Disgusted with Progressives
-
BoatShoes
The feelings fascists are doing more harm then good. IMHO they make a large segment of the population identify as "anti-left" if not "pro-right"like_that;1843683 wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-parliament-anti-islamophobia-motion-pass-muslim-irqa-khalid-david-anderson-racism-faith-a7647851.html
I know this is Canada, but whenever I get pissed at the right, stuff like this is a friendly reminder why I would never want the regressive liberals having full control of our government. I am fully confident libs would try to pull this type of shit if they could. -
ppaw1999I would have to question how sound is the footing that the Republican party is on. I would argue that President Trump is more like a third party president. With the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party/ Religious right each having their own agendas the moderate Republicans have their backs against the wall. With the fiasco on Obamacare repeal I wonder how much unity the GOP can count on. Both parties are a shell of their former selves.
-
HitsRus
I know this is Canada, but whenever I get pissed at the right, stuff like this is a friendly reminder why I would never want the regressive liberals having full control of our government. I am fully confident libs would try to pull this type of shit if they could.[The feelings fascists are doing more harm then good. IMHO they make a large segment of the population identify as "anti-left" if not "pro-right"/QUOTE]
I have said this before and oft....I would have to question how sound is the footing that the Republican party is on. I would argue that President Trump is more like a third party president. With the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party/ Religious right each having their own agendas the moderate Republicans have their backs against the wall. With the fiasco on Obamacare repeal I wonder how much unity the GOP can count on. Both parties are a shell of their former selves.
The world of Politics is round just like the Earth. Just like travelling on this planet, where if you travel west far enough, you'll eventually end up in the east, if you travel "left" politically far enough you end up being the fascist "alt right". There is not a lot of difference between them. It's pretty scary that we have come to this.....very dangerous to the Republic.
PPaw seems to be worried about the Republicans "footing". I disagree. I'm much more worried about the Dems. The 'Pubs at least have a functioning middle that is a viable political force. They may not have enough to govern, but they still are enough of a faction to protect themselves from the alt-right and the Progressives. The Democrats are in worse shape. They have no middle....Any moderates that still exist within their party have been cowed into following the Progressive line, or be destroyed. -
CenterBHSFan
HitsRus;1844688 wrote:
The Blue Dogs have indeed become stifled and tamped down. We could certainly use an infusion of Dave Rubins in DC!The Democrats are in worse shape. They have no middle....Any moderates that still exist within their party have been cowed into following the Progressive line, or be destroyed. -
ppaw1999I am concerned with where both parties are headed. I am an independent and consider my views to be centrist. I am finding it hard to find common grounds with my views and the overall platforms of both parties. The middle ground for both parties have been highjacked. When you have Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan as leaders of their parties I cringe anytime either talks policy. If the Libertarian party ever gets it's act together and find any true leadership I think I will be on board.
-
ptown_trojans_1
There is no middle anymore. The days of middle of the road policy makers of both parties like Robert Gates, Brent Scowcroft, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn are gone.ppaw1999;1844743 wrote:I am concerned with where both parties are headed. I am an independent and consider my views to be centrist. I am finding it hard to find common grounds with my views and the overall platforms of both parties. The middle ground for both parties have been highjacked. When you have Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan as leaders of their parties I cringe anytime either talks policy. If the Libertarian party ever gets it's act together and find any true leadership I think I will be on board. -
QuakerOatsptown_trojans_1;1844749 wrote:There is no middle anymore. The days of middle of the road policy makers of both parties like Robert Gates, Brent Scowcroft, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn are gone.
Perhaps the best reason ever for VASTLY reducing the size of the federal government. -
ptown_trojans_1
Right, cause those guys I listed were sooo awful....QuakerOats;1844752 wrote:Perhaps the best reason ever for VASTLY reducing the size of the federal government. -
queencitybuckeye
and you said those days are over. In that context, QQ's comment is really the only logical response.ptown_trojans_1;1844754 wrote:Right, cause those guys I listed were sooo awful.... -
justincredible
I wouldn't count on it.ppaw1999;1844743 wrote:I am concerned with where both parties are headed. I am an independent and consider my views to be centrist. I am finding it hard to find common grounds with my views and the overall platforms of both parties. The middle ground for both parties have been highjacked. When you have Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan as leaders of their parties I cringe anytime either talks policy. If the Libertarian party ever gets it's act together and find any true leadership I think I will be on board. -
rocketalumAs an Independent Centrist as well, one of the things I find most troubling in talking with supporters of the far left or right is that it feels like they genuinely would love to see the collapse of the other side and for their party to run everything. So basically "patriots" are advocating for single party autocracy. The complete antithesis of the American experiment. It's puzzling at best terrifying at worst.
-
like_that
It's also idiotic, because it would never happen. If the GOP died, the libertarian party would take over. If the democrats died, the "progressive" party will take over. There will always at least be 2 major resisting sidesrocketalum;1844768 wrote:As an Independent Centrist as well, one of the things I find most troubling in talking with supporters of the far left or right is that it feels like they genuinely would love to see the collapse of the other side and for their party to run everything. So basically "patriots" are advocating for single party autocracy. The complete antithesis of the American experiment. It's puzzling at best terrifying at worst. -
Heretic
The problem is that both sides spend way too much including and embracing the wingnuts at the far 10% of the conservative/liberal spectrum. Eliminate them from the conversation (telling them to march a bit towards the center or give creating their own far right/left party a go and see how that works for them) and everything would actually have a chance of being halfway sane without the identity politic types and bible thumpers/over-the-top xenophobes shitting out their rhetoric. Instead, they have some of the best seats at the table and wind up having the loudest voices.rocketalum;1844768 wrote:As an Independent Centrist as well, one of the things I find most troubling in talking with supporters of the far left or right is that it feels like they genuinely would love to see the collapse of the other side and for their party to run everything. So basically "patriots" are advocating for single party autocracy. The complete antithesis of the American experiment. It's puzzling at best terrifying at worst.
At times (and I doubt this is in any way possible, due to the amount of guts and brains it would take --- the opposite of what the average politician has), I think the best option would be for all the reasonably moderate politicians to reach across the aisle and essentially do their own thing, aligning against all the far left and right ones. -
QuakerOatsptown_trojans_1;1844754 wrote:Right, cause those guys I listed were sooo awful....
You missed my point; if semi-reasonable people no longer exist in D.C., then certainly we do not those who do exist to have charge of $4 trillion budgets along with massive power over The People. Ergo, time to eliminate two-thirds of the federal government. I think QCitybuck got it the first time. -
ptown_trojans_1
Nah, see that is where we disagree on the solution. Instead of getting rid of the Government, the solution should be getting more reasonable people inside Government, but also reforming the way it operates and its structure.QuakerOats;1844795 wrote:You missed my point; if semi-reasonable people no longer exist in D.C., then certainly we do not those who do exist to have charge of $4 trillion budgets along with massive power over The People. Ergo, time to eliminate two-thirds of the federal government. I think QCitybuck got it the first time.
You are more like cutting off a limb with a hacksaw, I think it is a more surgical approach. -
gut
I'd probably argue there's only enough reasonable people for a Government about 1/3 its current size.ptown_trojans_1;1844798 wrote: Instead of getting rid of the Government, the solution should be getting more reasonable people inside Government -
queencitybuckeye
That want any part of it? Likely true.gut;1844807 wrote:I'd probably argue there's only enough reasonable people for a Government about 1/3 its current size. -
QuakerOatsptown_trojans_1;1844798 wrote:Nah, see that is where we disagree on the solution. Instead of getting rid of the Government, the solution should be getting more reasonable people inside Government, but also reforming the way it operates and its structure.
You are more like cutting off a limb with a hacksaw, I think it is a more surgical approach.
The federal government has grown way, way beyond the role it was intended to serve. This is why D.C. is a cesspool of lawyers, lobbyists and bureaucrats and its suburbs have become the wealthiest counties in the world. Fuck the hacksaw; get a chainsaw. -
gut
I hope Trump gets 8 years, only so we can see how these agencies actually adapt to budget cuts (it's going to be painful at first, as I suspect the mentality will be to inflict pain to try to force restoration of cuts).QuakerOats;1844816 wrote:The federal government has grown way, way beyond the role it was intended to serve. This is why D.C. is a cesspool of lawyers, lobbyists and bureaucrats and its suburbs have become the wealthiest counties in the world. Fuck the hacksaw; get a chainsaw.
Only problem is, that's not going to move the needle all that much. Military and entitlements is 90% of the budget problem. -
HitsRus
...or honest and trustworthy people that will serve people and not themselves.gut;1844807 wrote:I'd probably argue there's only enough reasonable people for a Government about 1/3 its current size.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You only have to open your eyes a little bit to see that the rise in corruption has mirrored the rise of government. The more power to government, the more corruption that exists within it.
So why do we continue to ascribe more and more power to the federal government and away from the people?
First and foremost Ignorance. None of this is new. Our founders specifically set upon a course that provided for limited government. They gave us a constitution based on the laws of Human nature, the natural rights of man, and the tendencies of governments. Periodically, well intentioned leaders remind us of this...Reagan, Eisenhower. For over a century, big government socialism has failed, over and over, and often spectacularly. Yet our universities teach our kids Marx, and skip over Locke. It is shocking how many people see government as a first solution rather than a last resort.
Second, Laziness. We just don't want to be bothered to handle tough choices and things we could do ourselves. Let the government handle our retirement! Let the government handle our healthcare! As I am in the healthcare field, I routinely see people refuse or delay necessary and needed treatment because they( rather than the government or their insurance) have to pay for it... Even people that have the money to easily pay for it, refuse necessary treatment unless insurance or government pays for it....so deeply has that been ingrained into our psyche. Their own body, the most precious thing that they have on this planet....and they'll risk its well being rather than take financial responsibility for it. I blame Hilary Clinton for that...and every politician that proclaims that free healthcare is a right. -
CenterBHSFan
@Hits
It's because over time society has taken the idea of Noblesse oblige and warped it, jacked it up on steroids and then enforces it at the point of a gun... so to speak. It has been transformed from a governmental moral obligation to a social engineering AR-15. -
BoatShoes
Governments at all levels are the least corrupt they have ever been.HitsRus;1844848 wrote:...or honest and trustworthy people that will serve people and not themselves.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You only have to open your eyes a little bit to see that the rise in corruption has mirrored the rise of government. The more power to government, the more corruption that exists within it.
So why do we continue to ascribe more and more power to the federal government and away from the people?
First and foremost Ignorance. None of this is new. Our founders specifically set upon a course that provided for limited government. They gave us a constitution based on the laws of Human nature, the natural rights of man, and the tendencies of governments. Periodically, well intentioned leaders remind us of this...Reagan, Eisenhower. For over a century, big government socialism has failed, over and over, and often spectacularly. Yet our universities teach our kids Marx, and skip over Locke. It is shocking how many people see government as a first solution rather than a last resort.
Second, Laziness. We just don't want to be bothered to handle tough choices and things we could do ourselves. Let the government handle our retirement! Let the government handle our healthcare! As I am in the healthcare field, I routinely see people refuse or delay necessary and needed treatment because they( rather than the government or their insurance) have to pay for it... Even people that have the money to easily pay for it, refuse necessary treatment unless insurance or government pays for it....so deeply has that been ingrained into our psyche. Their own body, the most precious thing that they have on this planet....and they'll risk its well being rather than take financial responsibility for it. I blame Hilary Clinton for that...and every politician that proclaims that free healthcare is a right.
Part of the reason governments have intervened in the market in every capitalist country in the world is that they accept the world as it is rather than how they want it to be - acceppting that healthcare markets fail because human beings routinely and predictably put off optimal health care choices - even before the government and health insurance managed care organizations existed.
You're blaming government instead of the worst angels of our nature. -
BoatShoes
Define failure....the western capitalist governments with huge welfare states (what we call socialism here in murica) are all so much better off than 100 years ago any claim of failure is reduced to complete sbsurdity.HitsRus;1844848 wrote:...or honest and trustworthy people that will serve people and not themselves.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You only have to open your eyes a little bit to see that the rise in corruption has mirrored the rise of government. The more power to government, the more corruption that exists within it.
So why do we continue to ascribe more and more power to the federal government and away from the people?
First and foremost Ignorance. None of this is new. Our founders specifically set upon a course that provided for limited government. They gave us a constitution based on the laws of Human nature, the natural rights of man, and the tendencies of governments. Periodically, well intentioned leaders remind us of this...Reagan, Eisenhower. For over a century, big government socialism has failed, over and over, and often spectacularly. Yet our universities teach our kids Marx, and skip over Locke. It is shocking how many people see government as a first solution rather than a last resort.
Second, Laziness. We just don't want to be bothered to handle tough choices and things we could do ourselves. Let the government handle our retirement! Let the government handle our healthcare! As I am in the healthcare field, I routinely see people refuse or delay necessary and needed treatment because they( rather than the government or their insurance) have to pay for it... Even people that have the money to easily pay for it, refuse necessary treatment unless insurance or government pays for it....so deeply has that been ingrained into our psyche. Their own body, the most precious thing that they have on this planet....and they'll risk its well being rather than take financial responsibility for it. I blame Hilary Clinton for that...and every politician that proclaims that free healthcare is a right.
Even the ignorant are able to mostly live decent lives free of squalor. -
like_that
Highly disagree with this. I'd like to know what era you're comparing this to.BoatShoes;1844898 wrote:Governments at all levels are the least corrupt they have ever been.
. -
QuakerOats
"highly disagree" ........................hell his drivel is not even worth a response. Insane.like_that;1844917 wrote:Highly disagree with this. I'd like to know what era you're comparing this to.