The Barackolypse strikes again: amnesty for 5 million

[LittleLebowski]

Words fail me.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141120/us--obama-immigration-fdc5ed0795.html

[Peally]

Our petty king announces his edicts...

[GardoneVT]

T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶d̶g̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶g̶r̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶e̶m̶o̶ ̶t̶e̶e̶n̶a̶g̶e̶r̶ "Taking Decisive Action" looks like.

[Shellback]

He cannot grant citizenship, or the right to vote, so he resorts to prosecutorial discretion to nullify existing federal law and bypass the Constitution and Congress. We have a monarch, not a President, and impeachment is the only viable solution.

[gtmtnbiker98]

He cannot grant citizenship, or the right to vote, so he resorts to prosecutorial discretion to nullify existing federal law and bypass the Constitution and Congress. We have a monarch, not a President, and impeachment is the only viable solution.Agree!

[Sensei]

He cannot grant citizenship, or the right to vote, so he resorts to prosecutorial discretion to nullify existing federal law and bypass the Constitution and Congress. We have a monarch, not a President, and impeachment is the only viable solution.

Two problems with your solution:

1) Joe Biden - same ideology with less brains
2) There are not enough republicans in the Senate to convict leaving a lengthy, expensive process with nothing to show for it.

[Dagga Boy]

Personally, I think the Republicans should ignore the trap. Just say "you didn't want to go through Congress to do immigration, so we are done talking about it and will focus on other stuff". What is the negative? They aren't deporting these people now, so no change. It is simply a status of "temporary" that can immediately return all the now "documented folks" into "illegal" again at the stroke of a pen. The only people it REALLY hurts is the lower class un-educated labor force.......who are pretty much Democrats anyways. I think it opens up congress to do a relief reimbursement to the states for schooling and other expenses for all of these folks.........I mean, its "the right thing to do". It would be political suicide for the President to veto a bill that provides funding to the states to cover the expenses of HIS executive order.

I hope the Republicans don't fall into the trap of electing Hilary over this. They need to worry about making the President veto hundreds of bills like Keystone, Border Defense, VA reforms, easing of Federal Firearms restrictions, and a bunch of other stuff. While they are at it, defunding the stuff like much of the EPA, IRS, and "justice Dept" that are enforcement arms of the progressive movement. A balanced budget would be nice as well.

Start playing chess while the President plays checkers.

[hurley842002]

Personally, I think the Republicans should ignore the trap. Just say "you didn't want to go through Congress to do immigration, so we are done talking about it and will focus on other stuff". What is the negative? They aren't deporting these people now, so no change. It is simply a status of "temporary" that can immediately return all the now "documented folks" into "illegal" again at the stroke of a pen. The only people it REALLY hurts is the lower class un-educated labor force.......who are pretty much Democrats anyways. I think it opens up congress to do a relief reimbursement to the states for schooling and other expenses for all of these folks.........I mean, its "the right thing to do". It would be political suicide for the President to veto a bill that provides funding to the states to cover the expenses of HIS executive order.

I hope the Republicans don't fall into the trap of electing Hilary over this. They need to worry about making the President veto hundreds of bills like Keystone, Border Defense, VA reforms, easing of Federal Firearms restrictions, and a bunch of other stuff. While they are at it, defunding the stuff like much of the EPA, IRS, and "justice Dept" that are enforcement arms of the progressive movement. A balanced budget would be nice as well.

Start playing chess while the President plays checkers.
I like your train of thought!

[Joe in PNG]

Another point to ponder for our Democrat friends- so you really want to set a precedent for the President to use Executive Powers to bypass the Legislative branch? This means that the next Republican President may also go and do likewise.

Otherwise, I'm also with Nyeti.

[Dagga Boy]

Another point to ponder for our Democrat friends- so you really want to set a precedent for the President to use Executive Powers to bypass the Legislative branch? This means that the next Republican President may also go and do likewise.

Otherwise, I'm also with Nyeti.

There you go. Just like Reed's Nuclear option. Not a single Presidential appointment should be allowed through at this point. Even when blame is regularly passed, the Dems own Obamacare outright.....and it is a baby that just gets uglier. The immigration thing will be the same. It is based on an emotional plight of the few and will likely cause some real disasters, particularly in the black urban community. He and by association, if the Republicans will just leave it and coldly say "you didn't want to anyone else's input"
, the Democrats will own this temporary lack of enforcement that is already happening. Forget defunding it, the Republicans can make him pay the states for it.

