Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

The fundamental problem with American politics

If you define conservatism as an ideology advocating for lim trickydick02/09/19
Agree. The only real difference between two parties is the r anotherjd02/09/19
nope, the big problem in this country is the two-party syste dingbat02/09/19
This reminds me of when I moved to Chicago 15 years ago. Th dupednontraditional02/10/19
This is very juvenile. In the end of the day there still drglennrichie02/10/19
The problem is endemic corruption, too compromised to reform exnite02/09/19
Given that we are the living in the greatest nation in the w jeffm02/10/19
Completely agree with tricky for once eagleton02/10/19
As already mentioned the two party system is probably the bi onefortheteam02/10/19
"Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost..." jeffm02/10/19
That's because our national debt relative to our total Congr onefortheteam02/10/19
If it all starts falling apart they’ll hold it together wi serbexo02/10/19
I was born in 1968, so I don't think I am a Boomer. I'm not jeffm02/10/19
I don't see much overlap at all between the parties. One par onefortheteam02/10/19
You are being played by the politicians. "Children in cages jeffm02/10/19
I don't know how else to describe the pictures in this video onefortheteam02/10/19
Here's the thing about children in cages: Nobody *wants* to jeffm02/10/19
"I'll let you use similar reasoning to think about health ca onefortheteam02/10/19
"If putting children in cages was wrong then it's wrong now. jeffm02/10/19
"Democrats have gone just a little too far on social issues onefortheteam02/10/19
Here's a key point I made in my prior post: "I honestly d jeffm02/10/19
"There, I said it. It's impossible to try to ferret through onefortheteam02/10/19
The problem is there are so many of "these things" that I ha jeffm02/10/19
Ok I'm done playing the three card monte, shift the goalpost onefortheteam02/10/19
"and you base your entire political philosophy on it" Ha jeffm02/10/19
You need to be rich to run for office in the United States trijocker02/10/19
Big $$$ in politics. Essentially legalized bribery and conf catwoman33302/10/19



trickydick (Feb 9, 2019 - 3:09 pm)

If you define conservatism as an ideology advocating for limiting government involvement in state functions and private life and define liberalism as an ideology that advocates for increased government involvement in finding solutions to social problems, then the problem with modern American politics is that Democrats, Republicans, and Trump have all embraced liberalism. All of them want to address America’s problems (or perceived problems) by increasing and expanding government power.

What America needs these days is a genuine libertarian movement that will reduce the centralization of government power. The national government really needs to limit itself to maintaining the national defense and regulating the market to the extent that it combats monopolization and prevents asymmetric market information from creating economic inefficiencies.

Instead, we’ve got a slew of Democrats proposing one massive government program after another and Trump demanding the power to pass laws without congressional authorization.

If anywhere in this mess there is a real movement to curb the expansion of government power, I don’t see it.

Reply
anotherjd (Feb 9, 2019 - 3:43 pm)

Agree. The only real difference between two parties is the rhetoric and a few wedge social issues designed to divide the regular people from elites

Reply
dingbat (Feb 9, 2019 - 4:17 pm)

nope, the big problem in this country is the two-party system.

1) for my side to win, your side has to lose
2) it's ok if my party does it, as long as yours doesn't
3) single-issue voters give a pass on almost everything else

4) no room for nuance/variety. For example, you can't be socially progressive and fiscally conservative, or socially conservative and believe in a strong social safety net. It's an all-or-nothing approach. If you're socially progressive, you need to be in the blue team, socially conservative, the red team. If you want a strong social safety net, that's the blue team. If you want less government regulations, you're on the red team. You're forced to choose one team or the other, so even though you may disagree with a lot of things your party does, in the end you accept it because you have no choice.

Reply
dupednontraditional (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:52 am)

This reminds me of when I moved to Chicago 15 years ago. The first question was “Sox or Cubs?” I tried to politely demur, being new, but there was no fence-sitting. Sox or Cubs.

For the record I picked Cubs. I like rooting for the underdog.

Reply
drglennrichie (Feb 10, 2019 - 2:21 pm)

This is very juvenile.

In the end of the day there still will be 2 candidates in the run-off election.

Also, all the nuances can be explored during primaries. Candidates are very different.

Reply
exnite (Feb 9, 2019 - 5:36 pm)

The problem is endemic corruption, too compromised to reform from within, too strong to be overthrown from without

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 12:59 am)

Given that we are the living in the greatest nation in the world where pretty much most everyone wants to live, politics is really not that big of a problem. Whatever it is - gridlock, usurpation, etc. - it somehow works.

Reply
eagleton (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:13 am)

Completely agree with tricky for once

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:53 am)

As already mentioned the two party system is probably the biggest problem. I would also add to the list that Reagan's campaign against raising taxes has thoroughly infected the nation and especially the GOP. We can't raise taxes on the middle class, on the rich, on private citizens or corporations.... at least not openly, any such raise must be well hidden.

This is no way to run a business let alone a country. Any business entity that would make a pledge to never raise their rates, no matter how circumstances change, wouldn't last very long. Our country is quickly accumulating massive national debt and no one really wants to do anything bout it, at least when it comes to paying that debt down. Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost and when they do our national currency will pay the price. Good luck saving for retirement.

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 7:58 am)

"Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost..."

I've been hearing this for almost 40 years, and I am sure they were saying it much longer. Nobody is going to pay the debt. I doubt seriously we will ever default. We owe so much money, no lender would dare risk writing it off. They will simply continue to extend our loans and to loan even more as we need it.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:08 am)

That's because our national debt relative to our total Congressional budget has historically been small. Eventually there will come a time when we can no longer afford to even pay the interest on our massive national debt. What will happen when we can no longer afford to pay investors who cash out our US treasury bonds?

Also just for clarification purposes you're a staunch baby boomer Republican, right? I might be thinking of someone else

Reply
serbexo (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:20 am)

If it all starts falling apart they’ll hold it together with some cheap adhesive. Like, say, stickytape.

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:21 am)

I was born in 1968, so I don't think I am a Boomer. I'm not staunch Republican. These days, I think there's little real difference between the parties that matters all that much.

My point is that when somebody owes you too much money to write off, you can't let them fail because they will take you down with them.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:37 am)

I don't see much overlap at all between the parties. One party wants to give poor people medical care, the other side wants poor people to just die in the streets. One side wants to build a costly inefficient wall, the other side finds the thought of putting children in cages reprehensible. One side wants to do something about climate change, the other side doesn't believe in science.

I think it's immensely irresponsible and downright hypocritical that Republicans have little problems with shackling the next generation with massive national debt now that they are in power.

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:53 am)

You are being played by the politicians. "Children in cages." "Poor people dying in the streets."

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:58 am)

I don't know how else to describe the pictures in this video other than cages:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/segments/put-in-cages-or-taken-care-of-how-separated-immigrant-children-are-housed-in-detention/2018/06/18/0acaadf4-7330-11e8-bda1-18e53a448a14_video.html?utm_term=.ff6dc2b22f93

Also if the Republican healthcare plan isn't for poor people to just go away and die in the streets, then what exactly is it?

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:08 am)

Here's the thing about children in cages: Nobody *wants* to cage children. Yet, Congress enacted rules requiring that children of detained parents could not be put in with the adult population (because of pedophilia, etc.). So, the choice was to either let the illegals go without detainment so their kids could remain with them, or to do what Congress dictated.

Obama caged children, too. He was just following orders. There was no outcry in 2014 when he was doing this.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/29/donald-trump/trump-correctly-tweets-democrats-mistakenly-tweete/

So, you tell me... Are the Republicans different because the Democrats didn't care when they were doing it? Or are they different because when a bright light was shone on the controversy, they stopped the practice?

I'll let you use similar reasoning to think about health care.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:19 am)

"I'll let you use similar reasoning to think about health care."

Well heakthcare a slow pitch, there's an obvious distinction on the issue of healthcare, Obama signed a healthcare bill, the ACA otherwise known as Obamacare. Republicans tried and failed to repeal that bill twice and they have managed to replace it with nothing.

You say you're not a staunch Republican but every time I criticize the GOP you are quick to defend them so I'm not sure what exactly gives me that impression. As for what happened to immigrabts under Obama, it's wholly immaterial for anyone who claims not to be a staunch loyalist of the Republican party. If putting children in cages was wrong then it's wrong now.

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:27 am)

"If putting children in cages was wrong then it's wrong now."

Right. And so the practice has stopped, yet partisans still insist they are *for* caging children.

I could almost care less about who's in office. It's fun to discuss issues and to debate them. I am critical of the Republicans because of their hypocrisy as regards all kinds of things. The Democrats are no better.

Stylistically, I think the Democrats have gone just a little too far on social issues where, for example, they claim it is perfectly fine for me to consider myself "Black" today. I honestly don't get that. Part of it is probably because I only tend to hear the Republican outcry over it. Frankly, if this is indeed the Democrats' position, I think it's fraught with peril, but IMO, it's not the kind of peril that threatens the nation. So... no big deal. Just fun to debate.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:32 am)

"Democrats have gone just a little too far on social issues where, for example, they claim it is perfectly fine for me to consider myself "Black" today."

Now remind me who is being brainwashed by the media again? Exactly what Democrat is saying it fine to be black one day and not the next? Since when did this become a platform of any political party?

Sounds like you base your entire political philosophy on near literal nonsense.

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:37 am)

Here's a key point I made in my prior post:

"I honestly don't get that. Part of it is probably because I only tend to hear the Republican outcry over it."

There, I said it. It's impossible to try to ferret through what's real and not across all these divisive squabbles. Frankly, I don't have the time for that. I know it makes me uninformed in some regards, but that's okay. I don't need to know everything there is to know about all of our political discord. I can happily leave it to our politicians.

In any event, you, sir, shall call me "shim," or you will be fired.

EDIT: My political philosophy isn't based on nonsense. It is a very general philosophy which recognizes the nation is on a trajectory which will not be materially altered by so-called "differences" between the parties. Of course, I mean "material" to people like us. These things make huge differences to some of the rich, such as government contractors, where our politicians pick winners and losers.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:42 am)

"There, I said it. It's impossible to try to ferret through what's real and not across all these divisive squabbles."


It is not that hard to decipher these things, no elected democrat is saying it or at least none you can specifically name.

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:56 am)

The problem is there are so many of "these things" that I have to draw the line on how much I want to know about them. For any single topic, it wouldn't be that hard to research into it, except that there is too much misinformation and spin out there.

Is this real (yes, I know it's Toronto)?

"Peterson also said he would absolutely not comply with the implied diktat of Bill C-16, which could make the refusal to refer to people by the pronouns of their choice an actionable form of harassment. He believes the idea of a non-binary gender spectrum is specious and he dismisses as nonsensical the raft of gender-neutral pronouns that transgender people have adopted—ze, vis, hir, and the singular use of they, them and their."

https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 10, 2019 - 11:04 am)

Ok I'm done playing the three card monte, shift the goalpost game. No one is going around saying it's fine to be black one day and not the next. I don't know what an elected official would gain by saying such a thing... and you base your entire political philosophy on it


I'm out, have a good day

Reply
jeffm (Feb 10, 2019 - 11:11 am)

"and you base your entire political philosophy on it"

Ha ha! I know you are literate. There's no need to try to bludgeon me with a strawman. If you'd prefer to go have breakfast somewhere, just do it. No fanfare required.

Reply
trijocker (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:26 am)

You need to be rich to run for office in the United States
You need to have a substantial war chest that will allow you to live while running
and pay for initial campaign costs. With modern election campaign laws, you cannot even
charge a hot dog while out campaigning to your campaign, without facing severe scrutiny.
So you better be able to support yourself while running and not have a big pile of student loans
yoking your shoulders, or you will end up like Stacy Abrams.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 2:43 pm)

Big $$$ in politics. Essentially legalized bribery and conflicts of interest. End result: laws, regulations, politicians that favor the interests of banks and corporations over the needs of most average Americans or the nation as a whole. How can that be considered true Democracy??

Reply
Post a message in this thread