Conservative Media on Clinton

[TAFBSooner]

You don't learn or listen very well. Any overlap with my position and the far-left is incidental, and any commonality comes from *vastly* different ideological beliefs (arriving at the same conclusion for different reasons). The far-left are internationalists/globalists. The reason they don't want the United States asserting itself aggressively internationally is because they view the United States as a threat, and they don't want American influence abroad. That couldn't be more different than what I believe.

What is your opinion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its North Atlantic counterpart?

For the rest of you, what do you make of the fact that Obama is aligned with the Congressional Republicans on this issue? (Except for a minority of R's which won't vote to "give him a victory" even when the trade pact will help their big business allies?)

[SicEmBaylor]

What is your opinion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its North Atlantic counterpart?

Let me start off by saying that I oppose region-based free-trade agreements as a threat and violation of our sovereignty, and it prevents the United States from implementing targeted and limited tariffs at critical moments for US industry and agriculture. That's not to say that I don't support some free-trade agreements so long as they are on an individual nation-by-nation basis and have sunset provisions (for both trade partners). They must also be with nations who have economies similar and comparable to our own with similar labor standards, environmental regulations, wages, etc.

TPP scares the bejesus out of me. It isn't *just* a free-trade agreement; it also comes with a myriad of regulations that signatories must supposedly comply with. I don't trust several of the partners to fulfill those requirements since doing so would make it impossible for them to be competitive in the sort of market that the TPP is trying to create, and I have little or no expectation that the terms of the deal will be strictly enforced in those nations. Hell, I don't even know what the mechanism is for enforcement with the TPP....sanctions, maybe? Take Vietnam, for example, it's hard for me to see them fully implementing the labor union requirements when that would undermine the communist system. That aside, it's everything we don't yet know about the TPP that scares me. I'm afraid the Chamber-of-Commerce wing of the Party has found a willing ally in Obama.

Now, TAFTA is a bit different. Europe, by and large, has all of those requirements I listed above before I'd support a free-trade agreement. American workers have a reasonable expectation of competing against workers in Germany, and American industry doesn't have to fight against regulatory and statutory laws that don't exist with their trading partners. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the TAFTA framework is as broad or deep in scope. So, I oppose TAFTA just a bit less than TPP.

In general, however, I detest globalization. It's happening and won't stop, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

EDIT: Having said all of that, I wouldn't be caught dead at a G8 protest.

[SoonerorLater]

No. My position is coldly rational. It's the same rational theory behind disciplining children instead of giving them everything they want. Do you produce better kids when they misbehave by continuing to reward them? Or do you put them in the corner for awhile until they've learned their lesson?

This circular logic produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't get a viable alternative to the Republican Party if everyone keeps voting Republican, and if everyone keeps voting Republican there will never be a viable alternative. Keep in mind, we're sitting here talking as if this is only an issue within the Republican Party -- I assure you there are plenty on the left as equally discontent with the Democratic Party who would and do vote Green.


An abdication? An abdication of what, precisely? One's civic duty? I find that highly insulting and down right infuriating. No. No, sir. Voting for candidates who share my principles and not rewarding those who don't with a vote is not abdicating my civic responsibility. Let me pull a handful of our Founding Fathers from the grave and tell them, "Look, this guy right here is telling me that voting for a candidate who shares my principles rather than automatically voting for my party is an abdication of my civic duty." Let's see what they say.


No. It absolutely is not. If a Republican candidate is ****ty enough that I, and others, have to vote for a 3rd-party (or independent) alternative leading to the Democrat winning then that's entirely the fault of the ****ty *** Republican. And, that being the case, what the hell difference does it make if a Republican that ****ty is in office or a Democrat? Very little.



Out of curiosity, what specifically is it that you think I'm suggesting here with all of this? In a nutshell?

I was going to answer these point by point but the thought of it just makes my fingers tired. The bottom line is if you are not helping the Republican Party then by extension you are helping the Democratic Party. And yes, despite the fact that the Republicans are not all they should be, they are the better alternative.

An alt party vote is almost always a waste. If it's reformation you are seeking a better tactic would be to pressure these candidates into the Republican fold where their candidacy might yield some fruit. This is something a guy like Ron Paul understood. Not sure why you don't.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was going to answer these point by point but the thought of it just makes my fingers tired. The bottom line is if you are not helping the Republican Party then by extension you are helping the Democratic Party. And yes, despite the fact that the Republicans are not all they should be, they are the better alternative.

An alt party vote is almost always a waste. If it's reformation you are seeking a better tactic would be to pressure these candidates into the Republican fold where their candidacy might yield some fruit. This is something a guy like Ron Paul understood. Not sure why you don't.

I keep saying the same til I'm blue in the face, but Sicem always acts like it doesn't seem reasonable to him. I believe his position on foreign entanglements and international military presence are more important to him than the domestic unlawfulness of the democrats, and is why he is quicker to criticize that than he is the abhorrent behavior of the dems. Many, if not most of the Libertarians here behave in the same way as Sicem.

[SicEmBaylor]

I keep saying the same til I'm blue in the face, but Sicem always acts like it doesn't seem reasonable to him.

I've said it isn't a lot of things, but I've never said it doesn't seem reasonable. I can see the reason in it despite the fact that it's flat out wrong.

I believe his position on foreign entanglements and international military presence are more important to him than the domestic unlawfulness of the democrats,

And I have told you, on numerous occasions, that domestics are (without a doubt) the primary concern for me. Why do you think I bring up states' rights so much? What you fail to understand is that there is a correlation to big government abroad and big government at home. The two are not separate disjointed entities. You cannot have the kind of aggressive international presence (and all the wars and conflicts that go along with it) without having big government at home. The two are linked. I bring up foreign policy a lot because it's one way that I've desparately tried to illustrate to you the fact that there is little difference between a moderate Republican in the White House and a Democrat -- both parties agree on foreign policy in principle. The only difference between the two sides is the implementation of that policy. The point being this: It's nonsense to say that a Republican is demonstrably better in that situation when there is so little difference between the two sides. Add to that fact that a moderate Republican isn't going to be demonstrably better than a Democrat on domestic affairs either, and you're talking about a very small marginal benefit to voting for a Republican. Sorry, I won't sell out my principles for a very modest (supposedly) benefit by electing a ****ty Republican. Not going to happen. Again, I use foreign policy to demonstrate this fact but it certainly doesn't mean foreign policy is more important than domestic affairs.

why he is quicker to criticize that than he is the abhorrent behavior of the dems.

You either don't understand English, you don't bother to read what I write, or you think I'm lying when I've addressed why I do this a thousand times.

Many, if not most of the Libertarians here behave in the same way as Sicem.

Many? Who here is a libertarian? The closest thing on this board to a libertarian is myself and Fan and neither of us are libertarians.

[SicEmBaylor]

I was going to answer these point by point but the thought of it just makes my fingers tired. The bottom line is if you are not helping the Republican Party then by extension you are helping the Democratic Party. And yes, despite the fact that the Republicans are not all they should be, they are the better alternative.

An alt party vote is almost always a waste. If it's reformation you are seeking a better tactic would be to pressure these candidates into the Republican fold where their candidacy might yield some fruit. This is something a guy like Ron Paul understood. Not sure why you don't.

Ron Paul ran for President as a Libertarian...

As for working within a party and finding like-minded candidates, that's why I work within the Republican Party. That's why I personally have worked to recruit candidates to do exactly as you speak. That's why I show up to the meetings. That's why I spent ten years in a conservative advocacy group working to elect conservatives, working on legislative ratings, recruiting candidates, endorsing candidates, and even doing a little bit of lobbying work. I assure you -- I do exactly that.

But, at the end of the day, if I walk into a voting booth and I'm confronted with the choice between voting for a very ****ty Republican or a Democrat, I'll either abstain or choose a 3rd party candidate if (on the whole) they share my convictions. End of story. Earn my vote or don't -- I don't give it away for free just because a jackass attaches an (R) by their name.

[Eielson]

As I always state as a disclaimer before I post, I don't know **** about politics. I only post in here because I feel 90% of posters seem to be in the same boat.

...but I think voting is the bottom line, and I don't think there is any better way to get a party's attention than through the way you vote. Short term, yes, it's essentially "throwing away" your vote, but that's not necessarily the case long term. If the Republicans marched out an awful candidate in 2016, and 15% of Republicans responded by abstaining/voting for an alternate party, that would certainly lead to a landslide victory for the Democrats. In 2020, however, you can bet there would be major changes in the Republican party.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As I always state as a disclaimer before I post, I don't know **** about politics. I only post in here because I feel 90% of posters seem to be in the same boat.

...but I think voting is the bottom line, and I don't think there is any better way to get a party's attention than through the way you vote. Short term, yes, it's essentially "throwing away" your vote, but that's not necessarily the case long term. If the Republicans marched out an awful candidate in 2016, and 15% of Republicans responded by abstaining/voting for an alternate party, that would certainly lead to a landslide victory for the Democrats. In 2020, however, you can bet there would be major changes in the Republican party.

How has that philsophy worked so far? haha...actually it's not funny at all. It's given us Bear twice now, and look at the incalculable damage he's done already. If we get another democrat elected in 2016, the major damage could be too hard to peaceably correct.

[SicEmBaylor]

As I always state as a disclaimer before I post, I don't know **** about politics. I only post in here because I feel 90% of posters seem to be in the same boat.

...but I think voting is the bottom line, and I don't think there is any better way to get a party's attention than through the way you vote. Short term, yes, it's essentially "throwing away" your vote, but that's not necessarily the case long term. If the Republicans marched out an awful candidate in 2016, and 15% of Republicans responded by abstaining/voting for an alternate party, that would certainly lead to a landslide victory for the Democrats. In 2020, however, you can bet there would be major changes in the Republican party.

This is 100% right. You eat the short term cost for long-term gain.

[SicEmBaylor]

How has that philsophy worked so far?

It hasn't really been tried.

haha...actually it's not funny at all. It's given us Bear twice now, and look at the incalculable damage he's done already. If we get another democrat elected in 2016, the major damage could be too hard to peaceably correct.

No. What gave us Obama are two incredibly terrible Republican candidates who ran terrible campaigns that the American people rejected because, well, they suck.

1)No Republican on Earth was going to win the 2008 election lest of all John McCain who is a certifiable lunatic.
2)Romney was absolutely tone deaf to middle class Americans -- his campaign shot itself in the foot more than once and those gaffes led to a perceived image that he was out of touch.

3rd party voting had absolutely ZILCH to do with Obama winning. Absolutely zilch. The numbers were not enough to have made the difference. Barr only got less than half a million votes spread out over 50 states; Gary Johnson got 1.2. None were close enough in swing states to have made the difference. Don't you have a PoliSci degree? You should know that, right?

[SicEmBaylor]

2008 results:

Ohio: 2,940,000 votes, Obama; 2,677,000 votes, McCain; 20,000 votes, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=263,000 votes..............Barr only got 20,000 votes still leaving a deficit of 260,000 votes for McCain.

Florida: 4,300,000 votes, Obama; 4,000,000, McCain; 17,000, Barr
Difference between Obama-McCain=300,000 votes.............Barr only got 17,000 votes leaving a deficit of 283,000 votes for McCain

2012:
Ohio: 2,827,000 votes, Obama; 2,661,000, Romney; 49,500, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=166,000 votes........Johnson only got 49,500 leaving a deficit of 116,500 votes for Romney.

Florida: 4,237,000 votes, Obama; 4,163,000 votes, Romney; 45,000, Gary Johnson
Difference between Obama-Romney=74,000..............Gary Johnson got 45,000 leaving a deficit of 29,000 votes for Romney.


----------------

Long story short, this myth that McCain and Romney lost the election because conservatives voted 3rd party is absolute nonsense.

TL/DR: RLIMC is full of pig ****.

[Eielson]

How has that philsophy worked so far? haha...actually it's not funny at all. It's given us Bear twice now, and look at the incalculable damage he's done already. If we get another democrat elected in 2016, the major damage could be too hard to peaceably correct.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the third party candidates combined received about 1.5% of the overall vote. Even if we assume all of those would have otherwise been republican votes, I don't think that made a difference.

[SoonerorLater]

This is 100% right. You eat the short term cost for long-term gain.

There is no long term gain by this strategy. No "pie in the sky in sky in the great bye 'n bye". As I said Republican losses will not cause some epiphany that 'we need to get more conservative'. If anything it will tend to make the platform more populist to undercut the democrats at their own game.

All of this being said I believe we are on an almost irreversible course to complete statism. Over the next few decades it will exacerbated by macro trends that are largely beyond our control.

[SicEmBaylor]

There is no long term gain by this strategy. No "pie in the sky in sky in the great bye 'n bye". As I said Republican losses will not cause some epiphany that 'we need to get more conservative'. If anything it will tend to make the platform more populist to undercut the democrats at their own game.

I've worked on platforms in TX and OK. That is not how it works at all. That's not how any of that works. In fact, I got 4 new planks into the county platform -- two of which were adopted by the state. It absolutely makes the grassroots 'tighten up' the platform. Platforms are created from the bottom up -- amendments are brought up at the precinct level which then go to the county platform committees which also may propose its own -- those planks are then voted on at the county convention -- those county platforms then go to the state level where the same thing happens...they review changes on the county level and may adopt/propose their own....then the national committee does the same based, largely, on state platforms around the country. I assure you that platforms get tighter when elections are lost. It is not the other way around.

All of this being said I believe we are on an almost irreversible course to complete statism. Over the next few decades it will exacerbated by macro trends that are largely beyond our control.

Then for God's sake stop voting for statists! McCain is the absolute definition of a statist as was Romney (to a somewhat lesser degree). You do realize that there are statists on both sides which is the entire reason, on a real fundamental level, I'm sitting here having this argument...right? If there weren't statists in the GOP then I wouldn't be having this argument.

[SicEmBaylor]

However, having said all of that, the platforms are largely useless and meaningless. There is no requirement whatsoever that binds Republicans to its tenants and most don't. Most don't even bother to read the damned things.

[Eielson]

There is no long term gain by this strategy.

Well...that's one opinion.

I guess we'll see how things end up, but if we go McCain --> Romney --> Paul, then I think losing did the Republican party some good.

If we'd followed up 8 years of GW with 8 years of McCain, I think the Democrats could have won the 2016 election with a cadaver.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well...that's one opinion.

I guess we'll see how things end up, but if we go McCain --> Romney --> Paul, then I think losing did the Republican party some good.

If we'd followed up 8 years of GW with 8 years of McCain, I think the Democrats could have won the 2016 election with a cadaver.

Make no mistake, the party is split into two camps. Back in 2012, I wrote that long-*** winded post about the coming civil war for the heart and mind of the Republican Party. There's the establishment wing (mostly neocons and the Wall Street crowd) and then you have the liberty/grassroots wing of the party. The former is going to be represented this election by Paul and Cruz, respectively. Then you have guys somewhere between the two camps like Walker, Huck, Perry, etc -- then you have the outright establishment guys like Bush and Christie.

God help us if someone like Bush is the nominee, and by us I mean "America."

But the takeaway here is that losing three straight Presidential elections has finally resulted in two liberty/conservative candidates having a better than not chance at the nomination. That hasn't been true for a very very long time. If McCain and Romney had won those two elections then the Republican Party would continue to throw its support behind the same sort of establishment/statist candidates that they because why change if it's working, electorally speaking?

The only reason we're getting better GOP candidates is because the GOP lost.

[SoonerorLater]

I've worked on platforms in TX and OK. That is not how it works at all. That's not how any of that works. In fact, I got 4 new planks into the county platform -- two of which were adopted by the state. It absolutely makes the grassroots 'tighten up' the platform. Platforms are created from the bottom up -- amendments are brought up at the precinct level which then go to the county platform committees which also may propose its own -- those planks are then voted on at the county convention -- those county platforms then go to the state level where the same thing happens...they review changes on the county level and may adopt/propose their own....then the national committee does the same based, largely, on state platforms around the country. I assure you that platforms get tighter when elections are lost. It is not the other way around.

That well may be true for Oklahoma but there really isn't a candidate that is going to be dismissed by the voters here for being too darn conservative. Not so in other areas. There are (R) senators and reps from the northeast particularly, who I will go out on a limb and say you would not find to be real conservatives, who simply can't be elected as real conservatives.

I would counter that the Democratic party is far for more statist which is exactly why people need to stamp the ticket (R). Not because they are always going to get a good guy but they don't give numbers to Democrats who are worse.

[SicEmBaylor]

That well may be true for Oklahoma but there really isn't a candidate that is going to be dismissed by the voters here for being too darn conservative. Not so in other areas. There are (R) senators and reps from the northeast particularly, who I will go out on a limb and say you would not find to be real conservatives, who simply can't be elected as real conservatives.

If they aren't conservative why are you so interested in voting for them? What are they offering that is so appealing that leads you to believe they are infinitely better than a Democrat? Olympia Snowe? Let me tell you -- if you walk into the voting booth and Snowe is on your ballot along with a Democrat and a third-party guy who is genuinely conservative/liberty-oriented and you vote for Snow then let me be blunt -- f'k you.

I would counter that the Democratic party is far for more statist which is exactly why people need to stamp the ticket (R). Not because they are always going to get a good guy but they don't give numbers to Democrats who are worse.

The Democrats are no more statist than the Republicans -- they're simply statist in different ways. I don't endorse one any more than I endorse the other in that regard.

As for the fact that there are more moderate/liberal states with GOP platforms not quite as conservative as ours, that's absolutely true. The way to appeal to moderates is by pushing the very message I've been pushing here -- limited-government/individual liberty. There is an opportunity to appeal to a large swath of moderates out there who are more socially liberal; however, please mind the difference between 'social liberalism' and 'social libertarianism', the two have a lot of commonality but they are not the same. In any case, this is exactly the reason supporting Ron Paul is so damned important. He has a chance to appeal to those moderates who reject the Republican Party because of its statist-stance on social issues.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If I'm not mistaken, all of the third party candidates combined received about 1.5% of the overall vote. Even if we assume all of those would have otherwise been republican votes, I don't think that made a difference.

Is there a reason I have to waste my time reminding of those who sat home on their voting hands as well as those who voted 3rd party? IOW, bullsh*t. I don't really believe you are that stupid.