What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

William F. Buckley, Jr., The State Of The Republican Party, And How Trump Came To Pass (1 Viewer)

Chadstroma said:
The problem with the Libertarian party is that it is an extreme party lacking balance. Same with the lesser third parties.

We need a new Moderate Party that let's the Democrats slide into socialism as they look hell bent to do and the GOP to.... well.... whatever the hell the GOP is doing now with Trump and let the rest of us be adults and help guide this country forward.
Click to expand...
Policy-wise, it sounds like you actually align fairly well with the Clintons.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
The fact that you (and evidently almost a quarter of the entire country) seem to think that this is a good thing is really scary, and I'm no fan of the Republican party.
Click to expand...
It's terrifying.

 
Higgs said:
 but there is no doubt in my mind that Trump would leave office in 8 years with a lower deficit than Hillary would.
Click to expand...
Really? Would you have guessed that Obama will leave office with a lower deficit than George W Bush? 

Democrats raise taxes. Republicans lower taxes. Since neither group is willing to cut spending in any significant way, the Democrats are as a general rule more fiscally conservative since at least they attempt to pay for what they are spending, no? 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Understood, but that's a tough choice too IMO. Cruz is despicable, when someone is dumb enough to say they are against the values of any region of the country, that's not a sentiment I can get behind.

Just shows the lack of leadership in both parties. Can't stand Hillary either. I guess at least we get to say we elected a woman president. :shrug:
Click to expand...
My vote for Cruz was more about a vote for a contested convention hoping that someone other would come out the winner.

 
timschochet said:
Really? Would you have guessed that Obama will leave office with a lower deficit than George W Bush? 

Democrats raise taxes. Republicans lower taxes. Since neither group is willing to cut spending in any significant way, the Democrats are as a general rule more fiscally conservative since at least they attempt to pay for what they are spending, no? 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Policy-wise, it sounds like you actually align fairly well with the Clintons.
Click to expand...
No, not really though I don't vilify them as much as others do. I think Hillary is a power hungry person with no moral compass but on the other end she did better at Sec of State than Kerry (not a high bar to climb but still) and was actually liked by the GOP senators while she was in office. Lot's of good things said of her in her time there. I think she would work hard to be a good President though I would disagree with her agenda, choices and judgment more times than not.

I am decidedly right of center but with a rational willingness to compromise and do what is right for the country. Paul Ryan is likely the nearest to me in terms of views and attitude of anyone in politics.

 
That being said, I do agree with the traditional Republican idea that corporate taxes should be lowered significantly- THAT is the solution to keeping jobs here, not any kind of protectionism. 

Republicans make the claim that slashing corporate taxes will increase revenue to the state- a variation of the trickle down theory. This is false; it will not do so. But I don't care. If we need to increase the debt so be it. Growing the economy is much more important. 

 
Chadstroma said:
No, not really though I don't vilify them as much as others do. I think Hillary is a power hungry person with no moral compass but on the other end she did better at Sec of State than Kerry (not a high bar to climb but still) and was actually liked by the GOP senators while she was in office. Lot's of good things said of her in her time there. I think she would work hard to be a good President though I would disagree with her agenda, choices and judgment more times than not.

I am decidedly right of center but with a rational willingness to compromise and do what is right for the country. Paul Ryan is likely the nearest to me in terms of views and attitude of anyone in politics.
Click to expand...
Agree with you on Hillary as a person.  But fiscal policy-wise, she's a free-trade limited regulation centrist, and she's a neo-con interventionist in terms of foreign policy.  She's been dragged left by Sanders in terms of policy positions this primary season, but she'll swing right back to the center once he's out of the picture.

 
timschochet said:
That being said, I do agree with the traditional Republican idea that corporate taxes should be lowered significantly- THAT is the solution to keeping jobs here, not any kind of protectionism. 

Republicans make the claim that slashing corporate taxes will increase revenue to the state- a variation of the trickle down theory. This is false; it will not do so. But I don't care. If we need to increase the debt so be it. Growing the economy is much more important. 
Click to expand...
Let me see if I followed you..... lowering taxes on business keeps jobs in the US but having those same jobs and economic activity with a growing economy in the US would not increase the tax base to at a minimum offset the lose revenue in lowering the tax rate?

 
rockaction said:
Buckley was notorious for running out the cooks, cranks, and others from the R party.
Click to expand...
"The truth is that Donald Trump has filled an enormous political vacuum—one that National Review has refused to acknowledge even though they helped to create it in the first place."

