:rolleyes: I come from a GOP stronghold, and unions are commonly insulted around here. You’re not fooling me.
Y’know, I started this thread to find out what you think you’re voting for, and what you think the GOP (or the Movement Conservatives) will do.
If you vote GOP, why? What do you get out of it?
If you vote Movement Conservative, why? What do you get out of it?
I always thought they liked to drive their enemies before them and hear der lamentations of der vimmen.
Evasion again. Or perhaps you made a definitive statement there relevant to the discussion.
If I’m mistaken please elaborate.
The approaches available are we agree or don’t agree with the GOP platform, disagreement is assumed to be ‘the worst light possible’? How dare we ask people with a position to defend it in Great Debates.
It’s not a negotiating tactic when you try to get your followers to agree that ending the debt ceiling would force congress to balance the budget. It’s not a negotiating tactic when you force the government to have to jury rig the system in order to not default. (I believe it happened twice) It’s not a negotiating tactic when you wind up causing a credit downgrade. It’s not a negotiating tactic when people like Bachman have signed an agreement to never raise the debt ceiling.
It is the belief of at least a significant portion of the party that the debt ceiling should not be raised.
The math simply works out that they would’ve stopped government services - I’m not sure if they consider suddenly stopping paying out social security checks as “essential” but then if not, that says a lot about them, doesn’t it?
The debt crisis was essentially the republican party strapping a bomb to their chest and saying “we’re going to blow this motherfucker up if you don’t give us exactly what we want!”
This isn’t a tortured analogy - it’s barely an analogy. They really threatened to do more damage to the country than any bomb ever could, and it was an entirely elective thing to do. There was no actual crisis being faced, they just created one out of thin air.
Just because they caved in doesn’t take them off the hook - it basically took the country giving in under threat of destruction. And even then, they did quite a bit of damage to our country. Our 200 year history of perfect debt record is one of the most powerful tools this country has to conduct its affairs, and even though we did not default, they tarnished that record. We will have to pay more for debt, and people are going to move away from the US as a world reserve country if they see us as unstable because at any time the republicans can act like terrorists and threaten to blow up our financial system.
Heh. Yeah, the downgrade dealt a crushing blow to perceptions of US stability, causing yields on 10 year notes to drop from 2.56 to 2.32%. Short term yields dropped as well. There are widespread concerns about the budget battles in the US but I don’t think anyone is terribly concerned about the ability of the federal government to finance its long term debt. But this is turning into yet another derail.
I find this thread pretty hilarious. It started with someone asking about the GOP platform. Now this is a pretty reasonable question on the face of it: the GOP has a wide spectrum of adherents ranging from evangelicals to hard core libertarians to people to make a lot of money that don’t like paying more taxes and don’t give a crap about social issues. They all have divergent views on social and economic issues, but the whole point of a platform is to provide a clearly defined common point of reference to unite behind.
If by platform you mean some nebulous conception of what they really want despite their stated aims, this question becomes pointless fast. Republicans already freely admit that they have various factions with opposing interests and they often want different things. Ron Paul is a libertarian and has some fairly radical ideas that are anathema to a large portion of his party, but he’s still a member of the GOP!
It seems the OP has restated the question. Just realize that every member of the GOP is going to give you a different answer. I won’t answer for myself but I’ll give the perspective of two people that I know, Alice and Bob (not their real names). Bob is a partner in a company he helped found. He’s easily in the top 1% of income with a net worth well over a million dollars. He supports gay marriage and abortion and is minimally religious. His list of concerns when it comes to government goes something like this:
From what I can tell he believes that a GOP led government would accomplish what he wants on points 1-5. He isn’t terribly concerned about the social issues because not only doesn’t he care all that much, he doesn’t think the hard right will be able to institute much of their agenda because the ground level support isn’t there. At worst such issues might devolve to the states, in which case tough on you for living in Kentucky.
Alice is his assistant and while she started making 10/hour after being with the company for years she makes more than double that with benefits. She has a high school education and is plenty smart. She’s fairly religious and opposes abortion and gay marriage on religious grounds. She doesn’t like paying taxes much but is more concerned about social security and Medicare being there when she retires. She also believes strongly in national defense and has family in the military. The only people she knows that would be affected by a tax on the highest tax bracket is her direct superior and his partners, who pay her salary. I suspect she thinks people who want to raise taxes on the rich are greedy moochers, in general. She feels strongly about her religion. I’m not sure how likely she thinks it actually is that abortion will be outlawed for example, but I suspect she’d have a hard time voting for someone who’s pro choice. The real key is, the people in this thread that describe her as duped by the media, supporting evil, stupid, etc. are all classified (correctly, as near as I can tell) as people who don’t respect her or her religion. Many Democrats fall under the same rubric. But religion is incredibly important to her. Why the hell would she ever vote for anyone but the GOP? You probably have a much better shot with Bob.
He’s not a libertarian, though. Paul is obviously very liberal economically, but is an extreme social conservative. He really only differs from the rank-and-file GOP on foreign policy.
No, that’s the Constitution Party.
Uh, I would take issue with that statement. In spades
Paul is something of a nutter, but he’s also very smart. He’s sort of half-crazy, half-cunning. But his politics aren’t even really relevant. What is relevant is that he’s honest. People feel he’ll actually say what he means and do what he says. Thats’ where his support comes from.
Politically, he’s all over the map. I’m not sure if he evn can be labelled.
Which part?
Here’s a list of things I think Ron Paul supports that the rank-and-file GOP, if there is such a thing, does not:
Was against military involvement in Iraq
Against military intervention in Iran
Wants to end the Cuban embargo
Opposed creation of DHS
Wants to eliminate the IRS
Wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve
Wants to eliminate Medicare
Supports internet gambling
Supports gambling in general actually
Supports legalized prostitution
Opposes drug prohibition
Opposes the death penalty
Supports jury nullification
Opposed the PATRIOT act
His views on gay rights are complicated but was against DADT, and opposed Lawrence
There are also many issues (almost all, actually), abortion among them, he would allow the states to decide, though he is pro-life. Now we can quibble about the exact nature of his positions and the definition of libertarian but the one’s I’ve listed here are enough to distinguish him from his Republican peers, and by a pretty good margin I think. Are you claiming his positions on gambling, drugs, prostitution, and gay rights are typical of extreme social conservatives?
Conservatives do not believe in regulation, without regulation there are few free markets because monopoly and oligopoly understand that the best way to make money is by diminishing competition and distorting markets. Enron was able to appear fantastic on paper and distort markets because they were not well policed. Lenders were able to pass on the risk of risky lending because they were not well regulated. Perfect markets are not very profitable, they are only good for consumers which is why no one in business cares one bit about getting anywhere close to them in actual practice.
Competition only brings prosperity for the human race if it actually exists. Unless you mean competing for who can bribe officials the most, because money is speech or something. Or who can win the competition for misleading consumers, as advertisers and financial brokers do. This is the only competition conservative candidates support. Some people that don’t get it are just too simple, others are just advantaged and support their own cause. That’s logical but has no integrity as an arguably legitimate policy well. There is no rationality to mainstream conservatism, it’s just circular nonsense.
Oh ya, Democrats are financial conservatives, they prefer to include government actors in the financial hierarchies more than Republicans do, but not by much, and thats what’s called a distinction without a difference.
Clinton: NAFTA, war.
Bush: Tax cuts, gutting any agencies designed to protect anyone from anything not on Jihad, war war war.
Obama: Bank bailouts, Appointing all financial officers from the architects of the collapse, war war war.
He doesn’t support legalized prostitution, gay rights, gambling, or drugs. He supports the right of states to legalize those things if they want to. That’s the same as his position on abortion.
That’s why I say he’s not a libertarian. States’ rights arguments have nothing at all to do with libertarianism; libertarians don’t want any government infringing on civil liberties, while Paul just doesn’t want the federal government doing it.
Paul wouldn’t give a shit if the states banned those things, and would probably be quite upset if Texas legalized them. All he cares about is keeping the feds from doing it. As far as I can tell, he’s only against the death penalty for federal crimes, too.
I forgot about shutting down the Fed and the IRS; I’ll give you those. Ending the fed and jury nullification are popular ideas on the right, although admittedly probably not among rank-and-file conservatives.
So I’ll agree that my statement that he only differs from the rank and file on foreign policy is incorrect. I stand by my statement that he’s not a libertarian, though.
You don’t think there can be a libertarian that’s a federalist, or a libertarian who wants to follow the constitution? All libertarians must think that all laws must come down from the federal government and apply everywhere at once?
That’s a pretty radical and clearly wrong position.
Do you have a cite for the idea that he’d be against particular states legalizing prostitution and drug use?
Paul clearly takes his oath seriously, as a legislator bound to serve and be limited by the constitution. He’s proven that over and over again. So it wouldn’t make sense for him to push for some sort of national legalize prostitution law which would clearly be outside of those bounds. You would expect a libertarian that abides the constitution to hold the stances he does.
Of course there can. I’m saying a libertarian wouldn’t want the feds or states infringing on civil liberties. The point, for an actual libertarian, would be for civil liberties to be protected. The point for Paul is for civil liberties to be protected against the feds.
But if you’re a federal legislator, what the states decide to do is out of your control. Again, you’re just describing federalism.
You have to understand that when you see a vote for 433-1 in the house or whatever, Paul is usually that 1, acknowledging that whatever law they’re trying to pass is constitutional. He’s the only guy in the legislature that considers that important anymore.
So if you ask him questions about what he’d do as a federal legislator, of course he’s going to give you an answer that’s mindful of the divided powers of federalism. If he’s pro-drugs, he’ll want to end the federal war on drugs, but he won’t advocate passing some sort of national law that repeals all state drug laws, because that’s not within his scope of power within the constitution.
You’re essentially demanding he take stances that violate his position on the constitution, and then saying that he must not really want freedom.
Do you have evidence that he thinks that states should keep drugs, prostitution, etc. illegal?
Bollocks. He’s just the only one that thinks everything the federal government does has to be expressly authorized by the Constitution. That’s hardly the same thing- and even Jefferson didn’t think that. Based on Paul’s logic, we can’t have an air force because the Constitution only provides for an army and navy.
Regardless of the scope of his power, his standard answer for questions on social issues is that they should be handled at the state level. There’s nothing stopping him from saying, “and I hope that the states legalize X”. He doesn’t say that, though, because he doesn’t give a shit about legalizing X.
He’s written a half-dozen books, so it’s not as though all we know about him is what he says on the campaign trail.
No, I’m really not. In fact, I’m not saying anything remotely close to that. 
shrug I’m extrapolating from his other social views. I suppose he might see drugs and prostitution as more of a freedom of contract issue.
The whole point of the constitution is that it’s a limitation on federal power by expressly authorizing it to a limited set of powers. So yes.
If we were actually concerned about following the constitution, an amendment could’ve been made to create an air force, or it could’ve just stayed the army air corps.
From here:
So he thinks that drugs should be decriminalized, but as a federal legislator, he can only decriminalize it at the federal level, so that’s what he would advocate doing.
You apparently see this as “he secretly wants to keep drugs illegal because he’s unwilling to make a federal law undermining all state drug laws that would be flagrantly in violation of the constitution”
You’re saying that if he’s unwilling to vote for a federal law that overrules states on the various issues, then he must really be against legalizing those issues.