|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 7:40:47 GMT -5
Tim, I know you're a smart guy and you know that the Democratic Party just elected another Socialist.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 9, 2018 7:50:16 GMT -5
Donald Trump got thousands of leftists to take to the streets in New York in support of Jeff Sessions. Tell me he isn't magic. Republicans took an incredible number of state house seats from the Democrat’s in the past decade. Trump gave a third of them back in one night. He’s freaking Houdini.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 9, 2018 7:50:46 GMT -5
Tim, I know you're a smart guy and you know that the Democratic Party just elected another Socialist. Who?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 9, 2018 8:07:11 GMT -5
Donald Trump got thousands of leftists to take to the streets in New York in support of Jeff Sessions. Tell me he isn't magic. Republicans took an incredible number of state house seats from the Democrat’s in the past decade. Trump gave a third of them back in one night. He’s freaking Houdini. Missed your comments from eight years ago blaming those earlier losses on Obama. Or does univariate analysis only go one way?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 8:10:30 GMT -5
Tim, I know you're a smart guy and you know that the Democratic Party just elected another Socialist. Who? Seriously? Google is your friend.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 9, 2018 8:23:01 GMT -5
A damn liberal lecturing me on why I don't become a damn liberal. Oh, the irony. I’m not suggesting you become a liberal, or even a centrist Democrat. I actually was asking a question: Are you a conservative? Do you believe in the consevative values the Republican Party has campaigned on for decades? Then how can you stand behind this administration? 1) I believe I'm a conservative. Whether that meets whatever random definition you're asking about is anybody's guess. I personally couldn't care less. 2) Again, I have no concern for your definition of conservative and I don't see how Republican platforms matter. But I like minimal government and all that goes with it. Trump has so far has been politically counter-intuitive. He's actually making moves to lessen DC's grip on our lives. Willingly. Quite amazing. No wonder the GIN is atwitter with vengeance. 3) This government has ticked off everything I believe in quite nicely. They cut taxes and the economy's doing great (regarding your scripted answer- sure, it's Obama's fault. As Russell would say, pull the other one). And in the limited scope of my personal expertise, the foresight and execution has been astonishing. John's right. I didn't vote for Trump the first time around. But he's made me a true believer.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 9, 2018 9:06:40 GMT -5
Reading the weekly newspaper this morning and there was my state level representative's monthly article about the plans in Richmond. He's a democrat. Embedded in his plans was a short statement about the new spending that would be available due to the increased state income from the improving economic activity. He also mentioned the possibility of taxing Internet activity. Yup, tax and spend yet somehow Democrats don't accept that trickle down economics actually works. Socialism is the ultimate in trickle-down economics. The state gets everything and all the people get is what the government gives them, a trickle. I live in one of the poorest counties in the state so I understand why it swings Democrat in the elections. Still, the poor would be better served by Republicans who would try to improve the business climate here and make some jobs. The largest employers in this county moved to the other shore county, that votes Republican, last year leaving much of nothing down here but abandoned buildings.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 9, 2018 9:13:31 GMT -5
Seriously? Google is your friend. I have a feeling this is a matter of opinion, but I would assume you’re talking about the winning Congressional candidates from the Democratic Socialist party. Both of them. The platform of that party is far too left for me, and like the radicals on the right, I wish they would break off and start their own party, but I wouldn’t deny them a few seats. A robust representative democracy needs its radicals to advocate for radical ideas, and to slow the center’s long slide into complacency and self service. But the practical advocacy of the left is for social programs and oversight, not state-owned means of production, and every developed democracy on earth is a hybrid of private markets and public programs and oversight, including us. Hell, by the dollar, we’d be a hell of a lot more socialist than Sweden based on our military budget alone. We’re all just arguing over degrees. Not knowing what we’re arguing over, and each side repositioning the other as an overwhelming evi, just makes compromise impossible. It makes it impossible to see good ideas gone too far and dial them back to the middle ground, where good policy can be made. And even that’s not all bad. My primary reaction on Wednesday morning was to embrace the coming gridlock. I’ve missed it.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 9:24:00 GMT -5
Seriously? Google is your friend. I have a feeling this is a matter of opinion, but I would assume you’re talking about the winning Congressional candidates from the Democratic Socialist party. Both of them. The platform of that party is far too left for me, and like the radicals on the right, I wish they would break off and start their own party, but I wouldn’t deny them a few seats. A robust representative democracy needs its radicals to advocate for radical ideas, and to slow the center’s long slide into complacency and self service. But the practical advocacy of the left is for social programs and oversight, not state-owned means of production, and every developed democracy on earth is a hybrid of private markets and public programs and oversight, including us. Hell, by the dollar, we’d be a hell of a lot more socialist than Sweden based on our military budget alone. We’re all just arguing over degrees. Not knowing what we’re arguing over, and each side repositioning the other as an overwhelming evi, just makes compromise impossible. It makes it impossible to see good ideas gone too far and dial them back to the middle ground, where good policy can be made. And even that’s not all bad. My primary reaction on Wednesday morning was to embrace the coming gridlock. I’ve missed it. Policy follows philosophy, not the other way around. It is not possible to dial back dependency. Some folks don't care, they assume their good intentions will yield good results. Some folks are just cynical enough to not care as long as it empowers them.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 9, 2018 9:35:50 GMT -5
Have some Soma, John.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 9, 2018 9:41:27 GMT -5
It makes it impossible to see good ideas gone too far and dial them back to the middle ground, where good policy can be made. The second half of Trump's term is shaping up to be all about that. And that's where the magic lies.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 9:48:05 GMT -5
I missed the part where I'm the only one sharing opinions. So, help me out here. Does Tim need Soma too?
