Of course.
The other side is worse.
On a majority of issues across the board, I tend to side with Republicans’ stated goals over Democrats’ stated goals. I can list them, but I see the result then slding into a half-dozen mini-debates on whether Republicans are serious about their opposition to abortion, how much Democrats have back-burnered their attempts to narrow gun rights, and the like.
Don’t read this as, “So, therefore, the Republicans are perfect for me!”
“Anyone,” suggests a small number of the electorate. “Why are all these people still voting for the GOP?” would convey a sense closer to the actual situation at hand.
I disagree. “Anyone” is simply inclusive of all those who vote for Republicans. It makes no judgement about the size of that group.
On the contrary – the term is so generic as to suggest just the opposite.
That’s fine. It’s certainly possible I was mistaken about what inference most readers would draw. The benefit of my commenting on it remains: removing it from the area of inference and into the realm of explicitly stated, where there is no ambiguity.
The tea party candidates ran against Boehner backed Repubs and whipped them . That has to put the Repubs in drawing rooms trying to find ways to control the tea baggers. The teasers are not likely to go along with the Boehners in voting if they actually get elected. The Repubs love to have absolute control over their pols. This could be interesting.
This is a repudiation of the Repubs, not the Dems. Big fun coming up in November.
Of course it is.
And when the House changes hands, that will be an even bigger repudiation of the Republicans. Why, if the GOP gains control of the Senate too, they’ll be positively marginalized!
Thank goodness the Republicans can’t get the White House, too. If they won all three, it would just show how completely despised they were.
Do you approve? Will you cheer the ascendancy of reasonable, rational Republicans like Palin, O’Donnel and Paladino over the insanely radical Obama? You’re being a bit coy, here, Bricker, so perhaps if we cut to the chase? Are you pleased with the direction the Republican Party is moving in? What positive benefits do you see in all of this?
“Militia weapons” are not necessarily assault rifles.
As for the supposed sanctity of the Second Amendment: People talk about original intent, but we can surmise that given enough familiarity with rifling & auto-fire, the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing–from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.
What does this have to with the threads’s point? Not much.
But: Rural pols of either party tend to be more pro-gun, urban pols of either party more pro-gun-control. Stray bullets are scarier in densely populated areas. Being unarmed is scarier when the cops are twenty+ miles away. Rural voters voting against Dems because Dems are supposedly anti-gun tend to reinforce the appearance that Dems are anti-gun; a vicious cycle.
Well, that was a dig at “original intent” justifications for things that aren’t the “original intent.” In any case, our gun laws should be based on present needs, not appeals to the authority of a text written in the age of muskets. That may mean licensed private gun ownership for manuals & semi-autos, with full autos banned. And that’s a position we have now & can be accepted by both parties.
That’s the lamest thing I’ve heard this year. You can’t presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I’d do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.
But none of this erases the fact that every major piece of gun control legislation in the last 40 years (both federally and at the stat/local level) has been introduced and pushed by Democrats.
Rather, there are insufficient good reasons to vote for a party that does the following:
The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it’s mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.
Related to this, the GOP refuses to do math with real numbers. Reaganomics is based on a complete failure to perceive relative size of effects.
The GOP are committed now to an economic program which has been demonstrated not to be the rising tide that lifts all boats, proving Reagan factually wrong. I have become convinced by Krugman’s arguments that we really were better off under the New Deal, & the present crop of GOP primarily know the defective if not revisionist history they were taught by “conservatives” & will make bad decisions because of that.
The GOP is apparently incapable of perceiving merit & selecting candidates for public office based on it. W Bush was nominated because he had money & a familiar name. Even though he was acknowledged as neither experienced or bright. Frankly, this is a problem for both parties. But then the GOP compounded this error by deferring to this unimpressive hack for eight years.
Once they have a “leader”–President if possible, but otherwise a Speaker of the House, say–the mainstream GOP will follow their dear leader wherever he takes them, even if it’s the opposite of their previous stated opinions. Look at how Taki Theodoracopulos’s bunch were marginalized for opposing the Iraq War; no GOP officeholders dared to stand up & say, “We were opposed to nation-building under Clinton. & we also are opposed to it under Bush.”
My objections to the GOP are mainly economic, but politics is mainly economic. If the GOP were as open to New-Dealism & tax rises as the Democrats are to social conservatism, it would be another matter. But even in that hypothetical case, Congress doesn’t really spend most of its time (or, necessarily, any of its time) on the claptrap that are called “social issues” today. Voting for a Congressman on the basis of his pretended personal opinion of homosexuality is akin to picking your accountant on the basis of what he says about your daughter’s taste in manga–mostly beside the point. Further, any construction of “social issues” that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.
The number of people voting against their own interests does not in this case increase the apparent sensibleness of their decision. They’re following a memory of a GOP that was not fully discredited, not judging the party on its record in the last decade.
Well, it’s meant to convey that not even a small number* should be.* All the more tragic that a large number will.
So it’s your contention that the entire culture changed its views on guns based on non-environmental factors? That gun control advocacy has nothing to do with changing circumstances, but is due to an insufficient continuity with the divine founders?
Yet Howard Dean has a very high approval rating from the NRA, & Rudy Giuliani does not. Are the Democrats to be blamed for winning urban & therefore more pro-gun-control voters?
Further, the Democrats (a diverse bunch on gun policy in any case) were running teh House of Representatives for 28 of the last 40 years, & the GOP in the period where they had power were already defined as a rural pro-gun party to an extent–though they were *more committed *in fact to being the party of tax cuts.
Further, the Democrats (a diverse bunch on gun policy in any case) were running the House of Representatives for 28 of the last 40 years, & the GOP in the period where they had power were already defined as a rural pro-gun party to an extent.
…though they were *more committed *in fact to being the party of tax cuts at all costs. Don’t choose insolvency in the name of gun rights. There are rural pro-gun Dems who would love your vote & can balance the budget.
I don’t care what the NRA says. Dean supports both the assault weapons ban the Brady Bill, both Democrat pushed legislations.
Rudy Giuliani is the “country club” Republican (not a RINO, but on that side of the political spectrum) that the party needs to weed out.
Far more Dems than Pubs support gun control legislation, negating the statement that they don’t have a problem with the Second Amendment. By their collective actions clearly they do.
None of the events of late are an unqualified good.
But I think I would rather have a GOP-led House, tempered in its desire for great excesses by the minority Democrats, than a Democrat-led House tempered by Republicans.
Should our press laws be based on the Internet and not the hand-cranked presses?
It’s all very well to say the Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press when the press is limited to what paper t can crank out. But when I can tweet something to 50,000 followers instantly, there’s no reason to appeal to the authority of the ancient minds who thought “press,” meant pressing ink on paper.
And far more Pubs than Dems supported the abolition of the militias that the Second Amendment clearly states are essential. The Republicans might lay a claim to being the party of the Second Half of the Second Amendment, but the Democrats have a pretty solid hold on the First Half.
There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.
And that is why I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.
-Joe
Interestingly, the author of the phrase seems to be agreeing with me: