2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JPhillips]

Center-left of the GOP.

LOL

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So you'd rather run someone out there who will stand by his convictions, refuse to cooperate until things go his way and say that's how it's going be, rather than run someone out who would be willing to play ball? I guess that's what I'm taking away from that. .

Let's look at that poll again

Among Republicans in the poll, 62 percent say they would prefer a new speaker who will stick with conservative principles even if doing so leads to a government shutdown.

Unless you believe there's some enormous difference between what Rs want from a President versus what they want from a House Speaker "that section of the party" IS the party.

I'd rather see the country burn to the ground, cease to exist, dissolved, descend into anarchy, pick a phrase, than to give the left another inch on anything of importance.

What I want when it comes to a political leader is someone who understands the old adage about how "The only way to negotiate with your enemy is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat"

That's what I want, it's what I expect, and it's the sort of candidate I want nominated. I'd rather lose with that than "win" with someone who is going to give away the farm anyway.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd rather see the country burn to the ground, cease to exist, dissolved, descend into anarchy, pick a phrase, than to give the left another inch on anything of importance.

A true patriot!

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's look at that poll again



Unless you believe there's some enormous difference between what Rs want from a President versus what they want from a House Speaker "that section of the party" IS the party.

I'd rather see the country burn to the ground, cease to exist, dissolved, descend into anarchy, pick a phrase, than to give the left another inch on anything of importance.

What I want when it comes to a political leader is someone who understands the old adage about how "The only way to negotiate with your enemy is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat"

That's what I want, it's what I expect, and it's the sort of candidate I want nominated. I'd rather lose with that than "win" with someone who is going to give away the farm anyway.

I think you have a warped, deranged view of who and what the enemy really is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd rather see the country burn to the ground, cease to exist, dissolved, descend into anarchy, pick a phrase, than to give the left another inch on anything of importance.

What are the issues of importance right now that the Republicans shouldn't give an inch on? The rhetoric of the last few pages is all about party v. party warfare and war within the party, but what are they actually fighting over?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

I think you have a warped, deranged view of who and what the enemy really is.

There is no greater enemy of the United States than the left. They're an exponentially greater threat than any nation-state* outside the borders today with the exclusion of China.

That's been true for many years, a failure to recognize that fact is no small part of how we got in the mess we're in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

What are the issues of importance right now that the Republicans shouldn't give an inch on? The rhetoric of the last few pages is all about party v. party warfare and war within the party, but what are they actually fighting over?

The easiest answer is probably "virtually everything", since they've managed little on "virtually anything" in recent years.

The distinction I was really trying to create there -- granted, you'd have to be in my head to get that from the poor job of explaining that point that I did -- for there was really more about the things that I don't consider worth a line-in-the-sand fight over, the Trans-Pacific trade deal being a great recent example. (I get the whole fight over the broader issue of authority, just not over the details of the deal itself)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

A true patriot!

In its current state & direction I don't consider the U.S. something worth preserving (without enforced borders there's not really a nation anyway afaic). Better ashes & ruins than the embarrassing abomination it seems hellbent on becoming.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

I think you have a warped, deranged view of who and what the enemy really is.

Duh?

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In its current state & direction I don't consider the U.S. something worth preserving (without enforced borders there's not really a nation anyway afaic). Better ashes & ruins than the embarrassing abomination it seems hellbent on becoming.

Genuinely curious... if in it's current state you'd rather have the US burned to the ground, is there somewhere else in the world you'd want to live that is more inline with your thinking?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by molson

What are the issues of importance right now that the Republicans shouldn't give an inch on? The rhetoric of the last few pages is all about party v. party warfare and war within the party, but what are they actually fighting over?

that question has been asked before and i never actually see an answer. you will probably never get a straightforward answer to this question. some possible reasons are:

1. to actually answer the question requires quiet contemplation, which isn't possible if the "burn it all to the ground" response is simply an emotional one rather than a rational one
-or
2. ashamed to articulate

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Genuinely curious... if in it's current state you'd rather have the US burned to the ground, is there somewhere else in the world you'd want to live that is more inline with your thinking?

At this point, honestly, I just want a small island of my own & to hell with the rest of it.

An island with solid wi-fi, to be more accurate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

that question has been asked before and i never actually see an answer. you will probably never get a straightforward answer to this question. some possible reasons are:

1. to actually answer the question requires quiet contemplation, which isn't possible if the "burn it all to the ground" response is simply an emotional one rather than a rational one
-or
2. ashamed to articulate

3. If it has to be explained then it's probably not going to be worth the effort.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

An island with solid wi-fi, to be more accurate.

