I think there is a lesson here for us: Don't go surrendering sovereignty over internal affairs to any form of external global or consolidated government. We already give too much to Washington, IMO. We need to start moving some back the other way.

One other random comment. I find it amusing how you all have anthropomorphized CA and NY into monolithic creatures attacking the poor denizens of "flyover country". Kaiju-ized?

(03-13-2019 09:37 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  One other random comment. I find it amusing how you all have anthropomorphized CA and NY into monolithic creatures attacking the poor denizens of "flyover country". Kaiju-ized?

I don't think anybody anthropomorphized anything. I think it's pretty clear that CA and NY are being used as shorthand to represent those on power in those and similar states. And yes I do think the Pelosis and Schumers and their ilk are seriously attacking those of us in flyover country.

(03-13-2019 09:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The disdain for others you seem to dislike in people from liberal/urban areas appears to be alive and well in you, for them. A bit ironic, no?
And I’m not being obtuse - you offered a rather shallow Fox News-style comment about how NY and Cali are controlling America, when they are in no way, shape, or form, doing that. Instead, you’ve explained that you just don’t like that liberals are promoting certain policies you disagree with.

Again, OO is perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I want to share my thoughts.

NY and CA are not in fact controlling America at this point, as you say. But it appears to irritate the hell out of them that they don't. And efforts like eliminating the electoral college and AOC's GND certainly appear to be significant ongoing efforts by NY and CA to control the rest of us.

We are becoming two different countries--the NE and west coast on the one hand, and flyover country on the other. If our political leadership on both sides keeps becoming more extreme, I don't see how it sustains.

I think it’s much less geographical, and much more urban vs rural, with the suburbs switching back and forth. Sure, there is still some geographical influence, but I think it’s become less important. I also think generational differences are becoming more pronounced than they used to be. I’m sure there’s data out there to support or refute that, so I could be wrong. But that’s my perspective, especially after seeing how the Texas Senate race played out in 2018.

Absolutely. I think the breakdown is primarily urban/suburban vs exurban/rural. If Texas does actually become purple or blue, it will be because of suburbs turning blue and joining with the urban areas, not because small towns in east Texas all of a sudden become super-liberal.

It is much more the many vs. the few. In the context of the state, the many are large cities and the few are smaller cities. In the context of the USA, the many are NY and California, and the few are the flyover states despised by the liberals.

I don't know what we can do about that, other than have a bicameral legislature that protects the little guys in at least one house. But just because that is the best we can do does not mean I have to hang my head and accept meekly the idea promoted by the many that they are not trying to control us.

You two can't see it because of your perspective as part of their army. I see it because I am standing with the other army.

But while I have you two, tell me, why do you choose to be Democrats?

(03-13-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The disdain for others you seem to dislike in people from liberal/urban areas appears to be alive and well in you, for them. A bit ironic, no?
And I’m not being obtuse - you offered a rather shallow Fox News-style comment about how NY and Cali are controlling America, when they are in no way, shape, or form, doing that. Instead, you’ve explained that you just don’t like that liberals are promoting certain policies you disagree with.

Again, OO is perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I want to share my thoughts.

NY and CA are not in fact controlling America at this point, as you say. But it appears to irritate the hell out of them that they don't. And efforts like eliminating the electoral college and AOC's GND certainly appear to be significant ongoing efforts by NY and CA to control the rest of us.

We are becoming two different countries--the NE and west coast on the one hand, and flyover country on the other. If our political leadership on both sides keeps becoming more extreme, I don't see how it sustains.

I think it’s much less geographical, and much more urban vs rural, with the suburbs switching back and forth. Sure, there is still some geographical influence, but I think it’s become less important. I also think generational differences are becoming more pronounced than they used to be. I’m sure there’s data out there to support or refute that, so I could be wrong. But that’s my perspective, especially after seeing how the Texas Senate race played out in 2018.

Absolutely. I think the breakdown is primarily urban/suburban vs exurban/rural. If Texas does actually become purple or blue, it will be because of suburbs turning blue and joining with the urban areas, not because small towns in east Texas all of a sudden become super-liberal.

It is much more the many vs. the few. In the context of the state, the many are large cities and the few are smaller cities. In the context of the USA, the many are NY and California, and the few are the flyover states despised by the liberals.

I don't know what we can do about that, other than have a bicameral legislature that protects the little guys in at least one house. But just because that is the best we can do does not mean I have to hang my head and accept meekly the idea promoted by the many that they are not trying to control us.

You two can't see it because of your perspective as part of their army. I see it because I am standing with the other army.

But while I have you two, tell me, why do you choose to be Democrats?

Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.

Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests.

The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, OO is perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I want to share my thoughts.

NY and CA are not in fact controlling America at this point, as you say. But it appears to irritate the hell out of them that they don't. And efforts like eliminating the electoral college and AOC's GND certainly appear to be significant ongoing efforts by NY and CA to control the rest of us.

We are becoming two different countries--the NE and west coast on the one hand, and flyover country on the other. If our political leadership on both sides keeps becoming more extreme, I don't see how it sustains.

I think it’s much less geographical, and much more urban vs rural, with the suburbs switching back and forth. Sure, there is still some geographical influence, but I think it’s become less important. I also think generational differences are becoming more pronounced than they used to be. I’m sure there’s data out there to support or refute that, so I could be wrong. But that’s my perspective, especially after seeing how the Texas Senate race played out in 2018.

Absolutely. I think the breakdown is primarily urban/suburban vs exurban/rural. If Texas does actually become purple or blue, it will be because of suburbs turning blue and joining with the urban areas, not because small towns in east Texas all of a sudden become super-liberal.

It is much more the many vs. the few. In the context of the state, the many are large cities and the few are smaller cities. In the context of the USA, the many are NY and California, and the few are the flyover states despised by the liberals.

I don't know what we can do about that, other than have a bicameral legislature that protects the little guys in at least one house. But just because that is the best we can do does not mean I have to hang my head and accept meekly the idea promoted by the many that they are not trying to control us.

You two can't see it because of your perspective as part of their army. I see it because I am standing with the other army.

But while I have you two, tell me, why do you choose to be Democrats?

Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.

Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests.

The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

Thanks for a real answer. Lad.

If I may summarize, you are a big government guy, and most Republicans are small(er) government people. Is that a fair summation?

Or, in terms of the Brexit debate that is the titular topic of this thread, you believe in giving up your sovereignty to a larger entity controlled from a place farther from you. Is that correct?

I think, based on this, I will have have to give up any hope of you ever seeing the light. But I do appreciate your willingness to state a case.

(03-13-2019 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:35 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it’s much less geographical, and much more urban vs rural, with the suburbs switching back and forth. Sure, there is still some geographical influence, but I think it’s become less important. I also think generational differences are becoming more pronounced than they used to be. I’m sure there’s data out there to support or refute that, so I could be wrong. But that’s my perspective, especially after seeing how the Texas Senate race played out in 2018.

Absolutely. I think the breakdown is primarily urban/suburban vs exurban/rural. If Texas does actually become purple or blue, it will be because of suburbs turning blue and joining with the urban areas, not because small towns in east Texas all of a sudden become super-liberal.

It is much more the many vs. the few. In the context of the state, the many are large cities and the few are smaller cities. In the context of the USA, the many are NY and California, and the few are the flyover states despised by the liberals.

I don't know what we can do about that, other than have a bicameral legislature that protects the little guys in at least one house. But just because that is the best we can do does not mean I have to hang my head and accept meekly the idea promoted by the many that they are not trying to control us.

You two can't see it because of your perspective as part of their army. I see it because I am standing with the other army.

But while I have you two, tell me, why do you choose to be Democrats?

Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.

Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests.

The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

Thanks for a real answer. Lad.

If I may summarize, you are a big government guy, and most Republicans are small(er) government people. Is that a fair summation?

Or, in terms of the Brexit debate that is the titular topic of this thread, you believe in giving up your sovereignty to a larger entity controlled from a place farther from you. Is that correct?

I think, based on this, I will have have to give up any hope of you ever seeing the light. But I do appreciate your willingness to state a case.

It depends on what you mean by big government and small government. I see significant benefits of having strong federal, state, and local governments. Things like infrastructure are probably best handled by federal government due to the scope of the work, same for setting a floor for regulations like groundwater contamination. Then, state and local are better for how to implement or manage other areas, like law enforcement, zoning, etc.

I do think that the federal government can be a problem when it meddles too much (like in the college tuition bubble), and should work to be more nimble when adjusting to those issues. So I don't fit quite into that broad label as you would like. But I definitely disagree with the idea the idea that government is always the problem.

In terms of Brexit, I think you have to be a realist. It was a pipe dream that the UK could leave the EU and get rid of what they didn't like and keep what they liked. If giving up sovereignty made sense to create an economic zone that was had a net mutual benefit to all involved, then I think it would have made sense to join - if it didn't have a net benefit than it wouldn't have made sense.

(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.
Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests. The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

I can't answer the question why am I a republican, because I'm not. I don't agree with enough of either party's policies and issue positions to be a member. Republicans are too far right on social issues (drugs, abortion, LGBT rights) and not far enough right on fiscal issues. Democrats are now too far left on social issues and not even on the same planet on fiscal issues. I don't like republicans, but I think of them more as incompetent than as the enemy. I do think of the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of the democrats as my enemy, and I see that wing as being ascendant in that party. To me republicans are the stupid party and democrats are the evil party. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had more competent enemies.

I favor a balanced budget; universal health care based on the Bismarck universal private insurance/care approach; a guaranteed basic income, based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (basically NIT in a consumption tax environment); lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes; a consumption tax; making social security sound by eliminating the wage cap, pushing the full payment age back slowly, and adding a privatized component; having the strongest military in the world by leaps and bounds, but never having to use it because nobody dares pick on us and our non-interventionist (like Switzerland, not isolationist like North Korea) foreign policy means we don't go picking on them; elimination of ineffective and counter-productive regulations; a streamlined regulatory process with real rights for citizens subject to regulation; legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs, at least simple possession; and strong support for the 2nd and 4th Amendments (without them, all the rest are worthless), among other positions. Name me a party that is is generally in agreement on all or most of those, and I will support them. Hell, name me a party that even agrees on some of them.

I strongly oppose massive income and wealth redistribution because I know of no nation or state that has implemented it without either abandoning it or failing. As to the question of too big or too small, I think government is too big in the US today. In particular, I think the federal government is too big and intrusive, that within the federal government too much power has gone from the legislative branch to the executive and judicial branches, and within the executive branch way, way too much power as gone to the unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies.

I think the current democrats, or at least the ascendant Bernie/AOC/Warren wing, are well to the left of the so-called European "socialist democracies," where left is defined as socialism, communism, or fascism (which are three peas in the same pod, at least economically). I favor capitalism with a safety net, which is how I would describe "socialist" Europe.

(03-13-2019 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Thanks for a real answer. Lad.

If I may summarize, you are a big government guy, and most Republicans are small(er) government people. Is that a fair summation?

Or, in terms of the Brexit debate that is the titular topic of this thread, you believe in giving up your sovereignty to a larger entity controlled from a place farther from you. Is that correct?

I think, based on this, I will have have to give up any hope of you ever seeing the light. But I do appreciate your willingness to state a case.

It depends on what you mean by big government and small government. I see significant benefits of having strong federal, state, and local governments. Things like infrastructure are probably best handled by federal government due to the scope of the work, same for setting a floor for regulations like groundwater contamination. Then, state and local are better for how to implement or manage other areas, like law enforcement, zoning, etc.

I do think that the federal government can be a problem when it meddles too much (like in the college tuition bubble), and should work to be more nimble when adjusting to those issues. So I don't fit quite into that broad label as you would like. But I definitely disagree with the idea the idea that government is always the problem.

In terms of Brexit, I think you have to be a realist. It was a pipe dream that the UK could leave the EU and get rid of what they didn't like and keep what they liked. If giving up sovereignty made sense to create an economic zone that was had a net mutual benefit to all involved, then I think it would have made sense to join - if it didn't have a net benefit than it wouldn't have made sense.

Infrastructure, if you mean roads and bridges, I agree. Setting floors on regulations, not so much.

The FF thought strong states were better than a strong Federal government. over the years, we have drifted toward a strong Federal government. When the drift is complete, how will we tell it from the government of North Korea? They are pretty strong.

I was in favor of the concept of the EU, thought it made sense. But any time one joins a larger group, there is a danger of it not being a good choice.

So, about Brexit . . . :)

(03-13-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was in favor of the concept of the EU, thought it made sense. But any time one joins a larger group, there is a danger of it not being a good choice.

The EU makes sense as a trading union, and I think Macron's idea of a combined defense force makes a lot of sense. But giving a central government control over minutia that should be internal domestic issues was a mistake. Lisbon went too far, and UK should never have gone that far. That is the lesson for us.

(03-13-2019 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was in favor of the concept of the EU, thought it made sense. But any time one joins a larger group, there is a danger of it not being a good choice.

The EU makes sense as a trading union, and I think Macron's idea of a combined defense force makes a lot of sense. But giving a central government control over minutia that should be internal domestic issues was a mistake. Lisbon went too far, and UK should never have gone that far. That is the lesson for us.

A trading union was the way I thought of it.

At least in the UN and NATO we have not given up our sovereignty completely.

(03-13-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  So, about Brexit . . . :)

LOL.

Today's vote will almost certainly reject a "hard Brexit"...

(03-13-2019 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  So, about Brexit . . . :)

LOL.

Today's vote will almost certainly reject a "hard Brexit"...

(Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)

"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.

The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.

Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.

One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.

After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.

(I voted to leave.)

(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  (Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)
"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.
The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.
Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.
One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.
After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.
(I voted to leave.)

IMO the UK should never have ratified Lisbon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was done by Parliament without a referendum. That would support your thesis.

Membership in the EEC was a good idea. What became of the EEC with the transformation to EU is not.

(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed'

Same here

(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  So, about Brexit . . . :)

LOL.

Today's vote will almost certainly reject a "hard Brexit"...

(Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)

"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.

The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.

Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.

One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.

After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.

(I voted to leave.)

To the bolded, isn't the point of electing politicians so that the people do not have to be involved with every single legislative decision because the people as a whole don't have the time or energy, to be well informed about the ramifications of those legislative items? Isn't any decision made by the legislative body that doesn't conform to the will of a simple majority inherently a power grab, based on that comment?

Brexit passed with less than 52% of the vote - hardly a healthy majority for a decision with serious implications. I have no idea why that referendum wasn't set at 60% or above, which would have at least indicated that an overwhelming majority of citizens supported the referendum, as opposed to just a simple majority.

I go back and forth about how I feel about putting legislative decision on a ballot because the people as a whole generally don't have the time to really dig into the implications of the decision. For example, Prop B passed here in Houston, which raised fire fighter salaries, and it is wreaking havoc now. However, putting these initiatives on ballots is the ultimate power to the people, which is definitely a positive. Sort of thinking out loud here...

(03-13-2019 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.
Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests. The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

I can't answer the question why am I a republican, because I'm not. I don't agree with enough of either party's policies and issue positions to be a member. Republicans are too far right on social issues (drugs, abortion, LGBT rights) and not far enough right on fiscal issues. Democrats are now too far left on social issues and not even on the same planet on fiscal issues. I don't like republicans, but I think of them more as incompetent than as the enemy. I do think of the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of the democrats as my enemy, and I see that wing as being ascendant in that party. To me republicans are the stupid party and democrats are the evil party. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had more competent enemies.

I favor a balanced budget; universal health care based on the Bismarck universal private insurance/care approach; a guaranteed basic income, based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (basically NIT in a consumption tax environment); lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes; a consumption tax; making social security sound by eliminating the wage cap, pushing the full payment age back slowly, and adding a privatized component; having the strongest military in the world by leaps and bounds, but never having to use it because nobody dares pick on us and our non-interventionist (like Switzerland, not isolationist like North Korea) foreign policy means we don't go picking on them; elimination of ineffective and counter-productive regulations; a streamlined regulatory process with real rights for citizens subject to regulation; legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs, at least simple possession; and strong support for the 2nd and 4th Amendments (without them, all the rest are worthless), among other positions. Name me a party that is is generally in agreement on all or most of those, and I will support them. Hell, name me a party that even agrees on some of them.

