One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Understanding the Politics of America's Political Right
Doing a user mangaed site
Page 1 of 48 next> last>>
Jan 18, 2014 11:15:22   #
Glaucon
 
Understanding the politics of America's Right.

Title: Understanding the Politics of America's Political Right.

Purpose: To discuss and understand Republicans, conservatives, and right wing extremists, their values, motives, beliefs, and emotions.

Participant are from a variety of political points of view and interests.

Participation guide lines:

Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Keep it intelligent. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. And please read the article in its entirety before commenting. Note: Manager reserves the right to remove any post at any time.

Reply
Jan 18, 2014 19:53:05   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
Glaucon wrote:
Understanding the politics of America's Right.

Title: Understanding the Politics of America's Political Right.

Purpose: To discuss and understand Republicans, conservatives, and right wing extremists, their values, motives, beliefs, and emotions.

Participant are from a variety of political points of view and interests.

Participation guide lines:

Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Keep it intelligent. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. And please read the article in its entirety before commenting. Note: Manager reserves the right to remove any post at any time.
Understanding the politics of America's Right. br ... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 18, 2014 19:59:42   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
My understanding of the political right is that the republican party takes the side of the wealthy over the poor. They have a hard nosed attitude when it comes to social services and civil rights. The tea party gang seems to want something for nothing because they want to pay zero in taxes.

Reply
 
 
Jan 18, 2014 20:54:32   #
Artemis
 
fom wrote:
My understanding of the political right is that the republican party takes the side of the wealthy over the poor. They have a hard nosed attitude when it comes to social services and civil rights. The tea party gang seems to want something for nothing because they want to pay zero in taxes.


The right and the left did reverse years ago and it began due to the new social services FDR created.
I had just read about some of the causes of the republican's and democrats flip'- flop'n It was actually an interesting read. The major change occurred during Roosevelt's reign.

It started with the "social" programs, FDR began in order to get us out of the depression.
The capitalists from the beginning didn't like being taxed and having the money go to the needy. The Republicans have always been a party of big business, but after FDR they started to switch and they were known for the party of small government.

We know in reality that's just not true. The GOP is the party that goes with whatever works for them the best.
We know that, as the government has become more regulatory with big business/corporations and are very anti government, on the other hand if they receive bail outs and tax breaks they are pro government.
But no matter what, they don't like giving their money away, and that is how they see it and I don't believe we will ever change their minds on that point of view.

Reply
Jan 18, 2014 22:13:38   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
The republicans Seem offended and unfairly burdoned with their taxes paying for food stamps and unemployment extensions.
maelstrom wrote:
The right and the left did reverse years ago and it began due to the new social services FDR created.
I had just read about some of the causes of the republican's and democrats flip'- flop'n It was actually an interesting read. The major change occurred during Roosevelt's reign.

It started with the "social" programs, FDR began in order to get us out of the depression.
The capitalists from the beginning didn't like being taxed and having the money go to the needy. The Republicans have always been a party of big business, but after FDR they started to switch and they were known for the party of small government.

We know in reality that's just not true. The GOP is the party that goes with whatever works for them the best.
We know that, as the government has become more regulatory with big business/corporations and are very anti government, on the other hand if they receive bail outs and tax breaks they are pro government.
But no matter what, they don't like giving their money away, and that is how they see it and I don't believe we will ever change their minds on that point of view.
The right and the left did reverse years ago and i... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 00:15:28   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
more complicated topic than one might expect. Historically conservative in original American politics was Federalist, Whig, GOP for federal govt. action = Dem today. GOP today for more limited federal govt. action corresponds to Jeffersonian original "liberal" side in American politics, and the re-set of Jeffersonianism with more radical Jacksonian "populism" corresponds to the present Tea Party phenomenon. Note that "progressive" originally was a split from the Republican Party in the 1910s.

Thus in a sense original conservative and liberal historical party lines reversed, perhaps during the Great Depression, though the idea of reversal wasn't apparent to me until "Reaganism." Thus perhaps our political division should be thought of in terms of pro govt. activism vs. more limited action rather than conserv-lib. However, current usage is liberal/conservative reference for pro/limited govt. positions. 7

2 additional historical qualifications: Jeffersonians 1800-28 in office more or less Federalist in practice despite original sharp partisanship--compare to degrees of consensus and bipartisanship and compromise expected by general public vs. RINO contention today by "extremists" insisting on absolute limitation line, which in turn relates to Jacksonian 1828 re-set of govt. limitation considered so "extreme" by opponents that they referred to Jackson as King Andrew and formed an opposition party they named Whig after the Brit party opposing monarchial rule--thus perhaps possibility there is a tendency toward what is considered by other side as absolutism or "extremism" on the limited govt. side in our politics. At same time by 1930s extreme govt. action toward equal common interest (extreme form of socialism--Communism) became a left wing extremism phenomenon (although Marx thought that would mean fading away of govt. totally--never could understand how he figured that--ha). Lots of confusing contradictions in terms in politics and in political history and in political theory (as opposed to practice and results). Apology--too long

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 00:36:16   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
Very much an eye opener thanks for the post.
jonhatfield wrote:
more complicated topic than one might expect. Historically conservative in original American politics was Federalist, Whig, GOP for federal govt. action = Dem today. GOP today for more limited federal govt. action corresponds to Jeffersonian original "liberal" side in American politics, and the re-set of Jeffersonianism with more radical Jacksonian "populism" corresponds to the present Tea Party phenomenon. Note that "progressive" originally was a split from the Republican Party in the 1910s.

Thus in a sense original conservative and liberal historical party lines reversed, perhaps during the Great Depression, though the idea of reversal wasn't apparent to me until "Reaganism." Thus perhaps our political division should be thought of in terms of pro govt. activism vs. more limited action rather than conserv-lib. However, current usage is liberal/conservative reference for pro/limited govt. positions. 7

2 additional historical qualifications: Jeffersonians 1800-28 in office more or less Federalist in practice despite original sharp partisanship--compare to degrees of consensus and bipartisanship and compromise expected by general public vs. RINO contention today by "extremists" insisting on absolute limitation line, which in turn relates to Jacksonian 1828 re-set of govt. limitation considered so "extreme" by opponents that they referred to Jackson as King Andrew and formed an opposition party they named Whig after the Brit party opposing monarchial rule--thus perhaps possibility there is a tendency toward what is considered by other side as absolutism or "extremism" on the limited govt. side in our politics. At same time by 1930s extreme govt. action toward equal common interest (extreme form of socialism--Communism) became a left wing extremism phenomenon (although Marx thought that would mean fading away of govt. totally--never could understand how he figured that--ha). Lots of confusing contradictions in terms in politics and in political history and in political theory (as opposed to practice and results). Apology--too long
more complicated topic than one might expect. Hist... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jan 19, 2014 00:40:37   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
fom wrote:
My understanding of the political right is that the republican party takes the side of the wealthy over the poor. They have a hard nosed attitude when it comes to social services and civil rights. The tea party gang seems to want something for nothing because they want to pay zero in taxes.


It is not my perception the Tea Party does not "want to pay zero taxes". I believe they are more concerned with taxes being used for "wasteful" programs. The following is NOT an assault of homosexuals but an example of tax money given to a university for a study. A university was given $325,000 to study why lesbians have a higher incidence of obesity. $325,000 is a pittance in the overall scheme of trillions of dollars; however, there are more then a few expenditures of this nature. Several weeks ago NPR did a brief news blurb concerning the fact there are several duplicate programs running in fifteen different departments. I am unclear why we, the citizens, should be paying fifteen times for the same programs. It would seem a more efficient use of personnel and taxes to combine them.

Just Friday at least two Congressmen admitted they had not read the 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill they voted on. Elected officials on both sides are abrogating their fiduciary responsibilities to their constituents and country. They had several weeks of vacation. Is there some particular reason they could not have taken some time during the recess to review this spending bill?
We had two people decide what and where all this money would go. It is good they represented both parties and sides of Congress; however, two people just decided on where our taxes would go.

