Will Trump Destroy the Republican Party?

Mister_T · May 25, 2017

Revoltingest said:
I ran across an interesting example of the most liberal of liberals (Portlandia)
being extremely inflexible, & one could even say "racist".....
Burrito shop shuts after being accused of stealing culture | Daily Mail Online

And sadly most prominent voices on the left won't distance themselves from their own growing fringe of idiots like we see there (speaking as a person who is fairly left). I think eventually you're going to see both parties fracture from within and create more "moderates."

Revoltingest · May 25, 2017

Mister_T said:
And sadly most prominent voices on the left won't distance themselves from their own growing fringe of idiots like we see there (speaking as a person who is fairly left). I think eventually you're going to see both parties fracture from within and create more "moderates."

That could happen, but it would be temporary.
To keep their power, both would move toward the perceived middle.
So once again, we'd be stuck with Dems & Pubs.

Underhill · May 25, 2017

Stevicus said:
I understand what you're saying, although my criticism of the right on that issue is slightly different. This is because I've noted an inconsistency in their position on "government." They only really have a problem with the federal government having power, yet they don't seem to mind if the state government has even more power. For example, here in Arizona, a lot of people complain when the Feds interfere in state-level politics, although they don't have a problem when state government interferes in county and municipal governments.

Funny thing is, if state governments could learn to limit and restrain themselves, there wouldn't need to be any federal interference to come in and restrain them at all.

I'm all for the idea of local autonomy and that the people in a given jurisdiction should have some measure of self-rule and self-determination. But I don't support "states' rights" when it's interpreted as allowing state governments to act like petty dictatorships or police states.

It's not really that scary when you put it like that, but it's a representative democracy. And sometimes, those who do the representing leave much to be desired. Then, there's a lot of government posts which are appointed, not elected. Then, we also have one of the largest war machines in the world, with about 1.2 million active duty personnel - not to mention our intelligence community. There's also federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel which number over a million. And they're also somewhat "militarized" in terms of the training and equipment they're getting these days.

In some ways, it is kind of scary, not so much because of what the government is right now, but what it could potentially become if just a few things fell out of place. We supposedly have a system of checks and balances, but it sometimes seems a very delicate and precarious balance. A government "of the people" is fine, as long as the people remain vigilant and wise.

It all depends on the quality of the people. If the people are intelligent, educated, wise, courageous, vigilant, thoughtful, have common sense, and give consideration to the best interests of our country and the rights of its citizenry, then a government of the people can work quite well.

Unfortunately, there are many who say that the electorate has turned stupid (or maybe they never were really smart). Some believe that they are easily led by propaganda, political manipulation, pandering. Some even call them "sheeple," as they don't seem to formulate any views on their own; they just rely upon what is spoon-fed to them by the media. This feeds into the perception that the voters are being tricked and duped into supporting political factions and politicians who may not have the people's best interests at heart.

I don't think it's that we've lost faith in democracy, but we've lost faith in ourselves. Truth be told, I think more Americans are scared of each other than they are of the government.

I don't know about that last bit. Ronald Reagan came out with his "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" nonsense and the people loved him. I agree that the people need to be involved, and there may be some truth in the notion that Americans are scared of each other. But I think this idea that government is scary is a destructive one, and it has been perpetrated for the last 30+ years by a large percentage of politicians, mostly on the right.

When we lost our home in a flood, FEMA was there and helped us immensely. When I lost my job and had 5 mouths to feed, foodstamps was amazing. The system works for a lot of people, but those people have become so ashamed of admitting that thanks to the rhetoric that everyone who accepts help is wasted space. (Yet another stigma that needs to go away.) So the only stories we hear are of the single mom with 12 kids by 12 guys getting piles of food-stamps while sucking off the public tit.

In theory, I can somewhat see the conservative side when it comes to waste and inefficiency in government. I think both liberals and conservatives are somewhat similar in that they basically agree on what government's role should be, but they differ on how they should go about doing it - and how much we should be willing to spend on it. I think most people understand that if you're on a tight budget, you have be frugal - and I think liberals understand that, too. I never believed that liberals actually want to waste the taxpayers' money.

Other than that, the size of government doesn't seem nearly so much at issue as much as what the apparatus of the state can actually do and what "the people" are willing to allow them to do. And again, the conservatives have generally been the ones pushing for more military and law enforcement.

That is the other side of the coin isn't it? The right is against big government in everything but the military. In that case they are all for it.

Revoltingest · May 25, 2017

Underhill said:
I don't know about that last bit. Ronald Reagan came out with his "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" nonsense and the people loved him. I agree that the people need to be involved, and there may be some truth in the notion that Americans are scared of each other. But I think this idea that government is scary is a destructive one, and it has been perpetrated for the last 30+ years by a large percentage of politicians, mostly on the right.

You have your story.
Some of us have different experiences with government.
When an agent thereof shows up on our property, it's never to deliver a check or food.
It's for a warrant, a summons, an inspection, a search, a complaint, a threat, or to otherwise interfere.
Cops abusing my tenants & their customers....inspectors trying to conduct illegal searches....reckless gunplay.....
That's my experience with the government showing up.

The upshot is that government can be anything....either to our benefit or detriment.
We should be wary of something with such great power.
Consider limits.

leibowde84 · May 25, 2017

Mister Emu said:
Eh, I think it is unreasonable to expect me to continue to support "compromise" in a manner that never considers my position.

This is a straw man. I didn't say that your position shouldn't be considered.

Mister Emu said:
No, it isn't. I've already pointed out something I'm willing to move on, enhanced background checks, in agreement for movement in favor of a position I hold, on allowing automatic weapons again. Heck, you want a waiting period? Sure, but lets make it federal law that no one can be denied ownership of a non-federally regulated firearm except following a failed background check.

I am all for real compromise.

So, you aren't a proponent of the "slippery slope" argument when it comes to gun regulations?

Underhill · May 25, 2017

Revoltingest said:
You have your story.
Some of us have different experiences with government.
When an agent thereof shows up on our property, it's never to deliver a check or food.
It's for a warrant, a summons, an inspection, a search, a complaint, a threat, or to otherwise interfere.
Cops abusing my tenants & their customers....inspectors trying to conduct illegal searches....reckless gunplay.....
That's my experience with the government showing up.

The upshot is that government can be anything....either to our benefit or detriment.
We should be wary of something with such great power.
Consider limits.

Wary sure. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits. In fact I am saying the opposite. Government should be closely monitored by the people for over reach and recklessness. But it should not be feared by the law abiding populace. If it is feared we are doing it wrong.

Revoltingest · May 25, 2017

Underhill said:
Wary sure. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits. In fact I am saying the opposite. Government should be closely monitored by the people for over reach and recklessness. But it should not be feared by the law abiding populace. If it is feared we are doing it wrong.

Detente again?
Isn't that twice in one month?
Woo hoo!

Stevicus · May 25, 2017

Underhill said:
I don't know about that last bit. Ronald Reagan came out with his "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" nonsense and the people loved him. I agree that the people need to be involved, and there may be some truth in the notion that Americans are scared of each other. But I think this idea that government is scary is a destructive one, and it has been perpetrated for the last 30+ years by a large percentage of politicians, mostly on the right.

Such views also came from people on the left as well. During the Vietnam/Watergate era, a lot of anti-government sentiment was generated from the left. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination were commonplace, and more revelations started to come out about Hoover's FBI, the Pentagon Papers, then Watergate. The left was up in arms, scared and hateful towards the government, the "establishment," the "pigs"; there was open talk of revolution and some violence.

For whatever reason, that sentiment subsided during the 70s and was all but gone during the 80s. At some point, the right started to become more anti-government, while the left seemed to shift in the opposite direction in the 90s.

When we lost our home in a flood, FEMA was there and helped us immensely. When I lost my job and had 5 mouths to feed, foodstamps was amazing. The system works for a lot of people, but those people have become so ashamed of admitting that thanks to the rhetoric that everyone who accepts help is wasted space. (Yet another stigma that needs to go away.) So the only stories we hear are of the single mom with 12 kids by 12 guys getting piles of food-stamps while sucking off the public tit.

