Right Leaning Posters

terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

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?

Ron Paul

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.

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.

Some innocents are more innocent than others? How is it that a discussion of the adherents of Ayn Rand always seems to lead back to George Orwell?

I thought ml1 did a nice job of working through the his or her take on some of the more standard right wing issues. Granted these were addressed from a more liberal viewpoint, but it is a good start, I think, to addressing LL's initial query (however ingenuous or disingenuous you might think LL was in asking).

Jeb all the way, he would have been better in 2000 too

HIllary will eat him alive. In fact, she would eat all of them alive.

BubbaTerp said:
Jeb all the way, he would have been better in 2000 too

with all due respect, it's starting to appear that W was the smart Bush bro.

mumstheword said:

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.

Any time. I appreciate that you paid them proper attention. And I'm not a moderate Republican, nor am I really a Republican. But, I can give you my Personal point of view which comes more from the libertarian free market perspective.

I believe that the market is generally the best way to provide goods and services efficiently. Profits are often derided as "extras" by people who prefer state solutions. However, profits are incentives to provide value efficiently. Without them, there really is not a great incentive for organizations to operate in an efficient manner. This typically will provide consumers with the most value.

Prior to government intervention in the health care marketplace, people would voluntarily pool resources in order to get good prices on healthcare. This was done through Mutual Aid Societies. And the care was relatively cheap. My understanding is that a plan to cover doctor visits and minor procedures cost about 1 day of labor. There's actually a rather interesting book on this topic. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967

The other issue is licensing. The ACA addresses(in my view poorly) the demand side of the equation. It requires plans to cover various types of care. However, there really isn't anything on the Supply Side. We have rather severe limits on Medical licenses in this country. In the early part of the 20th Century the Federation of State Medical boards gave the AMA full authority for rating Medical Schools. The AMA severely limited the number of available medical schools. I believe the number was cut in half in under a decade. To this day, the number of doctors has not kept up with the population.

Obviously, a transition to a more free market based health care system would have to be just that. It could never happen overnight without a crisis. The structure just doesn't exist any longer. However, it does concern me that the only action we ever seem to consider is more government intervention.

One of the patterns many economists I admire have noticed is that government intervention tends to cause problems. In turn, the government must intervene more to solve those problems. But those solutions too cause additional issues. Thus, this pattern repeats itself. Healthcare is a great example of this phenomenon.

I can't really comment on Trump or Ryan's budget plans as I don't know enough about them. However, I am not very surpised that they don't add up.

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

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?

Ron Paul

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.

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.

Some innocents are more innocent than others? How is it that a discussion of the adherents of Ayn Rand always seems to lead back to George Orwell?

There are attacks you make to defend yourself, and then there are gratuitous attacks of questionable merit. I don't think its that difficult to understand.

I have no idea what you are getting at with Rand/Orwell, but my guess is that it is not a line of "reasoning" that is particularly fruitful.

librarylady said:

apple44 said:
My experience is that people generally are more open to sharing information if you're more upfront on why you need the information.

Good point! I am trying to wrap my head around WHY thinking reasonable people might support one of this candidates Im going to visit my (very) Republican brother in Vegas next week and I guess I want to do some research No other nefarious reasons

I think it helps if you, LL, think in the obverse of your question. By this I mean consider your own reaction when you consider if you would ever vote for one of the GOP candidates--any one of them. I am guessing you simply cannot envision yourself ever voting for any of these guys or gal for any reason at any time. It is as much a political culture thing as it is a policy thing--the world view espoused by any and all of these candidates is so foreign to you that you just could never reconcile yourself to supporting it.

This is the same impulse for many who consider themselves reasonable right leaning people, only from the other direction. They simply cannot think of voting for any Democratic candidate for president at any time and in any way. For the same reasons.

Once you understand this, you understand a large portion of the support for these candidates. Just as many Democrats I know will reluctantly vote for either Hillary or Bernie, many Republicans I know will reluctantly vote for whomever rises from the GOP nuclear winter. And then they will try to find ways to rationalize their vote.

