2018 Midterm Elections

[Sparko]

That one seems a bit strict...you'd rule me out.

...nvm

We don't need any fat guys in diapers in congress either. Wait. most of them probably fit that description already.

[JimL]

I think you have a very skewed perception of "Republican as bad" and "Democrat as good." There are several parts of the Republican platform I agree with, and the same with Democrats. There are several parts of both platforms I seriously disagree with.

Generally speaking, policy wise, yes. Republicans bad, Democrats good.

[Sparko]

Generally speaking, policy wise, yes. Republicans bad, Democrats good.

This is where you go wrong. Politicians bad. Nobody good.

[JimL]

This is where you go wrong. Politicians bad. Nobody good.

Well, i know, you're a christian, so nobody is good, but relatively speaking say, Republicans bad, Democrats good.

[carpedm9587]

And they need a retirement age. We don't need 80 and 90 year old codgers who can't even stay awake to be running our government.

Well...I've never been big on retirement ages. I think a person should be able to work as long as they are able to work. Picking a fixed age is just "age discrimination." Some peoplke should be retired at 43. Others could work until 90+. Look at Lorretta Lynn and Tony Bennett - both still going (sort of) strong!

[carpedm9587]

Generally speaking, policy wise, yes. Republicans bad, Democrats good.

So we don't agree on that either. I've found what I consider to be good and bad policies in both camps.

[Starlight]

So we don't agree on that either. I've found what I consider to be good and bad policies in both camps.

Examples?

[carpedm9587]

Examples?

Look at the GOP platform (you have to choke back the revulsion when confronted with the picture of Trump). Find me something you do NOT agree with. Government serving the people. Balanced budget. Preservation of Medicaid and Medicare. The broad strokes are things we generally agree on. We tend ot differ on the details of how to make those goals happen. The same tends to be true if you look at the Democratic Platform.

However, when we get into the details, we get into differences. Republicans tend to support the idea that cutting taxes for the rich and businesses will "trickle down" to the middle class and poor (so-called supply-side economics). I know of no data that supports this belief. Republicans tend to have a "the poor are lazy" mentality. I disagree. On the other hand, Democrats tend to move to government solutions without (IMO) adequately tapping what the private sector can do and focusing on enabling that sector. Democrats also tend to have an anti-rich mentality, advocating for taxing the rich to support the poor and middle class.

Republicans are widely behind the notion that funding studies into solutions to the gun violence problem needs to be resisted. I disagree. Democrats seem to be behind many gun control initiatives, without adequate information about what is most likely to work or not work. Republicans take a harder line on immigration, which I support. They also tend to be indiscriminate about the immigrants currently in the U.S., and I think we own some responsibility for that situation. Democrats tend to lean the other way in both cases.

There are other examples.

[Starlight]

Look at the GOP platform (you have to choke back the revulsion when confronted with the picture of Trump). Find me something you do NOT agree with.

From your comments I was expecting inoffensive and vague platitudes.

However I got as far as the first line of the preamble:

We believe in American exceptionalism.

I don't agree.

Reading further through the 1.5 page preamble, I would generally say that I agree with none of the beliefs and principles they outline in it.

Government serving the people. Balanced budget. Preservation of Medicaid and Medicare. The broad strokes are things we generally agree on.

I don't object to those statements phrased that way. I think it's somewhat naive to believe Republicans actually support those things or act on them. The Republican congress under Trump has created one of the most unbalanced budgets the US has seen in a long time. Next on their hit-list for this year appears to be cutting Medicaid and Medicare.

We tend to differ on the details of how to make those goals happen.

I don't buy that the goals are actually the same. I think if you make the goals vague enough and add enough PR spin to them you can make it look like they might be the same to a naive person.

But once you boil it down to the level of actual laws or policies passed... I don't recall ever seeing a single (non-bipartisan) Republican policy I agreed with.

However, when we get into the details, we get into differences. Republicans tend to support the idea that cutting taxes for the rich and businesses will "trickle down" to the middle class and poor (so-called supply-side economics). I know of no data that supports this belief.

Yep.

Republicans take a harder line on immigration, which I support.

