Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rand Paul did. He was willing to reach across the aisle on criminal justice and the NSA with Wyden and co., but that went nowhere.
Like his dad, he's a great example of someone who has had to jump into the Republican Party, because he most likely wouldn't have been elected if he was on a small party (Libertarian) ticket. People don't understand nuance anymore. You are Republican or Democrat....period. And I think those assumptions are partially what lead to the banter you are referring to...
This is the point - overriding the Constitution because 'mean people in Congress won't agree' is NOT conservative.
How do you feel about it, or is this ironic? I know you're often in the terrorist threads, voicing skepticism about our current open-borders policy, but how do you feel about it?
And look what came out of it - landmark states rights decisions in 2 circuits which conservatives will be able to cite for years to come to restrict executive authority- which they will. But that came in opposition to Trump.
You don't need to tell me that. Conservative rebuke to Trump might be something that actually unites conservatives. The one thing that gives me pause is dealing with the devil. At what point does one accept Bannon's "destruction" of the administrative state, which I've been calling for for years as part and parcel to the administration and the other things as necessary evils?
Idealistically, from a federalist standpoint, maybe it makes sense, if the premise is that the states will pick up the ball and handle affairs that the people want or need handled. I live in an impossibly corrupt state but also an apathetic one. Ideally I'd say let the state of LA handle health care, but we have dismantled what was a pretty good state health system. I would say, hey let the state of LA handle environmental quality and defense of wetlands. But our DEQ and local and state officials right up to the governor (well Jindal anyway) were literally a phone call away for landfill operators and oil companies with no love or allegiance to ourselves, our coast, bayous or or our safety and prime industry (seafood). The Jeffersonian in me says local decisions are the best decisions, but I have a serious problem with our local officials having a commitment to the republican [small r] side of things where they are supposed to represent the people's interests.
I totally see your point and have seen it living in bigger cities with city services like street sweeping, towing, etc. It's why local politics is so important, but national politics dominate the headlines. But how much of that is circular. I think you'd see a devolution, as it were, to a proper view of the separation of powers if we were to deconstruct the administrative state, but it may be too far gone. Federal oversight is likely always, it just depends on the level of it.
I've pointed them out in later posts: I support his Supreme Court nominee, the Secretary of Education, and Bannon's claim to want to "deconstruct" the administrative state.
Huh. I see Devos as one of his worst appointments. Granted, I'm not sure I can name one of his appointments that I liked, but Devos has to be near the bottom of a bad barrel.
I think I largely agree with the symbolic gesture of a DeVos appointment rather than an purely administrative one. I think Michelle Ree would have been a better appointment -- she seems to have more experience, especially dealing with D.C. schools, which must implicate the federal side of things.
I think you could argue against Devos from an ethics and expertise standpoint, but let's face it vouchers and local control if curricula are straight line conservative policies.
I can appreciate this perspective, but on the other hand, is the federal government really the best solution to these issues in principle? Perhaps in practice at times, but I don't know that there is anything inherently better about the federal government policing this. Unless you are suggesting that the federal government is in practice an available means of checks and balances. Which would still make me wonder what the necessary reason for those checks and balances is, if we imagine states' rights to be fundamentally best. I suppose in the long run, we say that some national agendas (foreign policy, interstate commerce, etc.) will still be useful for the states, so having a federal government is a necessary evil, thus why not use it for something else as well?
Honestly I have a much bigger problem with Islam than I do the Mexican border. But it seems like people want to talk about straw men "immigrants", not "illegal immigrants", and about "Muslim bans" rather than what Trump was attempting. But yeah, in general, it's not like we've just got to have waves of people from Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, etc.
Her charter school vs local control stances are somewhat contradictory though. The charter schools in Michigan were basically unregulated for profit businesses. That's removing power from locals and turning it over to private business.
80s just so you know you have me persuaded on Devos. - However philosophically I'm not sure charters are by themselves conservative or liberal, but I think the conservative approach is a corporate/LLC running a school would be ok, while the liberal approach would insist on civic or or more board oriented control.Ilov80s said:
I agree on this. I don't think most educational issues really are conservative/liberal issues. IMO, a true Republican conservative approach and a true liberal Democratic approach to education would be empowering the people, not private businesses. Somewhere a long the way both parties had their fundamental beliefs shifted more and more in favor of big business and against the average citizen. The weird part is how many average people vehemently support these policies. Even sermingky populist movement that helped elect Trump seems to be favoring pro-big business and anti labor despite.
And the stupid part is I never supported Trump and yet since I am not 100 percent in lock-step with the lynch Trump crowd, I am cast as a Trump-lover.
It's no secret that Trump is into nepotism. I sincerely believe that DeVos was hired as a nod to her brother, Erik Price, whom has been behind the scenes for his administration. I doubt she would have been chosen if not for that relationship.
I've never been attacked bu I've made comments that received strong negative reactions from both sides (people assumed I was a R or a D). I definitely get a sense that there exists little room here for moderates or nuance.
No, I'm not going to start responding with personal attacks. That was worded incorrectly. Expect a personal response means expect a response.
And again (aside from education philosophy, discussed above) is there anything conservative or Republican about that, especially after years of railing about the Clintons? No.
It is kind of hard to miss. He posted a list of 18 items which appear at the top of page 2.
I don't know your political leanings, but were you a Republican voter prior to Trump?
I was asking in general. I believe most Republican voters are happy with Trump on policy. Is that accurate? If not, what policies do you disagree with the President on?
He hasn't gotten anything of substance through Congress yet, but based on what he has publicly said, where do you stand on the topics of the day?
Healthcare....Trump has no plan. He wants to spend more, he wants to gut Medicare. He is hoping someone comes up with a great plan to save his butt, but he has no clue what to do.
Yes. I've voted Republican or Libertarian since 1996. I voted for George W., George W., McCain, and Romney. Every representative and senator I've voted for since 1996 has been Republican or Libertarian.
Trump serves greed and self-interest above everything else. Feel free to disagree, or accept it.
Healthcare...his proposal that looks as if it may be ev worse than ACA?
Whether I agree or disagree how is that in any way representative of some sort of anti-life stance on my part?
While I suppose you could deny the transitive property of equality, it would be a lonely existance.
- Guy Republicans and conservatives support calls for shoveling more public money into public health care.
This is the time stamp on when Hillary tweeted on this:
48 hours earlier.
Demographically, it is large scale immigration from Mexico that has been propping up the democrat party. Second generation latinos (primarily from Mexico) are overwhelmingly voting democrat and they are are a large chunk of latino voters. 3rd generation latinos and beyond lean republican.
