Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

They'll probably continue right up to the election if they don't run out of things to accuse him of first.

[Reelya]

In a way it is ingenious. Since progressivism is almost defined by change relative to conservatism, which is anti-change.

"You know who 'changed' things? Hitler!!"

Hitler is the go-to bogeyman since he can be invoked against literally anything.

[SirQuiamus]

Hitler is the go-to bogeyman since he can be invoked against literally anything.

Except neo-Nazis.

[RedKing]

Blargh!

Arch-Conservatives give more moderate Republicans a bad rap.

That's like saying horses give unicorns a bad rap. I think "moderate Republicans" are a mythical animal at this point.

[Descan]

Yea but horses don't step on the middle class and cut education/NASA funding!

[birdy51]

Hey now. I consider myself to be relatively moderate. I believe in a less Federal, more State model, but most of my social views tend to be relaxed. Extremism in any form tends to irk me. Too much shouting and bad blood.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, as disgusted as I am with the Republican party's shenanigans, there are still quite a few people who only vote with them because they're the closest to what they want (much like many of us Democrats will wind up voting Clinton in spite of misgivings, because at least she's not Jeb Bush), because tribalism is a hard addiction to shake (again, just as it is for Democrats), or for a variety of other reasons that aren't exactly lining up with the hardliners. Moderate Republicans are easy to find; it's influential moderate Republicans that are practically extinct.

[wierd]

Both parties are total sellouts to their REAL constituency, which happens to be who has the money they use to run for office on.

Neither has principles-- excepting of course, the financial kind already stated.


The modern world treats election campaign funding as a kind of investment. That is why Chris Dodd had that faux-pas where he alluded to quid pro quo not that long ago (which he backpedaled on hard afterward.)


Many of the more democratic bent like the idea of a singular power base, (like the federal govt) because it allows them to force social issues through with a hot iron poker, and tell the rest of the country to suck it up.  I am against this view, because it also permits the same mechanism to be used for far more diabolical changes by corrupt interests.  I consider the crude antics and pugnacious behaviors of the various state legislatures against things like abortion and gay marriage to be a lamentable, but unfortunately necessary concession against that very dangerous prospect.  Much like allowing free speech requires that you allow people to say naughty things.

Being one of these mythical centrists, I am naturally unpopular by the standards of both prevailing camps. The neocons are too corrupt by big business interests, and the liberal dems are too corrupt with their tyrannical approaches to social reform, and beholden-ness to big media. The neocons find me and my views to be far too liberal. The liberal dems find me offensively conservative.

I actually would prefer that our government be constantly deadlocked, constantly stonewalling itself, and in general, ruled at the state level rather than the fed, because it would effectively stonewall things like FISA, the US Patriot act (and subsequent "Freedom" act), and things of that nature. Actual separation of powers helps to cement this deadlocking.  I am very much against the flagrant abuse of the commerce clause to authorize "anything the fed wants."

Currently, BOTH ideologue groups have been eroding the separation of powers, because that separation obstructs furtherance of their goals.  (Fast-track powers of the POTUS will enable end-runs on congressional power under the auspices of "trade agreements", and consolidated power bases with strong executive order capabilities will enable liberal dems to make executive proclamations to get the social changes they want, no matter how unpopular they are in the general public.) That is why both groups are equally supportive of things that are actually eroding actual freedoms of the US populace. (things like the Freedom Act, et al.)

I am actually quite disgusted with the dregs that have been scrapped up from the barrel for this primary season. They have turned the US presidential election process into a genuine dog and pony show.

[Bauglir]

Well, no, social issues are actually largely irrelevant to why I like centralized government. I've never really got the arguments in favor of State primacy - they're none of more resistant to corruption, more responsive to their constituents, or more effectively internally-balanced. And the only reason they couldn't do stuff like the PATRIOT Act right now is because the Federal government does have the relevant power to do so; were State governments to be the primary seats of power, they'd be subject to exactly the same pressures and temptations that Congress is. I don't see how organizations like the NSA would be any less possible; more administratively convoluted, perhaps, but that just makes it harder for anybody outside it (like the general populace) to exert authority to keep them in line.

[penguinofhonor]

Well, the important thing is he's found a way to feel superior to both.

[wierd]

One of the reasons for state primacy that I rather like, is that it maximizes the spread (as in, size of the spectrum) of social systems, and shades of freedoms.

Take for instance, the recent gay marriage issue.

Now that the SCOTUS has basically backhanded everyone*, any state govt that does not want to agree to the decision is forced to do so, regardless of the popular views of their native constituents. (You know, Tyranny. Unrestrained use of power to accomplish political goals.) Prior to this, gay people COULD be married in a good number of states, because the constituency of those states were pro-gay marriage.  Other than the basic financial costs of relocation, there is no real barrier to preventing people from moving to more favorable political regions. That means that if you like to smoke weed, there is nothing preventing you from moving to Colorado, and toking it up, etc.  A strong, unified federal government enables the fed to hand down proclamations against such dissenting state govts-- So, if you like to smoke weed, but the Fed refuses to relent on its campaign of shameless authoritarianism concerning the use of weed, centralized power will remove the "Move to Colorado" option from your table. You have less freedom now.


*Note, I am ambivalent on the issue of gay marriage.  If gay people want to be married, so be it. What they don't get, is the right to force other people's opinions to align with their own.  If you want to campaign for a more progressive american culture, that's fine by me. However, employing force of law to try to force dissenting opinions into the dustbin is simply inexcusable. Ends do not justify means. This axiom is true no matter what the issue dejour is. Marijuana, gay marriage, Immigration, whatever. When one group decides that it is RIGHT(TM), and the other is WRONG(c), and forces the issue with power of law rather than winning over hearts and minds, you are misusing government power, and behaving tyrannically. Does not matter if your goal is "Progressive" or not.

Well, the important thing is he's found a way to feel superior to both.

The hypocrisy inherent in this statement is hilarious. 

[Angle]

I don't think fundamental rights should be up for vote. Or are you willing to have us vote on your fundamental rights?

[wierd]

Define what a fundamental right is, and I will get back to you. Ultimately, with a democratically elected government (or democratically biased republic, like the US), the real deal is upholding the populace's views.

That is the real defining characteristic between a tyranny and a democracy.  They tyrant runs his government as he sees fit; the democracy runs the government in accordance with the public's wishes (and whims).

If the public does not want what you are pushing,(But you railroad it through anyway) you are being tyrannical.

There are such things and "Benevolent dictators" you know.  It does not make them any less dictatorial.

If I recall, the US tried the whole "give the States most of the rights themselves, worry about unity later" as the first real governmental system. It went disastrously. I cannot, for the life of me, recall the name of the county at the time (it was NOT the United States), but it will go down in the annuls of history as a trial-by-fire of extreme decentralization that went down in flames.

Which is ultimately why we DO have a commerce clause, and things like it, in our constitution. The federal government was ceded powers necessary for mantaining the general unity of the country, and as a common bargaining front for foreign relations. It was not intended to be an autocratic dictator.

[Arcvasti]

Define what a fundamental right is, and I will get back to you. Ultimately, with a democratically elected government (or democratically biased republic, like the US), the real deal is upholding the populace's views.

From the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

There. Definition given. Tada.

[PyroDesu]

Not related to the current discussion, but likely to come up in national politics sooner or later: Big shooting down here in Chattanooga, TN. Two sites targeted (Army recruiting center and Navy reserve office), four Marines dead, one Chattanooga Police Officer and one military service member wounded, and the shooter killed.