But Gorsuch.
Printable View
But Gorsuch.
"But I will continue to content that a bad Republican is still far better than a Democrat of any stripe who will turn the judiciary to the left."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There it is. You'd rather have anyone with an (R) behind their name, than any moderate or conservative Democrat. Authoritarians and religious extremists are fine, so long as they're (Christian) Republicans. Because all Democrats are evil libruls, and can't be trusted to interpret the constitution *properly*. :bored:
as long as they claim to be christian. they hardly have to act like it.
Nah I'm good with Democrats who would back court appointments like Gorsuch. I don't care about the R and the D I care about conservative issues. The judiciary is a generational power shift. When Clinton failed her layup up she prevented the courts leftward turn. I really don't think people understand how huge of a deal that was. Every 5-4 decision that is a conservative win would have been a 5-4 decision liberal win.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I think you're abusing/misusing the term 'conservative'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
As does the entire Republican Party, with their identity crisis. They can't decide between social or fiscal conservatism, or what basic human rights means. They're the party that wants to give equal rights to embryos (in Personhood Amendments) before they've recognized the same equal rights for women. They're the party that won't kick out the KKK or white nationalists from their ranks. They're the party that wants to diminish government but control it at the same time. The GOP has become a broken party, grasping for power in its death rales. Conservatism has no ideology, or party; it just has a bunch of money sloshing around under the GOP name.
Actually the Democrats up until recently were the ones who had a member of the KKK among their ranks. The KKK is universally revived by all major national Republican figures. The rank and file hate the KKK so much that they regularly talk about Clinton's mentor being a member of the KKK. If conservatives like them so much they wouldn't be associating them with Clinton now would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The GOP has always had different wings. We've had the Religious Right, the Libertarian Wing, the Anti-Immigration, the Tough on Crime, the Lower Taxes, Strict Constitutionalism, Hawkish Pro Defense Spending and yes even some Corporate Welfare a-hole Iowa corn subsidy punks. Not everyone is in favor of each part of the Republican platform. The Libertarians tend to not get along with the Religious Right, the Tough on Crime folks spar with the strict constitutional folks (specifically 4th amendment). There is a lot of good healthy debate in conservative circles. That isn't a bad thing at all.
Clinton's mentor who disavowed the KKK and spent much of his life publicly expressing his regret for his affiliation with that organization?
Okay, sure. Meanwhile, you have white supremacists in a "Republican" cabinet, and a Republican rep. defending a Holocaust denier. But sure.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hou...s-adam-schiff/
This is so fucking dumb I can't even laugh.
Yes, spelling matters. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Don't forget the deficit/debt hawks. Sure, healthy debate is a good thing. But there's so much disagreement that it's not unifying the party into a cohesive whole, and it makes a (R) controlled government a dysfunctional mess. Just being against Democrats or liberals or 'The Establishment' may have gotten Trump elected, but it's no way to run a country.Quote:
The GOP has always had different wings. We've had the Religious Right, the Libertarian Wing, the Anti-Immigration, the Tough on Crime, the Lower Taxes, Strict Constitutionalism, Hawkish Pro Defense Spending and yes even some Corporate Welfare a-hole Iowa corn subsidy punks. Not everyone is in favor of each part of the Republican platform. The Libertarians tend to not get along with the Religious Right, the Tough on Crime folks spar with the strict constitutional folks (specifically 4th amendment). There is a lot of good healthy debate in conservative circles. That isn't a bad thing at all.
http://cpac.conservative.org/agenda/#menu
Marion the hobby-Nazi.
Twitter Link
CPAC.
Sick woman.
This is the new American conservatism. VP-endorsed.
This isn't even the worst thing out of CPAC: http://observer.com/2018/02/michael-...ions-director/
CPAC is a joke. It's been called TPAC (defending Trumpism) for good reason.
The "lock her up" chant was especially hypocritical :rolleyes:
Twitter Link
This... seems kinda dodgy.
It is. I don't see it any worse than sin taxes on things like tobacco or subsidies for things like hybrid vehicles. The government shouldn't be deciding economic winners and losers and the government shouldn't be trying to curb or encourage behavior based on their moral view of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Big government conservatives are just as bad as big government liberals. Sadly there are too few people who realize the cyclical nature of politics and that power corrupts.
I meant legally, not ethically.