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Nov 9, 2018 9:51:06 GMT -5
If the Obama White House had suspended the credentials of a reporter because Obama got his back up about a particular line of questioning (and Obama has famously complained about his treatment by press - make fun of that fact if you feel you need to, but just look at the record) some members of this forum would have gone batshit. It's been a while, so I'm not sure how many "went batshit", but the Obama White House tried to ban an entire network (Fox News). Several other networks threatened a boycott which led to Fox being allowed a seat at the event. Even if you paint it blue or red, bullshit still smells just as bad. www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 9, 2018 9:53:29 GMT -5
All God's chillun need some Soma. (Tim is closer to the GIN line. I was referring to your need to be absorbed into the collective.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 9, 2018 9:55:18 GMT -5
I was referring to your need to be absorbed into the collective. I already have no personality. What's left for me to lose?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 9, 2018 10:01:23 GMT -5
I was referring to your need to be absorbed into the collective. I already have no personality. What's left for me to lose? Give me time. I'm thinking........
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 9, 2018 10:04:06 GMT -5
If the Obama White House had suspended the credentials of a reporter because Obama got his back up about a particular line of questioning (and Obama has famously complained about his treatment by press - make fun of that fact if you feel you need to, but just look at the record) some members of this forum would have gone batshit. It's been a while, so I'm not sure how many "went batshit", but the Obama White House tried to ban an entire network (Fox News). Several other networks threatened a boycott which led to Fox being allowed a seat at the event. Even if you paint it blue or red, bullshit still smells just as bad. www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html I didn’t go batshit over the White House banning FOX from that interview, and I’m not going batshit over Ocasta losing his press pass. I suspect he’ll get it back. I’m trying, and it’s getting hard these days, to see beyond the outrage dujour.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 9, 2018 10:06:08 GMT -5
I assume by that you mean the Republicans. Trump has been preaching for some time about how the midterm elections were all about him, even though he wasn't on the ballot, and he was right. Now you've voted party line for his supporters, even though you say you disagree. That's quite telling. Yes, it's quite telling that you don't understand a word I write. So you voted straight-line Democratic? Thank you, that's good to know. But you do have a habit of writing cryptic asides assuming people will understand.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 9, 2018 10:23:17 GMT -5
If the Obama White House had suspended the credentials of a reporter because Obama got his back up about a particular line of questioning (and Obama has famously complained about his treatment by press - make fun of that fact if you feel you need to, but just look at the record) some members of this forum would have gone batshit. It's been a while, so I'm not sure how many "went batshit", but the Obama White House tried to ban an entire network (Fox News). Several other networks threatened a boycott which led to Fox being allowed a seat at the event. Even if you paint it blue or red, bullshit still smells just as bad. www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.htmlYes. I remember that incident. I'm not sure I went batshit, but I was very upset about the precedent of banning a network. By the way, technically speaking, I misspoke. the correct term here is apeshit, not batshit.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 9, 2018 10:34:54 GMT -5
... By the way, technically speaking, I misspoke. the correct term here is apeshit, not batshit. I'm glad you caught that. It had been bothering me but I had been unable to put my finger on exactly why.
|
|