Economy Trump Plans to Sign $2.7 Trillion Budget

[Rational Poster]

These posts nearly brought a tear to my eye. Literally printing money out of thin air, and what do us little people have to show for it? All we get is an argument amongst each other. The fuck are we doing here? <Lmaoo>

 

[waiguoren]

What possible argument could there be for Darrell Castle being a better candidate than Clinton?

It's a question of values. For those, like me, who believe in the federalist structure of government laid out in the US Constitution, it's a no-brainer.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's a question of values. For those, like me, who believe in the federalist structure of government laid out in the US Constitution, it's a no-brainer.

IMO, that's nonsensical. The Constitution is the law of the land. But if you compare resumes, knowledge of issues, analytical ability, character, experience, etc., there's no argument for Castle over Clinton. It's not even close.

 

[waiguoren]

IMO, that's nonsensical. The Constitution is the law of the land.

Why is it nonsensical?

Just stating "The Constitution is the law of the land" is not helpful since there is major divergence between "originalists" and "non-originalists" in constitutional interpretation and judges of both varieties find themselves on the federal courts depending on the president and the Senate. I believe common non-originalist interpretations to be mostly incoherent and enabling of the aggregation of federal power that Madison/Jefferson/Jay/Wilson opposed stridently. Castle has shown good understanding of the above, while Clinton has outright supported policies that indicate rejection of originalism.

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

I guess that's one of the big draw backs of having "short term" leaders - naturally they are only interested in the short term. Spend spend spend, kick the can(s) down the line, let someone else worry about it.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

That’s a lot of drough.

How much of that can we actually afford?

Easy question.

Zero if it's a democrat doing it, infinite if it's a republican.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why is it nonsensical?

Just stating "The Constitution is the law of the land" is not helpful since there is major divergence between "originalists" and "non-originalists" in constitutional interpretation and judges of both varieties find themselves on the federal courts depending on the president and the Senate. I believe common non-originalist interpretations to be mostly incoherent and enabling of the aggregation of federal power that Madison/Jefferson/Jay/Wilson opposed stridently. Castle has shown good understanding of the above, while Clinton has outright supported policies that indicate rejection of originalism.

Let's be honest: there are no originalists or non-originalists. You claim to be an originalist, and yet what's your position on immigration? Very much not an originalist one. At times you appear to reject judicial review, which is a questionable fit with your overall approach. People who claim to be committed originalists (no one that I'm aware of claims to consistently be non-originalist) never are, and likely cannot possibly be.

Point me to someone who says, "I disagree with (policy) but I think we should implement it anyway because of originalism," and I'll go out and say a prayer for him.

 

[kpt018]

I don't think it's fair to say we should stay clear of Democratic nominees if the concern is the debt. Biden and Buttigieg are fairly moderate from a economic policy standpoint and the progressive candidates have been clear about how they plan to pay for their ambitious programs. You can disagree with them ever step of the way from the policy itself to the pay-fors but they are not proposing deficit funded programs. For example, Clinton was the most fiscally conservative president in our lifetimes and Obama's ACA was a deficit reducer (funded by the net investment and other taxes). Warren and Sanders pay for their programs with tax increases, etc.. Republicans, however, are full of shit.

The idea that Republicans are deficit hawks and Democrats are spenders is/was a flat out lie. And to say they're both irresponsible is kind of lazy tbh. It ignores that there are times we want to spend and increase deficits (for example, to fight off a recession). It ignores why we are seeing deficits (recession, war). Should we compare deficit spending that Obama signed to fight off a recession to deficit spending to fight a bogus war in Iraq? Shouldn't running up deficits in a strong economy be a bigger black mark then running deficits during a recession?

I take @waiguoren 's point about this bill, though. Both Republicans and Democrats signed off on this one and they both own the impact to the debt.

 

[panamaican]

Let's be honest: there are no originalists or non-originalists. You claim to be an originalist, and yet what's your position on immigration? Very much not an originalist one. At times you appear to reject judicial review, which is a questionable fit with your overall approach. People who claim to be committed originalists (no one that I'm aware of claims to consistently be non-originalist) never are, and likely cannot possibly be.

Point me to someone who says, "I disagree with (policy) but I think we should implement it anyway because of originalism," and I'll go out and say a prayer for him.

I think that's a valid point, I'm frequently surprised by how often people (not necessarily @waiguoren, I haven't read enough of his posts to level such an accusation against him) claim to support originalism but still champion policy positions that contradict the original intent.

Immigration is an obvious one but so is abortion. Not to mention the unnamed hordes who seem completely willing to throw out due process and/or the Bill of Rights limitations on federal power whenever it's convenient to some particular goal.

 

[franklinstower]

"Conservatives"

I'm caring less and less by the month about the ridiculous costs of "free" college and healthcare. We're spending a ridiculous amount anyway on... What?

Tax breaks for people who dont need them and for a military bigger than we need.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I think that's a valid point, I'm frequently surprised by how often people (not necessarily @waiguoren, I haven't read enough of his posts to level such an accusation against him) claim to support originalism but still champion policy positions that contradict the original intent.

Immigration is an obvious one but so is abortion. Not to mention the unnamed hordes who seem completely willing to throw out due process and/or the Bill of Rights limitations on federal power whenever it's convenient to some particular goal.

Originalism is just flat retarded imo
Like, original to what? The Constitution has been changed for as long as it has been around. The Founding Fathers disagreed on everything lol.
Buh buh but muh Articles of Confederation!!!

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think that's a valid point, I'm frequently surprised by how often people (not necessarily @waiguoren, I haven't read enough of his posts to level such an accusation against him) claim to support originalism but still champion policy positions that contradict the original intent.

Immigration is an obvious one but so is abortion. Not to mention the unnamed hordes who seem completely willing to throw out due process and/or the Bill of Rights limitations on federal power whenever it's convenient to some particular goal.

I think as a general rule, all process-based arguments are either insincere or applied in a sincere but biased way.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I think people are worried about the day that people decide it's time to collect. Also, I think it's a natural inclination to not want to be in debt.

If you don't like either candidate, I think voting 3rd party makes a lot of sense. as the % of the popular vote that goes to 3rd party candidates increases, they will become more viable and we'll be more likely to see a "serious candidate" come from a 3rd party.

Voting 3rd party is wasting your vote.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Voting 3rd party is wasting your vote.

If someone dislikes both candidates and doesn't have a preference, voting third party is better than not voting which is probably the most likely alternative.

If even half of the people who don't vote instead voted third party, it would make an impact on our system.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If someone dislikes both candidates and doesn't have a preference, voting third party is better than not voting which is probably the most likely alternative.

If even half of the people who don't vote instead voted third party, it would make an impact on our system.

If half the people that don't vote voted 3rd party they might actually win.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If someone dislikes both candidates and doesn't have a preference, voting third party is better than not voting which is probably the most likely alternative.

If even half of the people who don't vote instead voted third party, it would make an impact on our system.

What would make an even bigger impact on our system would be electing superior candidates and improving policy.

 

[kpt018]

If someone dislikes both candidates and doesn't have a preference, voting third party is better than not voting which is probably the most likely alternative.

If even half of the people who don't vote instead voted third party, it would make an impact on our system.

If someone claims they don't have a preference he/she is clueless. Even if you care nothing about policy (which is nuts) you're left with the very obvious differences in experience, intelligence, etc. between the two candidates!

When someone says there's no difference it simply illustrates ignorance. And then to assume a third party candidate is not only different but superior is insanity.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

What would make an even bigger impact on our system would be electing superior candidates and improving policy.

Don't be ridiculous

If someone claims they don't have a preference he/she is clueless. Even if you care nothing about policy (which is nuts) you're left with the very obvious differences in experience, intelligence, etc. between the two candidates!

When someone says there's no difference it simply illustrates ignorance. And then to assume a third party candidate is not only different but superior is insanity.

Some people are cynical and hate both for different reasons or they're apathetic

I'm not advocating third party votes because the candidates are superior. I'm saying that if you aren't going to vote because you hate them all or don't believe in the system, voting third party could increase viability of future third party candidates

 

[kpt018]

Some people are cynical and hate both for different reasons or they're apathetic

Sure, but they're also clueless and/or childish.

I'm not advocating third party votes because the candidates are superior. I'm saying that if you aren't going to vote because you hate them all or don't believe in the system, voting third party could increase viability of future third party candidates

It won't and the message you're sending is you support inferior candidates. You're failing to make important distinctions between the candidates. It's like you're saying "fuck it all, here is my protest vote" but your vote isn't functioning as a protest vote. Those votes are literally written off as low information votes or extreme ideologues that can't be won over.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Sure, but they're also clueless and/or childish.


It won't and the message you're sending is you support inferior candidates. You're failing to make important distinctions between the candidates. It's like you're saying "fuck it all, here is my protest vote" but your vote isn't functioning as a protest vote. Those votes are literally written off as low information votes or extreme ideologues that can't be won over.

I'm talking about another option for people who aren't voting. I'm not trying to sway anyone away from their opinions or candidates. You're talking as if everyone has or should have well informed, developed political opinions. To expect that from the general public is unrealistic and asinine for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious ones I can think of are:

-people don't have the time to learn everything that elected officials should know

-people don't have access to a lot of the information that goes into decision making, especially when it comes to foreign policy (although they'll bitch about decisions like they know foreign diplomats personally)

A huge majority of the people who think that they have well-informed opinions on economics and/or foreign policy are woefully arrogant. I'm not talking about you, btw. I don't know you. I'm just saying that the likelihood that a random citizen knows a fucking thing about issues being discussed by Congress is very low.

I honestly believe that integrity is the most important characteristic for an elected representative or president. Experience and knowledge can be greatly supplemented with advisors and policies can be formed and changed honestly.

Obviously, it is very difficult to elect someone based on integrity, because they all pretend to have it.

Edit: I guess at the end of the day, I'm just agreeing that most people are clueless. I don't really view that as some terrible thing, though. I don't think people who don't care about politics are neglecting a duty or anything like that. Many people aren't intelligent enough to make an informed opinion if they wanted to.