Right Leaning Posters
Does anyone honestly think that any of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, will not "bomb innocent people and funnel money to their cronies"?
Seriously?
Could anyone really be that naive?
mumstheword said:
ml1 said:
I guess my question is this: if someone considers themselves a moderate, how do they justify a vote for a GOP presidential candidate, which is a vote to turn all three branches of government to a party that isn't at all moderate? A Republican president will essentially mean Tea Party government. The idea that a President Christie or Kasich will "rein in" the Tea Party elements of Congress seems so far off from the likely reality to me.
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, and I think in many ways she represents what's wrong with the Democratic Party specifically, and politics in general. She's a hawk, and a supporter of the wealthiest, most elite contributors to her party. But at least she won't be trying to turn Medicare into a voucher program, or Social Security into private retirement accounts. Or talking about building a wall on the Mexican border.
I totally agree.
What bothers me most about the Republican party is that the things they seem to stand for ultimately harm people. What kind of person would not want another person to earn a fair wage, to be able to support their families in a decent way -- and to attempt to do away with an organization that would protect those people from unscrupulous employers? What kind of person would not want their parents' peers -- or even their peers -- to earn a Social Security check in their later years, especially since they've paid into it their entire lives. What kind of person would deny a single parent making minimum wage the assistance to be able to feed their children a healthy meal. What kind of person would deny another human being the ability to be cared for when they're sick? And on and on. I will never understand how someone can wave the flag of Christianity and then believe in everything that Jesus Christ preached against. Yes, Jesus was a socialist.
These are the types of questions I've asked my Republican relatives and acquaintances for years, not just recently, and I never get a real answer. I only get regurgitated sound bites, or railing about "those lousy Democrats", but never a real answer. So I totally understand the OP's question. If you believe these things, please help me understand why. You might shine a light on a subject that I didn't see before. Or, I may not agree with you, you may not sway me toward your way of thinking, but I would be able to understand "why", and I would respect you and your views. But right now, I am only led to wonder what would make you hold these views. To say "I'm not sure how much I want to go into my reasoning, as I don't expect to have many posters here in agreement with my political beliefs" is a total cop-out. If you have valid reasons for your beliefs, own them, be proud of them, and be part of a conversation.
The assumption that right wingers are some sort of evil people who just want everyone to suffer is part of the problem. Perhaps that's a feature not a bug?
The rejoinder would be simply "from whom shall we take this largess and to whom shall it go?" followed up with "who shall control that?"
Too often the answer is "from you" and "by me". The further answer is "and I shall continue to work for what I believe is the greater good by garnering the support of those whom I bestow the benefits. I am most qualified for this undertaking because I am smarter and clearly more compassionate."
Swanning around talking about helping people and wanting kids to have food and taking care of old people is the easy part. Denigrating people who don't agree with you as being heartless people because they don't agree with the way you want to allocate money from other people is, to say the least, uncharitable.
The hard part- From whom do you want to take the money, by force of law? Who should it go to? Who shall administer it? What shall we do about the impact to economic behaviors from all of this, the unintended ones?
If you have valid reasons for your belief, own them, be proud of them, and be part of the conversation.
max_weisenfeld said:
bramzzoinks said:I get that, and you already contributed, but it might put off others who are not as aware of your longstanding repartee.
Hey GL2 and I are like an old married couple bickering back and forth about the same thing over and over again endlessly. Each knowing exactly which buttons to push.
max, so sorry to be here instead of where I belong. I'll make a quiet exit so as to not disturb the less savage posters.
Jackson,
This thread did go off the rails as many do, but thank you for your input. I see your explanations/positions as more Libertarian than Conservative as the latter term seems to be used currently.
If I believe that women should have the right to abortion with no interference by the State, that Same-Sex couples should have the right to marry and that Kin Davis should have been relieved of her position, that people should not be sent to jail for possessing marijuana, but that government regulation of business should be reduced substantially, that taxes should be reduced and that Labor Unions do more bad than good, for whom should I vote?
