BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

AussieReaper wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Third time: you can still cast a vote for someone that isn't a democrat or republican.  If you are fed up with both parties you don't have to vote for them. You can vote for another person/party to make a point that you aren't ok with the status quo. What exactly is a centrist position? The US has been alternating dems and repubs in elections for years. Tell me how that's significantly different than your magical 'you force them to be more centrist' argument that's vague as hell.

Do you think that if you vote for either end of the spectrum, as you do not like the direction of the other, that the party is more likely to move closer to the other?

Of course they will. They are trying to win votes.

Voting for a 3rd party isn't going to help in that process of aligning the parties closer to your desired, because the US is for all intents and purposes a 2 party system.

Yes, republicans embracing religious conservatives over the last 30 years is evidence the Repubs are moving to a more centrist position as a result of not winning elections.  This doesn't even take into account what the two parties say as opposed to actual laws/actions taken.  Sorry, you're wrong.

I also want roads and a small defense force and industrial infrastructure too.   It's paid for by taxes.  Cut out all the excess bureaucracy across every facet of government, stop overinflated defense spending, and you have plenty left over.  But we are digressing away from being fiscally conservative and into ideologies.  You don't have to be smart to balance a budget.  It's actually very simple, especially if you run a surplus with modest debt - which as I mentioned in a previous post is what being fiscally conservative is.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Third time: you can still cast a vote for someone that isn't a democrat or republican.  If you are fed up with both parties you don't have to vote for them. You can vote for another person/party to make a point that you aren't ok with the status quo. What exactly is a centrist position? The US has been alternating dems and repubs in elections for years. Tell me how that's significantly different than your magical 'you force them to be more centrist' argument that's vague as hell.

Do you think that if you vote for either end of the spectrum, as you do not like the direction of the other, that the party is more likely to move closer to the other?

Of course they will. They are trying to win votes.

Voting for a 3rd party isn't going to help in that process of aligning the parties closer to your desired, because the US is for all intents and purposes a 2 party system.

Yes, republicans embracing religious conservatives over the last 30 years is evidence the Repubs are moving to a more centrist position as a result of not winning elections.  This doesn't even take into account what the two parties say as opposed to actual laws/actions taken.  Sorry, you're wrong.

It's not my fault the republicans are set to lose this election cause they've moved further to the right.

What's their position going to be after losing to Obama, again?

Jay wrote:

AR, the republicans moved to the left on economic issues. That was their compromise.

And moved further right on the social issues.

Abortion at the moment is still an issue. And to defund planned parenthood, NPR, PBS as a quick example of economic/social mix, that doesn't seem very "left" to me.

Jay wrote:

I suppose the terms social liberal and social conservative are decoupled from ideology too, eh?

those are ideologies.  Fiscal conservatism is a methodology.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

I suppose the terms social liberal and social conservative are decoupled from ideology too, eh?

those are ideologies.  Fiscal conservatism is a methodology.

You're wrong. The ideological basis for fiscal conservatism is maximum economic freedom. Just like social liberalism without all the socialist garbage tacked on is about maximizing personal freedom. You are equating fiscal conservatism with accounting, which is what I imagine most people in this country do, which is why so few people seem to grasp even basic economic theory. It's why the Republican Party can move to the left on economic issues and actually increase its percentage of voters. People want all the toys and they want someone else to figure out how to pay for them. Again, that's the job of an accountant.

Fiscal conservatism has a very real ideology based on free markets and free trade. What does that mean? It means opposition to state control of the marketplace. It means opposition to Social Security because it takes retirement out of the hands of the individual. It means opposition to Medicare because it pulls people out of the private market and puts them on the government dole. It means opposition to the Federal Reserve which turns the banking industry into a giant cartel. It means opposition to farm subsidies which artificially drive up the price of food. It means being opposed to corporate subsidies and bailouts because ideas and business practices should be what prevail, not who has the better lobbyists. It means being opposed to an expansion of the military beyond what we really need to defend our borders. It means you ignore Wall Street when they whine about the government not issuing enough risk free debt for them to buy up. It means that every bit of spending is judged by it's ability to help the economy i.e. you don't write a blank check for infrastructure projects and you sure as shit don't give any money to people wanting to build social engineering projects like California's new high speed rail system.

Fiscal conservatism doesn't exist in the federal government, because like I said, people don't want their toys taken away from them. "We're spending too much, gotta cut back" doesn't win you votes with the majority of people. They prefer simple concepts like what color tie the candidate is wearing or what his stances are on gay marriage or abortion or guns or whether they look genuinely friendly when greeting the opponents family after a debate. Hit them with numbers and reality and their eyes glaze over.

Fiscal conservatives used to be called economic liberals or utilitarians before the progressive movement usurped the word. It has a long history dating back to the Enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-18 13:17:14)

Are you saying your definition of fiscal conservatism is essentially classical liberalism? If that's the case then why not call it classical liberalism instead of fiscal conservatism? Or economic liberalism?

well you and i are going to have to agree to disagree that fiscal conservatism = classical liberalism.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

well you and i are going to have to agree to disagree that fiscal conservatism = classical liberalism.

I think we're arguing about labels and how they mask the underlying ideology...

That probably stems from the fact that Socialism has been labeled liberal in our political system. Marxism is the most fundamentally ultra-conservative form of economics ever imagined. He hated risk, wanted risk takers to be punished, and profit to be abolished, yes? People have taken his beliefs and turned them into the ultra-conservative economic system we have today that is reliant on regulations for everything. What was the first thing our government did after the last crash? They tried sending Wall Street people to jail. But, at the same time, they were terrified of further catastrophe so they bailed out everyone. Then they passed Dodd-Frank.

You undoubtedly define fiscal conservatives as people who are there to define and mitigate risks as they come up. You want regulations written so there are no boom and bust cycle and so that speculators have no impact on your life. This is then extended to covering risks people may face in their retirement, or in their health care choices in life, or being able to pay for college, yes? Marxism is built on fear, fear of the unknown, fear of each other, and fear that we might fail. Because it is built on fear, people try to mitigate their risks as much as possible by having the government step in and take care of them. I think when you say you want a fiscally conservative government, you want one that provides all these things but also finds a way to pay for it too.

Yes, my views are diametrically opposed to those expressed in the previous paragraph, but I am labeled the fiscal conservative



Don't take it personally if that offended you, I don't know you personally, I'm just speaking about the ideology on the whole.

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

And moved further right on the social issues.

Abortion at the moment is still an issue. And to defund planned parenthood, NPR, PBS as a quick example of economic/social mix, that doesn't seem very "left" to me.

Ok, but they put up the guy that wants to pass his own version of obamacare, increase regulations, increase government spending overall... He largely mimics democrat economics.

Are you sure we're talking about the same Mitt "severe conservative" Romney here?

Absolutely.

Jay I like when you tell me what my worldview is. Can you please continue

Also he looks exactly like a President. Old but not too old, greying round the temples, Caucasian, male, good square jaw, winning smile. He's like the default look anyone goes for when they need a 'President' character.

Rick Perry had that look too.



Bizarre...

why do you think so Warman?  What makes him the right person for the right job at the right time?