I know that government helps people; it's part of their job. It's what we pay them to do and what we direct our politicians to implement. But they're also supposed to sift out and deal with the fraud and the scammers who can game the system. If some cheat is taking money away from someone who really needs it, then that should be as much an outrage to any liberal as it would be to a conservative.
So, yes, I agree with these programs to help people, and I want to see them remain in place. But the cheaters and scammers are ruining it for those who really need it.

That is the other side of the coin isn't it? The right is against big government in everything but the military. In that case they are all for it.

Yeah, that is a contradiction to the idea of small government. It makes one long for the days when the best way to keep the peace was when leaders were too cheap that they didn't want to spend any money on huge armies. They're expensive, and only justified when worth the investment.

Underhill · May 25, 2017

Stevicus said:
Such views also came from people on the left as well. During the Vietnam/Watergate era, a lot of anti-government sentiment was generated from the left. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination were commonplace, and more revelations started to come out about Hoover's FBI, the Pentagon Papers, then Watergate. The left was up in arms, scared and hateful towards the government, the "establishment," the "pigs"; there was open talk of revolution and some violence.

For whatever reason, that sentiment subsided during the 70s and was all but gone during the 80s. At some point, the right started to become more anti-government, while the left seemed to shift in the opposite direction in the 90s.

What you are talking about is over reaction. Protest and taking a stand are perfectly acceptable. I wish more people did those things. But in any movement there are those who take it too far.

I know that government helps people; it's part of their job. It's what we pay them to do and what we direct our politicians to implement. But they're also supposed to sift out and deal with the fraud and the scammers who can game the system. If some cheat is taking money away from someone who really needs it, then that should be as much an outrage to any liberal as it would be to a conservative.
So, yes, I agree with these programs to help people, and I want to see them remain in place. But the cheaters and scammers are ruining it for those who really need it.

I agree to some extent. But it's also important to keep it in perspective. Our access to information means that every story of major fraud is amplified on every station within a thousand miles. So it is easy to get the impression that this kind of behavior is the norm.

Yeah, that is a contradiction to the idea of small government. It makes one long for the days when the best way to keep the peace was when leaders were too cheap that they didn't want to spend any money on huge armies. They're expensive, and only justified when worth the investment.

I find it ironic with all of Trumps complaints about NATO (some of which I actually agree with) he is quick to complain about other countries not spending their 2% on security. He ignores the fact that we spend over twice that. 2% of gdp sounds about right. Depending on whose numbers you use we spend somewhere between 3.3 and 6.7% of our gdp on our military.

All our budgetary woes would disappear overnight if we spent 2% on the military. I also suspect the rest of the world would be more likely to meet their obligations if we cut our spending to that level.

Mister Emu · May 27, 2017

leibowde84 said:
This is a straw man. I didn't say that your position shouldn't be considered.

You said you found it unreasonable for me to reject compromises which did not offer my position any consideration.

leibowde84 said:
So, you aren't a proponent of the "slippery slope" argument when it comes to gun regulations?

You've confused an analysis of past "compromise" and rejection of that mode of operation with a slippery slope argument. I've never said that gun regulation will of necessity lead to further regulation.

leibowde84 · Jun 1, 2017

Mister Emu said:
You said you found it unreasonable for me to reject compromises which did not offer my position any consideration.

Nope, never said that. I explicitly said that your position should be considered in any compromise ... that is, as long as you are willing to compromise on that position just as you are expecting the other side to do.

Mister Emu · Jun 1, 2017

leibowde84 said:
Nope, never said that.

Ahem.

Mister Emu said:
My only issue with compromise is whereby it is meant "we won't regulate as much as we want, this time."

leibowde84 said:
This is unreasonable

Any "compromise" that only exists to add regulation does not consider my position that gun ownership should be deregulated from its current situation.

I've multiple times offered that I am open to true compromise that opens gun ownership in compensation for any additional regulation.

leibowde84 · Jun 1, 2017

Mister Emu said:
Ahem.

Any "compromise" that only exists to add regulation does not consider my position that gun ownership should be deregulated from its current situation.

