Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A Day In The Life

A Day In The Life
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 10:07 AM
 
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE CONSERVATIVE
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." - Anonymous

Discuss.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 01:22 PM
 
A touch one-sided, no?

In terms of the programs listed, it would be interesting to analyze the difference between what was proposed, meaning raw, unfettered liberalism, and what we have, which is the compromise the two sides reached.

Likewise, what would be the situation be if through all that time, the economy was run on liberal principles?

My guess is Joe would be, for all intents and purposes, a serf.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 01:45 PM
 
It seems to me that in US Politics, the labels of liberal and conservative are basically irrelevant, and all that really matters anymore is Democrat and Republican. With the full and obvious disclosure that I think Hillary would have been a much better President than Trump, both were, at best, compromises for the conceptual ideals of their parties. I'm not going to rehash the election, but most 'true' conservatives would not have picked Trump as their best option, and most 'true' liberals should certainly have problems with a lot of Hillary's positions and history.

I'm sure most thoughtful conservatives think Trump is an embarrassment, but he still has the support of 85% of self-identified republicans, and no matter what he gets up to, that doesn't seem likely to change. I imagine had Hillary won, the results would be much the same, in reverse.

The reason for this, as best I can tell, is that it has gotten so tribal. Rs are going to stick with Rs no matter what, and Ds and going to stick with Ds no matter what. When you have Rand F'ing Paul saying that Republicans should not investigate other Republicans, because they are Republicans, things have gotten out of hand.

Which leads to the sad, downward spiral of governance in the US because compromise has become all but impossible. I'm sure War's story could have just as easily been written about a patchouli stinking hippy's better life via capitalism, but the story does effectively illustrate a bigger problem. No Republican can ever publicly agree with any Democrat on anything anymore, and the reverse is just as true. All wisdom and good cannot possibly lie in one political party, but we seem to be willing to fight to our mutual deaths to prove that it might.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
My pet theory as to our current state of affairs is we had 9/11 precipitating a war which was incredibly polarizing, and then right at the same time, the internet exploded. The internet naturally creates echo chambers.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 02:17 PM
 
Also note the model which preceded the internet explosion, national television, is very poorly suited to echo chambers. It needs to appeal to everyone.

That was the model from before I was born, so it feels like that's the way it should be, but it wasn't always that way, and it seems like it's over now. As awful as television is, I think it was responsible for a golden age of journalism, which had many positive effects on the way society developed during that period.

If there's any hope I guess, it's that we survived and grew during the time before the golden age. There are still remnants of it around. For example, local newspapers which have the word "Democrat" in the name were at one time intentionally identifying themselves as an echo chamber.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A touch one-sided, no?

In terms of the programs listed, it would be interesting to analyze the difference between what was proposed, meaning raw, unfettered liberalism, and what we have, which is the compromise the two sides reached.

Likewise, what would be the situation be if through all that time, the economy was run on liberal principles?

My guess is Joe would be, for all intents and purposes, a serf.
It is completely one-sided and that is the point of it I suppose but if the argument is "liberals gave you all this stuff" and your best retort is "we stopped you maxing out the credit credit cards by giving us even more", doesn't that say a lot too?

There is certainly value in restraint when it prevents disastrous mistakes, but can anyone write a realistic conservative alternative version of this about what conservatives have given everyone, instead of just acting as a check on liberal progress? Because you can't say for sure that even more liberal might have been even better.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 03:37 PM
 
Jeez-o Pete...

How's about the fall of the Soviet Union?

You're welcome.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It seems to me that in US Politics, the labels of liberal and conservative are basically irrelevant, and all that really matters anymore is Democrat and Republican. With the full and obvious disclosure that I think Hillary would have been a much better President than Trump, both were, at best, compromises for the conceptual ideals of their parties. I'm not going to rehash the election, but most 'true' conservatives would not have picked Trump as their best option, and most 'true' liberals should certainly have problems with a lot of Hillary's positions and history.

I'm sure most thoughtful conservatives think Trump is an embarrassment, but he still has the support of 85% of self-identified republicans, and no matter what he gets up to, that doesn't seem likely to change. I imagine had Hillary won, the results would be much the same, in reverse.

The reason for this, as best I can tell, is that it has gotten so tribal. Rs are going to stick with Rs no matter what, and Ds and going to stick with Ds no matter what. When you have Rand F'ing Paul saying that Republicans should not investigate other Republicans, because they are Republicans, things have gotten out of hand.

Which leads to the sad, downward spiral of governance in the US because compromise has become all but impossible. I'm sure War's story could have just as easily been written about a patchouli stinking hippy's better life via capitalism, but the story does effectively illustrate a bigger problem. No Republican can ever publicly agree with any Democrat on anything anymore, and the reverse is just as true. All wisdom and good cannot possibly lie in one political party, but we seem to be willing to fight to our mutual deaths to prove that it might.

Heres the problem I have with this. I've said it before and I get broadly mocked by those who disagree but they never have anything specific or credible to dispute me with.
I have highlighted a key line. This line like many comments and attitudes encapsulates the biggest problem of all. "They are all as bad as each other". Its totally believable because it sounds so reasonable. And in fact in other countries, it is totally, 100% accurate. Not in the US. I will just note that I don't think either conservatives or Republicans can claim ownership of capitalism, so I refer you to my last post and ask again whether a Republican version can written because racism, misogyny and elitist profiteering are not really conservative views, they just seem to correlate somehow. Conservatism to me is small government, fiscal conservatism, lack of regulation, welfare, corporate bailouts etc. Modern Republicanism is really more like libertarianism combined with Christian extremism and shameless profiteering if we're being honest.

Back to the point. I'm not saying everything the Democrats do is great. I'm not saying they don't break rules for personal gain just like Republicans do. I personally think Republicans are more likely to do it, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.
The thing is when you hear about the kinds of lobbying that make you angry, its usually Republicans. When you hear about gerrymandering, or laws to impede certain demographics of voters from voting, its almost always Republicans. If someone is screwing the environment for profit? Reps. War for profit? Reps. Civil liberties being trampled? Reps. Stacking courts in their favour? Reps. Courts ruling based on partisan politics instead of the law? Reps. When those courts vote against partisan politics in favour of the letter of the law? Dems. Victimising immigrants or minorities? Reps. In individual terms, most of the sex scandals, and incidents of corruption and gross negligence seem to be Reps as well.

I'm struggling to think of a Democratic policy that is inherently mean, or bad. Perhaps someone can help me out?

Its not that Dems don't implement policies that fail horribly, or that they don't screw things up, but when they do it usually comes from something well meaning or its a bad individual. The above list is all stuff that comes from greed, hate, intolerance and selfishness as a belief system. Any notion of the greater public good or "making America great" is at best a low priority, but more likely nothing more than a bullshit slogan.
So tell me again they are as bad as each other.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A touch one-sided, no?

In terms of the programs listed, it would be interesting to analyze the difference between what was proposed, meaning raw, unfettered liberalism, and what we have, which is the compromise the two sides reached.

Likewise, what would be the situation be if through all that time, the economy was run on liberal principles?

My guess is Joe would be, for all intents and purposes, a serf.
It's actually a very good insight into how he thinks, as narrow as it may be. It's not nearly as ironic as the far-Left types who love Apple products, though.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I'm sure most thoughtful conservatives think Trump is an embarrassment, but he still has the support of 85% of self-identified republicans, and no matter what he gets up to, that doesn't seem likely to change. I imagine had Hillary won, the results would be much the same, in reverse.

The reason for this, as best I can tell, is that it has gotten so tribal. Rs are going to stick with Rs no matter what, and Ds and going to stick with Ds no matter what. When you have Rand F'ing Paul saying that Republicans should not investigate other Republicans, because they are Republicans, things have gotten out of hand.
There's no basis for this at all, in 2008 and 2012 there were no marches or demonstrations against Obama, let alone riots.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Jeez-o Pete...

How's about the fall of the Soviet Union?

You're welcome.
Are you attributing that to the actions of a conservative US government or their own "liberal" government principles?
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Feb 26, 2017 at 08:58 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 09:21 PM
 
The former.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2017, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There's no basis for this at all, in 2008 and 2012 there were no marches or demonstrations against Obama, let alone riots.
And you wonder why.



OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 11:51 AM
 
Distorting the facts, I see. The first was on private property and involved half a dozen people, and the second was in reaction to Obamacare, not due to him being elected.

And you wonder why?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 12:05 PM
 
The question is why do you think the protests against Trump's election were so out of order? The man was obviously unqualified, clearly temperamentally unfit to be POTUS, and let's not forget he lost the popular vote by 3 million. The latter being the the primary reason people were in the streets. The average voter doesn't give two sh*ts about the Electoral College. It's an archaic mechanism that remains in the US Constitution and it unquestionably thwarted the will of the people in this situation. So people have every right to be demonstrating and marching against Trump. Especially seeing how he's trying to govern as if he has some kind of "mandate" when he clearly does not.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 12:29 PM
 
So, when people were blaming the Tea Party for being a Koch brothers joint, was the idea the Kochs were paying individual protesters, or supporting the organizations which made the protest happen?

Presumably, all a Tea Party protester would have needed to say to put everything to bed was "I didn't get a check".

I mean, that's the defense against Soros involvement with these current protests, right?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, when people were blaming the Tea Party for being a Koch brothers joint, was the idea the Kochs were paying individual protesters, or supporting the organizations which made the protest happen?

Presumably, all a Tea Party protester would have needed to say to put everything to bed was "I didn't get a check".

I mean, that's the defense against Soros involvement with these current protests, right?
I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying you believe the anti-Trump protesters are being paid by George Soros? Have you seen any credible evidence of this?

I'm not making a blanket statement that it hasn't happened due to the very challenging concept of proving a negative- I've just not seen any thing outside of InfoWars level sources saying this is a reality.

Are you buying it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 12:54 PM
 
Is "being paid by Soros" defined the same way "being paid by the Kochs" is for the Tea Party?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm making the assumption Soros makes donations to organizations which align with him, and some of said organizations were involved in planning the protests.

Is there a difference between what's happening here and what happened with the Tea Party?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 02:07 PM
 
And to perhaps clarify my position and point somewhat, I don't consider the current protests to be an astroturf movement bankrolled by Soros any more than I consider the Tea Party an astroturf movement bankrolled by the Kochs.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The question is why do you think the protests against Trump's election were so out of order?
Because violence in the face of political opposition is never the answer.

The man was obviously unqualified, clearly temperamentally unfit to be POTUS,
His statements are designed to provoke, while his actions are intended to unify the conservative base. He's Sun Tzu, with freaky hair and a spray-on tan. You don't like it, I understand why (it's extremely Machiavellian), but he's effectively destroying the sanity of the Left.

and let's not forget he lost the popular vote by 3 million.
He wasn't campaigning to win the pop vote, it's entirely unimportant. If it was, he would have spent a lot more time in Texas and the South and won by a much higher % there, shoring up larger numbers in states with terrible turnout this year. The real question is why did Hillary abandon Wisconsin and the rest of the midwest at such a crucial time, deciding to spend so many days in the pac-west where she had Cali sewn up? It was an incredible blunder.

The latter being the the primary reason people were in the streets.
They were in the streets because their political machine let them down and the MSM and their leaders whipped them into blaming Trump, rather than the real cause of their crushing defeat.
The average voter doesn't give two sh*ts about the Electoral College.
You have no evidence of that. The Bush-Gore election did a good job of educating the electorate on how such things can happen.

Especially seeing how he's trying to govern as if he has some kind of "mandate" when he clearly does not.
Neither did Obama, winning by plurality (a "mandate" suggests a majority), yet he pushed the ACA by any means possible, something that is coming back to haunt him as his legacy is crumbling around his ears.


PS. BTW, way to go, sidestepping how you distorted the truth above.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And to perhaps clarify my position and point somewhat, I don't consider the current protests to be an astroturf movement bankrolled by Soros any more than I consider the Tea Party an astroturf movement bankrolled by the Kochs.
Got it. I couldn't agree more.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 08:49 PM
 
Soros and the Kochs. Its all Skynet.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2017, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post

They were in the streets because their political machine let them down and the MSM and their leaders whipped them into blaming Trump, rather than the real cause of their crushing defeat.
They aren't blaming him for anything. He is simply that objectionable as their leader and representative. They just object to him.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2017, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It seems to me that in US Politics, the labels of liberal and conservative are basically irrelevant, and all that really matters anymore is Democrat and Republican. With the full and obvious disclosure that I think Hillary would have been a much better President than Trump, both were, at best, compromises for the conceptual ideals of their parties. I'm not going to rehash the election, but most 'true' conservatives would not have picked Trump as their best option, and most 'true' liberals should certainly have problems with a lot of Hillary's positions and history.

I'm sure most thoughtful conservatives think Trump is an embarrassment, but he still has the support of 85% of self-identified republicans, and no matter what he gets up to, that doesn't seem likely to change. I imagine had Hillary won, the results would be much the same, in reverse.

The reason for this, as best I can tell, is that it has gotten so tribal. Rs are going to stick with Rs no matter what, and Ds and going to stick with Ds no matter what. When you have Rand F'ing Paul saying that Republicans should not investigate other Republicans, because they are Republicans, things have gotten out of hand.

Which leads to the sad, downward spiral of governance in the US because compromise has become all but impossible. I'm sure War's story could have just as easily been written about a patchouli stinking hippy's better life via capitalism, but the story does effectively illustrate a bigger problem. No Republican can ever publicly agree with any Democrat on anything anymore, and the reverse is just as true. All wisdom and good cannot possibly lie in one political party, but we seem to be willing to fight to our mutual deaths to prove that it might.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2017, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
"They are all as bad as each other". Its totally believable because it sounds so reasonable. And in fact in other countries, it is totally, 100% accurate. Not in the US.
You don't live here in the US, do you? (honest question; your byline says UK). Do you spend any time here?

How is someone on the outside supposed to have a more genuine knowledge of how one party is more corrupt than the other (more insight than other posters, or more insight than US voters who have not been kind to Democrats lately)? Your post is full (FULL) of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes. Can you give any specifics or cite any references, that the corruption gap in the US is so much different from all the other countries?

For me, personally, I align with the Democrat agenda on issues far more often than the other way, but I still perceive that individual actors in the political system are just as likely to be corrupt a-holes on both sides. Pretending it is otherwise does nobody any good. Democrats won't make up lost ground by using the strategy of relying on voters to be won over by an inherent "goodness" that is pure fantasy. They have to work for their supper just like the others.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2017, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They aren't blaming him for anything. He is simply that objectionable as their leader and representative. They just object to him.
Thanks for admitting the panic is based on irrationality.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2017, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Thanks for admitting the panic is based on irrationality.
Irrational is electing the only person who lies more than politicians because you're sick of politicians lying.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2017, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You don't live here in the US, do you? (honest question; your byline says UK). Do you spend any time here?
I do not. But I spend a lot of time online and I have acquaintances from all over the political spectrum. I read a fair amount of US centric news, but I read mostly the facts and try to ignore the opinions.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How is someone on the outside supposed to have a more genuine knowledge of how one party is more corrupt than the other (more insight than other posters, or more insight than US voters who have not been kind to Democrats lately)? Your post is full (FULL) of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes. Can you give any specifics or cite any references, that the corruption gap in the US is so much different from all the other countries?
I never said my knowledge was more genuine, but sometimes its hard to see certain things when you're too close to them. Thats certainly the case when you're indoctrinated into one side or the other of a partisan system. Whether you like to admit it or not. For the record, I got the OP from elsewhere, I didn't write it. In that light, perhaps it would be more efficient to refute the individual generalisations or stereotypes, though some of them I suspect very much apply.
The corruption gap is a tricky one. I don't think anyone is in a position to go around counting news stories and keeping a tally especially when you'd have to cut out unreliable sources which other people would disagree with etc etc. Much of the corrupt things the GOP do doesn't even get reported as being corruption, just political business but when you take campaign donations from oil companies and then vote against environmental protections, its corruption plain and simple. And you don't ever tend to hear about Dems doing this. Nor do you hear they took campaign donations from the fashion industry to push through marriage equality.
Its a difficult thing to prove and as Bill Maher would say, "I don't know it for a fact, I just know its true." So far you're the only one questioning it which I think says something too. There is a baseline established long ago where we expect the GOP to screw the environment, consumers and whoever and whatever else for a fast buck and another term. Thats why it appalls me more than it does you. You probably barely notice any more. And while I applaud you for calling me out for being less than scientifically rigorous, I suspect you know I'm right too.

Its certainly not all the other countries by the way. I'm quite certain it happens here and in France and Germany and everywhere else too, but in the US its built into the system. People can see it happening quite transparently and yet voters don't seem to adequately punish it. Here it happens behind closed doors and if you get caught you get some kind of consequences. You can lose your position or even end up in prison.
Politicians always look after themselves so the consequences are rarely as bad as they should be, but one of the biggest scandals in most recent times was members f Blair's government selling titles and peerages for cash. So like I say, over here the corruption is on both sides.
You should watch a few episodes of "The New Statesman" starring Rik Mayall. An old British comedy set during Thatcher's time and mocking the stereotype of the our Conservative party. Its very funny but disturbingly its probably quite accurate.

In part its down to why people are elected in the first place. If you were voted in because you are pro-environment, then taking money and voting in favour of heavy polluters isn't in your interest at all, but this just adds to my assertion that one party really is much better than the other.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
For me, personally, I align with the Democrat agenda on issues far more often than the other way, but I still perceive that individual actors in the political system are just as likely to be corrupt a-holes on both sides. Pretending it is otherwise does nobody any good. Democrats won't make up lost ground by using the strategy of relying on voters to be won over by an inherent "goodness" that is pure fantasy. They have to work for their supper just like the others.
I'm not suggesting for a second that the Dems should run a campaign saying they are good and the GOP are evil (as fun as that might be), It would never work. It just surprises me that more Americans, even those who strongly favour the democrats don't see it that way. Like I say, writing them off as being as bad as each other sounds like reasonable, neutral cynicism on the face of it. I suspect its one of the Republicans best tactical moves of all time.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2017, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Irrational is electing the only person who lies more than politicians because you're sick of politicians lying.
Yet he doesn't lie as much as the media who is intent on taking him down, which is one of the reasons they're failing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2017, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yet he doesn't lie as much as the media who is intent on taking him down, which is one of the reasons they're failing.
Ok dude.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yet he doesn't lie as much as the media who is intent on taking him down, which is one of the reasons they're failing.
That sounds a lot like one of his lies. Get help.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Ok dude.
You think the Leftist media hasn't crippled itself spreading bullshit about Trump?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 11:32 AM
 
I'd like to point out that since I asked for examples of decent things a GOP government has done, the only offering is that they caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Which strikes me as something of a stretch.

The absence of other examples heavily supports the point of my original post and my assertion that one party is head and shoulders better than the other doesn't it?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 11:53 AM
 
The GOP ended slavery.

They also:
pushed through women's right to vote (19th amendment)
passed the 1960 Civil Rights Act (which was filibustered by 18 Dems)
desegregated public schools
constructed the Hoover dam, Panama canal, and interstate highway system
saved the economy after Carter (who almost single-handedly destroyed it)

(It does strike me as comical that you believe anyone "owes" you a reply, given how unlikely it is that anything would change your mind in the first place.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 12:22 PM
 
What's wrong with my Soviet Union example?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 12:26 PM
 
I guess it wasn't enough and he thinks the Dems are virtuous. Maybe he could ask Mary Jo Kopechne... oh wait.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The GOP ended slavery.

They also:
pushed through women's right to vote (19th amendment)
passed the 1960 Civil Rights Act (which was filibustered by 18 Dems)
desegregated public schools
constructed the Hoover dam, Panama canal, and interstate highway system
saved the economy after Carter (who almost single-handedly destroyed it)

(It does strike me as comical that you believe anyone "owes" you a reply, given how unlikely it is that anything would change your mind in the first place.)
ended slavery: 1863
pushed through women's right to vote (19th amendment): 1919
passed the 1960 Civil Rights Act: 1960
desegregated public schools: 1954 (and was SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education)
constructed the Hoover dam, Panama canal, and interstate highway system: 1931, 1904, 1956
saved the economy after Carter: 1980

So... nothing in the last 37 years?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 12:44 PM
 
Pretty sure Russia fell within the last 37 years, as subego first submitted.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Pretty sure Russia fell within the last 37 years, as subego first submitted.
I'm pretty sure the question was 'other than causing the collapse of the Soviet Union.'

So, yeah, we knew that one.

But ok, so nothing in the last ~25 years?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 02:31 PM
 
NAFTA
Gulf War I
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 05:39 PM
 
Civil Rights Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...lative_history

Originally Posted by wiki
Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party[edit]
The original House version:[21]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[22]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[21]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region[edit]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 08:34 PM
 
I am finding it a bit fascinating that no one can come up with anything positive the Republican party has accomplished for over 25 years.

As a side note, it's interesting to note that while Republicans lead the way on Civil rights, it was less than a decade later that the roles started to completely shift, such that you had an exodus from the Democrats to the Republicans by the segregationist wing of the party (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, et al).

I wonder why it was that they felt so much more at home in their new party.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 10:44 PM
 
NAFTA is at the 25 year mark, and GWI is at 26, so within the boundaries of the request, which was around 25 years.

The short period the budget was balanced was due to the Republicans. Clinton needed to be dragged along. Not that he'd tell you that now.

While flawed, No Child Left Behind was an honest attempt to improve things.

I shall await the next goalpost move.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 11:19 PM
 
I also want to note, the one time in the last 25 years the Republicans had a solid majority, 9/11 sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2017, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
NAFTA is at the 25 year mark, and GWI is at 26, so within the boundaries of the request, which was around 25 years.
Oh, I thought you were kidding. Most on the right these days are not fans of NAFTA, and I have a hard time getting pumped up about a war.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The short period the budget was balanced was due to the Republicans. Clinton needed to be dragged along. Not that he'd tell you that now.
I'm pretty sure this has more to do with the mainstreaming of the internet and the explosion in the tech sector rather than either Clinton or Congress.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
While flawed, No Child Left Behind was an honest attempt to improve things.
The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all...

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I shall await the next goalpost move.
Look, this isn't about moving the goal posts, and regardless of my politics, I in no way believe the Republicans have done nothing of value in the last 25-30 years, I was really just bemused that none of the more traditional right-wingers on the forum could manage to come up with modern examples of their party of choice having a positive impact on society.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 12:21 AM
 
I should have put a regular smiley after the wink. I'm just giving you a hard time.

The big benefits to society of Republicanism are its business-friendly practices, which in turn make us the world leader in innovation.

My initial response should have been "Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon", but the questions so far haven't really set me up to be thinking in those terms.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 02:08 AM
 
The expansion of 2A rights, too.

Really gov't does its best work when it stays out of the public's way, keeping what's necessary running w/o getting under foot. More often than not, the more they mess with something the worse it gets.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I should have put a regular smiley after the wink. I'm just giving you a hard time.

The big benefits to society of Republicanism are its business-friendly practices, which in turn make us the world leader in innovation.

My initial response should have been "Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon", but the questions so far haven't really set me up to be thinking in those terms.
So what your saying is that if the left had never held power since say 1960 or had any influence on legislation, we would now be living in a utopian dream of wealth prosperity and environmental perfection that makes the hell hole we currently inhabit look like a dystopian nightmare?

If the pesky socialists had just gone away just THINK where we could be now!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 05:45 AM
 
Umm... where on earth did that come from?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's wrong with my Soviet Union example?
I'll profess a lack of knowledge on the details here. Perhaps you can sum up for me how the US government deserve significant credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.


There are one or two other examples I don't know much about either. I'm willing to concede without research that NAFTA is worthy of the list.

I have mixed feelings about the 1st Gulf War. I think we can all agree that the motives were not quite as rosy as they were made out to be. It wasn't the toughest war to fight either with Iraqi soldiers surrendering to unmanned drones in large numbers. I fell like claiming any government could and would have done the same and got the same result would be moving the goalposts so I guess you can have half a point for this one.

I could give you cleaning up after Carter's economic mess, but it feels like the opposite happens way more often. I recall seeing a post or a meme a long time ago that said the overall economic pattern where Republicans cut taxes for the rich and overspend on military and war then gets cleaned up by the following Democrats goes back half a century or more. It certainly goes back 25 years. Again I'm not equipped to debate beyond that at this moment. If this were true then it seems the most positive aspect of the Republican's image is false. They haven't been good for the economy for somewhere between 25 and 75 years. Maybe longer. And with precious little else on their scorecard in that timeframe that should be quite the hammer blow. You don't even have to take into account the bad things they do for them to be losing pretty badly here.

It seems you have to go back a long way for anything really fundamentally decent and important. Does this "discovery" really not have any impact on any of you conservatives?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2