2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Saddens me that pretty much the only pro-privacy / civil liberties candidate completely flopped.

He is his father's son.

Rand Paul came across angry. One of the big goals of the debate is to look and sound presidential. He looked like a firecracker and sounded like my high school history teacher.

It is too bad that the one candidate who presumably could move in a direction that would make libertarian-leaning conservatives happy just isn't likable enough.

But why does that candidate have to come from the Republican side, necessarily? A recent survey indicated 52% of Democrats are happy with a socialist government. Obama has taken us in that direction. Hillary has morphed into a candidate who says she wants to keep us there and Sanders has real socialist credentials.

What about the other 48%? Where is the Democrat who wants a smaller government and leans libertarian?

There's a real opportunity to move to a solid position, from either side. Paul isn't the candidate to do it. Maybe the Democrats can't or are locked into a growing the government model. I was disappointed that Paul is the only one who moved at all in that direction, and he's more an isolationist than I'd like.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But why does that candidate have to come from the Republican side, necessarily? A recent survey indicated 52% of Democrats are happy with a socialist government. Obama has taken us in that direction. Hillary has morphed into a candidate who says she wants to keep us there and Sanders has real socialist credentials.

What about the other 48%? Where is the Democrat who wants a smaller government and leans libertarian?

Uhhh... most Democrats would strongly disagree that Obama has taken us to socialism. That's the problem you have in reading that poll, I think.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uhhh... most Democrats would strongly disagree that Obama has taken us to socialism. That's the problem you have in reading that poll, I think.

Imran, you don't know what survey he is talking about, how well that survey was run, how scientific it was, how it defines socialism and what method of identifying Democrats it uses, nor do you offer up how you come to your own characterization of how Dems feel about Obama and socialism in general.

I would ask Solecismic for the survey he was talking about if you want to engage him on that.

I, too, would be interested to see if there is any portion of the Dem side that leans toward a libertarian mindset, although I suspect it is a tiny subset at best and certainly not enough for a Dem candidate to run on and expect to win.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know the survey he's talking about, but I disagree with the general statement of Democrats thinking Obama is anything close to socialism.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, and I'm guessing he got his numbers from here, which merely asks Democrats if they viewed socialism favorably:

Friendly Reminder: 52 Percent Of Democrats View Socialism Favorably - Matt Vespa

Nothing in that question (click through to Reason) was about Obama or whether Obama was a socialist.

[Grover]

Anybody who thinks Obama is a socialist needs to get their head checked.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't know the survey he's talking about, but I disagree with the general statement of Democrats thinking Obama is anything close to socialism.

You may be right, but there are too many variables in that simple statement to say what the truth of the matter is. Plus, it's not helped that the concept of socialism is regarded with negativity, and many Dems identify themselves through Obama and his policies (less now than originally, I think, but still, Obama has a certain cult of personality appeal even now). So it would take an unusually introspective person to accept linking a negative connotated socialism tag with a politician he/she admires and with whom he/she somewhat establishes his own identity.

Republicans struggle with this and Reagan, I think.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Grover

Anybody who thinks Obama is a socialist needs to get their head checked.

See? This kind of knee jerk hostility to the concept is the kind of thing which poisons any such polls.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

See? This kind of knee jerk hostility to the concept is the kind of thing which poisons any such polls.

I dunno. That didn't seem all that hostile. I mean, it's really kind of true. Maybe they don't need their head checked, but they do need to go read up on Socialism and Obama's policies at the very least. Because, he's totally not a Socialist.

[Honolulu_Blue]

One thing that impressed my about Trump is that he actually has me liking Megyn Kelly for a tiny little bit here. Impressive!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I dunno. That didn't seem all that hostile. I mean, it's really kind of true. Maybe they don't need their head checked, but they do need to go read up on Socialism and Obama's policies at the very least. Because, he's totally not a Socialist.

To me, saying someone needs to get their head checked qualifies as at least somewhat hostile to the concept.

[albionmoonlight]

It is anything but a representative sample, but my conservative friends and family on facebook are generally coming out at pro Ben Carson this morning. I had not really considered him at all. But maybe when Trump goes away, he'll be the guy to consolidate the religious vote and make a surprise showing in Iowa and South Carolina before giving way to Bush/Walker/Rubio.

Or maybe I am facebook friends with a self-selected group of Carson fans.

[Solecismic]

When I say Obama has moved us in that direction, I'm referring to processes like government control over health insurance, increased regulation of industry, that type of thing.

We're not a purely socialist country by any means. We're just experiencing a massive increase in the size of our government and the philosophy of our government, which is an important step toward pure socialism.

As we continue to set records in terms of low labor force participation and high debt, that type of movement is a big concern.

I know it can be upsetting to see viewpoints you don't agree with. I'd still prefer that both of these primary threads remain free of hostility.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I know it can be upsetting to see viewpoints you don't agree with. I'd still prefer that both of these primary threads remain free of hostility.

Personally, I think it has been pretty civil, which is nice for once.

[Warhammer]

Obama has moved us in a socialist direction. Heck, ObamaCare alone is a huge step in that direction.

Now we may not be too far in that direction, but once the wall is broken, it is much easier to move that direction. Now there are a lot more opportunities for the government to interfere in our lives, all in the name of the public good.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

To me, saying someone needs to get their head checked qualifies as at least somewhat hostile to the concept.

Note to self: Remember to tell CR to have his "head checked" next time he thinks the Ducks are going to win a Game 7 on home ice.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

To me, saying someone needs to get their head checked qualifies as at least somewhat hostile to the concept.

Any different than saying someone is ridiculous when they make the comparison? Obama is as socialist as George W. Bush was fascist.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

When I say Obama has moved us in that direction, I'm referring to processes like government control over health insurance, increased regulation of industry, that type of thing.

I think that's a bit silly. It's like saying someone who has cut taxes has moved us in a libertarian direction. Maybe in some weird vague grand scheme of things where you only have 2 directions or something...

[Grover]

You can take my comment as hostile if you'd like, and I certainly didn't mean it that way, but people who call Obama a socialist have no idea what a socialist truly is.

Sure, some of his policies have moved the country in that direction, some I agree with, some I don't. But like ISqiddiqui said above, he's as much of a Socialist as George was a Fascist.

If we had a single payer healthcare system, I'd say the government has control of it. The only control they really have is the mandate that we have it. The private insurance monsters have the rest of us by the balls because we have to buy their product.

In a previous political climate (20 years ago), Obama is center-right more than anything. Everything has gone to such extremes (both left and right) since 9/11 and especially since 2008 that even a moderate is labeled something they don't fit by the other side.

No country is going to be successful without a mix of both capitalism and socialism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Grover

The only control they really have is the mandate that we have it.

And that's far far too much socialism.

I'll be honest -- not blatantly hostile, just honest -- those who proclaiming the non-socialistic tendencies of the current occupant of the WH remind me a lot of Dan Rather's claim that he was some sort of centrist. You're bent so far left that you've lost touch with what center even looks like.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

all in the name of the public good.

ew gross

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll be honest -- not blatantly hostile, just honest -- those who proclaiming the non-socialistic tendencies of the current occupant of the WH remind me a lot of Dan Rather's claim that he was some sort of centrist. You're bent so far left that you've lost touch with what center even looks like.

Since he won both Presidential elections he's been in quite easily, I guess the center is socialist now .

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Obama has moved us in a socialist direction. Heck, ObamaCare alone is a huge step in that direction.

How so? The definition of socialism is when the government controls the production and distribution of a product in a market. The hospitals aren't owned by the government, and medical professionals are not federal employees. Yes, because of the ACA more people became eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, but many more became customers of private insurers. If there was a move to single payer, then there is a case to be made for a strong move towards socialism.

[albionmoonlight]

The ACA is more conservative than health care reform proposed by Nixon, and it is seen as liberal.

Gay marriage is legal across the country, and that is seen as moderate.

In general, I would argue that we've gotten more conservative economically and more liberal socially over the last 40 or so years. But there are individual exceptions even to that.

Basically, ISiddiqui is right. There are more than 2 directions to go. In some ways, we've gotten more left. In some ways, more right. And in others, stayed the same. It all depends on what you look at.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cartman

How so? The definition of socialism is when the government controls the production and distribution of a product in a market. The hospitals aren't owned by the government, and medical professionals are not federal employees. Yes, because of the ACA more people became eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, but many more became customers of private insurers. If there was a move to single payer, then there is a case to be made for a strong move towards socialism.

I think to some socialism is any cooperation that goes against the idea of every man, woman, and child for themself.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Note to self: Remember to tell CR to have his "head checked" next time he thinks the Ducks are going to win a Game 7 on home ice.

Haha I wouldn't regard that as a hostile opinion, but an unfortunate statement of fact based on past results.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Any different than saying someone is ridiculous when they make the comparison? Obama is as socialist as George W. Bush was fascist.

The comparison of Obama to a socialist? Not sure I get you here. I don't see anyone who even used the term ridiculous on this page at least before you did here.

I would say, though, that your last statement is a rather over-reaching comparison. Socialism as a term has negative connotations for most Americans, but it's not the level of fascism, which most of the world pretty much equates with evil. I would say Bush was quite a good deal further away from fascism than Obama is from socialism, but that's more about the fact that you chose such a loaded extreme example as fascism as it is anything to do with Bush and Obama.

[Chief Rum]

For the record, when I refer to hostility, I am not talking about hostility between posters here (I think we're all doing just fine), but hostility toward the concept of socialism.

The posts I see from ISsidiqui and Grover about socialism as it relates to Obama's policies suggest to me a hostility to the concept of socialism and any possibility that Obama (Dem white knight) could be associated with it.

Personally, I would need a clear definition of socialism before I would make that call. They're both probably right that Obama is nowhere near the level of some our more socialist European leaders, but I also think it is foolish to not see that Obamacare is a massive step toward socialism.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The comparison of Obama to a socialist? Not sure I get you here. I don't see anyone who even used the term ridiculous on this page at least before you did here.

Yes. Calling someone ridiculous for a view is just as "hostile" as saying someone needs to get their head checked. People have said views are ridiculous all up and down this site and no one gets their panties in a bunch over it.

I would say, though, that your last statement is a rather over-reaching comparison. Socialism as a term has negative connotations for most Americans, but it's not the level of fascism, which most of the world pretty much equates with evil. I would say Bush was quite a good deal further away from fascism than Obama is from socialism, but that's more about the fact that you chose such a loaded extreme example as fascism as it is anything to do with Bush and Obama.

I find it interesting that fascism is considered loaded and extreme though socialism is not... . Socialism has definitely had that connotation in this country, though it seems like it may be changing. I think that the creation of a mass surveillance state and approving torture could be "moving the direction" of fascism, no?

Or maybe, just maybe there is a massive overreach by saying Obama is moving in the direction of socialism?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally, I would need a clear definition of socialism before I would make that call. They're both probably right that Obama is nowhere near the level of some our more socialist European leaders, but I also think it is foolish to not see that Obamacare is a massive step toward socialism.

So which definition are you using?

[Arles]

My hope is that either Rubio or Kasich wins the nomination and goes against a Dem not named Hillary. At that point, I may actually have a decision to make on my vote. Worst case would be Hillary vs. Ted Cruz/Huckabee. With that matchup, I may even hold my nose and vote for Trump if he ran as a 3rd party guy Nah, I'd probably just not vote

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

So which definition are you using?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

My hope is that either Rubio or Kasich wins the nomination and goes against a Dem not named Hillary.

My worst nightmare, really. Kasich vs. Sanders would likely make me vote Kasich, tbh. Thought I think I'd vote Sanders over Rubio... O'Malley or Webb would just be ghastly Dem choices.

[Solecismic]

I don't want to belabor this or try and tell other posters what they think rather than letting them think for themselves, but there are definite steps toward socialism (a government-run economy replacing private business).

One of those steps, and it seems clear to me, is heavy regulation and consolidation of insurance companies as a middle-man between people and the health-care industry.

The whole "you didn't build that" train of thought is another important step, in my opinion.

Some of the popular themes in the '60s and '70s was certainly more along the lines of socialism than what's mainstream in the Democratic Party today. Was that mainstream then? Doubtful. Because our percentage of entitlement spending versus GDP is higher today than ever before.

You can go back to huge conflicts related to Woodrow Wilson and the buildup to World War I if you want to look at socialist ideology and popular discussion. These aren't new ideas.

I see the ideological scale as more a circle than a right/left. The further you get to one side, the closer you get to the other side. Fascism, to me, is both further to the right than anything we've seen in America's history and further to the left than socialism.

If you feel the need to argue by name-calling, please take a couple of weeks away from this thread instead.

[Arles]

I honestly need to wait until October to start forming opinions on the democrats. Outside of Hillary and Sanders, I don't know much about the pool.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One of those steps, and it seems clear to me, is heavy regulation and consolidation of insurance companies as a middle-man between people and the health-care industry.

Heavy regulation and leaving the means of production to private companies has always been seen as "Third Way" politics - meaning a different path rather than just capitalism or socialism. It's a blend of each, which doesn't mean you are moving towards one or the other.

The ACA is nothing other than third way health care. The means of production are firmly in private hands. Working under heavy governmental regulation is merely a part of public-private partnership, which is neither capitalist or socialist. It's German, I guess (they go even farther, with works councils and whatnot), but no one thinks the Germans are more socialist than, say, the French.

I mean there is a reason that left wing Dems and socialists can't stand Bill Clinton's presidency and keep dumping on him these days - he was a third way guy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Obama has moved us in a socialist direction. Heck, ObamaCare alone is a huge step in that direction.

Now we may not be too far in that direction, but once the wall is broken, it is much easier to move that direction. Now there are a lot more opportunities for the government to interfere in our lives, all in the name of the public good.

Well hell if you want to look at it like that public education began the slide to socialism.

[ISiddiqui]

I sometimes wonder if people would call President Eisenhower socialist for spending so much money on the Interstate Highway System.

--

So I was seeing that people are talking about how well Fiorina did in the loser debate. Any chance she can climb into the Top 10? Are they going to do that whole 10 is it thing for future debates?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't want to belabor this or try and tell other posters what they think rather than letting them think for themselves, but there are definite steps toward socialism (a government-run economy replacing private business).

One of those steps, and it seems clear to me, is heavy regulation and consolidation of insurance companies as a middle-man between people and the health-care industry.

Just curious, how is it clear that is a move to socialism? Regulations are not a component of the definition of socialism. There is quite a bit of consolidation that occurs frequently across many industries, but unless the government privatizes the industry, the insurers are privately owned. Like I mentioned earlier, if there was a move to single payer, then that is socialism. If all hospitals became government owned and caregivers became federal employees, then that is socialism. There hasn't been anything like that occurring.

It seems like people want to latch on to the term as a perjorative for things they don't like, instead of the true meaning of the word. It goes back to when the ACA was first implemented, that it amounted to the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, when that simply isn't the case. Just because the government is involved in something, doesn't mean that they have taken it over.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What about the other 48%? Where is the Democrat who wants a smaller government and leans libertarian?

There's plenty of social libertarianism in the Dem party, but the GOP strain of lib is far more concerned with economic libertarianism to join forces.

As to why the Dems aren't advocating for smaller government, it's because one party is committed to that above everything else, so anyone that sees that as a dominant issue votes Republican.

[sabotai]

Donald Trump's reaction today to the debate last night and the questions he had to answer.

Trump's reaction

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I sometimes wonder if people would call President Eisenhower socialist for spending so much money on the Interstate Highway System.

--

So I was seeing that people are talking about how well Fiorina did in the loser debate. Any chance she can climb into the Top 10? Are they going to do that whole 10 is it thing for future debates?

I'm still upset that socialism led to D-Day.

[cartman]

Dola,

I also find it amusing that the people that are most adverse to the term 'socialism' are also likely to be big supporters of the military, when the Department of Defense is one of the biggest examples of socialism in the US today. Military bases? Owned by the government. Soldiers and military personnel? Government employees. Military equipment? Government property.

[JPhillips]

Apparently Christie fibbed a bit on his Sept 10, 2001 appointment line. It isn't a big deal, but why would you lie about something so easy to fact check?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Apparently Christie fibbed a bit on his Sept 10, 2001 appointment line. It isn't a big deal, but why would you lie about something so easy to fact check?

The same reason the scorpion stung the frog.

[cuervo72]

TR, America's great socialist.

[molson]

Looking at a NY Times article from the time of the appointment, I think Christie was told get was getting the job right before 9/11, perhaps on 9/10, but things kind of hit the fan and it didn't become official until months later.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes. Calling someone ridiculous for a view is just as "hostile" as saying someone needs to get their head checked. People have said views are ridiculous all up and down this site and no one gets their panties in a bunch over it.

But who said that? I certainly didn't.

I find it interesting that fascism is considered loaded and extreme though socialism is not... . Socialism has definitely had that connotation in this country, though it seems like it may be changing. I think that the creation of a mass surveillance state and approving torture could be "moving the direction" of fascism, no?

Or maybe, just maybe there is a massive overreach by saying Obama is moving in the direction of socialism?

Maybe 50 years ago, socialism is on the same level as fascism. I think we moved away from equating those two a long, long time ago. So, yes, putting the two on the same plane, IMO, is a massive overreach on your part (and basically invalidating any comparison as apples/oranges).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cartman

So which definition are you using?

Yours above is a fair approximation, but I never had a strict definition in mind, just the general concept of the state providing for social and economic products/services at the cost of either having public control or massively taxing to provide same.

Universal health care is definitely a step toward that from where this country has generally been in its history.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cartman

Just curious, how is it clear that is a move to socialism? Regulations are not a component of the definition of socialism. There is quite a bit of consolidation that occurs frequently across many industries, but unless the government privatizes the industry, the insurers are privately owned. Like I mentioned earlier, if there was a move to single payer, then that is socialism. If all hospitals became government owned and caregivers became federal employees, then that is socialism. There hasn't been anything like that occurring.

It seems like people want to latch on to the term as a perjorative for things they don't like, instead of the true meaning of the word. It goes back to when the ACA was first implemented, that it amounted to the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, when that simply isn't the case. Just because the government is involved in something, doesn't mean that they have taken it over.

( Step_toward != fait_accompli )

We can continue assuming the opposite as a straw man if you like, but it's not something I'm terribly interested in arguing.

We can also argue whether infrastructure, schools, health care and military are all necessary and how best to accomplish them. Technically, having roads and a military is a good example of a step toward socialism (from people taking up arms and renting earth-movers themselves). In fact, I really hate it when politicians talk about privatizing the roads in order to raise more tax revenue.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to argue everything as equivalent in terms of meeting a theoretical goal. Not all ideas that move us toward socialism are bad ideas. But some are, IMO.

I think of theory as often too simplistic. I prefer single-payer to Obamacare, but I also prefer nothing to Obamacare. And I might prefer making all health-care workers state employees to single-payer. But I really don't want to go there.

I see Obamacare basically as the lobby for giant health insurance corporations suddenly winning the lottery. Which, of course, is also too simplistic. Getting people the health care they need and deciding how health care workers should be compensated for their training and expertise is an enormously complex issue.

Forcing people to purchase this health insurance is a move in the direction of socialism. That's all. Nothing pejorative intended with that characterization. But it's a move I oppose.

And the "you didn't build that" mentality is a mentality I oppose. Not on the pure theory behind the statement, because it's easy to argue that without our collective infrastructure and military and schools, it's hard to build anything. But because reminding us seems like an attack on the entrepreneurial spirit that also helped build this country.