Ted Cruz is a Nasty Guy. Perfect, right?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

It's both that simple and not that simple.

When negotiating with totalitarians, what compromise can there be?

But who's a totalitarian? I mean, sure you could say Obama is, but what we're talking about is President Trump or Cruz or Carson or Sanders or Clinton or Paul working with congressmen and women that are in the opposite political party. There are moderate, normal people in congress on both sides that will work with you on a good idea.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

It's both that simple and not that simple.

When negotiating with totalitarians, what compromise can there be?

But who's a totalitarian? I mean, sure you could say Obama is, but what we're talking about is President Trump or Cruz or Carson or Sanders or Clinton or Paul working with congressmen and women that are in the opposite political party. There are moderate, normal people in congress on both sides that will work with you on a good idea.

A better way to describe my opposition to compromise it that we already have too much government. From a libertarian perspective, the goal is to get as close to no government as possible so a compromise would be to cut only half of government.

To the left, a compromise would be to increase government just a little bit instead of a lot.

Are there any Democrats who want to shrink government? I know there are some Jeffersonian democrats out there somewhere but, I never hear them speaking up.

I just don't see compromise as realistic from anyone's perspective.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

It's both that simple and not that simple.

When negotiating with totalitarians, what compromise can there be?

But who's a totalitarian? I mean, sure you could say Obama is, but what we're talking about is President Trump or Cruz or Carson or Sanders or Clinton or Paul working with congressmen and women that are in the opposite political party. There are moderate, normal people in congress on both sides that will work with you on a good idea.

A better way to describe my opposition to compromise it that we already have too much government. From a libertarian perspective, the goal is to get as close to no government as possible so a compromise would be to cut only half of government.

To the left, a compromise would be to increase government just a little bit instead of a lot.

Are there any Democrats who want to shrink government? I know there are some Jeffersonian democrats out there somewhere but, I never hear them speaking up.

I just don't see compromise as realistic from anyone's perspective.

But you only mentioned one issue and my question back to you is "Are there any republicans that are for shrinking government?" Besides Rand Paul. Every one else might say it, but there has not been a republican or democratic president in the past several decades that has even thought about cutting the size of government. None of them. Big government isn't a democratic thing or else Both Bushes and Reagan would have cut the size instead of increasing the size.

Compromise is simple.

There's a problem and we talk about how to fix it and then find the common ground. It's only in government that there is no compromise. If you and I were working together on a job or in our community, despite our differing political opinions there is no doubt in my mind that we would "compromise" and "negotiate" and "work out" a reasonable solution and do it.

Examples might be a project at work, You felt that putting more people on the project would get it done faster and I thought that using different technology would get it done faster. Would we just sit and yell at each other for 4 years like congress or would we "compromise" and figure it out? I can tell you from being in the army, you have to get stuff done, You don't really get the option of telling your commander that you couldn't complete your mission because you didn't want to compromise with a democrat. LOL

a reply to: amazing

No, Republicans are also big government interventionists. Paul and Cruz hopefully being the exceptions.

Democrats compromise with Republicans all the time, that's how we got the bloated overbearing wasteful and abusive government that we have.

That is what honest to goodness compromise gets us.

To use your example, let's say that we want to build a swimming pool for our penguin colony.

You advocate building an optimally scaffolded sustainable recyclable multi layered transparent polymer living area with reasonable placed viewing turrets with basic heating elements built into the floor.

I advocate using the gully in front of us.

Exactly how do you propose we compromise?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amazing

No, Republicans are also big government interventionists. Paul and Cruz hopefully being the exceptions.

Democrats compromise with Republicans all the time, that's how we got the bloated overbearing wasteful and abusive government that we have.

That is what honest to goodness compromise gets us.

To use your example, let's say that we want to build a swimming pool for our penguin colony.

You advocate building an optimally scaffolded sustainable recyclable multi layered transparent polymer living area with reasonable placed viewing turrets with basic heating elements built into the floor.

I advocate using the gully in front of us.

Exactly how do you propose we compromise?

That would be unrealistic. I might want to build a pool and you'd opt for the lake not as penguins but as humans.

You'd ask me why we need a pool and I'd say the water is contaminated and there are leaches and sharp rocks. You say, okay let's retest the water and see. It comes back not as bad as I thought it was but we're worried about the leeches. You allay my fears after bringing in an expert on leeches, but I say I won't compromise on the sharp rocks, you say okay to spending money on clearing out some of those rocks in an area big enough for us to swim in and there you go we've got compromise. That's real world.

a reply to: amazing

This is actually a pretty solid abbreviation of the average interaction between statists and libertarians.

After your speech and a reasonable pause to allow for applause from the peanut gallery, I would remind you that we are talking about penguins and how they are perfectly happy living in the gully.

a reply to: centarix

It's Motherjones so you should be skeptical of the story but it's probably true. Ted Cruz is the most disliked person in DC, and it's not like the scripted R vs D animosity you see. People just seriously don't like the guy, he is a complete jerk and will not hesitate to screw you over. He has a reputation as a person that no one can work with, and it's such that most of congress would rather do nothing than include him in their activities.

This is why he has no real shot at being President by the way. Politics are all about getting people to work with you (or forcing them to work with you) but no one wants to work with him. The number of people who have him on their enemies list consists of the entire political branch in DC, all the lobbyists, the media, and most large corporations. People are sitting on the ammunition right now, but I promise you people will not hesitate to take him out if they get the opportunity. If they can't do it with words well... just look at JFK and he had half the number of enemies.

Cruz is a great speaker, he's probably the best since Bill Clinton. That doesn't make him the type of person that should hold power though, much less a leader.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: centarix

Yea that's a good idea, let's celebrate Congress not doing anything for another 4 years. Like him or hate him, I'd prefer compromise over stubborn inaction.

We elected these yahoos for the specific purpose to put up with the other elected yahoos. THAT'S their job, so dammit, they better suck it up and deal with him if he's elected.

On that note, Paul Ryan has really surprised me. I didn't have him figured for being responsible but he actually has been as Speaker.

a reply to: interupt42

We have a responsibility to vote the right people into office. We can only blame ourselves for an ineffectual Congress. If we vote stubborn politicians who can only agree on things once tons of money is given too them, then you'll get what we have now. If instead you try to vote in politicians with integrity then maybe you can a more effective government.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't disagree, but the problem is and what has been demonstrated by the actions of congress is that we do not have a congress with integrity.

Hence the less they do now the better we are , since they are corrupted and only working for the highest bidder at our expense.

a reply to: interupt42

Check out this thread I just authored this morning and tell me again how Congress never looks out for the little guy.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cruz is not liked because he is not a likable guy. In that debate he was totally unlikable, He was doing a bad trump impression.

In Congress he is not doing the Ron Paul effect, where he just says no to lobbyist, and will not vote against the constitution. Do not kid yourself.

I'm not one to go on feels but that guy even feels like a snake.

I could see in the appeal in Rubio, Kaisch heck even Bush. But cruz is just nasty.

If cruz gets it at least my decision will be easy, Gary Johnson.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have never said never, but will check it out. Although from what I have seen in most cases even when it appears they are doing good the real intentions is something else.


Having said that, One big thing congress did that benefits the consumers versus big Corp which still has me scratching my head, is going after the tobacco companies.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

tell me again how Congress never looks out for the little guy.

Like I said before I never said never. but I answered it here

Its likely still special interest motivated, but the oligopoly behind this has a business model that is more in line with the consumer best interest.

Not because they are good people or they care, but because they stand to make more money of the consumers by changing the existing way of doing business by the incumbent cable industry.

a reply to: interupt42

Life rarely works out simply or purely in favor of altruistic intentions. That holds true for more than just politics. Sometimes you have to sit back and say, "this was a victory for the good guys." Naturally there are always other outside influences manipulating things. That's just real life. Good and evil are figments of our imagination anyways.

What's wrong with supporting a politician that takes up jobs and tasks pushed by various business lobbies that also happen to help the people as well? Because that is how I see Bernie. His voting record speaks for itself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"this was a victory for the good guys."

absolutely

What's wrong with supporting a politician that takes up jobs and tasks pushed by various business lobbies that also happen to help the people as well?

Nothing and wish it would happen more often.

My argument was more about the real motivation behind the act and how congress TYPICALLY doesn't do things directly for the benefit of the people,but rather implements agendas drafted by special interest groups.

In this case it appears that we are lucky much like the net neutrality ruling , where there is a BIG oligopoly in place that has a business model that directly benefits the consumers.

a reply to: interupt42

That actually happens way more than you'd think. You just have to pay attention and voice support when you notice it happening. The marijuana lobby would be a good one to pay attention to right now for these very reasons.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That actually happens way more than you'd think

LOL , I don't think that is possible. I think it happens in just about 99.9 of the case.

BTW I sent you a PM.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: centarix

Most every citizen that pays attention hates Congress in my opinion. If Congress hates him well I believe we found our guy. I've been on board from before he announced. His background is pretty superior than anything we currently have running. He doesn't have his party backing him for crying out loud. You want corruption out, it sounds like we found a boy scout that believe in the constitution.

Yea I've always been a firm believer of Congress just stopped forcing bad laws down our throat we would be fine. The markets would have a better understanding of what to expect.

I keep hearing it over and over again that people in pol-biz just do not like him. Around here, it is probably just a shallow hatred of all things Christian (and he is pretty overtly religious) but, in DC, it's a deep burning scorn for his command of his faculties and preparedness to joust at the drop of a hat.

People do not dislike him because he's Christian. People dislike him because he is not willing to be reasonable and he is a complete and utter prick.

I've witnessed his arrogant, elitist, asshole-ish ways first hand. He'd rather bury his face in his smart phone than talk to you.

a reply to: introvert

I don't think being a nice guy is a particularly necessary or useful trait for a hostile reformer who's declared agenda is to make life difficult for his colleagues.

I'd rather have Paul myself and I can imagine if he were elevated in the polls the complaint would be that he is too bland and unconfrontational.

I am not convinced that there could ever be a winsome iconoclast.