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 00:45:39   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
Republicans today run on some hardline ideas. In Oregon we had a hardliner Dudley run for govenor. The main thing he pushed was reducing state minimum wage to $5.00 per hour. He nearly won. How folks can be attracted by that kind of disregard for workers is beyond me. Scott Walker busted wisconsins public employee union Rick Scott got mandatory drug testing for those on assistance in Florida. What about stand your ground laws voter i d laws and gerrymandering congressional districts? To me the republicans want to become our dictators.

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 00:54:46   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
It seems to me the two congressmen who[voted on the spending bill without reading it are guilty of not doing their jobs.They are paid to do a job and they did not do it. Cutting waste in government programs is fine but we need to be very carefull we don't go to far and cause real suffering and social unrest.quote=AuntiE]It is not my perception the Tea Party does not "want to pay zero taxes". I believe they are more concerned with taxes being used for "wasteful" programs. The following is NOT an assault of homosexuals but an example of tax money given to a university for a study. A university was given $325,000 to study why lesbians have a higher incidence of obesity. $325,000 is a pittance in the overall scheme of trillions of dollars; however, there are more then a few expenditures of this nature. Several weeks ago NPR did a brief news blurb concerning the fact there are several duplicate programs running in fifteen different departments. I am unclear why we, the citizens, should be paying fifteen times for the same programs. It would seem a more efficient use of personnel and taxes to combine them.

Just Friday at least two Congressmen admitted they had not read the 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill they voted on. Elected officials on both sides are abrogating their fiduciary responsibilities to their constituents and country. They had several weeks of vacation. Is there some particular reason they could not have taken some time during the recess to review this spending bill?
We had two people decide what and where all this money would go. It is good they represented both parties and sides of Congress; however, two people just decided on where our taxes would go.[/quote]

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 00:55:24   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
fom wrote:
The republicans Seem offended and unfairly burdoned with their taxes paying for food stamps and unemployment extensions.


The Republicans are offended by the failure of the agency's responsible for payment of food stamps not adequately investigating fraud. Each agency, supposedly, has an investigative division. The best example of a failure to perform their duties was the YouTube Video of a young man from CA admitting he was on food stamps and other social services benefits who was physically able to work. He freely admitted he did not want to and spent his days surfing and such. If even one fourth of the fraudulent recipients were caught, there would be sufficient benefits for those truly in need. The system needs more checks and balances. There have been, unsubstantiated, statements there are individuals who are earning good money and receiving these benefits. They are able to scam the system by working for cash. Every dollar they steal, and it is theft, is less available for those truly in need.

It was Harry Reid in the Senate who would not vote on the three month extension for unemployment benefits.

Reply
 
 
Jan 19, 2014 00:57:38   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
fom wrote:
Republicans today run on some hardline ideas. In Oregon we had a hardliner Dudley run for govenor. The main thing he pushed was reducing state minimum wage to $5.00 per hour. He nearly won. How folks can be attracted by that kind of disregard for workers is beyond me. Scott Walker busted wisconsins public employee union Rick Scott got mandatory drug testing for those on assistance in Florida. What about stand your ground laws voter i d laws and gerrymandering congressional districts? To me the republicans want to become our dictators.
Republicans today run on some hardline ideas. In O... (show quote)


If you looking at the history of gerrymandering, both sides are guilty.

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 01:07:25   #
Artemis
 
jonhatfield wrote:
more complicated topic than one might expect. Historically conservative in original American politics was Federalist, Whig, GOP for federal govt. action = Dem today. GOP today for more limited federal govt. action corresponds to Jeffersonian original "liberal" side in American politics, and the re-set of Jeffersonianism with more radical Jacksonian "populism" corresponds to the present Tea Party phenomenon. Note that "progressive" originally was a split from the Republican Party in the 1910s.

Thus in a sense original conservative and liberal historical party lines reversed, perhaps during the Great Depression, though the idea of reversal wasn't apparent to me until "Reaganism." Thus perhaps our political division should be thought of in terms of pro govt. activism vs. more limited action rather than conserv-lib. However, current usage is liberal/conservative reference for pro/limited govt. positions. 7

2 additional historical qualifications: Jeffersonians 1800-28 in office more or less Federalist in practice despite original sharp partisanship--compare to degrees of consensus and bipartisanship and compromise expected by general public vs. RINO contention today by "extremists" insisting on absolute limitation line, which in turn relates to Jacksonian 1828 re-set of govt. limitation considered so "extreme" by opponents that they referred to Jackson as King Andrew and formed an opposition party they named Whig after the Brit party opposing monarchial rule--thus perhaps possibility there is a tendency toward what is considered by other side as absolutism or "extremism" on the limited govt. side in our politics. At same time by 1930s extreme govt. action toward equal common interest (extreme form of socialism--Communism) became a left wing extremism phenomenon (although Marx thought that would mean fading away of govt. totally--never could understand how he figured that--ha). Lots of confusing contradictions in terms in politics and in political history and in political theory (as opposed to practice and results). Apology--too long
more complicated topic than one might expect. Hist... (show quote)


Thanks Jon ...OK than

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 01:08:51   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
maelstrom wrote:
The right and the left did reverse years ago and it began due to the new social services FDR created.
I had just read about some of the causes of the republican's and democrats flip'- flop'n It was actually an interesting read. The major change occurred during Roosevelt's reign.

It started with the "social" programs, FDR began in order to get us out of the depression.
The capitalists from the beginning didn't like being taxed and having the money go to the needy. The Republicans have always been a party of big business, but after FDR they started to switch and they were known for the party of small government.

We know in reality that's just not true. The GOP is the party that goes with whatever works for them the best.
We know that, as the government has become more regulatory with big business/corporations and are very anti government, on the other hand if they receive bail outs and tax breaks they are pro government.
But no matter what, they don't like giving their money away, and that is how they see it and I don't believe we will ever change their minds on that point of view.
The right and the left did reverse years ago and i... (show quote)


Purely personal statement on my part. I have an objection to giving my tax money to corporations whose executives have made poor business decisions; however, whose executives are making millions of dollars a year. The citizens of this country lost approximately $30 billion on the GM stock. The CEO had absolutely no thanks in his attitude for the assistance given them. They created the morass they found themselves in by building less then well performing lasting vehicles.

Reply
Jan 19, 2014 01:17:13   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
fom wrote:
It seems to me the two congressmen who[voted on the spending bill without reading it are guilty of not doing their jobs.They are paid to do a job and they did not do it. Cutting waste in government programs is fine but we need to be very carefull we don't go to far and cause real suffering and social unrest.quote=AuntiE]It is not my perception the Tea Party does not "want to pay zero taxes". I believe they are more concerned with taxes being used for "wasteful" programs. The following is NOT an assault of homosexuals but an example of tax money given to a university for a study. A university was given $325,000 to study why lesbians have a higher incidence of obesity. $325,000 is a pittance in the overall scheme of trillions of dollars; however, there are more then a few expenditures of this nature. Several weeks ago NPR did a brief news blurb concerning the fact there are several duplicate programs running in fifteen different departments. I am unclear why we, the citizens, should be paying fifteen times for the same programs. It would seem a more efficient use of personnel and taxes to combine them.

Just Friday at least two Congressmen admitted they had not read the 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill they voted on. Elected officials on both sides are abrogating their fiduciary responsibilities to their constituents and country. They had several weeks of vacation. Is there some particular reason they could not have taken some time during the recess to review this spending bill?
We had two people decide what and where all this money would go. It is good they represented both parties and sides of Congress; however, two people just decided on where our taxes would go.
It seems to me the two congressmen who voted on th... (show quote)
[/quote]

The difficulty is it was not just two Congressmen. Two or three others would not even answering the question as to whether they read it. To my pea brain, that says they did not.

I do not disagree as to going "to far". I bet you and I could go into just one small agency division and using basic common sense rid ourselves of quite a large amount of waste. To use a George Bush phrase, if you want to see "shock and awe", go the the government job site and look at some of the job descriptions and look at the salary. It is absolutely jaw dropping.

Reply
Page 1 of 48 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Understanding the Politics of America's Political Right
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.