OTOH if I believe in "traditional marriage", that abortion is murder, but am a strong supporter of Labor Unions, believe in single-payer or even socialized medicine, for whom shall I vote? ( Pope Francis is not running).
Klinker said:
Does anyone honestly think that any of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, will not "bomb innocent people and funnel money to their cronies"?
Seriously?
Could anyone really be that naive?
I guess I am that naive which, frankly, surprises me, but I believe Bernie Sanders would not knowingly bomb innocent people or funnel money to his cronies. I'm not sure he has "cronies".
terp said:
I don't consider myself right wing, but most here probably do. This election is, by and large, pointless.
You are not "Right-Wing" in the current usage of the term. You are Libertarian and in a small category. Your position that the election is pointless is shared by those who would be considered on the "Far Left". To them the Election is pointless because all of the candidates are Capitalists, even the one who calls himself a Socialist. I would assume that you think it's pointless because they are all "Statists" even the ones who claim they are for very "limited" government.
LOST said:
Jackson,
This thread did go off the rails as many do, but thank you for your input. I see your explanations/positions as more Libertarian than Conservative as the latter term seems to be used currently.
If I believe that women should have the right to abortion with no interference by the State, that Same-Sex couples should have the right to marry and that Kin Davis should have been relieved of her position, that people should not be sent to jail for possessing marijuana, but that government regulation of business should be reduced substantially, that taxes should be reduced and that Labor Unions do more bad than good, for whom should I vote?
OTOH if I believe in "traditional marriage", that abortion is murder, but am a strong supporter of Labor Unions, believe in single-payer or even socialized medicine, for whom shall I vote? ( Pope Francis is not running).
You nailed it. All the issues you mentioned are areas of cleavage, even amongst those who may be simpatico on all other issues. That's why they're so very contentious, even intra party.
Politics in a representative democracy is all about compromise. It has to be. We are unlikely to get a candidate with whom we agree with down the line.
Every issue will have its single issue voters, who will, as is their right, advocate as forcefully as they can on that issue. From all of this comes a platform, and it wins or loses based on how much support it can garner in aggregate, not singularly.
What I'd hope is, that rather than view others as unintelligible space aliens, or as cruel, selfish troglodytes, is that we can just disagree on the issues vigorously and even aggressively without, dare I use the term, "otherizing" each other?
@ml1 Sure. I'm happy to go more into what I believe, but I just know that I am not going to necessarily get anyone to agree with why I believe these things. I was also on my phone last night and didn't have time to explain fully. To note, I am also a Christian and take offense to your comments that being conservative is anti-Christian.
But if you're interested, I believe in personal responsibility and limited government. I believe in individual liberty and a strong national defense. On the issues, I am pro-death penalty and pro-2nd amendment. I am a supporter of free market healthcare. I support legal immigration only. I oppose long-term welfare programs. I am personally moderate on same-sex marriage, and this is probably the area where I most stray from the current Republican candidates. I also stray from the candidates on abortion, which I oppose in theological doctrine, but do not necessarily believe I can impose my belief on others.
If you have any respectful questions about the current candidates and how I feel about them specifically, I'm happy to answer.
You need to either make your bed with the religious, gun and security crazies or the union/ngo statist fascists. Distasteful choices both but at the moment I need to choose the former.
hmbooks saidI'm probably going to have to move now, right?)
I assume you're joking, but even in jest, I don't know why you would suggest that people would not want conservatives as neighbors or friends. I don't agree with you that we need to repeal the ACA, and I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment is in any danger from either Republicans OR Democrats. But I don't think those are reasons to not be friendly with someone.
@hmbooks: reading through your set of beliefs I would just say that if you are anywhere near my (old) age and can recall several decades of election cycles, you would know that some of your beliefs (similar , by the way, to those voiced by a few of my own beloved relatives) are considered code words for other things.
LOST said:
Klinker said:I guess I am that naive which, frankly, surprises me, but I believe Bernie Sanders would not knowingly bomb innocent people or funnel money to his cronies. I'm not sure he has "cronies".
Does anyone honestly think that any of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, will not "bomb innocent people and funnel money to their cronies"?
Seriously?
Could anyone really be that naive?
Actually, I thought about excepting Sanders but I didn't want to appear partisan. That said, civilian casualties are the inevitable consequence of any military action and I can definitely imagine circumstances in which even Sanders would, as Commander in Chief, sanction military action.
We have had Republican Candidates who I have no doubt would not bomb innocents or funnel $$ to cronies. One in particular I felt quite confident about. He did not do very well.
I think those issues illustrate fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals, and I'm not sure that facts really support some of the conservative positions.
- Individual liberty -- I don't think the GOP, despite their claims to support it, really does. The desire to control women's health care and reproductive choices, the rejection of "non-traditional" families, etc., doesn't make their party the supporter of individual liberty. Unless that's code for lower taxes, in which case they do.
- Limited government -- no evidence that either party is serious about making government smaller.
- Strong defense -- both parties are run by hawks.
- 2nd Amendment -- that is settled law. No one is suggesting repealing it. The only "gun control" measures being floated are changes around the margin. The NRA has convinced people that Democrats are anti-gun, when there isn't any meaningful evidence that they are.
- Death penalty -- no evidence that it is a deterrent, but much evidence that it is a tremendously flawed process.
- Immigration -- we've argued this endlessly on another thread. There isn't any hard evidence that immigration is anywhere near the biggest problem in this country.
- Free-market health care -- not sure what this would look like. But there's no evidence it would be an improvement over the ACA, since there is no developed country on earth which has it.
But I'm open to a fact-based argument on any of these issues. I don't pretend to have every answer to every issue. And in fact, I'm not really arguing against any of the above points. I'm just saying I see no evidence in support of them. Maybe there is, and I'm just not aware.
Klinker said:
LOST said:Actually, I thought about excepting Sanders but I didn't want to appear partisan. That said, civilian casualties are the inevitable consequence of any military action and I can definitely imagine circumstances in which even Sanders would, as Commander in Chief, sanction military action.
Klinker said:I guess I am that naive which, frankly, surprises me, but I believe Bernie Sanders would not knowingly bomb innocent people or funnel money to his cronies. I'm not sure he has "cronies".
Does anyone honestly think that any of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, will not "bomb innocent people and funnel money to their cronies"?
Seriously?
Could anyone really be that naive?
I think Sanders would be as much a hawk as anyone else. Nothing in his background suggests he's a pacifist of any sort.
mumstheword said:
I totally agree. What bothers me most about the Republican party is that the things they seem to stand for ultimately harm people. What kind of person would not want another person to earn a fair wage, to be able to support their families in a decent way -- and to attempt to do away with an organization that would protect those people from unscrupulous employers? What kind of person would not want their parents' peers -- or even their peers -- to earn a Social Security check in their later years, especially since they've paid into it their entire lives. What kind of person would deny a single parent making minimum wage the assistance to be able to feed their children a healthy meal. What kind of person would deny another human being the ability to be cared for when they're sick? And on and on. I will never understand how someone can wave the flag of Christianity and then believe in everything that Jesus Christ preached against. Yes, Jesus was a socialist.
These are the types of questions I've asked my Republican relatives and acquaintances for years, not just recently, and I never get a real answer. I only get regurgitated sound bites, or railing about "those lousy Democrats", but never a real answer. So I totally understand the OP's question. If you believe these things, please help me understand why. You might shine a light on a subject that I didn't see before. Or, I may not agree with you, you may not sway me toward your way of thinking, but I would be able to understand "why", and I would respect you and your views. But right now, I am only led to wonder what would make you hold these views. To say "I'm not sure how much I want to go into my reasoning, as I don't expect to have many posters here in agreement with my political beliefs" is a total cop-out. If you have valid reasons for your beliefs, own them, be proud of them, and be part of a conversation.
I'm going to take a crack at this. I am not a centrist Republican, so I cannot speak for them. However, I hope I can provide some insight as to how people could logically be against these things without being mean spirited and/or not caring about others.
OK. Let's take the Fair Wage first. I assume by a fair wage, you mean a high or higher minimum wage. I am against a higher minimum wage because I don't think there should be a minimum wage. What the minimum wage says is: It is illegal for you to work at a wage lower than an arbitrary price.
This is a price floor. Simple economics indicates that setting a price floor for a good or service will create a surplus of that good or service. In labor markets we call this surplus unemployment.
To think of this another way, assume that you are a young person just entering the labor force. Since you don't have any experience, you likely don't have many skills. The wage you could garner is pretty low. If the minimum wage is say 5 an hour. It is going to be very difficult to get your foot on that 1st rung of the economic ladder. Businesses will look at other labor options, or automation rather than hiring you.
There are certainly winners and losers if a "living wage" law goes into place. Businesses will need some labor. So, those who are earning the minimum wage and are able to keep their jobs will be the winners. The losers are businesses who are unable to function at this higher wage level, and those who either lose their job or are unable to get a job at this price floor.
I personally not against unions. I am against compulsory membership in unions. I think this is a violation of that person's freedom of association.
I also understand that we don't want people to starve, lack basic healthcare, etc. I don't want this fate for anyone. I'm guessing our "Centrist Republicans" don't either. I think the confusion here was well captured by Frederic Bastiat:
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Thus, it is possible to be against government programs aimed at providing heathcare, curing poverty, etc. These very same people still want these things provided. They just believe that they should be provided in a different way.
terp said:
We have had Republican Candidates who I have no doubt would not bomb innocents or funnel $$ to cronies. One in particular I felt quite confident about. He did not do very well.
An interesting assertion. Names?
ml1 said:
Klinker said:I think Sanders would be as much a hawk as anyone else. Nothing in his background suggests he's a pacifist of any sort.
LOST said:Actually, I thought about excepting Sanders but I didn't want to appear partisan. That said, civilian casualties are the inevitable consequence of any military action and I can definitely imagine circumstances in which even Sanders would, as Commander in Chief, sanction military action.
Klinker said:I guess I am that naive which, frankly, surprises me, but I believe Bernie Sanders would not knowingly bomb innocent people or funnel money to his cronies. I'm not sure he has "cronies".
Does anyone honestly think that any of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, will not "bomb innocent people and funnel money to their cronies"?
Seriously?
Could anyone really be that naive?
I was more hopeful about him not funneling money to his cronies. That may be naive of me.
terp said:
Klinker said:Ron Paul
terp said:An interesting assertion. Names?
We have had Republican Candidates who I have no doubt would not bomb innocents or funnel $$ to cronies. One in particular I felt quite confident about. He did not do very well.
Do you really think that Ron Paul would not have responded in kind if the United States had suffered a nuclear attack? Sadly, I think adherence to MAD is a prerequisite for any candidate for President. To reject this policy would subject our country to unimaginable danger.
annielou said:
@hmbooks: reading through your set of beliefs I would just say that if you are anywhere near my (old) age and can recall several decades of election cycles, you would know that some of your beliefs (similar , by the way, to those voiced by a few of my own beloved relatives) are considered code words for other things.
@annielou I'm guessing that I am not. For reference, this will be the third presidential election in which I am eligible to vote. So, I'm going to disregard whatever you are insinuating.
Klinker said:
ml1 said:I was more hopeful about him not funneling money to his cronies. That may be naive of me.
Klinker said:I think Sanders would be as much a hawk as anyone else. Nothing in his background suggests he's a pacifist of any sort.
LOST said:Actually, I thought about excepting Sanders but I didn't want to appear partisan. That said, civilian casualties are the inevitable consequence of any military action and I can definitely imagine circumstances in which even Sanders would, as Commander in Chief, sanction military action.
Klinker said:I guess I am that naive which, frankly, surprises me, but I believe Bernie Sanders would not knowingly bomb innocent people or funnel money to his cronies. I'm not sure he has "cronies".
Does anyone honestly think that any of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, will not "bomb innocent people and funnel money to their cronies"?
Seriously?
Could anyone really be that naive?
I agree with you there. I don't think he even has cronies. at least no rich ones.
hmbooks said:
annielou said:@annielou I'm guessing that I am not. For reference, this will be the third presidential election in which I am eligible to vote. So, I'm going to disregard whatever you are insinuating.
@hmbooks: reading through your set of beliefs I would just say that if you are anywhere near my (old) age and can recall several decades of election cycles, you would know that some of your beliefs (similar , by the way, to those voiced by a few of my own beloved relatives) are considered code words for other things.
Actually the use of these coded messages continues in our current election cycle. Just proposing the idea that we often use such coded language without really understanding the history or underlying motivation of phrases like "personal responsibility". What does that mean to you? Is is applicable to everyone? Which of the candidates on either side is a model of personal responsibility? Does personal responsibility apply to those with power, money, and influence? Just asking...
terp said:
mumstheword said:
I totally agree. What bothers me most about the Republican party is that the things they seem to stand for ultimately harm people. What kind of person would not want another person to earn a fair wage, to be able to support their families in a decent way -- and to attempt to do away with an organization that would protect those people from unscrupulous employers? What kind of person would not want their parents' peers -- or even their peers -- to earn a Social Security check in their later years, especially since they've paid into it their entire lives. What kind of person would deny a single parent making minimum wage the assistance to be able to feed their children a healthy meal. What kind of person would deny another human being the ability to be cared for when they're sick? And on and on. I will never understand how someone can wave the flag of Christianity and then believe in everything that Jesus Christ preached against. Yes, Jesus was a socialist.
These are the types of questions I've asked my Republican relatives and acquaintances for years, not just recently, and I never get a real answer. I only get regurgitated sound bites, or railing about "those lousy Democrats", but never a real answer. So I totally understand the OP's question. If you believe these things, please help me understand why. You might shine a light on a subject that I didn't see before. Or, I may not agree with you, you may not sway me toward your way of thinking, but I would be able to understand "why", and I would respect you and your views. But right now, I am only led to wonder what would make you hold these views. To say "I'm not sure how much I want to go into my reasoning, as I don't expect to have many posters here in agreement with my political beliefs" is a total cop-out. If you have valid reasons for your beliefs, own them, be proud of them, and be part of a conversation.
I'm going to take a crack at this. I am not a centrist Republican, so I cannot speak for them. However, I hope I can provide some insight as to how people could logically be against these things without being mean spirited and/or not caring about others.
OK. Let's take the Fair Wage first. I assume by a fair wage, you mean a high or higher minimum wage. I am against a higher minimum wage because I don't think there should be a minimum wage. What the minimum wage says is: It is illegal for you to work at a wage lower than an arbitrary price.
This is a price floor. Simple economics indicates that setting a price floor for a good or service will create a surplus of that good or service. In labor markets we call this surplus unemployment.
To think of this another way, assume that you are a young person just entering the labor force. Since you don't have any experience, you likely don't have many skills. The wage you could garner is pretty low. If the minimum wage is say 5 an hour. It is going to be very difficult to get your foot on that 1st rung of the economic ladder. Businesses will look at other labor options, or automation rather than hiring you.
There are certainly winners and losers if a "living wage" law goes into place. Businesses will need some labor. So, those who are earning the minimum wage and are able to keep their jobs will be the winners. The losers are businesses who are unable to function at this higher wage level, and those who either lose their job or are unable to get a job at this price floor.
I personally not against unions. I am against compulsory membership in unions. I think this is a violation of that person's freedom of association.
I also understand that we don't want people to starve, lack basic healthcare, etc. I don't want this fate for anyone. I'm guessing our "Centrist Republicans" don't either. I think the confusion here was well captured by Frederic Bastiat:
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”Thus, it is possible to be against government programs aimed at providing heathcare, curing poverty, etc. These very same people still want these things provided. They just believe that they should be provided in a different way.
Thank you for your thoughts; I find them very helpful.
What would be helpful to me is for anyone (on any side of the fence) to articulate exactly how human services should be provided, if you don't agree with the currently-used systems. This is what I don't get from people I try to have meaningful conversations with. And I haven't seen any candidates elaborate, other than say "when I get elected President.....".
As far as the economy is concerned, some "plans" have been floated (Ryan, Trump), and then completely debunked by the experts. Opinions are opinions, and facts are facts. We all have to learn to distinguish between the two.
To say "I'm not sure how much I want to go into my reasoning, as I don't expect to have many posters here in agreement with my political beliefs" is a total cop-out. If you have valid reasons for your beliefs, own them, be proud of them, and be part of a conversation.
I was thinking the same thing. I would love to hear the answer and engage in a conversation about those issues but it never seems to happen.
Klinker said:
terp said:Do you really think that Ron Paul would not have responded in kind if the United States had suffered a nuclear attack? Sadly, I think adherence to MAD is a prerequisite for any candidate for President. To reject this policy would subject our country to unimaginable danger.
Klinker said:Ron Paul
terp said:An interesting assertion. Names?
We have had Republican Candidates who I have no doubt would not bomb innocents or funnel $$ to cronies. One in particular I felt quite confident about. He did not do very well.
When I said bomb innocents, I was not referring to responding to a nuclear attack. I was referring to drone & other bombings that occur daily.
annielou said:
hmbooks said:Actually the use of these coded messages continues in our current election cycle. Just proposing the idea that we often use such coded language without really understanding the history or underlying motivation of phrases like "personal responsibility". What does that mean to you? Is is applicable to everyone? Which of the candidates on either side is a model of personal responsibility? Does personal responsibility apply to those with power, money, and influence? Just asking...
annielou said:@annielou I'm guessing that I am not. For reference, this will be the third presidential election in which I am eligible to vote. So, I'm going to disregard whatever you are insinuating.
@hmbooks: reading through your set of beliefs I would just say that if you are anywhere near my (old) age and can recall several decades of election cycles, you would know that some of your beliefs (similar , by the way, to those voiced by a few of my own beloved relatives) are considered code words for other things.
Thus demonstrating exactly why hmbooks was initially reluctant to talk about his/her political beliefs in this forum.
ridski said:
annielou said:Thus demonstrating exactly why hmbooks was initially reluctant to talk about his/her political beliefs in this forum.
hmbooks said:Actually the use of these coded messages continues in our current election cycle. Just proposing the idea that we often use such coded language without really understanding the history or underlying motivation of phrases like "personal responsibility". What does that mean to you? Is is applicable to everyone? Which of the candidates on either side is a model of personal responsibility? Does personal responsibility apply to those with power, money, and influence? Just asking...
annielou said:@annielou I'm guessing that I am not. For reference, this will be the third presidential election in which I am eligible to vote. So, I'm going to disregard whatever you are insinuating.
@hmbooks: reading through your set of beliefs I would just say that if you are anywhere near my (old) age and can recall several decades of election cycles, you would know that some of your beliefs (similar , by the way, to those voiced by a few of my own beloved relatives) are considered code words for other things.
I agree that it's not productive to cast aspersions on such terms.
But I would say that I find notions such as "personal responsibility" to be too vague to be of any value unless the person defines it more precisely with regard to examples of what he or she means. Otherwise, it's a phrase that almost no one will disagree with.
Ummmm.... I hate to break it to you but almost all military action since the advent of bombs has involved "bombing innocent people". Perhaps you are some sort of born again Ghandi but, if you are operating within the mainstream of American politics, I hardly think you can single out an individual leader for "bombing innocent people".