[Tamara]

Another point to ponder for our Democrat friends- so you really want to set a precedent for the President to use Executive Powers to bypass the Legislative branch?.

Jesus wept, every time a president does something like this, the partisans of the opposition party go through a melodramatic orgy of pearl-clutching like it's never happened before.

[TCinVA]

The cat was pretty much out of the bag when the Supremes backed down to FDR.

...but Mr. Obama has been doing his best FDR impression and for that he deserves to be excoriated for the scoundrel he is.

[NETim]

I'm firmly in the slippery slope camp. Every extra-Constitutional abuse of power seems to beget more of the same. And that goes for both sides of the aisle.

Sometimes I think these guys are only in it for themselves.

[GardoneVT]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0hJEgO-z--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/o18juha9fajozq9vyrcl.gif

[Patrick Taylor]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/112114.jpg

[Jeep]

Jesus wept, every time a president does something like this, the partisans of the opposition party go through a melodramatic orgy of pearl-clutching like it's never happened before.

Tamara: I'm not sure if even FDR went this far with his executive order making the ownership of gold illegal (which Congress eventually endorsed). He simply doesn't have the authority to override the law and grant illegal aliens work permits--that has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion.

Moreover, the excuse--that he has given Congress 18 months to pass legislation to his liking and it has failed to act--is something brand new. Presidents previously have expanded their authority by saying they need to act when Congress couldn't. He is saying that the President has inherent authority to act when Congress won't pass the legislation he wants. That makes the President a super-legislature, and I'm not sure that there are any logical limits on that claimed authority.

For example, if the President can give illegals work permits that aren't authorized by Congress, can he give them "a path to citizenship" also? And if not, where does the difference lie? My guess is that he will be handing out citizenship to these people before his term expires.

I think the President crossed the Constitutional Rubicon here when he said that he argued that he is authorized to take action when Congress won't do what he says. It potentially allows him to act as--in his words--an Emperor, and of course that is what Roman Emperors could do. They could ignore the Senate and rule by decree.

I agree with your fundamental point that presidents of both parties have been unduly expanding executive power for generations, with some more apt to do it than others. I think, though, that unless successfully resisted this is an expansion without any limiting principle.

[RevolverRob]

You guys just aren't quite getting it.

This president and the next president and the one after that are the inevitable result of democratic republic rule.

Neither political party 1) Can stop, 2) Will stop, and 3) wants to stop the inevitable decline of political stability in this country. At some level this decline began the day a two party system came around and George Washington stopped being president. This is normally a thousand year decline, but accelerated by technological growth and medicine.

The only real question is, how many emperors will we have during our decline? And it's not ONE party. We have the distinct advantage and pleasure of being among the first to have emperors come from both sides of the aisle. When Jefferson refused to turn over subpoened documents about Aaron Burr - dictatorial act. When Jackson refused to turn over documents regarding deposit removal from the national bank, dictatorial act. When Lincoln told Sherman to march to the sea and burn it all down - dictatorial act. When Hoover used the military without congressional approval AND when congress fled from, rather than face, the Bonus Army, dictatorial act. When Truman refused congressional and FBI subpoenas to investigate security leaks in post-WW2. When Eisenhower used executive privilege to undermine Eugen McCarthy. When JFK and Johnson provided military advisors to Vietnam. When Nixon refused the authority of congress and refused to testify. When Carter created the Carter Doctrine (along line of doctrines from all US prezs since Madison). When Reagan didn't arrest and convict Ollie North.

Are you guys getting the picture now? Obama is not the first to deny congressional authority and he won't be the last, unfortunately. And frankly, who cares if he ignores congressional authority? These assholes are in it for themselves. Congress no more represents you and I than a stick of butter. Until we realize that the fundamental change that must occur is the elimination of career politicians, strict campaign reform, and the total annilhation of partyy politics, we are DOOMED.

