# Goodbye, Straight Dope **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 20, 2018, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899 "2018-08-20T02:31:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/261 "2018-08-23T17:32:45Z")
This one goes to eleven. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/262 "2018-08-23T17:51:42Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I guess Poe’s Law - for the record I was mocking the baser elements on the right, not expressing a serious opinion about Obama. Sometimes it’s hard to tell online … There are people who still push that shit, and they are serious about it. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/263 "2018-08-23T21:10:14Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I wouldn’t criticize my neighbor for a little hypocrisy, but I think it’s fair to hold the president of the country to a higher standard. Agreed, but what I was describing isn’t just coming from the President. It’s been Republican orthodoxy for years. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/264 "2018-08-24T08:10:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Prudently recreate”, I remember! That line _totally_ caught fire, everybody was talking about it, but they thought he meant condoms. Unfortunately I misheard it as creatively reproduce. The wife and I are still non grata at the kayak club. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/265 "2018-08-24T15:34:36Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Well, I still disagree. When the Reagan administration saw that the tax cuts weren’t actually leading to lower deficits, they raised taxes. Then, GHW Bush raised them again. > Then, the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton balanced the budget. The Republicans didn’t stop pretending to care about deficits until the GW Bush administration. Are you saying that the Democrats now are a party which is more concerned about deficits than Republicans? If not, then I don’t get your point here. If you are a voter who previously and currently feels that fighting the deficit is important, would you have changed from Republican to Democrat on that basis? That makes no sense. Your claim seems to amount to the Republicans coming around to the position of the Democrats on this matter. That’s not what we’re discussing. > [@](#): > > Similarly, you could still argue about the effects of CO2 and climate change, probably until the '90s. Its wasn’t really a thing in the '80s. So, when the Republican Party went full climate-change-is-a-hoax later, a scientifically minded Republican may have thrown his hands up in disgust. Again, that’s not the claim. Your saying a guy might move on the issue based on new evidence which emerged in the 90s. But that’s not the same thing as saying the Republican Party moved on the issues. The opposite, in fact - you’re saying the Republican Party should have moved on the issues and didn’t. In general, in striking a balance between environmental and business concern, the Republicans have weighed business more heavily and environment less heavily, as compared to Democrats, for decades. > [@](#): > > Both parties were opposed to gay marriage until the 2000s, so if that was a key issue for you, when the Democrats went the other way, you could have joined them – your position didn’t change, the party did. You’re saying here that the Democrats changed, not the Republicans. > [@](#): > > Things have been learned since the '80s and progress has been made, on the economics front (trickle down was tried and failed), on the social front, and on the environmental front, at least. It looks like you’re arguing that, since the Republican Party is immune to facts and refuses to change (or, in the case of climate change, got even more anti-science), then someone who actually grows and learns would have moved to the Democratic Party. Again, what this boils down to is you’re saying the Republican Party should have changed, and the voter - who himself changed - is leaving the party over that. That’s the exact opposite of the original claim, which is that the Republican party did change and shouldn’t have. I don’t want to get involved here in arguing over whether the Republican Party should or shouldn’t have changed on this or that issue. What we’re discussing here is how plausible it is for someone to have maintained the same positions on the issues over the decades and have switched from Republican to Democrat on that basis. Your arguments on that specific issue have been self-defeating, as above. > [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > You are absolutely wrong here. I used to be one of those lock-step Reagan conservatives who towed the “Don’t tax the rich so much that they’ll leave the country and take our jobs with them” line. I used to believe in the values they espoused, such as honesty and accountability. > > Now the conservatives have turned their backs on those values. Not just that, they’ve completely destroyed them and pretend they still follow them. Conservatives used to be into looking at the heart of the matter and rejecting hyperbole. Now they’re nothing but lies and hyperbole, using fear and panic to scare voters to their side. They use the media to isolate and control their followers, much like the way they accuse liberals of doing. They see corruption and conspiracy because they practice it themselves and project that dystopia on ooh-so-scary liberals. > > Remember how conservatives used to tell us the Russians were the enemy? Now, despite the election meddling, Crimea-conquering, mafia mentality, and doing what us imperialist yanks used to do to control the Middle East, the Cons are apparently fine with that nowadays, because Trump leases out 35% of his Tower space to Russians. > > At least liberals (meaning anybody who isn’t right of center) are more partial to actual facts. Liberals also understand the changing world dynamic and see foreign parties as potential investors and new clients, not dangerous mud people who need to be kept away with a nationalist wall. They see a collapsing environment and envision ways to survive and eventually profit from non-traditional sources of energy, instead of greasing the gears for dinosaur industries to bypass regulations that are meant as safeguards, not poison daggers aimed at the rich. > > I didn’t leave the Conservatives. They left me. Liberalism is now the old conservatism. Liberals are now the moral backbone because Conservatives won’t practice what they preach. They’d rather shelter themselves with hypocrisy and “We get to commit bigamy, have abortions, and consume coke by the truckload, but don’t want anybody else to do it.” That’s how fucked our society has become because of ideologies based on lies and self-delusion. That’s why you make such asinine assumptions like the above. I said in my initial post on the subject that it’s possible for someone to leave the Republican Party over character issues, which is most of what you seem to be saying. There’s very little in your post about issues. But FWIW, there was never a conservative position that “the Russians were the enemy”. It was always about the Communists, who no longer rule Russia these days. And Democrats were always (at least in recent decades) more environment-friendly than Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/266 "2018-08-24T15:47:33Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Unfortunately I misheard it as creatively reproduce. The wife and I are still non grata at the kayak club. It’s like American beer… ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/267 "2018-08-24T15:55:58Z")
Fotheringay-Phipps wrote: “There’s very little in your post about issues. But FWIW, there was never a conservative position that “the Russians were the enemy”. It was always about the Communists, who no longer rule Russia these days.” Well, given that the current head of the Russian government is a former KGB operative… And they say about the KGB what some folks say about the marines. (There’s no such thing as an ex-marine.) The current Russian government has all the imperial ambition and morality of the Communists _without_ the crippling ideology, which arguably makes them a greater threat rather than a lesser one. It is almost as if, after so many years of the communists telling their people how bad capitalists are, they had no other conception of how a capitalist structure could operate so Russia got the kind of capitalists the communists had warned them about. Communism’s appeal was to the outcast and down-trodden of the world. The international appeal of the oligarchs is only to other would-be oligarchs, and this country has them in abundance. Roosevelt said:“I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” Republicans say: “I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. All right, cheap labor.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/268 "2018-08-24T16:03:19Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > The current Russian government has all the imperial ambition and morality of the Communists _without_ the crippling ideology, which arguably makes them a greater threat rather than a lesser one. The exact opposite is true. Russia as a nation has zero prospects of conquering the world. Communism as an ideology had far better prospects, and it showed. The Russians were able to spread communism (and with it, Russian influence) throughout Eastern Europe and much of Asia and beyond. Not because the power of the Russian military and KGB spies sufficed for this on their own, but because communism as an ideology had enough appeal to many people in those countries that Russian assistance was enough to get them over the top. Russian imperialism without a compelling ideology to go with it is a vastly smaller threat. It’s not remotely similar. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/269 "2018-08-24T16:30:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Are you saying that the Democrats now are a party which is more concerned about deficits than Republicans? If **RitterSport** isn’t saying it, I will. Yes, now, and for the last 20+ years. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/270 "2018-08-24T16:31:46Z")
Not only that, but the Democrats were the last party to actually _have a budget surplus_. Crazy, I know! ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/271 "2018-08-24T16:32:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The exact opposite is true. > > Russia as a nation has zero prospects of conquering the world. Communism as an ideology had far better prospects, and it showed. The Russians were able to spread communism (and with it, Russian influence) throughout Eastern Europe and much of Asia and beyond. Not because the power of the Russian military and KGB spies sufficed for this on their own, but because communism as an ideology had enough appeal to many people in those countries that Russian assistance was enough to get them over the top. > > Russian imperialism without a compelling ideology to go with it is a vastly smaller threat. It’s not remotely similar. Tell it to the Crimeans. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/272 "2018-08-24T17:31:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Are you saying that the Democrats now are a party which is more concerned about deficits than Republicans? If not, then I don’t get your point here. If you are a voter who previously and currently feels that fighting the deficit is important, would you have changed from Republican to Democrat on that basis? That makes no sense. Your claim seems to amount to the Republicans coming around to the position of the Democrats on this matter. That’s not what we’re discussing. Yes, I think they’re _obviously and clearly_ more concerned with deficits than the Republicans. It’s possible the Rs cared before Reagan and maybe had a whisper of care after that, but, GW Bush on, it has been obvious they don’t care at all, they just want to cut taxes for the wealthy and use the deficits they blew up as an excuse to cut social programs, and then they are unable to cut social programs (people like Medicare and Social Security) and rather than reverse the tax cuts, they cut them again. I don’t even see how this is arguable. So, an economic-minded conservative-leaning voter may decide to go with the party that actually tries to control deficits rather than the one that uses them as a back door way to cut programs and funnel money to corporations and the wealthy. > [@](#): > > Again, that’s not the claim. Your saying a guy might move on the issue based on new evidence which emerged in the 90s. But that’s not the same thing as saying the Republican Party moved on the issues. The opposite, in fact - you’re saying the Republican Party should have moved on the issues and didn’t. In general, in striking a balance between environmental and business concern, the Republicans have weighed business more heavily and environment less heavily, as compared to Democrats, for decades.You’re saying here that the Democrats changed, not the Republicans. No, I’m saying that if a conservative-leaning scientist was a Republican, and was fine with the Republicans when they were reality-based, he may have gotten disgusted with the party as they started pushing the ridiculous claim that Climate Change is a hoax. In this case, the Party changed in that it used to have policies geared to corporations but still grounded in reality to one that pushes bullshit hoax claims. That’s the change. > [@](#): > > Again, what this boils down to is you’re saying the Republican Party should have changed, and the voter - who himself changed - is leaving the party over that. That’s the exact opposite of the original claim, which is that the Republican party did change and shouldn’t have. > > I don’t want to get involved here in arguing over whether the Republican Party should or shouldn’t have changed on this or that issue. What we’re discussing here is how plausible it is for someone to have maintained the same positions on the issues over the decades and have switched from Republican to Democrat on that basis. Your arguments on that specific issue have been self-defeating, as above.I said in my initial post on the subject that it’s possible for someone to leave the Republican Party over character issues, which is most of what you seem to be saying. > … No, I made a second, even less complimentary claim about Republicans, based on what I understand you to be saying. That is, that they are unable to learn from actual facts, experience, and advancements in, say, science and economics. So, a reasonable Republican in the 80s or 90s is expecting them to learn from their failed trickle-down experiment and learn from advances in climate science, to continue with these examples, and decides that a Party that is stuck in some previous time is useless and dead. Every person and organization absorbs new facts and makes some sort of changes. You seem to be saying a Republican should have expected the Party to remain frozen in time and not make any adjustments based on new data. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/273 "2018-08-24T18:02:02Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Yes, I think they’re _obviously and clearly_ more concerned with deficits than the Republicans. It’s possible the Rs cared before Reagan and maybe had a whisper of care after that, but, GW Bush on, it has been obvious they don’t care at all, they just want to cut taxes for the wealthy and use the deficits they blew up as an excuse to cut social programs, and then they are unable to cut social programs (people like Medicare and Social Security) and rather than reverse the tax cuts, they cut them again. I don’t even see how this is arguable. So, an economic-minded conservative-leaning voter may decide to go with the party that actually tries to control deficits rather than the one that uses them as a back door way to cut programs and funnel money to corporations and the wealthy. I certainly agree that the Republicans have not delivered as promised on deficits (though I imagine we would disagree about the reasons). Though it should be noted that the “starve the beast” allegation was about Reagan, far predating GWB. But that’s not the same as making a case that the Democrats do care about deficits. I don’t see any indication at all that this is the case. What you have is one party which talks about deficits but doesn’t do anything about it, and the other which doesn’t even bother talking about it. > [@](#): > > No, I’m saying that if a conservative-leaning scientist was a Republican, and was fine with the Republicans when they were reality-based, he may have gotten disgusted with the party as they started pushing the ridiculous claim that Climate Change is a hoax. In this case, the Party changed in that it used to have policies geared to corporations but still grounded in reality to one that pushes bullshit hoax claims. That’s the change. But “reality-based” is not an issue. That’s more of a personal characteristic thing. The battle-lines over environment vs commerce are still the same as they’ve been > [@](#): > > No, I made a second, even less complimentary claim about Republicans, based on what I understand you to be saying. That is, that they are unable to learn from actual facts, experience, and advancements in, say, science and economics. So, a reasonable Republican in the 80s or 90s is expecting them to learn from their failed trickle-down experiment and learn from advances in climate science, to continue with these examples, and decides that a Party that is stuck in some previous time is useless and dead. Every person and organization absorbs new facts and makes some sort of changes. You seem to be saying a Republican should have expected the Party to remain frozen in time and not make any adjustments based on new data. I’m not talking about what anyone “should have expected”. I’m just saying that “didn’t change” is the opposite of “changed”. Saying “I left the Republican Party because they should have changed and didn’t change” is the opposite of saying “I left the Republican Party because they changed”. I’m disputing the plausibility of the second statement, not the first. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/274 "2018-08-24T18:06:25Z")
> **[Federal Surplus or Deficit \[-\]](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD#)** > > Federal Surplus or Deficit \[-\] ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/275 "2018-08-24T18:22:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What you have is one party which talks about deficits but doesn’t do anything about it, and the other which doesn’t even bother talking about it. …but does do something about it. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/276 "2018-08-24T18:26:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There’s very little in your post about issues. But FWIW, there was never a conservative position that “the Russians were the enemy”. It was always about the Communists, who no longer rule Russia these days. And Democrats were always (at least in recent decades) more environment-friendly than Republicans. Issues? You’re going to dismiss my grievances against conservatives because you don’t consider them ISSUES? I could have linked [Duncan Hunter](https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign-charges/index.html) as an example of a hypocritical Repub who preaches fiscal responsibility and then blatantly ignores it. I made the mistake of assuming you actually read the news. Or are conservatives no longer concerned about fiscal responsibility? I could have linked the [ever climbing list of Trump’s lies, errors and misstatements,](http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/) but you would have ignored them like you continue to do. Just in case you don’t understand the ISSUE, I can’t support anybody who’s blatantly dishonest and ignorant of the law. [He couldn’t even understand the Constitution](https://www.newsweek.com/former-trump-adviser-teach-constitution-769691) when an aide attempted to explain it to him, and as president he’s supposed to defend it! Are you saying that true conservatives are supposed to overlook an incompetent president because it might erode their values? So you think that since Russia is no longer strictly Communist, we can just dismiss all their past and current atrocities? Are conservatives really naive enough to think that? You really need to quit that kind of hair-splitting to avoid the massive ISSUE, comrade. We sell you beautiful beach front property in Siberia, very cheap. Environmental concerns should go beyond party lines, which is why I considered it an important ISSUE. Overtly, the conservative reason for rolling back regulations is climate change skepticism, when it’s plainly obvious they don’t want to make less money on energy production. They’re closing their eyes to new technology that doesn’t result in polar ice caps melting. That’s not the conservative tenet of creating and exploring opportunity that the Reagan era espoused. They want to protect a dying industry purely for short-term profit with no concern about future generations. That’s not fiscally responsible. Conservatives used to be all about balancing the budget. Not any more! The heart of the matter is this quote: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Anyone whose positions on current political issues are even somewhat aligned with the mainstream left/liberal/Democrats would not have been a conservative at any time within living memory. I gave you the opinions of a former conservative and you dismissed it with hair-splitting because you obviously couldn’t stand to lose face. That does not convince me conservatives hold any worthwhile values. You have failed in representing the conservative cause. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/277 "2018-08-24T18:29:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Are you saying that the Democrats now are a party which is more concerned about deficits than Republicans? > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > If **RitterSport** isn’t saying it, I will. Yes, now, and for the last 20+ years. Hell, more like 40. Certainly since the Republicans nominated Reagan in 1980. Don’t ask me how anyone still thinks of the GOP as being the more fiscally responsible party. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/278 "2018-08-24T18:35:07Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > I could have linked [Duncan Hunter](https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign-charges/index.html) as an example of a hypocritical Repub who preaches fiscal responsibility and then blatantly ignores it. I made the mistake of assuming you actually read the news. Or are conservatives no longer concerned about fiscal responsibility? > > I could have linked the [ever climbing list of Trump’s lies, errors and misstatements,](http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/) but you would have ignored them like you continue to do. Just in case you don’t understand the ISSUE, I can’t support anybody who’s blatantly dishonest and ignorant of the law. [He couldn’t even understand the Constitution](https://www.newsweek.com/former-trump-adviser-teach-constitution-769691) when an aide attempted to explain it to him, and as president he’s supposed to defend it! Are you saying that true conservatives are supposed to overlook an incompetent president because it might erode their values? > > So you think that since Russia is no longer strictly Communist, we can just dismiss all their past and current atrocities? Are conservatives really naive enough to think that? You really need to quit that kind of hair-splitting to avoid the massive ISSUE, comrade. We sell you beautiful beach front property in Siberia, very cheap. > > Environmental concerns should go beyond party lines, which is why I considered it an important ISSUE. Overtly, the conservative reason for rolling back regulations is climate change skepticism, when it’s plainly obvious they don’t want to make less money on energy production. They’re closing their eyes to new technology that doesn’t result in polar ice caps melting. That’s not the conservative tenet of creating and exploring opportunity that the Reagan era espoused. They want to protect a dying industry purely for short-term profit with no concern about future generations. That’s not fiscally responsible. Some parts of this (hypocrisy, Trump, environment) have already been addressed in prior posts. I’m not going to keep repeating myself, sorry. (The stuff about Russia is incoherent and doesn’t require a response.) ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/279 "2018-08-24T18:37:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I certainly agree that the Republicans have not delivered as promised on deficits (though I imagine we would disagree about the reasons). Though it should be noted that the “starve the beast” allegation was about Reagan, far predating GWB. > > But that’s not the same as making a case that the Democrats do care about deficits. I don’t see any indication at all that this is the case. What you have is one party which talks about deficits but doesn’t do anything about it, and the other which doesn’t even bother talking about it. > > But “reality-based” is not an issue. That’s more of a personal characteristic thing. The battle-lines over environment vs commerce are still the same as they’ve been > > I’m not talking about what anyone “should have expected”. I’m just saying that “didn’t change” is the opposite of “changed”. Saying “I left the Republican Party because they should have changed and didn’t change” is the opposite of saying “I left the Republican Party because they changed”. I’m disputing the plausibility of the second statement, not the first. After starve the beast, Reagan and GHW Bush still raised taxes when deficits started getting too high. By GW Bush, that was long gone. GW Bush passed the new Medicare provision with no thought to costs. GW Bush started a war while lowering taxes. Obama raised taxes and passed a health care bill that would (if properly implemented) have reduced deficits over time. Clinton put caps on welfare spending, cut military spending and raised taxes. It’s not even close and if you think it is, either you’re not paying attention or your regular news sources are lying to you. It’s not that the Rs talk about deficits without doing anything about it, it’s that they talk about deficits and then blow them up. Reality-based is not a personal characteristic. Facts are different than opinions. The battle lines between commerce and the environment are not the same as they’ve always been – Nixon created the EPA, right? The Republicans _have_ changed – they were a reasonable, if conservative, party that made decisions based on reality. They changed for sure by GW Bush, when they first started talking about making their own reality. When new information comes in, any reasonable person expects an organization to react and adapt. It’s a change when a party goes from reasonable and reality-based to unchanging and dogmatic. You and I are apparently not going to agree on this. I think my point is pretty obvious, but I don’t like going around and around, so I’m not sure I’ll be back. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899/280 "2018-08-24T18:45:34Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > After starve the beast, Reagan and GHW Bush still raised taxes when deficits started getting too high. By GW Bush, that was long gone. GW Bush passed the new Medicare provision with no thought to costs. GW Bush started a war while lowering taxes. Obama raised taxes and passed a health care bill that would (if properly implemented) have reduced deficits over time. Clinton put caps on welfare spending, cut military spending and raised taxes. It’s not even close and if you think it is, either you’re not paying attention or your regular news sources are lying to you. It’s not that the Rs talk about deficits without doing anything about it, it’s that they talk about deficits and then blow them up. You can look at the graph helpfully linked by JohnT above, and see that what you say is incorrect. The deficit skyrocketed under Obama. This was primarily due to the economy, to be sure, but then Clinton benefited from a strong economy (& from Republican control of congress during most of his tenure) - you can’t play that issue both ways. Reagan raised taxes enough to partially offset his earlier tax cut, but net-net he cut taxes. Bush raised taxes, but this was widely seen as a betrayal by a faux-conservative. In general, the main driver of the deficit seems to be the economic cycle. > [@](#): > > You and I are apparently not going to agree on this. I think my point is pretty obvious, but I don’t like going around and around, so I’m not sure I’ll be back. OK, np. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goodbye-straight-dope/819899.md?page=15)