Sorry BT...
I will cease and desist with the abortion sprechen.
Let's try to steer this conversation back to the original topic, please. This comment was over the line.
So back to Ron Paul, I really hope this Maine thing blows up in the GOP's face. I understand that primaries are technically run by the political parties and so it skirts voting rights laws and everything, but it's incredibly underhanded. In other words, trademark GOP.
Regardless of his merits as a candidate or his potential efficacy as president the people ought to have a voice in their governance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So back to Ron Paul, I really hope this Maine thing blows up in the GOP's face. I understand that primaries are technically run by the political parties and so it skirts voting rights laws and everything, but it's incredibly underhanded. In other words, trademark GOP.
Regardless of his merits as a candidate or his potential efficacy as president the people ought to have a voice in their governance.
I never thought I would say this, but Maddow actually did some decent reporting.
Even monkeys fall out of trees.
So back to Ron Paul, I really hope this Maine thing blows up in the GOP's face. I understand that primaries are technically run by the political parties and so it skirts voting rights laws and everything, but it's incredibly underhanded. In other words, trademark GOP.
Regardless of his merits as a candidate or his potential efficacy as president the people ought to have a voice in their governance.
I doubt this will have any major impact on the GOP. Some Paul supporters will walk away in disgust, but this doesn't seem to trouble the establishment much. Unless Paul wins the straw poll, and it gets a lot of play in the news cycle (which won't happen given the media's deep hostility to Paul) this won't mean much. The party neo cons don't like having their hypocrisy challenged, but the GOP is going to have a hard time consolidating it's gains if they drive out the tea party and Ron Paul elements.
I think its a bit of evidence that the tea party is astroturf that "tea party" and "Ron Paul" aren't synonomous. Exactly where do they differ? Why hasn't the tea party lined up behind Ron Paul?
This is very true.
I think its a bit of evidence that the tea party is astroturf that "tea party" and "Ron Paul" aren't synonomous. Exactly where do they differ? Why hasn't the tea party lined up behind Ron Paul?
My thoughts exactly, too, BNW. The "Tea Party"'s support of Gingrich/Santorum has me convinced that it was all aout race after all.
I think its a bit of evidence that the tea party is astroturf that "tea party" and "Ron Paul" aren't synonomous. Exactly where do they differ? Why hasn't the tea party lined up behind Ron Paul?My thoughts exactly, too, BNW. The "Tea Party"'s support of Gingrich/Santorum has me convinced that it was all aout race after all.
The fact that tea party folks realize, just like almost everyone else, that Paul hasn't a snowball's chance in hell to win, doesn't necessarily prove that the movement was fake and/or all about race. One doesn't have to cut off one's nose to spite their face to prove they are serious.
So the answer is to keep adding to the deficit via Santorum or Gingrich? What exactly were they mad about to begin with?
|
i don't think human's have "rights" either, but doesn't that undermine, like, everything you've ever said around here? Aren't all your arguments predicated upon the idea that people are being wronged by the government? If they have no rights, then that's really confusing.Well, biologically, at conception, you have a developing human being. The abortion debate can discuss all of the moral and philosophical points they want, but the debate is pretty much retarded when idiots start tossing around "it's just a blastoid" and crap like that. Biology is biology.The biology doesn't help you directly. This is an ought/value question: What do you consider to be the basis for human rights? Once you've decided if that's a unique genetic human code, brain function, or the ability to survive on their own etc THEN biology can help you decide.
More often than not people will get the answer they want first and then backtrack it to the underlying logic that gives the answer they want.
I don't think humans have rights. I think they have different degrees of privilege. "Rights" are meaningless, they can't protect you from anything. Only the social contract and the willingness of others to honor your perceived rights can do that.
And, considering the piss poor job we've done protecting anyone's "rights" on this planet over the years, including here (see: the two SC decisions I cited above), I laugh at people who go on about them. Frankly, your rights are two pounds or less of pressure from being completely irrelevant.
You missed something in all of my writing up there. I did mention the social contract and the willingness of others. I just don't think "rights" exist as some natural thing, but are a mutable part of our social contract. And when I rant against the powers that be, I am accusing them of breaking the social contract, not that they're "trampling on my rights", because the only rights I truly have are those I can defend myself.
Just saying "rights" don't protect anything. Without people willing to defend your ability to do, think or say what you will, and leave you to a peaceful pursuit of your goals, rights are meaningless. Do you think having human rights did people in Rwanda any good? Without the social contract, they're meaningless.
HoustonDerek
What you're seeing is a classic alignment problem.
The "to be lawful or good" thing has been done to death. There are simply times when the law doesn't make any sense for your situation, or when the law has been made to promote interests that are out and out evil, such as slavery.
This is rarer, but no less of a problem. "Do I be CHAOTIC or good?" It would be nice to leave the government out of everyone's lives and out of everyone's pockets but the fact is that the government does a lot of good and has the potential to do a lot more. Giving Joe Schmoe more back in taxes on his 35,000 dollar a year salary is not going to help him if he gets cancer and his insurence company drops him like a bad habit: a government enforcement of his rights as a consumer or a safety net can.
Giving rich people back more money is not going to turn them into anything more than the token philanthropists that they already are. It is not going to fill the gaps in very vital, necessary programs like education that the government is currently filling.
|
|
I'm not talking about money, taxes or any of that. If we're going to live in a free society, we have to accept what the majority wants in things that don't inhibit personal freedom too much. If we decide to have more government, a bunch of universal services and high taxes, and most people are cool with that, then I have to adjust to the contract. But, since the matter is still being decided, I feel like I should be able to try and influence what shape the contract takes, somehow.
And why should the majority care about personal freedom? Why should the majority respect the minority?
|
|
They don't have to, nor have they, historically. Again, my beef with the assumption we have "rights" that just exist in a vacuum. We only have what we can protect.
But that's part of having a fluid social contract. We know what we think is right, we just have to change the system and monitor the trustees (government) to ensure that those things are normalized. Abuse and criminal behavior will probably always be present, nature of the beast, but we can make the consequences for breaking the contract real and painful, people would be less casual about doing so.
I think its a bit of evidence that the tea party is astroturf that "tea party" and "Ron Paul" aren't synonomous. Exactly where do they differ? Why hasn't the tea party lined up behind Ron Paul?
The tea party fundamentally believe anything corporations or banks want is good, and banks want to keep the federal reserve.
Also, the tea party is invested in the war on Islam, which would come to a dead stop under Big Invasive Government Paul.
This is wildly inaccurate in many cases. There are huge variations in what is generally called the Tea Party. In my experience here in Colorado I would say at least a third of the Tea Party activists tend to be Paul supporters. In other areas the vast majority of Tea Party activists are basically indistinguishable from traditional evangelical conservatives.
Many tea party activists and supporters struggle with the same issues as the Republican party at large. They don't want to repeat the Bush mistake of supporting someone who campaigns as a fiscal conservative, but expands government and deficits once elected. On the other hand they are desperate for a candidate that can beat Obama.
The Tea Party movement is so diverse that most generalizations about it are unhelpful to the point of being misleading.
The GOP is desperate to use the Tea Party movement, and the Democrats hostility naturally drives them that way, but many folks in the movement feel deeply betrayed by the utter failure of the GOP to control spending and deficits.
Again my generalizations should also be taken with a grain of salt because the sheer diversity of the movement renders all generalizations suspect, but I've worked with a lot of these folks, and I differ sharply with many of them, but I get very tired of hearing them derided as hateful, ignorant, and racist.
That and the fact that most tea partiers I knew instantly gravitated toward Cain, and stayed in his camp until he suspended his campaign.
The Tea Party movement is so diverse that most generalizations about it are unhelpful to the point of being misleading.
IMO, this is why expecting the Tea Party to rally behind any one candidate is foolish. Not that I'm a supporter, but (no insult BT) the Occupy movement strikes me as very similar. In both cases you're dealing with a diverse group with common cause on one or two issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason most tea partiers do not rally behind Paul, is his foreign policy. It's that simple. His fiscal stuff sounds good enough to sway conservatives, but the "who cares if Iran gets a nuke" is not.
It doesn't do any good to have solid fiscal policy at home if you're going to let the world go to s%!$ around you.*
*I do not feel this way, having been schooled about the difference between isolationism and non-intervention.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often marvel at how much I agree with Houston Derek, and yet come to entirely different conclusions. It's so easy to go after the truth and end up in an area completely unrecognized by any established political interest.
That evangelical conservatives and non-evangelical conservatives vote similarly should be no suprise.
Well, that doesn't work for me.
Not all evangelical conservatives are social nazis. Nor are all non-evangelical conservatives unconcerned about social issues.
The similar voting line happens when a conservative canidate has most of what a conservative voterbase is looking for, and they are willing to compromise, within the party, on the side of conservatism.
Some things you can get behind as a conservative and be ok with.
Some things you can not.
It's not all about sex. I don't personally understand the gay marriage bit, but I do understand not being ok with a federal mandate to force a catholic charity or hospital to cover contraceptives when it clearly goes against their religion to do so.
Abortion is loss of life. Not many are comfortable with it, including myself. I also know, however, simply voting in a pro-life person is not going to insta-repeal RvW.
I am not willing to back a guy who is pro-life if he is also fiscaly liberal.
I am willing to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage canidate that is fiscaly conservative.
I'm sure it's the same way on the other side of the mirror.
May I ask specifically what is missing from his sanity?
Isn't Ron Paul the guy who wanted Texas to succeed from the union?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Ron Paul the guy who wanted Texas to succeed from the union?
Texas already has succeeded in being the union -- that's what Dubya was all about.
Or did you mean "secede"?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often marvel at how much I agree with Houston Derek, and yet come to entirely different conclusions. It's so easy to go after the truth and end up in an area completely unrecognized by any established political interest.
Bah! Only international proletarian socialist revolution can solve all life's problems.
Rachel Maddow? Alyona Minkovski!
Re: rights. Stalin put it well--"Paper takes anything written on it." Beyond that, Know Your Rights!
That and the fact that most tea partiers I knew instantly gravitated toward Cain, and stayed in his camp until he suspended his campaign.
That was a head scratcher for me, but the common theme for the TP/Cain supporters out here seemed to be the outsider thing and the belief the he might actually become a serious change agent. For many of us RP Tea Party supporters his previous involvement with the Fed was a huge red flag.
The Tea Party movement is so diverse that most generalizations about it are unhelpful to the point of being misleading.IMO, this is why expecting the Tea Party to rally behind any one candidate is foolish. Not that I'm a supporter, but (no insult BT) the Occupy movement strikes me as very similar. In both cases you're dealing with a diverse group with common cause on one or two issues.
This analysis is consistent with my experience in Colorado. While many OWS folks here fit the expected stereotype many were much more libertarian in their leanings for lack of a better term. Many of them didn't favor redistribution through taxation, and we had a surprising amount of common ground about the current system being badly rigged and not very meritocratic. There was a lot of support for things like auditing the fed too.
So yes my experience with OWS here in Colorado was that they were very politically diverse, and they didn't strike me as astroturf either. I'm sure this is wildly variable by region though.
The reason most tea partiers do not rally behind Paul, is his foreign policy. It's that simple. His fiscal stuff sounds good enough to sway conservatives, but the "who cares if Iran gets a nuke" is not.
It doesn't do any good to have solid fiscal policy at home if you're going to let the world go to s&~$ around you.**I do not feel this way, having been schooled about the difference between isolationism and non-intervention.
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason most tea partiers do not rally behind Paul, is his foreign policy. It's that simple. His fiscal stuff sounds good enough to sway conservatives, but the "who cares if Iran gets a nuke" is not.
The other reason is that, as BT admits above:
In other areas the vast majority of Tea Party activists are basically indistinguishable from traditional evangelical conservatives.The culture warriors are behind Santorum. The libertarians are behind Paul. What's left of the moderates are behind Romney, who's doing his best to scare them off by trying to capture some of the culture warriors.
This is exactly how it worked out in the caucus I attended here in El Paso. Religious conservative are the driving force in the activist segment of the GOP here. Even many libertarian leaning Republican and RP supporters are what I would call conservative and devout in their personal lives but quite libertarian on social issues as a matter of policy.
It reminds me of the RP poster that says:
Ron Paul, completely square, and relentlessly defending your right not to be!
I would also point out that while Ron Paul didn't win the caucus straw poll we dominated the delegate races to the tune of %80+ above the county level. There is a massive enthusiasm gap between Ron Paul and the rest of the GOP field.
That evangelical conservatives and non-evangelical conservatives vote similarly should be no suprise.Who said they are?
And is it a surprise to you when the alleged small-government conservatives toe the religious line on "values" issues like abortion, gay marriage, birth control? (Ever notice how the only values they care about are about sex?)
There's also drugs, gambling, and education, but they simply don't play in the media like the other basic wedge issues.
The gambling ban is the most mind boggling to me IMO. Im glad to here about the delegate situation.
|
|
I often marvel at how much I agree with Houston Derek, and yet come to entirely different conclusions. It's so easy to go after the truth and end up in an area completely unrecognized by any established political interest.
I'm curious to know which of my premises you agree with, and what different conclusions you came to. I really dig seeing how people distill the same ideas into different viewpoints.
And, yeah, no party even comes close to what I would be happy with, politically.
Isn't Ron Paul the guy who wanted Texas to succeed from the union?Texas already has succeeded in being the union -- that's what Dubya was all about.
Or did you mean "secede"?
I don't know, what is the difference?
I don't know, what is the difference?
I have no idea. But if they do succeed in seceding, be sure to cc: me; I wouldn't want to miss it.
Dont know where else to put this, so here it goes.
Reasons why the war with Iran that is being forced upon us is just stupid.
Boo! Comrade Whiteknife, why did you put this link in Bitter Thorn's Evil Den of Reactionaries when you could have put it in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread?!?
Anyway, yeah, US hands off Iran!!
What!?! I started this thread, not comrade BT!
Interesting stuff. While I'm not in favor of Iran having nukes, I also don't think we should invade either.
What!?! I started this thread, not comrade BT!
My bad, Comrade Knife. I guess it's because I more associate Comrade BT with the face of reactionary evil and still have high hopes for you. It doesn't excuse my forgetting who started this thread, however. I apologize and so does the Revolution!
Vive le Galt!
When I think of myself, I think more "awesome quasi-diety of party machines" and less "face of reactionary evil". But I guess that'd do too. ;p