Hmmmm....I understand what you're saying. I'm a 42 year old white man and I now feel like the dem party would rather I change registration.
Bad job of pandering to black lives matter and then having victims of cop shootings on the stage. I understand there are things that need to be done to help cops/black community relationship but they are not doing it the right way.
On the other hand, Trump is the most dividing figure in politics in a long time. A bad time for him to be the nominee. There is no compromise or common ground with him right now....and it's making things worse. He is also responsible for the division.....and the republicans cheering on his divisive rhetoric is not helping.
The Dems always make persuasive arguments to their voters that the system is broken, that people aren't getting ahead, standard of living is worsening. These are pretty easy arguments to make, it has been a slow burn of anxiety for probably like 15 years now in the modern era.
Then they do this pivot after touching on those troubling subjects, and the pivot is always towards more government to fix the problem. It is astonishing to me they can never admit that the government has ever failed at the myriad of tasks that it sets out to do. From healthcare to education to immigration to spending, etc
The problem the Republicans have is most of them never want to acknowledge that many of the problems have been created under their leadership, so many of the problems they just don't acknowledge at all. And the public sees that as disingenuous and figures atleast the Dems are talking about these issues so their solutions must be right as well if the other party isn't even acknowledging it.
Then they do this pivot after touching on those troubling subjects, and the pivot is always towards more government to fix the problem. It is astonishing to me they can never admit that the government has ever failed at the myriad of tasks that it sets out to do. From healthcare to education to immigration to spending, etc
The problem the Republicans have is most of them never want to acknowledge that many of the problems have been created under their leadership, so many of the problems they just don't acknowledge at all. And the public sees that as disingenuous and figures atleast the Dems are talking about these issues so their solutions must be right as well if the other party isn't even acknowledging it.
The current system of government is broken because progressives broke it.
Only an illiterate ignoramus complete brainwashed by modern left wing dogma would blame Republicans and free enterprise.
Didn't you say the last few days that you blame many of the economic problems in this country on Republican free trade orthodoxy over the last 30-40 years?
Partisan talking points getting mixed up.
Besides that, to pretend the Republicans don't have progressive government policies in their party is absurd. With what they've become, we don't even need liberals. The backlash to that is one of the reasons the orange guy is a nominee.
Protecting the borders, regulating commerce and imposing tariffs are a few of the things the federal government is supposed to do.
Go-along-to-get-along Republicans, like Paul Ryan, Boehner, McConnell and many others, deserve to be scolded for funding progressive policies, but let's not kid ourselves - progressive Democrats are the ones who created the entire modern infrastructure of a broken system in the first place.
I think a big reason so many Republicans are RINO-pussies is because they're children from that socially-progressive 60's, yeah they're Republicans but they're politicians first and they probably do somewhat think government can solve big problems with dealmaking and cronyism. They grew up in an era of heavy unions and limited global competition.
Whereas a lot of the actual conservatives in the Republican party are younger and children of the Reagan revolution like Paul, Lee, Cruz, a lot of the governors, I'm going to say Rubio/Ryan even, etc
But yes, I do agree most of the problems are from Democrats. But if you don't have the ideology to counteract that, it get worse. That is how you get from a moderate like Bill Clinton to Bernie Sanders in less than a generation.
If you are calling trade deals progressive then you have to lay that squarely at the feet of Republicans. They have been by far the more pro-free trade party over the last 30-40 years. You know this.
Even something like the borders, I know you would like to chalk that up as a racket for the Dems to gain votes, but it is just as much that as it is a bi-partisan issue about special interests and elites wanting cheap labor.
I don't really think much of the conservative intelligentsia wants to fix the problem either really. They want suckers like me to read the national review or think-tanks, both parties have tons of consultants, they're being lobbied constantly, billions spent on campaigns, the media covers it like it is a spectacle. It isn't a cottage industry anymore, it is a real industry. Many of the wealthiest zip codes in the US are in DC.
I forget where I heard it, but I actually remember someone saying female lobbyists are getting hotter a few years ago. And the reason for this is because the government has become so big and powerful that it is just as good as going to New York for media or LA for entertainment as a career choice for that type of person.
It is just far gone. At this point we should abolish democracy and just make Ted Cruz dictator for like 10-15 years.
I forget where I heard it, but I actually remember someone saying female lobbyists are getting hotter a few years ago. And the reason for this is because the government has become so big and powerful that it is just as good as going to New York for media or LA for entertainment as a career choice for that type of person.
It is just far gone. At this point we should abolish democracy and just make Ted Cruz dictator for like 10-15 years.
The new political divide
Farewell, left versus right. The contest that matters now is open against closed
Jul 30th 2016 |
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20160728n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/n/n
Farewell, left versus right. The contest that matters now is open against closed
Jul 30th 2016 |
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20160728n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/n/n
No question, the conservative intelligentsia sells more magazines and books when Democrats are in power. Rush Limbaugh became who he is because of the Clintons. If you think about it, what have they done for conservatism? How many yards have they moved the ball down the field? ZERO. There's a reason they called Reagan The Great Communicator, he won landslide elections without this entire self-serving industry.
One of the worst things about Big Government is companies now deciding that lobbying for tax dollars is more lucrative than competing for consumer dollars. Washington is now one of the richest regions in America - hundreds of thousands of people who get rich thanks to Big Government. And these politicians, lobbyists, crony capitalists, interest groups, contractor and influence peddlers are a huge drain on the private sector, hence this anemic growth (one of the reasons, anyway).
Not that lobbying is a bad thing. In the era of Big Government, lobbying is a matter of self-preservation so the political vultures don't destroy your industry.
The real moral of the story is that small government and genuinely free markets are the only effective way to reduce political corruption and crony capitalism.
Want to get BIG money out of politics? Shrink Big Government.
by Brant Clifton • November 10, 2014 • 2 Comments
$100 million for ONE US Senate race. Most of it flooded in from out of state. What is this all about? Why are all of these people willing to fork out so much for a US Senate seat from North Carolina?
If it can be done, government tries to regulate it. (No kidding. There are regulations and studies dealing withCOW FLATULENCE. There are also attempts to regulate carbon dioxide — which we exhale. )
Lobbyists are paid to protect certain interests from government busybodies. As the busybodies expand their scope of influence, we get more regulations and rules and therefore MORE LOBBYISTS. Those lobbyists write a lot of checks to politicians. They also hand out a lot of goodies and other favors that politicians appreciate.
Lobbyists for Texas oil interests throwing politicians huge checks and giving great gifts. And you wonder why it is so hard to get ANYBODY in EITHER party to shrink the size of government.
A big, expansive, meddlesome government gives politicians and unelected bureaucrats power. It allows them to influence the lives of a lot of everyday people.
If you actually got government out of everything not specifically mentioned in The Constitution,
you’d have a lot less demand for lobbyists. There’d be a lot less cash flowing into campaign coffers. A lot fewer “free” European and Carribean golf trips. You wouldn’t have nearly as many Karl Rove types and DC PACs trying to buy various elections.
Don’t add to the problem by introducing even more regulation into our lives. Reduce the demand for lobbyists and PACs. Shrink government’s influence. Let all of the ingenuity and diligence out there among the people catch fire and create more opportunities and more economic growth than any government program or “job creation” legislation EVER COULD.
Leave The First Amendment AND the people who actually make this country work ALONE.
by Brant Clifton • November 10, 2014 • 2 Comments
$100 million for ONE US Senate race. Most of it flooded in from out of state. What is this all about? Why are all of these people willing to fork out so much for a US Senate seat from North Carolina? If it can be done, government tries to regulate it. (No kidding. There are regulations and studies dealing withCOW FLATULENCE. There are also attempts to regulate carbon dioxide — which we exhale. )
Lobbyists are paid to protect certain interests from government busybodies. As the busybodies expand their scope of influence, we get more regulations and rules and therefore MORE LOBBYISTS. Those lobbyists write a lot of checks to politicians. They also hand out a lot of goodies and other favors that politicians appreciate.
Lobbyists for Texas oil interests throwing politicians huge checks and giving great gifts. And you wonder why it is so hard to get ANYBODY in EITHER party to shrink the size of government.
A big, expansive, meddlesome government gives politicians and unelected bureaucrats power. It allows them to influence the lives of a lot of everyday people.
If you actually got government out of everything not specifically mentioned in The Constitution,
you’d have a lot less demand for lobbyists. There’d be a lot less cash flowing into campaign coffers. A lot fewer “free” European and Carribean golf trips. You wouldn’t have nearly as many Karl Rove types and DC PACs trying to buy various elections.Don’t add to the problem by introducing even more regulation into our lives. Reduce the demand for lobbyists and PACs. Shrink government’s influence. Let all of the ingenuity and diligence out there among the people catch fire and create more opportunities and more economic growth than any government program or “job creation” legislation EVER COULD.
Leave The First Amendment AND the people who actually make this country work ALONE.
I think that is sortof the argument for Hillary winning though. That the system is broken, it isn't going to get better without a serious purging and it would be better off if it collapsed after 12 years of democratic leadership, hopefully followed by a more libertarian dominant philosophy emerging. At this point her candidacy is so absurd that I'm not sure her winning is worth that risk, but it does sortof make some sense for the long-term. Obviously depends how disruptive you feel Trump can be to a large extent.
Nobody embodies cronyism and corruption more than the Clintons. Hillary is the worst candidate EVER. The only thing going for her is her base - 40% of Americans will automatically vote Democrat no matter what.
So let's assume the system is rigged, she wins and it finally collapses. Then what? Do you think all the current beneficiaries of Big Government will simply step aside, admit the previous system didn't work and small government will magically rise from the ashes? What comes afterward?
So let's assume the system is rigged, she wins and it finally collapses. Then what? Do you think all the current beneficiaries of Big Government will simply step aside, admit the previous system didn't work and small government will magically rise from the ashes? What comes afterward?
It's always tough to say what comes out of a black swan obviously, but you can certainly make the argument that if it is going to collapse regardless that it would be better for it to do so during the 12 year Clinton/Obama run. It would almost leave no doubt who the culprits were.
I really don't know how it would unfold, but look at Obama's rise and the housing/finance bubble. No nuance whatsoever, the only thing people instinctively thought was that McCain was from the party in office when it happened and Obama wasn't.
And I'm not saying I really ascribe to that theory, I'm just saying as school of thought that it is a potential silver lining if she were to win. But yeah, obviously I can't predict that type of fallout.
You asked "what would break the vicious cycle?" I was suggesting the party that is for big government having all the egg on their face during an economic collapse is probably 1 of the main ways to do the trick. I can't think of too many better ways than that. Big price to pay...
But who knows
But who knows
