Competent Republicans?

[rangerx]

Who is the competent Republcian on this issue and what is their proposal?

 

You say Ted Cruz is intelligent (competent?) have you reviewed his plan; Ted Cruz's plan is to build a wall, triple the agents on the border, drones, catch everyone illegal, and send them home. In your opinion that is a competent plan?

 

Build a wall that works. I will fulfill the promise Congress made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700 miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible.

 

 

Anyone using the word wall and immigration in the same sentence isn't competent to become a candidate for POTUS.

 

Seriously, are Republicans and their followers so moronic as to think a wall is the magic bullet to end illegal immigration? I mean really? Are they so narrow-minded where things like tunnels, boats, planes and cars and Canada are nonexistent in their world? Or not a factor? Is it not true the greater percentage enter legally while on student/work visas, vacation, business, weddings and funerals etc., but don't leave when supposed?

 

[sarcasm]

 

Who cares about animal migration? Most are just homeless, inedible and shit everywhere anyway.

 

Florida will look terrific with wall around it. So will California, Oregon and Washington states. I suppose the Carolinas, eastern seaboard and New England would have to follow suit to avoid illegals going around too. Tourists will enjoy the warm sunshine while looking at paintings of sea scapes and the TRUMP name in neon lights on the wall just mere inches from the real sea, knowing they're safe from the evil Cubans who only want to escape communism and live the American dream. Fishermen would simply clear customs daily to report for work from any port. Think of the new jobs created within the border service by this new massive government program Republicans so vehemently espouse to be safe from evil doers.

 

No point in half measures though. May as well put one along the 49th parallel too. All 4000 miles of it, Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes included. Make Canada pay for it. They have universal health care. You know that slippery slope to the gulags.

 

Far be it Canadians want's illegals from America once the civil war starts. Vietnam was their trial by fire for draft dodgers.

 

Let's not forget Alaska. Sarah Palin wouldn't have to see Russia anymore.

 

Then and ONLY then will America be free to enjoy the exclusivity of the English language (which they invented), the land where Jesus was born and killing each other in peace, with their own guns.

 

[/sarcasm]

[EdEarl]

You forgot the virgin islands:)

[MigL]

Much more lively discussion about the issues being presented by Republican candidates, and less about Republicans as a group.Thanks guys.

( remember some of these people are your neighbors, or even family members )

 

By the way, T. Cruz may be intelligent, but he is using that intelligence to try and get elected by saying whatever he can get away with.

That makes him competent at getting elected.

None of the things he says are good for the country.

That makes him incompetent to run the country.

The two are different.

[neutrinosalad]

Religious theocracy and corporate control of government are major problems. Neither of the two democratic candidates are proposing restrictions on free speech. All of the progressives I know do not support rules to restrict free speech. Free speech is about the freedom of the press or people to criticize the government without repercussions. It's not about an individual's right to be an ass, but I don't think being an ass should be restricted.

 

To make sure we are talking about the same thing, fascism:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

Within the same wiki link for fascism:

 

 

 

Fascist states pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational and media materials.^[163][164] Education was designed to glorify the fascist movement and inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement and to teach students to be obedient to the state.^[165]

 

Banning "hate speech" on college campuses sounds eerily similar to the things that are bolded in the quote above. This is particularly true because "hate speech" could simply be anything that does not fit the progressive ideology that is highly present on college campuses.

 

 

 

Then there is the fact that Cruz is a dominionist: (reconstructionist)

 

Hmm, not sure what to think about this. I just read some about his dad. It's like those televangelists on governmental power steroids.

[iNow]

None of the things he says are good for the country.

That makes him incompetent to run the country.

The two are different.

It gets worse. In his attempts to exaggerate division and whip up support among the base, he's plunged the wedge deeper on the desire of a large many to keep church and state separate.

 

Arguments are sometimes seen in context of Christian slogans on state houses, the Ten Commandments in public schools, crosses on federal lands or town halls, etc... he blames these things on liberals... The evil Obama dictatorship... Says the left wants to sandblast the crosses and crescents off the grave stones of fallen soldiers and that this is what they'll do if they're allowed to nominate a Scalia replacement. I watched him do it myself just yesterday on Meet the Press.

 

...Even though the Obama administration supported his position on this very topic when it reached the courts... Made sure it won.

 

Read more: http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/02/ted-cruzs-mendacity-and-calumny-is.html

[Willie71]

Within the same wiki link for fascism:

 

 

 

Banning "hate speech" on college campuses sounds eerily similar to the things that are bolded in the quote above. This is particularly true because "hate speech" could simply be anything that does not fit the progressive ideology that is highly present on college campuses.

 

 

 

Hmm, not sure what to think about this. I just read some about his dad. It's like those televangelists on governmental power steroids.

The dominionism/reconstructionist ideology is a lot to take in. I didn't believe it when I first looked at it about a decade ago. It's really frightening to see where this could go.

 

The kids on college campuses are not representative of progressive ideals. The independent media outlets call them out for being regressive all the time. None of them have the power to control the media or curriculum. The media is much more establishment than the republicans admit. Divide and conquer is one way of avoiding looking up at the oligarchy, by forcing us to look at our neighbours and be suspicious. Clinton is expstablishment as well. She is not as extreme in the tendency to fascism, but she is pro corporate and strongly influences the media. She is not a progressive except in social domains.

 

In contrast, Texas has been whitewashing history, rewriting major swaths of the slave trade/civil war, and secular origins of the constitution. Carson wanted to police "liberal indoctrination" on university campuses. Six companies control the mainstream media, and push pro corporate messages, as well as pro war and islamophobic messages. Trump regularity makes disparaging comments about the media (grooming his audience.) the only non corporate candidate only received 10min of coverage over all of 2015, the lowest of any candidate by far. I can cite sources for all of this is you need them. Fascism is about authoritarian power, not youthful rebellion.

[MigL]

To be fair Capayan, the lines you bolded in your post above also apply to Communist states.

I would venture to say that, historically, any far right OR far left government ( more accurately dictatorships ) have used the same extreme authoritarian methods.

Maybe the political spectrum is circular such that the far right rejoins to the far left ?

[Willie71]

To be fair Capayan, the lines you bolded in your post above also apply to Communist states.

I would venture to say that, historically, any far right OR far left government ( more accurately dictatorships ) have used the same extreme authoritarian methods.

Maybe the political spectrum is circular such that the far right rejoins to the far left ?

 

We think of the spectrum as left/right, but there is authoritarian/libertarian as well.

 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

 

The USSR wasn't just communism, but fascist communism. Real communism would be the idea of utopia, or like the Jesus story.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Willie71

[rangerx]

You forgot the virgin islands:)

 

Guam too I suppose.

 

Here's a little Republican incompetence d'jour for everyone.

 

Maybe they won't need that wall on the northern border after all. Eminent domain?

 

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2016/02/15/vancouver-skyline-featured-in-marco-rubios-morning-again-in-america-campaign-ad/

[neutrinosalad]

Here's a little Republican incompetence d'jour for everyone.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2016/02/15/vancouver-skyline-featured-in-marco-rubios-morning-again-in-america-campaign-ad/

 

Well, there is a spectrum of competence here. Marco Rubio is towards the bottom of that spectrum.

 

I think we need to look at other Republicans before we decide the whole party is as dimwitted as Marco Rubio.

[Willie71]

Well, there is a spectrum of competence here. Marco Rubio is towards the bottom of that spectrum.

 

I think we need to look at other Republicans before we decide the whole party is as dimwitted as Marco Rubio.

Kasich isn't crazy. His economic policies are absurd, but he isn't a dominionist. He is pro corporate through and through, but he's socially a moderate. If I was American, and had to vote republican, he's the only one I could stomach.

[overtone]

Banning "hate speech" on college campuses sounds eerily similar to the things that are bolded in the quote above.

No, it doesn't. Starting with the observation that it isn't the government doing it, continuing by noting that "hate speech" is not ideologically defined, and so forth. Details, details.

 

 

The USSR wasn't just communism, but fascist communism

This is bad - this wingnut propaganda meme launched from the Koch brothers's think tanks is spreading like foot fungus, and infecting the innocent.

 

-> There is no such thing as leftwing fascism. There is no such thing as fascist communism, or fascist socialism, or fascist anarchy, or fascist feudalism, or fascist theocracy, or fascist anything that does not involve the central and necessary feature: capitalist corporate organization of the economy and control of the government. Militarized and myth-justified corporate capitalist authoritarians cannot take over the government and run it for the economic benefit of their band of brothers unless they exist in the first place.

 

Fascism is an English word that has a meaning. It is not a synonym for "bad", or "authoritarian", or "totalitarian", or "violent", or "warmongering", or "Nazi", or "police State", or "jackboot wearing", or "anti-Semitic", or "thuggish".

