[worry]

The only thing I'm worried about re: his position is the difference of opinions between people in general (plenty of young people) and likely voters (which skews older). If young people don't vote, then being on the "right side of history" at this moment doesn't necessarily make practical sense. On the other hand, Romney is the worst dude and people seem to get that fact more and more...he can lie all he wants now, but when he has to meet Obama face to face that's gonna change. Plus, if stuff like what I linked above keeps happening, even Romney's public appearance lies are being checked.

[Terez]

I think it will help to bring out some of the Dems who were planning on staying home. I'm not sure it will affect the Republicans much. Swing voters don't exist; it's all in your head.

[Kanese S's]

I don't normally go on this subforum... but Romney just has this sort of... slimy quality to him. Gives me the creeps and makes me feel I need a shower after watching him speak.

[worry]

I don't know how he could appeal to anyone, but then again: http://tpmdc.talking...overty-poor.php

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Terez, on 11 May 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

I think it will help to bring out some of the Dems who were planning on staying home. I'm not sure it will affect the Republicans much. Swing voters don't exist; it's all in your head.

I'm a swing voter. It's strange, primarily because it makes me feel like everyone's taking crazy pills.

[worry]

Come, come to the Light Side, young padawan.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Man, all obama's gotta do is watch rachel maddow for a few weeks and he'll have all the ammo he needs. Left slanted as the show is, she is amazingly adept at finding all the republican party BS, supporting her findings with facts & references then throwing it back in their face night after night. Especially where she's an out lesbian, all the republican anti-gay anti-choice positions seem to be getting her particularly riled up and downright viscious on occasion.

I hope the younger demographic does join in the election this time around. There are some very hot ideological issues at stake here this time, and those seem to be the things that get younger folks more riled up moreso than the economy and other more mundane matters. With the reps so squarely against gay rights and abortion rights, and the dems so squarely pro those same issues, it might just get them off their pot smoking hippie asses for once (joking).

And agree RE comments of romney's sliminiess...he's like the taint on saidin. You listen to him talk and come away feeling like you were dipped in oil.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 14 May 2012 - 06:26 PM

[worry]

She is apparently the only cable news personality on ANY network who knows how to construct a proper essay.

Also, it's worth noting, the Republicans aren't just against abortion, nor are they just against homosexuality. They are against any and all sexual activity outside the confines of marriage. The focus on women and homosexuals is traditional because they are more vulnerable, easier targets, but you better believe they're stealthily attacking just about everyone (including heterosexual males) who doesn't fit the mold. The backwards take on sex ed, including the effort to demonize condom use in favor of abstinence, and frankly even the widespread attack on female birth control, they're all just as much about straight pre-marital sex as much as anything else. This most recent North Carolina anti-gay marriage amendment certainly damaged the rights of non-married straight couples as well. http://www.motherjon...lina-gay-people And it's not an accident.

[Terez]

worrywort, on 14 May 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

She is apparently the only cable news personality on ANY network who knows how to construct a proper essay.

Also, it's worth noting, the Republicans aren't just against abortion, nor are they just against homosexuality. They are against any and all sexual activity outside the confines of marriage.

I would qualify this to say the Religious Right instead of Republicans. I know a ton of Republicans who are either not particularly religious or somewhat tolerantly religious. They like to call themselves fiscal conservatives or what have you to disassociate themselves from the Religious Right. Admittedly, some of them still wander into the twilight zone of "non-religious" right-wing (or libertarian) talking points, such as the semantics debate over marriage/civil unions (i.e. "get the government out of our marriages"), but many of them don't even do that much.

On that note, I've realized there are not as many conservatives posting at this forum as there used to be. Not that there were ever very many, and I suppose that's the problem, eh? This DB has become very one-sided, despite an uptick in members from the US. It's not that I pay a ton of attention, but it seems like Shin is the most conservative active DB poster, and even he is a rare one?

Were have all the Tories gone?

[worry]

Let me make this clear (and I'm speaking for myself, of course, but hopefully some folks agree): while I recognize the existence of moderate conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives (of the non-neo variety), the non-religious right, etc., and I hope they purge the Tea Party from their midst eventually, I don't necessarily care if they get lumped in with the religious right, if they go ahead and vote alongside them anyway. If you're willing to sell out women, gays, minorities, the poor of all stripes, young people, secularists, moderates, and indeed even the middle class you might very well belong to...just so the top marginal income tax rate doesn't return to where it was under the Clinton years...then the distinction is moot anyway. So in that sense, I'm not simply talking about people who are registered Republicans. If you're a genuine moderate libertarian or conservative who has no agenda against gays getting married, or women making equal work for equal pay, or access to abortion and contraceptives...and yet fiscal "responsibility" (which is just a euphemism for low taxes) is the sticking point for you, then I don't see how that's distinct from any other kind of villainy.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 14 May 2012 - 10:11 PM

