2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[duwal]

Originally Posted by houdini

I am thinking about taking this thread down.

I am concerned that some members are just going to be completely blindsided by this election. I don't think the anything else really matter to them at all.

If their candidate doesn't win, I am not sure they can stay safe.

I know some of you are probably chuckling right now, but I am being sincere. I don't want to see where some people are going to end up.

Would probably be the right call to do now. Looking at most of the conversations now they are very unconstructive with no one saying or doing anything that would sway another's opinion making it nearly meaningless

[Onions]

Originally Posted by phosgene

i would love to see the "true conservative" that refused to sign off on declaring a disaster area after a devastating natural disaster.

instant lame duck. not hard to understand why a "true conservative" never gets nominated let alone elected.

all the moaning the republicans have done about "conservatism" and when it came down to it, they nominated the biggest RINO of the bunch. they just couldn't resist the siren song of "the wall".

None of that has any thing to do with conservatism.

[Onions]

Originally Posted by houdini

I am thinking about taking this thread down.

I am concerned that some members are just going to be completely blindsided by this election. I don't think the anything else really matter to them at all.

If their candidate doesn't win, I am not sure they can stay safe.

I know some of you are probably chuckling right now, but I am being sincere. I don't want to see where some people are going to end up.

Nuke it on the 8th. It will be a disaster no matter which of these clowns win.

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Onions

None of that has any thing to do with conservatism.

okay. i guess i have just been misunderstanding them for 30 years. so your position then is disaster aid is conservative? so help me out a bit and show me where that is in the constitution...

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by duwal

Would probably be the right call to do now. Looking at most of the conversations now they are very unconstructive with no one saying or doing anything that would sway another's opinion making it nearly meaningless

as opposed to earlier...
really?

[Onions]

Originally Posted by phosgene

okay. i guess i have just been misunderstanding them for 30 years. so your position then is disaster aid is conservative? so help me out a bit and show me where that is in the constitution...

What is it with you and disaster aid? It's gonna be OK. Even the most conservative among us will approve rebuilding disaster areas.

[ntgm37]

I've actually learned quite a bit from this thread in regards to both parties, so I would be bummed out if was shut down. I would agree that closing it on the 7th would be best for everyone involved so that the crazies don't go crazy when their candidate isn't elected.

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Onions

What is it with you and disaster aid? It's gonna be OK. Even the most conservative among us will approve rebuilding disaster areas.

if it were true. republicans have held up aid for some disasters. just wondering what your definition of "conservatism" is? most people that call themselves "true conservatives" do not believe in any government spending that is not directed by the constitution. ron paul, when he was in congress, voted against disaster aid all the time.

if you seek a "true conservative" to be the chief executive of the united states, invest some time to research what that really means and what the consequences are.

[phosgene]

if you're a republican that seeks to keep the party together AND you're voting for trump, you owe it to yourself to read a couple of articles about your new best buddies, the alt-right.
the price i've paid for opposing donald trump--stomach turning

expanding on the first story

good luck winning a national election with friends like this....

[Onions]

Originally Posted by phosgene

if it were true. republicans have held up aid for some disasters. just wondering what your definition of "conservatism" is? most people that call themselves "true conservatives" do not believe in any government spending that is not directed by the constitution. ron paul, when he was in congress, voted against disaster aid all the time.

if you seek a "true conservative" to be the chief executive of the united states, invest some time to research what that really means and what the consequences are.

Ron Paul is a conservative?

Again, What is it with you and disaster aid?

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Onions

Ron Paul is a conservative?

Again, What is it with you and disaster aid?

you are making an argument he is not? ron paul was notorious for voting aginst any spending not expressly directed by the constitution. can you think of a better definition of a "true conservative"?

i don't have any problem with disaster aid. i'm only pointing out that "true conservatives" do. maybe your political philosophy isn't as right wing as you think...

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

I kind of disagree. I think it's important that the government fine certain behaviors that have been proven to be detrimental to the greater good of society. Buckling your seat belt saves lives. You can drive without but be prepared to get a ticket if caught. Driving is a privilege not a right.

I think fining people for not having health insurance is also a benefit to society. We pay for those who are not insured whether we like it or not. Getting more people insured not only gives that person the benefit of having coverage, it gives benefits to hospitals, people who use the hospital system, and society in general.

Does the government sometimes spend tax money unwisely? I'd say sometimes is an understatement. I've never had an issue with paying taxes. I understand the great benefit that the money goes to and that the majority of it is spent in the way it is intended. Heck, if the government at each level could prove that it's spending the money they have wisely, I'd be okay with paying more if it meant more benefit.

I agree that sometimes the government oversteps it's bounds. Kind of like when the GOP released their official platform which included calling pornography a public health crisis, renewing the push to keep marijuana illegal, not softening up on abortion, and standing put on being against gay rights. The Democrats can be just as awful with the policing of words and thoughts. The labeling of people based off of one misstep. Both parties are guilty of getting involved in things that really do not concern them.

Of course you disagree. You are not a Libertarian leaning Conservative. My only comment beyond that is on seat belts. They save lives, sure. But forcing someone to have their live saved should be up to them.

Originally Posted by houdini

I am thinking about taking this thread down.

I am concerned that some members are just going to be completely blindsided by this election. I don't think the anything else really matter to them at all.

If their candidate doesn't win, I am not sure they can stay safe.

I know some of you are probably chuckling right now, but I am being sincere. I don't want to see where some people are going to end up.

My recommendation would be to lock the thread on election day. Leave it up for posterity.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by phosgene

you are making an argument he is not? ron paul was notorious for voting aginst any spending not expressly directed by the constitution. can you think of a better definition of a "true conservative"?

i don't have any problem with disaster aid. i'm only pointing out that "true conservatives" do. maybe your political philosophy isn't as right wing as you think...

Ron Paul was a Libertarian leaning Conservative. In fact, probably the most Libertarian leaning Conservative in mondern history.

[jerryw]

Trump is here to grab vagina and make America great again and he is all out of vagina

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Ron Paul was a Libertarian leaning Conservative. In fact, probably the most Libertarian leaning Conservative in mondern history.

point? you're saying he's not a true conservative? "onions" seems to imply "don't worry, true conservatives support disaster aid". i don't think they do. "true conservatives" don't favor raising the debt ceiling, so disaster aid is a real stretch. my contention is that "true conservatives" sound good to duped followers, but in practice proves to be politically lethal. as a result, there are very few "true conservatives" in national politics.

[preakness]

Pathetic options

[Onions]

Originally Posted by phosgene

point? you're saying he's not a true conservative? "onions" seems to imply "don't worry, true conservatives support disaster aid". i don't think they do. "true conservatives" don't favor raising the debt ceiling, so disaster aid is a real stretch. my contention is that "true conservatives" sound good to duped followers, but in practice proves to be politically lethal. as a result, there are very few "true conservatives" in national politics.

Ron Paul doesn't like FEMA. I don't disagree with him. You might be the only "disaster aid" single issue voter that I have ever heard of.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by phosgene

point? you're saying he's not a true conservative? "onions" seems to imply "don't worry, true conservatives support disaster aid". i don't think they do. "true conservatives" don't favor raising the debt ceiling, so disaster aid is a real stretch. my contention is that "true conservatives" sound good to duped followers, but in practice proves to be politically lethal. as a result, there are very few "true conservatives" in national politics.

Relax. My point is, historically Ron Paul voted against anything that would expand the government; disaster aid included.

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Onions

Ron Paul doesn't like FEMA. I don't disagree with him. You might be the only "disaster aid" single issue voter that I have ever heard of.

it's just the single issue i'm using to illustrate the hypocrisy of "true conservatism" is all...

[Skipscards]

And no, Ron Paul is not a true conservative. He's this:

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Relax. My point is, historically Ron Paul voted against anything that would expand the government; disaster aid included.

noting that you think it isn't the govermnet's role to require someone to save their own life with a seat belt, but it IS the requirement of a woman to bring a baby to term regardless of any other factors, like if she was raped, or if the baby is the product of incest or if her health may be compromised.

viva liberty!
(for men only)...

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by phosgene

noting that you think it isn't the govermnet's role to require someone to save their own life with a seat belt, but it IS the requirement of a woman to bring a baby to term regardless of any other factors, like if she was raped, or if the baby is the product of incest or if her health may be compromised.

viva liberty!
(for men only)...

Actually I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should even be a politcal issue. But I am 100% against late term abortions. That's my personal choice. See, you can actually choose not to kill an unborn child.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by houdini

I am thinking about taking this thread down.

I am concerned that some members are just going to be completely blindsided by this election. I don't think the anything else really matter to them at all.

If their candidate doesn't win, I am not sure they can stay safe.

I know some of you are probably chuckling right now, but I am being sincere. I don't want to see where some people are going to end up.

Think it should stay open until sometime on the 9th.

[phosgene]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Actually I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should even be a politcal issue. But I am 100% against late term abortions. That's my personal choice. See, you can actually choose not to kill an unborn child.

so if the mother and baby die that is "god's plan"? how many women would have to die before you reversed your short-sighted opinion? is it unlimited? what does it take for the "pro-liberty" party to extend some liberty to women who happen to be pregnant? you reject the possibility that it is possible for there to be late term complications in a pregnancy? is that because god is infallible? how many people die for that belief before we pull back and reassess?

bottom line is the policy is government forces women to have babies. where is the liberty? where is the small government? where is the freewill? where is the low regulation? where is the "rugged individualism"? how long will it take for the party of "liberty" to concede that they have no place in an individual woman's healthcare choices?

[Onions]

Originally Posted by phosgene

so if the mother and baby die that is "god's plan"? how many women would have to die before you reversed your short-sighted opinion? is it unlimited? what does it take for the "pro-liberty" party to extend some liberty to women who happen to be pregnant? you reject the possibility that it is possible for there to be late term complications in a pregnancy? is that because god is infallible? how many people die for that belief before we pull back and reassess?

bottom line is the policy is government forces women to have babies. where is the liberty? where is the small government? where is the freewill? where is the low regulation? where is the "rugged individualism"? how long will it take for the party of "liberty" to concede that they have no place in an individual woman's healthcare choices?

If you want to kill your baby, you should decide do it before it is viable on its own. 100% against late term murder as well.

You are on tilt.

What if the mother is in labor during a natural disaster? Wrap your mind around that.