GOP'ish candidates

[RobbyPants]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Whose policies would you like to see come back?

Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.

Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist.

[Chichester]

It's fabulous that the Republican field is so pathetic, because Obama is going to trip lots of alarms and warning lights before his eight year mission is over. If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?
Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Chichester

If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?

Because they've been hijacked by the religious right.

Originally Posted by Chichester

Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.

I'm wondering why Christie is so popular? What does he have that other GOPish candidates don't? And I think the country is done with the Bushes.

[GRH]

So Tracy, a personal question for you. Do you think the way the religious right has hijacked the Republican party is ultimately a good thing or a liability? It is a reliable voting block...But I wondered what you thought of some of the policy positions of said voting block.

For me, "traditional family values" rubs me wrong. But then I'm one of those liberals who supports a woman's right to control their body. I also support gay marriage and several other things that are untenable to this voting block.

While I disagree with Republicans on countless issues, some of the more moderate and liberal Republicans don't leave such a bad taste in my mouth. The block of Republicans that voted to end DADT is actually a group of Republicans that I might consider voting for under certain circumstances. But among the Tea Party these individuals are considered RINO's. I think it's a shame that moderate Republicans have been so marginalized.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

So Tracy, a personal question for you. Do you think the way the religious right has hijacked the Republican party is ultimately a good thing or a liability? It is a reliable voting block...But I wondered what you thought of some of the policy positions of said voting block.

I think it's a liability and it runs counter to what conservatives, who should want limited government, should want. Limited government should not dictate morality. But if I want a president who's fiscally conservative, it's pretty much impossible to find one that doesn't want to also teach intelligent design in classrooms and that cavemen walked alongside dinosaurs, and they'll also think the earth's environment is indestructible because it's friken made by god. They'll want prayer in schools and seek guidance from the great sky fairy. I know a lot of people who vote democrat, but are just as fiscally conservative as I am because of all the other baggage the religious right brings.

Originally Posted by GRH

For me, "traditional family values" rubs me wrong. But then I'm one of those liberals who supports a woman's right to control their body.

Saying that a woman can control her body ignores the fact that there's another human in there. I don't think a few day old fetus is conscious, and there's probably nothing lost at that point if it was aborted. On the other hand, 7-9 month old fetuses are conscious and viable. It's a gray area, and at some point it becomes murder.

Originally Posted by GRH

I also support gay marriage and several other things that are untenable to this voting block.

Yes, republicans are opposed to gay marriage, but they also bring up a point. It's a state's rights issue, not a government issue. I would even go further... marriage shouldn't be between you and the government at all. It should be between you and your church.

Originally Posted by GRH

The block of Republicans that voted to end DADT is actually a group of Republicans that I might consider voting for under certain circumstances.

I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger.

Originally Posted by GRH

But among the Tea Party these individuals are considered RINO's. I think it's a shame that moderate Republicans have been so marginalized.

I thought the Tea Party was going to be a new beginning for the republicans. I thought they would bring back the central idea that we want a small fiscally responsible government. Period. But every Tea Party candidate, yes is pro small fiscally responsible government, but also the religious right on steroids.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger.

I would like to see some evidence for either of these claims regarding the "reality" about gays in the military.

Prove it. And don't forget what the military leadership itself has been forced to admit.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I would like to see some evidence for either of these claims regarding the "reality" about gays in the military.

Prove it. And don't forget what the military leadership itself has been forced to admit.

Please read again the first two words in the block you quoted from me. I am only stating my thoughts.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps every last serviceman/woman is fine with gays in the military and therefore there is no one who would be distracted by them. And perhaps those overly militant bastards who beat gays and transgendered people would all steer clear of the military.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

...I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger...

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, there are, just as there are in any other segment of society.

Ila, the quoted section from transjen illustrates the reality in America. It may be different in other countries, but for now, this attitude exists here, as smc confirms. I don't know why, when we're talking directly about DADT, everyone pretends like this problem between gays and certain rednecks don't exist, but while not directly discussing DADT it seems everyone knows this to be true.

Yes, smc is right. These people who believe it's their god given right to beat up gays & transgendered people exist in the military, just like in any segment of society (unless there are a greater percentage of rednecks in the military than in the general population?). It is a distraction. I'm certainly not saying it should be a distraction, but it is. If I want a job to get done, I'm not going to put a bully and his target together to work on the job right? Unlike in the general population, distractions in the military can potentially cost lives.

[GRH]

Tracy, as I said in my PM to you, I'm sorry my initial reply/edit didn't get my point regarding the government debt across. As I meant to say the first time, I obviously don't think endlessly adding debt is a sustainable fiscal strategy. But where I seem to differ from some of the Tea Partiers is that I also don't think defaulting on the debt is a viable option.

Some people make a point that tax receipts are enough to cover the interest payments on the debt. That, in and of itself, may be true. But the reason we run deficits every month is because our non-discretionary spending exceeds tax receipts. So yes, we may be able to pay the interest on the debt without defaulting based purely on tax receipts...We can't meet our obligations based entirely on tax receipts. Want to hurt the economy? Try not paying seniors their social security checks for a few months.

Unfortunately, the policies that are likely to rectify the debt situation (cutting spending and raising taxes) are also the same policies that are likely to stifle growth and potentially lead us back into a recession. History bares this fact out. In an ideal world, we'd be able to grow our way out of the debt...And some Republican plans (Pawlenty) insinuate that spending $11.6 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow stimulate GDP growth on par with China's GDP growth. Pretty much every economist admits that this notion is absurd. Similarly, the idea that you finance your way out of debt by adding more debt (without addressing structural problems) is not sustainable.

We really need austerity...But the time for harsh austerity isn't now. There needs to be a plan whereby which austerity will be phased in so that we don't choke our economic recovery. And in my opinion, austerity measures need to leave EVERYTHING on the table...Tax increases, spending cuts, entitlement reform, etc. And quite frankly, I think none of our current crop of politicians have the political wherewithal to stand up and do what needs to be done. To be sure...They are one-sided in their approach. Republicans will talk about privatizing Medicare but don't want to touch taxes. Democrats will talk about raising taxes but don't want to touch entitlements. In the end, I'm sure that we'll end up with a bland compromise that is underwhelming...And which ultimately does very little to address our larger issues.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

I obviously don't think endlessly adding debt is a sustainable fiscal strategy. But where I seem to differ from some of the Tea Partiers is that I also don't think defaulting on the debt is a viable option.

Correction. That's where you differ from 100% of the republicans in the House, and 43% of the democrats in the House. They just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling unless something is put in place to bring the debt down in a substatial way.

Question for you: 236 republicans (not just Tea Party, but republicans) and 82 democrats voted not to raise the debt ceiling in a no-strings attached vote. Why is it the general perception that only the Tea Partiers want us to default on our debt? Left wing media does not jive with reality.

Originally Posted by GRH

Want to hurt the economy? Try not paying seniors their social security checks for a few months.

uh, not sure who's proposing that one.

Originally Posted by GRH

Unfortunately, the policies that are likely to rectify the debt situation (cutting spending and raising taxes) are also the same policies that are likely to stifle growth and potentially lead us back into a recession. History bares this fact out. In an ideal world, we'd be able to grow our way out of the debt...And some Republican plans (Pawlenty) insinuate that spending $11.6 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow stimulate GDP growth on par with China's GDP growth. Pretty much every economist admits that this notion is absurd. Similarly, the idea that you finance your way out of debt by adding more debt (without addressing structural problems) is not sustainable.

Yes, there are many ways to start shrinking our debt. And probably all of them will hurt. The differences is some will hurt for a relatively short while leaving us stronger because responsible decisions have been made and some will hurt for a decade or more leaving the US weaker in the end because irresponsible decisions were made. Spending more and growing the government would be the latter. It's a cancer we will have to deal with, perhaps forever.

Cutting spending is the right thing to do. Like in Canada & Puerto Rico.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...n-from-canada/

Originally Posted by GRH

I think none of our current crop of politicians have the political wherewithal to stand up and do what needs to be done. To be sure...They are one-sided in their approach. Republicans will talk about privatizing Medicare but don't want to touch taxes. Democrats will talk about raising taxes but don't want to touch entitlements. In the end, I'm sure that we'll end up with a bland compromise that is underwhelming...And which ultimately does very little to address our larger issues.

I agree with you there....

[GRH]

You make some other good points that I thought I'd at least comment on.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Saying that a woman can control her body ignores the fact that there's another human in there. I don't think a few day old fetus is conscious, and there's probably nothing lost at that point if it was aborted. On the other hand, 7-9 month old fetuses are conscious and viable. It's a gray area, and at some point it becomes murder.

I think we're largely in agreement here...We'd probably just disagree on the specifics. You are right that a pregnant woman has another human life inside-- but your argument ignores the fact that said life isn't capable of functioning outside of the womb. In this sense, the fetus is very much like a parasite. And just as I've given my cat dewormer for parasites, women can take action to rid themselves of life which isn't capable of sustaining itself outside the woman's body...

But you are absolutely right, at some point the fetus is capable of being sustained outside of the womb...And I believe abortion at that point is murder. Where do you draw this line? I don't know. From my personal perspective, I think abortion is deplorable and is murder very early within the lifespan of a potential human being. But I don't think it's my place to make moral judgements for other people...And despite what many on the right would lead you to believe, I don't know ANY woman that has undertaken the decision to get an abortion lightly.

And there's also the issue that whether it's legal or not...Women have been trying to abort babies long before Roe vs. Wade. I'd prefer abortion be a medically supervised and safe (relatively speaking) procedure. This is a main reason that I am pro-choice. But I'm not one of those raving pro-choice lunatics who believes in the supremacy of a "woman's right to choose." I have absolutely no problem with making third trimester abortions illegal in almost all cases. I have no problem with the 24-week limit...In fact, I know that some states have been making the threshhold for an abortion even earlier (like 20 weeks). I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is when Republicans go so far as trying to make virtually all abortion illegal-- including day-after pills and in cases of rape/incest.

Yes, republicans are opposed to gay marriage, but they also bring up a point. It's a state's rights issue, not a government issue. I would even go further... marriage shouldn't be between you and the government at all. It should be between you and your church.

Funny how when it comes to civil liberties Republicans become so deferential to states rights...But state be damned if they want to institute a policy like medical marijuana. I think any time the state infringes on the rights of a group of people it becomes a government issue...Particularly when the federal government promises equal protections under the 14th Amendment.

However, with the second part of your statement I couldn't agree more. I would have absolutely no problem with the federal government (and state government) exiting the marriage business altogether. All government recognized marriages will become null and void and shall henceforth be deemed to be civil contracts...civil unions essentially. Any two consenting adults can apply for said civil contract, and when granted the contract, will be given all the rights and responsibilities that the former institution of marriage used to confer. If the same consenting adults wish to get married (a religious ceremony overseen by "God"), they can contact the church/denomination/faith of their choice and receive the rights of marriage.

I thought the Tea Party was going to be a new beginning for the republicans. I thought they would bring back the central idea that we want a small fiscally responsible government. Period. But every Tea Party candidate, yes is pro small fiscally responsible government, but also the religious right on steroids.

Sadly, you're right. Some of the principles of the Tea Party aren't a complete turn-off to me. But the religious right factor guarantees that I wouldn't vote for a Tea Party (or pretty much any Republican) candidate. Thankfully there is a small faction of libertarian sentiment within the Tea Party...It just gets drowned out by all the flag-waving bravado.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Funny how when it comes to civil liberties Republicans become so deferential to states rights...But state be damned if they want to institute a policy like medical marijuana. I think any time the state infringes on the rights of a group of people it becomes a government issue...Particularly when the federal government promises equal protections under the 14th Amendment.

Medical marijuana lol nudge nudge, wink wink.

Originally Posted by GRH

However, with the second part of your statement I couldn't agree more. I would have absolutely no problem with the federal government (and state government) exiting the marriage business altogether. All government recognized marriages will become null and void and shall henceforth be deemed to be civil contracts...civil unions essentially. Any two consenting adults can apply for said civil contract, and when granted the contract, will be given all the rights and responsibilities that the former institution of marriage used to confer. If the same consenting adults wish to get married (a religious ceremony overseen by "God"), they can contact the church/denomination/faith of their choice and receive the rights of marriage.

Put it on the ballot now. With a 50% divorce rate it will be passed on the spot.

[Slavetoebony]

I really hate discussing politics on 'adult' forums. But I want Ron Paul to win the election, because he is the only candidate respecting personal liberties.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Slavetoebony

I really hate discussing politics on 'adult' forums. But I want Ron Paul to win the election, because he is the only candidate respecting personal liberties.

With BO's spending sprees I've been thinking Ron Paul is on to something. And yes, he has several good points on personal liberties. After watching him last night I was reminded of how extreme he is. He doesn't come off as a leader either.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

With BO's spending sprees I've been thinking Ron Paul is on to something. And yes, he has several good points on personal liberties. After watching him last night I was reminded of how extreme he is. He doesn't come off as a leader either.

Ron Paul is a classic Ayn Rand type that longs to return to the McKinley era of small federal government. The time when the Rockefellers, the Morgans and other corporate moguls ruled America.
Ron and the teabaggers seem to be devoid of any understanding of history and what it was like before Teddy Roosevelt developed some regulation of corporate greed and repression of industrial workers.
Teddy was a Republican, by the way, concerned for the people and the preservation of the best things America stood for.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ron Paul is a classic Ayn Rand type that longs to return to the McKinley era of small federal government. The time when the Rockefellers, the Morgans and other corporate moguls ruled America.
Ron and the teabaggers seem to be devoid of any understanding of history and what it was like before Teddy Roosevelt developed some regulation of corporate greed and repression of industrial workers.
Teddy was a Republican, by the way, concerned for the people and the preservation of the best things America stood for.

Just like having too little regulation is a bad thing, having too much is also bad. The latter being very difficult to reverse.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by RobbyPants

Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.

Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist.

Yeah, those were good times. Although he did have a pretty tough time taxing and spending with the republican controlled House & Senate.