2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Fixed, at least from some perspectives. Keep in mind that everyone who is anti-abortion isn't anti-abortion because they're anti-women. Sure, some are. But not all.

While I get that philosophy, one of the things that baffles me is that people want to force somebody to have a child in situations where a person believes they are not financially, emotionally, or mature enough to handle the situation. Then when they have said child and can't handle the situation and ask for help we tell them sorry -- no help for you -- you should have been smarter. So what appears to be an argument about "life" is nothing but trying to be somebody's morality.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by rowech

While I get that philosophy, one of the things that baffles me is that people want to force somebody to have a child in situations where a person believes they are not financially, emotionally, or mature enough to handle the situation. Then when they have said child and can't handle the situation and ask for help we tell them sorry -- no help for you -- you should have been smarter. So what appears to be an argument about "life" is nothing but trying to be somebody's morality.

Again, you're talking about two different groups here. The modern-day Pharisees take position 1 without taking position 2. However, I know more than a handful of people who put their money where their mouth is on this one. I can't count how many "conservative" white southern evangelicals that I know personally who are adopt, do foster care, or give large sums of money to those types of efforts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Fixed, at least from some perspectives. Keep in mind that everyone who is anti-abortion isn't anti-abortion because they're anti-women. Sure, some are. But not all.

I'll do that once pro-lifers recognize that hardly anyone who's pro-choice is pro-abortion, and that Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any church ever did.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by rowech

While I get that philosophy, one of the things that baffles me is that people want to force somebody to have a child in situations where a person believes they are not financially, emotionally, or mature enough to handle the situation. Then when they have said child and can't handle the situation and ask for help we tell them sorry -- no help for you -- you should have been smarter. So what appears to be an argument about "life" is nothing but trying to be somebody's morality.

Isn't there room for such a person to argue "rather than kill the baby, carry it to term and put it up for adoption" without crossing the line of moral hypocrisy? If you believe abortion is murder, isn't that a nearly compulsory position to take, even if it inevitably slights the woman and her financial, emotional, or maturity status?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll do that once pro-lifers recognize that hardly anyone who's pro-choice is pro-abortion, and that Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any church ever did.

So the argument here is "they are bad, so I can be bad, too?"

[JPhillips]

Dutch: My problem with that is that no one wants to cut the things that really matter, defense, Social Security and healthcare. Most of the GOP candidates seem to want to significantly increase defense spending and Congress just passed a tax cut package worth @60 billion a year. At some point we need to be honest about what we're spending and tax accordingly. That's why I wish the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire so we'd return to the Clinton rates and basically eliminate the structural deficit.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So the argument here is "they are bad, so I can be bad, too?"

I'll quote myself from way back:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm looking for politicians that don't tell me how much more than $6T they need to make things better, but politicians that can tell me how to better utilize the $6T we already give them.

I agree with utilizing the incoming funds efficiently, but I think your argument verges on being a straw man because you take it to extremes - I don't personally think that only billionaires should pay more, I'd be happy to myself (and I'm far from being a billionaire).

This isn't a purely selfless thing, if I paid more and everyone in the country was given health insurance and access to education then my own costs would decrease (admittedly by less than I would pay in additional tax) and society itself would benefit, meaning most jobs and prosperity - leading to reduced crime and a nicer environment to live in.

PS - I also personally would say the BIGGEST thing for spending sensibly would be for America to cut its ludicrously huge military budget, there is absolutely no requirement for the US to spend as much as the next 20 countries combined on their military ... its purely political grandstanding and profiteering ..

[ISiddiqui]

I'm also not sold on that "we don't have any more to give" argument. US tax rates are pretty low compared to the rest of the 1st world. In addition, the way we treat capital gains and estate taxes make little sense, esp when compared world wide (and to cut the potential argument off at the knees, let's compare the US to Germany, which actually has a very productive economy even with the higher tax rates - or Australia).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Isn't there room for such a person to argue "rather than kill the baby, carry it to term and put it up for adoption" without crossing the line of moral hypocrisy? If you believe abortion is murder, isn't that a nearly compulsory position to take, even if it inevitably slights the woman and her financial, emotional, or maturity status?

The challenge is that this is the same group arguing against funding for social welfare. So the moral hypocrisy comes in whereby they'll protect the fetus right up until birth at which point they functionally stop caring.

Look, I get the point here about faith. I really do. But this black-and-white dogma on display does nothing to assuage the greater problem. And the vitriol that the dogma encourages (against solutions for root causes - like sex education, or simply pouring into the abortion debate) actively works against a compromise solution.

We're not a theocratic state. A compromise solution has to be the goal.

[albionmoonlight]

Dutch: Thanks for a well-reasoned analysis.

