I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Except for the part where she repeatedly said she wanted to repeal the 40 year old Hyde Amendment, which isn't exactly a moderate position.

I don't think Trump is pro-life, by any stretch of the imagination, as evidenced by his 5 positions on it over a three day period earlier this year. I also don't generally believe he intends to keep his promises to the Evangelicals he conned. And he no doubt advocated for his mistress to have an abortion, but I think that most of his cabinet would strongly advise him otherwise, and no Republican congress would ever bring up such a bill.

Saying that you think "liberty" is threatened because women will have the choice to have an abortion -- that's Orwellian. You have to pay your taxes either way. I can understand that you object to abortion and would rather that other people who don't agree with you don't have the freedom to make their own choices, but that's not really about liberty.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Except for the part where she repeatedly said she wanted to repeal the 40 year old Hyde Amendment, which isn't exactly a moderate position.

You're starting to sound like Sebby. Because this, much like repealing the Second Amendment, is so beyond the scope of the possible, it is not worth mentioning to or by anyone who isn't completely nuts. Do you qualify?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I believe that the proper role of the federal government should be less than 10% of what it is now. It's not just or even mostly a taxes thing, but that is one expression of it.

And now I see that you do not qualify.

TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Saying that you think "liberty" is threatened because women will have the choice to have an abortion -- that's Orwellian. You have to pay your taxes either way. I can understand that you object to abortion and would rather that other people who don't agree with you don't have the freedom to make their own choices, but that's not really about liberty.

My first statement was more tongue-in-cheek and I didn't actually intend it to be an expression of my liberty.

I believe that people have unlimited liberties and freedoms, and that the power of government is what is limited by the Constitution. But if someone does have a natural liberty it doesn't mean that they have a "right" to have the expression of that liberty paid for by others under penalty of law.

Make Taxation Theft Again!

(I am not all anti-tax, and am fine with a progressive tax system, but the tax burden should be cut down by 90% commensurate with the size of government. No fears, though. Trump is a big government guy, so nothing's changing).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If the red states really want to address spending, and want a balanced budget amendment, here's the quid pro quo I'd look for: a provision that says no state as a whole can receive federal spending benefits that exceed what they pay in total federal taxes by more than 10%.

This would be absolutely amazing.

TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Because this, much like repealing the Second Amendment, is so beyond the scope of the possible, it is not worth mentioning to or by anyone who isn't completely nuts.

TM

So Hillary is completely nuts for mentioning it?

I'm just saying, I know this energizes the Democratic base, but these statements also got a lot of Evangelicals to hold their nose and vote for Trump. I know a lot of people who started out #NeverTrump but voted for him in the general on this basis. If it's not going to happen anyway (and I fully agree with you), it doesn't seem totally the best strategy to GOTV for people to vote for someone they hate because they find you worse.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This would be absolutely amazing.

TM

I would be totally down with that.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So Hillary is completely nuts for mentioning it?

If she said it without complete knowledge that it would never pass? Yes.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I'm just saying, I know this energizes the Democratic base, but these statements also got a lot of Evangelicals to hold their nose and vote for Trump. I know a lot of people who started out #NeverTrump but voted for him in the general on this basis. If it's not going to happen anyway (and I fully agree with you), it doesn't seem totally the best strategy to GOTV for people to vote for someone they hate because they find you worse.

Look, I know the game is to try to figure out why Hillary was so detestable that dumbasses who act like all this shit or that shit is important to them had to hold their nose and vote for someone who shat on them and their values his whole life, but I really don't think any of this mattered. I think evangelicals are as hypocritical and full of shit as everyone else while pretending Jesus means something to them (while turning away from the poor, hating their neighbor, being in favor of killing, etc.). But when it comes down to it in this election, what appealed to them is the same garbage that appealed to all the other assholes who voted for Trump.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Except for the part where she repeatedly said she wanted to repeal the 40 year old Hyde Amendment, which isn't exactly a moderate position.

It is 100% a moderate position, but some people (eh hem) are extremists on this issue.

I also don't generally believe he intends to keep his promises to the Evangelicals he conned.

I fear that you may have a GOP-like eye-opening coming about what motivates many politically active evangelicals (i.e., racism).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

My first statement was more tongue-in-cheek and I didn't actually intend it to be an expression of my liberty.

Good. It's getting so hard to tell these things anymore.

I believe that people have unlimited liberties and freedoms, and that the power of government is what is limited by the Constitution. But if someone does have a natural liberty it doesn't mean that they have a "right" to have the expression of that liberty paid for by others under penalty of law.

Make Taxation Theft Again!

(I am not all anti-tax, and am fine with a progressive tax system, but the tax burden should be cut down by 90% commensurate with the size of government. No fears, though. Trump is a big government guy, so nothing's changing).

If you get two people on opposite sides of the table with a common goal of making government work - killing programs that don't work, containing spending, trying to be efficient - I think they can get to a budget that reins in spending while preserving effective programs even if their policy goals are completely different.

The problem comes either when the horse trading is done with funny money and no constraints or when one of the two doesn't care if the process works any more, only if their ideology is served. The single greatest bit of genius that came from the days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill decided to actually work together was Gramm Rudman Hollings (ultimately morphing into PAYGO); the general approach worked right through the Clinton years. But then Bush decided he wanted to put a war on the credit card....

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I would be totally down with that.

My other great really rad idea is to swap Texas for Scotland - I think it would leave both the US (with Scotland) and the UK (with Texas) happier. They'd get oil, a port that didn't complain about having nukes in the harbor, and solid Tory voters, while we'd get oil, single malt and some solid blue voters. And Brits would love vacationing in the warm Texas climes while we'd all enjoy trips to Scotland in the summer.

[Adder]

CNN says Cotton for SecDef. Tell me again how Hillary was going to be more warlike, Sebby?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

CNN says Cotton for SecDef. Tell me again how Hillary was going to be more warlike, Sebby?

I miss Wolfowitz. At least I knew why he was getting us into a stupid war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

My first statement was more tongue-in-cheek and I didn't actually intend it to be an expression of my liberty.

Sorry, then -- my browser didn't render that properly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ummm, we were talking threats to liberty, and here you decide to not respond but pivot to a bunch of BS on another topic. What do you think this is, CNN?

I take this as a concession that Trump is a greater threat to liberty than Clinton. Now do you want to argue over whether water is wet, too?

Um, also, what Ty said.

Trump will try to infringe bluntly and face backlash. Hillary would continue stealing it quietly. And she'd have had an excellent playbook from which to work, considering Obama's record with whistleblowers and leakers, and his affinity for domestic spying.* Recall whose attu general got a FISA warrant against a reporter? Right. So fuck off on all that.
_____
* She was his "third term," so his sins are hers.