matter of fact, Anthony Bourdain remarked, "To visit Cambodia is to want Kissinger tried for war crimes."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

promote - support or actively encourage.

general - affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

welfare - the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

Any society that aspires to nothing, will lose everything. Through an insidious devaluation of curiosity and intellectualism, lost empathy and abandoned governance, it will eventually fall victim to its self-engenderizing.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Make a note of this post, my friends. This is a shining example of what is known as "sophistry".

Right-wingers are known for this intellectually dishonest device in online forums. Happens ALL of the time. Hmm
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:43 PM

I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I am finding the long and convoluted lectures in response to NWP to be impenetrable. Blenderized concoctions of opinion, history, dogma, alternative fact, and the occasional true fact, are unappetizing and hard to swallow.

My construction company (yes, I am a bona fide capitalist) has been engaged in a lawsuit with a crazy (former) client for a year and a half over a payment dispute. The problem arose when she decided that she wanted to shitcan us because we wouldn't allow her to micro-manage a fixed-price contract project. Several months into the job we submitted a progress payment application (stipulated by her lender), which she refused to authorize, saying she "felt" had already overpaid us (but with no documentation). At the same time, she refused to follow the contractual disbursement procedure that required a 3rd party professional to inspect the job, compare the AIA G702 pay app to the schedule of values for work completed, and certify the amount requested.

In short, she breached the contract by not performing her obligation to follow the progress payment approval process. The cure was simple - have the 3rd party professional inspect the job and certify that payment is due.

However, she started making up tons of other reasons to accuse us of breaching the contract by stopping work until we got paid (we were $45,000 into the job and out of funds to continue). She locked up the jobsite (with some $60,000 of our tools and materials inside), and got an unethical lawyer to write a "Notice of Termination" of the contract, that was filled with specious claims and libel, coupled with extortive demands (one was that we'd get our tools back when all of her demands were met).

We finally got into court 8 months later, where she and her second sleazeball attorney poured a blenderized concoction of crap onto the judge (who was not the brightest bulb in the room and was on his final day at the bench having recently lost an election), including a new story claiming that she didn't know who the tools belonged to and needed to determine the rightful owners were before releasing them.

The judge was so confused that he declined to rule on the case, except to order the client to give us back our tools (some of which had been stolen during the period of her protective custody).

She is now on her 3rd lawyer (from her insurance company, who is only defending covered claims) and is attempting to represent her company pro se on a raft of new claims against us. She has been so bold as to contradict the new judge after he told her that unless she is an attorney she can't represent a LLC or a corporation. He was unconvinced by her arguments, so now she is busy trying to justify pressing the claims on the basis she has been injured as a result of her company being injured. But of course, if there is no ruling that we injured her company, there is no basis for her alleged injury. She can't argue personal injury without first succeeding at arguing company damage.

Quite the stinking muddle - we are now 1-1/2 years in, she has spent an estimated $50,000 and has forced us to spend $20,000 - and the core issue is still simple and without a hearing... she didn't follow the contract in certifying the pay app. When that little step in the process is finally performed, we will get a judgement awarding the payment, interest, and damages. She will still blame us bitterly, and what should have been a normal and friendly project that would have been completed on time (June 2018) and on budget (it was a fixed-price contract) will be a smoking wreck, possibly putting her out of business.

In case you are wondering what the point is here, it's that arguing with Hatrack reminds me of our dispute with the crazy lady client. You just can't get anywhere with a Blenderizer on the other side of the table.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/15/19 07:45 PM

Quote:
I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

Mebbe you're on ignore. coffee
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 12:12 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I am finding the long and convoluted lectures in response to NWP to be impenetrable. Blenderized concoctions of opinion, history, dogma, alternative fact, and the occasional true fact, are unappetizing and hard to swallow.

My construction company (yes, I am a bona fide capitalist) has been engaged in a lawsuit with a crazy (former) client for a year and a half over a payment dispute. The problem arose when she decided that she wanted to shitcan us because we wouldn't allow her to micro-manage a fixed-price contract project. Several months into the job we submitted a progress payment application (stipulated by her lender), which she refused to authorize, saying she "felt" had already overpaid us (but with no documentation). At the same time, she refused to follow the contractual disbursement procedure that required a 3rd party professional to inspect the job, compare the AIA G702 pay app to the schedule of values for work completed, and certify the amount requested.

In short, she breached the contract by not performing her obligation to follow the progress payment approval process. The cure was simple - have the 3rd party professional inspect the job and certify that payment is due.

However, she started making up tons of other reasons to accuse us of breaching the contract by stopping work until we got paid (we were $45,000 into the job and out of funds to continue). She locked up the jobsite (with some $60,000 of our tools and materials inside), and got an unethical lawyer to write a "Notice of Termination" of the contract, that was filled with specious claims and libel, coupled with extortive demands (one was that we'd get our tools back when all of her demands were met).

We finally got into court 8 months later, where she and her second sleazeball attorney poured a blenderized concoction of crap onto the judge (who was not the brightest bulb in the room and was on his final day at the bench having recently lost an election), including a new story claiming that she didn't know who the tools belonged to and and needed to determine the rightful owners were before releasing them.

The judge was so confused that he declined to rule on the case, except to order the client to give us back our tools (some of which had been stolen during the period of her protective custody).

She is now on her 3rd lawyer (from her insurance company, who is only defending covered claims) and is attempting to represent her company pro se on a raft of new claims against us. She has been so bold as to contradict the new judge after he told her that unless she is an attorney she can't represent a LLC or a corporation. He was unconvinced by her arguments, so now she is busy trying to justify pressing the claims on the basis she has been injured as a result of her company being injured. But of course, if there is no ruling that we injured her company, there is no basis for her alleged injury. She can't argue personal injury without first succeeding at arguing company damage.

Quite the stinking muddle - we are now 1-1/2 years in, she has spent an estimated $50,000 and has forced us to spend $20,000 - and the core issue is still simple and without a hearing... she didn't follow the contract in certifying the pay app. When that little step in the process is finally performed, we will get a judgement awarding the payment, interest, and damages. She will still blame us bitterly, and what should have been a normal and friendly project that would have been completed on time (June 2018) and on budget (it was a fixed-price contract) will be a smoking wreck, possibly putting her out of business.

In case you are wondering what the point is here, it's that arguing with Hatrack reminds me of our dispute with the crazy lady client. You just can't get anywhere with a Blenderizer on the other side of the table.
Did you ever consider the possibility that for the people here I am automatically wrong? That a long diatribe comparing me to a crazy former client of yours is not a good way to have a conversation. That every thing I say is meet with derision. The Rant is no longer a place for a friendly discussion between conservatives and liberals. It is now a place where the idea that someone might disagree with the liberals here, even if they are business owners, and what they have to say is valid. As William F. Buckley once said
Quote:
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 12:20 AM

You not responding to simple questions and relevant comments is an even worse way to have a conversation, don’t you think?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 12:59 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
You not responding to simple questions and relevant comments is an even worse way to have a conversation, don’t you think?

An eight paragraph long comment that ends with an insult is a simple question?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 01:06 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
As someone who has been a member of the Republican Party for over 50 years, and whose family has been members of the party since 1910, my knowledge of it is better than someone who has never been a member of it.
Well, not really. Sometimes the view from inside (of one element) can be just a little bit skewed. It could, perhaps, even be infected with a bit of bias. Sometimes the best observers are those from the outside. In my humble opinion, this is such a case.
It is unfortunate that you made the mistaken assumption that I was always a Republican. In my rebellious youth I was a member of the Socialist Worker's Party for a couple of years. I was also active in the Democratic Party. I was once a delegate to a Democratic Party county convention and a precinct captain for the McGovern for President campaign.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 01:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
You not responding to simple questions and relevant comments is an even worse way to have a conversation, don’t you think?

An eight paragraph long comment that ends with an insult is a simple question?

Some people want to be made proverbial sweet conversational love to, want a slow hand with an easy touch, take your time - do it right, everything that you do - you do it for them, ya' know? Hmm
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
You not responding to simple questions and relevant comments is an even worse way to have a conversation, don’t you think?

An eight paragraph long comment that ends with an insult is a simple question?

Not an insult, like you are in the habit of closing with, just the conclusion of the analogy.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 02:27 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
You not responding to simple questions and relevant comments is an even worse way to have a conversation, don’t you think?

An eight paragraph long comment that ends with an insult is a simple question?

Not an insult, like you are in the habit of closing with, just the conclusion of the analogy.

Being compared to a crazy person isn't an insult?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 03:38 AM

You are correct on one point, friend Hatrack. I wrote too fast. The STATES ratified it, not the legislatures. Beyond that, the sweat of desperation mottles your brow. Do you know what a "Gish gallop" is? That seems to be what you are going for here. It is hard to keep up with all of the fallacies and misstatements incorporated in your response.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It is unfortunate that you made the mistaken assumption that I was always a Republican. In my rebellious youth I was a member of the Socialist Worker's Party for a couple of years. I was also active in the Democratic Party. I was once a delegate to a Democratic Party county convention and a precinct captain for the McGovern for President campaign.


You keep bringing up YOUR REBELLIOUS YOUTH and membership in the SWP as some sort of appeal to authority, and it doesn't work, it has never worked.
My oldest brother was a SWP member too. He knows nothing about being a liberal either. Might be because he, like you, has made the mistaken assumption that the Left is "all about rebellion".

Where does one come up with such a faulty assertion?
I'll venture a guess: It comes from people who gravitate to one extreme who, when their idealism is challenged, jump to the opposite extreme and then use their new position as a bully pulpit to lob nonstop character assassination on their old position.

In essence, you're hating your former self and making everyone else pay the tab for damages...but amazingly, all you can account for is that someone on the Left said something mean to you.

Pot meet kettle...the reason I've withdrawn from most of your threads is because you can't resist the urge to peddle broad sweeping generalizations about the Left which only apply to absolute bleeding edge extremists, which of course is all you can relate to when thinking of the Left anyway.

We're all commies, and don't even think of protesting that you've never said that. You have, you do, and you continue to.
We're all communists, or if we're not, we're just ignorant because we don't realize that we're Marxists.

Seriously Hatrack, pull the beam out of your eye before whining about the splinter in ours. You do not know jack squat about ordinary liberals, and it shows.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 04:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
You not responding to simple questions and relevant comments is an even worse way to have a conversation, don’t you think?

An eight paragraph long comment that ends with an insult is a simple question?

Not an insult, like you are in the habit of closing with, just the conclusion of the analogy.

Being compared to a crazy person isn't an insult?


Blenderizers aren't necessarily crazy, they just have an overpowering urge to throw things in blenders and hit PUREE a lot.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
You are correct on one point, friend Hatrack. I wrote too fast. The STATES ratified it, not the legislatures. Beyond that, the sweat of desperation mottles your brow. Do you know what a "Gish gallop" is? That seems to be what you are going for here. It is hard to keep up with all of the fallacies and misstatements incorporated in your response.


The amount of energy required to refute

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 04:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The wards were run by Democratic political bosses. If your ward didn't vote for and contribute to the machine your ward didn't get services from the city. The snow wasn't plowed, the garbage wasn't picked up, the police & fire departments were slow to respond. Then to get a job with the city you had to vote for and contribute to the machine. If people do that for 70 years or so it becomes a habit. That is why 90% of the wards became and stayed Democrats.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
And you know what? Last time Karen and I went up to Chicago, we saw HELP WANTED and NOW HIRING signs ALL over the stinking place.
That was in 2015.

I was talking about how Chicago was back in the 1940's not in 2015.


Glad you mentioned the 1940's because Karen's father was hesitant about settling down in McHenry, IL until he walked by a factory on Rt 121 and a shop steward appeared in the doorway asking if he'd like a high paying job.

"How high are we talking?", asked Bob Mitchell...the answer was roughly double what Bob had been making down in Lepanto, Arkansas where he grew up.
And it was a plant that was manufacturing a newfangled thing called a central air conditioner, which was exactly what he had gone to school for down in Arkansas.

Bob Mitchell spent the next thirty some-odd years raising his family in McHenry. All in all I'd say that the political machine up there did pretty good by the folks who lived there.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 05:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It is unfortunate that you made the mistaken assumption that I was always a Republican. In my rebellious youth I was a member of the Socialist Worker's Party for a couple of years. I was also active in the Democratic Party. I was once a delegate to a Democratic Party county convention and a precinct captain for the McGovern for President campaign.


You keep bringing up YOUR REBELLIOUS YOUTH and membership in the SWP as some sort of appeal to authority, and it doesn't work, it has never worked.
My oldest brother was a SWP member too. He knows nothing about being a liberal either. Might be because he, like you, has made the mistaken assumption that the Left is "all about rebellion".

Where does one come up with such a faulty assertion?
I'll venture a guess: It comes from people who gravitate to one extreme who, when their idealism is challenged, jump to the opposite extreme and then use their new position as a bully pulpit to lob nonstop character assassination on their old position.

In essence, you're hating your former self and making everyone else pay the tab for damages...but amazingly, all you can account for is that someone on the Left said something mean to you.

Pot meet kettle...the reason I've withdrawn from most of your threads is because you can't resist the urge to peddle broad sweeping generalizations about the Left which only apply to absolute bleeding edge extremists, which of course is all you can relate to when thinking of the Left anyway.

We're all commies, and don't even think of protesting that you've never said that. You have, you do, and you continue to.
We're all communists, or if we're not, we're just ignorant because we don't realize that we're Marxists.

Seriously Hatrack, pull the beam out of your eye before whining about the splinter in ours. You do not know jack squat about ordinary liberals, and it shows.
The ONLY reason I mentioned my membership in the SWP was to show that I have not always been a Republican. I also mentioned that I was active in the Democratic Party. It was not an appeal to authority. One of my favorite sayings is "Question authority" especially if I am the authority. I do know a lot about liberals, most of my friends are liberals and they are as anti-Marxist as I am. It was a statement of who I was, nothing more, nothing less. That you read into it anything about my belief that all liberals are Marxists is the beam in your eye.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 05:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The wards were run by Democratic political bosses. If your ward didn't vote for and contribute to the machine your ward didn't get services from the city. The snow wasn't plowed, the garbage wasn't picked up, the police & fire departments were slow to respond. Then to get a job with the city you had to vote for and contribute to the machine. If people do that for 70 years or so it becomes a habit. That is why 90% of the wards became and stayed Democrats.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
And you know what? Last time Karen and I went up to Chicago, we saw HELP WANTED and NOW HIRING signs ALL over the stinking place.
That was in 2015.

I was talking about how Chicago was back in the 1940's not in 2015.


Glad you mentioned the 1940's because Karen's father was hesitant about settling down in McHenry, IL until he walked by a factory on Rt 121 and a shop steward appeared in the doorway asking if he'd like a high paying job.

"How high are we talking?", asked Bob Mitchell...the answer was roughly double what Bob had been making down in Lepanto, Arkansas where he grew up.
And it was a plant that was manufacturing a newfangled thing called a central air conditioner, which was exactly what he had gone to school for down in Arkansas.

Bob Mitchell spent the next thirty some-odd years raising his family in McHenry. All in all I'd say that the political machine up there did pretty good by the folks who lived there.
The reason the big city political machines were around for a long time is because they helped people, as your example shows.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 05:17 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
You are correct on one point, friend Hatrack. I wrote too fast. The STATES ratified it, not the legislatures. Beyond that, the sweat of desperation mottles your brow. Do you know what a "Gish gallop" is? That seems to be what you are going for here. It is hard to keep up with all of the fallacies and misstatements incorporated in your response.

And you are not doing that?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I figured it out. It’s because the blenderizer thing doesn’t work when there isn’t enough ingredients available for creating a Gishmash hotdish, or as it’s known in Delaware, a confusion stew.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 03:00 PM

No, I am not. The fact that you don't recognize that is quite telling.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
You are correct on one point, friend Hatrack. I wrote too fast. The STATES ratified it, not the legislatures. Beyond that, the sweat of desperation mottles your brow. Do you know what a "Gish gallop" is? That seems to be what you are going for here. It is hard to keep up with all of the fallacies and misstatements incorporated in your response.


The amount of energy required to refute

LOL. I was about to post a comment on "Brandolini's law" - "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - when I saw this. Also known as "Bullshit asymmetry"
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 03:22 PM

I took some time to go back and read through this thread. The variety of directions it has gone has been interesting, if uninformative. Going back to my initial query, I began to wonder if there were, indeed, still conservatives at all, or if conservatism has always been a chimera. What I mean by that is that "conservatives" - going back to the early users of that term - have always appropriated concepts that did not, and do not, support their political actions.

I'll take as an example, "classical liberalism." The implications of that phrase are two-fold: First, implying long-held, thus ancient principles; second, that it is informed by "liberal" thought. I will assert here that friend Hatrack does aspire to some aspects of this in his libertarian views on social issues - LGBTQ rights and such. That is commendable, and noted. But, the phrase is more broadly and inaccurately used by neoconservatives to disguise a rather abusive and controlling mindset. There are numerous other examples I have noted in the past.

I, personally, prefer the position that Hatrack first espoused: Conservatives seek to conserve. It is a nice, concise, and understandable turn of phrase, and therefore laudable. But, in perusing history, and current usage, I find that it is not, and never has been, actually true. There are certain things that have been sought to be preserved - mostly privilege - but in other respects they are indifferent to conservation. Is, for example, drilling in the Alaskan wildlands "conservative"? Isn't preservation of pristine lands more conservative? Is preserving the gerrymander a conservative principle? Isn't protecting the right to vote and equal application of the law a more conservative principle? Similarly, how is unfettered money in politics a conservative principle? I am confused by these and other "principles" espoused by "conservatives".

Perhaps a few examples of the conservative viewpoint (as opposed to the "conservative" viewpoint) might be in order. Is it more than "keeping things the way they are (even if they are decidedly unfair)"? Or are there larger principles at work. I am genuinely interested.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 04:48 PM

I realized that some of my phraseology in the preceding post is confusing. When I say conservative versus "conservative" what I mean is, those who are really conservative in thought versus those who use the label "conservative." I opine that the majority of actions/activities by modern "conservatives" is not conservative at all.

There are some areas that are claimed by conservatism, generally, but aren't really conservative at all - such as small government, and tax cuts. There is nothing inherently conservative in a small government, except perhaps preservation of capital. But is not conservatism interested in efficient and effective government? The same with tax cuts. If the tax cut furthers a conservative goal, perhaps, but tax cuts are not, per se conservative, and may, indeed, create inefficiencies that undermine conservative principles. For example, reducing the police force, undercutting national security, etc.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 08:25 PM

Quote:
A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal. Thomas Paine
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 08:43 PM

Quote:
conservative versus "conservative"


Y'know, NWP, when it comes to Republican voters I don't divide 'em up into good guys and bad guys. They elected Donald Trump. They didn't elect him because they thought he would deliver smaller government or advance whatever passes for a conservative agenda, they just sent him in as a wrecking ball.
**Images of a scantily clad Miley Cyrus in my head**

Not to fix anything. Just to do as much damage as possible to the US Government.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 09:02 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
No, I am not. The fact that you don't recognize that is quite telling.

How high is your horse?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I realized that some of my phraseology in the preceding post is confusing. When I say conservative versus "conservative" what I mean is, those who are really conservative in thought versus those who use the label "conservative." I opine that the majority of actions/activities by modern "conservatives" is not conservative at all.

There are some areas that are claimed by conservatism, generally, but aren't really conservative at all - such as small government, and tax cuts. There is nothing inherently conservative in a small government, except perhaps preservation of capital. But is not conservatism interested in efficient and effective government? The same with tax cuts. If the tax cut furthers a conservative goal, perhaps, but tax cuts are not, per se conservative, and may, indeed, create inefficiencies that undermine conservative principles. For example, reducing the police force, undercutting national security, etc.

