Republican Debate?

[Illia]

Hey my state is probably always going to be blue, but this region, the whole peninsula, is mostly red. I'll admit my support usually swings around. Politicians are never reliable after all. My opinion always sticks but there's never someone always on the same side with close enough opinions to mine.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Illia....don't take this the wrong way, but I assumed you were my age, but you're saying you are only 21? Sheesh...now I feel old.

Regarding Obama...I talked about this today with a friend on the phone. I think his problem was that he couldn't see the degree of the mess he was headed into, and was too idealistic in his solutions. I think that as Bush left office, things were sort of held together with tape and spit, and once Obama got in, his eyes widened at the problems ahead of him. I'm reminded of when I worked as an accountant for a restaurant and volunteered to cover the office for another location while their accountant went away for a week -- boy, was that place a mess. Being trained to be so meticulous with how things were done, I spent half my time there "bringing things up to code" with regards to how the files were maintained.

Unfortunately, he was also too compromising when trying to work with the Republicans in Congress, so what he wanted to do got watered down into ineffectiveness. It's hard to measure how well a plan works if you have to slice away a third of it to get it in action.

My issue with the Republican party is that its base is so varied now and its original precepts seem to get lost in the shuffle. When I was younger, I agreed with the economic policies of the Republican party, and the idea of limited to no government interference with personal liberty. But then it got in bed with social conservatism, and suddenly the "live and let live" ideal went out the window. I remember seeing a documentary on Barry Goldwater that made me think he'd turn in his grave if he heard what gets said by Republicans today. The ideals of "limited government" and "personal liberties" disappear when you try to legislate morality and dogma. But to keep the votes from the social conservatives, they have to stick to that philosophy. That's why I don't vote Republican anymore.

 

[Illia]

Quote:

Yes. I'm pretty darn young, shock or not, to the people who have gotten used to me on the forum.

Actually, I'm several months short of 21. . . .

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:

Yes. I'm pretty darn young, shock or not, to the people who have gotten used to me on the forum.

Actually, I'm several months short of 21. . . .

If you ever visit the east coast, send me a buzz and we'll go bar-hopping.

haha

 

[chickened]

Economically he has done Texas well, I lean toward Christie because we need fiscal responsibility as a priority, the rest of the issue can wait because if we do not get out of debt we will have a whole new set of problems when the growing percentage of folks relying on some form of government assistance get denied. The change has to be in all 3 arms not just the head cheese. Oregon only has 7 electoral votes and it is usually never that close. The Pearl District does provide humorous entertainment and the downtown.
Quote:

 

[debilorrah]

Quote:
Illia....don't take this the wrong way, but I assumed you were my age, but you're saying you are only 21? Sheesh...now I feel old.

Regarding Obama...I talked about this today with a friend on the phone. I think his problem was that he couldn't see the degree of the mess he was headed into, and was too idealistic in his solutions. I think that as Bush left office, things were sort of held together with tape and spit, and once Obama got in, his eyes widened at the problems ahead of him. I'm reminded of when I worked as an accountant for a restaurant and volunteered to cover the office for another location while their accountant went away for a week -- boy, was that place a mess. Being trained to be so meticulous with how things were done, I spent half my time there "bringing things up to code" with regards to how the files were maintained.

Unfortunately, he was also too compromising when trying to work with the Republicans in Congress, so what he wanted to do got watered down into ineffectiveness. It's hard to measure how well a plan works if you have to slice away a third of it to get it in action.

My issue with the Republican party is that its base is so varied now and its original precepts seem to get lost in the shuffle. When I was younger, I agreed with the economic policies of the Republican party, and the idea of limited to no government interference with personal liberty. But then it got in bed with social conservatism, and suddenly the "live and let live" ideal went out the window. I remember seeing a documentary on Barry Goldwater that made me think he'd turn in his grave if he heard what gets said by Republicans today. The ideals of "limited government" and "personal liberties" disappear when you try to legislate morality and dogma. But to keep the votes from the social conservatives, they have to stick to that philosophy. That's why I don't vote Republican anymore.

I was going to say more, but thought better of it. I can say that I find you to be a very intelligent person. You manage to make your point without being offensive, and I appreciate that. We differ in opinion, however, I can take your posts, and respect them, and that is rare these days. Hats off to you!!!!

 

[chickened]

I actually like Christine Gregoire (sp) she is a farm girl originally.
Quote:

 

[cupman]

I just don't like how republicans are forced to have certain views no matter what. Abortion, stem cell research, gays. If they show any support for any of those it's political suicide. Maybe republicans can handle the economy better, but who wants to vote for one that plans on turning the country into a theocracy?

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Thank you!!!

I love differences in opinion -- I think if everyone thought the same, there'd be stagnation and no progress. I think it all comes down to owning your opinion. If you disagree, say "I disagree. I think...." rather than "No, you're wrong. This is how it is." The only times that works is in matters that are absolute -- such as "I'm taking my umbrella because it's raining outside" and you reply "No, you're wrong. It's not raining outside." We get into trouble in situations like "I'm taking my umbrella because it's going to rain" and you reply "No, you're wrong. It's not going to rain."

It's all about language.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
That's what I mean, and it applies to the Democrats also. I see it like this -- before the primaries, we see the most variety from each party, then the primaries happen, and we get the one that wins in the catering-contest. What I think would be great would be if instead of Republican and Democrat, there'd be several categories into which the candidates could fit. For example, say someone is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. There'd be one pair of parties based on economy, and another based on social concerns. The candidate I described would win the backing of the conservative economic party, and the backing of the liberal social party. What we usually see now is that the Conservative party always backs the Republican party, and the Liberal party always backs the Democrat party. If Liberal and Conservative were independent because they were about social concerns only, and the Republicans and Democrats were about economy, then we could have a candidate that was backed by both the Liberal and Republican parties, and we'd have candidates that more accurately fit what the voters want at the time. Then the candidates would be free to forge their own combination in various areas of policies, and win the liberal or conservative side of each. I'd have to work on the model a little better, but I think you get the general idea.


To simplify -- instead of voting for one party over the other, you'd vote for one candidate over the other. And each candidate would come with a "badge" showing support from whichever party backed him -- party A is all about being economically conservative, while party B is all about being economically liberal; party C is about limiting government interference, while party D is about strengthening government protection and enforcement; party E is about maintaining American dominance over foreign relations, while party F is about unifying nations as partners, etc.

Our two candidates are Tony and Barbara. Tony is supported by parties A, D and E, while Barbara is supported by parties B, C and F. These are your two choices following successive primaries for each of the aforementioned parties, in which any candidate is free to run.