Well...so much for keeping it civil.
The future of the Republican Party.
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Yevetha
Commodore
Ron Paul could not gut social security even if he wanted to. He is proposing an opt-out.
This is not the TNZ, so i suggest using a civilised tone.
Abolishing Dont ask Dont tell does not make him much different.
Cutting it in half would not be a tragedy.
I did not say that. Kucinich had a positive vision in his campaing.
That was being civil. Sarcasm can still fall comfortably within the bounds of civility. Since this isn't TNZ I'll eschew getting political, but I will state that any objective examination of President Obama's three years in office will show that there are far, far more differences between Obama and conservative Republicans than just the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
That said...carry on.
That said...carry on.
Like you correctly stated, this isn't TNZ.
If you would like to have a discussion of the differences between President Obama and George W. Bush in TNZ then I will more than happily accomodate you over there. But...for the record? You did say that Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate with a positive vision and platform for America. The post still exists and lots of people saw it. But...you know what...this isn't the Neutral Zone and this isn't the place for feverish political argument so I will simply wish you well and take my leave of this thread for now. I and others will be in TNZ if you would like to discuss Obama.
If you would like to have a discussion of the differences between President Obama and George W. Bush in TNZ then I will more than happily accomodate you over there. But...for the record? You did say that Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate with a positive vision and platform for America. The post still exists and lots of people saw it. But...you know what...this isn't the Neutral Zone and this isn't the place for feverish political argument so I will simply wish you well and take my leave of this thread for now. I and others will be in TNZ if you would like to discuss Obama.
Dude. I'm done. This is not the appropriate forum. If you want to debate Obama vs. Bush, come over to TNZ. Miscellaneous isn't the right place for this. I and plenty of other folks over there will listen to your opinions and give you feedback.
And for the record? Yes. You're right. The Republican Party is a complete and total mess and clusterfuck. I largely agreed with your original post. The GOP is an increasingly anachronistic and dying party that embraces far too many extreme whackos and nutjobs. It is running against the wind and will not survive in the long term if it doesn't make radical changes and embrace its moderates.
And for the record? Yes. You're right. The Republican Party is a complete and total mess and clusterfuck. I largely agreed with your original post. The GOP is an increasingly anachronistic and dying party that embraces far too many extreme whackos and nutjobs. It is running against the wind and will not survive in the long term if it doesn't make radical changes and embrace its moderates.
We have arguments. And I think we've succesfully refuted your assertions that Obama is a Bush clone and a closet Republican. Do we get a little heated and sarcastic? Yes. I'll admit, it's one of TNZ's many weaknesses. We can get perturbed and angry and say some silly and ridiculous things. But we gave you plenty of feedback on your Obama assertions. If you don't like what we said, fine. That is your right to disagree with us. But don't say you didn't get responses and debate when we clearly gave you those things. You are more than welcome to come back and ask for more feedback and opinion. Just because we disagree with you does not mean your voice is not welcome. You are always welcome.
Of course he isn't. But the problem of the centre-left virtually everywhere is that they do not represent a real alternative anymore.
As far as I know Obamacare is basically a concept from the health insurance industry, drones attacks, Gitmo and the executive killing of US citizens seems like a continuation of the dubious foreign policy from the Bush years and apart from one deficit spending program Obama firmly rides the austerity horse as if the thirties have never existed. And about all the Wallstreet guys in his administration, well, who doesn't know about it.
This is in my opinion not a problem of individuals or even parties. It is a systemic problem and like in first half of the last century it will probably take decades until a left movement has even a tiny influence upon politics.
I mean, Obama said it himself, "go out and make me do it". Why has Nixon, a staunch antiliberal, been a liberal president? Because he feared the people, because he had to flow along with the Zeitgeist.
The trick is not to vote the right people into office. It is not a coincidence that the contemporary corporate media are obsessed with elections instead of issues. The trick is to make the people in office do the right things which requires far more effort than voting on election day.
This thread has become quite the quintessential example of how those on both sides of the extreme political spectrum are so much alike (proving my earlier point of how Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same animal wearing a different-colored tie).
Neither side are willing to listen to rational argument in the middle and must resort to nanny-nanny-boo-boo name-calling. Ideologues are two sides of the same coin: they are irrevocably bound together by their unyielding passions, strong as metal, yet are never able to touch in the middle.
Reminds me of the "Atlas Shrugged" thread from a few months back.
Neither side are willing to listen to rational argument in the middle and must resort to nanny-nanny-boo-boo name-calling. Ideologues are two sides of the same coin: they are irrevocably bound together by their unyielding passions, strong as metal, yet are never able to touch in the middle.
Reminds me of the "Atlas Shrugged" thread from a few months back.
Oh, it's painfully evident that both parties are beholden to special corporate and financial interests and have been thoroughly compromised over the course of recent years. The Affordable Care Act is a substantially watered down bill that still leaves more than 10 million Americans uncovered by health insurance after 2014, and Obama's White House has too many intimate Wall Street connections for my tastes. But I still assert that comprehensive health care reform is something that George W. Bush was never interested in and would never, ever have done. Health care reform and universal insurance coverage has been a part of virutally all Democratic presidential platforms dating all the way back to Truman in 1948. The Republicans at most pay lip service to health care reform by promoting limited reforms such as catastrophic health insurance vouchers for children as their more rabid free market philosophy regarding health care does not allow most in the GOP to embrace the idea of universal coverage. To me there are still drastic differences between the parties even though both have become the bitches of corporate lobbyists. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it's a fair sight better and more comprehensive than anything the current Tea Party GOP would even care or dream to propose, and more than 30 million additional Americans will be covered. That is concrete progress no matter what kind of a Wall Street tool some people think Obama is.
I agree that that this bill is good and important and if I were a US citizen I wouldn't have to think twice about where to put my X on election day. But doesn't it strike you as mildly strange that this seems to be the only main difference left between the two parties?
This is not a US-specific issue by the way, e.g. the UK Labour Party recently declared that they will not undo the austerity measures if they come to power. With such a centre-left it is not surprising that right-wing populist or fascist movements gain power.
This is not a US-specific issue by the way, e.g. the UK Labour Party recently declared that they will not undo the austerity measures if they come to power. With such a centre-left it is not surprising that right-wing populist or fascist movements gain power.
Of course he is and the rage about Wallstreet owning the two big parties is justified.
Yet you might wanna think twice about your favourite politician. Back to gold reveals a serious lack of understanding of money, not bailing out banks has not been an option (unless you consider a total freezing of the credit and interbank market an option) and last but not least, if Paul came to power he would not work on better financial regulation either as he does not even understand why it is necessary.
I understand the appeal of libertarianism, it seems to be pro small business and contra big business. But reading the Austrians and pretending that we live in a barter economy is in no way helpful if you wanna understand a modern credit economy. It's like putting a car driver in an Apollo rocket, friggin' suicidal.
Yet you might wanna think twice about your favourite politician. Back to gold reveals a serious lack of understanding of money, not bailing out banks has not been an option (unless you consider a total freezing of the credit and interbank market an option) and last but not least, if Paul came to power he would not work on better financial regulation either as he does not even understand why it is necessary.
I understand the appeal of libertarianism, it seems to be pro small business and contra big business. But reading the Austrians and pretending that we live in a barter economy is in no way helpful if you wanna understand a modern credit economy. It's like putting a car driver in an Apollo rocket, friggin' suicidal.
I do respect Ron Paul for his consistency, however I just don't think many of those plans are workable...as consistent as they may be.
Take the gold standard for example.
It would take a massive shrinking of the American economy for that to work. The US holds 8,133.5 tons of gold. At $60.8 million a ton that comes out to a total worth of $494,516,800,000. There's over 3.4 trillion dollars of circulated American currency out there.
All the gold in the world will only get you 1.9 trillion dollars.
Take the gold standard for example.
It would take a massive shrinking of the American economy for that to work. The US holds 8,133.5 tons of gold. At $60.8 million a ton that comes out to a total worth of $494,516,800,000. There's over 3.4 trillion dollars of circulated American currency out there.
All the gold in the world will only get you 1.9 trillion dollars.
Yes it is. Political and controversial discussions are allowed here as well as in TNZ, with the only caveat being that you can not resort to flaming. If some people can't handle that, that's an issue with them, not with the premise of political discussion in a forum where flaming has consequences.
Burning, for instance.
Noted...and thanks for the reminder. However, I prefer to keep lengthy and complicated political arguments in TNZ if it's all the same.
