The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

It always seems like 1 +1 = 23 with you. You need the wall, but you say you have the ability to secure the border (no question about that). Which is it? I think we've exhausted all facts, science and logic therefore here's my argument.

Have you given thought that the superb Wall of Westoros did not even hold the Whitewalkers at bay, so why would you expect yours to hold the Mexicans?

You're missing the entire argument about the difference between ability to block entry without a wall and the political will to do so.

[jelgate]

Probably because its another one of your made up conspiracy theories that has no facts.

[Annoyed]

Probably because its another one of your made up conspiracy theories that has no facts.

You were taught to accept authority's word at face value; to trust authority. Whereas I was taught to distrust authority; to always look for what we're not being told.

[Chaka-Z0]

You were taught to accept authority's word at face value; to trust authority. Whereas I was taught to distrust authority; to always look for what we're not being told.

Yet you fully support a man who doesn't disclose his taxes, deals with US enemy #1, lies on a daily basis and digs the economic grave you will soon be in.

If what you said was true, you wouldn't trust Trump would you?

[jelgate]

You were taught to accept authority's word at face value; to trust authority. Whereas I was taught to distrust authority; to always look for what we're not being told.

Incorrect again. I was taught to draw conclusions on facts and evidence not beliefs and feelings

[SoulReaver]

Whereas I was taught to distrust authority

this coming from conservatives whose motto's basically comply & obey

[magi877]

Can you make any of this make more sense?

EDIT: should I link this and the last post you made to make it have some kind of flow?
I get the basics of where you are coming from, but the change ups are so stark as to be distracting. Agrue A point, not 5 and we might get somewhere.

sure--maybe i ll try it in haiku

i have always wrote like this (you have read my posts before in two different forums ) eve r since some ppl at syfy forums started to ask me to "add more to your thoughts, what do you mean by that, how about this"

all things that WERE in my mind at the time of the original post- i just thought it would make the post too big

the conundrum
---------------------------------------
on the post- bottom line(s)
1- america needs to disengage from the world at least militarily

i say this as someone who has had the "pleasure" of be apart of these "adventures"


2- we were told globalism would make the world better. more central planning and world decision making

that doesn't seem to be working out. the things all nations are doing to make globalism a good thing for peace and prosperity actually seem to be pushing us closer to conflict

thanks

[Annoyed]

this coming from conservatives whose motto's basically comply & obey

Clearly, you do not understand us.

[Chaka-Z0]

Clearly, you do not understand us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxvlpbc6M4

[jelgate]

Clearly, you do not understand us.

You know the rules.

I like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

[magi877]

Trump was needed to 'break the system'

that is, to show a few things like:

>> the campaign financing system needs to be publicly funded. it is too easy for a wealthy person to garner free media attention WITHOUT paying for ads(just because he is famous), as Trump received, that helped him get his message out.

"equal time" rules for candidates with the media did not apply because they were not interviews, they were "news"

>> that the two party system is obsolete and dysfunctional. no matter who wins, we all lose

>> and, while it is appealing that a political outsider has risen to Chief Exec, it also has shown that many political outsiders are not only ignorant of government and governance but are also 'turned off' to advice from those who do know.

one example- if a 4star general (Mattis) tells you that you have been screwing up the nations military policy and posture as well as screwing diplomatic issues, then you should probably re-tune yourself (Trump) and begin to listen.

one other point--its not all trump's fault

the recent democratic win of the HOR and the inclusion of radical progressives in this win was seen by the voters as being 'meaningful change'

well it is not

the house dems have re-instated the Gephardt rule

this rule is the "pay/go" rule

meaning that any new legislation that these young radicals (Ocasio-Cortez) may be planning is DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

She can't introduce things like education for all and medicare for all without having a vetted plan for their funding

she can't even mention them in passing on the house floor without breaking 'point of order' rules of conduct

these progressives have been stonewalled and 'put in their place'. how many of their rabid supporters even know this? few to none i suspect

the article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/68154...-s-house-rules

[SoulReaver]

Clearly, you do not understand us.

Clearly, you do not understand yourselves.

[Annoyed]

Trump was needed to 'break the system'

that is, to show a few things like:

>> the campaign financing system needs to be publicly funded. it is too easy for a wealthy person to garner free media attention WITHOUT paying for ads(just because he is famous), as Trump received, that helped him get his message out.

"equal time" rules for candidates with the media did not apply because they were not interviews, they were "news"

>> that the two party system is obsolete and dysfunctional. no matter who wins, we all lose

>> and, while it is appealing that a political outsider has risen to Chief Exec, it also has shown that many political outsiders are not only ignorant of government and governance but are also 'turned off' to advice from those who do know.

one example- if a 4star general (Mattis) tells you that you have been screwing up the nations military policy and posture as well as screwing diplomatic issues, then you should probably re-tune yourself (Trump) and begin to listen.

one other point--its not all trump's fault

the recent democratic win of the HOR and the inclusion of radical progressives in this win was seen by the voters as being 'meaningful change'

well it is not

the house dems have re-instated the Gephardt rule

this rule is the "pay/go" rule

meaning that any new legislation that these young radicals (Ocasio-Cortez) may be planning is DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

She can't introduce things like education for all and medicare for all without having a vetted plan for their funding

she can't even mention them in passing on the house floor without breaking 'point of order' rules of conduct

these progressives have been stonewalled and 'put in their place'. how many of their rabid supporters even know this? few to none i suspect

the article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/68154...-s-house-rules

A few thoughts...

I also support taking money out of politics, and public funding of campaigns would be a good idea, but it is riddled with potential for abuse. Who decides who gets public funding? Petition signature counts? You think we have vote recount issues today, see what that brings. They would have to examine each and every signature on a petition to verify that it is a legitimate voter in that district. You can't let existing officials do it, they would no doubt play favorites.

Best way to accomplish it would be to require licensed broadcast outlets to provide time to candidates as part of the "public trust" aspect of their license. But even that has issues; broadcast media penetration into the market is shrinking and will continue to do so, reaching less and less of the population. And you can't enforce this on cable, web or print media because they aren't licensed.

And even if you surmount all the possible problems, what's to stop a media outlet from covering a candidate as news anyway? Trying to stop that would bring in freedom of speech/freedom of the press issues. Restricting a wealthy candidate from spending his own money to promote himself would also infringe upon freedom of speech.


What would you suggest as a means of replacing the two party system? There is no rule in place that prevents a third party as it stands now. In fact, there are several smaller parties in existence already. Do you intend that government tell people how to vote to get a larger 3rd party participation? That would work out well. But how else would you force more people to vote for the smaller parties?

And while I was delighted that some Democrat suggested reverting to PAYGO, it's a great way to put the brakes on their pipe dreams, (I will not speculate as to what might be in the pipes they are smoking) I was really surprised that it was a Democrat who brought the idea up.

[Gatefan1976]

sure--maybe i ll try it in haiku

i have always wrote like this (you have read my posts before in two different forums ) eve r since some ppl at syfy forums started to ask me to "add more to your thoughts, what do you mean by that, how about this"

all things that WERE in my mind at the time of the original post- i just thought it would make the post too big

the conundrum
---------------------------------------

Go for it, walls of text are not intimidating.

on the post- bottom line(s)
1- america needs to disengage from the world at least militarily

i say this as someone who has had the "pleasure" of be apart of these "adventures"

Is the US willing to loose the economic and political benefits of these things?
Pull troops out of the M-E?
Are you willing to loose the economic benefit of having a presence, and loose the political leverage to Russia by making more of the M-E a Russian client state?
Break the current treaty with Australia and loose the rapid deployment in Asia for your naval forces?
Have us pivot even more towards China as a economic and military ally over the US?
If you want to talk about Adventurism and nation building, then YES, I firmly agree that the US should stop it, but it won't because since WW2, the US has been essentially on a wartime economy footing. Peace IS bad for business, especially when your largest businesses and a vast chunk of your national spending are on war.

2- we were told globalism would make the world better. more central planning and world decision making

that doesn't seem to be working out. the things all nations are doing to make globalism a good thing for peace and prosperity actually seem to be pushing us closer to conflict

Is it?
Is it those actions, or the knee jerk "what about me" response by the people of those nations?

[Annoyed]

Clearly, you do not understand us.

Clearly, you do not understand yourselves.

Any society has to have rules, laws and enforcement mechanisms or it is not a society, it is anarchy.

And beside, Liberals have just as much a fondness for law enforcement. Such as laws requiring the payment of taxes and fees to finance their pipe dreams. Or rules governing what can be said in public. How many people have been silenced in colleges because they don't agree with their liberal masters who run the place?