I recall asking a simple question recently of how people define "conservatism", and specifically invited the good Senator to describe his version in his own words. It is one of the simple questions that he did not answer.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 11:02 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I realized that some of my phraseology in the preceding post is confusing. When I say conservative versus "conservative" what I mean is, those who are really conservative in thought versus those who use the label "conservative." I opine that the majority of actions/activities by modern "conservatives" is not conservative at all.

There are some areas that are claimed by conservatism, generally, but aren't really conservative at all - such as small government, and tax cuts. There is nothing inherently conservative in a small government, except perhaps preservation of capital. But is not conservatism interested in efficient and effective government? The same with tax cuts. If the tax cut furthers a conservative goal, perhaps, but tax cuts are not, per se conservative, and may, indeed, create inefficiencies that undermine conservative principles. For example, reducing the police force, undercutting national security, etc.

I recall asking a simple question recently of how people define "conservatism", and specifically invited the good Senator to describe his version in his own words. It is one of the simple questions that he did not answer.
I did not answer because I was either embroiled in a discussion with Mr. High Horse (NW Ponderer) or didn't see it. While it is a simple question there isn't a simple answer. After the fall of the USSR in Russia a conservative was someone who wanted the Communist government back. Here in the US a person who could be considered a conservative is someone who wants to preserve the New Deal programs. No one is 100% "conservative" and no one is 100% a "liberal." There are things I want to conserve and there somethings I want to change. What I want to conserve someone else wants to change.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/16/19 11:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I did not answer because I was either embroiled in a discussion with Mr. High Horse (NW Ponderer) or didn't see it. While it is a simple question there isn't a simple answer. After the fall of the USSR in Russia a conservative was someone who wanted the Communist government back. Here in the US a person who could be considered a conservative is someone who wants to preserve the New Deal programs. No one is 100% "conservative" and no one is 100% a "liberal." There are things I want to conserve and there somethings I want to change. What I want to conserve someone else wants to change.

Perotista gave a clear and understandable description that pretty well matches what I thought Conservatives are supposed to be.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
conservative versus "conservative"


Y'know, NWP, when it comes to Republican voters I don't divide 'em up into good guys and bad guys. They elected Donald Trump. They didn't elect him because they thought he would deliver smaller government or advance whatever passes for a conservative agenda, they just sent him in as a wrecking ball.
**Images of a scantily clad Miley Cyrus in my head**

Not to fix anything. Just to do as much damage as possible to the US Government.
I cannot dispute any of that characterization, but I can agree wholeheartedly.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
No, I am not. The fact that you don't recognize that is quite telling.

How high is your horse?
Well fed and watered, and out to pasture, thank you. Sadly, I haven't ridden in some time. I think you mistook me for your image in the mirror.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 02:02 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
No, I am not. The fact that you don't recognize that is quite telling.

How high is your horse?
Well fed and watered, and out to pasture, thank you. Sadly, I haven't ridden in some time. I think you mistook me for your image in the mirror.
Bullshit! Every time you make a comment here you are riding your high horse.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 02:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Bullshit! Every time you make a comment here you are riding your high horse.

Bullshit is overused, imho - horseshit would better and more applicable artful in this case, if true.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 02:47 PM



The Republican Party, Fox News and other elite rightwing groups see Trumpism (modern Conservatism) as their best chance to destroy America’s multicultural democracy, profit from environment disaster, gut the social safety net, destroy the commons, slash taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, or (in extreme cases) install a Christian nationalist regime.

This thread validates these points pretty well. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 02:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
...when it comes to Republican voters I don't divide 'em up into good guys and bad guys. They elected Donald Trump. They didn't elect him because they thought he would deliver smaller government or advance whatever passes for a conservative agenda, they just sent him in as a wrecking ball.

...

Not to fix anything. Just to do as much damage as possible to the US Government.

I agree Greger. Trump and his supporters  are attracted to chaos and want to inflict it on others, and they understand it to be a viable strategy for destroying our multicultural society.

Trump and his supporters agree with this statement: “We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.”

Trump and his supporters are so discontent that they are willing to mobilize against the current political order to see if what emerges from the resulting chaos has something better in stock for them.

Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 02:55 PM



I will also submit that modern Conservatives exhibit the “dark triad” of human behavior — Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism and that is Donald J Trump in a nutshell.

Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


The Republican Party, Fox News and other elite rightwing groups see Trumpism (modern Conservatism) as their best chance to destroy America’s multicultural democracy, profit from environment disaster, gut the social safety net, destroy the commons, slash taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, or (in extreme cases) install a Christian nationalist regime.

This thread validates these points pretty well. smile

Trumpism is not and never has been modern conservatism! Trump is populist pretending to be Republican/Conservative. The only thing that you got right in this comment pdx rick is the desire of Republicans/Conservatives to slash taxes on corporations. No corporation has or will ever pay any taxes. All of the money all businesses get, whether it is a small business on Main St. or the largest corporation in the world, comes from us, the consumers. If we don't buy a product from a business it does not make any money. We are the source of revenue for all businesses. The taxes all businesses pay is part of the price we pay for their products.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trumpism is not and never has been modern conservatism!

T-Party activists would disagree with you. Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trumpism is not and never has been modern conservatism!

T-Party activists would disagree with you. Hmm

I was a T-Party activist so I know you are wrong!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 05:18 PM

Quote:
I was a T-Party activist

Why am I not surprised.

The revolution that made the Republican Party what is is today.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I was a T-Party activist

Why am I not surprised.

The revolution that made the Republican Party what is is today.

M'kay? Hmm

Ergo, the modern Conservative moniker. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I was a T-Party activist

Why am I not surprised.

The revolution that made the Republican Party what is is today.

A revolution that failed because the Republican Party lost its way thanks to a hostile takeover by Donald J. Trump.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I was a T-Party activist

Why am I not surprised.

The revolution that made the Republican Party what is is today.

A revolution that failed because the Republican Party lost its way thanks to a hostile takeover by Donald J. Trump.

Oh puh-leeeze. rolleyes How is Donald Trump any different from the T-Party? Trump is a continuation of the T-Party. In fact, I dare share that the T-Party shaped Donald Trump's platform. Hmm
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
A revolution that failed because the Republican Party lost its way thanks to a hostile takeover by Donald J. Trump.

WHOOO-HA!! That one hit my funny bone!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:35 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Trump and his supporters agree with this statement: “We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.”


All due respect, I don't know where anyone gets the idea that they want to "start over". They just want to tear it down, period - - full stop.
Steve Bannon even said his goal is to tear down the administrative state.
No state, nothing left to start over WITH.

Tore down, like Freddie King.



As in "almost level with the ground!"
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:37 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


I will also submit that modern Conservatives exhibit the “dark triad” of human behavior — Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism and that is Donald J Trump in a nutshell.

Hmm


Don't forget "attention seeking behavior".
Like me, I know you inhabit other forums too, so I know you've observed their attention seeking behavior in real time.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: pdx rick


I will also submit that modern Conservatives exhibit the “dark triad” of human behavior — Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism and that is Donald J Trump in a nutshell.

Hmm


Don't forget "attention seeking behavior".
Like me, I know you inhabit other forums too, so I know you've observed their attention seeking behavior in real time.

Indeed, attention seeking is one of the motives as well. smile
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:43 PM

90% of Republicans approve and eagerly await the chance to re-elect him...puts you kind of in the fringes don't it?

And Trump didn't hijack anything, Republicans loved him from the start.

Because he tells it like it is...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I bet you voted for him. And it's gonna be even harder not voting for him so you will again!

And the best you can hope for is to re-elect him...AHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Just for what it's worth, my leftist agenda is ticking along nicely.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:49 PM

There are somethings that need to be torn down. The administrative state might one of them. If after it has been torn down but it shouldn't have been it can be rebuilt. Tearing down a lot of what our government does is not a bad idea. What we need we can rebuild. While doing that might cause some problems we can learn from them to build a better structure. Remember I'm a conservative and conservatives don't like change.
grin
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
90% of Republicans approve and eagerly await the chance to re-elect him...puts you kind of in the fringes don't it?

And Trump didn't hijack anything, Republicans loved him from the start.

Because he tells it like it is...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I bet you voted for him. And it's gonna be even harder not voting for him so you will again!

And the best you can hope for is to re-elect him...AHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Just for what it's worth, my leftist agenda is ticking along nicely.

ROTFMOL ROTFMOL ROTFMOL ROTFMOL ROTFMOL
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:52 PM

Quote:
There are somethings that need to be torn down.

Comrade! We will burn this motherf**ker to the ground together!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Trumpism is not and never has been modern conservatism!


Senator, where do you find the energy to build so many "no true Scotsman" monuments?
This keys directly into that thing about extremists again, where you became a follower of the SWP, had a scream-worthy meltdown when THEIR extremism didn't pan out, and immediately went to the other extreme on the other side.

I mentioned my oldest brother, remember? Just like you! He was SWP, SDS, all the way. Then he suddenly leapt over the entire spectrum and landed on the extreme Right instead.
And like you, he has spent the last few decades running around repeating that same No True Scotsman homily in an attempt to inoculate himself.
You guys should meet. You're both a matched set.

The thing is, it doesn't wash. We didn't nominate Trump. Trumpers nominated Trump. We didn't vote for him, Trumpers did.
The overwhelming majority of the electorate who put him in the WH were already Right leaners, whether "independent" or Republican.

We did not build this orange menace to the Constitution, so WHO DID?
YOU GUYS did.

Modern GOP conservatism is what built Trump, what led us to Trump.
Modern conservatism is what triggered the entire Lee Atwater-Newt Gingrich-Dennis Hastert-Tea Party-Ted Cruz-Mitch McConnell insurgency.

And when you do that ISIS-like "No True Muslim"/"No True Scotsman" number, all you're doing is narrowing the circle and inventing more and more excuses as to why your ideals and values are unrealistic.

They are unrealistic because by your own hand, fewer and fewer people meet your special criteria for an unrealistic ideology that has crept into pure demagoguery.

Worst of all, none of it has yielded anything constructive.
And you have an excuse for that, too!

"It's all the fault of the godless America hating Marxists!"

Well, guess what? Your side has controlled the entire narrative for well over 40 years, even when Democrats were in the White House.
By the way, that IS partly our fault, without question.
WE LET YOU GUYS GET AWAY WITH IT for forty years.

But those days are over, friend.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 07:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There are somethings that need to be torn down. The administrative state might one of them. If after it has been torn down but it shouldn't have been it can be rebuilt. Tearing down a lot of what our government does is not a bad idea.
...
Remember I'm a conservative and conservatives don't like change.
I'm hoping that this was intended as a joke...?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Trumpism is not and never has been modern conservatism!
It is populism, it is not any form of conservatism.

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Senator, where do you find the energy to build so many "no true Scotsman" monuments?
This keys directly into that thing about extremists again, where you became a follower of the SWP, had a scream-worthy meltdown when THEIR extremism didn't pan out, and immediately went to the other extreme on the other side.

Thanks for telling me why I stopped being a member of the SWP. The only problem is that that is not why I left the SWP. I left the SWP because I made an extensive study of their literature and realized that it was wrong.
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
I mentioned my oldest brother, remember? Just like you! He was SWP, SDS, all the way. Then he suddenly leapt over the entire spectrum and landed on the extreme Right instead.
And like you, he has spent the last few decades running around repeating that same No True Scotsman homily in an attempt to inoculate himself. You guys should meet. You're both a matched set.
My return to conservatism was gradual. Before I became a Republican again I was a grassroots member of the DFL. Hardly a jump to the extreme right. No, your brother and I not a "matched set."

Quote:
The thing is, it doesn't wash. We didn't nominate Trump. Trumpers nominated Trump. We didn't vote for him, Trumpers did.
The overwhelming majority of the electorate who put him in the WH were already Right leaners, whether "independent" or Republican.

We did not build this orange menace to the Constitution, so WHO DID?
YOU GUYS did.

Modern GOP conservatism is what built Trump, what led us to Trump.
Modern conservatism is what triggered the entire Lee Atwater-Newt Gingrich-Dennis Hastert-Tea Party-Ted Cruz-Mitch McConnell insurgency.

Modern GOP conservatism built Trump?
ROTFMOL
I would suggest you read the book Suicide of the West by Jonah Goldberg. He is a Senior Editor of the National Review. A Conservative magazine, if not THE Conservative magazine, that published an issue in which all of the articles were against Trump. It is the National Review that started the modern conservative movement!
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
And when you do that ISIS-like "No True Muslim"/"No True Scotsman" number, all you're doing is narrowing the circle and inventing more and more excuses as to why your ideals and values are unrealistic.

They are unrealistic because by your own hand, fewer and fewer people meet your special criteria for an unrealistic ideology that has crept into pure demagoguery.

Worst of all, none of it has yielded anything constructive.
And you have an excuse for that, too!
"It's all the fault of the godless America hating Marxists!"

As someone who has spent a lifetime in politics and especially one who was either working on a campaign or been a candidate my goal has always been to build a winning coalition. In the districts I was a candidate for the state legislature in were 60% Democrats, 30% Republican and 10% independents. To even get the GOP endorsement I had to be liberal a lot of issues, which I still am.

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Well, guess what? Your side has controlled the entire narrative for well over 40 years, even when Democrats were in the White House.
By the way, that IS partly our fault, without question.
WE LET YOU GUYS GET AWAY WITH IT for forty years.

But those days are over, friend.

The GOP has been in charge for 40 years? Is that why Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House during George W. Bush's administration? Is that why Obamacare passed? No Republican voted for it. Is that why Obamacare is still the law? Because will we did have control of Congress the Republicans couldn't get it repealed.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 09:55 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There are somethings that need to be torn down. The administrative state might one of them. If after it has been torn down but it shouldn't have been it can be rebuilt. Tearing down a lot of what our government does is not a bad idea.
...
Remember I'm a conservative and conservatives don't like change.
I'm hoping that this was intended as a joke...?

The suggestion to tear things down wasn't but the comment about my conservatism was.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/17/19 11:23 PM

Specifically, what do you want to tear down? What is "the administrative state"?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 12:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There are somethings that need to be torn down. The administrative state might one of them. If after it has been torn down but it shouldn't have been it can be rebuilt. Tearing down a lot of what our government does is not a bad idea.
...
Remember I'm a conservative and conservatives don't like change.
I'm hoping that this was intended as a joke...?

The suggestion to tear things down wasn't but the comment about my conservatism was.
Whew. Glad I got that right.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 12:13 AM



Rightwingers exhibit “retro backlash.”

Quote:
A feeling especially among the older generation, white men, and less educated sectors, who sense decline and actively reject the rising tide of progressive values, resent the displacement of familiar traditional norms, and provide a pool of supporters potentially vulnerable to populist appeals.

Harvard.edu
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 01:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Thanks for telling me why I stopped being a member of the SWP. The only problem is that that is not why I left the SWP. I left the SWP because I made an extensive study of their literature and realized that it was wrong.

My return to conservatism was gradual. Before I became a Republican again I was a grassroots member of the DFL. Hardly a jump to the extreme right. No, your brother and I not a "matched set."


Tell us all what was so terrible about the DFL.
I just looked at your VoteSmart profile and found ZERO about your affiliation with them. Was this during the Paul Wellstone era?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

As someone who has spent a lifetime in politics and especially one who was either working on a campaign or been a candidate my goal has always been to build a winning coalition. In the districts I was a candidate for the state legislature in were 60% Democrats, 30% Republican and 10% independents. To even get the GOP endorsement I had to be liberal a lot of issues, which I still am.


Such as?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The GOP has been in charge for 40 years? Is that why Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House during George W. Bush's administration? Is that why Obamacare passed? No Republican voted for it. Is that why Obamacare is still the law? Because will we did have control of Congress the Republicans couldn't get it repealed.


Pelosi was nominated Speaker in 2006. In 2010 that ended and she did not get the gavel again until 2018. Whoop-dee-do.
Obamacare passed because healthcare had gotten so bad that NOBODY in their right mind wanted things to continue on the current path, but guess what?
We're back or very nearly back to the way things were prior to the ACA now, thanks to TrumpCare!

WELCOME TO TRUMPCARE

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

Quote:
"Another customer said she was reminded of the John Grisham novel The Rainmaker, in which an insurance company has a policy of rejecting every claim."



Should Republicans BE ABLE to repeal something that contradicts the will of the people, the voters?
Is that part of what you want to tear down?

Bryan Bjornson's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Quote:
Bryan Bjornson has refused to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2016 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart and voters like you.


This was very interesting...you HOLD NO POSITIONS, none which are discernible, because you apparently refused to provide any answers.

All I did was Google your name, in an effort to FIND your positions.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 01:26 AM

Jeepers Jeffery, are you saying that the excellent Senator is making temious claims regarding his political provenance?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Senator, where do you find the energy to build so many "no true Scotsman" monuments?
This keys directly into that thing about extremists again, where you became a follower of the SWP, had a scream-worthy meltdown when THEIR extremism didn't pan out, and immediately went to the other extreme on the other side.


Thanks for telling me why I stopped being a member of the SWP. The only problem is that that is not why I left the SWP. I left the SWP because I made an extensive study of their literature and realized that it was wrong.

My return to conservatism was gradual. Before I became a Republican again I was a grassroots member of the DFL. Hardly a jump to the extreme right. No, your brother and I not a "matched set."
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Tell us all what was so terrible about the DFL.
I just looked at your VoteSmart profile and found ZERO about your affiliation with them. Was this during the Paul Wellstone era?

There was and is nothing terrible about them. The views of the DFL were sufficiently different from mine that I decided to leave the DFL. The VoteSmart that you looked at was from the 2016 elections. The picture of me is from my 2014 race for the state legislature. In 2016 I knew that my chances of winning against an incumbent Democrat were very small so I did not actively campaign that year. That is why I didn't respond to the VoteSmart political courage test. Since in 2014 & 16 I was running as a Republican there is not going to be anything about my affiliation with the DFL.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

As someone who has spent a lifetime in politics and especially one who was either working on a campaign or been a candidate my goal has always been to build a winning coalition. In the districts I was a candidate for the state legislature in were 60% Democrats, 30% Republican and 10% independents. To even get the GOP endorsement I had to be liberal a lot of issues, which I still am.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Such as?
Various school board and education issues.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The GOP has been in charge for 40 years? Is that why Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House during George W. Bush's administration? Is that why Obamacare passed? No Republican voted for it. Is that why Obamacare is still the law? Because will we did have control of Congress the Republicans couldn't get it repealed.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Pelosi was nominated Speaker in 2006. In 2010 that ended and she did not get the gavel again until 2018. Whoop-dee-do.
Obamacare passed because healthcare had gotten so bad that NOBODY in their right mind wanted things to continue on the current path, but guess what?
We're back or very nearly back to the way things were prior to the ACA now, thanks to TrumpCare!

WELCOME TO TRUMPCARE

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

Quote:
"Another customer said she was reminded of the John Grisham novel The Rainmaker, in which an insurance company has a policy of rejecting every claim."

If the people really wanted Obamacare they wouldn't be required, by law, to have it. The best way to fix healthcare is to get our government out of it. The healthcare mess was created by a 1942 government freeze on wages and prices. FDR's Executive Order #9328

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

Should Republicans BE ABLE to repeal something that contradicts the will of the people, the voters?
Is that part of what you want to tear down?
Obamacare was never "will of the people." [quote]The best evidence for O'Reilly's position was the most recent poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School Of Public Health. In its most recent tracking poll, it found that 50 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view of the law, while 41 percent viewed it favorably. But another 9 percent said they didn't know or didn't want to answer. Certainly, the largest category in this poll didn't like health care, but if you combined supporters with the unknowns, you do get an even split.


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Bryan Bjornson's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Bryan Bjornson has refused to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2016 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart and voters like you.