You can blame the GOP for giving so much ground to Tea Party extremists for causing this radical rupture in our polity. You can blame Democrats for being too comfy with big government, political correctness and using the system to force social change on an unwilling America for this great divide. But regardless of who you blame, it is exceedingly real.

I guess from where I sit, I don't see how a moderate conservative can look at Hillary Clinton and say she's farther from the moderate position than a Ted Cruz is. Maybe the "D" or "R" label means more than positions on issues to some voters. Because Hillary is a foreign policy hawk corporatist. She's thisclose philosophically to George H.W. Bush.

Of course, there's also the visceral revulsion some people (on the left and right) feel toward the Clintons, and that comes into play. And maybe that's stronger than policy positions too.

I have very right leaning family members who right now are repulsed by all their choices in the GOP field. It will certainly be interesting to see if they'll pull the lever for the GOP candidate, whoever that might be. Of course they claim to hate Hillary.

But thank you! @ml1.....now I can say this to them..."Because Hillary is a foreign policy hawk corporatist. She's thisclose philosophically to George H.W. Bush."

ml1 said:
I guess from where I sit, I don't see how a moderate conservative can look at Hillary Clinton and say she's farther from the moderate position than a Ted Cruz is. Maybe the "D" or "R" label means more than positions on issues to some voters. Because Hillary is a foreign policy hawk corporatist. She's thisclose philosophically to George H.W. Bush.
Of course, there's also the visceral revulsion some people (on the left and right) feel toward the Clintons, and that comes into play. And maybe that's stronger than policy positions too.

Well, I think this is what Hillary is counting on, at least in part. It is what Bill did when he went from being a young very left-leaning governor or Arkansas to reinventing himself as a "centrist" to even right leaning Democrat with the DLC and then when he ran for president. I think she saw that the Tea Party was going to continue to drag the GOP into Attila the Hun territory, leaving the more moderate right leaning voters for her.

But with Bernie dragging her to the left in order to win the Democratic primaries, this might become a very hard strategy to follow in the general election.

ffof said:
I have very right leaning family members who right now are repulsed by all their choices in the GOP field. It will certainly be interesting to see if they'll pull the lever for the GOP candidate, whoever that might be. Of course they claim to hate Hillary.
But thank you! @ml1.....now I can say this to them..."Because Hillary is a foreign policy hawk corporatist. She's thisclose philosophically to George H.W. Bush."

My Republican brother in law is voting for Hillary.

terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

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?

Ron Paul

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.

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.

Some innocents are more innocent than others? How is it that a discussion of the adherents of Ayn Rand always seems to lead back to George Orwell?

There are attacks you make to defend yourself, and then there are gratuitous attacks of questionable merit. I don't think its that difficult to understand.
I have no idea what you are getting at with Rand/Orwell, but my guess is that it is not a line of "reasoning" that is particularly fruitful.

Well, I was thinking about Animal Farm but I suppose there is some reference to "double speak" in there too.

When Paul kills innocents he is "defending" the nation but when others do it they are criminals.

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

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?

Ron Paul

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.

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.

Some innocents are more innocent than others? How is it that a discussion of the adherents of Ayn Rand always seems to lead back to George Orwell?

There are attacks you make to defend yourself, and then there are gratuitous attacks of questionable merit. I don't think its that difficult to understand.
I have no idea what you are getting at with Rand/Orwell, but my guess is that it is not a line of "reasoning" that is particularly fruitful.

Well, I was thinking about Animal Farm but I suppose there is some reference to "double speak" in there too.
When Paul kills innocents he is "defending" the nation but when others do it they are criminals.

Oh I'm sorry. I thought you actually wanted to have an adult discussion.

Orwell isn't for adults?

ml1 said:

ridski said:

annielou said:

hmbooks said:

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.

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...

Thus demonstrating exactly why hmbooks was initially reluctant to talk about his/her political beliefs in this forum.

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.

Here's my take on "personal responsibility". If something happens to you that puts you "off course", be it through your own action or someone else's, it is up to you to react appropriately to correct your course. Conservative thought follows the logic that safety nets ruin our ability to fend for ourselves, that by accepting government welfare, we lose the back-against-the-wall impetus to fight our way back and succeed.

I have a laundry list of reasons why I don't agree with this principle in practice, but I think that's what hmbooks means when he/she says they believe in "personal responsibility". I could be wrong, and even if I am I don't think that just because they said that out loud we should ascribe sinister "code words" to it. Everyone's opinion deserves to be accepted at face value at least once, right?

ridski said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

annielou said:

hmbooks said:

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.

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...

Thus demonstrating exactly why hmbooks was initially reluctant to talk about his/her political beliefs in this forum.

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.

Here's my take on "personal responsibility". If something happens to you that puts you "off course", be it through your own action or someone else's, it is up to you to react appropriately to correct your course. Conservative thought follows the logic that safety nets ruin our ability to fend for ourselves, that by accepting government welfare, we lose the back-against-the-wall impetus to fight our way back and succeed.

I have a laundry list of reasons why I don't agree with this principle in practice, but I think that's what hmbooks means when he/she says they believe in "personal responsibility". I could be wrong, and even if I am I don't think that just because they said that out loud we should ascribe sinister "code words" to it. Everyone's opinion deserves to be accepted at face value at least once, right?

Yes, personal responsibility is the doctrine that informs my support of welfare reform.

If you feel that I'm racist because this is my belief... all right. You can come right out and say it rather than back into it with "code words."

Welfare reform...you mean the kind of welfare for poor people, or the kind for Corporations? Remember: Corporations are people, my friends.

@hmbooks: that was why I was careful to mention historical context. In past elections, code words were/are generously used to appeal to a certain constituency, and yes, primarily those who hold racist, homophobic, and/or sexist beliefs. That's just a fact. Whether u fall into that category is of no concern to me.

I bit on the original post because I thought the OP was just looking for local Republicans' perspective on the candidates. I engaged more than I normally would about my political beliefs and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the results. I think I'll see myself out of the politics forum.

annielou said:
@hmbooks: that was why I was careful to mention historical context. In past elections, code words were/are generously used to appeal to a certain constituency, and yes, primarily those who hold racist, homophobic, and/or sexist beliefs. That's just a fact. Whether u fall into that category is of no concern to me.

A prime tactic on display of the statist left and those who rely on it for their jobs to try to stifle all discussion and debate and thereby try to gain true hegemony.

Whatever

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 don't think any moderate, informed people will be voting for a Republican. Voting for a Republican is an immoderate act.

and this is why we can't have a civilized conversation

I'm right leaning - an I don't bother to vote in presidential elections. There is no point. Just as there is no point talking about GOP presidential candidate.

I think i would vote for any candidate that campaigned on allowing each congressional district to cast their own vote, or elect on popular vote.

I lived in NYC for 12 years, and now S,O. for ten, and i've voted once.

It's all pointless.

librarylady said:
and this is why we can't have a civilized conversation

For some reason the quote function is screwed up but the picture and your comment on it are right on the mark.

Tom_Reingold 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 don't think any moderate, informed people will be voting for a Republican. Voting for a Republican is an immoderate act.

So good it can't be parodied.

cali6buff2 said:
I'm right leaning - an I don't bother to vote in presidential elections. There is no point. Just as there is no point talking about GOP presidential candidate.
I think i would vote for any candidate that campaigned on allowing each congressional district to cast their own vote, or elect on popular vote.

Huh?

hmbooks said:
I bit on the original post because I thought the OP was just looking for local Republicans' perspective on the candidates. I engaged more than I normally would about my political beliefs and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the results. I think I'll see myself out of the politics forum.

Too bad. I wanted to engage you in a discussion but I did not get a chance before.

hmbooks said:
My preference is for Rubio or Cruz. I'd assume Fiorina is after a VP nomination and I could foresee supporting that. I would not vote for Christie, though if by some stretch of the imagination it came down to Christie and Clinton, I guess I'd have to reevaluate. I thought Rubio would be polling better at this point so it will be interesting to see this primary race play out.
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. Rubio and Cruz most closely represent my values.

In case you do come back I was wondering what your objection is to Christie.

Also to me Rubio and Cruz are very different. I think Rubio strives to be in the "mainstream" of the Republican Party while Cruz carves out a position on the Right flank of the Party