Subsidies for things like hybrid vehicles [or less taxes on them] make sense. Pollution isn't morals it is a deadly, harmful negative externality which isn't dealt with fully by the free market. Pollution from petrol and diesel vehicle exhausts especially in big cities causes immense damage to non-users of those vehicles. By taxing polluting vehicles more than non-political vehicles the government is nudging the pollution away while letting the consumers in the market choose the winners and losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Similarly for tobacco. Since the government spends a fortune on healthcare [your government spends a higher proportion of tax dollars on healthcare than ours does on our NHS!] it makes sense to capture some of that back by the heaviest users of healthcare. Tobacco and gambling taxes are voluntary taxes anyway, don't be a fucking moron and you can avoid all of those taxes. If we could fund our entire government with voluntary taxes we could easily avoid I'd be happy.
I recall that tobacco users actually cost the government less money due to them dying off faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Only if they have reduced state pensions. If the very expensive medical treatment they get (and we're getting better at treating cancer though its expensive) then they don't.
I note you ignored the point that pollution is not a moral issue. The particulates from petrol and diesel exhausts cause major health issues especially in smoggy cities.
Remember, we have health insurance, not health coverage. If you used a venn diagram to map when early cancer diagnosis is commonly out of reach against those that have the most trouble quitting tobacco, you'd pretty much have a circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://www.usnews.com/news/national...ra?context=amp
Conservatism :D
I don't know enough about the smog in cities to comment. It isn't a factor where I live and my desire to research the issue is minimal. That being said if you want to go with that argument, you'd want a local tax credit not a national one specifically targeted to the states/communities that need that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Pollution effects everyone. It may be worst in smog-filled cities where the particulates are concentrated but they're not good in other areas either. The particulates that come out of diesel exhausts etc will still be there even when driving into say a rural school. Plus taxes work best when they are consistent over a reasonable area.
I would rather have higher taxes on vehicles that emit unnecessary, damaging and deadly particulates that pollute the air we breath and give a tax cut to income tax, corporation taxes etc than the other way around. You?
I'm opposed to the government influencing behavior this way. As it becomes commonly accepted (and it already has) it makes it easier for corruption to exist in politics and for parts of the economy to be manipulated to the benefit of the few as opposed to a true free market system. Crony capitalism is incredibly inefficient and there is far too much of it on the left and the right. Localized issues can be tolerated if the X behavior leads to Y outcome is crystal clear. Smog in a city is a potential example (see places like China and a few US cities).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Lewk, since when is it a 'conservative' principle to use state government and legislation to threaten a business when they end a perk, like the discount for NRA members?
It is. Empty verbiage from someone who does not, in fact, have any ability whatsoever to kill tax legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
But words matter. Even "empty verbiage" from one GA legislator can go viral, and turn into moving Delta HQ to another state, taking some 30,000 jobs with it.
Don't forget that many large multi-national corporations were enticed to states with big tax breaks in the first place (Lewk).
He had some help:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
http://www.businessinsider.com/georg...ith-nra-2018-3
Okay, there may yet be hope:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-re...er&via=desktop
I've avoided posting updates to this thread lately because there's just too much to say. However, I couldn't resist this delicious piece of awk:
Twitter Link
Meanwhile, nearly a dozen Republican congressmen are calling for the criminal prosecution of Clinton, Comey and God knows who else: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-clinton-comey
This is not a worthy party. You might argue that it's just a few bad apples who are unworthy, but, in reality, the party itself has for all intents and purposes embraced these asshats and their views, giving them tacit approval.
The GOP doesn't seem to understand they're the party in power and not the Opposition anymore.
That is an extremely dangerous misconception ; they know that very well, but they are not willing to play a game that could find them out of power again.
Justice shouldn't stop just because the person is politically dead. If Hillary Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information and then lying about it then you do want her to go to jail, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Oh, they understand. But which faction within the GOP will control the party's power is still in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If Republicanism becomes Trumpism, there's no good home for fiscal conservatives who care about debt or deficit, or those who value diplomacy and international relations before military intervention, etc. It's telling that so many (R) incumbents are retiring, and they only voice complaints about Trump when they're not running for re-election. :rolleyes:
Yeah let's play that game : If Donald were guilty of colluding with the Russians and accepting illegal campaign donations you do want him impeached then go to jail, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
:popcorn:
I don't know if a sitting president can be convicted of a felony or civil crime....but at the very least Trump "mishandled classified information" when he invited Russian diplomats into the oval office and divulged *top secret* Israeli intelligence. Wasn't that in the first month of his presidency?
IF Donald were guilty of colluding with Russians, yes. Campaign donations is a bit dicier as if he 100% knew a donation was illegal, yes however campaigns are rather large and Trump doesn't seem to be a micro manager in that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No, Trump has "fixers" to do the dirty work. Plausible deniability and all that, for "The Donald". :rolleyes: