LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:43 pm**

I am totally open to anyone moving towards fact-based rational analysis.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:59 pm**

HooDat wrote: The ENTIRE POINT of the discussion I have been trying to have is that Tucker Carlson's latest commentary is just that, a conservative trying to change the gop thinking around the demonization of government and the utility of some degree of socialistic governmental role in society - he may skip around the word, because it has become a third rail int he gop, but that IS what he is saying. But then I hear "well now he's just re-packaging democrat policies" from people who remain obsessed with little r's and little d's ... bang1

I think you're projecting ideas on to Tucker that weren't in his essay. But let's pretend they are there.

Why would you belong to the Republicans now? What's the sales pitch?

For 50 or so years, the pitch was: we are for a smaller, limited, fiscally responsible Federal government. We will in every case possible, choose free market over government intervention.

Now you and I know this is utter horse hockey, and that what Republicans mean is: government help for me, and the free market for you. I can list dozens of clear examples of this actual, real policy.

So what's the new Republican party under Tucker? If you recall, I jokingly remarked on the Water Cooler that the new pitch was "we hate gays", because R voters are on the dole more than anyone. I was kidding. But maybe I wasn't too far off the truth.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:56 pm**

a fan wrote:So what's the new Republican party under Tucker?

maybe it could be: pro-family (and as you note, most likely "traditional" families - so your "we hate gays" mantra could be apropos).

alternatively it could be: pro-small business, or anti-globalization, or pro-decentralization

there are several ways two political parties that are actually interested in governing can have REAL differences of opinion that actually matter to people. Most of them don't revolve around what should be done by the government, but how it should be done by the government. Those are debates that I think can be productive and harmonious.

Now there is the problem - actually interested in governing. Versus bought and paid for by a lobby interest. That too was contained in Tucker's screeds. The politicians don't give a rat's behind about the people. It has become so clear to the voters that we got Trump for heaven's sake!

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:51 pm**

HooDat wrote:alternatively it could be: pro-small business, or anti-globalization, or pro-decentralization

The first two are long time Dem planks. The last isn't workable...it's why we are where we are.

HooDat wrote:Now there is the problem - actually interested in governing. Versus bought and paid for by a lobby interest. That too was contained in Tucker's screeds. The politicians don't give a rat's behind about the people. It has become so clear to the voters that we got Trump for heaven's sake!

The one bright spot from the last election was that voters said "no" to Hillary.

I don't know how to repackage the Republican party. Not without making them sound like the racist White people party by making it all about trying to make it 1950's America again when it comes to social issues.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:42 pm**

a fan wrote:
HooDat wrote: The ENTIRE POINT of the discussion I have been trying to have is that Tucker Carlson's latest commentary is just that, a conservative trying to change the gop thinking around the demonization of government and the utility of some degree of socialistic governmental role in society - he may skip around the word, because it has become a third rail int he gop, but that IS what he is saying. But then I hear "well now he's just re-packaging democrat policies" from people who remain obsessed with little r's and little d's ... bang1
I think you're projecting ideas on to Tucker that weren't in his essay. But let's pretend they are there.

Why would you belong to the Republicans now? What's the sales pitch?

For 50 or so years, the pitch was: we are for a smaller, limited, fiscally responsible Federal government. We will in every case possible, choose free market over government intervention.

Now you and I know this is utter horse hockey, and that what Republicans mean is: government help for me, and the free market for you. I can list dozens of clear examples of this actual, real policy.

So what's the new Republican party under Tucker? If you recall, I jokingly remarked on the Water Cooler that the new pitch was "we hate gays", because R voters are on the dole more than anyone. I was kidding. But maybe I wasn't too far off the truth.

I have no idea what Carlson is trying to do. What I have noticed however, increasingly is some republicans, when acting as talking heads, speaking well of socialist concepts, ideas, policies without using the word. Socialism is becoming a conservative idea.

This is how liberalism wins, ideas move right. Give it 20 years and Bernie Sanders will be a republican god.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:53 pm**

a fan wrote:
HooDat wrote:alternatively it could be: pro-small business, or anti-globalization, or pro-decentralization
The first two are long time Dem planks. The last isn't workable...it's why we are where we are.

HooDat wrote:Now there is the problem - actually interested in governing. Versus bought and paid for by a lobby interest. That too was contained in Tucker's screeds. The politicians don't give a rat's behind about the people. It has become so clear to the voters that we got Trump for heaven's sake!
The one bright spot from the last election was that voters said "no" to Hillary.

I don't know how to repackage the Republican party. Not without making them sound like the racist White people party by making it all about trying to make it 1950's America again when it comes to social issues.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:53 pm**

jhu72 wrote:I have no idea what Carlson is trying to do. What I have noticed however, increasingly is some republicans, when acting as talking heads, speaking well of socialist concepts, ideas, policies without using the word. Socialism is becoming a conservative idea. This is how liberalism wins, ideas move right. Give it 20 years and Bernie Sanders will be a republican god.

Yep. And it's not just the socialism. It's on the military side, too. How many articles have we seen over the last year where the formerly conservative writer condemns America for playing cop to the world?

The late 80's anti-war liberals called. They want their policy ideas back.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:18 pm**

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:31 am**

You say the GOP is the party of war, but which party got us into each of our armed conflicts?

WWI - Wilson - Dem
WWII - Roosevelt - Dem
Korea - Truman - Dem
Vietnam - Johnson - Dem
Gulf War - Bush - GOP
Afghanistan - Bush - GOP
Iraq - Bush - GOP
Lybia - Obama - Dem
Syria/ISIS - Obama - Dem
Yemen - Obama - Dem

So by my count, in modern history of the significant military engagements (I know I skipped a lot of things like Grenada, but I don't think it would change the argument) that is 10 "wars" and 7 of them were started by Dems.....

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:42 am**

I'm confused. Doesn't Congress declare war? Who wants to re-visit that list in light of this fact?

..

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:03 am**

dislaxxic wrote:I'm confused. Doesn't Congress declare war? Who wants to re-visit that list in light of this fact?

..

Except for the fact that Congress has not declared a war since maybe WWI. But if you want to see what that would have looked like, here is is. I bolded the ones where the House was controlled by the other party. It swings one to the dems and three to the GOP making it 5 and 5. But, depending on how you want to look at it, the "wars" under GOP control of the house are in the time period since the house essentially ceded its war powers to the POTUS - that doesn't reflect wall on the GOP, but it doesn't make them the party of war)

WWI - Clark - Dem
WWII - Bankhead - Dem
Korea - Rayburn - Dem
Vietnam - McCormack - Dem
Gulf War - Foley - DEM (GOP)
Afghanistan - Hassert - GOP
Iraq - Hassert - GOP
Lybia - Boehner - GOP (Dem)
Syria/ISIS - Boehner - GOP (Dem)
Yemen - Ryan - GOP (Dem)

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:53 am**

HooDat wrote:You say the GOP is the party of war, but which party got us into each of our armed conflicts?

WWI - Wilson - Dem
WWII - Roosevelt - Dem
Korea - Truman - Dem
Vietnam - Johnson - Dem
Gulf War - Bush - GOP
Afghanistan - Bush - GOP
Iraq - Bush - GOP
Lybia - Obama - Dem
Syria/ISIS - Obama - Dem
Yemen - Obama - Dem

So by my count, in modern history of the significant military engagements (I know I skipped a lot of things like Grenada, but I don't think it would change the argument) that is 10 "wars" and 7 of them were started by Dems.....

You're conflating Liberals with Democrats. There isn't a liberal anywhere on Earth that would have voted for any of those wars. It's the defining characteristic of a Liberal. Or at least the post Civil Rights era definition. Remember when I kept telling the Water Cooler that Obama wasn't a liberal, and was in fact center right? I can walk you through why, if you'd like.

This is one of the huge reasons Hillary lost---non-stop war. Liberals are furious, and have had enough. Liberals have not been represented in Congress in any meaningful numbers for decades. That's what liberals mean when they call Hillary a corporate Dem. The parallel to this are actual small government conservatives like Paul. He's a lone wolf out there, and has been for a loooooong time.

The anti war liberals from the 80's were right. We should have never set foot in the ME. We should have focused our money and attention on domestic issues and the working class. We didn't.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:24 pm**

a fan wrote:You're conflating Liberals with Democrats.

fair

and this is very true:

a fan wrote:The anti war liberals from the 80's were right. We should have never set foot in the ME. We should have focused our money and attention on domestic issues and the working class. We didn't.

which is why folks say TAATS, and people get fed up and out of nowhere candidates like Trump and Sanders get votes in spite of the party machines.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:57 pm**

And why Ocascio was elected. IMHO, unless gerrymandering keeps them in check, we're going to see more and more Ocascio's in Congress.

She's offering a new direction. The very thing Cradle, Fatty, and others have asked for.....she's got plans.

And have you noticed that voters are catching on to the "how is she going to pay for these things" horsehockey?

If you ask me, Republicans are going to pay a dear, dear price for their fiscal ineptitude. They can't call out Ocascio without voters saying "you're joking about fiscal responsibility, right?"

Republican voters may not be able to add, but Ocascio supporters sure as heck can. And their response is the same as hers: "we're going to pay for these ideas the same way we pay for everything else".

Rather telling answer that speaks volumes.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:32 pm**

a fan wrote:She's offering a new direction.

What is "new" about what she is offering?

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:59 pm**

Unabashed socialism put in millenial terms. Then you add in one thing we've learned about the post FoxNation era: the messenger is more important than the message.

So even though she's saying much the same stuff Bernie did last election, the message is received in an entirely different way.

So the message is coming from someone who doesn't know doodly about politics, and she's a young latina woman.

Remember, Dem voters (or the corrupt National Dems, take your pick) rejected Bernie.

Would Bernie Sanders have tweeted "New Party, who Dis?"

And did you have to look up what "who Dis" means? I did!

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:02 pm**

a fan wrote:Unabashed socialism put in millenial terms. Then you add in one thing we've learned about the post FoxNation era: the messenger is more important than the message.

So even though she's saying much the same stuff Bernie did last election, the message is received in an entirely different way.

So the message is coming from someone who doesn't know doodly about politics, and she's a young latina woman.

Remember, Dem voters (or the corrupt National Dems, take your pick) rejected Bernie.

Would Bernie Sanders have tweeted "New Party, who Dis?"

And did you have to look up what "who Dis" means? I did!

You mean “who dis” isn’t Dislaxx?

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:15 pm**

a fan wrote:Unabashed socialism put in millenial terms. Then you add in one thing we've learned about the post FoxNation era: the messenger is more important than the message. FoxNation?...I think Marshall McLuhan may have something to say about that.

So even though she's saying much the same stuff Bernie did last election, the message is received in an entirely different way.

So the message is coming from someone who doesn't know doodly about politics, and she's a young latina woman.

Remember, Dem voters (or the corrupt National Dems, take your pick) rejected Bernie. Good idea...

Would Bernie Sanders have tweeted "New Party, who Dis?"

And did you have to look up what "who Dis" means? I did!

I don't know a fan, she's young and pretty and just fine that she's latina but...

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:24 pm**

You don't agree with my explanation, that's cool. Since we're on to McCluhan, the medium is the message....

All Ocascio has to do is not follow Pelosi. And not do as JHU72 advises, and go for tiny, incremental change.

Not only do millenials want big change----they need big change if they're to get out from behind the economic 8ball.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:54 pm**

HooDat wrote:You say the GOP is the party of war, but which party got us into each of our armed conflicts?

WWI - Wilson - Dem
WWII - Roosevelt - Dem
Korea - Truman - Dem
Vietnam - Johnson - Dem
Gulf War - Bush - GOP
Afghanistan - Bush - GOP
Iraq - Bush - GOP
Lybia - Obama - Dem
Syria/ISIS - Obama - Dem
Yemen - Obama - Dem

So by my count, in modern history of the significant military engagements (I know I skipped a lot of things like Grenada, but I don't think it would change the argument) that is 10 "wars" and 7 of them were started by Dems.....

Iraq---Bush? That was under President Cheney's watch---or so I thought.

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS

Re: TAATS