That will take a pair of coconuts and a lot of wire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Grover

That will take a pair of coconuts and a lot of wire.

Fine. I'll endure Gilligan if I can take Ginger & MaryAnn along too.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

3. If it has to be explained then it's probably not going to be worth the effort.

It was apparently worth the effort to thoroughly hijack this item, though. Though from all the "click to view" posts in response, I suppose it's only half your fault.

Everyone, knock it off.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

3. If it has to be explained then it's probably not going to be worth the effort.

...coming from the guy who's had no difficulty in spewing forth 40,000+ posts

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It was apparently worth the effort to thoroughly hijack this item, though. Though from all the "click to view" posts in response, I suppose it's only half your fault.

Everyone, knock it off.

It sort of is a microcosm of how the whole political process really works though isn't it Jim? The discussion of non hot button policy issues in this thread either get at best one or two replies often none. But get Jon going on a ridiculous rant and all of a sudden there are a whole group of the boards resident liberal posters who are all of a sudden interested in the Republican Party. Just like in real life something like Kasich and OMalley discussing monetary policy or global trade will put people to sleep but Trump vs Clinton is must see tv.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by panerd

It sort of is a microcosm of how the whole political process really works though isn't it Jim? The discussion of non hot button policy issues in this thread either get at best one or two replies often none. But get Jon going on a ridiculous rant and all of a sudden there are a whole group of the boards resident liberal posters who are all of a sudden interested in the Republican Party. Just like in real life something like Kasich and OMalley discussing monetary policy or global trade will put people to sleep but Trump vs Clinton is must see tv.

to be fair though (judging by republican primary polling), favoring trolls over level-headed fiscal conservatives isn't limited to just liberals.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Everyone, knock it off.

[digamma]

Diamond Joe to the rescue!!!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In its current state & direction I don't consider the U.S. something worth preserving (without enforced borders there's not really a nation anyway afaic). Better ashes & ruins than the embarrassing abomination it seems hellbent on becoming.

I don't know spit about you Jon, but it seems the state of the country has not effected your ability to enjoy the things that mean the most to you: family, football, internet and cigarettes.

This is a big question I also have with the GOP candidates: what exactly is going on in the lives of their voters that is causing such anger and unhappiness?

I heard on NPR and interview with a Trump supporter in Dallas who described himself as self made and retired, say he wants Trump so he can make America great again. Isn't being healthy and wealthy great?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The easiest answer is probably "virtually everything", since they've managed little on "virtually anything" in recent years.

The distinction I was really trying to create there -- granted, you'd have to be in my head to get that from the poor job of explaining that point that I did -- for there was really more about the things that I don't consider worth a line-in-the-sand fight over, the Trans-Pacific trade deal being a great recent example. (I get the whole fight over the broader issue of authority, just not over the details of the deal itself)

You do know that the Republicans are more for this one than the Democrats are right? Only 5 Republicans voted against fast tracking it while 31 Democrats in the Senate did the same. The Republicans took the lead in voting in fast track in the house as well.

You can't characterize this as the right giving in to the left.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't know spit about you Jon, but it seems the state of the country has not effected your ability to enjoy the things that mean the most to you: family, football, internet and cigarettes.

This is a big question I also have with the GOP candidates: what exactly is going on in the lives of their voters that is causing such anger and unhappiness?

I heard on NPR and interview with a Trump supporter in Dallas who described himself as self made and retired, say he wants Trump so he can make America great again. Isn't being healthy and wealthy great?

I think this illustrates the huge divide in thinking, however, between those who ask of government, "What do I get out of it?" and those who ask, "How should it be?"

I'm just stunned every time an audience member is allowed to ask at a debate, "I'm a x (teacher, mom, truck driver, you name it); what would your administration do for me?"

I wonder if the vast majority of voters actually think this way. To me, it's mind boggling.

I have a decent job, lovely wife, a beautiful house, a car, church, and a (mostly) intact family. But should this prevent me from being upset with the direction of the country? I'm one of those hopping mad conservatives, not because of how it affects MY life, but because of how it affects others.