[Tamara]

When Jefferson refused to turn over subpoened documents about Aaron Burr - dictatorial act. When Jackson refused to turn over documents regarding deposit removal from the national bank, dictatorial act. When Lincoln told Sherman to march to the sea and burn it all down - dictatorial act. When Hoover used the military without congressional approval AND when congress fled from, rather than face, the Bonus Army, dictatorial act. When Truman refused congressional and FBI subpoenas to investigate security leaks in post-WW2. When Eisenhower used executive privilege to undermine Eugen McCarthy. When JFK and Johnson provided military advisors to Vietnam. When Nixon refused the authority of congress and refused to testify. When Carter created the Carter Doctrine (along line of doctrines from all US prezs since Madison). When Reagan didn't arrest and convict Ollie North.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1604667/slow-clap-o.gif

[MDS]

Epic rant. :)


Until we realize that the fundamental change that must occur is the elimination of career politicians, strict campaign reform, and the total annilhation of partyy politics, we are DOOMED.

Who is "we?"

[Peally]

A stick of butter for 2016!

[GardoneVT]

You guys just aren't quite getting it.

This president and the next president and the one after that are the inevitable result of democratic republic rule.

Neither political party 1) Can stop, 2) Will stop, and 3) wants to stop the inevitable decline of political stability in this country. At some level this decline began the day a two party system came around and George Washington stopped being president. This is normally a thousand year decline, but accelerated by technological growth and medicine.

The only real question is, how many emperors will we have during our decline? And it's not ONE party. We have the distinct advantage and pleasure of being among the first to have emperors come from both sides of the aisle. When Jefferson refused to turn over subpoened documents about Aaron Burr - dictatorial act. When Jackson refused to turn over documents regarding deposit removal from the national bank, dictatorial act. When Lincoln told Sherman to march to the sea and burn it all down - dictatorial act. When Hoover used the military without congressional approval AND when congress fled from, rather than face, the Bonus Army, dictatorial act. When Truman refused congressional and FBI subpoenas to investigate security leaks in post-WW2. When Eisenhower used executive privilege to undermine Eugen McCarthy. When JFK and Johnson provided military advisors to Vietnam. When Nixon refused the authority of congress and refused to testify. When Carter created the Carter Doctrine (along line of doctrines from all US prezs since Madison). When Reagan didn't arrest and convict Ollie North.

Are you guys getting the picture now? Obama is not the first to deny congressional authority and he won't be the last, unfortunately. And frankly, who cares if he ignores congressional authority? These assholes are in it for themselves. Congress no more represents you and I than a stick of butter. Until we realize that the fundamental change that must occur is the elimination of career politicians, strict campaign reform, and the total annilhation of partyy politics, we are DOOMED.

There is no current solution to the problem, and if there is we won't find it in some nuance of law.

The problem in question is human nature. We can establish a dictatorship and dispense with councils and presidents, but then a Nero takes over and the nation is ruined by one man's stupidity. Too many people like that and the society collapses from chronic mismanagement.

We can establish Councils, but then the council members find ways to game the system to their own advantage and we have collective rot instead. Note that US Jeffersonian Democracy isn't the first time this has happened-senators of Old Rome didn't have good approval ratings either. The society collapses when it turns into a Dictatorship gradually and suffers chronic mismanagement, or the council gridlocks and someone with a lot of guns breaks the logjam by force.

Bottom line, so long as humans call the shots, its inevitable the governing system will become perverted . Perhaps a compartmentalized group of watchers can choose the ideal time to "dissapear" someone with less then civic intentions, but then who watches the watchers?

[Suvorov]

You guys just aren't quite getting it.

This president and the next president and the one after that are the inevitable result of democratic republic rule.

Neither political party 1) Can stop, 2) Will stop, and 3) wants to stop the inevitable decline of political stability in this country. At some level this decline began the day a two party system came around and George Washington stopped being president. This is normally a thousand year decline, but accelerated by technological growth and medicine.

The only real question is, how many emperors will we have during our decline? And it's not ONE party. We have the distinct advantage and pleasure of being among the first to have emperors come from both sides of the aisle. When Jefferson refused to turn over subpoened documents about Aaron Burr - dictatorial act. When Jackson refused to turn over documents regarding deposit removal from the national bank, dictatorial act. When Lincoln told Sherman to march to the sea and burn it all down - dictatorial act. When Hoover used the military without congressional approval AND when congress fled from, rather than face, the Bonus Army, dictatorial act. When Truman refused congressional and FBI subpoenas to investigate security leaks in post-WW2. When Eisenhower used executive privilege to undermine Eugen McCarthy. When JFK and Johnson provided military advisors to Vietnam. When Nixon refused the authority of congress and refused to testify. When Carter created the Carter Doctrine (along line of doctrines from all US prezs since Madison). When Reagan didn't arrest and convict Ollie North.

Are you guys getting the picture now? Obama is not the first to deny congressional authority and he won't be the last, unfortunately. And frankly, who cares if he ignores congressional authority? These assholes are in it for themselves. Congress no more represents you and I than a stick of butter. Until we realize that the fundamental change that must occur is the elimination of career politicians, strict campaign reform, and the total annilhation of partyy politics, we are DOOMED.

This is a great post, even though my Wheaties are all soggy and salty tasting now.... :(

[Jeep]

There is no current solution to the problem, and if there is we won't find it in some nuance of law.

The problem in question is human nature. We can establish a dictatorship and dispense with councils and presidents, but then a Nero takes over and the nation is ruined by one man's stupidity. Too many people like that and the society collapses from chronic mismanagement.

We can establish Councils, but then the council members find ways to game the system to their own advantage and we have collective rot instead. Note that US Jeffersonian Democracy isn't the first time this has happened-senators of Old Rome didn't have good approval ratings either. The society collapses when it turns into a Dictatorship gradually and suffers chronic mismanagement, or the council gridlocks and someone with a lot of guns breaks the logjam by force.

Bottom line, so long as humans call the shots, its inevitable the governing system will become perverted . Perhaps a compartmentalized group of watchers can choose the ideal time to "dissapear" someone with less then civic intentions, but then who watches the watchers?

The only solution was put in place by the Founders--limit the powers of the government and then hobble it through the separation of powers. The New Deal removed basically all remaining Constitutional limits on the powers of government (without resorting to something as old fashioned as amending the Constitution) and the Supreme Court and our presidents have been busy arrogating that greatly expanded power to themselves.

But what was announced yesterday goes beyond the slippery slope. If this stands, we now have an extraordinary powerful and expansive (if bumbling and usually incompetent) federal government that has few limits, and that government is now run by an elected dictator who can ignore laws he doesn't like and put new laws in their place (and Obama's speech kept saying that the illegals would have to comply with the "law"--by which he meant his new orders).

Congress still has the power of the purse, although during the last government shutdown, Lew, the Treasury secretary, threatened to use appropriated funds for other purposes if Congress did not pass a bill the President was willing to sign.

We don't have much of a Republic left, and this precedent is going to gut it entirely if it is not stopped in its tracks.

[Tamara]

The only solution was put in place by the Founders--limit the powers of the government and then hobble it through the separation of powers.

We already tried that, remember? ;)

[Jeep]

We already tried that, remember? ;)


Yep. And it lasted for awhile--basically up to the Wilson administration. As Gardone says, given human nature there is no permanent solution, and Hamilton and Madison acknowledge much the same thing in the Federalist Papers. They were under no illusion about the inherent tendency for governments and politicians to continually gain and assert power. But I wouldn't mind trying it again so that perhaps a few more generations could live in relative freedom.

The immediate alternative isn't completely horrible--a European-style social democracy with a fairly pleasant life for most people though with significant dark shadows--lots of small restrictions on freedom, little opportunity to advance economically, negative birth rates for the native population; and a corrupt and aloof ruling class.

Unfortunately, the future for such societies is that they all are going to have a tendency to become Detroit, economically, politically and probably crime-wise. And after that there is going be a tendency for such societies to do the full-Venezuela. What comes after that will probably be even less pretty.

I'd really like to hit the reset button. Unfortunately, that would appear to be very hard to do. So I'll be satisfied right now if the GOP could get its act together and make Obama pay such a political price for this that future Presidents will think twice before doing similar things. Of course, betting on the GOP to get its act together is probably a pretty sure way to throw money away.

[Tamara]

Yep. And it lasted for awhile--basically up to the Wilson administration.

There were Pennsylvania farmers who'd say your estimate's a good 120 years too optimistic.

[GardoneVT]

I'd really like to hit the reset button. Unfortunately, that would appear to be very hard to do.

The previous occasion in which the "government reset button" was pushed exacted a price of nearly a half-million dead. I'd hate to see the bill when that button is pressed next time.

[45dotACP]

Horrible as it may be of me to say this, but I think the Republicans need to play nice. We have both houses...whoop de doo. The problem of it is this, we only hurt our own image if we start with all this "Impeach the traitor...Murica!" nonsense. It's a.) Not going to happen. and it's b.) Only going to make us look like we're in this to punish stupid people for being stupid.

That is not why we are trying to fix the country. We're trying to fix the country by providing greater liberty to the people, by lowering taxes, and by creating jobs. It is by accomplishing these goals (and pushing them right past the president, in spite of all his veto power) that we can help the American people see what we're really about.

I was once told by a smart, older guy that the Republican party would be far more successful if only they would reply to every political question in the following way: "It's about Taxes, and it's about Jobs. We'll be decreasing the former, and increasing the latter." Involving themselves in the debates about same sex marriage, abortion, and anything else related to church-state seperation was a calamity from the get-go, and they should feel ashamed for being so expertly ambushed and being painted as the party that cannot separate its religion from its politics, because at that very moment, they lost political power. Not hating on religion whatsoever, but there are social issues, and there are political issues. Just my two pennies...

[Patrick Taylor]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1122141.jpg

[Hambo]

We have the best government money can buy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive at best.

[RoyGBiv]

Moreover, the excuse--that he has given Congress 18 months to pass legislation to his liking and it has failed to act--is something brand new. Presidents previously have expanded their authority by saying they need to act when Congress couldn't. He is saying that the President has inherent authority to act when Congress won't pass the legislation he wants. That makes the President a super-legislature, and I'm not sure that there are any logical limits on that claimed authority.

I agree with you that this is setting a NEW precedent if left unchecked. Hopefully the Judicial Branch will see it this way as well. SCOTUS has not been shy about checking POTUS the past 6 years.

[MDS]

[Republicans] should feel ashamed for being so expertly ambushed and being painted as the party that cannot separate its religion from its politics, because at that very moment, they lost political power. Not hating on religion whatsoever, but there are social issues, and there are political issues.

It is just so hard to separate church and state when you really, truly believe that your church preaches The Universal Truth That Can Never Be Wrong. To whit:


http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1122141.jpg

If the tea party could dump the moralistic rhetoric and just focus on fiscal responsibility, I'd probably jump in. Obama and the Dems benefit so much from the confused horror and plain repulsion that so many Americans feel towards the puritanical.

[NerdAlert]

It is just so hard to separate church and state when you really, truly believe that your church preaches The Universal Truth That Can Never Be Wrong. To whit:



If the tea party could dump the moralistic rhetoric and just focus on fiscal responsibility, I'd probably jump in. Obama and the Dems benefit so much from the confused horror and plain repulsion that so many Americans feel towards the puritanical.

Word. I am probably the exact type of person the tea party relies on to join them, and I never will because if this attitude. If we could get one of the two parties off the moral high horse and focus on issues the whole system would be better for it. I don't agree with a lot of what the Democratic Party stands for but they have been better at focusing on actual issues in the recent past, which is why many young "intelligent" (if only in their own mind) people see them as a better choice. If the Republican Party could take 5 seconds and stop trying to legislate Christian morality into law and implying we need a violent revolution they would be a lot better off.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

[GardoneVT]

If the Republican Party could take 5 seconds and stop trying to legislate Christian morality into law and implying we need a violent revolution they would be a lot better off.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

On one side of the coin of ignorance, we have miseducated liberals who believe banning guns and free market economics is the key to a better America.

On the other side we have miseducated conservatives who like guns but think every problem in America is because of gay marriage and the lack of Christianity being beaten into every corner of commerce and government.

Both sides of the ignorance coin are objectively wrong; but the guy who says that publicly only succeeds in offending everyone.If the GOP abandons the Christian Theocrats , the party is sunk. If the Dems abandon the socialist religion of Denying Reality because its socially feel-good , same problem.

