Ideally. But, the reality is you (the President) have 2 years to get something done before mid-terms. To walk away again and again will not cut it. The reality is the system is set up to push for compromise. He has to get some of the promises and the agenda done in the first 18 months or he will probably lose the house.Mothra said:Think you seem to be borrowing trouble. We will see if he has the clout to get his agenda passed. Personally, I think given the momentum he has, he will be much more effective this time around.FLBear5630 said:If he doesn't need to compromise, don't. And he won't. It is not a requirement, if he has the votes push it through. Does he have the real votes to do it? So far, we are seeing a lot of tweets, now from Elon and Trump. Is Elon the new Whip? Can he really be effective, in real life not the internet?Mothra said:Again, Reagan HAD to compromise, as the Dems had full control of Congress. As pointed out previously, that was a different set of circumstances than what Trump is facing, with full control of Congress. Why are you pushing for compromise with a leftist Democrat Party when that is likely unnecessary? Is compromise a good thing in and of itself? That seems to be what you're arguing, and I still can't figure out the basis for that position.FLBear5630 said:Yes, I am proud of Reagan for compromising and moving the agenda forward. No one gets everything and there are others that have what they consider needs. It is part of being in a Democratic Republic, there will always be conflicting desires.Mothra said:You'll get no argument from me that Reagan was a much better person than Trump. But that is not at all relevant to our discussion or the question I posed to you.FLBear5630 said:He was an adult. He understood how to get the important things done without destroying the Nation. He was an American first, GOP 2nd. He NEVER would have talked about a civil war over disagreeing on policies. Only MAGA has done that.Mothra said:Are you glad Reagan compromised on conservative issues and principles? You seem to think that is some sort of badge of honor.FLBear5630 said:"With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)"Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
laughably un-true
[the Reagan coalition in the Republican Party, which centered around Ronald Reagan and his administration throughout all of the 1980s consisted of five factions: the libertarians, the traditionalists, the anti-communists, the neoconservatives, and the religious right ]
The modern MAGA movement is very much a continuation of this tradition.
With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)Well, there are a few others...
- working with Congress
- immigration
- Reagan's 11th Amendment? (Do Not Speak Poorly of a fellow GOP member)
- Free Trade
- Embracing equality of all
Reagan's conservatism is not the GOP. The GOP is a Populist party. You can make up all the excuses, say Reagan didn't want to do Amnesty. But, he did it. You can say he didn't want to work with the Dems, but he did it.
Reagan had a Democrat congress, and therefore had to find compromise to get certain of the things he wanted. That was of course a much different iteration of the Democrat party than the wokesters of today. It's also not the position Trump finds himself in.
He would have broke MAGA, like he did the Air Traffic Controllers, if Jan 6th happened on his watch. He NEVER would have done what Trump did with that speech. You guys seem to wear being willing to bring the whole thing down as a badge of courage. MAGA is not the Party of Reagan.
As I said in another thread, I start from the ideal and work off that. Reagan had his ideal, he made several deals to get his big foundational shifts forward. Some worked out, such as Amnesty, he always felt is was better to work with illegals rather than fence them out (see 1980 Candidate Forum). What he had a problem with was NOT following through with enforcement after. Some not so well, Iran-Contra. I don't hold either against him, he made the best deal at the time with the information he had. Same as Trump, it goes with the job.
We are witnessing it today, literally. See Emergency Bill on the floor right now. Musk is against. Vivek is against. Trump is silent. Why? He knows it has to pass. Johnson does not have the votes to push anything else. Even this one, he will need a dozen Dems to limit the damage to 1B in deficit spending. Trump and Johnson know that shutting down the Govt is not an option. You guys can talk about it, but it aint happening.
Reagan's amnesty bill ended up being a total disaster, both for Republicans and our nation's security. Nothing good came out of it. There was a lot of bad legislation pushed through in the name of "compromise" in the Reagan years that hurt our country. The Amnesty Bill is but one example.
At some point, we have to get spending under control. It might hurt your bottom line, but for our children and their children, something has to be done. I have no problem with conservatives standing up for conservative principles and dying on that hill. But I am an actual conservative.
That is the real question, isn't it. Does he have the votes to pass legislation or just on paper? Can you count on Murkowski or Collins? Or Young, Moran, or Cornyn? There are numerous Senators that will break ranks. So, does he have the majority where he doesn't have to compromise? You guys are not very pragmatic. Strong on opinions, weak on pragmatism. The point is getting as much as possible done, not getting a few things without compromising. And crowing how he didn't have to compromise on minor legislation.
Getting bad, compromise legislation passed is not the goal. The goal is getting good legislation passed, or nothing at all.
Mitt Romney gone from the Senate
5,387 Views |
152 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by FLBear5630
Mothra said:Think you seem to be borrowing trouble. We will see if he has the clout to get his agenda passed. Personally, I think given the momentum he has, he will be much more effective this time around.FLBear5630 said:If he doesn't need to compromise, don't. And he won't. It is not a requirement, if he has the votes push it through. Does he have the real votes to do it? So far, we are seeing a lot of tweets, now from Elon and Trump. Is Elon the new Whip? Can he really be effective, in real life not the internet?Mothra said:Again, Reagan HAD to compromise, as the Dems had full control of Congress. As pointed out previously, that was a different set of circumstances than what Trump is facing, with full control of Congress. Why are you pushing for compromise with a leftist Democrat Party when that is likely unnecessary? Is compromise a good thing in and of itself? That seems to be what you're arguing, and I still can't figure out the basis for that position.FLBear5630 said:Yes, I am proud of Reagan for compromising and moving the agenda forward. No one gets everything and there are others that have what they consider needs. It is part of being in a Democratic Republic, there will always be conflicting desires.Mothra said:You'll get no argument from me that Reagan was a much better person than Trump. But that is not at all relevant to our discussion or the question I posed to you.FLBear5630 said:He was an adult. He understood how to get the important things done without destroying the Nation. He was an American first, GOP 2nd. He NEVER would have talked about a civil war over disagreeing on policies. Only MAGA has done that.Mothra said:Are you glad Reagan compromised on conservative issues and principles? You seem to think that is some sort of badge of honor.FLBear5630 said:"With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)"Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
laughably un-true
[the Reagan coalition in the Republican Party, which centered around Ronald Reagan and his administration throughout all of the 1980s consisted of five factions: the libertarians, the traditionalists, the anti-communists, the neoconservatives, and the religious right ]
The modern MAGA movement is very much a continuation of this tradition.
