Oh no!!!

If you haven’t noticed, I’m not Bob. I decide my positions on my own, and while I’m socially liberal, that doesn’t mean I agree with the “liberal” positions at all times. I’m not insulted at my position being called “conservative”….I’m not tribalistic that way.

EG-I’m pro gun….but very pro regulation.

I’m actually a fiscal conservative, but unlike the right I know that doesn’t really mean the government should only pay for the military and nothing more. I agree with any spending that saves billions or trillions overall, even when it means some people get a free ride.
I think police are a good idea, although I believe they need serious reforms because they have lost their mission completely.
I think public roads are a good thing, as are public water and power systems.
I think national health care is a no brainer that works well in almost every country and saves trillions per year.
I think a safety net is a good idea...give people something to lose so they don’t turn to crime because they have nothing to lose.

Edit: I’ve said most of my adult life that I would be a Republican if only they would. Today’s Con has no resemblance to the Republican party I thought I grew up with (my entire family was hard core R).
Fiscal sanity, gone. Caring about the environment, gone. Supporting facts and science, gone. Supporting small government, gone (except with lip service). Strong and enforced gun regulations to protect gun ownership rights, gone. Strict supporters of law and order, not anymore. Government out of private life, so incredibly gone. Separation of church and state, gone. Fans of democracy, gone. Honesty, not even a memory.
I’m only a “blue liberal” by default. I might be libertarian if they weren’t crazed anti government extremists and almost MAGA.
Dems are the only ones left that really believe in democratic government.


I agree that 40 years+ without parole is cruel, but certainly not unusual or excessive. I never understand why excessively long prison sentences are considered less than the death penalty…I’m claustrophobic, to me it would be 40+ years of panic. I would give myself the death penalty fairly quickly because I’m not brave enough to face that. Swallow my tongue or bite it off, either works just fine and can’t be stopped. I’m really shocked that’s not the norm, but I’ve (clearly) never had to face it.

Weird, because like I mentioned those tax cuts weren't helping my portfolio until after the election. They must have really kicked in only after the inauguration. But to be fair, Trump did say the market would tank immediately if Joe's the president....apparently the market didn't get the memo.

It is still running under the Trump corporate/billionaire handouts, and still suffering from the Trumpdemic recession, it had been languishing under the same circumstances last year but is now skyrocketing with the nation under adult leadership.

Tax hikes will likely slow things somewhat assuming any pass, time will tell, but your prognostications have proven to be untrustworthy...at least, unlike Trump and Republicans, Biden wants to pay for at least some of his spending. For all the worrywarting about China, you guys sure liked to be deep in debt to them. Yes, Democrats are spending like drunken sailors, it's worrisome, but so were Republicans. At least it's on brand for Democrats, they don't pretend to be fiscally conservative anti socialists while giving away trillions on credit and getting nothing for it.

Thanks McConnell. At least more goes to citizens than Republicans wanted, and less as handouts to large international companies.
Yeah, you don't think schools should get any money, but some people think a third grade education isn't enough. They absolutely need funding to reopen safely, but again you don't believe the virus is anything to worry about. The only intelligent thing to do is wait until students and teachers are vaccinated before returning to a system where social distancing is impossible.
Republicans are outraged there's more cash for citizens in it, they just gave $600 per person and weren't happy giving back that much. Your party completely disagrees with you....but it is interesting you suggest they should go with the Democrats original plan to give up to $2000 per adult monthly...a plan republican representatives refused to consider because it's socialist to help citizens that much, but fine to hand trillions to large companies they own or have stakes in that didn't need assistance. It sounds like you're saying Trump's pandemic relief bills were total cash grabs by his lackeys not designed to help citizens or the pandemic. Welcome back to reality.
If you let the people decide, 1/3 of Republicans will pretend there's no pandemic, refuse vaccination because Bill Gates put microchips in there, and go maskless to group events, starting wave four and reversing the gains under Biden. The healthcare portion is imperative, as is mandatory vaccination. It should be just like measles, no vaccine, no school, no job, no government cheese.

It is confusing how, when raising the minimum wage was the most expensive part of the bill, it's still $1.9 Trillion with it removed and with payouts regulated instead of paid out across the board like Trump's unregulated bailouts. Where did that savings go?

Funny how now, after 4 years of completely ignoring it as it skyrocketed, the debt suddenly matters to Republicans again. Y'all can eat a crate of baby dicks, democrats are far more fiscally conservative than Trumpsters.

Edit: btw, this bill has >75% support from the American people, and zero support from obstructionist republican representatives. This is the unity Biden brings, not unity with outrageously self dealing and self centered obstructionist republican representatives but unity with Americans, and an end to legislating solely for the benefit of the top 10% - 1%.

Welcome to Republican America. This is the world working as intended for "fiscal conservatives".

Are we great yet?

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and I don't think capitalism should be unchecked. Personally, I think the stock market and share trading forces companies to always try to show an increase in profit. I also think that corporate lobbying (well any business lobbying really) should be illegal. I also believe in term limits so that nobody can be a 'paid for' elected official.

So it isn't my goal, I can't speak for others.

I wonder what these Republicans behind the Lincoln Project will do after November though, win or lose? They themselves made Trump a reality through a cumulative process of dividing and dumbing down America for decades. You think Trump is a freak show? No, it's their modern-day ideological standard bearing manifest, just magnified by a factor of 10. Some republicans just don't agree HOW Trump says things, not what he DOES. I don't see they can come up with a leader nearing worthy of bearing the mantle of the classic "GOP" of "Lincoln." It's been FUBAR.

You want for Fiscal Conservative & Social Liberals (nevermind whether you can really balance the two IRL with that much debt and social ills already)? Look elsewhere, it's not in the GOP.

What about me? I do all those things and more. I didn't just change my own brakes, I swapped my own motor. I don't just plow my field, I sow, weed, and harvest that field. I've not only repaired a roof, I've built a few. I know hard work, I was a one man desert racing crew. Now that's hard work, being mechanic, transporter, driver, and pit crew....all at 112 degrees.

So, why don't I love Trump? Because I'm a real conservative....ecologically conservative, fiscally conservative, fact based, socially liberal (the government has no place in my bedroom or my body), and insistent on honesty.

Republicans abandoned conservatism before I could vote.

THEY fear us now like one fears the 100lb ranting sore ridden meth head at the bus stop, not for our strength and resolve, but our dangerous unpredictability and diseases.

What is this new lie you're repeating over and over??
What evidence is there on Clinton that was missed in the never ending litany of investigations of her?
What evidence do you have Obama "pulled strings" for either? None that you could produce when I asked before....I seriously doubt you ever will address the question, because you prefer to spout nasty lies and hide when challenged.

I'll go out on a limb and say Obama didn't intervene. Prove me wrong with evidence and fact.....try with innuendo and more baseless Trumpism, be prepared for a serious lambasting.

On the other hand, Trump's "friend like Obama" did unethically if not illegally intervene repeatedly and continuously in every way possible including some extremely unethical ways ....that friend being Trump himself.

Since this is word for word what you wrote to me in private including the silly capitalization, I'm guessing it's cut and paste from a right wing blogger and has zero basis in fact. You are serious about these accusations in private, not sure why you hit sarcasm here except out of embarrassment.

As you know, we MADE money (>$12 million?) proving his cabinet was a criminal organization filled with dozens of felons....a GREAT deal by any measure. Gotta spend money to make money, and we MADE major money on the Trump investigation.

We spent well over $30 million to actually prove Clinton's innocence in just one of many instances Republicans created ridiculous politically motivated investigations, and you support spending tens-hundreds of millions more to get her for....well, you don't even know what. Republicans spent $1.5 trillion per year permanently giving Trump a tax break, you have no fiscal conservatives left in your party and only whine about spending when it's politically expedient.

Only a total proud moron could get "proven innocent" from "this report does not exonerate Mr Trump"....are you a proud moron?

@newtboy
@Drachen_Jager
@simonm
@bobknight33

You guys are letting him get away with too many ill defined terms.

@bobknight33 needs to define
Republican-
RHINO (dependant on Republican definition) -
Corrupt-
"Lose" in the political sense (as in "Trump does not back down or lose much")
"Back down" same comment
Swamp

--------------
From my point of view, the definitions would be as follows, but I doubt he would agree, so the definition s actually need to come from him if there's ever to be any REAL communication here.

Republican- Fiscal conservative, functional but minimal government, patriotic and supports the democratic process over communism, law and order, often (but not necessarily) religious

RHINO (dependent on Republican definition) - Ron Paul and Ron Paul Jr. - Libertarians in the thinking of Ayn Rand who actually consider themselves the "true republicans" but are outside the mainstream

Corrupt- Promoting self interest over that of the people you are meant to govern - in Trump's case, I'd say it means "anyone who doesn't agree with me"

"Lose" in the political sense (as in "Trump does not back down or lose much") - Not passing legislation with any staying power, being defeated in the Legislative Branch after something is passed (See the Affordable Care Act for the opposite example)

not "Back[ing] down" same comment - I'm going to break the law or established political norms


UNTIL WE CAN AGREE ON TERMS, THERE WON'T BE ANY ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANCE BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WON'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS

You're actually calling the Democrats in congress obstructionists? I'm reasonably certain we have as many federal vacancies as we do largely due to the Republican congress of the past several years doing their damnedest to block every single thing Obama tried to get done. That accusation is phenomenally hypocritical. I certainly acknowledge the current congressional Democrats have been voting no or voting to not proceed quite a bit lately, but they've also been cut off from the process of lawmaking to the highest degree possible. You can't expect cooperation from people that you don't even let sit at the table while laws are being drafted and discussed.

That last word was a joke of course - there's been damn near no discussion of this bill. The last time the United States had a major tax overhaul was also under republican oversight, in 1986. During the course of creating that legislation they took over 6 months and had more than a dozen hearings on it, ensuring reasonable transparency. This latest bill was slapped together over a few weeks and had a completely opaque process.

You claim the Democrats "fucked Americans" because they added 8 trillion to the debt. My understanding is this bill, over the next 10 years, will add a minimum of another trillion. The fact that it's so negative overall will also, due to existing law, require a balancing by way of cutting other programs - Medicaid at the least is expected to see major cuts, just as a side effect of this bill. Of course, it isn't really a side effect per se, they just couldn't get enough R votes if they either made the necessary changes to keep the bill deficit-neutral or included the provision that would've waived the mandatory cuts. So it's laughable to claim the current Republicans in congress really have an interest in being fiscally conservative or even moderate.

I'm likely wasting my time here though, as I don't think you're actually interested in engaging in an honest conversation, nor do you seem to be open to changing your viewpoint at all. I wonder though whether you know enough about politics from the last several decades to have a guess as what Republicans from the Reagan era would think about how things are being done today. My guess is they'd be appalled, but perhaps I'm overestimating them.

The most interesting graph happens at roughly 4:38. 3.7 trillion dollars, made up of roughly 1/7th discretionary spending, 1/7th defense, and 5/7ths SS/Medi*/Interest.

The one philosophical holdout that I still appreciate about the GOP platform is generally smaller government. But for all they harp on that, they usually do jack shit to actually cut down on that total from the graph.

That huge 5/7ths portion is close to untouchable; or at least it would be political suicide to mess with any of that stuff. The only exception is the interest payments, which *do* have to be paid, but we could work to reduce the debt which would in turn reduce interest. How to do that? Raise taxes. And suddenly all the Republicans think it's a terrible idea.

That leaves the 1/5th from Defense and 1/5th from other Discretionary spending. To me, Defense is the obvious target. If you really want to tighten the belt and be fiscally conservative, do we actually NEED to spend all that on defense? Couldn't it be cut in half or even more drastically and we'd still easily be able to actually, you know, defend the country? But again, pretty much zero Republican interest in cutting Defense budget, unless you're a kooky fringe element like Ron Paul with zero intra-party backing.

So that leaves the 1/5th of Discretionary spending. And yeah, sometimes Republicans do actually make cuts here. At best, they cut "drop in the bucket" type stuff like mentioned in the video, with negligible effect on the budget and a loss of programs that are valued by some/many. At worst, you end up like KansasBrownbackistan, with zero budget for schools, etc.

That rift between party platform and actual action is the biggest reason that I tend to have *zero* interest in voting Republican for any national office, in spite of still being registered as a Republican. State offices (governor, state legislature, etc.) are slightly more palatable places to consider voting in an R, but not by much. I do think they tend to be good options for Local government offices, especially for more rural areas. On the other hand, D's tend to be much better at promoting things like Bond Issues for improving schools, maintaining infrastructure, etc.

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

Fair point.

Also, I'm not really talking about conservative views in the sense of fiscal conservatives or libertarians. I don't necessarily agree with those positions, but they are genuinely a "difference of opinion" as outlined in the video.

I just don't agree with the general position that social conservatives are entitled to their opinion on gay rights, climate change, etc. any more than the democrats were entitled to their opinion on slavery.

Sometimes you're just on the wrong side of history.

If you truly like this site, why do you constantly and consistently denigrate it in your comments?
I would bet that at least 90% of internet trolls would say the same thing...'I'm not a troll, I just hate (or-"have to hold my nose at posting" of 'X') most everything and everyone on or about this site and I'm going to tell you about what I see as it's problems and foibles daily. I have every right to express my opinion.'...yes, you have a right...but they way you go about it makes you a troll, IMO.

If I went to a right wing leaning message board and, daily, told them what misguided morons they all are, and how the site is worthless because it's nothing more than a bastion for the idiot right and all the misguided, America hating morons in it, I would be a troll. It would be obvious that I would not be intending to change minds, only to insult and lambast those I disagree with.

Please to explain...how are you different in the way you post here?

EDIT: Ultra left DOJ!!!! I was rolling on the floor at that one buddy, good one.
Almost as funny as you calling yourself "conservative"...what you are is a neo-con...which means you want to return to a past that never existed...a "new" (imaginary) past you wish to conserve...therefore "neo-con".
I am actually an old school republican, which are fiscally 'conservative' (which means we try to conserve our funds by spending them wisely on programs that save money as a whole, like upkeep of infrastructure...not the same thing as removing all spending/taxation)
-and a social liberal (Yes, real republicans are (were) anti-war, anti-corporatist, anti-religion in government, pro-environment, pro-freedom to choose your own morality, actual thinkers. Regan changed all that 180 deg. Now I have NO party that represents me. It's hilarious to hear you guys call me a "lefty" over and over!)

I don't think they'll let the U.S. default now, nor do I think they will not raise the debt ceiling (But, again, who knows?). If they do, however, raise the ceiling, it will be another indication that there is no more capping the debt, it will grow and grow until the country has no choice but to default.

Interesting to remember, back at the beginning of the Reagan years, fiscal conservatives were "crying" about the debt being $1 trillion. That's nothing compared to what it is today. And it was Reagan (by way of his "Reaganomics") who decided that there was no problem with increasing the debt.
Writes Murray Rothbard (in 1981), in an article about how the U.S. should just default on the debt:

"Perhaps the most absurd argument of Reaganomists was that we should not worry about growing public debt because it is being matched on the federal balance sheet by an expansion of public 'assets'."

(I wonder what he would make of today's $16 trillion+ in U.S. debt?)

Predictably, as soon as Reagan went on a spending spree, fiscal "conservatives" stopped being so (not unlike the 'leftists' who stopped being anti-war as soon as Obama was elected).

It should also serve us to remember that it was the Democratic party that first considered itself the party of fiscal responsibility, at least with regards to Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren who all had a conscious plan to defund government but eventually failed for various historical reasons.

"It is for all these reasons that the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians (who, contrary to the myths of historians, were extraordinarily knowledgeable in economic and monetary theory) hated and reviled the public debt. Indeed, the national debt was paid off twice in American history, the first time by Thomas Jefferson and the second, and undoubtedly the last time, by Andrew Jackson."