Why angry?
* Because millions of babies are slaughtered every year through abortion and millions of our tax dollars fund it.
* Because our leaders send our sons and brothers to war without a well-reasoned foreign policy, clear objective of winning, or the rules of engagement to ensure they aren't slaughtered.
* Because my children are inheriting $18 trillion in debt and the resulting specter of economic collapse.
* Because my children are looking at a nation descending away from the economic prosperity of capitalism into the failed policies of socialism.
* Because my children will grow up in a nation where their God-given rights are subjected to the whims of an oligarchy of black-robed judges.
* Because future generations, instead of living under the freedom-protecting contract of the U.S. Constitution, will be forced to live under the tyranny of a "progressive" society.
* Because our elected representatives who are entrusted with leading have betrayed us by plying their power for wealth, security, and influence instead of serving the greater good.

Almost none of this is happening in MY life. My life is pretty cushy. But I don't give a flying #%$^ about my life. It's our elected leaders collective disdain for dead babies and soldiers, my children and grandchildren, and the American ideal that really pisses me off.

So more weasely, compromising, self-serving Republicans like Boehner and McConnell - just so we can "get things done"? Hell no. I don't like what they're "getting done." Someone who will stand and fight to the teeth for what is right? Bring it on. (Consequently, I'm leaning toward Ted Cruz right now, but that's a bit of a sidetrack to the original question.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Someone who will stand and fight to the teeth for what is right? Bring it on.

What happens when you have both sides wanting people like that? What happens when you have a President Sanders and a large Tea Party component in Congress? Loggerheads. Nothing gets done. And no side gets anything they want. And the country burns. That sound so much better...

[cartman]

When people getting hopping mad over easily disproven statements and half-truths, it just seems like they are looking for reasons to be mad.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

I think this illustrates the huge divide in thinking, however, between those who ask of government, "What do I get out of it?" and those who ask, "How should it be?"

I'm just stunned every time an audience member is allowed to ask at a debate, "I'm a x (teacher, mom, truck driver, you name it); what would your administration do for me?"

I wonder if the vast majority of voters actually think this way. To me, it's mind boggling.

I have a decent job, lovely wife, a beautiful house, a car, church, and a (mostly) intact family. But should this prevent me from being upset with the direction of the country? I'm one of those hopping mad conservatives, not because of how it affects MY life, but because of how it affects others.

Why angry?
* Because millions of babies are slaughtered every year through abortion and millions of our tax dollars fund it.
* Because our leaders send our sons and brothers to war without a well-reasoned foreign policy, clear objective of winning, or the rules of engagement to ensure they aren't slaughtered.
* Because my children are inheriting $18 trillion in debt and the resulting specter of economic collapse.
* Because my children are looking at a nation descending away from the economic prosperity of capitalism into the failed policies of socialism.
* Because my children will grow up in a nation where their God-given rights are subjected to the whims of an oligarchy of black-robed judges.
* Because future generations, instead of living under the freedom-protecting contract of the U.S. Constitution, will be forced to live under the tyranny of a "progressive" society.
* Because our elected representatives who are entrusted with leading have betrayed us by plying their power for wealth, security, and influence instead of serving the greater good.

Almost none of this is happening in MY life. My life is pretty cushy. But I don't give a flying #%$^ about my life. It's our elected leaders collective disdain for dead babies and soldiers, my children and grandchildren, and the American ideal that really pisses me off.

So more weasely, compromising, self-serving Republicans like Boehner and McConnell - just so we can "get things done"? Hell no. I don't like what they're "getting done." Someone who will stand and fight to the teeth for what is right? Bring it on. (Consequently, I'm leaning toward Ted Cruz right now, but that's a bit of a sidetrack to the original question.)

Very well said. I like pissed off, I am however alarmed and puzzled by a desire for ashes a ruins.

Also, I mostly agree with your list. I however, do not hear many candidates, especially Trump, claiming those are the reasons America is not great. I guess Huckabee would be closest.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

* Because my children will grow up in a nation where their God-given rights are subjected to the whims of an oligarchy of black-robed judges.
* Because future generations, instead of living under the freedom-protecting contract of the U.S. Constitution, will be forced to live under the tyranny of a "progressive" society.

Not sure how you could put these two together and not realize it.

[molson]

I think we need a new term for this line of thinking because what I'm reading here about a desire for ashes and ruin and destruction doesn't sound very "conservative" to me.

Like a lot of people, I'm getting somewhat more conservative as I get older, but that's actually making me lean more towards voting Democrat (at least the regular Democrats). I don't want ashes or burning or revolutions, and I'm not pissed off. I want things to kind of stay the same with gradual targeted and intelligent improvements along the way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

This is a big question I also have with the GOP candidates: what exactly is going on in the lives of their voters that is causing such anger and unhappiness?

It's tribalism for the most part. As people we want to belong to a group and we want common enemies. For some it's politics, for some it's sports, for some it's Sony vs Microsoft.

I don't think this is a Republican thing either. It's just people who are heavily involved in politics on either side. Probably the reason so many people just don't want anything to do with politics (voting, etc). It's funny too because most of these things that people are irate about have no impact on their lives whatsoever. But being angry against an enemy gives them a sense of purpose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think we need a new term for this line of thinking because what I'm reading here about a desire for ashes and ruin and destruction doesn't sound very "conservative" to me.

Like a lot of people, I'm getting somewhat more conservative as I get older, but that's actually making me lean more towards voting Democrat (at least the regular Democrats). I don't want ashes or burning or revolutions, and I'm not pissed off. I want things to kind of stay the same with gradual targeted and intelligent improvements along the way.

I'm in the same boat. There are some things I'd like to see changed but I like my life and like this country. I'm safe and have access to any resource I need.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

I think we need a new term for this line of thinking because what I'm reading here about a desire for ashes and ruin and destruction doesn't sound very "conservative" to me.

Like a lot of people, I'm getting somewhat more conservative as I get older, but that's actually making me lean more towards voting Democrat (at least the regular Democrats). I don't want ashes or burning or revolutions, and I'm not pissed off. I want things to kind of stay the same with gradual targeted and intelligent improvements along the way.

We already have a term. It's called being a crybaby.

[cuervo72]

You can rein in capitalism a bit without being fully socialist. Neither has to be absolute...right? Because capitalism unfettered ends in monopoly, or at least a very few owning just about everything. You still wind up with an oligarchy. How is the increasing pooling of assets at the top a result of socialist policies?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

This is a big question I also have with the GOP candidates: what exactly is going on in the lives of their voters that is causing such anger and unhappiness?

The lack of push back (or on moving a Constitutional amendment forward long ago) on the gay "marriage" abomination alone labels the GOP a congressional failure afaic. Granted, the failure isn't theirs alone, the citizenry should have dragged the Supremes from their chambers, tarred, feathered and then taken them out of DC on rails for that alone.

That anyone could claim to be a conservative but offer various forms of amnesty to invaders is mindboggling on its very face.

We now live in an era where an avowed socialist can actually be considered a "contender" (however specious that designation may be) for a major party nomination. That Sanders can be discussed as anything other than a lunatic fringe is representative of our collective failure as a society.

We could be here all night, but those three for starters. The former being the moment where I pretty much abandoned all hope for the nation to ever recover as simple common sense once & for all was formally dead & buried.

We've been a dying nation for many years, likely since the 60s at least. The cancer of liberalism seemed to really spread during that era, inevitable that it would eventually kill us. I'm simply not enjoying being around while the body decomposes.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The lack of push back (or on moving a Constitutional amendment forward long ago) on the gay "marriage" abomination alone labels the GOP a congressional failure afaic. Granted, the failure isn't theirs alone, the citizenry should have dragged the Supremes from their chambers, tarred, feathered and then taken them out of DC on rails for that alone.

That anyone could claim to be a conservative but offer various forms of amnesty to invaders is mindboggling on its very face.

We now live in an era where an avowed socialist can actually be considered a "contender" (however specious that designation may be) for a major party nomination. That Sanders can be discussed as anything other than a lunatic fringe is representative of our collective failure as a society.

We could be here all night, but those three for starters. The former being the moment where I pretty much abandoned all hope for the nation to ever recover as simple common sense once & for all was formally dead & buried.

We've been a dying nation for many years, likely since the 60s at least. The cancer of liberalism seemed to really spread during that era, inevitable that it would eventually kill us. I'm simply not enjoying being around while the body decomposes.

Thank you. It honestly did not seem possible to me that conservatives are losing sleep over the gays getting married, illegals existing and sanders being ominous. Maybe illegals (and for sure abortion), but not the other two.

It also seems possible that a community built upon tradion and pride would feel change more as an existential threat more than other communities.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The lack of push back (or on moving a Constitutional amendment forward long ago) on the gay "marriage" abomination alone labels the GOP a congressional failure afaic. Granted, the failure isn't theirs alone, the citizenry should have dragged the Supremes from their chambers, tarred, feathered and then taken them out of DC on rails for that alone.

That anyone could claim to be a conservative but offer various forms of amnesty to invaders is mindboggling on its very face.

We now live in an era where an avowed socialist can actually be considered a "contender" (however specious that designation may be) for a major party nomination. That Sanders can be discussed as anything other than a lunatic fringe is representative of our collective failure as a society.

We could be here all night, but those three for starters. The former being the moment where I pretty much abandoned all hope for the nation to ever recover as simple common sense once & for all was formally dead & buried.

We've been a dying nation for many years, likely since the 60s at least. The cancer of liberalism seemed to really spread during that era, inevitable that it would eventually kill us. I'm simply not enjoying being around while the body decomposes.

I'm curious Jon, is there a region/country out there you could be happy living in that follows most of your "wish list?"

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I'm curious Jon, is there a region/country out there you could be happy living in that follows most of your "wish list?"

North Korea.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's tribalism for the most part. As people we want to belong to a group and we want common enemies. For some it's politics, for some it's sports, for some it's Sony vs Microsoft.

I don't think this is a Republican thing either. It's just people who are heavily involved in politics on either side. Probably the reason so many people just don't want anything to do with politics (voting, etc). It's funny too because most of these things that people are irate about have no impact on their lives whatsoever. But being angry against an enemy gives them a sense of purpose.

IE the "death tax" when something like 99.9% of estates don't pay any estate tax. But it makes people furious cause they've been mis-educated that everyone pays it.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

You can rein in capitalism a bit without being fully socialist. Neither has to be absolute...right? Because capitalism unfettered ends in monopoly, or at least a very few owning just about everything. You still wind up with an oligarchy. How is the increasing pooling of assets at the top a result of socialist policies?

I was just about ready to be done with this thread, but this post got my attention - in a good way - so I'll try again.

Capitalism unfettered DOES end in oligarchy, this is true. But so does socialism. And so does communism.

(Defining my terms, oversimplified: Capitalism = private ownership of assets, private control of assets. Socialism = private ownership of assets, public control of assets. Communism = public ownership of assets, public control of assets).

Socialism results in the pooling of assets at the top because those in power use their power to gain wealth (it's just human nature, and it's true in all 3 systems). It's just elected officials getting rich instead of CEOs. Although it's not even "instead." Because socialism is the system that allows BOTH government officials and CEOs to have power (ownership, control), they can BOTH gather wealth. Yes, unfettered capitalism is bad, but unfettered socialism doesn't reduce the number of fat cats, it doubles it!

As a conservative (not a "preservative" - I don't want to keep things the way they are. We have possibly the worst combination of capitalism/socialism right now. I want change. But not change as "progress" toward socialism; rather change as a return toward a constitutional understanding of government's role), I advocate for maximum personal freedom (ownership and control, a capitalism system), to disseminate the most power possible to most people possible, maximize opportunity, and reduce the number of elitely enanabled power players on the board.

I ALSO advocate, however, for a restricted capitalism. Restricted first of all by a "moral and religious people" (John Adams' stated requirement for our Constitution to work) and restricted second by a government that understands its job is to guarantee freedom and punish those who use their freedom to do evil, NOT to try to fashion society to its ideals. That's the system our Founders gave us, and the one I'd like to "conserve."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Because socialism is the system that allows BOTH government officials and CEOs to have power (ownership, control), they can BOTH gather wealth. Yes, unfettered capitalism is bad, but unfettered socialism doesn't reduce the number of fat cats, it doubles it!

Eh? I think looking at income inequality or, just, the number of billionaires in the US compared to European countries such as Germany, France, etc. would indicate that there definitely isn't a doubling of fat cats with a more socialist economy . There are other criticisms of what those countries are doing, but increasing the number of fat cats isn't one of them, I'd argue.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Eh? I think looking at income inequality or, just, the number of billionaires in the US compared to European countries such as Germany, France, etc. would indicate that there definitely isn't a doubling of fat cats with a more socialist economy . There are other criticisms of what those countries are doing, but increasing the number of fat cats isn't one of them, I'd argue.

Give Germany the population of the U.S., the virtually unlimited natural resources of the U.S., the illusion of capitalism that means workers will willingly put in 80-hour work weeks instead of demanding weeks of vacation, the industrial revolution WITHOUT the devastation of losing 2 World Wars, and you'll have a country with just as many billionaires. Except that by taking power out of the hands of the people and giving it to government bureaucrats, like socialism does in Germany, you kill the economic engine that has driven the U.S.' unparalleled rise to wealth.

