Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
IC FBGCav

Do the Republicans have any new ideas?

Recommended Posts

They have lots of new ideas. Only today, President Trump proposed a major overhaul to our immigration system. I happen to despise every aspect of what he’s talking about, but it’s certainly new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

They have lots of new ideas. Only today, President Trump proposed a major overhaul to our immigration system. I happen to despise every aspect of what he’s talking about, but it’s certainly new. 

Hardly new Tim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Hardly new Tim. 

I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though. 

Either way it’s awful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though. 

Either way it’s awful. 

Reasonable people see it for what it really is.  You're right. It's awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though. 

Either way it’s awful. 

Canada, New Zealand and Australia use the same type of merit based system.   I heard it is about 65% merit based and 35% non merit if they are using the same type of plan.  Also this is for people who apply legal immigration not illegals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

timschochet said:


I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though.


From the 1920 Republican Party platform:

"The immigration policy of the U. S. should be such as to insure that the number of foreigners in the country at any one time shall not exceed that which can be assimilated with reasonable rapidity, and to favor immigrants whose standards are similar to ours.

The selective tests that are at present applied should be improved by requiring a higher physical standard, a more complete exclusion of mental defectives and of criminals, and a more effective inspection applied as near the source of immigration as possible, as well as at the port of entry. Justice to the foreigner and to ourselves demands provision for the guidance, protection and better economic distribution of our alien population. To facilitate government supervision, all aliens should be required to register annually until they become naturalized.

The existing policy of the United States for the practical exclusion of Asiatic immigrants is sound, and should be maintained."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

What gets me is Bush followed by Trump. You just need to be competent, then you can talk ideas.

DJT is not competent, does not talk well at all, does not have any ideas of his very own and surely doesn't competently talk about those ideas he never has. Also, whatever ideas he may stumble across in the vast wasteland that is his brain are solely for his own benefit.

eta: I'm fairly convinced he received the Republican nomination because they thought he'd be malleable and easily convinced to push whatever agenda/legislation they wanted to push. Well, that and he absolutely hates Obama.

Edited by Ruffrodys05
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

DJT is not competent, does not talk well at all, does not have any ideas of his very own and surely doesn't competently talk about those ideas he never has. Also, whatever ideas he may stumble across in the vast wasteland that is his brain are solely for his own benefit.

eta: I'm fairly convinced he received the Republican nomination because they thought he'd be malleable and easily convinced to push whatever agenda/legislation they wanted to push. Well, that and he absolutely hates Obama.

Obama.  Beyond political, why would Republicans hate him?  His policies were not left, even ACA was a Republican policy. 

Edited by IC FBGCav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

The color of his skin. Let's not forget that McConnel spent 8 years refusing to work with him and stonewalled his SC nomination. All because of his skin color. 

:lmao:....it had nothing to with Obama being liberal and not reaching across the isle ever.   

Really terrible comment on so many levels.   

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IC FBGCav said:

Obama.  Beyond political, why would Republicans hate him?  His policies were not left, even ACA was a Republican policy. 

Mitt was from the liberal side of the party governing the most liberal state in the country.  It was not a policy with widespread Republican support.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military. 

Many of today's Republicans are not conservatives, at least not fiscally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

They have lots of new ideas. Only today, President Trump proposed a major overhaul to our immigration system. 

Terrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military. 

This is exactly right, and exactly my philosophy, save for increasing military spending, which should be at the worst held constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rockaction said:
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military. 

This is exactly right, and exactly my philosophy, save for increasing military spending, which should be at the worst held constant.

Genuine question....do you stay home on election day?  If anything's been clear to me since I've been allowed to vote, it's that neither party is all that interested in scaling back government.  Their actions tell us that loud and clear.  Do you go just for local things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is exactly right, and exactly my philosophy, save for increasing military spending, which should be at the worst held constant.

How do you feel about increasing spending (military and otherwise) while at the same time reducing revenue (i.e. tax cuts)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

Genuine question....do you stay home on election day?  If anything's been clear to me since I've been allowed to vote, it's that neither party is all that interested in scaling back government.  Their actions tell us that loud and clear.  Do you go just for local things?

I absolutely stay home election day and have just registered to vote in my new state of California. When I lived in CT, I voted in Congressional races and once for the presidency in 2004. (I voted for Bush.) I did not vote for the President in '00, '08, '12, and '16. I keep my politics at the local level, and have never registered a party and likely never will unless there are serious primary concerns of mine, which '16 should have been.

That said, I don't vote unless I know the candidates and issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Godsbrother said:

How do you feel about increasing spending (military and otherwise) while at the same time reducing revenue (i.e. tax cuts)?

I would prefer to reduce the size of government rather than raise taxes to cover deficits and debt, though deficits aren't too big of a problem with me.

That said, to answer your question given the premises that you're implying, I am not a slavish adherent to the Laffer curve, which I think works only in small doses. Currently, a tax increase might be necessary to offset the services the voting public demands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

I absolutely stay home election day and have just registered to vote in my new state of California. When I lived in CT, I voted in Congressional races and once for the presidency in 2004. (I voted for Bush.) I did not vote for the President in '00, '08, '12, and '16. I keep my politics at the local level, and have never registered a party and likely never will unless there are serious primary concerns of mine, which '16 should have been.

That said, I don't vote unless I know the candidates and issues. 

:thumbup:

This is my general approach as well, but I do vote in the national elections.  It's weird because I allow the "greater good" to influence more of my local elections than national.  As I move up the #### sandwich towards the top I start taking more of the "well, they're gonna spend our money, so what do I want them to spend it on more" sort of approach.  I feel like we're past the point of no return and we'll never have the concept of "fiscal responsibility" represented by either party for a long time.

That said, it seems that my national votes for the next few cycles will probably have very little to do with policy and everything to do with morality and character of the individual.  I'd much rather vote for someone who I believe is trying their best to do what they think is right and disagree with them on their definition of right than someone who's completely bankrupt morally yet shares my view politically.  Morality needs to be restored as a foundational premise IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

:thumbup:  Morality needs to be restored as a foundational premise IMO

:thumbup: back atcha.

I think that I'm really conflicted about your last statement. I'm not sure whether morality is best served by the structure and appointees of actual governance rather than the temperament of figurehead of American politics (the president), or whether this concern about morality and domestic and foreign diplomacy -- or even the Golden Rule -- should be primary. I'm honestly unsure at this point.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

Many of today's Republicans are not conservatives, at least not fiscally.

This is absolutely true. But what I wrote about wanting to scale  back government has survived in terms of this formula: while Republicans rarely actually ever cut spending (they’re typically afraid of public reaction), they generally oppose all new programs and almost never offer any of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rockaction said:

:thumbup: back atcha.

I think that I'm really conflicted about your last statement. I'm not sure whether morality is best served by the structure and appointees of actual governance rather than the temperament of figurehead of American politics (the president), or whether this concern about morality and domestic and foreign diplomacy -- or even the Golden Rule -- should be primary. I'm honestly unsure at this point.

Well, it's certainly something I have struggled with, but for now, the way I see it is, eventually our true self comes out.  Given enough time, it always comes out.  Knowing that, I'd rather have someone who's genuinely working towards what they think is correct over someone is completely morally bankrupt.  Given enough time, that moral bankruptcy WILL show its face and I'd rather not have people in positions of power when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.