Republican Presidential Debate

[Guard Dog]

I'm gonna put on my radical thinking hat and wager that Trump's support comes from his ability to ****post on twitter like piercing knife and talk in memes.

That probably doesn't hurt.

[Namutree]

Did they speak out against the TPP or something?

Trump did. He called it a, "Horrible deal" I believe.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not quite sure how Trump, who says he identifies more as a democrat, isn't getting that label.

He said it at one point, I don't think he's saying it now. Reagan was a Democrat at one point also. I think a lot of Trump's Democrat past has to do with all the stuff Bush did that Trump thought was dumb. And he's from NY, which means he has certain connections. The reason Carson is/was leading at one point is that people don't know much about him except he seems nice and intelligent and seems to say the right things, so they imagine him to be what they want him to be.

[Guard Dog]

Bobby Jindal has dropped out.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's an interesting article about Cruz: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruz-has-been-plotting-1305876417003574.html

 

The part about his private practice is nonsense though, a lawyer has to be able to represent any client that wants to hire him.

[Calax]

Carson and Trump are viable candidates because all of the others except Cruz and Paul are "democrat lite". It's beginning to become a hard sell to people who value individual liberty and a less heavy handed government when all the candidates except those four are advocating becoming more like what their voters oppose. The truth is as long as they are presenting an alternative vision that appeals more than being subjugated by an Almighty Federal Government they will be forgiven saying things that might normally doom a candidate.

I realize this might be heresy to you GD, but I get the feeling that despite the current political situation, a majority (in terms of population numbers) actually are "left wing" in terms of ideology. And the current hard line right wing base's statement of "NOT ONE STEP BACKWARD!" In terms of negotiating on political topics means that the party only becomes less palatable to those larger population swaths. 

 

One of the guys I knew from highschool (and when I joined the board) posted something an article that boiled down to "Hey, let's stop immigration because it's throwing off the balance of Democrat/Republican!". This speaks to the view that seems to be popping up within the party that, rather than adjust themselves and try to become more palatable to minorities and the younger generation, they'll instead stick to their hard line "God, Guns, and defunding social programs" until they find their voting base left in graveyards.

 

And yes, in an ideal world we'd be able to run industry without the need for oversight or regulation because everyone would be happy friends and never be unethical in the business sector. In the real world we need at least some oversight and regulation, which costs money. I will say that the thing I've never understood about libertarians and those who never want to pay taxes, is "How do you want the roads funded? The bridges repaired? Or the Army to operate?" And before you flip out on me about the fact that the states would pay, they wouldn't, especially on the most utilized roads in any state, the Dwight D Eisenhower Interstate system.

[Guard Dog]

 

And yes, in an ideal world we'd be able to run industry without the need for oversight or regulation because everyone would be happy friends and never be unethical in the business sector. In the real world we need at least some oversight and regulation, which costs money. I will say that the thing I've never understood about libertarians and those who never want to pay taxes, is "How do you want the roads funded? The bridges repaired? Or the Army to operate?" And before you flip out on me about the fact that the states would pay, they wouldn't, especially on the most utilized roads in any state, the Dwight D Eisenhower Interstate system.

 

Calax, I'm sure we've batted this ball around before. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not opposed to taxes. We are opposed to writing a blank check to a federal government that is doing things it has no business or legal authority to do. The gist of the libertarian political philosophy (the modern version of it, not the 1950's objectivist utopia crap) is that all level of government have specific functions that should be well defined and narrowly construed and that it be sufficiently funded only enough to fulfill those functions. The Federal government has it's responsibilities including securing the borders, maintaining the currency, etc., the state, county, city, governments have theirs. You know what they are, you of all people do not need a civics lesson from me. The real trouble begins when those governments get into things they shouldn't be doing or assuming power they should not have.

[BruceVC]

 

 

And yes, in an ideal world we'd be able to run industry without the need for oversight or regulation because everyone would be happy friends and never be unethical in the business sector. In the real world we need at least some oversight and regulation, which costs money. I will say that the thing I've never understood about libertarians and those who never want to pay taxes, is "How do you want the roads funded? The bridges repaired? Or the Army to operate?" And before you flip out on me about the fact that the states would pay, they wouldn't, especially on the most utilized roads in any state, the Dwight D Eisenhower Interstate system.

 

Calax, I'm sure we've batted this ball around before. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not opposed to taxes. We are opposed to writing a blank check to a federal government that is doing things it has no business or legal authority to do. The gist of the libertarian political philosophy (the modern version of it, not the 1950's objectivist utopia crap) is that all level of government have specific functions that should be well defined and narrowly construed and that it be sufficiently funded only enough to fulfill those functions. The Federal government has it's responsibilities including securing the borders, maintaining the currency, etc., the state, county, city, governments have theirs. You know what they are, you of all people do not need a civics lesson from me. The real trouble begins when those governments get into things they shouldn't be doing or assuming power they should not have.

 

I have never understood what a Libertarian stands for or actually means in the US political landscape ...that seems like good description 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Libertarians are not anarchists.

Well the first use of the term was used to describe anarchists. The current usage describes classical liberalism, which makes sense because the overton window in the west has narrowed to various forms of liberalism.

[Calax]

 

 

And yes, in an ideal world we'd be able to run industry without the need for oversight or regulation because everyone would be happy friends and never be unethical in the business sector. In the real world we need at least some oversight and regulation, which costs money. I will say that the thing I've never understood about libertarians and those who never want to pay taxes, is "How do you want the roads funded? The bridges repaired? Or the Army to operate?" And before you flip out on me about the fact that the states would pay, they wouldn't, especially on the most utilized roads in any state, the Dwight D Eisenhower Interstate system.

 

Calax, I'm sure we've batted this ball around before. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not opposed to taxes. We are opposed to writing a blank check to a federal government that is doing things it has no business or legal authority to do. The gist of the libertarian political philosophy (the modern version of it, not the 1950's objectivist utopia crap) is that all level of government have specific functions that should be well defined and narrowly construed and that it be sufficiently funded only enough to fulfill those functions. The Federal government has it's responsibilities including securing the borders, maintaining the currency, etc., the state, county, city, governments have theirs. You know what they are, you of all people do not need a civics lesson from me. The real trouble begins when those governments get into things they shouldn't be doing or assuming power they should not have.

 

Then who decides what the governments scope is? I mean the lean elevator speech I've heard for Libertarian is that they're "Fiscally conservative, socially Liberal" but given the Paul's views on various social issues I can't see how that would work anymore. I personally would prefer a socialized healthcare system, rather than the clusterF we have now, and don't see how business/insurance wouldn't run roughshod over people because they had so much power over that persons health, assuming the government "Got out of it". 

 

 

Although Ron Paul is hilarious because he wants the government out of Health Care but wants to eliminate a persons right to choose. I can't think of anything more contradictory than that.

[Guard Dog]

Ron & Rand Paul are both Republicans. They may have libertarian leanings but neither are straight up libertarians. And I'd love to see the government get out of health care. We have a great health care system in the US. It's called veterinary care. My dog's vet has access to diagnostic equipment my doctor could never dream of owning. I believe I have already related the story of how my dog Tommy tore his ACL. My vet diagnosed it on Saturday, gave me the names of three veterinary orthopedic surgeons in the area. I called all three clinics and they quoted  prices based on the extent of the repair I wanted to attempt as well has schedules and financing options. I picked on and the surgery was done on Tuesday. If that was ME that needed that surgery you know how that would have gone.  For the love of God if we can do it for our dogs why can't we do it for ourselves? Get the f-----g government OUT of it. They have regulated it into a disaster.  Let insurance companies sell any policy to anyone in any stare. Why they hell are we limiting who can sell what to whom?

 

Obamacare essentially points a gun at my head and says "you WILL buy this and you WILL buy it from the vendors I have CHOSEN for you".

 

Libertarian politics are probably not for you Calax, You'd rather the government took care of you like a ward of the state. The problem is once everything is "free" you will no longer be.

[Hurlshort]

Then who decides what the governments scope is?

 

 

The voters.  Right now we get to decide what the scope is on local and state levels, but we have very little say in the Federal level.  

[Guard Dog]

 

Then who decides what the governments scope is?

 

 

The voters.  Right now we get to decide what the scope is on local and state levels, but we have very little say in the Federal level.  

 

Incorrect Hurlshot. Actually the United States Constitution did that. It laid out in clear detail the responsibilities and LIMITS of the federal government and specifically assigned everything NOT included in it's text to the STATE and the PEOPLE. Any questions Calax? If so please read Amendments 9 and 10 of the aforementioned document.

 

Oh, by the way Calax, the words healthcare and education do not appear in any of the seven articles or twenty seven amendments.

[Barothmuk]

We will bring freedom to the masses via sickness, poverty and illiteracy!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Will? It's been that way for quite a while mate.

[Calax]

 

 

Then who decides what the governments scope is?

 

 

The voters.  Right now we get to decide what the scope is on local and state levels, but we have very little say in the Federal level.  

 

Incorrect Hurlshot. Actually the United States Constitution did that. It laid out in clear detail the responsibilities and LIMITS of the federal government and specifically assigned everything NOT included in it's text to the STATE and the PEOPLE. Any questions Calax? If so please read Amendments 9 and 10 of the aforementioned document.

 

Oh, by the way Calax, the words healthcare and education do not appear in any of the seven articles or twenty seven amendments.

 

That's true, they don't. But then the Constitution also mentions slavery in Article's I IV and V, and yet we've gone though and changed it. 

 

Nor does the constitution mention an Air Force, a Federal Police force, or Occupational Health and Safety. Does this also mean that we should remove the USAF, FBI and OSHA and leave it to the states to enforce those rules?

[Guard Dog]

Oh Christ, we're doing this again are we? Fine. I'll be back later with a reply I've written at least a dozen times over the years

[Calax]

We're back to here, because while you may argue that those are "outgrowths to cover an ever changing landscape" so is the government involvement in healthcare and education.

 

If you leave everything to the business sector, you create an unmitigated class system that has no changes. Only the rich become educated and stay rich, while the poor are relegated to unskilled labor or whatever they pick up on the job. And even if you convince the schools to take on prospects that are low income (as most modern universities are expected to) they still do it in a way that will  be weighted towards those with more disposable income (most scholarships and grants go to those with higher grades, who are usually those who had the most free time during high school to perform scholastically).

 

Hell even now, Student Debt is skyrocketing, partly because of the private college business model where the school can't get all it's funding from the government. And the degrees earned from those institutions are considered worthless because the institution itself is worthless.

 

In the modern day, Universities are government run specifically because the way to increase literacy and the overall standing of one's citizens is to enforce and promote education. If you want to remove education from the government, expect to see your neighbors children get a 6th grade ish education by the time they're thirty because they don't have the money for anything else, and the only people literate enough to properly debate subjects like gun control and health care are the wealthiest 5%. You know, like it was when the constitution was written and we had an incredibly low literacy rate.

[Namutree]

 I personally would prefer a socialized healthcare system, rather than the clusterF we have now, 

Our healthcare is a clusterF because we were too dumb to not involve the government with healthcare, and too dumb to not just nationalize the whole thing once the government did get involved. 

 

What America should do is simply acknowledge that vast majority of us (not including myself) are not interested in a capitalist healthcare system, drop the pretense and just nationalize it. Socialism is better than the confused mess that is the capitalist/government hybrid.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Namutree

[Wrath of Dagon]

Ron & Rand Paul are both Republicans. They may have libertarian leanings but neither are straight up libertarians. And I'd love to see the government get out of health care. We have a great health care system in the US. It's called veterinary care. My dog's vet has access to diagnostic equipment my doctor could never dream of owning. I believe I have already related the story of how my dog Tommy tore his ACL. My vet diagnosed it on Saturday, gave me the names of three veterinary orthopedic surgeons in the area. I called all three clinics and they quoted  prices based on the extent of the repair I wanted to attempt as well has schedules and financing options. I picked on and the surgery was done on Tuesday. If that was ME that needed that surgery you know how that would have gone.  For the love of God if we can do it for our dogs why can't we do it for ourselves? Get the f-----g government OUT of it. They have regulated it into a disaster.  Let insurance companies sell any policy to anyone in any stare. Why they hell are we limiting who can sell what to whom?

 

Obamacare essentially points a gun at my head and says "you WILL buy this and you WILL buy it from the vendors I have CHOSEN for you".

 

Libertarian politics are probably not for you Calax, You'd rather the government took care of you like a ward of the state. The problem is once everything is "free" you will no longer be.

Actually Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian party candidate for President. After he got the customary 1% of the vote, he went back to the Republican party so he could get his House seat back.

 

 

 

I personally would prefer a socialized healthcare system, rather than the clusterF we have now,

Our healthcare is a clusterF because we were too dumb to not involve the government with healthcare, and too dumb to not just nationalize the whole thing once the government did get involved. 

 

What America should do is simply acknowledge that vast majority of us (not including myself) are not interested in a capitalist healthcare system, drop the pretense and just nationalize it. Socialism is better than the confused mess that is the capitalist/government hybrid.

 

No thanks, I don't want to deal with the government any more than necessary. Although instead of Obolacare, which seems to now be collapsing just as I predicted, they could've let people buy into Medicare, and subsidize those who couldn't afford it.

[Namutree]

 

 

 I personally would prefer a socialized healthcare system, rather than the clusterF we have now, 

Our healthcare is a clusterF because we were too dumb to not involve the government with healthcare, and too dumb to not just nationalize the whole thing once the government did get involved. 

 

What America should do is simply acknowledge that vast majority of us (not including myself) are not interested in a capitalist healthcare system, drop the pretense and just nationalize it. Socialism is better than the confused mess that is the capitalist/government hybrid.

 

 

Then why all the socialistic states citizens for the last decades went to USA for surgery, treatment etc. instead of the other way around?

There isn't a day in europe without thousands of charity foundations to gather money for treatemnt in USA for some poor kid or other person. I never ever heard of any USA citizen to gather money for treatment in Europe.

 

From my understanding the USA has pretty cutting edge technology and the quality of care is pretty darn high (if you can afford it); that's not really the issue. I've little doubt that nationalizing healthcare would have some downsides; slight dip in quality, slower medical advancement, ect. However, the benefits of a nationalized system over the current clusterF of a system are greater than the downsides by an incredible margin. Granted I consider a free-market approach the best approach, but that politically speaking isn't even on the table.

 

Having some government involvement and some market involvement is like running left and right at the same time. Best to just pick a direction and roll with it.

 

 

 

 

No thanks, I don't want to deal with the government any more than necessary. Although instead of Obolacare, which seems to now be collapsing just as I predicted, they could've let people buy into Medicare, and subsidize those who couldn't afford it.

 

Anything short of an absolute free-market approach has only one possible conclusion. We all know where this is gonna go.

[Hurlshort]

I tend to blame the legal system that allows malpractice suits to go hog wild for a big part of our health care woes.

[Namutree]

I tend to blame the legal system that allows malpractice suits to go hog wild for a big part of our health care woes.

What would you recommend then?

[ShadySands]

I'd prefer a single payer system but I know a lot of people around here don't like that

[Wrath of Dagon]

I tend to blame the legal system that allows malpractice suits to go hog wild for a big part of our health care woes.

Texas took care of that, but the real problem with any third party payer system is that consumer doesn't really care what anything costs. There are other problems with medicine too that don't allow a good free market approach. Edited November 30, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon