The Myth of Establishment Republicans versus Conservative Republicans

[Mac1958]

It's not terribly difficult to see the stark division within the GOP, and it's even MORE obvious with this Speaker fiasco.

The Libertarians are trying to grab the party from the Republicans because they want the party's infrastructure, resources and influence and haven't been able to build those things on their own.

You're kidding right Mac? The House Freedom Caucus isn't made up of libertarians (most of 'em couldn't tell you what the NAP is on a bet), it's made up of tea-party sympathizing conservatives, the two are not the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with cooperating with the other party (the Constitution pretty much expects that, doesn't it?), and these folks just can't get it through their heads that elections have consequences.
.

Yes elections have consequences and the freedom caucus members have a responsibility to those that elected them to follow through on the promises they made to those that voted them in and under Boehner they haven't been able to do much of that, nor were they given much of voice, so yeah they're feeling the heat from their constituents about it.

I'm not condoning (or disparaging) what they are doing, I'm just saying I understand WHY they are doing it.

If they're not Libertarians (and I'm fine with that), they're not far from it. From an outside perspective, they can be depended upon to knee-jerk away from virtually any government spending and towards cutting government spending without demonstrating that they have thought through any macro consequences. Libertarian-lite, maybe.

And again, from an outside perspective, here's what it looks like these people are saying: "If we don't get our way, we're going to shut down the government and blame Obama for it. And if you're a Republican and don't toe the line, you're a RINO and we'll go after you with even more energy than which we go after Democrats".

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I don't see where. If they don't have the votes, then they lose. And if they lose, they have to find a way to convince the electorate to vote more people like them in. That's how it's supposed to work, in my estimation. Losing doesn't mean it all has to burn down. That's what they look like right now.
.

 

[NightFox]

It's not terribly difficult to see the stark division within the GOP, and it's even MORE obvious with this Speaker fiasco.

The Libertarians are trying to grab the party from the Republicans because they want the party's infrastructure, resources and influence and haven't been able to build those things on their own.

You're kidding right Mac? The House Freedom Caucus isn't made up of libertarians (most of 'em couldn't tell you what the NAP is on a bet), it's made up of tea-party sympathizing conservatives, the two are not the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with cooperating with the other party (the Constitution pretty much expects that, doesn't it?), and these folks just can't get it through their heads that elections have consequences.
.

Yes elections have consequences and the freedom caucus members have a responsibility to those that elected them to follow through on the promises they made to those that voted them in and under Boehner they haven't been able to do much of that, nor were they given much of voice, so yeah they're feeling the heat from their constituents about it.

I'm not condoning (or disparaging) what they are doing, I'm just saying I understand WHY they are doing it.

If they're not Libertarians (and I'm fine with that), they're not far from it. From an outside perspective, they can be depended upon to knee-jerk away from virtually any government spending and towards cutting government spending without demonstrating that they have thought through any macro consequences. Libertarian-lite, maybe.

They aren't libertarians at all, not libertarian-lite, not libertarian clones.. nadda, the core principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP), without it libertarianism ceases to be a philosophy and becomes nothing more than a collection of public policy positions (in other words it becomes indistinguishable from the morass of political branding "isms" infecting our body politic). These politicians do not run their policy agenda through the litmus test of the NAP, they wouldn't even know how, so to associate them with libertarianism is to do a great disservice to actual libertarians.

As a libertarian I try to live my life (i.e. how daily interact with others) according to the dictates of non-aggression, it's also the central tenet that I use to determine where I stand on any given public policy proposal as well as the core of my socio-economic philosophy, It's why I can comfortably call myself a libertarian.

And again, from an outside perspective, here's what it looks like these people are saying: "If we don't get our way, we're going to shut down the government and blame Obama for it. And if you're a Republican and don't toe the line, you're a RINO and we'll go after you with even more energy than which we go after Democrats".

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I don't see where. If they don't have the votes, then they lose. And if they lose, they have to find a way to convince the electorate to vote more people like them in. That's how it's supposed to work, in my estimation. Losing doesn't mean it all has to burn down. That's what they look like right now.
.

I understand perfectly what you are saying but you also have to understand that these politicians want to get re-elected and their constituents are absolutely fed up with them because they have been unable to get the results they were promised, so yeah they are ready to do whatever it takes to get a bigger say so in how the caucus is run and they are also going to put on a huge show for the voters back home while they're doing it.

 

[Eaglewings]

Maybe they ( both sides) will get a clue after seeing how the people are liking Trump because he is running with his own money vs. some scammer rich ass with their own agenda.

 

[Mac1958]

It's not terribly difficult to see the stark division within the GOP, and it's even MORE obvious with this Speaker fiasco.

The Libertarians are trying to grab the party from the Republicans because they want the party's infrastructure, resources and influence and haven't been able to build those things on their own.

You're kidding right Mac? The House Freedom Caucus isn't made up of libertarians (most of 'em couldn't tell you what the NAP is on a bet), it's made up of tea-party sympathizing conservatives, the two are not the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with cooperating with the other party (the Constitution pretty much expects that, doesn't it?), and these folks just can't get it through their heads that elections have consequences.
.

Yes elections have consequences and the freedom caucus members have a responsibility to those that elected them to follow through on the promises they made to those that voted them in and under Boehner they haven't been able to do much of that, nor were they given much of voice, so yeah they're feeling the heat from their constituents about it.

I'm not condoning (or disparaging) what they are doing, I'm just saying I understand WHY they are doing it.

If they're not Libertarians (and I'm fine with that), they're not far from it. From an outside perspective, they can be depended upon to knee-jerk away from virtually any government spending and towards cutting government spending without demonstrating that they have thought through any macro consequences. Libertarian-lite, maybe.

They aren't libertarians at all, not libertarian-lite, not libertarian clones.. nadda, the core principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP), without it libertarianism ceases to be a philosophy and becomes nothing more than a collection of public policy positions (in other words it becomes indistinguishable from the morass of political branding "isms" infecting our body politic). These politicians do not run their policy agenda through the litmus test of the NAP, they wouldn't even know how, so to associate them with libertarianism is to do a great disservice to actual libertarians.

As a libertarian I try to live my life (i.e. how daily interact with others) according to the dictates of non-aggression, it's also the central tenet that I use to determine where I stand on any given public policy proposal as well as the core of my socio-economic philosophy, It's why I can comfortably call myself a libertarian.

And again, from an outside perspective, here's what it looks like these people are saying: "If we don't get our way, we're going to shut down the government and blame Obama for it. And if you're a Republican and don't toe the line, you're a RINO and we'll go after you with even more energy than which we go after Democrats".

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I don't see where. If they don't have the votes, then they lose. And if they lose, they have to find a way to convince the electorate to vote more people like them in. That's how it's supposed to work, in my estimation. Losing doesn't mean it all has to burn down. That's what they look like right now.
.

I understand perfectly what you are saying but you also have to understand that these politicians want to get re-elected and their constituents are absolutely fed up with them because they have been unable to get the results they were promised, so yeah they are ready to do whatever it takes to get a bigger say so in how the caucus is run and they are also going to put on a huge show for the voters back home while they're doing it.

Holy crap, first let me catch my breath as I realize that someone who disagrees with me is willing to have a calm, interesting, respectful conversation.

Ok...now.... I've studied Libertarians a little, and I voted for Harry Browne once upon a time, so I definitely get what you're saying. When I look at this from a macro perspective, I think that the overall political environment has become so toxic (and, importantly, hyperbolic) that there are distortions everywhere, and definitely in both "major" parties.

So to translate that to the current GOP, you're right, these guys want to get re-elected. And they are therefore influenced (far too much, in my estimation) by certain specific constituents who are crazed by the environment. So that's where it starts. Just as within the GOP itself, an out-sized portion of the influence goes to the loudest, angriest constituents, and that anger is reflected in who is elected.

Then that person carries that anger and volume into Congress, and here we are: Paralyzed by the volume of a minority of one party.

Does that make sense, or do I need more coffee?
.

 

[NightFox]

Maybe they ( both sides) will get a clue after seeing how the people are liking Trump because he is running with his own money vs. some scammer rich ass with their own agenda.

Mr. Trump's spiel is the embodiment of pure righteous anger (at the established order) and yeah some people like that, unfortunately it's completely unbridled and lacking any foundational principles or generally accepted morality, so while he's a lot of fun to watch, I don't believe he'd be at all good for the country if given the Presidency, in fact I suspect it would be a disaster of epic proportion.

 

[Eaglewings]

Maybe they ( both sides) will get a clue after seeing how the people are liking Trump because he is running with his own money vs. some scammer rich ass with their own agenda.

Mr. Trump's spiel is the embodiment of pure righteous anger (at the established order) and yeah some people like that, unfortunately it's completely unbridled and lacking any foundational principles or generally accepted morality, so while he's a lot of fun to watch, I don't believe he'd be at all good for the country if given the Presidency, in fact I suspect it would be a disaster of epic proportion.

Trump has the rest of the gang in the race by the balls, even Carley.lol they are all quite as a mouse hoping Trump will drop, but he is still in the race and high in the polls.
If a Movie Star can win the race, so can a business man.
I am not saying that I want him to win, I am just saying that the Country needs him right now as he tells it like it is, without using the scammers to back him.

 

[Rustic]

A lot more Rino hunting needs to be done... Even the tormenting of their families(of course in an none violent way) so they just up and quite.

Hash tag: Rino poaching

 

[NightFox]

Holy crap, first let me catch my breath as I realize that someone who disagrees with me is willing to have a calm, interesting, respectful conversation.

Of course Mac, personally I try to be civil to everyone (sometimes I fail) but it's a lot easier when you're dealing with some that tries to be civil as well.

Ok...now.... I've studied Libertarians a little, and I voted for Harry Browne once upon a time, so I definitely get what you're saying. When I look at this from a macro perspective, I think that the overall political environment has become so toxic (and, importantly, hyperbolic) that there are distortions everywhere, and definitely in both "major" parties.

That's cool, I encourage everyone to study libertarianism, it may appeal to you, it may not, I can only say that it's the philosophy that's the best fit for me. I can also say that it's always better to be informed than uninformed (or misinformed).

So to translate that to the current GOP, you're right, these guys want to get re-elected. And they are therefore influenced (far too much, in my estimation) by certain specific constituents who are crazed by the environment. So that's where it starts. Just as within the GOP itself, an out-sized portion of the influence goes to the loudest, angriest constituents, and that anger is reflected in who is elected.

Agreed, the loudest and angriest voices get the most attention but it still remains to be seen whether the Freedom Caucus will get it's way, I suspect they'll end up compromising and getting at least something they can take back home to their voters as a prize. Keep in mind though that a lot of this anger has been created because the Freedom Caucus feels that under the Boehner speakership they have been completed denied ANY voice and have basically been shunted aside, I think that's a reflection on Boehner's leadership style (he's not a very good one IMHO), he didn't make the members of the caucus feel that he cared about their opinions.

Then that person carries that anger and volume into Congress, and here we are: Paralyzed by the volume of a minority of one party.

You say that like it's a bad thing, personally I'm happy with a paralyzed federal government, it means they can't create any new problems or make existing ones worse. I have faith that the American people will figure out how to continue on with their daily lives just fine while the Federal Government removes it's head from it's rear end (actually I think the average American will do BETTER while the boys and girls in Washington are in stasis).

Does that make sense, or do I need more coffee?
.

You make perfect sense and salient points... but yeah you might need more coffee since I know I do.

 

[Rustic]

Holy crap, first let me catch my breath as I realize that someone who disagrees with me is willing to have a calm, interesting, respectful conversation.

Of course Mac, personally I try to be civil to everyone (sometimes I fail) but it's a lot easier when you're dealing with some that tries to be civil as well.

Ok...now.... I've studied Libertarians a little, and I voted for Harry Browne once upon a time, so I definitely get what you're saying. When I look at this from a macro perspective, I think that the overall political environment has become so toxic (and, importantly, hyperbolic) that there are distortions everywhere, and definitely in both "major" parties.

That's cool, I encourage everyone to study libertarianism, it may appeal to you, it may not, I can only say that it's the philosophy that's the best fit for me. I can also say that it's always better to be informed than uninformed (or misinformed).

So to translate that to the current GOP, you're right, these guys want to get re-elected. And they are therefore influenced (far too much, in my estimation) by certain specific constituents who are crazed by the environment. So that's where it starts. Just as within the GOP itself, an out-sized portion of the influence goes to the loudest, angriest constituents, and that anger is reflected in who is elected.

Agreed, the loudest and angriest voices get the most attention but it still remains to be seen whether the Freedom Caucus will get it's way, I suspect they'll end up compromising and getting at least something they can take back home to their voters as a prize. Keep in mind though that a lot of this anger has been created because the Freedom Caucus feels that under the Boehner speakership they have been completed denied ANY voice and have basically been shunted aside, I think that's a reflection on Boehner's leadership style (he's not a very good one IMHO), he didn't make the members of the caucus feel that he cared about their opinions.

Then that person carries that anger and volume into Congress, and here we are: Paralyzed by the volume of a minority of one party.

You say that like it's a bad thing, personally I'm happy with a paralyzed federal government, it means they can't create any new problems or make existing ones worse. I have faith that the American people will figure out how to continue on with their daily lives just fine while the Federal Government removes it's head from it's rear end (actually I think the average American will do BETTER while the boys and girls in Washington are in stasis).

Does that make sense, or do I need more coffee?
.

You make perfect sense and salient points... but yeah you might need more coffee since I know I do.

True, a paralyzed federal government is a very good thing... A hard reset needs to be done.

Hashtag More Rino poaching

 

[Iceweasel]

Where are the moderate Democrats or leftwing extremists? Why do we never see those words?

 

[Iceweasel]

Just like the myth of a moderate democrat vs a centrist Democrat?

The irony of these far left drones and their comments..

You need to focus on the issue instead of constantly getting sidetracked.

It isn't a sidetrack, you simply can't wrap your pea brain around the point. Liberals run to the left and claim those that don't follow them are extremists.

 

[Rustic]

Where are the moderate Democrats or leftwing extremists? Why do we never see those words?

No such thing as the first, the second go under the name " bleeding hearts".

Hashtag too stupid to breath

 

[Rustic]

Speaking of too stupid too breath, Melissa Harris perry is on, a legitimate flaming racist.
She can take her racist bleeding heart and jump off a cliff...

Hashtag angry racist black woman

 

[kaz]

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately from self-described conservatives (of course) that establishment Republicans are so much different from real conservatives who have principles.

That's just nonsense, and I'll tell you why. Here's the reality.

The way that modern day campaigns are now paid for with big money donors footing the overwhelming costs of media advertising as well as other campaign-related costs, a Republican (and that means ANY Republican) politician, whether he's considered moderate or conservative, understands that he has to 'deliver the goods' if he has any hope of winning his reelection bid.

In other words, unless you're naïve and you believe that politicians can accept these large sums of hard and soft money from wealthy corporations and well-heeled donors and then ignore those very same corporate requests for gov't contracts and what otherwise amounts to what those corporate interests consider a 'return on their 'investment,' you would understand that it's the manner in which campaigns are financed (and WON) that's at the heart of the problem.

So, for you conservatives out there, here's the answer to the problem in the nutshell. If you want things to change, in terms of how Washington works in order to get control over spending, you've got to support REAL campaign finance reform when it comes to the way in which campaigns are financed. That means that the public financing of campaigns is the most logical option because that would mean that politicians would not be beholding to big money donors anymore. Without that type of real reform, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is EVER going to change.

But you guys seem to be constantly suckered into supporting the argument that these large expenditures of money in the 10s of millions of dollars (if not considerably more) is an example of freedom. It's not. Not unless it means it's your freedom to continually get suckered into constantly backing a candidate who will ultimately realize which side of the bread has the butter on it and vote in such a way that furthers his own personal and professional interests, regardless of his stated political affiliation or his particular ideology.

That's the way the system now works and any wishing to the contrary is a waste of time. That means if you want to change the outcome, you've got to change who has the greatest input. If it's wealthy corporate interests and big money donors, they'll be the ones who decide while you sit on the sidelines complaining about the process.

You still think there's a difference between moderate "blue dog" Democrats and the "establishment" socialists who run the Democrat party too, don't you?

 

[Rustic]

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately from self-described conservatives (of course) that establishment Republicans are so much different from real conservatives who have principles.

That's just nonsense, and I'll tell you why. Here's the reality.

The way that modern day campaigns are now paid for with big money donors footing the overwhelming costs of media advertising as well as other campaign-related costs, a Republican (and that means ANY Republican) politician, whether he's considered moderate or conservative, understands that he has to 'deliver the goods' if he has any hope of winning his reelection bid.

In other words, unless you're naïve and you believe that politicians can accept these large sums of hard and soft money from wealthy corporations and well-heeled donors and then ignore those very same corporate requests for gov't contracts and what otherwise amounts to what those corporate interests consider a 'return on their 'investment,' you would understand that it's the manner in which campaigns are financed (and WON) that's at the heart of the problem.

So, for you conservatives out there, here's the answer to the problem in the nutshell. If you want things to change, in terms of how Washington works in order to get control over spending, you've got to support REAL campaign finance reform when it comes to the way in which campaigns are financed. That means that the public financing of campaigns is the most logical option because that would mean that politicians would not be beholding to big money donors anymore. Without that type of real reform, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is EVER going to change.

But you guys seem to be constantly suckered into supporting the argument that these large expenditures of money in the 10s of millions of dollars (if not considerably more) is an example of freedom. It's not. Not unless it means it's your freedom to continually get suckered into constantly backing a candidate who will ultimately realize which side of the bread has the butter on it and vote in such a way that furthers his own personal and professional interests, regardless of his stated political affiliation or his particular ideology.

That's the way the system now works and any wishing to the contrary is a waste of time. That means if you want to change the outcome, you've got to change who has the greatest input. If it's wealthy corporate interests and big money donors, they'll be the ones who decide while you sit on the sidelines complaining about the process.

You still think there's a difference between moderate "blue dog" Democrats and the "establishment" socialists who run the Democrat party too, don't you?

The dems poached all the blue dogs long ago... Smart move on their part.
No one likes spineless politicians, see Rinos and blue dogs.

The best thing to do for the so called grand old party, poach the moderates because they are just progressives to begin with. It has worked well for the dems.

Boot the career politicians, torment their families( of course in a non violent way so they just up and quite).

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive.

There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive.

There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom.

We need to stop thinking the federal government is not bias and faultless, like the progressives.


Hashtag never trust everybody saying we are from the government and are here to help

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

If you're sure your way is the right way, get enough votes at the ballot box, get enough votes in Congress, and you're good to go.

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am open minded to the idea of campaign finance reform. It is ridiculous to expect the insecure attention whores who are attracted to politics to possess any moral scruples.

But the fact is Democrat candidates receive just as much money as Republican. It's insane to blame it all on "Republicans". That is exactly the type of binary thinking that these DC clowns rely upon.

Sure,they both take advantage of the money because they would be fools not to. The difference is Democrats want to get big money out of politics. Republicans don't.

Garbage.....

They've just learned how to use it as a wedge issue.

Democrats at the federal level are no more/no less corrupt than republicans.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I notice that liberals like to give advice to conservatives. But your advice is a Trojan Horse. "Beware Greeks bearing gifts."

They are not liberals....

They are far left wingnut stormtrooper propaganda flingers.