I've multiple times offered that I am open to true compromise that opens gun ownership in compensation for any additional regulation.

"we won't regulate as much as we want, this time."

This is what I find unreasonable. It seems to be saying that you won't be OK with any regulations because of fear that future regulations will come in the future. That certainly means that you aren't willing to compromise.

Mister Emu · Jun 1, 2017

leibowde84 said:
This is what I find unreasonable. It seems to be saying that you won't be OK with any regulations because of fear that future regulations will come in the future. That certainly means that you aren't willing to compromise.

Mister Emu said:
You've confused an analysis of past "compromise" and rejection of that mode of operation with a slippery slope argument. I've never said that gun regulation will of necessity lead to further regulation.

My main concern is that the supposed compromise rarely, if ever, lifts restrictions from gun ownership.

leibowde84 · Jun 1, 2017

Mister Emu said:
My main concern is that the supposed compromise rarely, if ever, lifts restrictions from gun ownership.

So, specifically, you would not be willing to consider removing the gun show exemption for background checks without taking away some other regulation? Do you think that the gun show exception is a necessary one?

I get the principal that you are arguing for, but, when it comes to the gun show exception, I just don't get the logic. If you can get a gun at a gunshow without a background check, obviously those who wouldn't be able to pass a background check would go to a gun show, making the background check kind of worthless in general. So, I'm just curious as to why you think the gunshow exemption is necessary.

Mister Emu · Jun 1, 2017

leibowde84 said:
So, specifically, you would not be willing to consider removing the gun show exemption for background checks without taking away some other regulation?

What do you mean by gun show exemption? But, that is beside the point; I would indeed not be willing to so consider.

leibowde84 said:
I get the principal that you are arguing for, but, when it comes to the gun show exception, I just don't get the logic.

I understand not getting why there are exemptions, but I believe we're well past reasonable regulations and demand concessions!

leibowde84 said:
So, I'm just curious as to why you think the gunshow exemption is necessary.

It is a private seller exemption, so that if I sell my one gun I don't have to be a licensed dealer and send in paperwork. How would propose facilitating a private seller with a single gun getting a background check on his purchaser?

leibowde84 · Jun 1, 2017

Mister Emu said:
What do you mean by gun show exemption? But, that is beside the point; I would indeed not be willing to so consider.

I understand not getting why there are exemptions, but I believe we're well past reasonable regulations and demand concessions!

It is a private seller exemption, so that if I sell my one gun I don't have to be a licensed dealer and send in paperwork. How would propose facilitating a private seller with a single gun getting a background check on his purchaser?

So, this is the gun show loophole:

"[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

Why can't they just run a background check? Can't they just go online and do it?

In regards to gun shows, couldn't a customer just pick the gun they want and get the background check done onsite? If not, maybe that is an administrative problem.

Mister Emu · Jun 1, 2017

leibowde84 said:
Why can't they just run a background check? Can't they just go online and do it?

Currently you have to be an FFL to run a NICS check.

Revoltingest · Jun 2, 2017

leibowde84 said:
So, this is the gun show loophole:

"[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

Why can't they just run a background check? Can't they just go online and do it?

In regards to gun shows, couldn't a customer just pick the gun they want and get the background check done onsite? If not, maybe that is an administrative problem.

An effective background check isn't possible for us ordinary citizens.
If I want to check on a new worker, I hire a private detective to do it.
He has access to databases where I'm not allowed.

And to expand upon the "gun show exemption", this is an anti-gun "dog whistle",
ie, a way of making private sales sound like a commercial & systematic method
to evade the law. Government doesn't provide us with the means to check, so
it would be ridiculous to require it.
You want compromse? You need more than making an unrealistic demand,.
Advocate for our ability to vet a buyer too. Then we'll talk.

Caution:
Objects in post's claims will appear snippier than they are.

leibowde84 · Jun 3, 2017

Mister Emu said:
Currently you have to be an FFL to run a NICS check.

Well that's dumb.

Will Trump Destroy the Republican Party?

Forum Relic

Pragmatic Libertarian

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member