I strongly oppose massive income and wealth redistribution because I know of no nation or state that has implemented it without either abandoning it or failing. As to the question of too big or too small, I think government is too big in the US today. In particular, I think the federal government is too big and intrusive, that within the federal government too much power has gone from the legislative branch to the executive and judicial branches, and within the executive branch way, way too much power as gone to the unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies.

I think the current democrats, or at least the ascendant Bernie/AOC/Warren wing, are well to the left of the so-called European "socialist democracies," where left is defined as socialism, communism, or fascism (which are three peas in the same pod, at least economically). I favor capitalism with a safety net, which is how I would describe "socialist" Europe.

I'll give it a shot:

Balanced budget: Neither party at the moment, so you could go back to the last president to achieve one --> Democrat.
Health Care: You want "something" as opposed to "nothing" --> Democrat
Guaranteed Basic Income: You might as well wear a "Pinko" shirt with this one. --> Democrat.
Lower, Flatter, Broader Income Taxes: Republican, unless you also include corporations in the "broader" category, then Democrat.
Ensuring that Social Security sticks around --> Democrat
Large military --> Republican
Not using the military --> Democrat
Elimination of "ineffective and counter-productive regulations" --> That's a platitute both parties can get behind.
Drug decriminalization/marijuana legalization --> Democrat
2nd Amendment: Republican
4th Amendment: Democrat

I hate to break it to you, but, on balance, you're clearly a Democrat. ;-)

But in all seriousness, it seems to me that you favor a lot of what I might call broad Democratic policy goals, but you prefer conservative/market-based approaches to achieving those goals. This makes sense, given your avowed libertarianism. As a county, though, we're not even having the "means" conversation because we're still fighting about the "ends." Your health care position is a good exemplar. I remember going back and forth with you a few years ago about ACA vs. Bismarck, and I think I made the point that Bismarck wasn't the conservative counter-plan. The conservative counter-plan was "what we have now is fine." So the real dividing line wasn't "Bismarck v. ACA," but "do you want something, or do you want nothing?" So you might be a conservative in some sort of abstract philosophical sense, but in terms of the practical political fights we're actually having, you sure look like a Democrat to me.

(03-14-2019 11:31 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.
Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests. The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

I can't answer the question why am I a republican, because I'm not. I don't agree with enough of either party's policies and issue positions to be a member. Republicans are too far right on social issues (drugs, abortion, LGBT rights) and not far enough right on fiscal issues. Democrats are now too far left on social issues and not even on the same planet on fiscal issues. I don't like republicans, but I think of them more as incompetent than as the enemy. I do think of the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of the democrats as my enemy, and I see that wing as being ascendant in that party. To me republicans are the stupid party and democrats are the evil party. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had more competent enemies.

I favor a balanced budget; universal health care based on the Bismarck universal private insurance/care approach; a guaranteed basic income, based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (basically NIT in a consumption tax environment); lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes; a consumption tax; making social security sound by eliminating the wage cap, pushing the full payment age back slowly, and adding a privatized component; having the strongest military in the world by leaps and bounds, but never having to use it because nobody dares pick on us and our non-interventionist (like Switzerland, not isolationist like North Korea) foreign policy means we don't go picking on them; elimination of ineffective and counter-productive regulations; a streamlined regulatory process with real rights for citizens subject to regulation; legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs, at least simple possession; and strong support for the 2nd and 4th Amendments (without them, all the rest are worthless), among other positions. Name me a party that is is generally in agreement on all or most of those, and I will support them. Hell, name me a party that even agrees on some of them.

I strongly oppose massive income and wealth redistribution because I know of no nation or state that has implemented it without either abandoning it or failing. As to the question of too big or too small, I think government is too big in the US today. In particular, I think the federal government is too big and intrusive, that within the federal government too much power has gone from the legislative branch to the executive and judicial branches, and within the executive branch way, way too much power as gone to the unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies.

I think the current democrats, or at least the ascendant Bernie/AOC/Warren wing, are well to the left of the so-called European "socialist democracies," where left is defined as socialism, communism, or fascism (which are three peas in the same pod, at least economically). I favor capitalism with a safety net, which is how I would describe "socialist" Europe.

I'll give it a shot:

Balanced budget: Neither party at the moment, so you could go back to the last president to achieve one --> Democrat.

perhaps go back to the last makeup of the legislature that achieved one ---> Republican

then ask yourself which branch has the 'power of the purse'. It is not the Executive, mind you.

Quote:Health Care: You want "something" as opposed to "nothing" --> Democrat

Health Care: You want everything "something" as opposed to for "nothing" ----> Democrat

FIFY

Quote:Lower, Flatter, Broader Income Taxes: Republican, unless you also include corporations in the "broader" category, then Democrat.

Actually to go 'Democrat' you would need to stand for more corporate taxes on top of the already highest corporate tax in the developed world.

Quote:Not using the military --> Democrat

Tell that to Muammar Kaddafi the next you see him.

Or the next Kosovarian you encounter.

Quote:Elimination of "ineffective and counter-productive regulations" --> That's a platitute both parties can get behind.

Please do state *any* regulation that Democrats would like to minimize.

Quote:4th Amendment: Democrat

Please state any 4th Amendment provision that Republican's do not back?

If you want to make an issue of 4th Amendment in the context of NSA and ****, well, hate to break it to you buddy but the Obama-dudes were just as bad as those evil nasty Republicans. Just ask the message sifters who haunted the FISA court in late 2015 - early 2016 for that one....

When it comes to the 4th Amendment as applied to the press, the Obama administration skunks the fk out of what any Republican administration (aside from Nixon) has done in the last half-century.

Here's one that should be added:

Quote:Pro 1st Amendment -- Republican

Quote:But in all seriousness, it seems to me that you favor a lot of what I might call broad Democratic policy goals, but you prefer conservative/market-based approaches to achieving those goals.

No offense but many of what you term 'broad based policy goals' of the Democratic Party really dont seem to be so in practice.

Quote:So you might be a conservative in some sort of abstract philosophical sense, but in terms of the practical political fights we're actually having, you sure look like a Democrat to me.

The fact that the major point of progressivism is the promotion of vast and 'liberal' use of government power and regulation to achieve their ends cuts drastically away from your thesis here.

Progressivism is not the promotion of individual liberties and choice. In the slightest. You tend to forget that the path to at least the shared in common goals is drastically different -- and that the path is horribly important to the crux of libertarianism.

(03-14-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  So, about Brexit . . . :)

LOL.

Today's vote will almost certainly reject a "hard Brexit"...

(Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)

"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.

The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.

Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.

One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.

After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.

(I voted to leave.)

To the bolded, isn't the point of electing politicians so that the people do not have to be involved with every single legislative decision because the people as a whole don't have the time or energy, to be well informed about the ramifications of those legislative items? Isn't any decision made by the legislative body that doesn't conform to the will of a simple majority inherently a power grab, based on that comment?

Brexit passed with less than 52% of the vote - hardly a healthy majority for a decision with serious implications. I have no idea why that referendum wasn't set at 60% or above, which would have at least indicated that an overwhelming majority of citizens supported the referendum, as opposed to just a simple majority.

I go back and forth about how I feel about putting legislative decision on a ballot because the people as a whole generally don't have the time to really dig into the implications of the decision. For example, Prop B passed here in Houston, which raised fire fighter salaries, and it is wreaking havoc now. However, putting these initiatives on ballots is the ultimate power to the people, which is definitely a positive. Sort of thinking out loud here...

The same 'plus minus' issue that you see in the proposition process can be mirrored in the majoritarian stance prevalent in the 'down with the Electoral College' and 'poor California only gets two Senators' positions which are cried out by some.