This was very interesting...you HOLD NO POSITIONS, none which are discernible, because you apparently refused to provide any answers.

All I did was Google your name, in an effort to FIND your positions.
I already answered this question. However, Jeffery felt compelled to ask it again so I will answer it again.
Quote:
The VoteSmart that you looked at was from the 2016 elections. The picture of me is from my 2014 race for the state legislature. In 2016 I knew that my chances of winning against an incumbent Democrat were very small so I did not actively campaign that year. That is why I didn't respond to the VoteSmart political courage test. Since in 2014 & 16 I was running as a Republican there is not going to be anything about my affiliation with the DFL.
Why do I need to answer it twice in the same post? Why should I answer any of his questions. He did tell me why my political views have changed. Oh, maybe because his answer on why my political have changed is completely wrong I will answer it, twice.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 07:59 AM

Senator Hatrack,
Trying again...
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There are somethings that need to be torn down. The administrative state might one of them. If after it has been torn down but it shouldn't have been it can be rebuilt. Tearing down a lot of what our government does is not a bad idea.

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Specifically, what do you want to tear down? What is "the administrative state"?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 02:25 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Senator Hatrack,
Trying again...
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There are somethings that need to be torn down. The administrative state might one of them. If after it has been torn down but it shouldn't have been it can be rebuilt. Tearing down a lot of what our government does is not a bad idea.

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Specifically, what do you want to tear down? What is "the administrative state"?
Yes, the administrative state should be torn down.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 02:30 PM

What "administrative state"? How would you like to tear it down?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 02:54 PM

Since there isn't a "Conservative" party (in the United States), only one that claims to be so, it is a bit difficult to find any consistent platform that defines conservatism. However, as Senator Hatrack previously opined, a central tenet would appear to be "conservation" - maintenance of the "status quo ante". This is where I generally part ways with conservatism, per se, and further why I don't believe that the Republican party, or friend Hatrack, really represents conservatism in the traditional sense.

The modern incarnation of the Republican party follows a path blazed by the TEA party, of destruction and (in my view) detriment. It is heartless, mean-spirited, and selfish. That is the path of the reactionary and revanchist. That is not conservatism. Conservatives, in my experience, don't "tear down". They may resist change, but they accept it when it happens, and work to improve "the system" in ways that comport with their views. At least in theory they care about institutions and the people who build (and run) them. When people claim Donald Trump isn't a conservative, they are right. He is an opportunist and a parasite. He claimed to be a Democrat when it suited his purpose, and has gone along with the Republican agenda, largely, because it was expedient. Those are not, in my view, "conservative values." He hasn't displayed any values whatever beyond "taking care of number one", and I don't mean the United States.

When I started this thread, I talked about what I considered conservatism from my personal experience. I never was a candidate, but I campaigned for them. I was an advocate. I described them as "'real' conservatives who take positions on principle, and have rational (if, I will add, misguided) bases for their views," and "don't... lump everyone left of Genghis Khan into the "progressive/socialist/communist" camp because they can't discern a difference, and complain that anyone with an ounce of compassion is weak and un-American." I gave examples of some recent politicians who seemed to hew to traditional conservative values, and "didn't assume anyone who didn't was the devil incarnate worthy of excommunication or worse. Those that think before they speak, and use measured tones." We, generally, have left that farm a long time ago (both here and nationally). Is the farm even there anymore? Was it always a mirage?

Some of the change is deliberate, I think, and some of it is the result of changes in the structure of elections and the electorate (exacerbated by a partisan Supreme Court - to whom these same observations also apply): gerrymandering and a flood of money; structural defects in the systems - some put there deliberately - like the Electoral College; voter apathy, and its sibling, vote suppression; and archaic voting methods. But it has certainly been manipulated and amplified by actors who have agendas completely separate from concern for the country, civil liberties, or humanity generally [I'm looking at you, Mitch McConnell].

I have personally or professionally known several legislators and other pols (I once worked in a Lieutenant Governor's office as an ombudsman, and was an Assistant Attorney General for 13 years). They were of various stripes, but had one thing in common - they were patriotic and wanted to do a good job for their constituents. I just don't see that in today's "conservative" politics and that distresses me.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 03:10 PM

This is a good description of The Administrative State: "a term used to describe the phenomenon of executive branch administrative agencies exercising the power to create, adjudicate, and enforce their own rules. Five pillars are key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of administrative agency action: nondelegation, judicial deference, executive control of agencies, procedural rights, and agency dynamics." (Ballotpedia).

Bureaucracies are born of needs. Agencies are created to administer programs deemed necessary or valuable for the citizenry. They are, by and large, efficient tools for their purposes. Defense, disease control, public health, public works, public safety, etc. In short the "public good" or "general welfare." Every federal, State or local agency was created to address some public good or danger. So, it is a valid question to ask whether they are addressing a current need and whether they are pursuing the public interest and doing so efficiently and effectively. That, of course, is what government oversight is all about.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/18/19 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
... a term used to describe the phenomenon of executive branch administrative agencies exercising the power to create, adjudicate, and enforce their own rules.

I looked it up, too. I have had some experience with rules promulgated by government agencies as a result of needing to implement various laws. For the national government I believe most of those rules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Those regulations are not created at the whim of government employees, they have to go through a comprehensive process that includes public input and legal review (some of which I have participated in). For the most part I have been impressed far more often by how well CFR's (as we call them) are written than by finding any gross problems related to their proper implementation of the laws that spawned them.

I have had a few issues with how some bureaucrats have "interpreted" and applied some regulations, but that's a different issue.

Frankly, I don't see how it would be possible for lawmakers to generate the regulations for the laws they pass. They don't have the time, the knowledge, or the setting for doing a job like that.

My spidey sense is telling me that Hatrack is parroting a talking point from ignorant non-conservative radicals and doesn't actually know why he thinks the the "administrative state" is a bad thing, or how it could be "torn down" without completely destroying the government - or what system would be used to implement government in its place.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 12:54 AM

I don’t know why regressive conservatives are so askairt of Logtroll’s simple direct questions. Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 02:22 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
My spidey sense is telling me that Hatrack is parroting a talking point from ignorant non-conservative radicals and doesn't actually know why he thinks the the "administrative state" is a bad thing, or how it could be "torn down" without completely destroying the government - or what system would be used to implement government in its place.
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong? When the close minded liberals here on the Rant automatically think that everything a conservative says, or might say, is wrong it is a waste of time for any conservative to be here. There is no debate here just a bunch of liberals agreeing on how all conservatives are wrong.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 02:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong? When the close minded liberals here on the Rant automatically think that everything a conservative says, or might say, is wrong it is a waste of time for any conservative to be here. There is no debate here just a bunch of liberals agreeing on how all conservatives are wrong.

Prejudice = pre-judge

Your pre-judgement is a common escape route for them who is askairt of real discussion.

You love to waste your time fighting with NWP, yet you won't engage in a discussion with me because it's a trap, right? What does Trump call it? Oh yeah, a "perjury trap", meaning that if he answers any questions he will either, a) have to lie; b) expose a previous lie.

I understand...
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 02:49 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong? When the close minded liberals here on the Rant automatically think that everything a conservative says, or might say, is wrong it is a waste of time for any conservative to be here. There is no debate here just a bunch of liberals agreeing on how all conservatives are wrong.

Prejudice = pre-judge

Your pre-judgement is a common escape route for them who is askairt of real discussion.

You love to waste your time fighting with NWP, yet you won't engage in a discussion with me because it's a trap, right? What does Trump call it? Oh yeah, a "perjury trap", meaning that if he answers any questions he will either, a) have to lie; b) expose a previous lie.

I understand...
You pre-judged my comment before I even saw your comment. Since you did that it a waste of my time to even make one. Then you state that anything I say will be lie. You have no idea what I would have said but before I said anything you decided it was either a) wrong or b) a lie. Thanks for proving that there isn't any debate here, just a bunch of liberals agree how all conservatives are either a) wrong or b) liars.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 03:24 PM

Wouldn't it be much easier (and potentially productive) to answer my simple questions and engage in an honest discussion?

If you just want to kill something, you win - I'll fake a grisly death and you can brag to your many liberal friends about your bigly success.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 05:14 PM

Quote:
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong?

Because that's what we do here?

We are all proud partisans who believe strongly in our own political theories. You cannot be right, Hatrack, because that would make ME wrong. To admit that you are even half right makes me half wrong.

But I respect your position. I even understand it to a certain extent. It(conservatism) has held us in good stead for a long time.

I feel that we are facing some pretty serious issues right now. You seem to deny their existence. You blow my solutions off as "socialist" yet provide none of your own. You cling to your narrow reading of the Constitution and disavow any other interpretation as wrong. You speak as though you know the minds of the hallowed Four Fathers.

Ya don't, okay.

That bus has left the station and three centuries hence we are dealing with sh*t they never could have imagined.

And we find ourselves again faced with a tyrant...
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 08:25 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Wouldn't it be much easier (and potentially productive) to answer my simple questions and engage in an honest discussion?

If you just want to kill something, you win - I'll fake a grisly death and you can brag to your many liberal friends about your bigly success.
In an honest discussion people wait for the people they are in the discussion with to something before they condemn.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 08:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong?

Because that's what we do here?

We are all proud partisans who believe strongly in our own political theories. You cannot be right, Hatrack, because that would make ME wrong. To admit that you are even half right makes me half wrong.

But I respect your position. I even understand it to a certain extent. It(conservatism) has held us in good stead for a long time.

I feel that we are facing some pretty serious issues right now. You seem to deny their existence. You blow my solutions off as "socialist" yet provide none of your own. You cling to your narrow reading of the Constitution and disavow any other interpretation as wrong. You speak as though you know the minds of the hallowed Four Fathers.

Ya don't, okay.

That bus has left the station and three centuries hence we are dealing with sh*t they never could have imagined.

And we find ourselves again faced with a tyrant...

No, I've blown your suggestions off because your comments about Republicans and Conservatives are so off the wall as to be ridiculous. When your comments about Republicans and Conservatives have some degree of accuracy then I'll listen to your suggestions.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong? When the close minded liberals here on the Rant automatically think that everything a conservative says, or might say, is wrong it is a waste of time for any conservative to be here. There is no debate here just a bunch of liberals agreeing on how all conservatives are wrong.


I think you will find that there are a great many conservatives who do not share your experience. If it pleases the court, I'll point out that I also invited you to participate at an even larger forum where some Ranters also spend a bit of time, but you turned down the offer.

If you were to appear there, you'd find that your position is null and void a good deal of the time. The simple fact is, not all conservatives agree with some of your positions. Certainly a good many liberals disagree too, but if you discover that you're at loggerheads with other conservatives, the possibility might exist that your views might be somewhat suspect on certain issues.

Go ahead, Senator...ask me my views on a couple of things.
Let's try starting with GUNS.

Ask me about my views on guns, then we can try ABORTION, and then we can move on to things like immigration, then we can try the homeless.

You may be surprised to learn that I hold certain conservatives views.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why the hell should I waste my time making a comment when before it has even been made it is being condemned as wrong? When the close minded liberals here on the Rant automatically think that everything a conservative says, or might say, is wrong it is a waste of time for any conservative to be here. There is no debate here just a bunch of liberals agreeing on how all conservatives are wrong.


I think you will find that there are a great many conservatives who do not share your experience. If it pleases the court, I'll point out that I also invited you to participate at an even larger forum where some Ranters also spend a bit of time, but you turned down the offer.

If you were to appear there, you'd find that your position is null and void a good deal of the time. The simple fact is, not all conservatives agree with some of your positions. Certainly a good many liberals disagree too, but if you discover that you're at loggerheads with other conservatives, the possibility might exist that your views might be somewhat suspect on certain issues.

Go ahead, Senator...ask me my views on a couple of things.
Let's try starting with GUNS.

Ask me about my views on guns, then we can try ABORTION, and then we can move on to things like immigration, then we can try the homeless.

You may be surprised to learn that I hold certain conservatives views.
The comment of mine you replied was one I made to logtroll not you.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/19/19 10:12 PM

Quote:
The comment of mine you replied was one I made to logtroll not you.

This is a public board and all comments are open to reply by anyone.

We have a mechanism for private conversations and any you wish to remain private must go there.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/20/19 12:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
The comment of mine you replied was one I made to logtroll not you.

This is a public board and all comments are open to reply by anyone.

Besides, I had no interest in replying to such an incoherent post. I'm waiting for the good Senator to simply answer my simple questions. LOL
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/20/19 04:28 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Wouldn't it be much easier (and potentially productive) to answer my simple questions and engage in an honest discussion?

If you just want to kill something, you win - I'll fake a grisly death and you can brag to your many liberal friends about your bigly success.
When you ask some simple questions I will reply to them. But making predictions about what my answer will be is not a simple question. It isn't even a question it is criticizing me before I say something.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/20/19 10:13 AM

You win. I capitulate.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/20/19 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It isn't even a question it is criticizing me before I say something.


You have to relieve yourself of a good many of your own preconceptions if you're going to insist on the same.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/20/19 12:33 PM

Maybe there is something useful in this article that could be used in talking with Ol’ Hatrack.
Quote:
Persons in crisis resist the request to talk because, as Stokoe points out, cultural idioms encourage us to put little value on “talk”. After all, “talk is cheap” and “talking the talk” is less meaningful than “walking the walk”. However, a single word substitution could be enough to save a life.
Perhaps because we do not have equivalent cultural idioms, “speak” seems to work. In real conversations between a negotiator and person in crisis, when the negotiator says “speak” (“I wanna come down and I wanna speak to you…”) they get their desired response. In some cases, the person in crisis interrupts the negotiator to begin talking. Despite being near-synonyms, one word is loaded with context that makes it ineffective in these scenarios, while the other is free of those associations.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/20/19 02:37 PM

I have now read... let me count them... 6 excuses by Sen HR for not responding to questions, or posting comments related to same without content. I think that is the sign of an empty barrel. Nothing left to scrape out but dregs.

I think, the answer to my original question is, "somewhere else."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 09/28/19 11:34 PM



Criminal Convictions by Administration: Past 50 Years

LBJ – 0
Nixon – 55
Ford – 1
Carter – 0
Reagan – 16
H.W. Bush – 1
Clinton – 1
Bush – 16
Obama – 0
Trump – 4 (so far)

TOTAL:
Republicans = 95
Democrats = 1

Given these numbers, why would anyone vote for a Republican Administration to run our government? Hmm
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/02/19 02:36 AM

Well, at least we have Perotista.
I tried to lure Felis Leo over here.
So far no joy, but I will keep trying.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/02/19 03:08 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I have now read... let me count them... 6 excuses by Sen HR for not responding to questions, or posting comments related to same without content. I think that is the sign of an empty barrel. Nothing left to scrape out but dregs.

I think, the answer to my original question is, "somewhere else."


I take this you're still trying to find out where all the conservatives have gone. Are you talking about this site, there I can't help you, I just arrived. In general, we're still around. There's quite a lot of conservatives who don't consider Trump one of them. Even some Republicans don't consider the eight time party switcher a Republican. He's more of an egotistical opportunist in my book.

Trump really doesn't have a political ideology or philosophy. At least that is my opinion. I'm more of a traditional conservative, but we've been replaced by neo, religious and social conservatives. We still hold to our values.

What I think is right now the old type, style traditional conservatories don't have a political party to call their own. I tell you this, most of us are neither pro or anti Trumpers. Although we are sitting back enjoying the fight between them. For us, me I probably should say, neither pro or anti Trumpers are conservatives.

Anyway, good night.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/03/19 04:25 PM

Yes. I suspect it is more "silent" than "majority" but the conservatism of my past was not loud or bombastic, but conservative. I have always believed that there is value in preservation - you shouldn't see my house! - but I'm definitely not a believer in stasis for stasis' sake. So, in general, I have sympathy for conservative inclinations. My lament has been that the label is being applied to views that are everything but "conservative".
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/03/19 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Yes. I suspect it is more "silent" than "majority" but the conservatism of my past was not loud or bombastic, but conservative. I have always believed that there is vague in preservation - you shouldn't see my house! - but I'm definitely not a believer in stasis for stasis' sake. So, in general, I have sympathy for conservative inclinations. My lament has been that the label is being applied to views that are everything but "conservative".


If one delved into the political views of traditional conservatives and classic liberals, they're quite similar. This country was founded on the backs of classic liberals. The classic liberal ceased a long time ago, the traditional conservative is a dying breed.

Times change and so do political philosophies.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/03/19 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
This country was founded on the backs of classic liberals.

Indeed, this country was founded during the Age of Enlightenment. smile There's nothing enlightened about conserving the status quo. Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 03:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Well, at least we have Perotista.
I tried to lure Felis Leo over here.
So far no joy, but I will keep trying.
If I were to post a comment and to back it up I used a conservative source the source would not be accepted because it is a conservative one. When conservatives source are automatically rejected not many conservatives will want to join the Rant. BTW, according to your signature James Madison was an authoritarian.
Originally Posted By: James Madison
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Federalist Papers #10
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 11:25 AM

Madison, advocated for a Constitutional Republic; the form of government we have. A form he believed would prevent the failings of a "pure democracy" and the failings of a Republican forum of government.

In Federalist 10, Madison is talking about how the form of government prevents a factious government that is most likely to be in a pure Democracy (like ancient Greece) or a pure Republic (like ancient Rome). Madison supported a mixed form of government, the Constitutional Republic; he believed this forum protected against the previous forms failings.

Your source is a publication by an individual, a biased individual. One who has cherry-picked his facts and then expands upon those select items. A more neutral source would be better and far less biased, For Example The Avalon Project

Exactly what Madison was talking about in Federalist 10 is in the Title of that paper "The Same Subject Continued
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
MADISON
and of Federalist 9 titled "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection "

Should read them for yourself, they can confuse you and change your mind, or just plain give you more ammunition for your positions.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 01:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Well, at least we have Perotista.
I tried to lure Felis Leo over here.
So far no joy, but I will keep trying.


I’ve been thinking about this. There are conservatives, especially traditional conservatives that don’t like Trump. But they see no alternative coming from the Democratic Party, perhaps viewed as the more evil or worst choice than Trump. We already know that Trump and Clinton set the record as the most disliked major party candidates ever or since Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things.

It’s interesting to note that 16% of self-identified conservatives voted for Clinton in 2016, 16% also voted for a Democrat for congress in 2018. That’s not bad when one considers only 8% of Liberals voted for the Republican candidates.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls

Then you have 21% of conservatives giving Trump a somewhat favorable view instead of very favorable. Question 71A. Possibly meaning they’re not enthralled with Trump, but he’s probably better than the Democratic alternative. 8% of conservatives have a somewhat unfavorable view of Trump, 11% very unfavorable. It’s this latter 19% in my opinion that could easily vote Democratic in 2020 along with enticing some of the 21% somewhat favorable with the right candidate.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

I’ve always classified myself as a Goldwater conservative with some of Perot thrown into the mix. More or less a traditional conservative. What I have seen is this group, my group have remained quiet during Trump’s presidency. Mostly sitting, watching, listening. Pretty much what I have done. Most are in neither the pro or anti Trump camps. But are looking for an alternative to Trump. So far the Democrats have failed to come up with an acceptable alternative. Hillary certainly wasn’t. So we’ll sit on the sidelines and wait to see how 2020 plays out.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 01:50 PM

Quote:
So we’ll sit on the sidelines and wait to see how 2020 plays out.


I dunno...to my notion it appears to be pretty much a done deal. Unless trends change dramatically, Warren will continue to rise and Trump will lose to any Democrat. Donald Trump is not "shrinking" government, he is not adhering to any conservative principles that I am aware of unless chaos is among them. Republicans will vote Republican regardless of how bad their candidate might be. Democrats will sit home if they haven't got a candidate they like.

But Democrats are united against Trump. You won't see many sitting home or voting third party this time around. Can Trump's base overwhelm this tsunami? I don't think so.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
So we’ll sit on the sidelines and wait to see how 2020 plays out.


I dunno...to my notion it appears to be pretty much a done deal. Unless trends change dramatically, Warren will continue to rise and Trump will lose to any Democrat. Donald Trump is not "shrinking" government, he is not adhering to any conservative principles that I am aware of unless chaos is among them. Republicans will vote Republican regardless of how bad their candidate might be. Democrats will sit home if they haven't got a candidate they like.

But Democrats are united against Trump. You won't see many sitting home or voting third party this time around. Can Trump's base overwhelm this tsunami? I don't think so.

I think you're right. It will be Trump vs. Warren. If so I will vote third party once again. I can't see replacing someone I dislike with someone else I dislike and disagree with her policies. One is as good as the other to me or as bad ala 2016.

It's all a matter of personal perspectives. Independents are deeply divided when it comes to their vote. Question 53. 25% the democratic Candidate, 32% Trump, 18% state it depends which I take it as meaning their vote depends on who the Democrats nominate. This despite that 44% of independents don't want Trump to run for reelection, only 36% do. Question 89. Of course all of this is very dynamic and changes constantly. This far out it means little. We don't know how impeachment will fair and there are always other major events that will happen that can reshape the race.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

Interesting in comparing Warren to Trump among independents. 14% view Warren very favorably, 14% somewhat favorably, 12% somewhat unfavorably and 31% very unfavorably. Although she has a lot of growing room with 29% in the don't know column. She could use that 29% to increase those who view her favorable or they could join the unfavorable crowd. Question 44R.

Trump, Question 71A is seen very favorable by 22% of independents, somewhat favorable by 19%, somewhat unfavorable by 13% and very unfavorable by 36%. Only 11% fall into the Don't know column, so I imagine his number won't change much.

I have this gut feeling it is Warren the Trumpers want him to face in 2020. Warren doesn't have much charisma, neither did Hillary. I'm not sure how her far left policies and stances will play with the more moderate independents, those whose political philosophy falls in-between the left and the right. If they even pay much attention to them.

In short, I'm not ready to concede 2020 to Warren beating Trump. Not yet. I will concede that at the moment it seems she would. But it would be really close.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
So we’ll sit on the sidelines and wait to see how 2020 plays out.



But Democrats are united against Trump. You won't see many sitting home or voting third party this time around. Can Trump's base overwhelm this tsunami? I don't think so.


Oh, only 3% of Democrats voted third party, 4% of Republicans, 12% of independents in 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

That's not many. in 2012 1% of both Democrats and Republicans voted third party, 5% of independents.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/

The big difference, more than third party Democratic voters was turnout. In 2012 the Democrats had a 5 point advantage in party affiliation which increased to a 6 point advantage in those who actually turned out to vote. 2016, the democrats held a 6 point advantage in party affiliation, but that shrunk to just a 3 point advantage among those who actually turned out to vote.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 04:59 PM

I agree that turnout is the key, politically. That is, I think, the core of Trump's election strategy. He feels if he can keep his base committed, he can win because of turnout. I think he's wrong, but that's a political calculation.

At the risk of incurring chunk's derisive wrath, I don't think either party is conservative, in the traditional sense. It is clear, to me, that the Democratic party is more pragmatic, and the Republican more ideological. Yes, there are ideologues in the Democratic party, of course, but the party is distinctly left-leaning but broader in the approach. The apparent radicalization is really just a visceral reaction to 40 years of gross Republican incompetence and mean-spirited rhetoric and policies (and brazen corruption). It is just that so many things have gone horribly wrong during Republican control.

I also agree with Perotista's point about the distinction between traditional conservatism and the current "factions" that claim the mantle - social, religious, fiscal, neo, TEA and political - but don't represent conservative "values". In the same way, though, Democratic socialists may be in the Democratic party, and are certainly of the left, but they don't represent "liberal" values in many respects. In the same way that I decry being static for static's sake, I don't advocate change just for change. It's just that so many things need to change, and fast. [I'd also recommend reading Warren's platform carefully, as she is most definitely a capitalist in the FDR mode, and seeks to save it, and us, from its excesses.]
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I agree that turnout is the key, politically. That is, I think, the core of Trump's election strategy. He feels if he can keep his base committed, he can win because of turnout. I think he's wrong, but that's a political calculation.

At the risk of incurring chunk's derisive wrath, I don't think either party is conservative, in the traditional sense. It is clear, to me, that the Democratic party is more pragmatic, and the Republican more ideological. Yes, there are ideologues in the Democratic party, of course, but the party is distinctly left-leaning but broader in the approach. The apparent radicalization is really just a visceral reaction to 40 years of gross Republican incompetence and mean-spirited rhetoric and policies (and brazen corruption). It is just that so many things have gone horribly wrong during Republican control.

I also agree with Perotista's point about the distinction between traditional conservatism and the current "factions" that claim the mantle - social, religious, fiscal, neo, TEA and political - but don't represent conservative "values". In the same way, though, Democratic socialists may be in the Democratic party, and are certainly of the left, but they don't represent "liberal" values in many respects. In the same way that I decry being static for static's sake, I don't advocate change just for change. It's just that so many things need to change, and fast. [I'd also recommend reading Warren's platform carefully, as she is most definitely a capitalist in the FDR mode, and seeks to save it, and us, from its excesses.]


I've always said Hillary had the personality of a wet mop along with being seen as elitist and aloof. I'm not sure how to describe Warren's personality, but being energetic or being able to enthuse isn't among them. Now she doesn't in my opinion have to motivate, provide enthusiasm or energy to her supporters, Trump has done that. Democrats won't stay home like in 2000 or 2016 with the assumption their candidate is going to win. They will turnout. I think 2018 proved that. Trump providing that additional incentive a less charismatic candidate couldn't.

Obama, the candidate was charismatic, McCain and Romney not, he won. Bill Clinton had charisma, G.H.W. Bush and Dole didn't, Bill won. G.W. Bush really wasn't that charismatic, more down homey against a statue Gore. Then you had the obnoxious oaf vs. the wet mop. I wonder if anyone else always got the impression every time Hillary smiled it was a fake smile?

I don't think you're going to convince any type of conservative regardless of what her platform states that she isn't an leftist extremist. I could be wrong. But I see the more traditional conservatives who really have a distaste for Trump most likely voting third party again if it's a Trump vs. Warren match up.

I could be wrong, I just don't see it. I imagine more would support a Biden, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper etc more than a Warren or Sanders. It is probably a built in bias being from Georgia that I have and perhaps other traditional conservatives have against Northeastern Liberals. Now I have always considered Biden more of a moderate as both a senator and VP.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 08:10 PM

Gentlemen, I could be wrong **he said in a mocking tone** But I am of the opinion that Donald Trump will prove to be the greatest "get out the vote effort" **makes finger parentheses** In the history of get out the vote efforts.

They're gonna com out of the woodwork to vote against Donald Trump.

You can insult some of the people some of the time, and you can offend some of the people all of the time but you can't piss off all of the people all of the time and expect to get re-elected.

Unless something dramatic happens it's gonna be Warren vs Trump. Warren is going to win, the Senate is going to flip, four major pieces of legislation will pass in the first 100 days and it's a slam dunk.

The game pieces are in place. The dice have been rolled. The strategy is impeccable. I've dealt the cards, thrown the bones, and gazed at the Oracle for hours on end...

Allow me this small obsession Gentlemen, you may pat me on the back when it all happens exactly as I said. A better day is coming!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 08:53 PM

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 09:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Gentlemen, I could be wrong **he said in a mocking tone** But I am of the opinion that Donald Trump will prove to be the greatest "get out the vote effort" **makes finger parentheses** In the history of get out the vote efforts.

Yup, 69% of good and decent voting Americans can't stand Trump "personally." (Read: Hate his guts laugh )

smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Madison, advocated for a Constitutional Republic; the form of government we have. A form he believed would prevent the failings of a "pure democracy" and the failings of a Republican forum of government.

In Federalist 10, Madison is talking about how the form of government prevents a factious government that is most likely to be in a pure Democracy (like ancient Greece) or a pure Republic (like ancient Rome). Madison supported a mixed form of government, the Constitutional Republic; he believed this forum protected against the previous forms failings.

Your source is a publication by an individual, a biased individual. One who has cherry-picked his facts and then expands upon those select items. A more neutral source would be better and far less biased, For Example The Avalon Project

Exactly what Madison was talking about in Federalist 10 is in the Title of that paper "The Same Subject Continued
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
MADISON
and of Federalist 9 titled "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection "

Should read them for yourself, they can confuse you and change your mind, or just plain give you more ammunition for your positions.
Thank you for proving the truth of my comment about why there aren't many conservatives here. As I said should I post something from a conservative site, which I did, that it would be automatically rejected. Which is exactly you did U jest Shurly. Then in your rush to reject my comment, because I used a conservative source, you did not see the link on the site to the complete essay of Federalist 10 Then you incorrectly assumed that I have not read the Federalist Papers. Not only did I go to the link that the conservative source you automatically rejected I picked up my copy of the Federalist Papers that I keep on my desk.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 11:16 PM

The difference is I'm not willing to set the 2020 results in stone yet, while you let the concrete harden.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/13/19 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
Gentlemen, I could be wrong **he said in a mocking tone** But I am of the opinion that Donald Trump will prove to be the greatest "get out the vote effort" **makes finger parentheses** In the history of get out the vote efforts.

Yup, 69% of good and decent voting Americans can't stand Trump "personally." (Read: Hate his guts laugh )

smile


Actually you have 31% of Americans who like Trump alot or somewhat, 14% who neither like or dislike Trump, 47% who either dislike him somewhat or a lot. Question 81.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf

The 47% who dislike Trump today is lower than the 60% who disliked him on election day 2016. Question 11 if one equates dislike with unfavorable.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Ah, but you said good and decent. Am I to draw the conclusion that the only good and decent Americans are the one's who hold the same political views as you? That Trump must go, be removed? In that case only 45% of all Americans are good and decent. Question 20. The rest, I suppose you can use any derogatory adjective you like.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x3neaunoh2/econTabReport.pdf
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 01:37 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
The difference is I'm not willing to set the 2020 results in stone yet, while you let the concrete harden.


Righto! It's not like I've ever been wrong y'know.....
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 02:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: perotista
The difference is I'm not willing to set the 2020 results in stone yet, while you let the concrete harden.


Righto! It's not like I've ever been wrong y'know.....

Gotcha. I don't think Trump can win it in 2020, but I also think the Democrats could lose it if you know what I mean. Much like 2016, when the GOP nominated Trump, I resigned myself to a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I was shocked when she lost. I never seen that coming.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 03:06 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: perotista
The difference is I'm not willing to set the 2020 results in stone yet, while you let the concrete harden.


Righto! It's not like I've ever been wrong y'know.....

Gotcha. I don't think Trump can win it in 2020, but I also think the Democrats could lose it if you know what I mean. Much like 2016, when the GOP nominated Trump, I resigned myself to a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I was shocked when she lost. I never seen that coming.

As long as The Dems keep the eye on the EC prize and forget about National polls - we're good. smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: perotista
The difference is I'm not willing to set the 2020 results in stone yet, while you let the concrete harden.


Righto! It's not like I've ever been wrong y'know.....

Gotcha. I don't think Trump can win it in 2020, but I also think the Democrats could lose it if you know what I mean. Much like 2016, when the GOP nominated Trump, I resigned myself to a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I was shocked when she lost. I never seen that coming.

As long as The Dems keep the eye on the EC prize and forget about National polls - we're good. smile

I highly doubt whomever is the Democratic nominee will ignore Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania like Hillary did. Michigan and Pennsylvania had gone Democratic six straight presidential elections, Wisconsin in seven. That is until 2016. It was a long shot Trump would win just one, but all three? That's an anomaly that can only be explain by the lack of interest Hillary showed in all three. Perhaps she took all three for granted.

Depending on who is the Democratic nominee, I think the states of Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona are in play.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 03:08 PM

There are only a few ways the upcoming primaries and general election can turn out. I've noted in the past that early frontrunners often do not win. Biden was like comfort food and led from the start. But there was no substance to his campaign. No new ideas, no excitement. Nothing but a politician in his twilight years who reminded folks of Obama but without the hope for change. Just an old codger who's not sure what town he's in, or who he's talking to, or why.

I knew from the start that Biden was going to be a problem. At this point I figured we'd be looking at Biden, Bernie, and Beto. I had given Warren up as unelectable. Beto faded fast but Warren surprised me. Bernie peaked in 2016 and he's doing exactly as I expected him to this time around. The single digit candidates will remain exactly that and would be doing the rest of us a favor if they'd drop out and endorse one of the frontrunners.

So we've got milquetoast Joe, socialist firebrand Bernie, and a lady who claims to have plans that will help out working folks.

I think the candidate with a plan will come out on top in the end.

So my pick for the Democratic nomination is Warren. Not because I love her or her plans but because I think her campaign will resonate with voters. Her slow, steady rise in the polls and promises of sugarplums for the working class are gonna take her to the top.

Donald Trump is deeply unpopular among every demographic except die hard Republicans. He has kept his base happy by insulting and offending everyone but his base. How many of those who voted for Trump the first time have become disillusioned with his leadership?
How many are tired of the corruption and the hatred he spews? How many right leaning voters will sit home rather than vote for 4 more years of this? And how many will vote for the Democrat because really, we all want change for the better and Warren is promising just that.

I really just can't see this race turning out any other way.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger


I really just can't see this race turning out any other way.


At this point, I don't see the Democrats losing. But there is a full year to go with many unknowns between now and then. If Gallup is right, that six point advantage in party affiliation the Democrats held in 2016 has fallen to two. With Gallup's monthly reports it has been between 2-4 point advantage all through 2019. Even so, Trump and the Republicans can't win without winning independents.

The fact that Trump has continued to have a small lead among independent voters throughout this year when it comes to the generic presidential polls, does give him some hope.

But the presidential race is a state by state election. In this case the electoral college favors the Democrats. I don't think Trump can win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan again. He caught those state democrats off guard in 2016, perhaps thinking Hillary had them sown up. He won't do that again. Also Trump's approval in such states as Iowa, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia has dropped at least 10 points giving the Democrats an excellent shot at them. The same for Florida.

You could be looking at a landslide, but then again. We know a majority of Americans don't like Trump, but that was the case in 2016 also. 60% of all Americans viewed Trump unfavorably, yet he won. Why, Hillary Clinton was viewed unfavorably by 56% of all Americans. The first time in our history or since Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things that a major party's candidate was view unfavorably by over 50% of America. Goldwater back in 1964 held the previous record at 47%.

So how does your top three Democrats stack up in the unfavorable column vs. Trump? Today Trump comes in at 42% favorable, 53% unfavorable. Biden at 39/49 favorable/unfavorable, Sanders 43/45 favorable/unfavorable, Warren 40/42 favorable/unfavorable.

With a full year to go, those numbers don't mean much, but they do let you know where they stand today. Perhaps those numbers show you that I may be out of touch with America, I like Biden, would support him against Trump. I don't care for either Sanders or Warren and would vote third party against Trump. I won't be voting for Trump. It does seem I hold Biden in higher regard than most Americans and hold Sanders and Warren in lower regard. Such is life.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 06:03 PM

I don't put as much faith in polls as you do. Remember 2016? And how wrong the polls were? Even if every voter who voted for Trump does it again he will not win. He didn't really "win" last time y'know...he attained the office through the vagueries of the electoral college.
Trump haters are going to wipe out that little hat trick this time around by showing up in every district of every state.

I prefaced my prediction with the caveat "If nothing drastic happens..." So, yes, things could go haywire with my little plan. But I don't think they will. Florida has a million or so new Puerto Ricans who hate Donald Trump passionately. He called Haiti s hithole. We have a large Haitian population too, who might have sat out any other election. They won't sit this one out. Georgia pissed off all the black folks in the state and there will be retribution. Wisconsin learned its lesson, Pennsylvania got tricked but they won't be fooled twice.

The polls are pointing in this direction but not saying it out loud. Because they can't take into account the anger that Trump has aroused and the way that ire is going to translate into victory for Democrats and Social Democrats all across the country.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 06:05 PM

I don't think Trump will win but I do believe that as in 2016 the Democrats will lose.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 07:23 PM

Quote:
I do believe that as in 2016 the Democrats will lose.

So how do you imagine the next four years with President Trump at the helm will go? I know you must be excited at the prospect of further destroying all our relationships with our allies, the world economy, American farmers, and democracy in general. As long as libtards get owned the consequences are worth it aren't they?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I do believe that as in 2016 the Democrats will lose.

So how do you imagine the next four years with President Trump at the helm will go? I know you must be excited at the prospect of further destroying all our relationships with our allies, the world economy, American farmers, and democracy in general. As long as libtards get owned the consequences are worth it aren't they?
If Pres. Trump is, as you say, "destroying all our relationships with our allies" how is he able to ask them for favors which you want to impeach him for? If Trump's trade policies are hurting American farmers why are they supporting him? NY Post CNBC According to the IMF the world's economy has been improving but it does see the economy's growth slowing down a little. IMF Maybe you need to look in your crystal ball again. Or maybe help the economy and buy a new one?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 08:37 PM

I beg your pardon! This cracked crystal ball is an ancient relic and is priceless! But if it makes you happy I'll get a new set of tarot cards from Amazon. I hear Bezos makes $168Million a day and I'm sure he'll appreciate my order.

The ex was just up in Cincinnati to a convention. She spoke with a farmers wife who told her that the young men are still sticking with Trump but the old guys are about over Him. He's fecked up the markets and they may never return.

Much as you'd love for Trump to reign until he dies and his eldest son Prince Junior take the throne upon his passing it's just not going to happen. One term and he's out. You can take that to the bank.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/14/19 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I beg your pardon! This cracked crystal ball is an ancient relic and is priceless! But if it makes you happy I'll get a new set of tarot cards from Amazon. I hear Bezos makes $168Million a day and I'm sure he'll appreciate my order.

The ex was just up in Cincinnati to a convention. She spoke with a farmers wife who told her that the young men are still sticking with Trump but the old guys are about over Him. He's fecked up the markets and they may never return.

Much as you'd love for Trump to reign until he dies and his eldest son Prince Junior take the throne upon his passing it's just not going to happen. One term and he's out. You can take that to the bank.

Don't sell the priceless relic! But if you don't rush to order some tarot cards from Amazon Mr. Bezos just might go broke. If that happened you would be responsible for the destruction of his multi-billion dollar empire. Could you live with yourself if you did that?
ROTFMOL

A conversation your ex had one farmer's wife which trumps, pun intended. two polls conducted in NY and IA? Maybe your ex is in the wrong line of work?

No, two terms of Trump is enough for me. It is because except for one President, until the XXII Amendment, all of our Presidents wisely followed George Washington's example. Since I am a YUGE classical liberal Constitutionalist I like it where the document says twice that no titles of nobility are allowed.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/15/19 12:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't put as much faith in polls as you do. Remember 2016?


The polls were right if one read them correctly. The final RCP averages of polls had Hillary winning the popular vote by 3 points. She won it by 2 point. Now one must remember those polls all had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points. Hillary's 2 point victory was well within the margin of error.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...stein-5952.html

Now how newscasters and political pundits predicted the election is beyond the polls. Using state polls RCP had Clinton with 203 electoral votes, Trump with 164 and 171 in the toss up column.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

If one is interested in elections, one should ignore all adult polls as we know on average only 55% of them vote. One may pay a bit more attention to polls who poll registered voters, then again 65% of them vote. The polls I pay attention to are the Likely voter polls where 80% on average vote. Still you don't know who or which candidate those 20% supported or answered they would vote for.

Trafalgar which polled Pennsylvania on 5 Nov 2016 had Trump leading by one, in Michigan Trafalgar had Trump and Clinton tied. In fact all the late polls from 1-5 Nov showed the race tightening in those two states.

Wisconsin, no polling organization polled that state since 29 Oct 2016, which meant that poll was basically useless.

My take on all of this anyway.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/15/19 04:05 PM

And it is a great take.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/15/19 04:16 PM

Quote:
The polls were right if one read them correctly.


Yet even you were surprised when Hillary lost.

So it appears to me that polls are best read after the fact as they are essentially unreadable beforehand.

They do offer some insight though. You'll note that I'm not claiming Beto is going to make a come from behind surprise victory or that Amy Klobuchar is a dark horse just waiting to make her move. Warren has been steadily climbing, Sanders going nowhere, and Joe riding the Obama coattails.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/15/19 04:21 PM

I never expected wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan for Trump. Not really the polls, but each states voting history was more important to me. In close states, with the difference of less than 5 I usually go with the history of each state. Democrats had won Pennsylvania, Michigan six straight presidential elections, Wisconsin in seven.

I should have paid attention to the trend, but didn't. That's on me.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/15/19 04:39 PM

It was on everybody because everybody trusted the polls.

I've got an alternate prediction...Biden gets the nom and Trump wins.

Everybody will be surprised but me.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/17/19 12:58 AM

I showed you where the polls were correct. I can't help how folks interpreted them. The polls showed a real close race which it was. The polls showed Hillary winning the popular vote by 3 points, she won it by 2. Well within the margin of error.

I think were most messed up, me included was shoving the polls aside in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The fact Wisconsin went Democratic 7 straight times, Pennsylvania and Michigan 6, over rode what the polls were showing in those states. At least for me.

Then again, most of hear and see what we want to hear and see when it comes to polling. Most folks look at the horse race numbers and nothing else.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/18/19 11:17 PM

I don't read or try to interpret polls. I read a lot and try to predict trends. I glance at polls occasionally to be sure I'm not totally off base. Like if trump was ticking along with a 54% approval rate I'd be resigned to him serving a second term. But he aint and he won't.

Do I recall your hoping for a president who won't upset the apple cart?

You are aware, aren't you, that the apple cart has already been upset and we need strong decisive leadership, progressive leadership, to gather up the apples and set the cart upright again. Joe Biden is not and has never been a strong leader.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't read or try to interpret polls. I read a lot and try to predict trends. I glance at polls occasionally to be sure I'm not totally off base. Like if trump was ticking along with a 54% approval rate I'd be resigned to him serving a second term. But he aint and he won't.

Do I recall your hoping for a president who won't upset the apple cart?

You are aware, aren't you, that the apple cart has already been upset and we need strong decisive leadership, progressive leadership, to gather up the apples and set the cart upright again. Joe Biden is not and has never been a strong leader.


I'm not ready to have the country move that far left in my lifetime, although it will happen sooner or later. I don't consider either Sanders or Warren to be a steady, reliable leader. Of course I never considered Trump nor Hillary to be that either, that's why I voted against both.

Actually, I was hoping the democrats would latch onto a fresh young face. Time to pass the baton to the younger generation. But if we're going to stick with 70 plus year old's, then it's Biden for me.

The Democrats must have some up and commers, someone who isn't in their 70's trying to milk a couple of more years out of their political life? 2020 could turn out to be another 1960 if you're old enough to remember. The passing of the torch. It's time for that to happen. If we must elect an ideologue, then let that ideologue be a younger person.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 02:55 AM

I wasn't the only one nor the first to say when Dir Comey reopened investigation into Sec Clinton, the wind went out of her sails for which she did not have time to recover.

I won't pay attention to any polls until Iowa caucus. Gotta see which way the wind is blowing.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 03:05 AM

Sorry about spoiling it for by announcing Warren's inevitable win.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 01:55 PM

I once resigned myself to the inevitable Hillary Clinton presidency around Feb of 2016 when it became apparent the Republicans were going to nominate Trump in that good news, bad news election. The good news, Hillary lost, the bad news, Trump won.

Yes, I have pretty much resigned myself to Warren becoming the Democratic nominee also. Now that doesn't mean I have to support her or even like her or can't work against her. I'm not a Northeastern Liberal, my politics vary depending on the issue and the candidates. I'm not a party animal which let's the party decide my stances on issues and who to vote for.

Both major parties hate folks like me, they know they can't count on me like a mindless robot. They know I might vote for them, might vote for the other guy or even vote against both. I'm a wildcard, an untamed wild animal so to speak that refused to be tamed by either major party.

If Warren wins, that's life. If Trump wins reelection, so be it. I refuse to help either one. In fact if that is the match up, like in 2016, I'll be working to get folks to vote third party against both.

My political goal is to get a viable third party established to counter the extreme left and right politics of our two existing major parties. Probably a dream that will never come true especially since Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party shall ever arise. They love their monopoly of our two party system and both will do everything and anything possible to ensure their monopoly never ends.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 04:34 PM

Quote:
My political goal is to get a viable third party established to counter the extreme left and right politics of our two existing major parties.


And Senator Hatrack's goal is a return to Federalism. Neither is going to happen. I don't quite understand your imagining that Democrats are anything like "extreme left" There are perhaps half a dozen legislators who lean slightly left. The rest are entrenched centrists and most fit the corporatist neo-liberal profile which is more right than left.

Warren is by no means a lefty, has no interest in social democracy and less in socialism which is the very definition of leftism. I'm not even sure Republicans are really all that "far right". They want good jobs with good pay too. They want medicine, education, and social security checks when they get old. They want a roof over their heads and they want to feel safe and secure in their own homes. The same things that everyone wants.

I'd say the primary difference between the two is that republicans believe that if business is left to its own devices it will create a healthy, wealthy economy that will bring prosperity to all.

Democrats on the other hand feel that business has been remiss in spreading the wealth around to the workers and protecting the environment. Thus it must be regulated heavily to bring about a healthy, wealthy economy that will bring prosperity to all.

You may judge for yourself which party has chosen the right path.

There is no viable third party in our future. There is no return to a simpler past. If we make the wrong choices now there may well be a very dismal future awaiting us. Joe Biden is the wrong choice for democrats just as Trump was the wrong choice for republicans.

Warren is actually the centrist you are looking for. Someone who can return the applecart to its upright position and gather what apples are still marketable and make cider from the rest. She's not looking to own the conservatives nor to veer the ship of state hard to port. She wants to help working Americans regardless of their party affiliation, religion, sexual preference, or skin color.

Not your cup of tea helping the downtrodden or raising anyone's wages, or providing healthcare, education or free lunches for schoolchildren as those would be extreme measures. Are you a proponent of churches and charities handling all that or are you a bootstrap kinda guy who thinks folks should just take care of themselves to keep your taxes to a bare minimum?

I've mentioned before that Biden will do nothing, he has no agenda, no plan, no platform. Low fat, low sugar, low sodium. Just plain oatmeal for me please! But he can beat Trump because Obama.

Most recent poll(ipsos i think) places the empty smelly suit well ahead of Warren, and even Sanders leading her by one point(21, 16 and 15% respectively. With a margin of error at 4 points, Warren and Sanders are essentially tied and Biden is ahead by somewhere between 2 and 10 points. Meaningless as far as I'm concerned because it leaves about half the voters unaccounted for, divided among the single digit candidates and no one at all.



Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I'm not ready to have the country move that far left in my lifetime, although it will happen sooner or later.
I have been waiting for it for nearly 40 years. What you dread, I've been pining for. Please, PLEASE let it happen in my lifetime.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
My political goal is to get a viable third party established to counter the extreme left and right politics of our two existing major parties.


And Senator Hatrack's goal is a return to Federalism. Neither is going to happen. I don't quite understand your imagining that Democrats are anything like "extreme left" There are perhaps half a dozen legislators who lean slightly left. The rest are entrenched centrists and most fit the corporatist neo-liberal profile which is more right than left.

Warren is by no means a lefty, has no interest in social democracy and less in socialism which is the very definition of leftism. I'm not even sure Republicans are really all that "far right". They want good jobs with good pay too. They want medicine, education, and social security checks when they get old. They want a roof over their heads and they want to feel safe and secure in their own homes. The same things that everyone wants.

I'd say the primary difference between the two is that republicans believe that if business is left to its own devices it will create a healthy, wealthy economy that will bring prosperity to all.

Democrats on the other hand feel that business has been remiss in spreading the wealth around to the workers and protecting the environment. Thus it must be regulated heavily to bring about a healthy, wealthy economy that will bring prosperity to all.

You may judge for yourself which party has chosen the right path.

There is no viable third party in our future. There is no return to a simpler past. If we make the wrong choices now there may well be a very dismal future awaiting us. Joe Biden is the wrong choice for democrats just as Trump was the wrong choice for republicans.

Warren is actually the centrist you are looking for. Someone who can return the applecart to its upright position and gather what apples are still marketable and make cider from the rest. She's not looking to own the conservatives nor to veer the ship of state hard to port. She wants to help working Americans regardless of their party affiliation, religion, sexual preference, or skin color.

Not your cup of tea helping the downtrodden or raising anyone's wages, or providing healthcare, education or free lunches for schoolchildren as those would be extreme measures. Are you a proponent of churches and charities handling all that or are you a bootstrap kinda guy who thinks folks should just take care of themselves to keep your taxes to a bare minimum?

I've mentioned before that Biden will do nothing, he has no agenda, no plan, no platform. Low fat, low sugar, low sodium. Just plain oatmeal for me please! But he can beat Trump because Obama.

Most recent poll(ipsos i think) places the empty smelly suit well ahead of Warren, and even Sanders leading her by one point(21, 16 and 15% respectively. With a margin of error at 4 points, Warren and Sanders are essentially tied and Biden is ahead by somewhere between 2 and 10 points. Meaningless as far as I'm concerned because it leaves about half the voters unaccounted for, divided among the single digit candidates and no one at all.





Here, I like going by RCP averages.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...ation-6730.html

If you think Warren is a centrist, that just shows me how far left you are. Those of the far left or far right for that matter always think they're mainstream. More or less in the middle. Now I think the rise in independents from 30% in 2006 up to 40% today shows that finally folks are getting tired of the constant movement left and right by our two major parties. There comes a point in time when one or some say, that's far enough, goodbye. Perhaps independent is the wrong word, swing voters may be more apt. Those who aren't hog tied to either party. Free thinkers more or less. Those who aren't ideologues as members of both major parties have become.

Yes, I long for the past when the two parties would work together via compromise, playing the game of give and take. Instead what we have today is anything proposed by Democrats the Republicans are automatically against, anything proposed by a Republican, the Democrats automatically are against. Merits of the proposal doesn't matter, just who proposed it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 05:50 PM

Perotista, while I agree with your methodology regarding polls, and many of your sentiments regarding various topics, I diverge on your final points. I agree with Greger that Warren is more of a centrist than you believe or that she is playing. I, too, "long for the past when the two parties would work together via compromise".

But, when you say, "anything proposed by Democrats the Republicans are automatically against, anything proposed by a Republican, the Democrats automatically are against. Merits of the proposal doesn't matter, just who proposed it." You go too far, and that is where I think your thinking gets muddled. Democrats, most especially Obama, tried to incorporate Republican ideas for two solid years, and far longer (too long, in my view) on specific issues, such as immigration. That failed, not because of the ideas (see, ACA, immigration), but because of intransigent, intractable resistance (See, Merrick Garland). Democratic resistance has not come because of ideology, but the utter vacuous nature of Republican proposals.

I'll issue you a friendly challenge: name a Republican proposal that a) has merit, and b) has been rejected out-of-hand by Democrats. I mean this earnestly. Let's get beyond positions and platitudes and get to substance.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 05:58 PM

Quote:
Now I think the rise in independents from 30% in 2006 up to 40% today shows that finally folks are getting tired of the constant movement left and right by our two major parties.

And I think it's anger at do nothing centrists of both parties. The neocons and the neolibs, fighting tooth and nail to get more money into the pockets of the wealthy and to become wealthy themselves for doing it. While a majority of Americans become buried in debt as prices rise and wages don't.

Quote:
If you think Warren is a centrist, that just shows me how far left you are.


And that statement right there tells me just how far right you are.

Warren is a former Republican. An expert in bankruptcy law who recognizes that a few changes need to be made or we are headed for trouble.

That's the radical left in your eyes, a former Republican. You seem to insist that no Democrat is allowed to make any changes, raise any taxes, or impose any regulations as that would be a radical leftist agenda. When Republicans propose something...anything...that might actually help all Americans rather than a favored few I think you'd see Democrats jump right on board with it.

Perhaps you'd like to compose a list of Republican proposals that do just that. It should be easy.

Now take a look at Democratic proposals and legislation...pretty radical Sh*t, right? Or too radical for a rightwinger like yourself to support.
Democratic bills passed in the house but DOA as Grim Reaper McConnell strikes them down
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 06:05 PM

Great minds, Greger. grin
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 06:14 PM

Oh...and maybe you'd like to ask a real lefty, our colleague, Chunkstyle, stands ready to denounce her as a former Republican who probably hasn't changed her stripes and whose policy proposals don't go far enough or are pure bluster to win an election which will be followed by more neoliberal policies by centrist Democrats.

He'll vote third party too if she gets the nod, but likely not for the same candidate as you, Pero.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/19/19 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Great minds, Greger. grin


Aye it's the truth, we often think alike.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/20/19 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Now I think the rise in independents from 30% in 2006 up to 40% today shows that finally folks are getting tired of the constant movement left and right by our two major parties.

And I think it's anger at do nothing centrists of both parties. The neocons and the neolibs, fighting tooth and nail to get more money into the pockets of the wealthy and to become wealthy themselves for doing it. While a majority of Americans become buried in debt as prices rise and wages don't.

Quote:
If you think Warren is a centrist, that just shows me how far left you are.


And that statement right there tells me just how far right you are.

Warren is a former Republican. An expert in bankruptcy law who recognizes that a few changes need to be made or we are headed for trouble.

That's the radical left in your eyes, a former Republican. You seem to insist that no Democrat is allowed to make any changes, raise any taxes, or impose any regulations as that would be a radical leftist agenda. When Republicans propose something...anything...that might actually help all Americans rather than a favored few I think you'd see Democrats jump right on board with it.

Perhaps you'd like to compose a list of Republican proposals that do just that. It should be easy.

Now take a look at Democratic proposals and legislation...pretty radical Sh*t, right? Or too radical for a rightwinger like yourself to support.
Democratic bills passed in the house but DOA as Grim Reaper McConnell strikes them down


You may consider me far right, that's fine. I've been branded both at different times. Harry Reid tabled over 300 Republican House passed bills between 2011-2016 while he was majority leader during Obama. The fact McConnell is doing the same I think proves my point about automatic opposition.

When Reid was doing that most democrats thought it was great, now that McConnell is doing the same thing, most democrats think it is bad and undemocratic. I personally think all House passed bills should come up for debate and a vote on the senate floor. The senate could easily do this if they expanded their 3 day work week into five. Friday is fly away day and Monday is fly back into Washington day.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/20/19 12:58 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Harry Reid tabled over 300 Republican House passed bills between 2011-2016 while he was majority leader during Obama.
But 75 of those were the same thing - bills to overturn the ACA. They weren't real policy proposals. There's where your "equivalency" argument falters.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/20/19 01:27 AM

Yeah, I did ask for examples that were aimed to help all Americans rather than just a few, NWP wiped out 75 of them so that leaves you 225 more...surely you can give me a few examples that would generally help working Americans rather than their corporate bosses...?

Bills that Democrats would support and vote for if not for that radical leftist Harry Reid...
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/20/19 04:16 PM

I'm not being critical of Perotista, mind you, but of the argument that the Republican party has made any real policy proposals in the last... oh, let's say, 10 years. The idea that there is a policy-based parity between the parties is a myth and it distracts us from the real issues. Focusing on the thread title, Which policies have conservatives advanced? I'll offer a list of topics:

Environment
Immigration
Economic stability
Budget/taxes
National defense
Homeland security
Criminal justice
Foreign affairs
Education

I'll also offer an opinion: true conservatives care about all of these issues, but the current "conservative leadership" doesn't. There have been a few successes - The First Step Act comes to mind - but then we get this: Senate Republicans reject effort to condemn Trump's Syria withdrawal.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/22/19 09:31 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm not being critical of Perotista, mind you, but of the argument that the Republican party has made any real policy proposals in the last... oh, let's say, 10 years. The idea that there is a policy-based parity between the parties is a myth and it distracts us from the real issues. Focusing on the thread title, Which policies have conservatives advanced? I'll offer a list of topics:

Environment
Immigration
Economic stability
Budget/taxes
National defense
Homeland security
Criminal justice
Foreign affairs
Education

I'll also offer an opinion: true conservatives care about all of these issues, but the current "conservative leadership" doesn't. There have been a few successes - The First Step Act comes to mind - but then we get this: Senate Republicans reject effort to condemn Trump's Syria withdrawal.
True conservatives do care about these issues. Since they are true conservatives their views on these issues are not in agreement with NW Ponderer's. Which is why they are true conservatives.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/22/19 11:02 PM

Perhaps if I give my views on these things, one can decide whether I’m conservative or not.
Environment – I’m all for clean water, air and for conservation of our natural resources. Nothing makes me madder than to see woods and farmland clear cut for shopping malls, sub-divisions, filling in vast areas with concrete and asphalt. Do I believe in man-made global warming, no. I think Mother Nature will do whatever she wants to do.

Immigration – I’m against illegal immigration. But it isn’t a hot topic with me. I go along with my wife who is from Thailand on this. She thinks that if she had to go through the background checks, pay the fees, obtain a passport and visa, among a thousand other things to include a waiting period. So too should everyone else.

Economic stability – Not sure what is meant by this. But it sounds like something one should be for.

Budget/taxes – I’m for fiscal responsibility. Meaning this nation shouldn’t spend more than what it takes in. Fiscal responsible isn’t what is known today as being fiscal conservative which means just low taxes. I believe in a balanced budget. To get there if one has to cut spending, do it. If one has to raise taxes, do it. But with our massive national debt, both cutting spending and raising taxes need to be done.

National defense – All for a strong military. Having said that, I believe you could cut 100 billion from the military if congress stopped using the military as a civilian jobs’ creator and maintainer. Many times the JCS has told congress they didn’t need this, didn’t want that, couldn’t use anymore of this. Only to be forced to buy those things so a congressman or senator can keep civilians employed back in their home district or state. Yes, we could indeed cut 100 billion if we just gave the military what it needed to keep this country safe and secure. National defense need not suffer, but congress always sees otherwise and will forever use the military as a job’s creator and maintainer.

Homeland security – I think we have gone overboard on this, that we have lost freedoms at the expense of security.

Criminal justice – Criminals should pay dearly for their crimes, I’m also all in favor of the death penalty. Not as a deterrent, but to ensure the criminal, murderer never commits another crime. This after the criminal has been found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. I also am in favor that if any crime involves a firearm, that should be an automatic 10-year sentence on top of any sentence for the crime they committed whether or not anyone is killed or injured.

Foreign affairs – I really don’t have any set idea on this. Outside of treating each nation individually. There is no one size fits all.

Education – I think with all the government involvement in education they have dumbed down the students. Through my kids and grand kids going to college, I have learned that in subjects like math, science, English, history etc, a lot of the things I learned in High School are now being taught in the first two years of college. I suppose this is because of the want for a higher graduation rate, percentage than actually making the students learn something.

There you have, quick and dirty.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/22/19 11:06 PM

I tell ya Senator ... sometimes you say the darnest things.

Quote:
Since they are true conservatives their views on these issues are not in agreement with NW Ponderer's. Which is why they are true conservatives.

as opposed to false conservatives or fake conservatives or unreal conservatives or because they took the Trumpian ideological purity test and pledged their fealty personally to Mr Trump.

