0
0

Will the Republicans please now drop their theocratic crusade?


 invite response                
2012 Nov 6, 5:50pm   22,743 views  95 comments

by curious2   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

Election results show President Obama got a majority of the popular vote again, in addition to winning the electoral college 300 vs 200. That happened even with an approval rating below 50%, and ObamaCare polling at -10%. Granted, President Obama is an extraordinary campaigner, but the larger issue is that many Americans felt they had no real choice: Republicans devolved into an apocalyptic cult offering only catastrophic Romnesia.

To borrow Bill Clinton's phrase, America built a bridge to the 21st century, and we are not going back. Republicans' bronze-age pact with Pat Robertson is no longer a "winning" formula, if it ever was. Contrary to freak80's delusional and deeply disturbed fears, supporters of same-sex marriage appear to have won a majority in all four states where the issue was on the ballot. That is consistent with polls showing majority support nationally since 2010. In other words, divide-and-misrule holy warrior crusades seem no longer to be a viable electoral strategy.

The issue is, now, will the Republicans even try to convert from a faith-based apocalyptic cult to an evidence-based political party with coherent governing principles? Or, will they blame Satan and persist on their current course?

To remind any Republican readers of American history, the first Republican President (Lincoln) signed the Emancipation Proclamation, championed the 13th Amendment, and rejected proposals to put "In God we Trust" on the currency. (Possibly the pre-eminent lawyer of his generation, Lincoln believed it would raise an impermissible establishment of religion. He also worried about fiat money, but that's another story.) Alas Lincoln's true legacy seems long forgotten now, at least among the party he helped create.

I ask this question because I believe that America needs at least two viable political parties, preferably more. Instead, we have two rival patronage networks, one of which is an apocalyptic cult. Can we please move on to a time when we can have a real choice in elections?

#politics

« First        Comments 83 - 95 of 95        Search these comments

83   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 2:58pm  

mell says

and knowing that the government itself does not create any wealth, then the only conclusion is that that money has to come from those who don't depend/over-produce.

Missing from your understanding here is that those like Romney that have money working for them are just very large parasites in the system.

We could throw nearly all of the 1% into plastic shredders and the wealth creation of this nation would not be affected one iota. We'd be better off, quite frankly.

Or you can pay for it for quite a while via deficit spending, but then future generations will pay for it

to the extent the debt is internal, that is totally wrong. Much of our internal debt is just owed to people who don't really need the money and can be stiffed (by the soft default of inflation).

The debts we owe to the ROW, however, that's more serious, yes.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

It's harder to soft-default on that debt, and hard defaults leave hard feelings. Then again, much of that debt is just the remaining evidence of past currency manipulation, so I say we fuck 'em too.

84   thomaswong.1986   2012 Nov 8, 2:58pm  

curious2 says

Alas fundamentalist crusaders lack such subtlety and wisdom, which is part of why the Republicans failed to win.

all your doing is insulting our first President and Founder of our Nation...

you are in a personal war with our founders and principles of our Nation.

Its seems that you have proven Ryan's point all to well.

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"
to which Franklin replied, " A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it."

85   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 3:01pm  

mell says

Where is the money coming from to balance any of those spending increases?

(things haven't gotten any better since then, LOL)

86   mell   2012 Nov 8, 3:04pm  

Bellingham Bill says

We could throw nearly all of the 1% into plastic shredders and the wealth creation of this nation would not be affected one iota. We'd be better off, quite frankly.

That may be true, but how can you realistically achieve any significant monetary benefit from targeting the 1% (aside from fairness issues as there are likely 1% who didn't scam the system)? Even if you could come up with a plan to tackle them effectively it would likely be a drop in the bucket. I think the best thing you can do is prosecute fraud and default to clear bad debt whenever possible and let those leeches (mostly banks) who feed off of interest on future production (bailouts and ZIRP) fail fast.

87   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 3:08pm  

thomaswong.1986 says

all your doing is insulting our first President and Founder of our Nation...

you are in a personal war with our founders and principles of our Nation.

Its seems that you have proven Ryan's point all to well.

When did I insult the first President?!? Which founders and principles am I "in a personal war with?!? And who is Ryan, and what was his point? Honestly Thomas, sometimes I read comments that you have addressed to me and I wonder if you are writing to someone else who has nothing to do with me. I hope you will take a moment to answer these questions and clarify your comment because I really, sincerely, have no idea what you mean.

88   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 3:10pm  

"Had it been Romney in the pic, the media would be all over this like flies on shit."

No, those were actual capital-c Capitalists, making real exportable wealth.

The motherfuckers paying for Romney to give them verbal blowjobs were rent-seeking parasites.

Not that the late Steve Jobs & Co. aren't past masters at rent-seeking, but at least creating new wealth -- the Personal Computer, Desktop Publishing, the www, touchphones & tablets -- is how they make their money.

That's capitalism. Make shit and sell it. Romney wouldn't know that kind of capitalism -- his career in vulture capitalism was largely as a wealth destroyer, not creator.

89   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 3:11pm  

curious2 says

When did I insult the first President?!?

LOL, I see your interlocutor is firmly ensconced on Bullshit Mountain still.

90   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 3:16pm  

mell says

but how can you realistically achieve any significant monetary benefit from targeting the 1%

personally, I'd break their rent-seeking business models. Foremost is real estate, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax is good for that.

Included in this is more aggressive severance taxes on natural resource exploitation.

Then I'd socialize health care via single payer, to slowly wring the rents out of that sector.

Then I'd somehow close the $600B/yr trade deficit.

If I were King there wouldn't be inheritance taxes, since it would be impossible to accrete wealth via rent-seeking in the first place. People who had money had come by it honestly, through their own labor and deferred consumption.

91   Bellingham Bill   2012 Nov 8, 3:18pm  

Oh yeah, both socialist Norway and North Dakota have state banks. I think that's a good idea, too, maybe.

A dollar would be a dollar in my Kingdom, not this 2% pa. inflationary jazz we've got going now.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCSL

92   curious2   2012 Nov 8, 3:24pm  

Bellingham Bill says

A dollar would be a dollar in my Kingdom, not this 2% pa. inflationary jazz we've got going now.

JFK campaigned against 2% inflation in 1960, and won.

As for your kingdom, I hope it will be on PatNet's floating island after cannibal anarchy leads to Zombie apocalypse. AF will be defense minister. Since it will be a floating man-made structure, there will be no land tax, but we can all pitch in on the hydroponic yam harvest.

93   mell   2012 Nov 8, 3:27pm  

Bellingham Bill says

mell says

but how can you realistically achieve any significant monetary benefit from targeting the 1%

personally, I'd break their rent-seeking business models. Foremost is real estate, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax is good for that.

Included in this is more aggressive severance taxes on natural resource exploitation.

Then I'd socialize health care via single payer, to slowly wring the rents out of that sector.

Then I'd somehow close the $600B/yr trade deficit.

If I were King there wouldn't be inheritance taxes, since it would be impossible to accrete wealth via rent-seeking in the first place. People who had money had come by it honestly, through their own labor and deferred consumption.

Sounds overall good to me although I'd favor a mix of state/federal run and private health care (both as add-ons and complete replacement) working side by side like in Germany - when can you start? ;)

94   thomaswong.1986   2012 Nov 8, 3:47pm  

chanakya4773 says

How can one child who is born on the planet claim a piece of nature as inheritance and the other child cannot.

Property / Contract Laws.

95   thomaswong.1986   2012 Nov 8, 3:51pm  

Bellingham Bill says

Not that the late Steve Jobs & Co. aren't past masters at rent-seeking, but at least creating new wealth -- the Personal Computer, Desktop Publishing, the www, touchphones & tablets -- is how they make their money.

Billy... Im suprised at you.. surely you mean those who paid 90/share for Apple stock during first day of trading didnt exactly become wealthy over the next months-years..

« First        Comments 83 - 95 of 95        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions