Go back
Conservatives Want Less Rules

Conservatives Want Less Rules

Debates

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

How is this possible?
https://news.yahoo.com/under-gov-ron-desantis-florida-110232663.html

2 edits
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@jimm619 said
How is this possible?
https://news.yahoo.com/under-gov-ron-desantis-florida-110232663.html
(oh no, I'm becoming my grandmother)

Title should be "Conservatives want fewer rules"

And I think you should draw a distinction between conservatism and the modern GOP. Ron DeSantis' Republican party is not conservative. The GOP is using government for social activism, e.g. banning medical treatments, and embracing government legislation of their preferred form of morality.

A small government is a more focused government. A focused government can solve problems without having to be all "Why're we spending money on Mars when world hunger still exists" whataboutism that constantly distracts from the task at hand. A solving-problems government is more nimble and can cut costs and re-focus on other priorities when wars end and new problems emerge (e.g. COVID).

Conservative government works. Think Israel, Switzerland or the 19th century USA. The GOP right now is hopelessly broken, dependent on funding produced by promising solutions to culture wars that are not solvable, and needs to be disbanded immediately.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@wildgrass said
(oh no, I'm becoming my grandmother)

Title should be "Conservatives want fewer rules"

And I think you should draw a distinction between conservatism and the modern GOP. Ron DeSantis' Republican party is not conservative. The GOP is using government for social activism, e.g. banning medical treatments, and embracing government legislation of their preferred form ...[text shortened]... by promising solutions to culture wars that are not solvable, and needs to be disbanded immediately.
''...........Title should be "Conservatives want fewer rules..........."
It's called sarcasm,..........
He (they) court conservative voters
and that, to me, makes them conservative.
The party of William F. Buckley is long gone.

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@jimm619 said
''...........Title should be "Conservatives want fewer rules..........."
It's called sarcasm,..........
He (they) court conservative voters
and that, to me, makes them conservative.
The party of William F. Buckley is long gone.
I was referring to the grammar not the sarcasm. That I got. The modern Republican party figured out that fighting against culture through legislation is a meal ticket. One mention of critical race theory and the cash starts flowing in. Let's empower the government to tell the teachers what to teach. What could go wrong there?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

@wildgrass said
I was referring to the grammar not the sarcasm. That I got. The modern Republican party figured out that fighting against culture through legislation is a meal ticket. One mention of critical race theory and the cash starts flowing in. Let's empower the government to tell the teachers what to teach. What could go wrong there?
good post, man

Vote Up
Vote Down

@wildgrass said
I was referring to the grammar not the sarcasm. That I got. The modern Republican party figured out that fighting against culture through legislation is a meal ticket. One mention of critical race theory and the cash starts flowing in. Let's empower the government to tell the teachers what to teach. What could go wrong there?
We're in agreement, it's frightening to me.....
And why does 'The Loyal Opposition,' not see it?
Fake issues, as you pointed out, drive both parties, but
THE GOP is losing out to demographics and they're becoming,
in my opinion, more and more repressive, i.e. voting laws, fake non-issues
media bashing, union busting, etc.........
My opinion? We must get campaign contributions
completely out of the picture and go with publicly funded elections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Your view?

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@jimm619 said
We're in agreement, it's frightening to me.....
And why does 'The Loyal Opposition,' not see it?
Fake issues, as you pointed out, drive both parties, but
THE GOP is losing out to demographics and they're becoming,
in my opinion, more and more repressive, i.e. voting laws, fake non-issues
media bashing, union busting, etc.........
My opinion? We must get campaign contrib ...[text shortened]... ons
completely out of the picture and go with publicly funded elections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Your view?
My preference for where to start would be a federal balanced budget amendment. I would like Republicans to have to think about how they intend to pay for their lavish military and stifling government regulation. They love to ask Democrats to pay for things but refuse to pay for their own even-more-lavish toys while in power.

Practically, I don't know how to get contributions out of politics and have not thought or read about it much. The floodgates really opened up after Citizens United. Conservatives like Mitch McConnell have legislated for decades to equate campaign contributions with free speech, and now they have flipped to asking corporations to stay out of politics when a player takes a knee at a darn foosball tournament. A contribution may be free speech but it's also implicitly political and quid pro quo.

Personally, I don't think campaigns should need funding at all. Where does all the money go? I read the local paper and keep up-to-date on the issues and watch the debates on TV. I don't really understand the person that would be swayed by an advertisement or a rally.

Public funding would be fine.

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@wildgrass said
My preference for where to start would be a federal balanced budget amendment. I would like Republicans to have to think about how they intend to pay for their lavish military and stifling government regulation. They love to ask Democrats to pay for things but refuse to pay for their own even-more-lavish toys while in power.

Practically, I don't know how to get contribut ...[text shortened]... and the person that would be swayed by an advertisement or a rally.

Public funding would be fine.
''.......to-date on the issues and watch the debates on TV. I don't really understand the person that would be swayed by an advertisement or a rally...''
Far too many are.........
I remember reading an article about how unlikely it would be
for the electorate to choose ABE LINCOLN today, because of his ungainly,
awkward manner and also because, apparently he had
a high pitched, squeaky voice.......Just look at BIDEN's critics, since
when has old age given up wisdom in exchange for senility?
....Was it P.T. Barnum?
''........No one has ever gone broke, overestimating
the intelligence of The American public.........''

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@wildgrass said
My preference for where to start would be a federal balanced budget amendment. I would like Republicans to have to think about how they intend to pay for their lavish military and stifling government regulation. They love to ask Democrats to pay for things but refuse to pay for their own even-more-lavish toys while in power.

Practically, I don't know how to get contribut ...[text shortened]... and the person that would be swayed by an advertisement or a rally.

Public funding would be fine.
You won't call them toys when Japan attacks Minnesota. Do libs not know about defense?

2 edits
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
You won't call them toys when Japan attacks Minnesota. Do libs not know about defense?
Minnesota?
Japan?
HUH?
As for defense, we sure do trust our intelligence
agencies more than we trust PUTIN. 😛

1 edit
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@jimm619 said
We're in agreement, it's frightening to me.....
And why does 'The Loyal Opposition,' not see it?
Fake issues, as you pointed out, drive both parties, but
THE GOP is losing out to demographics and they're becoming,
in my opinion, more and more repressive, i.e. voting laws, fake non-issues
media bashing, union busting, etc.........
My opinion? We must get campaign contrib ...[text shortened]... ons
completely out of the picture and go with publicly funded elections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Your view?
My opinion?

A directly elected president (most votes count… so no electoral college).

Senators and congressmen with normal voting rights for the District of Colombia.

Small states should have less senators, larger states more.
So, states with less than 2 million residents get 1 senator. States between the 2 and 10 million residents get 2 senators. States between the 10 and 15 million get 3 senators. States over 15 million get 4 senators.

The last two categories could also be comprised as: states over 12 million get 3 senators.

Proportional representation.

Judges should be appointed for 10 year periods.

It’s not rocket science. But you need to break the stranglehold of smaller states calling the shots over large swathes of the population, you need to diminish the polarisation and you need to break political strangleholds like the life-long appointments.
These measures will free up decision making (make it easier to steer and change course), create a more realistic representarion and crack open the two party system (which in turn will lower the power of unelected lobby groups).

3 edits
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
You won't call them toys when Japan attacks Minnesota. Do libs not know about defense?
When? You're hilarious.

It's not the Japanese, but foreign governments DID attack Minnesota. Multiple times. During the last 4 years, hackers have gained access to our critical infrastructure and government operations and thousands of independent business networks and sensitive defense systems. Multiple times. Messing with the threshold PPM of mercury allowed in Florida drinking water. Hospitals have paid millions in ransom to get their own patient data back.

Have you not heard about this?

Unfortunately our defense is about building tanks and planes (toys) that don't address any pending threats but save jobs for home districts, rather than pivoting defense to address the actual threats.

I'd love to support defense if it actually worked as advertised.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

@wildgrass said
When? You're hilarious.

It's not the Japanese, but foreign governments DID attack Minnesota. Multiple times. During the last 4 years, hackers have gained access to our critical infrastructure and government operations and thousands of independent business networks and sensitive defense systems. Multiple times. Messing with the threshold PPM of mercury allowed in Florida ...[text shortened]... e to address the actual threats.

I'd love to support defense if it actually worked as advertised.
I would like to brag on Wildgrass Post,Very enlightening considering that I am not of the techno age. I guess I can say that tanks and missiles are a metaphor, if what truly will be what he is talking about, the digital stuff. A light bulb for AvJoe.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
I would like to brag on Wildgrass Post,Very enlightening considering that I am not of the techno age. I guess I can say that tanks and missiles are a metaphor, if what truly will be what he is talking about, the digital stuff. A light bulb for AvJoe.
Perhaps a very dim one…

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
I would like to brag on Wildgrass Post,Very enlightening considering that I am not of the techno age. I guess I can say that tanks and missiles are a metaphor, if what truly will be what he is talking about, the digital stuff. A light bulb for AvJoe.
Through it all, somehow the Canadian defense department (which gets by on a budget less than the Stanford endowment) manages to avoid these expensive and damaging attacks on critical infrastructure. The key, to many viewers, is the ability to adapt. Stop building tanks and fund counter-measures to the ongoing threats.

Maybe it'll be cheaper. But cheaper doesn't mean less effective.

(side note: Facebook just broke ground on a $1,5 billion facility in Nebraska for data storage. 3.6 million square feet. Permanent employees? 30. Andrew Yang is right. We need to prepare for a society in which daily labor is not required.)