Why Have We Come To Regard The GOP As An Institutional Danger?

Started by Blackvegetable

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

PreviousNext
146 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Ricky Tavy
  6,397 13 Feb 2018, 12:34 pm

Ricky Tavy User avatar
      
      

Log in or register to remove this ad..

Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 11:29 am wrote:
Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 11:23 am wrote:
Being gay he's impervious to his own irony.

Fap away, faggot.


You're off the meds again.

Which ignores the reality that FDR sent the country back into the Great Depression as it was beginning to recover.

That according to the overwhelming majority of economists, almost all of FDR's policies were economically destructive.

That Democrats caused the S&L crisis.

And that Reagan brought about a huge economic boom.


And, if you don't believe Clem's lying assertions of an "overwhelming majority of economists," he can separate his cheeks even wider and pull out more from the vast expanses of his colon.
1
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 13 Feb 2018, 12:36 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 11:29 am wrote:
You're off the meds again.

Okay, faggot. SOURCE?

Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 11:29 am wrote:
according to the overwhelming majority of economists,
And the faggot invents ANOTHER source.

Thanks, shit eater. It's added to the list.
0

User avatar
Posted by deezer shoove
  12,242 13 Feb 2018, 4:16 pm

deezer shoove Bangalore Torpedo
User avatar
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 10,619
Location: 2nd in line (human centipede). Light warm breeze very near anus.
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Gender: Other
Money: 12,242.16



Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 10:50 am wrote:
deezer shoove » 13 Feb 2018 7:24 am wrote:

Why is that confusing to you?
Do you to believe we were getting poorer and dumber at the time?
Seems unlikely to me. One stupid depression can't make the case for you.

You really have a "thing" about living in a good place don't you?
Self-loathing is so . . . so Hebrew.

Is that why you REALLY hate Jews? You identify with them so readily...

I'm starting to think you are also gay as a pink poodle.
(Gays being another of your go-to targets for pseudo-rage)

:wave: ;) Think happy thoughts, American.
You're another of those faggots who assume pink poodles are gay, I see.

I guess my Prius is "gay," too, gas guzzler. Get this, and get it good: Ever since I started driving a Prius, I can take a direct kick to the groin without feeling any pain.

Gay, my ass. I'm bullet proof, bitch - and so is Flopsy.


Yeah?
Well, you probably named him Flopsy because that's what he does after you roofie his ass every night.


btw
My Uncle Freida had a Saturn "he" traded in for a Prius because the Saturn wasn't gay enough.
I don't know about the kick to the groin, but I hear he has a one-size-fits-all asshole nowadays.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 13 Feb 2018, 5:05 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



deezer shoove » 13 Feb 2018 3:16 pm wrote:

Yeah?
Well, you probably named him Flopsy because that's what he does after you roofie his ass every night.

btw
My Uncle Freida had a Saturn "he" traded in for a Prius because the Saturn wasn't gay enough.
I don't know about the kick to the groin, but I hear he has a one-size-fits-all asshole nowadays.
I celebrate his multiculturalism.
0

roadkill's Photo
Posted by roadkill
  11,673 13 Feb 2018, 5:25 pm

roadkill       
      

Posts: 28,682
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 11,673.01

Blackvegetable » 11 Feb 2018 10:58 am wrote:
We have both spent our professional careers strenuously avoiding partisanship in our writing and thinking. We have both done work that is, in different ways, ideologically eclectic, and that has—over a long period of time—cast us as not merely nonpartisans but antipartisans. Temperamentally, we agree with the late Christopher Hitchens: Partisanship makes you stupid. We are the kind of voters who political scientists say barely exist—true independents who scour candidates’ records in order to base our votes on individual merit, not party brand.

This, then, is the article we thought we would never write: a frank statement that a certain form of partisanship is now a moral necessity. The Republican Party, as an institution, has become a danger to the rule of law and the integrity of our democracy. The problem is not just Donald Trump; it’s the larger political apparatus that made a conscious decision to enable him. In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates. We’re thus driven to believe that the best hope of defending the country from Trump’s Republican enablers, and of saving the Republican Party from itself, is to do as Toren Beasley did: vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former).

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... op/550907/


"Benjamin Wittes and Jonathan Rauch highlight the perils of populism and political ignorance. They propose mitigating the danger by empowering political professionals"

These clowns think voters are too stupid to know, so let's do their thinking for them. And just who did they think these political professionals should be? I'm sure we can trust them to make that choice. :loco:

"Republican Party, as an institution, has become a danger to the rule of law and the integrity of our democracy."

Yeah right? And the dems adhere to all the laws all the time. Mother fucker yer stupid Bv.
0

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
  15,868 13 Feb 2018, 5:37 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 13,615
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 15,868.10

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 11:36 am wrote:
Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 11:29 am wrote:
Which ignores the reality that FDR sent the country back into the Great Depression as it was beginning to recover.

That according to the overwhelming majority of economists, almost all of FDR's policies were economically destructive..


And the faggot invents ANOTHER source.

Thanks, shit eater. It's added to the list.


Here's the thread, psycho, fwiw. But you'll just babble something stupid that opinion is cited as well as facts and basic Economics.

If you had the slightest clue about basic Economics, you'd know I'm right.

FDR and the Great Depression
viewtopic.php?t=9016
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 13 Feb 2018, 5:39 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 4:37 pm wrote:

Here's the thread, psycho, fwiw. But you'll just babble something stupid that opinion is cited as well as facts and basic Economics.

If you had the slightest clue about basic Economics, you'd know I'm right.


Lol - a partisan opinion piece.

Hoodathunkit... :rolleyes: :drool:
0

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
  15,868 13 Feb 2018, 5:40 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 13,615
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 15,868.10

Huey » 13 Feb 2018 11:33 am wrote:
Corporations, UNIONS, non profits, etc are groups of people. Next, the case was about whether or not the time restrictions on mentioning a candidates name in the McCain Feingold act was constitutional. Additionally, the courts upheld the requirement of public disclosure. The court did not overturn the restriction preventing the direct contribution to candidates or political parties.


And even putting that point aside, as true as it is, the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall not infringe on freedom of speech.

It doesn't add,"but go ahead and censor groups, associations and legally established institutions." :rofl:

That clear English doesn't sink into moonbats' empty heads.
0

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
  15,868 13 Feb 2018, 5:43 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 13,615
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 15,868.10

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 4:39 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 4:37 pm wrote:
Here's the thread, psycho, fwiw. But you'll just babble something stupid that opinion is cited as well as facts and basic Economics.

If you had the slightest clue about basic Economics, you'd know I'm right.


Lol - a partisan opinion piece.

Hoodathunkit... :rolleyes: :drool:


Oh well then let's accept the lunatic claims of an ignorant, babbling, lying psychotic.


There, happy? :loco:

And not that you'll respond with anything except more psychotic babbling, if you had the slightest clue about basic Economics, you'd know I'm right.
0

User avatar
Posted by deezer shoove
  12,242 13 Feb 2018, 6:12 pm

deezer shoove Bangalore Torpedo
User avatar
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 10,619
Location: 2nd in line (human centipede). Light warm breeze very near anus.
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Gender: Other
Money: 12,242.16



Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 4:05 pm wrote:
deezer shoove » 13 Feb 2018 3:16 pm wrote:

Yeah?
Well, you probably named him Flopsy because that's what he does after you roofie his ass every night.

btw
My Uncle Freida had a Saturn "he" traded in for a Prius because the Saturn wasn't gay enough.
I don't know about the kick to the groin, but I hear he has a one-size-fits-all asshole nowadays.
I celebrate his multiculturalism.


He hates Negroes... Just the gay ones.
They're a bit too fastidious. He has acne.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 13 Feb 2018, 6:14 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



deezer shoove » 13 Feb 2018 5:12 pm wrote:
He hates Negroes... Just the gay ones.
They're a bit too fastidious. He has acne.

It's not unusual that a man with acne would hate bad skin.

Not to be racist.
0

DrinkUrPruneJuice1's Photo
Posted by DrinkUrPruneJuice1
  42 14 Feb 2018, 4:03 am


Posts: 34
Classical Liberal Classical Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Classical Liberal
Money: 41.68

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 10:56 am wrote:
Dem in the WOULD world, where you choose to live.

Repuke in the DID world, where I abide.

Any believer in a free market opposes capitalism, which sponsors and relies on heavy government regulation of the market to put free enterprisers out of business.

Since most posters are WAY to retarded to grasp this, here's a bit of proof: Given a regulator and a professed deregulator in the last pResidential erection, wall street and their pet media preferred hitlery to the orange crush.


Historically, the reps have diverged from the original values of the party, the noans policy was a form of affirmative action, a value going completely against their individualist principles. I.E. it doesn't matter what a party calls themselves, it's their policies which identify their values.

So you are saying that big corporations rely on big government so they can keep the smaller enterprises down, while they hoard all the profit, this is true, but what if bigger government did not have that kind of power to regulate those small businesses? I don't know if I'm a complete believer in the free market, there needs to be a bit of regulation to keep things moving in the right direction, but like you said, too much control from the government hurts free competition and smaller businesses from growing. Unless you are saying that big government is the inevitable consequence of the free market?

That's because wall st is in bed with politicians keeping the small budding entrepreneur down, Hilary wouldn't hurt the people who provide her campaign funds. I see your point though.
0

DrinkUrPruneJuice1's Photo
Posted by DrinkUrPruneJuice1
  42 14 Feb 2018, 4:30 am


Posts: 34
Classical Liberal Classical Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Classical Liberal
Money: 41.68

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 11:01 am wrote:
The biggest and most obvious difference was the social programs which prevented absolute financial destitution and starvation.

Those are pretty important elements to a real depression, son. You artificially prevent those, you're gonna fuck up even the most intensely committed and malicious depression. Not even a fair fight.


I don't particularly disagree with distributing some wealth to help people who are literally homeless and starving, its basically charity with a little bit of coercion, I think I was addressing the effects of increased, or certain types, of regulation on the banks.

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 11:01 am wrote:
Meanwhile, there's still this - fluffed at, but not addressed:

Under FDR's game rules, there was never a single bank failure which required a government bailout. EVERY bank failure was absorbed easily by the FDIC.

Only under reaganomics did we have another round of bank failures, ala 1929 - failures which FDR's policies had ENDED.

We had our first massive bank failure - the S&L plundering by future republican nominee McCain and friends (including jeb bush) - before that empty old huxter finished his second term.


Bank failures are bad, and a hallmark of a recession. But many a time they do not cause the recession itself. This is a quote from Wiki


The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered as causes for the recession: the tight fiscal policy resulting from an attempt to balance the budget after New Deal spending, the tight monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, and the declining profits of businesses led to a reduction in business investment.

This is in the midst of all those new regulations brought forth by FDR. I was saying before that before the regulations had got under way in the 30s, unemployment had already been falling, it was only until after the regs that it started to rise again, and then stagnate. But we saw 20 years of sizeable economic growth for the next 20 years, which kind of mitigates the run on the banks during Reagan don't you think?

Sorry got to get to work, gonna be late.
0

User avatar
Posted by indago
  14,665 14 Feb 2018, 5:37 am

indago User avatar
      
      

Posts: 10,762
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 14,665.19

Termin8tor » 13 Feb 2018 11:29 am wrote:
Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2018 11:23 am wrote:
Being gay he's impervious to his own irony.

Fap away, faggot.


You're off the meds again.

Which ignores the reality that FDR sent the country back into the Great Depression as it was beginning to recover.

That according to the overwhelming majority of economists, almost all of FDR's policies were economically destructive.

That Democrats caused the S&L crisis.

And that Reagan brought about a huge economic boom.


When it was all over, I once made a list of New Deal ventures begun during Hoover’s years as Secretary of Commerce and then as president. . . . The New Deal owed much to what he had begun. — FDR advisor Rexford G. Tugwell

Many historians, most of the general public, and even many economists think of Herbert Hoover, the president who preceded Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a defender of laissez-faire economic policy. According to this view, Hoover’s dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. The reality is quite different. Far from being a bystander, Hoover actively intervened in the economy, advocating and implementing polices that were quite similar to those that Franklin Roosevelt later implemented. Moreover, many of Hoover's interventions, like those of his successor, caused the Great Depression to be “great”—that is, to last a long time.


article

So, as usual, you are full of shit...
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 14 Feb 2018, 10:35 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



DrinkUrPruneJuice1 » 14 Feb 2018 3:03 am wrote:

Historically, the reps have diverged from the original values of the party, the noans policy was a form of affirmative action, a value going completely against their individualist principles. I.E. it doesn't matter what a party calls themselves, it's their policies which identify their values.

So you are saying that big corporations rely on big government so they can keep the smaller enterprises down, while they hoard all the profit, this is true, but what if bigger government did not have that kind of power to regulate those small businesses? I don't know if I'm a complete believer in the free market, there needs to be a bit of regulation to keep things moving in the right direction, but like you said, too much control from the government hurts free competition and smaller businesses from growing. Unless you are saying that big government is the inevitable consequence of the free market?

That's because wall st is in bed with politicians keeping the small budding entrepreneur down, Hilary wouldn't hurt the people who provide her campaign funds. I see your point though.
Capitalism simply is not free enterprise. It's the very opposite.

Free enterprise is individuals captaining their own ships, risking their own money, earning their own sweat equity.

Capitalism is employee-run enterprises from the mail room to the board room. The shot caller is himself or herself an EMPLOYEE, not an owner. Owners are quite literally NOT ALLOWED behind the front counter - and are only allowed at the front counter as CUSTOMERS. The risk takers are passive investors and the shot callers are not the risk takers. They often have agendas at odds with the risk takers, and the balance of power rests with employees, not owners. For obvious reasons, such an arrangement DEMANDS regulation.

These enterprises do not exist and cannot exist except by virtue of the government creating, licensing and regulating (and ultimately, favoring) trading boards where trillions in anonymous, passive cash pile up and are accessed by favored insiders.

Pretending such an economic engine is anything except a state created, state regulated economic model is the very abysmal depth of denial. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS A STATE SPONSORED, STATE DEPENDENT ECONOMIC MODEL THAT IT DID NOT, COULD NOT EXIST IN THE USSR OR COMMUNIST CHINA.

Free enterprise, in the form of black market activities, DID exist in both societies - trading boards and corporate CEOs, not so much.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 14 Feb 2018, 10:44 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



DrinkUrPruneJuice1 » 14 Feb 2018 3:30 am wrote:

I don't particularly disagree with distributing some wealth to help people who are literally homeless and starving, its basically charity with a little bit of coercion, I think I was addressing the effects of increased, or certain types, of regulation on the banks.

Meanwhile, there's still this - fluffed at, but not addressed:

Under FDR's game rules, there was never a single bank failure which required a government bailout. EVERY bank failure was absorbed easily by the FDIC.
Only under reaganomics did we have another round of bank failures, ala 1929 - failures which FDR's policies had ENDED.
We had our first massive bank failure - the S&L plundering by future republican nominee McCain and friends (including jeb bush) - before that empty old huxter finished his second term.


Bank failures are bad, and a hallmark of a recession. But many a time they do not cause the recession itself. This is a quote from Wiki


The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered as causes for the recession: the tight fiscal policy resulting from an attempt to balance the budget after New Deal spending, the tight monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, and the declining profits of businesses led to a reduction in business investment.

This is in the midst of all those new regulations brought forth by FDR. I was saying before that before the regulations had got under way in the 30s, unemployment had already been falling, it was only until after the regs that it started to rise again, and then stagnate. But we saw 20 years of sizeable economic growth for the next 20 years, which kind of mitigates the run on the banks during Reagan don't you think?

Sorry got to get to work, gonna be late.
There was no run on any banks. There were simply banks behaving horribly under horrible regulations that allowed the horrid behavior - forcing main street to bail out wall street. In other words, another fucking taking.

The banks are playing the public as marks and the demicorepublicrat party are their willing tools. And AGAIN, fluffed at but never addressed:
Under FDR's game rules, there was never a single bank failure which required a government bailout. EVERY bank failure was absorbed easily by the FDIC.

Only under reaganomics did we have another round of bank failures, ala 1929 - failures which FDR's policies had ENDED.

We had our first massive bank failure - the S&L plundering by future republican nominee McCain and friends (including jeb bush) - before that empty old huxter finished his second term.

One more thing. Can you even HAVE a recession inside of a depression? And why is everyone pretending that only the United States was affected? The entire fucking world was eating shit. DUE TO WALL STREET STYLE TAKINGS.
0

User avatar
Posted by crimsongulf
  30,037 14 Feb 2018, 10:44 pm

crimsongulf User avatar
      
      

Posts: 28,955
Capitalist Capitalist political affiliation
Politics: Capitalist
Money: 30,037.00

Cannonpointer » 14 Feb 2018 9:35 pm wrote:

Capitalism is employee-run enterprises from the mail room to the board room.


those are the ones that didn't survive.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  12,847 14 Feb 2018, 10:48 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 71,941
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 12,846.79



crimsongulf » 14 Feb 2018 9:44 pm wrote:
those are the ones that didn't survive.
Thanks for the news flash that G.E. and Amazon are out of business - did not know that.
0

User avatar
Posted by crimsongulf
  30,037 14 Feb 2018, 10:49 pm

crimsongulf User avatar
      
      

Posts: 28,955
Capitalist Capitalist political affiliation
Politics: Capitalist
Money: 30,037.00

Cannonpointer » 14 Feb 2018 9:48 pm wrote:
Thanks for the news flash that G.E. and Amazon are out of business - did not know that.


Meeeh, GE is in ICU Bezos Inc is rockin and a rollin
0

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
  15,868 14 Feb 2018, 11:22 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 13,615
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 15,868.10

Cannonpointer » 14 Feb 2018 9:35 pm wrote:
Capitalism simply is not free enterprise. It's the very opposite.


The psychotic is his meds again..

cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/Submit
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
0


PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests

Who has visited this topic