Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participantdelete.
Participantignore.
ParticipantNow that I think about it, this is probably why the libertarian party is nothing but a fringe party. They take their “small government” philosophy – make that ideology – and apply it unthinkingly, without regard to practical matters or the future of the country. If they had a bit more sense and a lot more pragmatism, they might be a viable party.
On the one hand, they would no longer be the libertarian party that we have today. On the other hand, they might rule the country.
Participantparamount, do you understand what “reflexively” means? It means to do something automatically, without making a conscious choice.
Do you really think that the default position of all government parties should be to reject government involvement without giving it any thought at all?
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=Rich Toscano][quote=paramount]
There already is such a party: The Libertarian Party[/quote]I think you missed this part:
(not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement)[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that part.
All parties should be reflexively opposed to gov’t regulation and involvement; that should be the default position.[/quote]
Either your logic has failed spectacularly or you are delusional.
It is your opinion that “All parties should be reflexively opposed to gov’t regulation and involvement; that should be the default position.”
And hence, according to your logic, the platform I suggest must include this philosophy (as indicated by the fact that you state that the platform I suggest is equal to the libertarian party’s, along with your (correct) implicit acknowledgement that the libertarian party does hold such a philosophy). Even though I stated directly that it would not.
So, either your logic has failed (you have concluded that the platform I suggest would include what you opine should be the default philosophy regarding government involvement without any reasons whatsoever for reaching that conclusion).
Or, you’re delusional (you believe that because it’s your opinion that it should be the default position, it therefore is).
Participant[quote=ctr70]I think people totally get the red/blue color coded maps of the U.S. wrong. They are too generalized. What these maps don’t show is there still are a lot of people in the Northeast, Pac NW and CA coast that vote Republican, but of course a minority of the population. A lot of the higher income people and business owners in these areas. There are a lot of people (working in knowledge based industries) who lean to the right on fiscal issues, taxation, pro-business, entitlements, unions. But then lean to the left on gun control, abortion, war, climate change, environment. Kind of “Bloomberg Republicans”.
I think a big problem with the Republican Party is a “branding” issue. B/c of the heavy association with the Republican Party and the bible belt social conservative issues. When many Republican moderates are more fiscal conservatives and not social conservatives. I think more Independents who were undecided would have voted for Romney if Repubs had better branding and didn’t associate so heavily with the social conservatives and the Rush Limbaugh crowd. People look at these color coded maps and think NOBODY in Coastal CA, Pac NW, Northeast voted Repub or are fiscal conservatives, which would be a wrong interpretation of the maps IMO. People look at the red/blue maps and make an association with the flyover states as representing 100% of the Repub party, and coasts 100% of Dem party, and associate the Repub party with those areas of the U.S. as being perceived as more backward. I think this is a shame, because the moderate side of the Repub party would appeal to more Americans living on the coasts if it was branded better. When they start taking a look at what’s left of their paychecks in the near future, they will be looking for a better answer.[/quote]
Good post. I agree about people seeing the maps and not seeing the real picture. I also agree about the branding issue to an extent, but I think it’s a bit more than just a branding issue. On the one hand, no thinking person wants to be branded a “dittohead.” So there is that problem. But the Republican platform is against gay marriage and does generally align with conservative stances on social issues, gun control, climate change, war, and the environment. So it’s not just branding that’s holding the republican party back, but also its platform.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again now (I frequently repeat myself after several drinks, anyway). We need a new party in this country. Liberal on social issues. Strongly for science (e.g. stem-cell research and climate change). Against massive government but for government and regulation where needed and sensible (not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement). A pragmatic, flexible approach to problems without a rigid ideology. A basic decency on humanitarian issues.
There are so many people who agree with most of those stances. The first party that jumps on that platform (or a new party that stands on it) would, it is my guess, dominate for decades to come.
I’d be very interested to hear if people think I’m out in left field on this one, or why people think such a party is not happening.
Participant[quote=UCGal]But you’ll continue to have voters who have no clue.
Case in point.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/13/15137488-police-arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-with-car-for-not-voting?liteShe clearly didn’t understand that Arizona went for Romney, so one more vote for him wouldn’t have changed things.[/quote]
The right-wing noise machine has been telling Americans that Obama has been hurting their finances since before he even took office. Limbaugh called the recession “the Obama recession” while Bush was still president (but after Obama won the election) on the assumption that businesses anticipated poor treatment from a Democratic president and therefore started laying people off. And it’s been a non-stop barrage ever since.
I’ve frequently wondered, when listening to right wingers parrot this garbage, if they really believe it, deep down inside. I guess at least some of them do. Clearly, the right-wing noise machine is able to reach deep into people’s psyches and spin them up. Obviously, this woman had other problems. But clearly she was spun up about politics. And what do you think the odds are that she had a clear understanding of the issues that made her so angry?
November 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM in reply to: Implosion 101: Ann Barnhardt (one of the smartest women in America) #754311ParticipantI can see how, if one shared her paranoid, apocalyptic fantasies and also wanted to feel as macho as her, she would be appealing.
Participant[quote=svelte]Supreme Court nominations over the next 4 years is one of the major reasons I supported Obama this go-round.[/quote]
+1
Participant[quote=Ren]LOL at an LA Times voter guide.[/quote]
Most major newspapers suggest no on 32.
Have you fallen for the “liberal media” myth, Ren?
ParticipantNo on prop 32.
Participant[quote=flyer]Please realize these thoughts are just my opinions, and I wouldn’t construe them as advice. I wish you the best![/quote]
I take all advice as opinions and all opinions as opinions. Then form my own opinion.
Anyway, great answers and I appreciate it.
The problem with the “talent” question is (in my opinion) this: In music, painting, acting, and most other arts, talent – even great talent – is rarely enough. You usually need either a lucky break; a forceful, sell yourself, make-it-happen personality/approach; or both (in addition to talent) to make it in those fields. In fact, those things are frequently more important than talent. (All this assumes a huge amount of time and hard work are put into it).
And that makes those fields that much riskier. I suppose if you failed you could say, “well, at least I did what I could to chase my dream, and now I know it wasn’t meant to be.” But I think most people would be more likely to think, “I had talent, I worked hard, I spent lots of time on it, and I couldn’t catch the break I needed. Which is probably not a nice place to be but, like you’ve said, wouldn’t be so bad as long as one had concurrently pursued a “plan b.”
Participant[quote=flyer]AN, I completely agree with your comment to the other poster. That’s exactly the way my wife and I felt when we were raising our children.
Whatever “pond” you’re in, my wife and I had parents who were all about living your dreams–not just getting “a job”–and we’ve tried to pass that same philosophy along to our children. We have two who have made it to that point in life, and one to go![/quote]
I’m curious what your take is here, flyer. The article you posted is about the large number of college grads who can’t get jobs in their chosen (often dream) fields, and the article concludes by saying,
“Perhaps your investment in education should go toward learning things you can earn a living at, with intellectual stimulation coming later, when you can afford the indulgence. Otherwise, college can turn out to be a mighty expensive hobby.”
Yet you have encouraged your children to live their dreams rather than focus on getting a job. Clearly you’ve had fantastic success there. (For which you get, from me, congratulations, esteem, and a desire to learn from you). So I’m curious how you would’ve handled it if your kids dreams didn’t involve lucrative, in-demand fields such as business and medicine? What if they wanted to be writers and actors and painters? What if they chased those dreams and ended up barely (or not at all) able to support themselves?
ParticipantI think a consortium is highly unlikely to actually have the kind of influence that Blogstar thinks not unlikely. I think that some other, unspecified system besides capitalism is slightly more likely. But I think more likely than that is sort of chaos lite. Continual shifting of wealth between different groups (be they countries, companies, people, hemispheres, participants in certain economic systems, or whatever), chaos in certain parts of the world and stability in others. This could last for hundreds of years or longer. There might be periods of relative stability and periods of relative chaos. Scattered wars and revolts. Really not too unlike we have now, but with a weakening of the most powerful economies and a slight strengthening of weaker ones.
I see capitalism as always being a major factor. Perhaps I’m shortsighted or naive. I am very curious what kinds of other systems other posters see in the future.
-
AuthorPosts