One thing I would note is that the numbers are not quite as dire as you suggest inasmuch as focusing on full-time workers misses where a lot of income in generated--investments. Kim and Kanye's kid is making more than any of us right now in trust fund income without working at all.

I also agree with JPhillips. The real drivers of the deficit/debt are the Bush/Obama tax cuts (Bush and his Congress proposed them, but Obama and his Congress made the permanent), defense, and health care (I am not as worried about social security). Of course, defense, social security, and Medicare are things people really like, so politicians treat them as sacrosanct. The things that people don't like (foreign aid, foodstamps, etc) have already been cut (because they are un-liked) to the point where further cuts would amount to a rounding error compared to the big programs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Almost as bad as freedom-loving conservatives saying the government should get out of people's lives except for women being able to make decisions about their own bodies.

I don't recall arguing that government should make decisions for women, but ya, there's bad conservatives too, you win again!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I agree with utilizing the incoming funds efficiently, but I think your argument verges on being a straw man because you take it to extremes - I don't personally think that only billionaires should pay more, I'd be happy to myself (and I'm far from being a billionaire).

This isn't a purely selfless thing, if I paid more and everyone in the country was given health insurance and access to education then my own costs would decrease (admittedly by less than I would pay in additional tax) and society itself would benefit, meaning most jobs and prosperity - leading to reduced crime and a nicer environment to live in.

This is my view as well, and I'm in one of the higher tax brackets, so I would absolutely be affected.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - I also personally would say the BIGGEST thing for spending sensibly would be for America to cut its ludicrously huge military budget, there is absolutely no requirement for the US to spend as much as the next 20 countries combined on their military ... its purely political grandstanding and profiteering ..

The DOD, for as expensive as it is....is the one government institution that truly gives us something in return. (EDIT: That is harsh...gives us the most value for our dollar, IMO) I'd love to cut costs...would I would love to see is a match program with the rest of the free world. For every dollar we stop spending to defend our collective way of life....you must pledge a dollar. I'm looking specifically at NATO, the Middle East allies, Japan, South Korea and anybody else that enjoys our military services.

We are getting owned by these nations for not paying in to the system that they want...and quite frankly...need.

Although as a veteran, I will say that I'm a bit leery with these politicians that continually target personnel pay and pensions. We need to fix that, but we never should look first to rescind promises we've made to 18 year olds to join the military.

Why are these veterans so expensive? Free healthcare...free education....good pensions....that's expensive stuff. Imagine if we implemented that for all citizens while asking for nothing in return.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Dutch: Thanks for a well-reasoned analysis.

One thing I would note is that the numbers are not quite as dire as you suggest inasmuch as focusing on full-time workers misses where a lot of income in generated--investments. Kim and Kanye's kid is making more than any of us right now in trust fund income without working at all.

I know it's all a lot more complicated than I could put in a few words, I tried to put in numbers that I could comprehend...I'm not an economist or a budget analyst, so I knew posting that I would likely say something erroneous or misleading...ultimately though, I was hoping to not say something that would get me completely beat up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The DOD, for as expensive as it is....is the one government institution that truly gives us something in return.

Misjudged wars that destabilize entire regions and cost us trillions in the process?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The DOD, for as expensive as it is....is the one government institution that truly gives us something in return.

This is one of the more unsupportable statements I've seen around here.

I'm not sure you could even support an assertion that the DOD has the best ROI of any government institution.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Misjudged wars that destabilize entire regions and cost us trillions in the process?

I should clarify, I meant at the individual level. The men and women that carry out the tasks are damned good at what they do.

[Dutch]

Yes, there is bloat in the overall DOD enterprise.

[Kodos]

Incredible, mind-numbing bloat.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I should clarify, I meant at the individual level. The men and women that carry out the tasks are damned good at what they do.

There is far more military spending than just on the individual level. The individual level is only 32% of the military budget:



I also have to agree with flere, the return on investment of the DOD is one of the worst in the entire government.

[JPhillips]

What falls under "allowances"?

[miked]

I'll echo the statements about those who care for life and wanting to end abortion not putting as much effort in to the solution. How about stopping unwanted pregnancies? We have laws to prevent educating children about sex, we make birth control difficult to obtain, and we PAY for abstinence only education which statistically leads to more unwanted pregnancies because BIBLE. Proponents are correct in that abstinence is the only way to not get pregnant, but practically it has not been effective for thousands of years because of awesome sex.

When conservatives stop passing bills to shove wands in vaginas, make somebody drive 6 hours each way for 3 consecutive days, and actually make it easier to adopt (the cost is astronomical and difficult to achieve) and prevent pregnancies, I'll believe they actually care about life. I can buy an arsenal of death weapons with more ease than ending an unwanted pregnancy, but life is precious?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm looking for politicians that don't tell me how much more than $6T they need to make things better, but politicians that can tell me how to better utilize the $6T we already give them.

the problem is there is absolutely nowhere near any consensus on the goal. Use the $6t to do what? Insure all Americans are safe? Stable? Self sufficient? Content?