Our capitalist system, natural resources, individual liberty, and history have not only given us more billionaires, but more millionaires, more half millionaires, and more quarter millionaires than any other nation on earth. It's made us insanely wealthy, and not just the 1%, but the top 53%. And 90% of the countries in the world would kill just to be at our 80th percentile mark.

But once you start throwing our system out the window to start introducing socialist fat cats as well (recall I said I think our current half-capitalist/half-socialist system is a disaster and largely to blame for our whole ire with the "1%"), you don't actually generate any MORE wealth (which the U.S. has been doing for centuries), you just start condensing it in the hands of bureaucrat/CEO partnerships. It expands the oligarchy (hence, my "double the fat cat" comment), while making it even harder to break it up.

Introducing MORE socialism to the U.S. right now is the very thing that would only INCREASE the income gap, which, incidentally, is exactly what we've seen happen under the Obama administration. His cronies in those bureaucrat/CEO partnerships have called for more and more socialism, and have used it to ride to more and more wealth, making worse the very problem they cry out about to gain the support of the Occupy crowd. Nancy Pelosi and her husband are the poster child for this, bureaucrats and CEOs tagging together to whine about the 1% to stir up socialism to make billions off it. It almost makes me wonder if they're doing it on purpose, but that's REALLY cynical.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Give Germany the population of the U.S., the virtually unlimited natural resources of the U.S., the illusion of capitalism that means workers will willingly put in 80-hour work weeks instead of demanding weeks of vacation, the industrial revolution WITHOUT the devastation of losing 2 World Wars, and you'll have a country with just as many billionaires. Except that by taking power out of the hands of the people and giving it to government bureaucrats, like socialism does in Germany, you kill the economic engine that has driven the U.S.' unparalleled rise to wealth.

Yeeeeah... that's a whole lot of speculation with absolutely nothing behind it. Your original post indicated that socialism would double the fat cats, right? Billionaires per capita (ie, doesn't depend on the population) would indicate that to be incorrect. And were are the really super rich government officials in Germany? Though we have plenty of those in the US...

Also, btw, do we need all the original premise to "kill" Germany's economic engine?

But once you start throwing our system out the window to start introducing socialist fat cats as well (recall I said I think our current half-capitalist/half-socialist system is a disaster and largely to blame for our whole ire with the "1%"), you don't actually generate any MORE wealth (which the U.S. has been doing for centuries), you just start condensing it in the hands of bureaucrat/CEO partnerships. It expands the oligarchy (hence, my "double the fat cat" comment), while making it even harder to break it up.

Introducing MORE socialism to the U.S. right now is the very thing that would only INCREASE the income gap, which, incidentally, is exactly what we've seen happen under the Obama administration. His cronies in those bureaucrat/CEO partnerships have called for more and more socialism, and have used it to ride to more and more wealth, making worse the very problem they cry out about to gain the support of the Occupy crowd. Nancy Pelosi and her husband are the poster child for this, bureaucrats and CEOs tagging together to whine about the 1% to stir up socialism to make billions off it. It almost makes me wonder if they're doing it on purpose, but that's REALLY cynical.

This is just incredibly strange logic to me. I literally have no idea how you got from point A to point B. The Gini Coefficient, which measures inequality, has indeed been rising since the 1970s. Though it actually has been fairly stable (though incredibly high) since 2010. Interestingly enough the lowest the Gini Coefficient has been in the post war US economy was in the 1960s, when President Johnson ushered in the War on Poverty. It exploded after President Nixon dismantled it and then after President Reagan went even further.

Seems to me that 'socialism' actually worked amazingly well in reducing income inequality.

That doesn't even begin to factor in that other Western countries, including Germany, yes, have far lower Gini Coefficients than the US does. By vast factors.

For example, here is an analysis of pre and post tax and transfer Gini coefficients:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-u-s-compares/

The US is 10th in income inequality among the OECD before taxes and transfers. After taxes and transfers it is 2nd, only behind Chile, who apparent barely does any transfers (it's like a free marketers dream ) - though it does appear Israel is a close 3rd.

[revrew]

2 points here:

1. Income inequality coefficients aren't really that significant to me. If the average joe can make a good living, what do I care if jack makes billions? And billionaires per capita isn't a significant stat when you live in a nation so wealthy across the board. But a man making $10,000 a year is a "fat cat" in a country where the average person makes 25 cents. "Income inequality" just elicits no emotional response from me at all.

