If you are a Democrat, I am sure you will be very happy with Biden. He is getting a lot of D policy accomplished. If you are not in favor of massive Federal government, the Biden presidency has been a horror show.
What did he increase the defense budget or something? Anyways, my entire life for every conservative /libertarian I've encountered in my life online or in real life, context is always removed from the larger federal government fear mongering shtick. It's never contextualized. Besides the expansion of the defense budget, it's non-contextualized statement about the expansion of federal government. It's as if Reagan in made some comment about government, and a bunch of conservative just take that mantra as a religious slogan without ever questioning why they believe it.
The Constitution lays out what the Federal government is supposed to do: Those are the 17 things that the Federal government is supposed to do (and the power to do what is necessary and proper to accomplish those things). What the Biden administration (and every administration since FDR was elected) has done is far in excess of those things. Do you see in that list anything about giving cash to people for having kids, subsidizing a particular industry, or anything of the sort? It isn't there. That is not what the federal government was meant to do. That is the context. The Feds are supposed to be a bulwark against other countries interfering in our lives, a mail facilitator, and a referee to make sure the states play nice with each other. Other than that, they are supposed to piss off and leave us alone.
You never make arguments in reference to why. Just what something out to be like. I care for a sustainable society. You care for traditionalism regardless of whether that traditionalism is sustainable. It's just a religious ideology at that point. It's not an ideology based on self-reflection and introspection of one's own beliefs. You know what? Your ideology makes sense for people who want to maintain a current societal hierarchy. The ones who already won would rather have "less government". When most conservatives see something like this: They see something that they believe should just go it's natural way regardless of whether it's sustainable. As long as those wealth gaps don't effect the rural and suburban lifestyle, if it's out of sight its out of mind.
I don't at all want the status quo. The status quo is terrible. We should eliminate most of the US Code. I don't care about race or what the median family wealth of any race is.
Thats an ideological position that you can take and we can disagree on it. Personally I think that is as naive as those who think that government is the answer to most of our problems but I won’t fault you for holding that position. What I will fault you for though is that I still think out of partisanship you downplay the threat of what the current Republican Party is to those principles. Understandably the Democratic Party isn’t a friend to those principles and are a threat to them. While GOP on the surface appears to be more inline with those principles in action they are greatly undermining them. First off the GOP spend as much if not more than the Democrats and this well shown on much the debt and deficit grow under Republican Administrations. The GOP is certainly not serious about reducing spending or really the size of government. If anything they are far more fiscally irresponsible. The modern GOP is also just as interested in regulating lives and private businesses also just in different ways. We saw that with FL and TX mandating that private businesses couldn’t decide on COVID policies for what they felt was best for their own employees and customers. Whether you agree with policies like mask wearing as a small government conservative I would hope you recognize that a private business should be allowed to decide that on their own. At the same time we’ve seen several states while arguing that locals should know best how to govern strip local control from states and counties. We’ve heard from GOP members of Congress that if they get back into power they seek to establish national laws in several issues rather than leave it to the states. The most insidious though is that they are undermining the rule of law. Through very open means such as Jan. 6th and threatening LE or more indirect means like applying political pressure to overturn election results. We see countless examples that the current GOP is less concerned of the rule of law than they are about power. What that should mean to small government conservatives is that they are willing to put the pursuit and maintenance of power over anything else. That puts in jeopardy not only personal liberty but even basic safety as we’ve seen with assaults on LEO and threats to poll workers. So certainly the Democrats aren’t going to advance the cause of small government but that doesn’t mean that the Republicans aren’t a very big threat to those principles.
Yeah, that is why I repeatedly say that both parties are terrible, just Democrats are a bit worse. Neither is the party of freedom, small government, reduced spending, etc. Republicans have their stupid politicians and nonsense agendas. You don't see Republicans abolishing the income tax or getting rid of the controlled substances act. Both parties like to regulate what private businesses do, which I have consistently said is bad. Both parties like to pass laws that are extraconstitutional, which I have consistently said is bad. Both parties undermine the rule of law, they just do it in different ways. You are hyper focused on one incident, but ignore things like Kamala Harris supporting bail funds for rioters, Democrat politicians calling for the harassment of their political opponents in public, etc. More fundamentally, you and @fchowd0311 have both right here right now called following the Constitution bad and/or naive, which is very representative of the view most Democrats have. Nothing is more undermining of the rule of law then saying we should not follow the Constitution, because it is the supreme law of the land.
Sincere question. Do you ever deconstruct any of your views and try to build it back up to see if there are faults within them? Is that a thing you occasionally practice? I'll be honest I don't think I do enough of it. I try occasionally.
No I'm saying the current Republican are much more insidious. I'm on record here for being very critical of those who rationalized and excused the rioting that happened following the killing of George Floyd. I was very critical of calls to defund the police especially by the Minneapolis City Council and critical of Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey for abandoing the third Precinct. Just the same the attack on Jan. 6th on the US Capitol is as serious and likely more so given the nature of the target than the Third Precinct in Minneapolis. The threats made to Federal LEO and calls for defunding of the FBI are as serious and ham handed as those made against the MPD. Further you're still downplaying the many acts of lawlessness being practiced by many in the current GOP besides just Jan. 6th. That you're getting judges that you like and tax cuts shows the dangerous compromise that the current conservatives have made. It will do you little if you have conservative judges if those in power choose to just violate the law with little consequences to retain power. Also you're free to have your interpretation of the Constitution but the Federal income tax was created by Constitutional amendment so it certainly is constitutional in the strictest sense. Equal protection was also created under the 14th Amendment. The USSC has certainly allowed the expansion of the government power in ways that you might like. So you can have a personal opinion about what should be in the Constitution but that isn't supported by SCOTUS has done or even what is in the Constitution itself.
Sure. That is how I transitioned from Republican to libertarian. I used to be in favor of drug prohibition, for example. To me, building from first principles, libertarianism makes the most sense.
When you have an FBI with examples of Peter Strzok and his implicit bias coupled with a FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to falsifying an email investigators used to justify continued surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page…this is not just feelings but actual pattern of gross conduct and behavior that invalidates the DOJ in the eyes of millions ..you have to realize that . Maybe the FBI shouldn’t be defunded but something is seriously wrong when there is a pattern of blatant acts that are not just biased but illegal @StupidMoniker
You’ve only cited three people none of which which work for the FBI anymore you are then expanding to claim thet the FBI and DOJ are as a while now hopelessly biased. There were more LEO convicted in the killing of George Floyd than that and I don’t think the MPD is hopelessly biased even though the DOJ is any times the size of MPD.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-de...left-u-s-senate-11666821289?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Why Democrats Are Losing The Midterms With Trump out of the spotlight, voters are focusing on how far left the Democratic Party has turned. By The Editorial Board Oct. 26, 2022 6:43 pm ET Commentary on Tuesday night’s Pennsylvania Senate debate is mostly about Democrat John Fetterman’s unfortunate struggles communicating in the wake of his May stroke. But for our money the most telling moment was Mr. Fetterman’s response to a question about his previous opposition to fracking for natural gas. It sums up why the election tide is moving against Democrats and may cost them the House and Senate. “I’ve always supported fracking,” Mr. Fetterman said when pressed by a moderator. He later added that, “I do support fracking and I don’t, I don’t—I support fracking, and I stand, and I do support fracking.” His stumbles over his real position is understandable because his pro-fracking conversion, if that’s what it is, is recent. “I don’t support fracking at all and I never have,” Mr. Fetterman told a YouTube channel in 2018 when running for lieutenant governor. “And I’ve, I’ve signed the no fossil fuels money pledge. I have never received a dime from any natural gas or oil company whatsoever.” In 2016 Mr. Fetterman said in a comment on Reddit that “I am not pro-fracking and have stated that if we did things right in this state, we wouldn’t have fracking.” He added that he had “signed the Food and Water Watch’s pledge to end fracking.” Republican Mehmet Oz hammered Mr. Fetterman on the old quotes in Tuesday’s debate. The point isn’t about catching a politician in a flip-flop. The Fetterman contradiction shows how Democrats are in trouble because they nominated too many candidates whose views on crime, immigration, climate and the economy are all but impossible to defend in competitive races this year. Democrats are finally paying for their sharp left turn during the Trump Presidency. That turn began in earnest with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 primary victory in New York over party war horse Joe Crowley. That scared Democrats nationwide, and it caused many to adopt positions well to the left-of-center to avoid Mr. Crowley’s fate. The left turn didn’t matter in 2018 as voters came out to put a check on Mr. Trump’s chaotic governance. It mattered more in 2020, especially after the “summer of love” riots following George Floyd’s murder. “Defund the police” cost the party House seats. But Mr. Trump was still the main election issue, and Democrats played down their left turn by nominating the reassuring Joe Biden, who promised to work with Republicans and unite the country. Democrats have tried mightily to drag Mr. Trump back into the 2022 campaign, and Mr. Trump has often obliged by meddling in GOP primaries on behalf of weak candidates. But he isn’t on any ballot next month. Voters have thus had the chance to focus on the record of the Biden Democrats in office, and the policy views of Democratic challengers. If Democrats lose the Senate, they’ll regret in particular that they nominated far-left candidates like Mr. Fetterman and Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin. Mr. Fetterman tries to come across as the working man’s candidate, but his history against fracking pits him against the blue-collar workers who man the drilling rigs and sand trucks in Pennsylvania. It puts him on the side of climate elites in the big cities. It is also a killer issue when inflation and energy prices are soaring. Crime is another issue where Democratic excess has left candidates asking voters to deny what they see with their own eyes. In Tuesday’s New York gubernatorial debate, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul declared that anyone who commits a crime in the state faces “consequences.” But voters know that simply isn’t true, and Ms. Hochul couldn’t defend the state bail law that gives judges too little discretion to jail repeat offenders. Ms. Hochul’s campaign boils down to declaring that Republican Lee Zeldin is a fan of Mr. Trump, opposes abortion rights, and favors gun rights. That may be enough to get her over the finish line in the heavily Democratic state. But Mr. Zeldin has a chance because Ms. Hochul refused to move to the center as she worked to prevent a primary challenge from Attorney General Letitia James. The Trump Presidency caused many people to lose their minds, Democrats and the media most of all. The normal party checks on radical policies vanished as opposition to Trump became the party’s self-defining political mission. Perhaps a drubbing on Nov. 8 will jolt the party back to reality. Appeared in the October 27, 2022, print edition as 'Why Democrats Are Losing'.
I think it's more to do with the Dems not addressing economic issues at all. Of course, Repubs aren't addressing them either, but Dems are the party in power so they will catch the blame for people's economic issues. Since that is the #1 issue for 80% of voters, it's a disgrace that neither party is addressing it.
Democrats have certainly tried to address economic issues. The Biden administration has been doing releases of oil from the strategic reserve to try to keep prices down and Biden went hat in hand to the Saudis. Success on those is questionable and certainly the Saudis aren't cooperating but it isn't as though they aren't doing anything. At the same time the Congress and Administration have passed laws lowering the cost of insulin and other prescription drugs. Since these are new laws it will take sometime to see the return on those.
Biden waited too long to use the SPR. And as you said, going to Saudi and begging for help was predictably a major failure and embarrassment. Not something they should be bragging about. In any case, what I really meant was that Dems (and Repubs) aren't addressing what they will do to help people economically going forward. The very worst thing they could do - and some are doing - is brag about what they have done, given that so many people are still falling behind. Stan Greenberg is about as Establishment Dem as it gets. He, I think, gets it right in the video here, as far as what the Dems should be addressing while campaigning in the midterms:
Sure they begged the Saudis and it didn't work. That isn't the same as that they aren't doing anything. Both Democrats and Republicans are actually doing things that will help many economically going forward. Both the bipartisan infrastructure act and the CHIPS act are leading to new US manufacturing jobs and improving greater US competitiveness. New infrastrucure is a long term economic investment. It's not something that is going to show up though in one one quarter.
I feel like you're talking about something different than what I'm talking about. You're talking about things that have already happened (IRA, CHIPS) but I'm talking about addressing issues for the midterms. I'll just repost what I said above because that is the point I'm trying to make. (FWIW, in the Twitter video, Greenberg notes that Dems talking about what they have already done rather than what they will do leads to bad outcomes for the Dems.)
Stan Greenberg's idea to decrease inflation (aka deal with the high cost of living) is to pass out 600 dollars per person a month to consumers from the government? Adding more cash into the consumer economy is not going to help the problem, it is going to make it worse. He may be right that this is something that can be sold to voters to improve the odds of winning elections, but only because it would be lying to them.
