Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichiGator2002, Oct 17, 2013.
I will vote Pub when they put together a platform that represents a majority of my views. Until then I will continue to vote 3rd party.
I did not throw my vote away if i believe it was the right thing to do. Some of us have integrity while some voted for Romney holding their noses because they thought it would beat the other guy.
I sleep just fine at night
I am in favor of a third party, one targeted at the coalition of tea party conservatives and libertarians, because those are actually ideal roommates if you leverage what should be a shared love of federalism. The GOP would be as relevant as the Green Party within two elections. Only mystery is what to call it, and/or which existing minor party to basically shanghai.
well considering its only the hardcore that really vote in the primaries the conservatives only have themselves to blame for Romney.
You Had Cain, Santorum and others and they could not get out of the primaries so really the party needs to look in the mirror
fiscally I do not think there is a large gap between CON and MODS. I think the gap is wide when it comes to social issues..(abortion, gay marriage and drugs)
That is where people will not vote for the other's guy.
But, again, the liberal position on social issues is pretty consistently the one that endorses a more powerful and expansive government function, which in turn means it is the more expensive. Social liberalism is pretty fiscally unconservative.
Go ahead and believe a guy on the far right like Cruz can win. Y'all are just duping each other in your far-right bubble. I'm sure the next brilliant move that the far right will be "successful" at is getting immigration reform blocked. After that, I'm sure y'all will screw up any chance of a Grand Bargain. It's one political blunder after another with you guys. It just goes on and on and that's why the Pub Party keeps diminishing in popularity.
I think it depends on the issue. Also several issues are intertwined.
Take the war on drugs has been an utter fiscal failure.
Spending money to fight gay marriage is ridiculous
I will just leave abortion the ways it is.
One look at the collection of a**clowns present at the gop primary debates should explain it.
Most of the money, public or private, spent on the nature of marriage, is spent trying to create gay marriage, not to prevent it. Hell, the benefits that just were won in the Supreme Court -- money that wasn't being spent, that now will be, in the name of a socially liberal cause. Marriage being between a man and a woman is pretty much cost-free, since it has been the legal and cultural ground state for pretty much the history of western post-Middle Ages western civilization.
I say federalism is also the answer to the war on drugs issue in terms of uniting conservatives and libertarians -- terminate any federal notion of a war on drugs other than perhaps import/export contraband status, and leave all policy choices on the legal use, sake, or growth of drugs to the states.
Abortion/contraception, etc -- you can't be fiscally conservative and favor the federal government of all things subsidizing these things in any way. It is a socially conservative position to say "pay for your own birth control", but it is also the only fiscal conservative answer, too.
No it's not. Believe it or not you can say abortion should be legal with minimal restrictions, opposing gay marriage is morally abhorrent, whatever you want, without concurrently saying "the government should mandate and pay for everyone to have a gay marriage and get an abortion!"
You're drawing a false equivalence here in an attempt to reconcile the cognitive dissonance inherent in why you want a nearly non-existent government in most roles, but one that is, on some level of government, powerful and invasive enough to stop people from doing social things that you disapprove of. And kick it to the states, which I know you're going to come back with, doesn't explain away the gap either. I don't view the states wasting time and money meddling around in regulating peoples' personal lives as being any more meritorious than I do the federal government doing so.
This is the very real gap. While I'm not in 100% agreement with them (I think that short term revenue increases are the only realistic way to start the process of decreasing debt and deficit because there are real consequences that would accompany just suddenly getting rid of huge portions of government and they would instead need to be phased out), I would vote for some of the most fiscally conservative people the GOP could drag up - if they weren't also proclaiming, as a significant part of their platform, the importance of protecting the role of government in interfering with personal liberties.
with a stroke of a pen gay marriage is cost free
I agree with you on drugs but it would be easier just to federally make it legal
I am not saying pay for BC I am talking abortions-- people get pregnant it happens. Country has a choice to pay a few hundred for an abortion or many thousands yearly on WIC< snap cards etc....
now you do not have to do either and let them starve to death (which I do not have a personal problem with) but I am looking for a middle ground to appease the masses
I agree with you, being conservative doesn't make one extreme (neither does being liberal, for that matter)--being extreme makes one extreme. I also agree that being conservative could get someone elected nationally and yes there are conservative dems who would vote for a conservative candidate...However, as long as conservatives/pub party continue fooling themselves with the belief that being more extreme and or ideologically rigid as being the answer to their woes...well at least when they aren't blaming the media for their problems...the harder it will be for them to appeal to moderates in general elections and the longer they'll remain trapped in a bubble which misunderstands that in the real world, political beliefs of the average person are not anywhere near as strong or rigid as their own, but rather, they are a complicated and contradictory and at times very fluid mix.