[Terez]

worrywort, on 14 May 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Let me make this clear (and I'm speaking for myself, of course, but hopefully some folks agree): while I recognize the existence of moderate conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives (of the non-neo variety), the non-religious right, etc., and I hope they purge the Tea Party from their midst eventually, I don't necessarily care if they get lumped in with the religious right, if they go ahead and vote alongside them anyway. If you're willing to sell out women, gays, minorities, the poor of all stripes, young people, secularists, moderates, and indeed even the middle class you might very well belong to...just so the top marginal income tax rate doesn't return to where it was under the Clinton years...then the distinction is moot anyway.

Well, to be fair, the way they see it is that we're selling out individual liberty and all sorts of other noble causes for gay marriage and abortion rights. They way they see it, the economy is more important than overcoming sex taboos, since they see both as being civil rights issues. And I'm really generalizing here, but I think it's worth drawing a few lines other than the usual down-the-center one, especially on issues like this. The Religious Right is a dominating force in the GOP, and while it seems to be getting worse in many ways, that's only because the Religious Right can see their control dwindling, and they're getting desperate. They still have a majority vote in the Republican Party, and thus power, and they're doing their best to suck it dry while they still have the straw, all the while maintaining the delusion that they will either emerge victorious, or be rescued by Jesus just before God rains down fire on the heathens.

[worry]

To be fair or to be nice? That's certainly a generous take on that perspective, but I wouldn't call it particularly accurate. It's not "fair" to give undeserving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they put on the boy who cried wolf act every election. Individual Liberty is just dog whistle code for quasi-segregation, "right to work" style anti-labor, anti-union business law, and Christian dominance in the public sector (prayer in schools, Under God in the pledge of allegiance, the Ten Commandments at the court house) . You can pick up on this any time some warrior for personal liberty say "I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, just don't wave it in my face." It's the Trojan horse language for people who think voting on civil rights is an appropriate course of action, like non-Tea Party "traditional" fiscal conservative Chris Christie would have his state do.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 14 May 2012 - 10:54 PM

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

I guess the reason I have a hard time seeing the fiscal conservatives on the Republican side (or any side for that matter), is that I don't see the Republicans actually governing as I would picture a fiscal conservative doing. Fiscal conservative to me does not mean lowering taxes on upper quintiles and cutting social services while spending huge amounts on the military, special interests and pork. It should be raising taxes and trimming some programs in order to run a balanced budget. A bit off topic, but in my opinion the way a government should be run is similar to a household. When times are good, you save money for a rainy day. When times are tough, you spend your savings and borrow if needed. Obviously households are a bit different, in that few can ever manage to buy a house in the first place without going into debt, but I think most can see what I mean.

Now, few governments in the western world are in a position where they can start from zero and save some cash, but even when times were good there were few that I saw paying down debts. I think the last fiscally conservative government I witnessed was Chretien's Liberals (their measures served to reduce Canada's debt by roughly 20%), who were centre left in Canada and holy wow would they have been on the far left fringes in the US.

[Nicodimas]

Kinda of off topic, but this is my new party of choice..heres hoping it takes off:

http://federationist.org/

It's clear both sides are owned by the banks.

My favorite:

Quote

Creation of unbacked credit and monetary inflation are both theft by counterfeiting of the nation's money and must be severely punished. A loan against nothing (such as a credit card) but the promise to pay in the future is an effective naked short against the currency of the nation. Such an act is inherently inflationary and debases the money by pretending that there is more money in the system than actually exists. Unbacked loans must be made only from actual capital from investors who loan their accumulated capital and not created from thin air. Likewise, intentional inflation debases the nation's money. These acts are in fact theft from the citizens who have saved value from their personal production in excess of their living requirements and must be treated as felonies. Federationists stand for sound money - not through the chimera and false God of a "Gold Standard" but rather by prosecuting fraudulent acts in the banking and credit system

[Terez]

worrywort, on 14 May 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

To be fair or to be nice? That's certainly a generous take on that perspective, but I wouldn't call it particularly accurate. It's not "fair" to give undeserving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they put on the boy who cried wolf act every election. Individual Liberty is just dog whistle code for quasi-segregation, "right to work" style anti-labor, anti-union business law, and Christian dominance in the public sector (prayer in schools, Under God in the pledge of allegiance, the Ten Commandments at the court house) . You can pick up on this any time some warrior for personal liberty say "I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, just don't wave it in my face." It's the Trojan horse language for people who think voting on civil rights is an appropriate course of action, like non-Tea Party "traditional" fiscal conservative Chris Christie would have his state do.

Yeah, I agree with you. Just trying to make a point about our specific cultural trappings as they relate to politics, and that sometimes it's good to break it down further than red/blue distinctions, particularly since progressive ideals are generally more cohesive than conservative ideals, and more adaptable. It's to our advantage to address each faction on its own terms. Also, I was thinking of Nico earlier when I asked where the Tories had gone, and now he appears. I miss Gem, though I imagine she wouldn't likely appreciate being lumped in with the Tories any more than Nico.

[Shinrei]

I hold my nose when I vote these days.

Neither side represent my views in any meaningful way. Quite a lot of the legislation that I greatly object to in recent years was supported by both sides. Both Reps and Dems are actually for Big Government, their only difference is which parts they want Big.

I know he gets maligned on this board, but the closest to my views is Ron Paul, but I'm more moderate than him.

[Morgoth]

Shinrei, on 15 May 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

I hold my nose when I vote these days.

Neither side represent my views in any meaningful way. Quite a lot of the legislation that I greatly object to in recent years was supported by both sides. Both Reps and Dems are actually for Big Government, their only difference is which parts they want Big.

I know he gets maligned on this board, but the closest to my views is Ron Paul, but I'm more moderate than him.

Ron Paul wants to reinstate the gold standard, and sees no problem funding wars as long as American troops are not used to fight them. The only reason he ever receive some sort of positive recognition is because some of his views are sane. Not to mention he seems genuinly to believe what he preaches, which makes him stand out just like it did Santorum.

[Obdigore]

Morgoth, on 15 May 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 15 May 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

I hold my nose when I vote these days.

Neither side represent my views in any meaningful way. Quite a lot of the legislation that I greatly object to in recent years was supported by both sides. Both Reps and Dems are actually for Big Government, their only difference is which parts they want Big.

I know he gets maligned on this board, but the closest to my views is Ron Paul, but I'm more moderate than him.

Ron Paul wants to reinstate the gold standard, and sees no problem funding wars as long as American troops are not used to fight them. The only reason he ever receive some sort of positive recognition is because some of his views are sane. Not to mention he seems genuinly to believe what he preaches, which makes him stand out just like it did Santorum.

If you go further into Ron Pauls' view, he is just another Southern Conservative who thinks States Rights should trump Federal Legislation. He also wants to do away with pretty much everything that might help someone who isn't rich. Pell Grants? Gone. Welfare? Destroy it. Social Security? Medicare? Civil Rights Bills? Gone. Gone. Gone. He, like the current GOP, thinks that 'if you didn't pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get born into being rich, you obviously didn't try hard enough.'

The only reason I can see that he has such an internet following is because most people don't dig deeper into his views and what he has said over the years, meanwhile he has not been the subject of any real smear attacks from the GOP candidates or the Dems because he was never in a position to have a chance at the WH.

[worry]

What all that says is that moderately libertarianish people don't really have anyone to turn to on the national level. Ron Paul is certainly charming and occasionally plainspoken, but lives in a fantasy world half the time and is generally an extremist; Rand Paul is a living nightmare hellspawn; and then there's who else?

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 15 May 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

If you go further into Ron Pauls' view, he is just another Southern Conservative who thinks States Rights should trump Federal Legislation. He also wants to do away with pretty much everything that might help someone who isn't rich. Pell Grants? Gone. Welfare? Destroy it. Social Security? Medicare? Civil Rights Bills? Gone. Gone. Gone. He, like the current GOP, thinks that 'if you didn't pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get born into being rich, you obviously didn't try hard enough.'

The only reason I can see that he has such an internet following is because most people don't dig deeper into his views and what he has said over the years, meanwhile he has not been the subject of any real smear attacks from the GOP candidates or the Dems because he was never in a position to have a chance at the WH.

I feel that the Federal government has most certainly taken on things that should be the purview of the States. I probably don't take it as far as Paul, but he's the only one who seems to advocate any sort of States rights. Welfare as it exists currently is crap. Social Security = Ponzi scheme. Medicare as it stands is incredibly irresponsible legislation from a fiscal standpoint.

Civil Rights bills I feel just uphold the US to a fair interpretation of the constitution, so I'm not against those. I am against Affirmative Action though. Pell Grants - I don't know how they are funded so I'm not sure where I stand on that. Education is the one area where I'm decidedly "Socialist".

Quote

if you didn't pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get born into being rich, you obviously didn't try hard enough.'

This argument is a strawman created by "progressives" who don't really understand what conservatism is about.