I haven't got a clue what your statement means or if it means anything at all.

Maybe you should read a definition, so here is one from wiki
Quote:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.

Note I didn't see the additional adjective "true" although I suppose it could have been an adverb .... regardless wiki didn't think it was necessary to make your grammatical additions.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/22/19 11:31 PM

Global warming denier.

Considers undocumented aliens "illegal"

Economic stability? For who the top 1%? How do you feel about income inequality? nevermind, I think I know already.

Fiscal responsibility equals a balanced budget. Cutting spending on social programs? Or infrastructure? or what.

If you cut $100Billion from the defense budget you'd still have a half a trillion dollars tied up in it, and that cut is just to get rid of civilian contractors who support our fighting forces?

A little overboard on Homeland defense? Some of us think it's an outrageous state of affairs since we already spend over $618Billion annually and don't need another bureaucracy with billions more dedicated to the common defense.

Criminals should pay dearly for their crimes, I’m also all in favor of the death penalty

with all the government involvement in education they have dumbed down the students.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/22/19 11:36 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I tell ya Senator ... sometimes you say the darnest things.

Quote:
Since they are true conservatives their views on these issues are not in agreement with NW Ponderer's. Which is why they are true conservatives.

as opposed to false conservatives or fake conservatives or unreal conservatives or because they took the Trumpian ideological purity test and pledged their fealty personally to Mr Trump.

I haven't got a clue what your statement means or if it means anything at all.

Maybe you should read a definition, so here is one from wiki
Quote:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.

Note I didn't see the additional adjective "true" although I suppose it could have been an adverb .... regardless wiki didn't think it was necessary to make your grammatical additions.
You make the erroneous assumption that all conservatives are Trump supporters. There is a difference between voting for a candidate and being a supporter of a candidate. I voted for Trump. I did not and do support him. I will probably vote for him again in 2020 because none of the potential nominees of the Democratic Party are people I could vote for. My defense of him against the attempt to impeach him is because it is a political attack on him. It is only in your partisan imagination that there is a "Trumpian ideological purity test." No Republican I know of, from the Chair of the MN Republican Party to the grass roots level "pledged their fealty personally to Mr Trump." To make those outlandish and ridiculous claims shows how rabidly partisan you are!
Posted by: perotista

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/22/19 11:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: rporter314
I tell ya Senator ... sometimes you say the darnest things.

Quote:
Since they are true conservatives their views on these issues are not in agreement with NW Ponderer's. Which is why they are true conservatives.

as opposed to false conservatives or fake conservatives or unreal conservatives or because they took the Trumpian ideological purity test and pledged their fealty personally to Mr Trump.

I haven't got a clue what your statement means or if it means anything at all.

Maybe you should read a definition, so here is one from wiki
Quote:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.

Note I didn't see the additional adjective "true" although I suppose it could have been an adverb .... regardless wiki didn't think it was necessary to make your grammatical additions.
You make the erroneous assumption that all conservatives are Trump supporters. There is a difference between voting for a candidate and being a supporter of a candidate. I voted for Trump. I did not and do support him. I will probably vote for him again in 2020 because none of the potential nominees of the Democratic Party are people I could vote for. My defense of him against the attempt to impeach him is because it is a political attack on him. It is only in your partisan imagination that there is a "Trumpian ideological purity test." No Republican I know of, from the Chair of the MN Republican Party to the grass roots level "pledged their fealty personally to Mr Trump." To make those outlandish and ridiculous claims shows how rabidly partisan you are!


I consider myself a tradition conservative, I don't support Trump, never voted for him and won't in 2020. I don't consider Trump a conservative at all. I know Republicans who don't consider the eight time party switcher even a Republican. They consider Trump an thin skinned egotistical opportunist who took advantage of the brewing anger within the GOP against those Republicans in congress for not stopping Obama cold.

Why does Trump have such a high approval and favorable ratings among Republicans, they consider him better than the alternative.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/23/19 02:43 AM

Quote:
It is only in your partisan imagination that there is a "Trumpian ideological purity test."

Conservative naivete

Every Trump biographer has stated Mr Trump demands loyalty. It is not me who made that up. It is based on their perceptions of the man. That I am able to see the same from a public perspective ... well ... I am not naive.

Quote:
My defense of him against the attempt to impeach him is because it is a political attack on him.
How is breaking the law a political attack????

Here is the problem with your comment. If you believe the Democrats are trying to impeach purely for political reasons then why didn't they do it in the first 3 months he was in office? Why wait until a whistleblower alerts the world to a criminal offense? if it is political.

The House could have overlooked all of his non-presidential behavior, because it is not impeachable, but it can not overlook a blatant criminal offense which has a ton of supporting and corroborating evidence including not only Trump's own staff admitting it, but Mr Trump admitting he did the deed. The House will draw up articles of impeachment. If the trial was held inside any courtroom in America, he would be convicted. In the Senate as of now ... probably not. Maybe it's true what some former GOP congressmen have said, that if the vote was in secret, they would get rid of him.

So you claim you are not support Mr trump but you give him a pass on all he has done ... I mean that sounds like you support him in what ever he does and says .... but if you should see the light for what he is, what the hell is wrong with supporting VP Pence????? Doesn't VP Pence have the same agenda as real conservatives? wouldn't he have a more rational approach to trade, foreign affairs, domestic issues??? So I don;t buy your, I do not support Mr trump bit.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/23/19 02:50 AM

Quote:
Why does Trump have such a high approval and favorable ratings among Republicans, they consider him better than the alternative.

LOL

I guess he does not resonate with Southern Democrats ... o mean Republicans ... you know the ones ... the Dukes and Spensers and all the closeted followers

You just gave some of the reason why Republicans would not support him and then say he is the best alternative .... really!!!! Sorry but there is only one thing that separates him from all the other candidates in 2016 and if all the other issues are considered then he was not the best alternative to anyone ... what is his primary issue ... what drives his base ... they can overlook everything he does because he does one thing for them ... he is their voice
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/23/19 02:59 AM

Quote:
You make the erroneous assumption that all conservatives are Trump supporters.

Sorry meant to include in other post

NO I do not make that assumption. That is your belief that I make such an assumption. If you read my posts I have made it clear not all Republicans are bigots. Likewise not all Republicans are Trump supporters but may have voted for him. Let me throw this out for you to chew on ... I suspect all former Southern Democrats who are now affiliated with the Republican Party are bigots. Biggest ideological swap in history. If ya voted for CRA 1964 you got voted out of office. O wait a sec ... more facts who don't believe.

I don't know where conservatives get these strange ideas. I know I used to hear it on right wing talk radio ... always lying about liberals. Maybe thats where. I dunno.

But I do find it strange that you continue with making up what you believe other people believe when you accused everyone in this forum of doing precisely the same thing you do ... so I dunno
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 12:46 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It is only in your partisan imagination that there is a "Trumpian ideological purity test."
Conservative naivete


Every Trump biographer has stated Mr Trump demands loyalty. It is not me who made that up. It is based on their perceptions of the man. That I am able to see the same from a public perspective ... well ... I am not naive.
Yes, you are naive.
Originally Posted By: LBJ
“I don’t want loyalty. I want loyalty! I want him to kiss my ass in Macy’s window at high noon and tell me it smells like roses. I want his pecker in my pocket.”
Trump has NEVER made a demand for loyalty like LBJ did.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
My defense of him against the attempt to impeach him is because it is a political attack on him. How is breaking the law a political attack????

Here is the problem with your comment. If you believe the Democrats are trying to impeach purely for political reasons then why didn't they do it in the first 3 months he was in office? Why wait until a whistleblower alerts the world to a criminal offense? if it is political.
Wasn't The Mueller Report supposed to be the proof that Pres. Trump should be impeached? It didn't work so now you are claiming that what the "whistle-blower" said is the proof that Trump should be impeached. If the claim made by the "whistle-blower" is the proof of Trump's criminal behavior why haven't articles of impeachment been drawn up? The Democrats had some patience before calling Trump's impeachment, they waited almost 4 months before the first call for impeachment was made. Rep. Al Green

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The House could have overlooked all of his non-presidential behavior, because it is not impeachable, but it can not overlook a blatant criminal offense which has a ton of supporting and corroborating evidence including not only Trump's own staff admitting it, but Mr Trump admitting he did the deed. The House will draw up articles of impeachment. If the trial was held inside any courtroom in America, he would be convicted. In the Senate as of now ... probably not. Maybe it's true what some former GOP congressmen have said, that if the vote was in secret, they would get rid of him.
The phone call, which you claim is a "blatant criminal offense" was made back in August. Now almost two months later the House has not drawn up articles of impeachment. If the criminal behavior was that blatant articles of impeachment would have been drawn up by now.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
So you claim you are not support Mr trump but you give him a pass on all he has done ... I mean that sounds like you support him in what ever he does and says .... but if you should see the light for what he is, what the hell is wrong with supporting VP Pence????? Doesn't VP Pence have the same agenda as real conservatives? wouldn't he have a more rational approach to trade, foreign affairs, domestic issues??? So I don;t buy your, I do not support Mr trump bit.
What he has done has not warranted drawing up articles of impeachment. Neither The Mueller Report nor the "phone call" has convinced the Democrats in Congress to draw up articles of impeachment.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 01:38 AM

Quote:
What he has done has not warranted drawing up articles of impeachment. Neither The Mueller Report nor the "phone call" has convinced the Democrats in Congress to draw up articles of impeachment.
Many thought the obstruction charge was reason enough. Pelosi held them back. But kept impeachment on the table awaiting further charges. And just as expected DJT delivered. This can go on for months.

Trump is going to have to mind his Ps and Qs because his rookie mistakes are probably going to bring up other charges.

Eventually Republicans will have to consider convicting him. Have I mentioned albatrosses? And how they stink when you hang a dead one around a sailors neck? Some republicans are beginning to wake up and smell the albatross. Some are not. But it will ultimately be at their own peril.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 01:48 AM

I think the internet should start photoshopping those albatrosses in whenever they show a picture of a Republican Representative or a Senator who is up for this election cycle.

They will probably fight it to the bitter end and go down with the ship in November 2020. Now if they were smart, they would get word to Pelosi they have the votes so she could fast track Articles to the Senate. Then as soon as they start the trial, just vote Trump out. They would have Pence who is a perfectly good conservative Republican with none (or not much) of Trump's scandals. He would sign anything they sent to the White House, and some of them might keep their jobs.

But they are not that smart.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 02:08 AM

Senator ... you are either very naive (and my experience with conservatives is they are) or ... well I can't say that in this forum!!!!!

Quote:
Trump has NEVER made a demand for loyalty like LBJ did.

Your rebuttal is Mr Trump did not use the same type language as Pres Johnson. Really??? You should have said Mr Trump never asked in any manner for loyalty, otherwise you just admitted Mr Trump does demand loyalty ... just as I said.

Quote:
Wasn't The Mueller Report supposed to be the proof that Pres. Trump should be impeached? It didn't work so now you are claiming that what the "whistle-blower" said is the proof that Trump should be impeached. If the claim made by the "whistle-blower" is the proof of Trump's criminal behavior why haven't articles of impeachment been drawn up? The Democrats had some patience before calling Trump's impeachment, they waited almost 4 months before the first call for impeachment was made.
As usual the conservative delusion.

NO!!!!

SP Mueller was mandated to open "... an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials". So where in that mandate do you find anything about impeachment???? No ... can't find it? because it's not there.

The meme "it didn't work" is another conservative delusion. The Report should you ever read it describes in detail what was found. I'll let you regurgitate Fox News for your source but highly recommend reading the primary source.

The whistleblower filed a claim in which he described abuse of power. The ICIG thought the report after his investigation was more than credible and sent it to proper authorities. The House is in the process of gathering facts to either substantiate or refute the claims made by the whistleblower. As is your usual MO, you have made claims which are figments of your imagination.

Unlike your comments of Democrats rushing to impeach for political purposes, they are actually running a slow methodical investigation to gather the facts (you do want to know the facts?) and make a determination.

When you abuse a singular person making a call and universalize it, you have lied. One person (and I seem to recall a couple of Democrats making the call) does not make the whole Democrat caucus making a call of impeachment. The call by a handful of people would be the same as the impeachment call of Pres Obama of a handful of Republicans, not the whole Republican caucus.

Quote:
The phone call, which you claim is a "blatant criminal offense" was made back in August. Now almost two months later the House has not drawn up articles of impeachment. If the criminal behavior was that blatant articles of impeachment would have been drawn up by now.
I guess you want the Democrats to manufacture the evidence. Or maybe you want the Democrats to "lynch" Mr Trump without articles of impeachment being filed or a trial in the Senate. I have to ask ... what is wrong with you!!!!!

Quote:
What he has done has not warranted drawing up articles of impeachment.
Now that is naive to have said that.

Unlike Republicans who excoriated Sec Clinton without justification (remember Rep McCarthy? he said it best ... the Benghazi hearings were a way to impact her residential run in 2016) the Democrats are trying to get the facts (and so far they look bad for Mr trump) and make the determination to write the articles of impeachment. When the investigation is over, and only then, will articles be written.

What is your rush? You would continue to support Mr Trump if he shot kids in a school.

Because I don;t think you do any research (except to read right wing nut sites) for your edification here are some things.

Originally Posted By: Daugherty v. Ellis
Malfeasance [is] a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.


so what did Mr Trump do?

Originally Posted By: legaldictionary.net
In a more general context, quid pro quo refers to the basis for any contract, in which there must be consideration given for the goods, services, or other thing offered.


Mr Trump offered goods, military aid and a meeting, and ecpected in return a consideration from Ukraine, opening investigations into Burisma, Bidens, and DNC and make public statement to that effect.

FEC Laws
Originally Posted By: 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;


and further

Originally Posted By: 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:

Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;


I suspect, and only because I am not an attorney nor have I read the law, but can read and reasonably interpret what I read, the call and all supporting efforts by Sec Pompeo, Sec Perry, AG Barr, and rogue attorney for Mr Trump, Giuliani and associates to further Mr Trump's illegal acts, do in fact constitute legitimate reasons to impeach any president.

But I dunno ... maybe you need to find that DNC server
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 05:37 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Senator ... you are either very naive (and my experience with conservatives is they are) or ... well I can't say that in this forum!!!!!

Quote:
Trump has NEVER made a demand for loyalty like LBJ did.

Your rebuttal is Mr Trump did not use the same type language as Pres Johnson. Really??? You should have said Mr Trump never asked in any manner for loyalty, otherwise you just admitted Mr Trump does demand loyalty ... just as I said.

No, it is not just as you said. You said that Trump had a "Trumpian ideological purity test" he did not and does not have an "ideological purity test." Does Trump ask for loyalty? Yes, as a business executive he did ask for loyalty to his business not himself. Did Trump ask those who would work in his Presidential administration to be loyal to him? Yes, he did, every President does. But mot in the crude, narcissistic, and grandiose way that LBJ did.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Wasn't The Mueller Report supposed to be the proof that Pres. Trump should be impeached? It didn't work so now you are claiming that what the "whistle-blower" said is the proof that Trump should be impeached. If the claim made by the "whistle-blower" is the proof of Trump's criminal behavior why haven't articles of impeachment been drawn up? The Democrats had some patience before calling Trump's impeachment, they waited almost 4 months before the first call for impeachment was made.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
As usual the conservative delusion.

NO!!!!

SP Mueller was mandated to open "... an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials". So where in that mandate do you find anything about impeachment???? No ... can't find it? because it's not there.

The meme "it didn't work" is another conservative delusion. The Report should you ever read it describes in detail what was found. I'll let you regurgitate Fox News for your source but highly recommend reading the primary source.

While the investigation that was summarized in the Mueller Report was being conducted those who want Trump impeached were convinced that the investigation and the report on it would provide the House grounds to draw up articles of impeachment. That did not happen. Since I did not form the same opinion from reading the Mueller Report that you did you make the erroneous claim that I did not read it. To expect others to have the same opinion you do from reading something is extremely partisan.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The whistleblower filed a claim in which he described abuse of power. The ICIG thought the report after his investigation was more than credible and sent it to proper authorities. The House is in the process of gathering facts to either substantiate or refute the claims made by the whistleblower. As is your usual MO, you have made claims which are figments of your imagination.

Unlike your comments of Democrats rushing to impeach for political purposes, they are actually running a slow methodical investigation to gather the facts (you do want to know the facts?) and make a determination.
Yet you have, as is your usual MO, repeatedly stated that the "whistle-blower's" complaint is proof positive that Trump broke the law. Who is rushing to impeach Trump? You are! Fortunately, that decision is to be made by the House of Representatives not rabid anti-Trump partisans not you.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
When you abuse a singular person making a call and universalize it, you have lied. One person (and I seem to recall a couple of Democrats making the call) does not make the whole Democrat caucus making a call of impeachment. The call by a handful of people would be the same as the impeachment call of Pres Obama of a handful of Republicans, not the whole Republican caucus.
The call for impeachment was first made on May 17, 2017 by Rep. Al Green. (I posted a link to it from CNN, did you bother to look at it? I doubt it.) Since then a number of Democrats have joined him in calling for Trump's impeachment. I never said that the entire Democratic caucus in the House has called for impeachment. You have constantly referred to THE "whistleblower." As in one person. And only one person has filed a compliant about the call.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The phone call, which you claim is a "blatant criminal offense" was made back in August. Now almost two months later the House has not drawn up articles of impeachment. If the criminal behavior was that blatant articles of impeachment would have been drawn up by now.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
I guess you want the Democrats to manufacture the evidence. Or maybe you want the Democrats to "lynch" Mr Trump without articles of impeachment being filed or a trial in the Senate. I have to ask ... what is wrong with you!!!!!
No, I do not want the Democrats to manufacture evidence. I want the process to take all the time that is necessary. Again, it is you who has been repeatedly saying that the "whistle-blower's" complaint is proof positive that Trump broke the law. It is you rporter314 that is impatient and wants Trump impeached as soon as possible! If you didn't you would not constantly insist that the "whistle-blower's" complaint is all that is required for articles of impeachment to be drawn up.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
What he has done has not warranted drawing up articles of impeachment.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Now that is naive to have said that.
Again you are insisting that Trump be impeached based on your opinion, not what the House of Representatives might decide. Unlike you the House has not made a decision that Trump has done anything to warrant drawing up articles of impeachment.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Unlike Republicans who excoriated Sec Clinton without justification (remember Rep McCarthy? he said it best ... the Benghazi hearings were a way to impact her residential run in 2016) the Democrats are trying to get the facts (and so far they look bad for Mr trump) and make the determination to write the articles of impeachment. When the investigation is over, and only then, will articles be written.
Excoriated Sec. of State Clinton without justification? When she said that the attack on Benghazi was caused by an anti-Muslim video, which was a lie, she got what she deserved.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
What is your rush? You would continue to support Mr Trump if he shot kids in a school.
And you say that is difficult to have a discussion with conservatives. With an insult like that I wonder why I bother to even attempt to have a discussion with you.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Because I don;t think you do any research (except to read right wing nut sites) for your edification here are some things.

Originally Posted By: Daugherty v. Ellis
Malfeasance [is] a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.


so what did Mr Trump do?

Originally Posted By: legaldictionary.net
In a more general context, quid pro quo refers to the basis for any contract, in which there must be consideration given for the goods, services, or other thing offered.


Mr Trump offered goods, military aid and a meeting, and ecpected in return a consideration from Ukraine, opening investigations into Burisma, Bidens, and DNC and make public statement to that effect.

FEC Laws
Originally Posted By: 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;


and further

Originally Posted By: 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:

Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;


I suspect, and only because I am not an attorney nor have I read the law, but can read and reasonably interpret what I read, the call and all supporting efforts by Sec Pompeo, Sec Perry, AG Barr, and rogue attorney for Mr Trump, Giuliani and associates to further Mr Trump's illegal acts, do in fact constitute legitimate reasons to impeach any president.

But I dunno ... maybe you need to find that DNC server
Again, you have made the decision that Trump broke the law. A decision based on a complaint of one whistle-blower. A whistle-blower who did hear the call himself but based his complaint on what he was told was said in the call.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Because I don;t think you do any research (except to read right wing nut sites)...
Since the research I do does not lead me to have the same opinions you do you denigrate my research. I did some research about you rporter314. In the 52 pages of discussion on the Obama administration here on the Rant not once do you ever call for Pres. Obama to be impeached. In the 520 topics about the Obama administration when any of the things he did that were discussed you either defended him or didn't say anything. During his administration Obama used the IRS to investigate conservative organizations. When Pres. Nixon did that it was one of the reasons articles of impeachment were drawn up against Nixon. Why didn't you demand that Pres. Obama be impeached for that? You have said many times if Obama had committed what might be an impeachable offense you would have called for him to be impeached as strongly as you have for that to happen to Trump. You did not do that. That you did not shows that your desire to have Trump impeached is based on your partisan hatred of Trump. Obama and the IRS attacks on conservative groups.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 05:05 PM

I think I wandered into the wrong thread...
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 05:34 PM

Quote:
Does Trump ask for loyalty? Yes, as a business executive he did ask for loyalty to his business not himself. Did Trump ask those who would work in his Presidential administration to be loyal to him? Yes, he did, every President does. But mot in the crude, narcissistic, and grandiose way that LBJ did.

The Trump Loyalty Test is a personal loyalty to Mr Trump, above the law, above the Constitution. We can see precisely why that statement is true and valid if you would consider what AG Barr, Whittiker, Sen Graham, etc has said. They place Mr trump above the law. If you don't believe that, then consider what Mr Trump's attorneys told a Circuit Court. Mr Trump can not be investigated, or indicted, or encumbered by any legal proceeding as he is president and therefore above the law. Does he require and demand loyalty? Damn right in spades.

Quote:
To expect others to have the same opinion you do from reading something is extremely partisan.
I retract my statement you would not read the report.

It is not my opinion but the opinion of SP Mueller. He concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and the Russian meddlers. Note he did not conclude there was no evidence. It was insufficient.

SP Mueller concluded there was sufficient evidence of obstruction of an investigation, however he also stated he would not pursue an indictment pursuant to OLC memo on indictment of sitting presidents.

Not my conclusions but after having read the report, they were reasonable conclusions.

I never expect anyone to agree with anything I say and I don't try to persuade anyone to believe what I believe. However, I will try to convince people of the facts. The Ukraine Phone Call. It is obviously a QPQ. I would try to convince you it is because I can not see how it is anything but a QPQ. I got military aid but I need an investigation for it. QPQ.

Now should you finally agree it is a QPQ, I would expect you to also conclude it is impeachable but you may not. People disagree on interpretation of the facts. I have a higher standard than you so the QPQ is impeachable regardless of who is president, congressman, or student council member.

Quote:
Yet you have, as is your usual MO, repeatedly stated that the "whistle-blower's" complaint is proof positive that Trump broke the law. Who is rushing to impeach Trump? You are! Fortunately, that decision is to be made by the House of Representatives not rabid anti-Trump partisans not you.
I don;t think I have stated that.

The complaint did not have all the supporting evidence we have now from public sources. We now know the call was but one piece of an ongoing conspiratorial effort led by Mr Trump to find political dirt on a future probable political opponent and to undermine the Mueller investigation as well as the IC conclusions regarding Russian meddling.

While the call is damning, it could have been explained away in a variety of ways which would not have led to impeachment. It is in fact all the supporting testimony and evidence which makes the case. Mr Trump and his closest advisors, Sec Pompeo, AG Barr, and rogue attorney Giuliani were engaged in a conspiracy contrary to FEC laws regarding solicitation from foreign nationals. Proof positive? Let's get all the evidence and see what there is. I think that has been my position all along. I am always last to confirm a conclusion, as I wait for all the evidence to be collected before I give a complete analysis and derive a conclusion. Unfortunately for you in this case a lot of evidence is now public, so not much is left to the imagination.

Quote:
I never said that the entire Democratic caucus in the House has called for impeachment.
You used the word Democrats. Not one Democrats, not Rep Green, but Democrats. And you know Rep Pelosi for months kept the small group of Democrats who vocally wanted to impeach at bay. Even now (as of Sept 24) only 207 Democrats are on the record for impeachment in the House. I am sure you can do the arithmetic from that.

I don't know what your whistleblower comments mean. There is only one which has become public. It has been reported there is another regarding another matter. So I don't know of what you speak.

Quote:
When she said that the attack on Benghazi was caused by an anti-Muslim video, which was a lie, she got what she deserved.

Here is the question I like to ask conservatives and never get an answer. 27 countries had demonstrations as a result of THE VIDEO. The day before in Cairo the walls of the embassy were breached by demonstrators. So my question is why would you not thing THE VIDEO had nothing to do with Benghazi????

She of course changed the narrative as better factual information was collected from the site, as any reasonable person would ... and I hope that would include you.

It was not a lie. It was best guess at the time.

Rabid hyperpartisan you are. Are the Clinton's the personification of Satan????

Quote:
With an insult like that I wonder why I bother to even attempt to have a discussion with you.
OMG progress ... I think. While you did not say that would be a deal breaker, you are suggesting it. So now I know ... there are things which would change your mind about Mr Trump. Now I know somewhere between puzzygrabbing and killing kids you would stop supporting Mr trump. Now I have to find out what that is.

Quote:
you have made the decision that Trump broke the law. A decision based on a complaint of one whistle-blower. A whistle-blower who did hear the call himself but based his complaint on what he was told was said in the call.

Based on my research but not just based on the call. You continue to forget all the supporting evidence and testimony.

Yes the whistleblower complaint was second hand reporting but why do you fail to mention the ICIG did an investigation to the complaint. Do you really think the ICIG would simply pass it along as credible without an investigation? really???? So there is supporting evidence which makes the complaint credible for the ICIG and now we know from pubic testimony and other evidence the complaint has been corroborated.

So no, not based on just the call. Typical conservative TP.

Quote:
Since the research I do does not lead me to have the same opinions you do you denigrate my research.
you cite right wing nut sites. Please cite primary sources not opinions of nuts.

Quote:
not once do you ever call for Pres. Obama to be impeached
Can you give me a reason why he should have been impeached? I hope you didn't buy in to the nuts who wanted to impeach him. Here from wiki
Quote:
Rationales offered for possible impeachment included false claims that Obama was born outside the United States, that he allegedly allowed people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, an alleged White House cover-up after the 2012 Benghazi attack, and failure to enforce immigration laws.
Sooooo ....

Quote:
In the 520 topics about the Obama administration when any of the things he did that were discussed you either defended him or didn't say anything.
In general I agreed with a lot of his positions. The ones which I did not agree did not deserve a rebuttal. I think the biggest one was his frequent interjection into local events. Stay out of it is my advice.

So Let's see ... he wasn't grabbing puzzy, he wasn't claiming ethnic minorities were bad people, etc .... he was trying to support our allies, he was trying to bring troops home, etc

Quote:
During his administration Obama used the IRS to investigate conservative organizations.
Gee unlike you who I can strongly speculate you believed everything Fox News said, I did the research.

I will not re-litigate the accusation but will comment that almost all of right wing talking points were wrong factually. As an IT guy I analyzed the HD info, the server info, BU policy etc and found no conservative knew what the hell they were talking about. I don't know if that means they are dumb or ignorant of IT or intentionally lied, but whichever it was they were way off base.

The fundamental problem was Citizens United. As soon as the SC ruled in their favor it was noted by the IRS they should be on the alert for increased political groups trying to get 501c4 exemptions. The facts were yes there was an increase from 50 a year to 1500 in the first year. The IRS had no choice but to try and figure out how to handle the influx with limited resources. Because they knew many groups would be conservatives groups the initial search parameters were geared for conservative groups and later included liberal groups, and in fact more liberal groups were targeted in searches than conservative groups (bet you didn't know that). No liberal group got an exemption (bet you didn't know that). 33% of conservative groups got exemptions almost immediately. Of the rest, they were either non-compliant, slow responders, or dropped out of process. Many of these finally got exemptions.

So your right wing talking point not based on the facts is suspect. My conclusion was they could have done a better job by being better prepared.

So no, Pres Obama did not use the IRS to target conservative groups. Conservative paranoia is the only reason this became an issue, as no liberal group made an issue of being "targeted".

Quote:
That you did not shows that your desire to have Trump impeached is based on your partisan hatred of Trump.
I don;t have a partisan hatred of him. I do have a human dislike of him. I do not associate with arrogant puzzygrabbing egotists who have no portfolio. At the same time I also feel sorry for him because he suffers from NPD. Nothing partisan about personal perspective at all.

Do I dislike his actions and what he says? yep yes Da Si

Your rabid hyperpartisan nonsense has clouded your judgement. While I disagree with a lot of what he does, none of it amounts to an impeachable offense. Taken altogether it does not amount to a set of impeachable offenses. So for you to say I have a desire to impeach is nonsensical. Here is the problem, over the years I have noticed conservatives believe everyone is as hyperpartisan as they are. Breaking news!!!! that is not true nor valid. Everyone is not as partisan as you are. You in fact remind me of a guy whom I see frequently who believes Mr Trump is God incarnate ... and for him everyone but Mr trump lies ... only Mr trump is good ... etc

There is a pattern of bad behavior by Mr Trump. He did not get rid of his businesses. He has executed Russian prerogatives. He abandons allies. He obstructed an investigation. He elevates white supremacists. And he has entered into a QPQ, soliciting campaign research from a foreign national.

Of these only the last is clearly an impeachable offense. Was I waiting on him to breach Constitutional protocols? It was inevitable. He is a narcissist and believes he is above the law. Even his attorneys argued it. He believes that wholeheartedly that he thought he could release a transcript of the memo of a call and tell people like you, that is not a QPQ, and he knows you will believe it.

Try using facts and not your emotional hyperpartisan crapola.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 05:36 PM

will the madness ever end????
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/24/19 11:00 PM

No.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/25/19 03:12 AM

I can still hear the echo
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 06:37 AM

If people here are wondering where all the conservative that were on the Rant have gone I do not know where they went. But I do know why they left. When a person posts that everyone who attends a Trump rally is a member of the KKK and that they are bused in to attend them is so ludicrous that it boggles my imagination. If I or any other conservative post an article from any conservative sources it is dismissed solely because it is from a conservative source. Yet if the same article is posted from a liberal source it accepted without question.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If I or any other conservative post an article from any conservative sources it is dismissed solely because it is from a conservative source. Yet if the same article is posted from a liberal source it accepted without question.

That may be what you perceive, but what I see is that most of what you call ‘rejected due to source’ is actually rebutted due to false content.

On the subject of bad sources, those can be identified generally by a lack of independently corroborating source material that shows the substance to be non-temious. As it happens, over time some purveyors news and facts establish a reputation for only pitching fake news and alternative facts. Because of that demonstrated lack of trustworthiness they will be quickly rejected as sources if there is no validating corroboration.

Of course, we are all free to express opinions, even opinions unsupported by solid factual information. But those can be rebutted by opinions, too. A good argument, on the other hand, needs more than that.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 04:17 PM

I agree with LogT's following comment.

Here is a current example. John Solomon who writes for The Hill. He has been writing right wing conspiracy theories for a while. In fact he recently was involved in writing articles based on information provided by Parnas, the Giuliani associate recently indicted for FEC violations. He of course claims his articles are well sourced, however, his sources are Russian backed Ukrainians and oligarchs. Should anyone believe what he has written? I would be highly suspicious. O BTW, The Hill has moved him from reporting to opinion.

Now as to the accusation that to you it appears everyone says all the Trump supporters at rallys are KKK members etc, I would say your perception is formed from the pervasive problem of conservative paranoia. Clearly you have not lived in the South. But in the South I can guarantee should anyone do a real poll of the correlation between Trump supporters and bigotry I suspect it would be very high. In fact in a poll of Tea people, it was found there was about a 70% probability any Tea person was a bigot. I suspect the number is about the same in the South. I understand why Republican elites deny the character of the base, and it is precisely why Mr Trump is their voice and of course why elected officials fear it. They can't tell the truth and expect to be re-elected.

So the appropriate way to say what you will always deny is, in general at any Trump rally, there is a high probability a large chunk of the people who attend are bigots.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 04:19 PM

Quote:
If people here are wondering where all the conservative that were on the Rant have gone I do not know where they went. But I do know why they left.

My recollection is they left because they could no longer defend the actions of the Bush administration regarding the invasion of Iraq. Remember all those WMD's?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
If people here are wondering where all the conservative that were on the Rant have gone I do not know where they went. But I do know why they left.

My recollection is they left because they could no longer defend the actions of the Bush administration regarding the invasion of Iraq. Remember all those WMD's?

Especially given that when the PNAC Doctrine was exposed, Bush/Cheney's pre-meditated foray into the middle east could not be waved-off as a mere "mistake" any longer. Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 05:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When a person posts that everyone who attends a Trump rally is a member of the KKK and that they are bused in to attend them is so ludicrous that it boggles my imagination. If I or any other conservative post an article from any conservative sources it is dismissed solely because it is from a conservative source.he same article is posted from a liberal source it accepted without question.

Please cite that post, Senator. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 05:17 PM




I will say that Conservatives are prisoners of their own self-deception, a group untethered from the world of facts as evident by the many examples on this thread. Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 06:33 PM

And y'know...to hear the Senator tell the tale there is no racism in Minneapolis because the police would know about it if there was.

2 Minneapolis officers fired over racist holiday tree decor

link
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
And y'know...to hear the Senator tell the tale there is no racism in Minneapolis because the police would know about it if there was.

2 Minneapolis officers fired over racist holiday tree decor

link

Least we forget the most infamous Minneapolis police racism shooting of Philando Castile. Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 07:00 PM

So it stands to reason that there were NO racists at the Trump rally.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
So it stands to reason that there were NO racists at the Trump rally.

That's conservative logic for you. coffee
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 08:10 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When a person posts that everyone who attends a Trump rally is a member of the KKK and that they are bused in to attend them is so ludicrous that it boggles my imagination. If I or any other conservative post an article from any conservative sources it is dismissed solely because it is from a conservative source.he same article is posted from a liberal source it accepted without question.

Please cite that post, Senator. smile
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Um...we have - that is why we have labeled Trump rallies as "Klan rallies."

Simply because Trump has a Klan rally in a blue district doesn't mean that the attendees are District folks. It is known that Trump rally are filled with people who are bused-in.
It you who said it pdx rick. The people that attended the Trump rally in Minneapolis were not bused in. The idea that the people who attended it were bused in is BS!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If I or any other conservative post an article from any conservative sources it is dismissed solely because it is from a conservative source. Yet if the same article is posted from a liberal source it accepted without question.

That may be what you perceive, but what I see is that most of what you call ‘rejected due to source’ is actually rebutted due to false content.

On the subject of bad sources, those can be identified generally by a lack of independently corroborating source material that shows the substance to be non-temious. As it happens, over time some purveyors news and facts establish a reputation for only pitching fake news and alternative facts. Because of that demonstrated lack of trustworthiness they will be quickly rejected as sources if there is no validating corroboration.

Of course, we are all free to express opinions, even opinions unsupported by solid factual information. But those can be rebutted by opinions, too. A good argument, on the other hand, needs more than that.
It is not my perception that the problem here logtroll. What you claim is rejected due to false content is because it is as William F. Buckley said about liberals.
Originally Posted By: William F. Buckley
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
The responses to my comments prove what Buckley said. All of them we critical of me and in defense of a fellow liberal. It is not false content that is rejected it is anything that a conservative says that is rejected.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 09:28 PM

Whatever you say, Senator. You're right, I'm wrong. Buckley correctly identified you as a Liberal.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
If people here are wondering where all the conservative that were on the Rant have gone I do not know where they went. But I do know why they left.

My recollection is they left because they could no longer defend the actions of the Bush administration regarding the invasion of Iraq. Remember all those WMD's?
Yes, I do. Do you remember these comments about Iraq's WMD?
Democrats on Iraq's WMD.
Quotes and facts on Iraq
Originally Posted By: State Sen. Barack Obama
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

Originally Posted By: Sen. Clinton
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Thanks for showing how hyper-partisan you are rporter314. Bush's invasion of Iraq had bi-partisan support but you forgot that. I wonder why?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 09:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When a person posts that everyone who attends a Trump rally is a member of the KKK and that they are bused in to attend them is so ludicrous that it boggles my imagination. If I or any other conservative post an article from any conservative sources it is dismissed solely because it is from a conservative source.he same article is posted from a liberal source it accepted without question.

Please cite that post, Senator. smile
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Um...we have - that is why we have labeled Trump rallies as "Klan rallies."

Simply because Trump has a Klan rally in a blue district doesn't mean that the attendees are District folks. It is known that Trump rally are filled with people who are bused-in.
It you who said it pdx rick. The people that attended the Trump rally in Minneapolis were not bused in. The idea that the people who attended it were bused in is BS!

Did I write that ALL people attending Trump's Minneapolis Klan rally were bused in? It is true that at other rallys has some attendees bused in? Yes, yes, and yes. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 09:59 PM



Trump isn't above paying people to go to his rallies. In fact, when Trump announced in June 2015 his run for President at Trump Tower, NYC - yup, Trump hired actors from Extra Mile Casting in NYC to stand at the bottom of the escalator.

smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 10:02 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Trump isn't above paying people to go to his rallies. In fact, when Trump announced in June 2015 his run for President at Trump Tower, NYC - yup, Trump hired actors from Extra Mile Casting in NYC to stand at the bottom of the escalator.

smile


Not only that but something like 28 cities report that the Trump administration still owes them anywhere from hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS of dollars for these rallies, which Trump has so far REFUSED to PAY FOR.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 10:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Bush's invasion of Iraq had bi-partisan support but you forgot that. I wonder why?

If you consider Bush/Cheney's not-so-subtle bullying tactic "Either you're with us, or you're against us" as bi-partisan support, then so be it. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 10:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Trump isn't above paying people to go to his rallies. In fact, when Trump announced in June 2015 his run for President at Trump Tower, NYC - yup, Trump hired actors from Extra Mile Casting in NYC to stand at the bottom of the escalator.

smile

Not only that but something like 28 cities report that the Trump administration still owes them anywhere from hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS of dollars for these rallies, which Trump has so far REFUSED to PAY FOR.

Yup, for campaign security. Trump is a known welsher, he doesn't pay his bills. Best to get the money upfront, or provide no security for Trump. Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 10:25 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Did I write that ALL people attending Trump's Minneapolis Klan rally were bused in? It is true that at other rallys has some attendees bused in?
Thanks again for showing how bigoted you are by claiming that the Trump rallies are Klan rallies because you don't like him. Your insult to the great and very liberal state of Minnesota is deeply offensive. Your claim that there are 20,000 Minnesotans who would be in any way associated with the Klan shows not only your bigotry but it is also an example of your ignorance about the state of Minnesota. It is an insult to the patriot and former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. He was a leader of the fight for civil rights when he was a Senator from MN in 1948 and during his entire career.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Bush's invasion of Iraq had bi-partisan support but you forgot that. I wonder why?

If you consider Bush/Cheney's not-so-subtle bullying tactic "Either you're with us, or you're against us" as bi-partisan support, then so be it. smile

Sen. Clinton
Originally Posted By: Sen. Clinton
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

Go to the link I posted and you can hear Sen. Clinton saying the above quote.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Trump isn't above paying people to go to his rallies. In fact, when Trump announced in June 2015 his run for President at Trump Tower, NYC - yup, Trump hired actors from Extra Mile Casting in NYC to stand at the bottom of the escalator.

smile


Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Not only that but something like 28 cities report that the Trump administration still owes them anywhere from hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS of dollars for these rallies, which Trump has so far REFUSED to PAY FOR.

At the rally in Minneapolis were there 20,000 people in the Target Center for the Trump rally and about 10,000 people who couldn't get in. There is a reason why the Trump campaign is not paying for the rallies. That reason is that in Minneapolis the city tried to charge the Trump organization $500,000 for a rally while it charged the Obama organization $20,000 for a rally in the same location. Of course the Trump organization refused to pay that much. Free Beacon This link will be ignored or not believed because it is from a conservative source.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/26/19 11:31 PM

How many lies in one article does it take to determine a source's reliability?

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/poli...8c-4c6ee342e55c

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/10/fact-check-president-trumps-minneapolis-rally-speech

https://www.fox9.com/news/some-president-trump-claims-were-inaccurate-inflated-at-minneapolis-rally
Quote:
Most of the arena’s 19,356 were full at the start of Trump’s speech, and some supporters stood on the arena floor. But the crowd – especially in the upper bowl – dwindled as he spoke.

It’s unclear what record the president was referring to. Target Center’s website says its record attendance at an event was 20,200 for a U2 concert in 2005. And the Minnesota Timberwolves’ attendance record is 20,412, set at a game against the Golden State Warriors in 2017, said Dan Bell, a team spokesman.

The president’s claim of 25,000 people standing outside was inflated. FOX 9 crews stationed outside the arena saw a few hundred people watching the speech in an overflow area.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 03:11 AM

Senator ... your Sen Clinton citation is an apples and oranges comparison. Neo-conservatives/tea people used the slogan "you're with us, or you're against us" to pit one group of Americans against another. Sen Clinton used it to compare nations against the principles America stands for.

If you don't see the difference ... well ... that would be one of the reasons etc etc
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 03:14 AM

Yeah but that's not a real lie. In fact all the criticisms were liberal lies. Mr Trump told the truth.

You can not win trying to convince a Trump supporter of anything critical of Mr Trump .... and there is so much to work with
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:46 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
How many lies in one article does it take to determine a source's reliability?

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/poli...8c-4c6ee342e55c

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/10/fact-check-president-trumps-minneapolis-rally-speech

https://www.fox9.com/news/some-president-trump-claims-were-inaccurate-inflated-at-minneapolis-rally
Quote:
Most of the arena’s 19,356 were full at the start of Trump’s speech, and some supporters stood on the arena floor. But the crowd – especially in the upper bowl – dwindled as he spoke.

It’s unclear what record the president was referring to. Target Center’s website says its record attendance at an event was 20,200 for a U2 concert in 2005. And the Minnesota Timberwolves’ attendance record is 20,412, set at a game against the Golden State Warriors in 2017, said Dan Bell, a team spokesman.

The president’s claim of 25,000 people standing outside was inflated. FOX 9 crews stationed outside the arena saw a few hundred people watching the speech in an overflow area.
It would be nice logtroll if you responded to what I said. What I said was that there were over 20,000 people in the Target Center for the Trump rally and about 10,000 who couldn't get in.
Originally Posted By: KARE-11
The president claimed 20,000-plus, calling it a new record. It's possible, but hasn't been confirmed.

Originally Posted By: NPR
That makes a precise count difficult.

Originally Posted By: FOX K<SP 9
It’s fair to say that the crowd inside Target Center was around 20,000.

These three quotes from the articles you posted links to agree with what I said. The article I posted a link to was about what the charges for the rally and who was going to pay them, not about the attendance at the rally. So the articles you posted links to back up what I said and did not refute the article I posted a link to.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:53 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Senator ... your Sen Clinton citation is an apples and oranges comparison. Neo-conservatives/tea people used the slogan "you're with us, or you're against us" to pit one group of Americans against another. Sen Clinton used it to compare nations against the principles America stands for.

If you don't see the difference ... well ... that would be one of the reasons etc etc
In regards to the invasion of Iraq the slogan "you're with us, or you're against us" was used to support it. So your feeble attempt at spinning it to attack "Neo-conservatives/tea people" is more of your hyper-partisan BS.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Sen. Clinton
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

Go to the link I posted and you can hear Sen. Clinton saying the above quote.

Huh...interesting. Hillz said it on 09/13/01 and W said it on 09/20/01 for the first time.

So W copied Hillz? Hmm

Thanks Senator. smile

...but this does not negate that fact that Cheney used the phrase to get Iraq war votes in the Congress. mad
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 06:27 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[quote=Sen. Clinton]"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

Go to the link I posted and you can hear Sen. Clinton saying the above quote.

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Huh...interesting. Hillz said it on 09/13/01 and W said it on 09/20/01 for the first time.

So W copied Hillz? Hmm

Thanks Senator. smile

...but this does not negate that fact that Cheney used the phrase to get Iraq war votes in the Congress. mad
V.P. Cheney didn't have to work very hard to get votes for the Iraq war.
Quote:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 10:15 AM

Hatrack, are you intending to make a point? I could use some clarification on what it might be.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 10:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

These three quotes from the articles you posted links to agree with what I said. The article I posted a link to was about what the charges for the rally and who was going to pay them, not about the attendance at the rally. So the articles you posted links to back up what I said and did not refute the article I posted a link to.


Quote:
FOX 9 crews stationed outside the arena saw a few hundred people watching the speech in an overflow area.

The venue wasn’t full and only a few hundred were outside. Your source cited “facts” that weren’t true. Now, I suppose you could say that my “hyperpartisan bias” led me to check other sources to see that your source was unreliable, or you could say that their use of “alternative facts” makes your source unreliable. But you can’t say that I rejected your source simply on the basis of it being “conservative”.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 04:46 PM

The only thing feeble is your lack of comprehension. The slogan had been long used by conservatives to separate people of different political persuasions. Either you agree with our conservative policy which they believe to be the real American policy or you are against it and are anti-American. That you did not comprehend that is just another example of selective conservative misrepresentation.

The only partisan in this conversation is you.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 04:50 PM

The only point I see is the Senator has cherry picked citations which support his preconceived narrative, by taking quotes out of the broader context in which they would make sense.

This is a typical conservative tactic and then to finish it they accuse the other party of cherry picking out of context. If you listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Steyn, etc that is typical.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

These three quotes from the articles you posted links to agree with what I said. The article I posted a link to was about what the charges for the rally and who was going to pay them, not about the attendance at the rally. So the articles you posted links to back up what I said and did not refute the article I posted a link to.


Quote:
FOX 9 crews stationed outside the arena saw a few hundred people watching the speech in an overflow area.

The venue wasn’t full and only a few hundred were outside. Your source cited “facts” that weren’t true. Now, I suppose you could say that my “hyperpartisan bias” led me to check other sources to see that your source was unreliable, or you could say that their use of “alternative facts” makes your source unreliable. But you can’t say that I rejected your source simply on the basis of it being “conservative”.
The article I posted a link was not and did not talk about the number of people in attendance at the rally.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The only thing feeble is your lack of comprehension. The slogan had been long used by conservatives to separate people of different political persuasions. Either you agree with our conservative policy which they believe to be the real American policy or you are against it and are anti-American. That you did not comprehend that is just another example of selective conservative misrepresentation.

The only partisan in this conversation is you.
The slogan "You're either with us, or you're against us." has been used for a very long time by groups of every ideological persuasion. In regards to the invasion of Iraq it was by both Republicans (Pres. Bush) and Democrats (Sen. Clinton) to support the invasion.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
At the rally in Minneapolis were there 20,000 people in the Target Center for the Trump rally and about 10,000 people who couldn't get in. There is a reason why the Trump campaign is not paying for the rallies. That reason is that in Minneapolis the city tried to charge the Trump organization $500,000 for a rally while it charged the Obama organization $20,000 for a rally in the same location. Of course the Trump organization refused to pay that much. Free Beacon This link will be ignored or not believed because it is from a conservative source.

Golly, my bad!

Where did you get that bogus info, then? And why did you say it in a paragraph that linked to Free Beacon?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The only point I see is the Senator has cherry picked citations which support his preconceived narrative, by taking quotes out of the broader context in which they would make sense.
This is a typical conservative tactic and then to finish it they accuse the other party of cherry picking out of context. If you listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Steyn, etc that is typical.

There was bi-partisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Not everyone was a strong supporter of the invasion but it did have bi-partisan support. Since rporter314 is accusing me of cherry picking quotes, which he says a typical conservative tactic, he must be a conservative.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 05:48 PM

Grudging bi-partisan support based on WMD lies by BushCo.

Why, oh why, did BushCo lie?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 06:36 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
At the rally in Minneapolis were there 20,000 people in the Target Center for the Trump rally and about 10,000 people who couldn't get in. There is a reason why the Trump campaign is not paying for the rallies. That reason is that in Minneapolis the city tried to charge the Trump organization $500,000 for a rally while it charged the Obama organization $20,000 for a rally in the same location. Of course the Trump organization refused to pay that much. Free Beacon This link will be ignored or not believed because it is from a conservative source.

Golly, my bad!

Where did you get that bogus info, then? And why did you say it in a paragraph that linked to Free Beacon?
The information I got about the number of people in attendance at the Trump rally was from friends of mine who went to it. What they said was close to the various estimates that 20,000 people were at the rally. If you had read all of my comment you would not have asked that question.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Grudging bi-partisan support based on WMD lies by BushCo.

Why, oh why, did BushCo lie?
When did Pres. Clinton join BushCo.? President Clinton's 1988 State of the Union speech
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 06:52 PM

I assume you meant 1998.

Clinton went on to say that the key was inspections by UNSCOM weapons inspectors, which Saddam was resisting at that time. In 2003 (five years later), the inspectors had pretty much unfettered access and were finding no WMD. BushCo made up the 2003 WMD threat. Don't you remember?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/27/19 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I assume you meant 1998.

Clinton went on to say that the key was inspections by UNSCOM weapons inspectors, which Saddam was resisting at that time. In 2003 (five years later), the inspectors had pretty much unfettered access and were finding no WMD. BushCo made up the 2003 WMD threat. Don't you remember?
Yes, I did mean 1998.
Originally Posted By: Sen. John F. Kerry
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
If BushCo made up the threat he had bi-partisan support for it.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 12:34 AM

Horseshit... it was a con job.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 12:37 AM

Little vials of powder...
Aluminum tubes...
Yellow cake...
Secret stockpiles ...
Mushroom clouds...
Gotta invade before summer hits...

Remember all those lame sales pitches?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 02:31 AM

Why would you intentionally miss the point once again. Of course there is a usage which is directed against terrorists, however, that is not the context here. I specifically framed the context in regard to Mr Trump. Here is an example of the polarization and divisiveness of the slogan.

Originally Posted By: Sarah Palin
You're either with us or you're against us. That gang, they call themselves Never hashtag, whatever, I just call 'em Republicans Against Trump, or RAT for short...

If you don't see that as explicitly divisive, well ...
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 02:42 AM

Why would you again disregard the broader context of your citations. Now this is a case where context is important and you neglected to provide it because you know if you did it would change the meaning of your selective citations.

Yes there was bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence which was for the most part fabricated by the Bush administration at the behest of VP Cheney. As no one saw the real intelligence or the real analysis, they could only decide based on what the Bush administration provided.

I spent many of hour typing my analysis of the evidence and concluded there was not sufficient evidence to unequivocally determine if Iraq had WMD's. In fact my analysis in all but one key item in the Senate Select Committee Report was spot on. That key item was at the time not publicly known so I could not make a determination.

So in a better context we have some Democrats voting for invasion based on faulty information. Why didn't you provide that context!!!!!?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 03:11 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Why would you intentionally miss the point once again. Of course there is a usage which is directed against terrorists, however, that is not the context here. I specifically framed the context in regard to Mr Trump. Here is an example of the polarization and divisiveness of the slogan.

Originally Posted By: Sarah Palin
You're either with us or you're against us. That gang, they call themselves Never hashtag, whatever, I just call 'em Republicans Against Trump, or RAT for short...

If you don't see that as explicitly divisive, well ...
The context in which the slogan was used by former Senator Clinton was to unite people against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a brutal dictator who had a record of using WMD's. When former Gov. Palin used it was before Trump was the GOP's Presidential nominee. As a former VP candidate Palin was telling Republicans that if the GOP wants to win in 2016 that they should unite behind whoever was the nominee, which at that time it was expected to be Trump. Palin use of the slogan was not divisive it was a call for unity. As one can see by reading the entire article. (Now I know why you don't post links to the quotes that you use. You don't because you are taking them out of context.)
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 03:16 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Why would you again disregard the broader context of your citations. Now this is a case where context is important and you neglected to provide it because you know if you did it would change the meaning of your selective citations.

Yes there was bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence which was for the most part fabricated by the Bush administration at the behest of VP Cheney. As no one saw the real intelligence or the real analysis, they could only decide based on what the Bush administration provided.

I spent many of hour typing my analysis of the evidence and concluded there was not sufficient evidence to unequivocally determine if Iraq had WMD's. In fact my analysis in all but one key item in the Senate Select Committee Report was spot on. That key item was at the time not publicly known so I could not make a determination.

So in a better context we have some Democrats voting for invasion based on faulty information. Why didn't you provide that context!!!!!?
Even if the intelligence was faulty the fact that Saddam Hussein was threat to the region, the US, and the world was thoroughly demonstrated by his invasion of Kuwait and his record of using WMD's.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 03:28 AM

Historically, many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were not in favor of invasion, but felt support for the President was necessary to get Saddam to back down (and said so at the time). So, the premise is faulty.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 04:13 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Historically, many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were not in favor of invasion, but felt support for the President was necessary to get Saddam to back down (and said so at the time). So, the premise is faulty.
If they were weren't in favor of the invasion they should have voted against it. By voting for the invasion they put themselves on record as supporters of the invasion. If they were bluffing they lost.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 05:12 AM



F/A/O Senator Hatrack - a Minnesotan speaks. smile
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The information I got about the number of people in attendance at the Trump rally was from friends of mine who went to it. What they said was close to the various estimates that 20,000 people were at the rally. If you had read all of my comment you would not have asked that question.

Now you left out the part about 10,000 people standing outside.

Say, maybe you are the untrustworthy source!

In your faint defense, when I googled the Minneapolis rally there were many right-wing sites crowing about a record-breaking crowd and some said 25,000 people standing outside. Where do they get their bogus info? Doh! I almost forgot, those were the "facts" that Trump was spewing!

(BTW, I am suspicious that your friends who were at the rally and provided the crowd estimates you used are fictitious...)
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 01:23 PM



This is what a 20,000+ crowd really looks like. This piccy can be used to for future measurement purposes. smile

Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
There is a reason why the Trump campaign is not paying for the rallies. That reason is that in Minneapolis the city tried to charge the Trump organization $500,000 for a rally while it charged the Obama organization $20,000 for a rally in the same location. Of course the Trump organization refused to pay that much. Free Beacon

As to this assertion, my fact-checking did indeed support the fact that Trump is being billed much more than Obama was in the past. What I couldn't find were any details about what the Obama invoice was based on (10 years ago when he wasn't President, just one of many candidates). I did learn that El Paso and Albuquerque are invoicing Trump for amounts that are in the ballpark with the Minneapolis sum, and they are saying that they didn't include all of the costs. He isn't paying them, either.

As a general thing in business, if a person wants to contest an invoice because thay think someone else paid less for the same good or service, they need to provide some compelling evidence. It could be a simple matter of market fluctuations - or apples and oranges.

In any case, Trump appears to be using a lame excuse for being a deadbeat.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 01:26 PM



Trump is a welsher, he never pays invoices. He stiffed all of the people who built his "Taj Mahal" casino in Atlantic City. Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 10/28/19 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Historically, many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were not in favor of invasion, but felt support for the President was necessary to get Saddam to back down (and said so at the time). So, the premise is faulty.
If they were weren't in favor of the invasion they should have voted against it. By voting for the invasion they put themselves on record as supporters of the invasion. If they were bluffing they lost.
This is what is called "historical revisionism", friend. It is ascribing positions today that are different to what occurred at the time. Most people, in Congress and in the public, believed Saddam Hussein would back down. The fact that he actually did was ignored by the Bush administration and did not become public until after the invasion occurred. Perhaps you remember that?

When, by the way, was there a vote for invasion? [Hint: there wasn't. H. J. 114 l] There was an authorization for the use of force if necessary. The decision to invade was Bush's alone. To assert otherwise is revisionism. It is the kind of hyperpartisan factual manipulation that gives partisanship a bad name.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/21/19 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
To be honest, I actually admired Hatrack's assertion that conservatives CONSERVE things. Too bad HE didn't actually do much of that, but at least he recognized the concept.

Conservativism is cautious thinking, preservation of useful traditions, pragmatic application of tried and true tested ideas and values, honoring the pocketbook of the taxpayers, devotion to old fashioned customs, limited or simplified government.

By the way, things like honoring the military, patriotic love of country, devotion to God and family, none of those things are the exclusive province of conservatives, no matter how much they insist they are, no matter how often they label others outside the conservative circle as godless America haters intent on destroying traditional family models.

And there is no reason to be surprised to learn that one can encounter liberals who share certain conservative values either.

But the most important thing to bear in mind is the fact that conservatives and liberals need each other, because without the loyal opposition keeping the other side honest, the other side always gets weird.

And that's what's been happening this last decade or so.


Conservativism means Stop. It means NO. Put that technology down and get back in the closet, you horrible object. It means the good old days were when you caught polio at the neighborhood pool, because if that was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for us.

More recently, it has picked up the destructive conditioning meme of "the rugged individualist," which is the exact opposite of how humans work.

It's an ideology suited to the post-world war II era, and that's long gone.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/21/19 10:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl


More recently, it has picked up the destructive conditioning meme of "the rugged individualist," which is the exact opposite of how humans work.

It's an ideology suited to the post-world war II era, and that's long gone.


I daresay it didn't serve us all that well in the postwar era either.
The New Deal is what served us well! laugh

PS: Welcome to the madness. We are extremely glad you are here.
PPS: I can help you with the Mayhem avatar if you want, but of course your current choice is awesome too.

Just lemme know. wink
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 03:31 AM

An actual rugged individualist...

Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 03:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl


More recently, it has picked up the destructive conditioning meme of "the rugged individualist," which is the exact opposite of how humans work.

It's an ideology suited to the post-world war II era, and that's long gone.


I daresay it didn't serve us all that well in the postwar era either.
The New Deal is what served us well! laugh

PS: Welcome to the madness. We are extremely glad you are here.
PPS: I can help you with the Mayhem avatar if you want, but of course your current choice is awesome too.

Just lemme know. wink


If you hit refresh, I've already managed that.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 04:02 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
An actual rugged individualist...



I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do realize that HAVING rugged individualists around is awesome, and sometimes a lot of fun.

But what we're hearing from the Ayn Rand/doomer/prepper faction is that we must ALL become rugged individualists, every last one of us, otherwise we are statist commies and we hate Murrikuh.

I wouldn't dream of ridding ourselves of our rugged individualists, but I personally don't think the bulk of our society can do it.

That's the reason why real R.I. types are so rare.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 04:12 AM

Well, if we were all real rugged individualists there wouldn’t be an overpopulation problem. Capitalism wouldn’t plague us, either. But we would all have to be Finns...
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 10:59 AM

In case you wondered what happened to Dick...



I admit I am disappointed that such a rugged individualist has some friends that he counts on from time to time. A true RI would eschew friends, on principle.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
In case you wondered what happened to Dick...



I admit I am disappointed that such a rugged individualist has some friends that he counts on from time to time. A true RI would eschew friends, on principle.


Unless you're at a Palin rally.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? - 11/22/19 04:19 PM

Palin?