2. BUT ... I suppose we have strayed from the purpose of this thread (my bad). This was supposed to be about the GOP horse race, and in discussing "why are typically GOP voters hopping mad," I opened up a can of worms. For that reason, I think I'll bow out of this threadjack and allow us to return to the regularly scheduled programming.

[molson]

"Income inequality" is a meaningless concept on its own unless you can actually make a link demonstrating that if one entity has more, every other entity in that same country necessarily has less. Which is tough to do in a global economy that doesn't contain a fixed amount of money.

If all the billionaires in the U.S. were suddenly only millionaires, our income equality stats would be a lot "better," but would our lives really be so much better? Maybe we'd have less resentment. But we'd also have a hell of a lot less tax revenue. Rich people are good for a country, not bad for it - as long as we tax them enough. We could do so much good with even a slightly bigger chunk of our billionaires' income dedicated to say, infrastructure and job creation.

Edit: Of course, to tie it back in this thread, I'm pretty sure there's no candidate that is not concerned about income equality but also wants to raise taxes somewhat on the wealthiest people. And there's really no party in this country for people who don't hate gay people but who are also turned off by class warfare rhetoric.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by revrew

Restricted first of all by a "moral and religious people"

Originally Posted by revrew

"Income inequality" just elicits no emotional response from me at all.

.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

I ALSO advocate, however, for a restricted capitalism. Restricted first of all by a "moral and religious people" (John Adams' stated requirement for our Constitution to work) and restricted second by a government that understands its job is to guarantee freedom and punish those who use their freedom to do evil, NOT to try to fashion society to its ideals. That's the system our Founders gave us, and the one I'd like to "conserve."

Thank you, this highlights a missing piece in my understanding of modern conservative ideals.

It did not seem possible to me that a system, built on forced labor and repression of voting rights for non property owning men and women would really and sincerely be the ideal system needing to be conserved- despite reverence to God.

The 18th century slave owning economy does not seem like a capitalist economy to me, communist if anything.

To modern conservatives the abstract of Adams ideals take precedent over the actual policies of the founding fathers. Correct?

For example, I have a hard time reading this Adams supported criticism of Jefferson in 1800 and still understand how there is a cohesive ideal of what the founding fathers believed (and practiced) and how that ideal is the one now needing to be conserved (to make America great again):
"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous 'prostitute', under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High."

[ISiddiqui]

To kind of discuss income inequality within the constraints of the GOP primary. No one is really talking all that much about it on this side of the aisle (I think Rubio has, but I could be mistaken). It's an issue that is gaining some currency, and I think there needs to be some sort of response. I think a claim that more socialism will lead to more fat cats is something that isn't going to resonate with anyone. Supposedly, the Tea Party was fond of sometimes saying that the government helps big business too much and they were against such crony capitalism as well. Where is that rhetoric on the campaign trail?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It did not seem possible to me that a system, built on forced labor and repression of voting rights for non property owning men and women would really and sincerely be the ideal system needing to be conserved

Afaic, the end of that restriction -- no, that's not accurate. Really the end of some form of narrowing of the voting pool to something far in excess of the lowest common denominator -- was quite likely the biggest mistake this country ever made.

The masses, the truly unfettered masses, aren't capable of such an important task. And we prove that on a regular basis these days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It was apparently worth the effort to thoroughly hijack this item, though. Though from all the "click to view" posts in response, I suppose it's only half your fault.

Oh goody, captain whiny ass shows up again.

Look at where I started. I posted a freakin' poll that is obviously -- to anyone with a working brain at least -- at the very center of the entire GOP primary.

And then the liberal trolls showed up. I was asked questions, I responded honestly and with far more restraint than I prefer. And yet that's my fault? What a load of horse manure.


You clearly lack the stomach for the reality of the situation or the topic, so why don't you do yourself & the rest of the planet a favor and either stay the hell out of the way of those who are willing to acknowledge the passions and deal with them or delete the thread so you can stop whining about it? At least that way you can get the benefit of a mini-powertrip or whatever this is for you.

But above all else, please, just quit whining.

I'll now go sit in the corner & await the inevitable boxing or banning for daring to confront Saint Solecismic but dammit somebody has to have the guts to do it.

[ISiddiqui]

Well your posts definitely indicate that we should restrict the vote from some folks from Middle GA.