Up From Buckleyism

 
roadkill1292 said:
Non-crazy Republicans are going to have to convince a sizable portion of the electorate why exactly small government is better and why a more unregulated and more lightly taxed business sector is in the average Joe's best interest.
Click to expand...


Oh dear.

 
Chadstroma said:
Let me see if I followed you..... lowering taxes on business keeps jobs in the US but having those same jobs and economic activity with a growing economy in the US would not increase the tax base to at a minimum offset the lose revenue in lowering the tax rate?
Click to expand...
Maybe eventually. Not right away certainly. 

But whether it does or doesn't isn't a priority to me. Economic growth is. 

 
timschochet said:
Really? Would you have guessed that Obama will leave office with a lower deficit than George W Bush? 

Democrats raise taxes. Republicans lower taxes. Since neither group is willing to cut spending in any significant way, the Democrats are as a general rule more fiscally conservative since at least they attempt to pay for what they are spending, no? 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
Joe T said:
Oh dear.
Click to expand...
He's right in this sense - a large portion of the American public today (and a ton of millenials) do believe that more government is a good thing.  I think you and I are probably of the same opinion that lesser government is better, but Roadkill is right that people like us are going to have to convince people why that's the case.  And it's going to be an uphill battle.  This millenial generation really does believe that more government is better.  They are very trusting.  Probably a bi-product of the environment they grew up in with helicopter parenting.  Actually the new term I heard is "bulldozer parenting" - where in addition to being omnipresent, parents are also taking it a step further and clearing all obstacles for their children.  People hate to hear the term "nanny state", but that's exactly what we've become.  The downside of bigger government (inefficiencies, waste, corruption) isn't always that visible either, so we're in a bit of a predicament when it comes to changing hearts and minds anytime soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
He's right in this sense - a large portion of the American public today (and a ton of millenials) do believe that more government is a good thing.  I think you and I are probably of the same opinion that lesser government is better, but Roadkill is right that people like us are going to have to convince people why that's the case.  And it's going to be an uphill battle.  This millenial generation really does believe that more government is better.  They are very trusting.  Probably a bi-product of the environment they grew up in with helicopter parenting.  Actually the new term I heard is "bulldozer parenting" - where in addition to being omnipresent, parents are also taking it a step further and clearing all obstacles for their children.  People hate to hear the term "nanny state", but that's exactly what we've become.  The downside of bigger government (inefficiencies, waste, corruption) isn't always that visible either, so we're in a bit of a predicament when it comes to changing hearts and minds anytime soon.
Click to expand...


I get what you are saying, but how much convincing does one person need to see that big government is not the answer.  Dear millenial, please visit a mail box or even better a post office.  If the postal service were private, it would have been shut down 5 or 10 years ago.  It serves absolutely no real purpose, but because it is a government entity it stays open.

If you don't want to go to the post office, please visit your local public school.  Take note of whatever alphabet soup, one-size fits all test they are giving out to rate performance in students.

And those are just the consumer facing government entities.  Can you imagine the non-consumer government entities?

 
Size of government is irrelevant (to Republican opponents). Functionality of government is what's important. The GOP has made the decision that government can never work well, therefore the only logical thing to do is to make sure there is less of it. But if government doesn't work well here it may be because one side of the political spectrum is determined that it shouldn't. Are any Republicans seriously advocating that government get out of the defense or pension (SS) businesses? 

If the GOP cannot get past this issue and find ways to convince its opponents that the market is the better answer to most of the nation's problems, then it only has itself to blame, not the helicopter and bulldozer parents. People can look across the pond and see that there might be better ways than those of the past. We can argue right or wrong here till we're all in the grave but in the years I've been here the righties haven't made their cases nearly as well as their opponents have. Better pick up the pace.

 
Steve Tasker said:
### #### millennials boomers
Click to expand...
Fixed.  The boomers are the ones that have damaged this country with their whole "kick the can down the road" way of governing and their selfish, materialistic need for MOAR AND CHEAPER STUFF!!!!  I'm a Gen-Xer, and we have yet to feel a real impact from the millenials.

 
roadkill1292 said:
You GenXers are real dooshes.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

Can't really argue this either.  The main point was that blaming the millennials was pretty absurd seeing as they really haven't had any impact at all yet as voting adults.  Boomers and Gen-Xers alike have been happy to just pass the buck off to future generations. 

 
roadkill1292 said:
Size of government is irrelevant (to Republican opponents). Functionality of government is what's important. The GOP has made the decision that government can never work well, therefore the only logical thing to do is to make sure there is less of it. But if government doesn't work well here it may be because one side of the political spectrum is determined that it shouldn't. Are any Republicans seriously advocating that government get out of the defense or pension (SS) businesses? 

If the GOP cannot get past this issue and find ways to convince its opponents that the market is the better answer to most of the nation's problems, then it only has itself to blame, not the helicopter and bulldozer parents. People can look across the pond and see that there might be better ways than those of the past. We can argue right or wrong here till we're all in the grave but in the years I've been here the righties haven't made their cases nearly as well as their opponents have. Better pick up the pace.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I guess I'm in the camp that says government should be kept as lean as possible.  The problem with government is that it's like a monopoly, and once something is in place it is always in place.  Government rarely if ever "trims the fat".  The example of the Post Office is a good one.  Is it really needed anymore in the internet/email age with Fed Ex, UPS, and so many other private carriers?  I work in a heavily regulated industry and the waste and inefficiency I see on a daily basis would make your head spin.  Much of what the Government does in this space is completely unnecessary and not at all helping the consumer.  Quite the opposite - it is jacking up the total cost.  Trust me - I deal with 50 different regulatory bodies every day and it's completely laughable the hoops they make us jump through to get a simple product approved - a product that the consumers are demanding.  It has to be seen to be believed.  The people who work in these regulatory agencies are the bottom of the barrel.  To be perfectly honest, most of the time they will make us jump through hoops just to justify their positions.  And I'm sure it was never intended to be this way when the regulatory bodies were created.  But once again, it's the nature of the beast.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
"The truth is that Donald Trump has filled an enormous political vacuum—one that National Review has refused to acknowledge even though they helped to create it in the first place."

Up From Buckleyism
Click to expand...
I'm going to take some time to read this. I may vehemently disagree, but it should be fun. Thanks. Good to see you, Coal Man.  

eta* I just read this. In no way does this article prove that National Review ran away from the immigration issue. If anything, I remember NR during the '90s time period, and NR was definitely for a form of legalized immigration. I am not sure what "patriotic immigration" means, but I can guess it from the context of the article. It smells like Pat Buchanan going to Southern California and saying "No way, Jose," to those seeking a legal path.  

I'm not sure of the author's motives, but if Buckley was concerned about cocktail parties, so is the author. He ought call the rank racism I think he's hiding for what it really is rather than issuing neologisms for it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was the Roberts quote, but the board is not really functional for me. But it's a good excerpt. The issuance of executive orders begat a cavalier attitude towards constitutionalism, one Scalia, a friend of the executive branch, eventually dissented from.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
Good place for this video I've been wanting to share:
Click to expand...
Firing Line is free with Amazon Prime. I highly recommend watching them. The issues are often still the same; the debates, while Buckley sometimes looks bad now (as do his radical guests) always interesting.  

 
Higgs said:
I don't know, I guess I'm in the camp that says government should be kept as lean as possible.  The problem with government is that it's like a monopoly, and once something is in place it is always in place.  Government rarely if ever "trims the fat".  The example of the Post Office is a good one.  Is it really needed anymore in the internet/email age with Fed Ex, UPS, and so many other private carriers?  I work in a heavily regulated industry and the waste and inefficiency I see on a daily basis would make your head spin.  Much of what the Government does in this space is completely unnecessary and not at all helping the consumer.  Quite the opposite - it is jacking up the total cost.  Trust me - I deal with 50 different regulatory bodies every day and it's completely laughable the hoops they make us jump through to get a simple product approved - a product that the consumers are demanding.  It has to be seen to be believed.  The people who work in these regulatory agencies are the bottom of the barrel.  To be perfectly honest, most of the time they will make us jump through hoops just to justify their positions.  And I'm sure it was never intended to be this way when the regulatory bodies were created.  But once again, it's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...
I suppose you're in favor of reducing the military budget as well, right?

 
cstu said:
I suppose you're in favor of reducing the military budget as well, right?
Click to expand...
Intelligently, yes.  To be honest I don't know enough specifics about the military budget to feel comfortable making a declarative statement on this.  I would definitely find some low hanging fruit first, and there's plenty of it.

 
timschochet said:
That being said, I do agree with the traditional Republican idea that corporate taxes should be lowered significantly- THAT is the solution to keeping jobs here, not any kind of protectionism. 

Republicans make the claim that slashing corporate taxes will increase revenue to the state- a variation of the trickle down theory. This is false; it will not do so. But I don't care.

If we need to increase the debt so be it. Growing the economy is much more important. 
Click to expand...
One needs only look to Greece to see what happens to the economy with austerity measures (what Tea Party wants to do). 

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/28/we_were_elected_to_say_no

Austerity is a self-defeating process. You cut government spending, you increase taxes in order to balance the other governments’ books, but you fail. Why? Because, yes, you reduce government expenditure, the cost of running the government, but on the other hand, the economy shrinks, so tax take is also reduced, and therefore your books don’t balance, and then you cut even more, and then national income shrinks even further, and then you have to cut even more. So it’s a never-ending downward spiral. That’s the problem with austerity.
Click to expand...

 
Higgs said:
 Once something is in place it is always in place.  Government rarely if ever "trims the fat".  The example of the Post Office is a good one.  Is it really needed anymore in the internet/email age with Fed Ex, UPS, and so many other private carriers? 
Click to expand...
This, to a degree. It's not always in place, but close in our administrative monopolistic state. The bureaucratic bloat and survival instincts of the bureaucracy were so great that they thought taxing email or charging postage was going to save the Post Office. They seriously advocated for this. 

 
rockaction said:
This, to a degree. It's not always in place, but close in our administrative monopolistic state. The bureaucratic bloat and survival instincts of the bureaucracy were so great that they thought taxing email or charging postage was going to save the Post Office. They seriously advocated for this. 
Click to expand...
USPS delivers a lot of the UPS packages to my house for Amazon Prime. They might still have a purpose left in these new delivery models.

 
Also, how drunk do you think I was when I started this thread?  I can't even remember it. 

But we still should be running the cooks and cranks out of party, not the least of which is the President.  

 
roadkill1292 said:
Size of government is irrelevant (to Republican opponents). Functionality of government is what's important. The GOP has made the decision that government can never work well, therefore the only logical thing to do is to make sure there is less of it. But if government doesn't work well here it may be because one side of the political spectrum is determined that it shouldn't. Are any Republicans seriously advocating that government get out of the defense or pension (SS) businesses? 

If the GOP cannot get past this issue and find ways to convince its opponents that the market is the better answer to most of the nation's problems, then it only has itself to blame, not the helicopter and bulldozer parents. People can look across the pond and see that there might be better ways than those of the past. We can argue right or wrong here till we're all in the grave but in the years I've been here the righties haven't made their cases nearly as well as their opponents have. Better pick up the pace.
Click to expand...
I understand that this post is a year old, but it's a good demonstration of what happens when you have no real idea of what people on the other side of the aisle actually think, so you make up easily-refuted arguments instead.

You are correct in thinking that "Government can never work" is a really bad, stupid thing to believe.  People who believe that government can never work are very clearly wrong.  Of course, hardly anybody actually thinks this.  The percentage of Republicans who hold this view is probably less than 1%.  I know this because, as you point out, nobody is clamoring for the government to get out of the defense business.  The fact that nobody thinks that we should leave national security up to the free market really ought to cause you to go back and reevaluate whether you've accurately characterized (or even understand) the views of others.  

Edit: By the way, yes there are people advocating that the government get out of the pension business.  Bush proposed such a system shortly after he was reelected (it went nowhere), and a few other countries do have privatized retirement saving plans.  Which makes it kind of odd that you lumped this in with a privatized military.  Nobody supports the latter, while "privatized Social Security" is at least debatable even if you decide that the cons outweigh the pros.  This was just a really weird post.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Also, how drunk do you think I was when I started this thread?  I can't even remember it. 

But we still should be running the cooks and cranks out of party, not the least of which is the President.  
Click to expand...
I think the OP was great, and as we all know good philosophy and  :banned: can be quite conducive to each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
11K
El Floppo
El Floppo
[icon]
  • Locked
"Anatomy of the Deep State" - Unsettling look at American Poli
Replies
3
Views
1K
FBG Moderator
F

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top