We have a capitalist system that approaches welfare as a means to make being poor a little less miserable, rather than a means to an end. I just don't see how spending all that money can ever be efficient. It's purely political.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I also have to agree with flere, the return on investment of the DOD is one of the worst in the entire government.

Well, to be clear, I'm speculating that it's not that good. But I'd love to see an actual ROI calculation.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What falls under "allowances"?

BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) and BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistence) probably.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm looking for politicians that don't tell me how much more than $6T they need to make things better, but politicians that can tell me how to better utilize the $6T we already give them.

The trap people are falling into is believing that the GOP are the latter politicians. Republican politicians aren't any more interested in getting the most for each tax dollar than Democratic politicians are. They're just interested in cutting the areas of the budget they don't like. That's not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Although as a veteran, I will say that I'm a bit leery with these politicians that continually target personnel pay and pensions. We need to fix that, but we never should look first to rescind promises we've made to 18 year olds to join the military.

Right there with you. There's plenty of fat riddled throughout the DOD budget. I'm confident one can find billions without touching people.

Frankly, aside from straight up killing the F-35 program, the single best thing the DOD could do from a budget standpoint is to modernize the procurement process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The trap people are falling into is believing that the GOP are the latter politicians. Republican politicians aren't any more interested in getting the most for each tax dollar than Democratic politicians are. They're just interested in cutting the areas of the budget they don't like. That's not the same thing.

While not the same, it does represent an improvement of the situation to the majority of GOP voters.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While not the same, it does represent an improvement of the situation to the majority of GOP voters.

Sure, I'd agree with that. I think that "majority of GOP voters" is highly deluded as to how little a greatly reduced federal government would affect them personally, but I don't expect you to agree with that.

Edit: Supporting Documentation (of a sort):

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/dep...47-percenters/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6930634.html

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sure, I'd agree with that. I think that "majority of GOP voters" is highly deluded as to how little a greatly reduced federal government would affect them personally, but I don't expect you to agree with that.

Financially?
Or psychologically/emotionally?

I'd settle for (just making up numbers here) a 10% reduction if it came with a complete overhaul of where/how it was being spent. At least as a starting point.

[albionmoonlight]

The biggest knock on Trump from the Establishment camp is that he cannot win a general election. Therefore, the thinking goes, the GOP would do better to nominate a Bush or Rubio and give itself a 50/50 shot against Clinton.

Jon (and others) argue that the GOP problem is that they have been nominating these 50/50 candidates (Romney, McCain) and losing because a lot of the base is uninspired and chooses to stay home.

Then isn't this primary give the GOP a chance to figure out who is right and end up with the best candidate? If Jon, et al., are correct, then a huge number of heretofore ignored/taken-for-granted folks will show up at the primaries and push Trump to the nomination. If that happens, then it demonstrates that Trump's perceived biggest weakness (cannot get voters to show up) is not a weakness but a strength. And then maybe he is the best chance they have to beat Clinton.

If, however, Trump's polling support does not translate into voters at the polls, then he will lose the nomination and demonstrate that perhaps the GOP establishment is right that a 50/50 candidate is their best chance.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Financially?
Or psychologically/emotionally?

Well, financially first, and then psychologically/emotionally as their lives crumble around them.

I'd settle for (just making up numbers here) a 10% reduction if it came with a complete overhaul of where/how it was being spent. At least as a starting point.

Well, OK, but that's not what the current slate of GOP potential nominees (especially the front-runners) are talking about. This is still a slate that likes to joke about how they'll close down more federal departments than the next guy.

Of course, that's not realistic, but that's not my point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, financially first, and then psychologically/emotionally as their lives crumble around them.

Are you trying to cause permanent damage with the eye-rolling caused by silly bullshit like that? I mean, c'mon, a rational man could hurt himself with the involuntary reaction.

Well, OK, but that's not what the current slate of GOP potential nominees (especially the front-runners) are talking about. This is still a slate that likes to joke about how they'll close down more federal departments than the next guy.

One would be better than zero. Realistically though as long as we're cursed with so many Godforsaken liberals and treacherous pseudocons in Congress the odds of getting meaningful cuts aren't great.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The biggest knock on Trump from the Establishment camp is that he cannot win a general election.

I'm not entirely sure I'd go along with that.

Their biggest gripe with him seems to be that he might actually do something useful -- or is at least willing to state for the record that he's willing to try to do something worthwhile -- and that is revealing quite a few of them for the frauds that they are.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you trying to cause permanent damage with the eye-rolling caused by silly bullshit like that? I mean, c'mon, a rational man could hurt himself with the involuntary reaction.