With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)Well, there are a few others...
- working with Congress
- immigration
- Reagan's 11th Amendment? (Do Not Speak Poorly of a fellow GOP member)
- Free Trade
- Embracing equality of all
Reagan's conservatism is not the GOP. The GOP is a Populist party. You can make up all the excuses, say Reagan didn't want to do Amnesty. But, he did it. You can say he didn't want to work with the Dems, but he did it.
Reagan had a Democrat congress, and therefore had to find compromise to get certain of the things he wanted. That was of course a much different iteration of the Democrat party than the wokesters of today. It's also not the position Trump finds himself in.
He would have broke MAGA, like he did the Air Traffic Controllers, if Jan 6th happened on his watch. He NEVER would have done what Trump did with that speech. You guys seem to wear being willing to bring the whole thing down as a badge of courage. MAGA is not the Party of Reagan.
As I said in another thread, I start from the ideal and work off that. Reagan had his ideal, he made several deals to get his big foundational shifts forward. Some worked out, such as Amnesty, he always felt is was better to work with illegals rather than fence them out (see 1980 Candidate Forum). What he had a problem with was NOT following through with enforcement after. Some not so well, Iran-Contra. I don't hold either against him, he made the best deal at the time with the information he had. Same as Trump, it goes with the job.
We are witnessing it today, literally. See Emergency Bill on the floor right now. Musk is against. Vivek is against. Trump is silent. Why? He knows it has to pass. Johnson does not have the votes to push anything else. Even this one, he will need a dozen Dems to limit the damage to 1B in deficit spending. Trump and Johnson know that shutting down the Govt is not an option. You guys can talk about it, but it aint happening.
Reagan's amnesty bill ended up being a total disaster, both for Republicans and our nation's security. Nothing good came out of it. There was a lot of bad legislation pushed through in the name of "compromise" in the Reagan years that hurt our country. The Amnesty Bill is but one example.
At some point, we have to get spending under control. It might hurt your bottom line, but for our children and their children, something has to be done. I have no problem with conservatives standing up for conservative principles and dying on that hill. But I am an actual conservative.
That is the real question, isn't it. Does he have the votes to pass legislation or just on paper? Can you count on Murkowski or Collins? Or Young, Moran, or Cornyn? There are numerous Senators that will break ranks. So, does he have the majority where he doesn't have to compromise? You guys are not very pragmatic. Strong on opinions, weak on pragmatism. The point is getting as much as possible done, not getting a few things without compromising. And crowing how he didn't have to compromise on minor legislation.
Getting bad, compromise legislation passed is not the goal. The goal is getting good legislation passed, or nothing at all.
With only an extra 4 votes in the senate and less than that in the house……it's unlikely good legislation will pass.
FLBear5630 said:Ideally. But, the reality is you (the President) have 2 years to get something done before mid-terms. To walk away again and again will not cut it. The reality is the system is set up to push for compromise. He has to get some of the promises and the agenda done in the first 18 months or he will probably lose the house.Mothra said:Think you seem to be borrowing trouble. We will see if he has the clout to get his agenda passed. Personally, I think given the momentum he has, he will be much more effective this time around.FLBear5630 said:If he doesn't need to compromise, don't. And he won't. It is not a requirement, if he has the votes push it through. Does he have the real votes to do it? So far, we are seeing a lot of tweets, now from Elon and Trump. Is Elon the new Whip? Can he really be effective, in real life not the internet?Mothra said:Again, Reagan HAD to compromise, as the Dems had full control of Congress. As pointed out previously, that was a different set of circumstances than what Trump is facing, with full control of Congress. Why are you pushing for compromise with a leftist Democrat Party when that is likely unnecessary? Is compromise a good thing in and of itself? That seems to be what you're arguing, and I still can't figure out the basis for that position.FLBear5630 said:Yes, I am proud of Reagan for compromising and moving the agenda forward. No one gets everything and there are others that have what they consider needs. It is part of being in a Democratic Republic, there will always be conflicting desires.Mothra said:You'll get no argument from me that Reagan was a much better person than Trump. But that is not at all relevant to our discussion or the question I posed to you.FLBear5630 said:He was an adult. He understood how to get the important things done without destroying the Nation. He was an American first, GOP 2nd. He NEVER would have talked about a civil war over disagreeing on policies. Only MAGA has done that.Mothra said:Are you glad Reagan compromised on conservative issues and principles? You seem to think that is some sort of badge of honor.FLBear5630 said:"With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)"Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
laughably un-true
[the Reagan coalition in the Republican Party, which centered around Ronald Reagan and his administration throughout all of the 1980s consisted of five factions: the libertarians, the traditionalists, the anti-communists, the neoconservatives, and the religious right ]
The modern MAGA movement is very much a continuation of this tradition.
With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)Well, there are a few others...
- working with Congress
- immigration
- Reagan's 11th Amendment? (Do Not Speak Poorly of a fellow GOP member)
- Free Trade
- Embracing equality of all
Reagan's conservatism is not the GOP. The GOP is a Populist party. You can make up all the excuses, say Reagan didn't want to do Amnesty. But, he did it. You can say he didn't want to work with the Dems, but he did it.
Reagan had a Democrat congress, and therefore had to find compromise to get certain of the things he wanted. That was of course a much different iteration of the Democrat party than the wokesters of today. It's also not the position Trump finds himself in.
He would have broke MAGA, like he did the Air Traffic Controllers, if Jan 6th happened on his watch. He NEVER would have done what Trump did with that speech. You guys seem to wear being willing to bring the whole thing down as a badge of courage. MAGA is not the Party of Reagan.
As I said in another thread, I start from the ideal and work off that. Reagan had his ideal, he made several deals to get his big foundational shifts forward. Some worked out, such as Amnesty, he always felt is was better to work with illegals rather than fence them out (see 1980 Candidate Forum). What he had a problem with was NOT following through with enforcement after. Some not so well, Iran-Contra. I don't hold either against him, he made the best deal at the time with the information he had. Same as Trump, it goes with the job.
We are witnessing it today, literally. See Emergency Bill on the floor right now. Musk is against. Vivek is against. Trump is silent. Why? He knows it has to pass. Johnson does not have the votes to push anything else. Even this one, he will need a dozen Dems to limit the damage to 1B in deficit spending. Trump and Johnson know that shutting down the Govt is not an option. You guys can talk about it, but it aint happening.
Reagan's amnesty bill ended up being a total disaster, both for Republicans and our nation's security. Nothing good came out of it. There was a lot of bad legislation pushed through in the name of "compromise" in the Reagan years that hurt our country. The Amnesty Bill is but one example.
At some point, we have to get spending under control. It might hurt your bottom line, but for our children and their children, something has to be done. I have no problem with conservatives standing up for conservative principles and dying on that hill. But I am an actual conservative.
That is the real question, isn't it. Does he have the votes to pass legislation or just on paper? Can you count on Murkowski or Collins? Or Young, Moran, or Cornyn? There are numerous Senators that will break ranks. So, does he have the majority where he doesn't have to compromise? You guys are not very pragmatic. Strong on opinions, weak on pragmatism. The point is getting as much as possible done, not getting a few things without compromising. And crowing how he didn't have to compromise on minor legislation.
Getting bad, compromise legislation passed is not the goal. The goal is getting good legislation passed, or nothing at all.
Our system is no longer set up for compromise. There are less than 40 competitive house districts every cycle. People only compromise when it is advantageous for their reelection.
GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Ideally. But, the reality is you (the President) have 2 years to get something done before mid-terms. To walk away again and again will not cut it. The reality is the system is set up to push for compromise. He has to get some of the promises and the agenda done in the first 18 months or he will probably lose the house.Mothra said:Think you seem to be borrowing trouble. We will see if he has the clout to get his agenda passed. Personally, I think given the momentum he has, he will be much more effective this time around.FLBear5630 said:If he doesn't need to compromise, don't. And he won't. It is not a requirement, if he has the votes push it through. Does he have the real votes to do it? So far, we are seeing a lot of tweets, now from Elon and Trump. Is Elon the new Whip? Can he really be effective, in real life not the internet?Mothra said:Again, Reagan HAD to compromise, as the Dems had full control of Congress. As pointed out previously, that was a different set of circumstances than what Trump is facing, with full control of Congress. Why are you pushing for compromise with a leftist Democrat Party when that is likely unnecessary? Is compromise a good thing in and of itself? That seems to be what you're arguing, and I still can't figure out the basis for that position.FLBear5630 said:Yes, I am proud of Reagan for compromising and moving the agenda forward. No one gets everything and there are others that have what they consider needs. It is part of being in a Democratic Republic, there will always be conflicting desires.Mothra said:You'll get no argument from me that Reagan was a much better person than Trump. But that is not at all relevant to our discussion or the question I posed to you.FLBear5630 said:He was an adult. He understood how to get the important things done without destroying the Nation. He was an American first, GOP 2nd. He NEVER would have talked about a civil war over disagreeing on policies. Only MAGA has done that.Mothra said:Are you glad Reagan compromised on conservative issues and principles? You seem to think that is some sort of badge of honor.FLBear5630 said:"With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)"Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
laughably un-true
[the Reagan coalition in the Republican Party, which centered around Ronald Reagan and his administration throughout all of the 1980s consisted of five factions: the libertarians, the traditionalists, the anti-communists, the neoconservatives, and the religious right ]
The modern MAGA movement is very much a continuation of this tradition.
With the biggest difference being a dislike of the neo-cons (after decades of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East)Well, there are a few others...
- working with Congress
- immigration
- Reagan's 11th Amendment? (Do Not Speak Poorly of a fellow GOP member)
- Free Trade
- Embracing equality of all
Reagan's conservatism is not the GOP. The GOP is a Populist party. You can make up all the excuses, say Reagan didn't want to do Amnesty. But, he did it. You can say he didn't want to work with the Dems, but he did it.
Reagan had a Democrat congress, and therefore had to find compromise to get certain of the things he wanted. That was of course a much different iteration of the Democrat party than the wokesters of today. It's also not the position Trump finds himself in.
He would have broke MAGA, like he did the Air Traffic Controllers, if Jan 6th happened on his watch. He NEVER would have done what Trump did with that speech. You guys seem to wear being willing to bring the whole thing down as a badge of courage. MAGA is not the Party of Reagan.
As I said in another thread, I start from the ideal and work off that. Reagan had his ideal, he made several deals to get his big foundational shifts forward. Some worked out, such as Amnesty, he always felt is was better to work with illegals rather than fence them out (see 1980 Candidate Forum). What he had a problem with was NOT following through with enforcement after. Some not so well, Iran-Contra. I don't hold either against him, he made the best deal at the time with the information he had. Same as Trump, it goes with the job.
We are witnessing it today, literally. See Emergency Bill on the floor right now. Musk is against. Vivek is against. Trump is silent. Why? He knows it has to pass. Johnson does not have the votes to push anything else. Even this one, he will need a dozen Dems to limit the damage to 1B in deficit spending. Trump and Johnson know that shutting down the Govt is not an option. You guys can talk about it, but it aint happening.
Reagan's amnesty bill ended up being a total disaster, both for Republicans and our nation's security. Nothing good came out of it. There was a lot of bad legislation pushed through in the name of "compromise" in the Reagan years that hurt our country. The Amnesty Bill is but one example.
At some point, we have to get spending under control. It might hurt your bottom line, but for our children and their children, something has to be done. I have no problem with conservatives standing up for conservative principles and dying on that hill. But I am an actual conservative.
That is the real question, isn't it. Does he have the votes to pass legislation or just on paper? Can you count on Murkowski or Collins? Or Young, Moran, or Cornyn? There are numerous Senators that will break ranks. So, does he have the majority where he doesn't have to compromise? You guys are not very pragmatic. Strong on opinions, weak on pragmatism. The point is getting as much as possible done, not getting a few things without compromising. And crowing how he didn't have to compromise on minor legislation.
Getting bad, compromise legislation passed is not the goal. The goal is getting good legislation passed, or nothing at all.
Our system is no longer set up for compromise. There are less than 40 competitive house districts every cycle. People only compromise when it is advantageous for their reelection.
Excellent point.
Project much, dumbarse?Redbrickbear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
It would be nice if you "Reagan" republicans would look to compromise within your own party instead of looking to the left. Like them or not, MAGA is what will win you reelection. Best policy is to dance with the one that brought you.
He doesn't want real bipartisan compromise
He wants business as usual and he really wants to stifle any populist conservative agenda
No changes to mass immigration, no changes to the DC consensus on foreign policy, no change to the bureaucracy, no change to the Federal Courts, no social conservative legislation, no real change at all.
Its the antithesis of the 1980s Reagan revolution that really shock up DC
The fact that he wants to use Reagans name to advocate for this kind of swamp politics and living under the dead hand of rotten DC elite is particularly galling
1) of course I would welcome compromise. MAGA ain't interested.
2)Nope, no business as usual. Govt needs to be right sized. "stifle , populist conservatives. You and you ild are not conservative, you are bomb throwers. You clowns are just like the left . Yall just love to to play the "victim". Oh, wow is me....blah, blah
3)Again, please show where I ever said I wanted no changes to mass immigration? Please share, clown. I'm for a top to bottom immigration reform. We need to revise the laws on the books and follow them, period. We don't
4)Meh
5)you do your small mindededness, I will live my life.
You don't know jack about me or my thinking as I just proved, so STFU, become educated, think for yourself and quit with the Foxy news talking points. Is Shawn Hannity your daddy?
J.R. said:Project much, dumbarse?Redbrickbear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
It would be nice if you "Reagan" republicans would look to compromise within your own party instead of looking to the left. Like them or not, MAGA is what will win you reelection. Best policy is to dance with the one that brought you.
He doesn't want real bipartisan compromise
He wants business as usual and he really wants to stifle any populist conservative agenda
No changes to mass immigration, no changes to the DC consensus on foreign policy, no change to the bureaucracy, no change to the Federal Courts, no social conservative legislation, no real change at all.
Its the antithesis of the 1980s Reagan revolution that really shock up DC
The fact that he wants to use Reagans name to advocate for this kind of swamp politics and living under the dead hand of rotten DC elite is particularly galling
1) of course I would welcome compromise. MAGA ain't interested.
Sure they are…Trump and MAGA types have said over and over again they willing to work with anyone
Why don't some moderate democrats cross over and vote with them?
The new omnibus spending bill going through Congress is a great time for some moderate Dems to cross over and join hands with MAGA and say "we want a clean continuing resolution with no pork".
Are you against that?
FLBear5630 said:So, how does this end? If you can't work with the other side and the Romney's, Manchin's, McCain's, Lieberman's basically anyone that tries for bi-partisan legislation is "dead to us". How does it end?historian said:
Mitt has worked with & voted with the Dems a lot while in the Senate. He is the worst of the RINO's.
You think Trump will have smooth sailing and destroy the Dems? He won by a percent or two. You guys think it is over and Trump won?
I am not getting the end game here or at least one that is realistic.
Bipartisanship is one thing, Romney's record is something else. Romney's voting record & other actions sometimes looks more Dem than GOP. That's why he is labeled RINO and not trusted.
Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
I can't speak for FLA, but we need more centrists on both sides. Unfortunately, those days are gone. MAGA nut jobs are the GOP. Just miss the days when from when the dems and reps both had centrists that could work together to get things done. Not all this rancor from both sides.
Those pesky MAGA people…always causing problems
I am sure there are tons of Democrats willing to cross the aisle to enforce borders, role back the massive administrative State, and end the relentless social leftist push on values…right?
Mothra said:What's ironic about your statements is MAGA is actually normal. MAGA by and large supports policies that conform to traditional Judeo-Christian values. It's the Dems who are now the leftist wingnuts. They took a woke left turn in 2020, embracing open borders, defunding police forces, and pretending that biological boys could become biological girls. They veered so far away from normal, that even traditional liberals got scared away. It was looney-tunes land.J.R. said:
I can't speak for FLA, but we need more centrists on both sides. Unfortunately, those days are gone. MAGA nut jobs are the GOP. Just miss the days when from when the dems and reps both had centrists that could work together to get things done. Not all this rancor from both sides.
Thank God they lost.
Elon Musk's favorite meme is instructive:
KaiBear said:Mothra said:What's ironic about your statements is MAGA is actually normal. MAGA by and large supports policies that conform to traditional Judeo-Christian values. It's the Dems who are now the leftist wingnuts. They took a woke left turn in 2020, embracing open borders, defunding police forces, and pretending that biological boys could become biological girls. They veered so far away from normal, that even traditional liberals got scared away. It was looney-tunes land.J.R. said:
I can't speak for FLA, but we need more centrists on both sides. Unfortunately, those days are gone. MAGA nut jobs are the GOP. Just miss the days when from when the dems and reps both had centrists that could work together to get things done. Not all this rancor from both sides.
Thank God they lost.
Thank God indeed.
However it remains to be seen if the damage Biden has inflicted upon all of us is repairable.
Nothing is impossible for God. All of us need to pray humbly for God to restore this country.
FLBear5630 said:I have never been for the transgender and crime.Realitybites said:J.R. said:
I can't speak for FLA, but we need more centrists on both sides. Unfortunately, those days are gone. MAGA nut jobs are the GOP. Just miss the days when from when the dems and reps both had centrists that could work together to get things done. Not all this rancor from both sides.
There is a center between a 15% tax rate and a 35% tax rate.
There is no center between
...nuclear war and no nuclear war.
...men can become pregnant and men cannot become pregnant.
...transing the kids and not transing the kids.
...censorship and free speech
...the demand to submit to crime and the right to self defense
The democrats have consistently come down on the side of the first half of each of these statements, the republicans on the other. Once upon a time the political left and the political right shared a vision for the future of America and differed on the methods to get there. There is no longer a shared vision. The social compact is broken. There are no centrists in 2024.
What you are seeing is a war for the future of the nation fought with plowshares. So long as the electoral process remains constitutional, it will remain in the realm of plowshares. But I noticed that Senate democrats just introduced a bill to do away with the electoral college. They have learned nothing.
I disagree with the censorship, there are levels.
I have always been tough on crime, especially violent, elder abuse, and big white collar
If you have never been for those things why would you want to compromise with those who are? What common ground is there with people unwilling to honestly define women or protect them (or children)? What common ground is there with people who will not punish violent criminals but will persecute heroes like Daniel Penny? What agreement can you reach with those who routinely engage in censorship & Gestapo like tactics against people like you? How many it you'd rights are you willing to surrender to those who want to enslave you?
Ben Franklin was correct:
historian said:FLBear5630 said:So, how does this end? If you can't work with the other side and the Romney's, Manchin's, McCain's, Lieberman's basically anyone that tries for bi-partisan legislation is "dead to us". How does it end?historian said:
Mitt has worked with & voted with the Dems a lot while in the Senate. He is the worst of the RINO's.
You think Trump will have smooth sailing and destroy the Dems? He won by a percent or two. You guys think it is over and Trump won?
I am not getting the end game here or at least one that is realistic.
Bipartisanship is one thing, Romney's record is something else. Romney's voting record & other actions sometimes looks more Dem than GOP. That's why he is labeled RINO and not trusted.
Are we looking at the same record? He voted with Trump more than Lee. The only big difference is Jan
6th which there are a lot of people not happy with Trump and MAGA about that. Or has that now become the deciding factor in being a RINO you have to sign on to whatever Donald says? Seems that way, any disagreement and you are a RINO even after a career of supporting the GOP.
A lot of rinos have 'good' voting percentages. Its the ones that cave on the major landmark cases that give power shifts to the left that makes them rinos.
Romney received a 51% score from Heritage.FLBear5630 said:historian said:FLBear5630 said:So, how does this end? If you can't work with the other side and the Romney's, Manchin's, McCain's, Lieberman's basically anyone that tries for bi-partisan legislation is "dead to us". How does it end?historian said:
Mitt has worked with & voted with the Dems a lot while in the Senate. He is the worst of the RINO's.
You think Trump will have smooth sailing and destroy the Dems? He won by a percent or two. You guys think it is over and Trump won?
I am not getting the end game here or at least one that is realistic.
Bipartisanship is one thing, Romney's record is something else. Romney's voting record & other actions sometimes looks more Dem than GOP. That's why he is labeled RINO and not trusted.
Are we looking at the same record? He voted with Trump more than Lee. The only big difference is Jan
6th which there are a lot of people not happy with Trump and MAGA about that. Or has that now become the deciding factor in being a RINO you have to sign on to whatever Donald says? Seems that way, any disagreement and you are a RINO even after a career of supporting the GOP.
https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/members/R000615/117
He voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, which established same sex marriage as the law of the land, the Inflation Reduction Act, numerous other spending bills, and voted for most of Biden's judicial appointments. That's not exactly voting conservative.
In the 60's Mitt would have been regarded as a Republican liberal such as Rockefeller.
Today I would consider him a Republican moderate.
There are worse things.
Today I would consider him a Republican moderate.
There are worse things.
J.R. said:Project much, dumbarse?Redbrickbear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
It would be nice if you "Reagan" republicans would look to compromise within your own party instead of looking to the left. Like them or not, MAGA is what will win you reelection. Best policy is to dance with the one that brought you.
He doesn't want real bipartisan compromise
He wants business as usual and he really wants to stifle any populist conservative agenda
No changes to mass immigration, no changes to the DC consensus on foreign policy, no change to the bureaucracy, no change to the Federal Courts, no social conservative legislation, no real change at all.
Its the antithesis of the 1980s Reagan revolution that really shock up DC
The fact that he wants to use Reagans name to advocate for this kind of swamp politics and living under the dead hand of rotten DC elite is particularly galling
1) of course I would welcome compromise. MAGA ain't interested.
2)Nope, no business as usual. Govt needs to be right sized. "stifle , populist conservatives. You and you ild are not conservative, you are bomb throwers. You clowns are just like the left . Yall just love to to play the "victim". Oh, wow is me....blah, blah
3)Again, please show where I ever said I wanted no changes to mass immigration? Please share, clown. I'm for a top to bottom immigration reform. We need to revise the laws on the books and follow them, period. We don't
4)Meh
5)you do your small mindededness, I will live my life.
You don't know jack about me or my thinking as I just proved, so STFU, become educated, think for yourself and quit with the Foxy news talking points. Is Shawn Hannity your daddy?
You alleged that Maga Republicans are uncompromising. However, can you tell me any specific policies upon which the Democrat party has been compromising? You seem to accuse Republicans quite often of bad conduct, while turning a blind eye Democrats. Why is that? Serious question.
I would submit my friend you're not a conservative and never have been in the time I've known you on these boards. Before Trump it was complaints about Bush.
Mothra said:J.R. said:Project much, dumbarse?Redbrickbear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
It would be nice if you "Reagan" republicans would look to compromise within your own party instead of looking to the left. Like them or not, MAGA is what will win you reelection. Best policy is to dance with the one that brought you.
He doesn't want real bipartisan compromise
He wants business as usual and he really wants to stifle any populist conservative agenda
No changes to mass immigration, no changes to the DC consensus on foreign policy, no change to the bureaucracy, no change to the Federal Courts, no social conservative legislation, no real change at all.
Its the antithesis of the 1980s Reagan revolution that really shock up DC
The fact that he wants to use Reagans name to advocate for this kind of swamp politics and living under the dead hand of rotten DC elite is particularly galling
1) of course I would welcome compromise. MAGA ain't interested.
2)Nope, no business as usual. Govt needs to be right sized. "stifle , populist conservatives. You and you ild are not conservative, you are bomb throwers. You clowns are just like the left . Yall just love to to play the "victim". Oh, wow is me....blah, blah
3)Again, please show where I ever said I wanted no changes to mass immigration? Please share, clown. I'm for a top to bottom immigration reform. We need to revise the laws on the books and follow them, period. We don't
4)Meh
5)you do your small mindededness, I will live my life.
You don't know jack about me or my thinking as I just proved, so STFU, become educated, think for yourself and quit with the Foxy news talking points. Is Shawn Hannity your daddy?
You alleged that Maga Republicans are uncompromising. However, can you tell me any specific policies upon which the Democrat party has been compromising? You seem to accuse Republicans quite often of bad conduct, while turning a blind eye Democrats. Why is that? Serious question.
I would submit my friend you're not a conservative and never have been in the time I've known you on these boards. Before Trump it was complaints about Bush.
Great point.
Had forgotten his anti Bush diatribes.
That is a fair assessment. I agree with that. He did a lot more than many others, even if not as much as some think he should have done.KaiBear said:
In the 60's Mitt would have been regarded as a Republican liberal such as Rockefeller.
Today I would consider him a Republican moderate.
There are worse things.
KaiBear said:Mothra said:J.R. said:Project much, dumbarse?Redbrickbear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
It would be nice if you "Reagan" republicans would look to compromise within your own party instead of looking to the left. Like them or not, MAGA is what will win you reelection. Best policy is to dance with the one that brought you.
He doesn't want real bipartisan compromise
He wants business as usual and he really wants to stifle any populist conservative agenda
No changes to mass immigration, no changes to the DC consensus on foreign policy, no change to the bureaucracy, no change to the Federal Courts, no social conservative legislation, no real change at all.
Its the antithesis of the 1980s Reagan revolution that really shock up DC
The fact that he wants to use Reagans name to advocate for this kind of swamp politics and living under the dead hand of rotten DC elite is particularly galling
1) of course I would welcome compromise. MAGA ain't interested.
2)Nope, no business as usual. Govt needs to be right sized. "stifle , populist conservatives. You and you ild are not conservative, you are bomb throwers. You clowns are just like the left . Yall just love to to play the "victim". Oh, wow is me....blah, blah
3)Again, please show where I ever said I wanted no changes to mass immigration? Please share, clown. I'm for a top to bottom immigration reform. We need to revise the laws on the books and follow them, period. We don't
4)Meh
5)you do your small mindededness, I will live my life.
You don't know jack about me or my thinking as I just proved, so STFU, become educated, think for yourself and quit with the Foxy news talking points. Is Shawn Hannity your daddy?
You alleged that Maga Republicans are uncompromising. However, can you tell me any specific policies upon which the Democrat party has been compromising? You seem to accuse Republicans quite often of bad conduct, while turning a blind eye Democrats. Why is that? Serious question.
I would submit my friend you're not a conservative and never have been in the time I've known you on these boards. Before Trump it was complaints about Bush.
Great point.
Had forgotten his anti Bush diatribes.
Crazy because now he is on here talking about how much he likes ole war criminal W and how he is such a great guy and has seen him around the Dallas area
(someone else can look up his posts about that)
FLBear5630 said:historian said:FLBear5630 said:So, how does this end? If you can't work with the other side and the Romney's, Manchin's, McCain's, Lieberman's basically anyone that tries for bi-partisan legislation is "dead to us". How does it end?historian said:
Mitt has worked with & voted with the Dems a lot while in the Senate. He is the worst of the RINO's.
You think Trump will have smooth sailing and destroy the Dems? He won by a percent or two. You guys think it is over and Trump won?
I am not getting the end game here or at least one that is realistic.
Bipartisanship is one thing, Romney's record is something else. Romney's voting record & other actions sometimes looks more Dem than GOP. That's why he is labeled RINO and not trusted.
Are we looking at the same record? He voted with Trump more than Lee. The only big difference is Jan
6th which there are a lot of people not happy with Trump and MAGA about that. Or has that now become the deciding factor in being a RINO you have to sign on to whatever Donald says? Seems that way, any disagreement and you are a RINO even after a career of supporting the GOP.
Trump is not the ultimate standard. Never has been. Romney's votes on key bills, appointments, the impeachment, etc have been too often with the fascists and against the interests of the country.
Never said Romney was the standard either, he was only in public office 10 years. He served the GOP cause honorably, may not agree with all his positions. He definitely did enough to be respected upon retirement.historian said:FLBear5630 said:historian said:FLBear5630 said:So, how does this end? If you can't work with the other side and the Romney's, Manchin's, McCain's, Lieberman's basically anyone that tries for bi-partisan legislation is "dead to us". How does it end?historian said:
Mitt has worked with & voted with the Dems a lot while in the Senate. He is the worst of the RINO's.
You think Trump will have smooth sailing and destroy the Dems? He won by a percent or two. You guys think it is over and Trump won?
I am not getting the end game here or at least one that is realistic.
Bipartisanship is one thing, Romney's record is something else. Romney's voting record & other actions sometimes looks more Dem than GOP. That's why he is labeled RINO and not trusted.
Are we looking at the same record? He voted with Trump more than Lee. The only big difference is Jan
6th which there are a lot of people not happy with Trump and MAGA about that. Or has that now become the deciding factor in being a RINO you have to sign on to whatever Donald says? Seems that way, any disagreement and you are a RINO even after a career of supporting the GOP.
Trump is not the ultimate standard. Never has been. Romney's votes on key bills, appointments, the impeachment, etc have been too often with the fascists and against the interests of the country.
From Presidential hopeful to entirely forgettable Senator. Watch him follow John Kerry’s footsteps into GloboHomo Agenda peddling. https://t.co/g1BTlPUyZx
— CulturalHusbandry (@APhilosophae) December 21, 2024
have no idea what you are talking about relative to W. Never ever spoke ill about him here. He is a good man who made a few mistakes as they all do. I'd take W any day. I just prefer moderate, pragmatic R's. Have really issues with the far left and far right (Maga). Just my personal opinion and don't need to justify to anyone.Mothra said:J.R. said:Project much, dumbarse?Redbrickbear said:GrowlTowel said:FLBear5630 said:Post of the Year. Reagan Republican's are now considered liberals...J.R. said:Married A Horn said:
You go first... come to the center.
This is what you maga fail to understand. I am centrist. Voted dem1 time in my 30 yrs of voting. I'm basically a Regan Republican. Now extinct because of maga and yall axe to grind. Playing the victim!
It would be nice if you "Reagan" republicans would look to compromise within your own party instead of looking to the left. Like them or not, MAGA is what will win you reelection. Best policy is to dance with the one that brought you.
He doesn't want real bipartisan compromise
He wants business as usual and he really wants to stifle any populist conservative agenda
No changes to mass immigration, no changes to the DC consensus on foreign policy, no change to the bureaucracy, no change to the Federal Courts, no social conservative legislation, no real change at all.
Its the antithesis of the 1980s Reagan revolution that really shock up DC
The fact that he wants to use Reagans name to advocate for this kind of swamp politics and living under the dead hand of rotten DC elite is particularly galling
1) of course I would welcome compromise. MAGA ain't interested.
2)Nope, no business as usual. Govt needs to be right sized. "stifle , populist conservatives. You and you ild are not conservative, you are bomb throwers. You clowns are just like the left . Yall just love to to play the "victim". Oh, wow is me....blah, blah
3)Again, please show where I ever said I wanted no changes to mass immigration? Please share, clown. I'm for a top to bottom immigration reform. We need to revise the laws on the books and follow them, period. We don't
4)Meh
5)you do your small mindededness, I will live my life.
You don't know jack about me or my thinking as I just proved, so STFU, become educated, think for yourself and quit with the Foxy news talking points. Is Shawn Hannity your daddy?
You alleged that Maga Republicans are uncompromising. However, can you tell me any specific policies upon which the Democrat party has been compromising? You seem to accuse Republicans quite often of bad conduct, while turning a blind eye Democrats. Why is that? Serious question.
I would submit my friend you're not a conservative and never have been in the time I've known you on these boards. Before Trump it was complaints about Bush.
Mitt Romney is in some ways a tragedy.
He clearly started as an idealist who hoped to make things better, to use his energy and talent to serve the people, first as a Governor in Massachusetts then later as a Senator in Utah. But once he ran for President and got as far as the GOP nomination, something changed in Romney, and the man in the last 12 years is far inferior to the man he was before then.
He clearly started as an idealist who hoped to make things better, to use his energy and talent to serve the people, first as a Governor in Massachusetts then later as a Senator in Utah. But once he ran for President and got as far as the GOP nomination, something changed in Romney, and the man in the last 12 years is far inferior to the man he was before then.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Romneycare at his roots / beginnings. No true conservative would ever promote that.
If he doesnt understand how Romneycare was bad before he ever thought about it, he doesnt hold to conservative principles.
If he doesnt understand how Romneycare was bad before he ever thought about it, he doesnt hold to conservative principles.
Good point. Mittens was always trying to play White Savior, helping the masses by making decisions for them so they didn't have to decide for themselves.Married A Horn said:
Romneycare at his roots / beginnings. No true conservative would ever promote that.
If he doesnt understand how Romneycare was bad before he ever thought about it, he doesnt hold to conservative principles.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
just wait till you have a pre existing condition and can't get insuranceMarried A Horn said:
Romneycare at his roots / beginnings. No true conservative would ever promote that.
If he doesnt understand how Romneycare was bad before he ever thought about it, he doesnt hold to conservative principles.
J.R. said:just wait till you have a pre existing condition and can't get insuranceMarried A Horn said:
Romneycare at his roots / beginnings. No true conservative would ever promote that.
If he doesnt understand how Romneycare was bad before he ever thought about it, he doesnt hold to conservative principles.
Fair comment.
What's a viable solution ?
Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
That is not true. Government like anything else has good points and bad, would you like to talk about the private sectors corruption, waste and criminal acts? Enron? FTX? Deepwater? Madoff? Too many banks to list. How about the Government contract fraud. Private Companies defrauding the US out of billions?historian said:
Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
Like anything else, you maximize the good and try to minimize the bad. Private is not good just because it is private and Govt is not bad just because it is Govt.
It usually depends on what side of the ledger you are on. I can tell you for a fact that the Veterans Admin saved my ass on my first house, there were NUMEROUS repairs that didn't show until the first weekend we moved in and the VA on a phone call stopped ALL funds and made them make the repairs before releasing funds. That would have been an nightmare for 26 year old to deal with limited resources. So, in my opinion the VA is damn good and I am happy I had a VA Mortgage. I am sure it you were the seller, you hate the VA because it cost you a lot of money. Nobody seems to talk about that the ******* tried to stick a 1st time buyer with a lemon and screw them over.
So, I don't agree ALL Govt is bad. From what I have seen over the last 50 years all Govt is bad if you have a lot of money. I will go with that, because then you have the resources to screw people that can't defend themselves. But, there are a lot of people that rely on Medicare, SS, and other Govt parasitic programs. But maybe they should just die and reduce the surplus population.
historian said:Mothra said:What's ironic about your statements is MAGA is actually normal. MAGA by and large supports policies that conform to traditional Judeo-Christian values. It's the Dems who are now the leftist wingnuts. They took a woke left turn in 2020, embracing open borders, defunding police forces, and pretending that biological boys could become biological girls. They veered so far away from normal, that even traditional liberals got scared away. It was looney-tunes land.J.R. said:
I can't speak for FLA, but we need more centrists on both sides. Unfortunately, those days are gone. MAGA nut jobs are the GOP. Just miss the days when from when the dems and reps both had centrists that could work together to get things done. Not all this rancor from both sides.
Thank God they lost.
Elon Musk's favorite meme is instructive:
It could be instructive but libtards can't seem to learn. BTW, can Elon be a bigot? After all he is an African American.
FLBear5630 said:That is not true. Government like anything else has good points and bad, would you like to talk about the private sectors corruption, waste and criminal acts? Enron? FTX? Deepwater? Madoff? Too many banks to list. How about the Government contract fraud. Private Companies defrauding the US out of billions?historian said:
Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
Like anything else, you maximize the good and try to minimize the bad. Private is not good just because it is private and Govt is not bad just because it is Govt.
It usually depends on what side of the ledger you are on. I can tell you for a fact that the Veterans Admin saved my ass on my first house, there were NUMEROUS repairs that didn't show until the first weekend we moved in and the VA on a phone call stopped ALL funds and made them make the repairs before releasing funds. That would have been an nightmare for 26 year old to deal with limited resources. So, in my opinion the VA is damn good and I am happy I had a VA Mortgage. I am sure it you were the seller, you hate the VA because it cost you a lot of money. Nobody seems to talk about that the ******* tried to stick a 1st time buyer with a lemon and screw them over.
So, I don't agree ALL Govt is bad. From what I have seen over the last 50 years all Govt is bad if you have a lot of money. I will go with that, because then you have the resources to screw people that can't defend themselves. But, there are a lot of people that rely on Medicare, SS, and other Govt parasitic programs. But maybe they should just die and reduce the surplus population.
I've always said you can tell someone party by who they trust and who they fear. Someone that trusts the government and fears business is usually a democrat. Someone that trust business and fears the government is normally a republican.
FLBear5630 said:That is not true. Government like anything else has good points and bad, would you like to talk about the private sectors corruption, waste and criminal acts? Enron? FTX? Deepwater? Madoff? Too many banks to list. How about the Government contract fraud. Private Companies defrauding the US out of billions?historian said:
Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
Like anything else, you maximize the good and try to minimize the bad. Private is not good just because it is private and Govt is not bad just because it is Govt.
It usually depends on what side of the ledger you are on. I can tell you for a fact that the Veterans Admin saved my ass on my first house, there were NUMEROUS repairs that didn't show until the first weekend we moved in and the VA on a phone call stopped ALL funds and made them make the repairs before releasing funds. That would have been an nightmare for 26 year old to deal with limited resources. So, in my opinion the VA is damn good and I am happy I had a VA Mortgage. I am sure it you were the seller, you hate the VA because it cost you a lot of money. Nobody seems to talk about that the ******* tried to stick a 1st time buyer with a lemon and screw them over.
So, I don't agree ALL Govt is bad. From what I have seen over the last 50 years all Govt is bad if you have a lot of money. I will go with that, because then you have the resources to screw people that can't defend themselves. But, there are a lot of people that rely on Medicare, SS, and other Govt parasitic programs. But maybe they should just die and reduce the surplus population.
With private sector corruption there is a legal recourse. With govt corruption it's far more difficult and less likely. Instead they cover up more & more, becoming more corrupt. Sometimes, perhaps, people are even Epsteined.
Lord Acton was right: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Government is evil. It is always capable of tyranny and thus must constantly be checked. But that doesn't always happen.
All those govt programs do help people dependent on them and that's the problem: no one should be in a position to rely upon corrupt politicians and incompetent bureaucrats for their needs. But that's what we gave. Government created those programs and has created millions of dependent people. It's partly because of these kinds of policies that socialism is equated with slavery. It's not as big of a stretch as you might think. And the only people who think slavery is good are the slave owners.
historian said:
Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
That is the Republican line, but it is demonstrably not true. There is a role for government to play in daily life. Tell me the government shouldn't be involved in our national defense, road and bridge building, preventing theft and murder. Tge government has those responsibilities. If people vote for the government to take over health care, or at least the administrative aspect, that will also become the role of the government.
And there is a way for it to do so. I do not really have a good answer to it, because though it would be very efficient (cheaper) for all Americans to simply be covered, all the time, and taxes pay for health care, it would also lead to the government being overly involved in private health care decisions.
I think there is probably still a way to do it well. And that is simply the direction we are headed. The health care industry is really shooting itself in the foot. Not that the CEOs care. They will have their tens of millions when the insurance side goes boom.
What do you call someone that doesn't trust either? Funny, I have aspects of Libertarian, Conservative and Democrat. Sorry, I don't go all one platform or another. I am a registered Independent.ScottS said:FLBear5630 said:That is not true. Government like anything else has good points and bad, would you like to talk about the private sectors corruption, waste and criminal acts? Enron? FTX? Deepwater? Madoff? Too many banks to list. How about the Government contract fraud. Private Companies defrauding the US out of billions?historian said:
Good question with no easy answers. One thing I can guarantee: the more the government is involved the more of a mess it will be. The government is a necessary evil, parasitic in nature. It does not create anything, it only destroys or damages. Nothing the government does is efficient or beneficial in the long run. Yes, some individuals might benefit but at the expense of everyone else.
Whenever the government does something you will pay more and get less: health care, education, energy, transportation, etc.
Like anything else, you maximize the good and try to minimize the bad. Private is not good just because it is private and Govt is not bad just because it is Govt.
It usually depends on what side of the ledger you are on. I can tell you for a fact that the Veterans Admin saved my ass on my first house, there were NUMEROUS repairs that didn't show until the first weekend we moved in and the VA on a phone call stopped ALL funds and made them make the repairs before releasing funds. That would have been an nightmare for 26 year old to deal with limited resources. So, in my opinion the VA is damn good and I am happy I had a VA Mortgage. I am sure it you were the seller, you hate the VA because it cost you a lot of money. Nobody seems to talk about that the ******* tried to stick a 1st time buyer with a lemon and screw them over.
So, I don't agree ALL Govt is bad. From what I have seen over the last 50 years all Govt is bad if you have a lot of money. I will go with that, because then you have the resources to screw people that can't defend themselves. But, there are a lot of people that rely on Medicare, SS, and other Govt parasitic programs. But maybe they should just die and reduce the surplus population.
I've always said you can tell someone party by who they trust and who they fear. Someone that trusts the government and fears business is usually a democrat. Someone that trust business and fears the government is normally a republican.
If the Govt can help its citizens, I am all for it. Actually, similar to Eisenhower Principles I will err on the side of Govt helping its citizens over not.
So, I would be called a Modern Republican, defined by Eisenhower as - preserving individual freedom and the market economy yet insured that government would provide necessary assistance to workers who had lost their jobs or to the ill or aged, who through no fault of their own, could not provide for themselves.
That pretty much sums it up. I amfinding that it and my type do not fit in today's world. I like this place because we actually discuss it.