No,the issue isn't the parties -like Taurus firearms, they're just packaging and selling a shit political product to get theirs. The problem is our electorate -our political 'customer base' is ignorant, just like half the Cabellas shoppers fondling the .380 pistols.

Making the parties change for the minority of educated voters is like asking Taurus to make quality pistols. Its technically feasible and morally just, but its bad for business.There aren't enough educated voters or educated gun shoppers to make either action realistic.

[Jeep]

There were Pennsylvania farmers who'd say your estimate's a good 120 years too optimistic.

Perhaps. But the excise tax on whiskey was well within Congress' enumerated powers and the farmer's response, like that of the Massachusetts' farmers a few years before who wanted to have their debts arbitrarily cancelled, would have led to the Venezuela solution far more quickly.

There is no perfection in human affairs, but there is better and worse, and I think the system that ran until 1913/WWI/1933 (pick your date) was a relatively better system. The system that Obama is creating now is going to be a much worse on,e once it really gets rolling. My guess is that 20 years from now he will understand what a mistake it was, but like many politicians he is unable to accept that he makes mistakes so I figure he will blame it on someone else.

[Jeep]

It is just so hard to separate church and state when you really, truly believe that your church preaches The Universal Truth That Can Never Be Wrong. To whit:



If the tea party could dump the moralistic rhetoric and just focus on fiscal responsibility, I'd probably jump in. Obama and the Dems benefit so much from the confused horror and plain repulsion that so many Americans feel towards the puritanical.

MDS: Not to be confrontational, but there is more than a bit of irony in your statements. Like almost everyone, it would seem that you too have a belief system that you believe is right and that enlightened people should share.

There is a way to mitigate (though not eliminate) the inevitable conflicts arising from that fact, but until everyone (including you, me and everyone else here) recognize our own orthodoxies and sacred cows, it is tough to do.

[Shellback]

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)

[Jeep]

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)

Irish: I knew Carroll Quigley. Though I tend to agree with his overall point here, I think it would be fair to say that he was perhaps a few fries short of a happy meal. He was also, perhaps not surprisingly, given to making very sweeping statements based on scanty, or no, data and strongly disliked it when someone disagreed with him.

[Shellback]

Irish: I knew Carroll Quigley. Though I tend to agree with his overall point here, I think it would be fair to say that he was perhaps a few fries short of a happy meal...

Must've been an interesting guy to chat with. I'm not Team Quigley by a long shot but I do see a lot of truth in the statement I quoted. Essentially 2 sides of the same coin.

[MDS]

MDS: Not to be confrontational, but there is more than a bit of irony in your statements. Like almost everyone, it would seem that you too have a belief system that you believe is right and that enlightened people should share.

There is a way to mitigate (though not eliminate) the inevitable conflicts arising from that fact, but until everyone (including you, me and everyone else here) recognize our own orthodoxies and sacred cows, it is tough to do.

Great observation. Everyone has opinions, beliefs, orthodoxies, and an evolving value matrix to distinguish between good and bad. That is good and proper.

What sucks is when we think everyone should share these opinions & etc, or at least live as if they did, especially when behaving differently doesn't really hurt anything. What sucks the worst is when people are willing to force others to live according to these opinions & etc - through legislation like we do in the US, through beheadings like they're doing in Mosul, or through any other form of violence or threat of violence.

In that context, I don't see the irony in saying that I wish folks would live and let live. Now, I'm not under the illusion that live and let live will ever happen. I was just saying that if the R's would stop worrying about the socially conservative planks of their platform, and really just focused on the fiscally conservative planks, they would win a lot of voters like me. (Did I mention that I don't think they'll ever do it?)

[Dagga Boy]

Great observation. Everyone has opinions, beliefs, orthodoxies, and an evolving value matrix to distinguish between good and bad. That is good and proper.

What sucks is when we think everyone should share these opinions & etc, or at least live as if they did, especially when behaving differently doesn't really hurt anything. What sucks the worst is when people are willing to force others to live according to these opinions & etc - through legislation like we do in the US, through beheadings like they're doing in Mosul, or through any other form of violence or threat of violence.

In that context, I don't see the irony in saying that I wish folks would live and let live. Now, I'm not under the illusion that live and let live will ever happen. I was just saying that if the R's would stop worrying about the socially conservative planks of their platform, and really just focused on the fiscally conservative planks, they would win a lot of voters like me. (Did I mention that I don't think they'll ever do it?)


Can you explain the socially conservative plank of the Tea Party? I would be really interested in what that is because they have no social platform other than not having taxpayers pay for social choices. They are Constitutionalists if nothing else, and very fiscally conservative. I think you have them confused with other folks on the "R" side of the aisle.

[littlejerry]

Can you explain the socially conservative plank of the Tea Party? I would be really interested in what that is because they have no social platform other than not having taxpayers pay for social choices. They are Constitutionalists if nothing else, and very fiscally conservative. I think you have them confused with other folks on the "R" side of the aisle.
Unfortunately a great deal of money has been spent by both Republicans and Democrats to convince the public that Tea Party= Republican.

The original tea party protests were as close to grass roots libertarian as you could get.

[MDS]

Can you explain the socially conservative plank of the Tea Party? I would be really interested in what that is because they have no social platform other than not having taxpayers pay for social choices. They are Constitutionalists if nothing else, and very fiscally conservative. I think you have them confused with other folks on the "R" side of the aisle.
There was a time when I agreed with you on this. Then I went to a couple of meetings and got turned off. After a while, thinking maybe my local group was anomalous, I did some research. I now believe the tea party would drive a socially as well as fiscally conservative agenda if it was in power. Check out http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm for a starting point, if anyone would like to do their own research. OTOH, I'd really love to see robust evidence that the tea party is truly above all that - if the TP could actually support socially liberal policies, not just remain strategically silent about them, I might switch teams.

Unfortunately a great deal of money has been spent by both Republicans and Democrats to convince the public that Tea Party= Republican.

The original tea party protests were as close to grass roots libertarian as you could get.
You may be right. If so, much of that money may have helped make that particular myth more true than it used to be. But it's not very true anyway, near as I can tell, because an even more outrageous myth is that the R's are fiscally conservative.

[Dagga Boy]

The issue is the "Tea Party" has a bunch of members from all areas of the Republican, Conservative and Libertarian base, thus some of the "Christian Conservatives" will try to impart their social ideas. The true tea party has no social agenda and is strictly about Constitutional and fiscal conservative principles. Most have mirrored my opinion on these things like abortion in that I no longer care if you want to kill your baby, I just don't want to pay for it, and think that those who do it should be doing it in a environment that meets medical standards we would expect for other similar surgical procedures. At this point its a fiscal issue and I think many things should be controlled at the state level. Which is sort of my point on the executive order on immigration. Don't want to deport them, then the Feds need to repay the states for education, incarceration, and other services.

[MDS]

I don't disagree, nyeti, a movement like the tea party is a very delicate thing. It's a loose coalition of very different factions that agree on the Constitution and fiscal conservatism, but disagree on almost everything else. Definitely there's a lot of disagreement on social issues. There's a lot of disagreement on immigration and foreign policy, too. But on social issues like gays and pot and bible-vs-science, it seems to me that the bulk of the TP leans 75% or more towards being socially conservative.

The bottom line is that I would be really surprised if a tea party government didn't pass all kinds of socially conservative laws. I could be wrong! But I'm not alone, a lot of people feel that way. If the tea party would stop with the strategic silence, and come out in plain language to say that their position on social issues is "live and let live," I might look again at them in more detail. Until then, my own experience and research is what it is, you know? I've put in my effort to get to know them, if they want to change my conclusions, not to mention their perceived image in the national eye, well the ball's in their court. Even if there was a will to do it, though, I don't think the TP can afford to alienate the non-trivial part of their membership that really is socially conservative. So I'm likely to keep voting and rooting for the only faction I know of that consistently puts out a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, constitutionalist message: the Libertarians.

[Dagga Boy]

My understanding is that Constitutionally, many of those social issues are State issues and not Federal issues, which I wholly agree with. What is right for Wyoming is not really right for New York and vice versa. I am a huge believer in returning a ton of power to the States where it belongs. When Tax money stays closer to where it comes from, it is more representative. The problem with the Tea party being a "party", it simply divides a party rather than being a "faction" that sticks to federal constitutional issues on the national level. What they focus on socially on the state level will and should be reflective of the area and likely different.