Politics is perception and those perceived as extremists or pandering to extremists rather than the much larger middle ground of the electorate are not likely to win general elections. A candidate can be truly conservative and principled but also appeal to moderates on both sides of the ideological divide if they at least convey that they have the interests of the average person in mind who will undoubtedly have some difference of opinion on any number of issues.
So its fiscally conservative because of what might have happened instead of not because of what has happened? And you don't even address the cold hard math argument that sanctioning a whole new definition of marriage for the purpose of money benefits, is more money spent?
A real fiscal conservative votes "neither", actually. Their children, or exterminating their children, are their own responsibility.
I don't want a nonexistant government just one whose scope is limited sufficiently to where it isn't an actual obstacle to personal and economic liberty flourishing, which the federal government and quite a few state governments are at this point.
Honestly, you are the one tapdancing here -- I can tell my "social conservatism is more fiscally conservative than social liberalism" postulate clearly has some traction. It is this simple, though; anything "social" agenda-wise that yields more government control over or more taxpayer money spent on, is not fiscally conservative.
Expanding the definition of marriage for example, has been, with one or two state exceptions, something inflicted by crusaders from or using the instruments of government on the public, at the cost of money and manpower. Even if "it just takes a pen" to change that which the culture has not seen fit to change on its own, that is no fiscal conservatism or any other kind of conservatism, since it implicitly concedes someone in government has any right to make that pen stroke. Gay marriage has been, almost exclusively, a process of trying to assert that it is up to the federal government to decide it (not conservative, fiscal or otherwise, and pretty much not libertarian either), and as a by product, for the government to spend more money on it (federal benefits, and, for the "tax cuts are spending" zombies, tax and estate benefits that deprive tax revenue). How is any of that remotely "fiscally conservative", given how much more government, and government spending, it takes to go chasing after that unicorn?
As for the state vs. federal effort... pretty much goes back to how much you are invested in the American idea/Enlightenment concepts in the first place. From the 9th/10th Amendment to the basic maxim of "the government that governs best governs least" to the premise that local government is always more responsive and accountable than distant, giant governments... should be pretty self-explanatory why a freedom lo ing society should feel safer by reducing all government meddling in social issues from the federal to the state or local level.
Get rid of the income and estate tax benefits on marriage. I'm 100% on board with that. Then the only cost of gay marriage legalization is the private money spent (irrelevant to the fiscal conservative viewpoint) and the cost of a judge to hear the case. Voila, we've reduced the costs of gay marriage to something no fiscal conservatives object to.
If we're going to play in happy unicorn land where we can pretend that just eliminating huge swaths of the government with one fell swoop is possible, why be constrained by what the cost under the current system is? If we're looking at idealism (which the Tea Party approach necessarily is), ideally the government wouldn't be in the business of subsidizing marriage at all, and the cost to the government of marriage is the de minimis one of issuing a marriage license, a cost that for a gay couple is identical for that of a straight couple.
And I'm not arguing that the federal government can handle everything better, my point is that the purpose of the federal government is to secure liberty. Saying "by the way, stop screwing around in those peoples' lives, you're not allowed to do that" is a relatively costless step the federal government can take that is entirely consistent with both a "freedom loving peoples," and the broad purposes of constitutional order.
Edited to add: Although I will say that "it's not fiscally conservative to support gay marriage, because doing so would increase the costs associated with the government meddling in social policy to support socially conservative goals" is a quite rich explanation.
Jd, you are exactly right that politics are perception. That is the exact reason our side is always complaining about the liberal press, when 90% plus of media members vote democratic, they can't help but have some liberal slant and don't even realize it. I am sure you agree little with Romney on most issues, but the media was able to turn him into this corporate shark and evil when reality shows him to be a remarkably compassionate and giving man, "perception" created by media made people feel different about him. I think Sarah Palin is a true conservative and look how some flaws on her part and an attacking media has made her perception to be a total dolt, whereas Nancy Pelosis is thought of as a great leader. Would love to see those two in a sit down!!!
Anyhow, I think a lot of us could vote for the same guy if we truly had them vetted. I can't possibly believe you thought a community organizer with a very average state and national senate career was going to be in over his head at least a little. But we are not in this thread to complain about him, so hopefully a candidate that we both could vote for will emerge!!!