I regard myself as a centrist on immigration. I think countries should vigorously control their borders and set immigration quotas that please the population and are based on rational assessments of incoming immigrants. Their moral obligations extend to taking on their fair share of refugees, and treating immigrants with respect and human rights. IMO if they want to accept a very high rate of immigrants like my country does, or a very low rate of immigrants like Japan does, that is their business. And I think it's totally valid for a country to prioritize culturally similar immigration, because such people integrate faster and cause less social disruption.

Given that view, I find neither the Republican nor Democratic policies acceptable on immigration. My immigration priorities would be:
1. Beefing up deportation proceedings against anyone illegally within the country or overstaying within the first 3 years of their illegal overstay. Focus resources on getting these illegal immigrants and overstayers out rapidly before they put down roots. To the extent that it's rational to try to prevent such people entering the country in the first place, do so (e.g. by tightening border security, however since most enter by airplane with visitor visas and then simply don't leave when they expire, spending large amounts of money on border security seems unproductive).
2. Recognizing that once a family has been in the country for a decade, throwing them out is unreasonable, so automatic amnesty and path to citizenship for anyone resident >10 years.
3. Possible slight decrease in the total immigration rate, as that seems to be what the overall population wants (I would set the total rate as fluctuating based on continuous polling as to whether the people wanted it to get higher or lower).
4. Increased refugee quotas (refugees would still only comprise a small proportion of total immigrants) especially from areas of the world where the US has had a direct hand in causing destabilization.
5. A very serious attempt to help and stabilize Mexico to decrease the motivation for floods of immigrants to come from them. This would likely include the legalization of particular drugs in order to cause the drug cartels in Mexico to collapse by removing overnight all US demand for their products.
6. Replace the US's currently messy immigration system with the clearer points-based systems used in Canada, NZ etc. Where points are awarded for things like ability to speak English, qualifications, age, etc, as a measure of the likely level of contribution that the potential immigrant will make to the country should they be allowed in. Thus the policy will filter the potential immigrants for "the best people" (as Trump would put it). I think it is totally reasonable for something like "cultural similarity to the US" to give points as well, and a map of the globe could be created where each country was given a scaling (e.g. Canada 100%, Congo 0%), and thus the immigrant's origin would give them some points as well as a measure of how well they were likely to integrate quickly into US society.

[lilpixieofterror]

Politics are cyclical. Every indication is that the Republican "surge" has peaked and the pendulum is swinging back to the left/Democrats. Then it will undoubtedly (and eventually) peak in that direction and swing back again. It's a cycle I don't see ending anytime soon. Indeed, it seems to be swinging more and more widely. If the Democrats take bouth houses and the WH by 2020, I'll be here advocating for Republicans to retake one or more.

A cycle that saw the democrats lose the most seats in government in nearly 100 years. Of course, it’s looking like they are busy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory though since Clinton can’t seem to stop talking and plans to hike taxes as soon as they get into power. Than again, republicans are pretty good at that too, so we’ll see what party shoots themselves in the foot the most by November.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah, the ACA still exists sweetie, and so does medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, CHIP, and every other social program passed by democrats. Some democrats lost their jobs on principle, but thats the way it sometimes has to go in order to get things done in the interests of the American people over the obstruction of republican special interests.

Of course the ACA is still around because the Republicans are a bunch of spineless cowards. It is cute though that you try to make it sound that I’m against any form of social welfare when I’m against the current system of incompetence that breeds stupidity. Keep attacking those strawman though.

[Tassman]

Eh, Lamb was favored going in, but the fact that he won by the slimmest of margins doesn't give Democrats much reason to celebrate because it gives him pretty much zero momentum going into November..

Not really the "slimmest of margins" when one considers that Trump carried it by 20 points a year ago.

[demi-conservative]

(you have to choke back the revulsion when confronted with the picture of Trump).

Doesn't want to say 'President Trump', also choked back by face of Trump.

Kids, this is why Fake News is bad. Reject!!!

[Sparko]

Well...I've never been big on retirement ages. I think a person should be able to work as long as they are able to work. Picking a fixed age is just "age discrimination." Some peoplke should be retired at 43. Others could work until 90+. Look at Lorretta Lynn and Tony Bennett - both still going (sort of) strong!

Loretta Lynn and Tony Bennett are not making our laws.

[Sparko]

From your comments I was expecting inoffensive and vague platitudes.

However I got as far as the first line of the preamble:

We believe in American exceptionalism.

I don't agree.

Why am I not surprised?