 

Leftwing authoritarian - even totalitarian - ideologies do exist, despite the fixation on them by the pundit-minnows of the US media (that makes them look like hobgoblins of the deluded). Rightwing authoritarianisms that are not fascistic exist as well (capitalism is fully compatible with feudalism, even theocracy). One does not need to be fascistic to be an ugly and oppressive governing officialdom.

Edited February 16, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

No, it doesn't. Starting with the observation that it isn't the government doing it, continuing by noting that "hate speech" is not ideologically defined, and so forth. Details, details.

 

 

 

This is bad - this wingnut propaganda meme launched from the Koch brothers's think tanks is spreading like foot fungus, and infecting the innocent.

 

-> There is no such thing as leftwing fascism. There is no such thing as fascist communism, or fascist socialism, or fascist anarchy, or fascist feudalism, or fascist theocracy, or fascist anything that does not involve the central and necessary feature: capitalist corporate organization of the economy and control of the government. Militarized and myth-justified corporate capitalist authoritarians cannot take over the government and run it for the economic benefit of their band of brothers unless they exist in the first place.

 

Fascism is an English word that has a meaning. It is not a synonym for "bad", or "authoritarian", or "totalitarian", or "violent", or "warmongering", or "Nazi", or "police State", or "jackboot wearing", or "anti-Semitic", or "thuggish".

 

Leftwing authoritarian - even totalitarian - ideologies do exist, despite the fixation on them by the pundit-minnows of the US media (that makes them look like hobgoblins of the deluded). Rightwing authoritarianisms that are not fascistic exist as well (capitalism is fully compatible with feudalism, even theocracy). One does not need to be fascistic to be an ugly and oppressive governing officialdom.

I agree with you 100%, and accept that I have contributed to the confusion. I should have explained it in more detail, rather than using common understanding of the word. Fascism is extremely misused, just as common understanding of left/right is utter nonsense. It's tough to communicate these ideas when the common use of the words are so far from their actual meanings.

[EdEarl]

Will the GOP build a sea wall around NY to protect the stock exchange from a flood of illegal aliens?

[Ten oz]

Will the GOP build a sea wall around NY to protect the stock exchange from a flood of illegal aliens?

Politics matter; has real impact on real lives. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a single mother, Syrian refugee, or illegal immigrant working 16hr days and hearing the rhetoric coming from the mouths of many of these politicians. It is despicable! People deserve dignity. Mocking the most vulnerbale amongst is no way to competently govern.

[MigL]

You can call it anything you want, Overtone, but if the methods they use to control the populace are identical, that makes them equivalent in all but name.

Some people in the former USSR did extremely well for themselves after the so-called fall of Communism.

Much better than 'militarized and myth-justified corporate capitalist authoritarians'.

In fact V. Putin is alleged to be the richest man in the world, with a ( possible ) net worth of some $200 bill.

 

( of course this is 'bastardized' Communism, not the ideal, but us humans tend to always strive for the best, and achieve the worst )

[EdEarl]

Fascism is an English word that has a meaning. It is not a synonym for "bad", or "authoritarian", or "totalitarian", or "violent", or "warmongering", or "Nazi", or "police State", or "jackboot wearing", or "anti-Semitic", or "thuggish".

I didn't know anyone in the US read an English dictionary. Can you tell me what I mean when saying, "I'm bad."

[Willie71]

Politics matter; has real impact on real lives. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a single mother, Syrian refugee, or illegal immigrant working 16hr days and hearing the rhetoric coming from the mouths of many of these politicians. It is despicable! People deserve dignity. Mocking the most vulnerbale amongst is no way to competently govern.

I've been sending this video to people who claim it's just economic migrants, that there is no refugee crisis. If you can watch this, and the video I'm posting right after this and say there's no reason to help these people, you would have to be a psychopath.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AaN-kUucF4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLTpcK80irdQirLg6szYbMjNsiHywSu8vG&v=soxm2De-fZc

Edited February 16, 2016 by Willie71

[Ten oz]

I've been sending this video to people who claim it's just economic migrants, that there is no refugee crisis. If you can watch this, and the video I'm posting right after this and say there's no reason to help these people, you would have to be a psychopath.

 

 

Political debates get so lost in the idea that fairness demands equal time that we freeze in place. We should not have to captulate on issues simply to ensure everyone feels like their 2 cents were treated equally. That is one of the main points of arguments for many Republicans. Equal voice on climate change, A flat or "fair" tax plan, immigrants are great they just have to do legally, and etc. They play to the concept of what they view as morally right while ignoring any of the logistics and real life costs associated. It isn't that I don't think it is possible for a Syrian refugee to to sympathize with terrorists; I just understand that there are far other lives as stake. Risk vs reward.

 

A competent politicians seeks solutions that resolve problems. Just as a competent car mechanic repairs vehicles. Carpet bombing does resolve the issues in Syria it merely seeks to end them. Killing people ends them it does not relsolve anything. It is like a mechanic who just pulls the wheels off places a vehicle in a junk yard.

 

Immigration - end it by building wall and hiring extra agency to guard it.

 

Climate Change - Isn't real and either way jobs and the economy are too important for climate to be considered even if it were true.

 

Abortion - end it

 

Healthcare - end all government involvement

 

Criminal Justice reform - end black lives matter

 

Syria - Bomb it

 

Iraq - bomb it some more

 

Iran - bomb it too

[neutrinosalad]

The thread is asking about competent Republicans. You are saying Ted Cruz is brillant but hedging on the issue of his competency by asking for his ideology to be ignore. Take the next step and use Ted Cruz's brilliance as part of an argument that reflects his competence. Because being brilliant doesn't cut it. Tom Cruise is brillant but he sure isn't competent to be the President of the United States.

 

The problem here Ten oz is that you keep changing definitions and conveniently altering the point of view so that no matter what, everything I say (or anyone who espouses a right leaning view) suddenly transforms to be wrong, incompetent or seriously flawed.

 

And let's address the whole competence argument. The definition everyone is following is a contrived definition that Mr. John Cuthber arbitrarily created:

 

Are we talking about "competent to get elected" or "competent to run a government"?

Clearly they sometimes manage the former so that's a pointless question.

It follows that we need to establish whether Republicans are competent to run a government.

So the next question is "What are governments meant to do?".

Well, there are obviously lots of answers to that.

 

Here's just one observation.

Generally, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

There are zillions of reasons for that; the simplest is that the rich can afford to buy wholesale and sell retail.

 

 

I contend that one of the fundamental roles of government is to ensure that this tendency does not become exploitation.

It is the purpose of government to maintain some degree of "fairness" such that one's chances in life are not solely determined by the accident of birth that one enters into this world in a a rich family or a poor one.

 

To do that you need a mechanism by which the "natural" process is held in check.

On a practical basis that means taxation of the rich and benefits for the poor.

 

So it is a requirement of any government that, in order to provide basic fairness, there need to be taxes and benefits.

I can't see how you can have a just government that doesn't do this.

 

And, since the republicans want to abolish them, they are, by that very fact, not competent to form a government.

 

It's not an issue of whether Cruz or Bush is competent.

Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern.

 

Thus no Republican is competent.

 

Mr. Cuthber created arbitrarily created a premise upon which when followed through the "logical" steps, we come to the conclusion that no Republican could be competent. Real conducive to a discussion here.

 

Also, ironically no establishment Democrat is competent following his own premise.

 

Check this out:

 

 

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington. Some suggested it could provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts.

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

 

The DNC just disassembled the rules blocking corporate interests from infiltrating Super-PACs, so Hillary Rodham Clinton could get more money. The establishment on the Democrat side are being fed by the same people that feed the Republicans. These donors want lower taxes and less benefits.

 

John's own premise makes it so that no Democrat is competent.

 

The premise is flawed.

[Ten oz]

 

The problem here Ten oz is that you keep changing definitions and conveniently altering the point of view so that no matter what, everything I say (or anyone who espouses a right leaning view) suddenly transforms to be wrong, incompetent or seriously flawed.

 

And let's address the whole competence argument. The definition everyone is following is a contrived definition that Mr. John Cuthber arbitrarily created:

 

 

Mr. Cuthber created arbitrarily created a premise upon which when followed through the "logical" steps, we come to the conclusion that no Republican could be competent. Real conducive to a discussion here.

 

Also, ironically no establishment Democrat is competent following his own premise.

 

Check this out:

 

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

 

The DNC just disassembled the rules blocking corporate interests from infiltrating Super-PACs, so Hillary Rodham Clinton could get more money. The establishment on the Democrat side are being fed by the same people that feed the Republicans. These donors want lower taxes and less benefits.

 

John's own premise makes it so that no Democrat is competent.

 

The premise is flawed.

Competent - having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified:

Government - the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government%20?s=t

 

How about we just use the actual definintions? A competent Republican is someone suitable to run our government (citzens or inhabitants). So attacking Democrats isn't enough. You need Republican policies that can competently run government. Those far all you have presented it evidence that one of Ted Cruz's professors in college thought we was brillant. Beyond that you have asked us to assume his policies as presented are fakes meant to win him office. It doesn't need to be this difficult. The Republican party has stated goals.

[EdEarl]

Once the parties compromised. Now, compromise is a dirty word. Will this thread end without compromise on the meaning of competent?

[overtone]

You can call it anything you want, Overtone, but if the methods they use to control the populace are identical, that makes them equivalent in all but name.

That's just silly.

 

All oppressive authoritarians draw from the same handbook of techniques of oppression, the same arsenal of means. Are you trying to claim that the strike-breaking Robber Barons and strike-breaking Soviet Central Committee were equivalent in all but name?

 

 

Some people in the former USSR did extremely well for themselves after the so-called fall of Communism.

Much better than 'militarized and myth-justified corporate capitalist authoritarians'.

In fact V. Putin is alleged to be the richest man in the world, with a ( possible ) net worth of some $200 bill.

So?

How is Putin not a militarized and myth-justified corporate capitalist authoritarian?

 

( of course this is 'bastardized' Communism, not the ideal

It's not communism at all. Russia's economy is corporate capitalist, and has been since before Putin seized power. They have a joint stock corporations, a stock market, private banking sector, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

There's a reason Putin is so much admired among the predatory capitalist class in the US - which would in my view be strong evidence of incompetence due to immaturity of character, lack of necessary understanding of life, in a Presidential candidate.

Edited February 16, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

Shouldn't the concept of competence to govern in a democratic republic be tied to serving the will of the People, and not business? Isn't free market capitalism supposed to be competent enough to get the job done no matter what obstacles they face? They've certainly shown throughout our short history that businessmen can withstand higher tax rates, much much higher than they are now.

 

So competence to govern should be about how to make the most human lives count. Living People, whose potential can only be realized when they have the accumulated knowledge of our species at their disposal. In the richest country, competence to govern should be about ways to ensure prosperity for all, instead of unbelievable wealth for a few.

 

I think the Republicans often equate competence with how well they serve the corporations that put them in office, how well they promote their party agendas. They are incredibly competent at the type of governance that takes away the power of the People's government, and slips it right across the top of the table to the corporate persons they're beholden to.

[neutrinosalad]

Competent - having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified:

Government - the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government%20?s=t

 

How about we just use the actual definintions? A competent Republican is someone suitable to run our government (citzens or inhabitants). So attacking Democrats isn't enough. You need Republican policies that can competently run government. Those far all you have presented it evidence that one of Ted Cruz's professors in college thought we was brillant. Beyond that you have asked us to assume his policies as presented are fakes meant to win him office. It doesn't need to be this difficult. The Republican party has stated goals.

 

Okay, you make a point. I don't really know much about Ted Cruz. I have just been thinking about his capacity to rule would be lately, so I have been lenient with some of his policies.

 

Shouldn't the concept of competence to govern in a democratic republic be tied to serving the will of the People, and not business? Isn't free market capitalism supposed to be competent enough to get the job done no matter what obstacles they face? They've certainly shown throughout our short history that businessmen can withstand higher tax rates, much much higher than they are now.

 

So competence to govern should be about how to make the most human lives count. Living People, whose potential can only be realized when they have the accumulated knowledge of our species at their disposal. In the richest country, competence to govern should be about ways to ensure prosperity for all, instead of unbelievable wealth for a few.

 

I think the Republicans often equate competence with how well they serve the corporations that put them in office, how well they promote their party agendas. They are incredibly competent at the type of governance that takes away the power of the People's government, and slips it right across the top of the table to the corporate persons they're beholden to.

 

Well, I am not sure that the Republicans purely serve corporations.

 

Someone like Rand Paul is heavily ideological with his ideology being based in libertarianism. He seems to have strayed from it slightly, probably because rigid libertarian views lead to political alienation. I was reading through some of his history and he has actually filibustered against increasing foreign military efforts because he believes that an active military is an overextension of the government's power. So it seems that someone like him bases his success not on how well he serves a corporation, but on how much he can influence the ideology of the people and move the needle more towards a libertarian approach to governance. While I don't agree with libertarianism, I do think the government needs to spend its money carefully, so I do see that ideological view as a nice counterbalance to a more socialist approach. Welfare needs to expand over time, but we need to make sure that the government spends that money effectively.

 

Also, while I was working to scrounge up some information to provide an alternative view, I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration) There are Republicans out there who are willing to take a bipartisan approach to make comprehensive reforms in our flawed system, in this case there are 4 Republican and 4 Democratic Senators working together to move forward comprehensive immigration reform.

 

Edit: fixed link

Edited February 16, 2016 by Capayan