Of course I am. Was my antipathy for you not already clear?

[flere-imsaho]

I think, realistically, the biggest issues the GOP Establishment have with Trump are:

1) He's not beholden to the party, so if he does win, he's not necessarily going to do the kind of things he wants to do.

2) His message doesn't necessarily match the one the establishment is attempting to manage for this election cycle, which may affect the elect-ability of other candidates, for President or otherwise.

[JPhillips]

Trump's polling against Hillary is generally terrible and he's likely to be an anchor around all the downballot races as well. Add to that the fact that he's a wildcard at best and a danger to the world at worst and it's no wonder the establishment hates him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Of course I am. Was my antipathy for you not already clear?

Sheesh, and here I thought we were at least civilly cool and all.

{shrug}

[JonInMiddleGA]

But since I now have a prompt for it & all ... I wonder how much wailing & moaning there'd be if our few conservatives actively asshole trolled the f'n (D) primary thread the way some of our more fucktard left wingnuts have done in this one?

But, hey, that's the FOFC for ya.

[ISiddiqui]

If the Dem Primary race was the slight bit interesting, I'm sure it would have happened.

[digamma]

In all fairness, I think there is a good bit of posting on both sides of the aisle in both threads. And let's face it, the Republican contest is waaaaaay more interesting for pretty much everyone.

I mean what would the trolling be.

R Poster: Hillary sucks and hid e-mails.
D Poster: WE KNOW! BUT WE'VE GOT NO ONE BETTER.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

the problem is there is absolutely nowhere near any consensus on the goal. Use the $6t to do what? Insure all Americans are safe? Stable? Self sufficient? Content?

We have a capitalist system that approaches welfare as a means to make being poor a little less miserable, rather than a means to an end. I just don't see how spending all that money can ever be efficient. It's purely political.

That's the trap our very polarizing campaigns have. There are things we need to do better moving forward, at the very least. Some people can do a lot better and a lot worse with $6T. A lot of people say it's like turning around an aircraft carrier...but that suggests we are working on it and we'll get there eventually....but the reality is it's more like moving the aircraft carrier to Iowa. Nobody is even trying right now because nobody thinks it can be done...at least not during their lifetime or before they get fired from politics, so why bother?

[ISiddiqui]

Bill Kristol: 'We'll Have to Start' New Party if It's Trump

Wow... Bill Kristol is openly saying that Trump wins the nomination, he'll be part of a movement that starts a new Republican party.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's the trap our very polarizing campaigns have. There are things we need to do better moving forward, at the very least. Some people can do a lot better and a lot worse with $6T. A lot of people say it's like turning around an aircraft carrier...but that suggests we are working on it and we'll get there eventually....but the reality is it's more like moving the aircraft carrier to Iowa. Nobody is even trying right now because nobody thinks it can be done...at least not during their lifetime or before they get fired from politics, so why bother?

That assumes that everyone wants the aircraft carrier in the same place. The whole notion of politics is an argument over how power and resources are distributed through a society. What if I think the carrier should be in Alaska?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Bill Kristol: 'We'll Have to Start' New Party if It's Trump

Wow... Bill Kristol is openly saying that Trump wins the nomination, he'll be part of a movement that starts a new Republican party.

I think it's much more likely he'll fall into line and tell us all how Trump is the heir to Reagan. This is just a stunt to get people to switch to Cruz, his personal favorite.

[ISiddiqui]

It's much harder to do when you are already on record saying you won't support him and would rather start a 3rd party.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's much harder to do when you are already on record saying you won't support him and would rather start a 3rd party.

If it was anybody else, sure, but Kristol has shown a remarkable willingness to ignore the past when it's expedient to do so.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wow... Bill Kristol is openly saying that Trump wins the nomination, he'll be part of a movement that starts a new Republican party.

Bye.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That assumes that everyone wants the aircraft carrier in the same place. The whole notion of politics is an argument over how power and resources are distributed through a society. What if I think the carrier should be in Alaska?

Agreed. That's why I continue to have faith in the Republic and the near genius implementation of it. The two-party system works well when you have a king and essentially the anti-king. Keep that pendulum moving back and forth. Provided you are in a good place foundation ally, it works. And judging by our immigration problem, it's still works.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sheesh, and here I thought we were at least civilly cool and all.

{shrug}

Are you trying to cause permanent damage with the eye-rolling caused by silly bullshit like that? I mean, c'mon, a rational man could hurt himself with the involuntary reaction.

But by all means, continue posting about your wish to kill "illegal" women and children and use vile examples to describe your hate of sanders, then complain about trolling of you and this thread

You have a legitimate point of view that you choose to manifest it in the most feckless way possible.

I guess this is the nature of this platform, it's just becoming so hard to dismiss your desires when I work and live in a place where I put a face to your targets.