This was my feeling. That they might back off a little, but there's been so much enthusiasm, pressure to sign, and work going on behind the scenes, that they'd bring it, or something similar, in anyway.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Yay CETA! I mean, er.
I don't know about free trade agreements in general. NAFTA has been very good for some of Canada, and just terrible for other parts. I'm not personally concerned with free trade with Europe - heck, we're probably the poor relations to some places there. I guess it'll be nice to have more first world markets for Canadian goods.
I don't know about free trade agreements in general. NAFTA has been very good for some of Canada, and just terrible for other parts. I'm not personally concerned with free trade with Europe - heck, we're probably the poor relations to some places there. I guess it'll be nice to have more first world markets for Canadian goods.
Have you considered voting libertarian? The GOP is going to be forced to rebrand itself, if enough of its base goes libertarian then you might see a party in 2020 less obsessed with social issues they'll never win on and more focused on a fiscally conservative stance. At least that's what they should do if they ever want to win another presidential election.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I have gone well past considering it. I like Gary Johnson quite a bit. I assume he will get the nomination.
One thing I will say for Trump is that his focus on social issues is minimal ... even some of his economic issues are fine with me. On the other hand, he is a total jackass.
I do agree, the GOP needs to get more libertarian both socially and fiscally .. that is a path to victory in the US .. and has the advantage of being good policy
One thing I will say for Trump is that his focus on social issues is minimal ... even some of his economic issues are fine with me. On the other hand, he is a total jackass.
I do agree, the GOP needs to get more libertarian both socially and fiscally .. that is a path to victory in the US .. and has the advantage of being good policy
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Are social issues just too problematic & divisive or something? Why would you want your politics to focus less on this? I don't get it.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I think the focus on social issues should be more libertarian .. not what the GOP does now which is foolish because a) it is a losing issue for them and b) it really does not matter anyway since this kind of stuff gets resolved in the courts anyway.
My general philosophy is I do not give a shit what anyone does, just do not directly harm someone else (physically hurt them/steal from them) and pay for it themselves. Just leave people the fuck alone, who cares what people do in their own home.
My general philosophy is I do not give a shit what anyone does, just do not directly harm someone else (physically hurt them/steal from them) and pay for it themselves. Just leave people the fuck alone, who cares what people do in their own home.
Because the country is pushing more and more left socially. There are a lot of stubborn people on the GOP side who think they can prevent this from happening. Instead of trying to step in the way of progress, what they should be doing is accept that they aren't going to get their way on social issues and run on realistic platforms (mainly economics). This is what the libertarians do. Generally they tend to be indifferent on social issues. This was also Kasich's platform and the GOP didn't want to have anything to do with him and now they're paying for it.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Personally, I'd be more interested in whether you think this is a good or a bad thing, and why.
I appreciate you're just discussing politics here, but why do you care about this specific issue? i.e. the survival of the GOP in its current form. I mean, if someone wants to run a campaign, form a party, etc, which is "indifferent" to social issues and has unprogressive policies; this would be of interest to...? I'm just curious.
I have no problem with people saying this is what they think; I just think in practise the world wouldn't operate very well if everyone was like you, Bearfan. I mean, what goes on behind closed doors is obviously a problem when it is harming other people. These two points you make don't sit together very well.
Last edited:
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I do not see it as a problem at all. People are entitled to their opinions and to live their life how they wish. Actual actions are a different story. People on all sides have lost the ability to leave other people the fuck alone. It's not my business to track my neighbors actions and thoughts. It is certainly not the business of the government.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
You don't see the two conflicting points (the problem) in the previous statement you made?
You should care, if the people are harming someone else:
How are these points not a contradiction? It's like saying you were raised in a coop & the chickens were like your brothers & sisters; but you like eating at KFC...
But people living "their life how they wish" are "actions"; how are these two points not in conflict?
Do we need to start listing examples of where this uncaring philosophy leads to? I get that you're against meddling, the nanny-state, etc; but surely there's a balance to be struck?
The country moving left? Good thing. But I lean left on social issues so I'm biased there.
I find when it comes to social issues, the Republicans are generally too interested in restricting the freedoms of others and forcing them to conform to their own morals. To me it's a no brainer that everybody is entitled to their own liberty, that's what the country was founded on. If you want to change your gender, marry someone of the same sex, etc. you are entitled to do so. Anything that isn't going to harm other people, obviously. You're also allowed to oppose such things, but don't try to restrict others from doing them. This is something that has been promoted by the left and I'm glad it's becoming the mainstream.Well, it's complicated. I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican in the party's current form, but I also want to feel like I have a choice. With this election, it feels like I'm voting for Hillary Clinton out of necessity. I'm not a fan of her but I find the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz so unelectable that I have no other options. Compare this to the 2012 election, where Obama and Romney were both fine and qualified candidates who represented their parties pretty well. Their debates were interesting and I think that election was an example of the two party system actually working OK for a change. Not ideal, but not a bad choice at all. Instead, the GOP decided they were better off trying to appeal to the Travises of America and now they have Donald Trump to show for it. My hope is that this whole Donald Trump fiasco forces the GOP to rebrand itself into something electable and relevant with today's values so that next time we have two reasonable candidates instead. I think political discourse is healthy and helps promote progress. What we're getting this year is anything but that.
As far as the indifference remark goes, it works for those who are socially conservative personally, but don't consider social issues a priority. While you're always hearing about the religious nuts on the right, I think you'd find that a lot of conservatives just don't care about issues like gay marriage and won't fight them. This lines up with the libertarian ideology since libertarians typically oppose government involvement with these things. The libertarian party in America is right wing when it comes to economics, which is why I would advocate for conservatives who oppose Trump to go libertarian this year. Maybe Bearfan can speak to this, as I've gotten the impression that social issues are at the bottom of his priority list. Anyway, it's not a platform I identify with, which is why my vote is tentatively going to Hillary, but I want to see it happen because I think it's a Republican party that is way more palatable than what we have right now.
For reference, I'm registered in my state as unaffiliated and identify as a moderate on most issues. So it's entirely possible for a conservative candidate to come up who I support. But with the GOP in its current state, it won't happen.
I think the biggest problem right now is that you have two sides who refuse to listen to each other. Forget any other political issues, the last four years proved that these are irrelevant when you have a dysfunctional government that is more interested in playing the blame game than getting anything done.
BTW, I mentioned that I'm not a big Hillary fan, but for the record I would happily take her over Bernie Sanders.
Last edited:
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I do not ... he is what it comes down to. People will think and do what they will think and do ... and honestly what are you really going to do about it. There are plenty of examples of what trying to correct thought leads to.
The line is clearly at actions. Someone can be against whatever they want or whoever they want. I don't like Nazis (since that seems to be the one example everyone brings up .. who I should add are about as anti-libertarian as you can get) ... but it does not mean I can walk up and stab/shoot one.
As for living their life, I was referring to their private life ... someone can be gay, straight, decide to spend a weekend smoking pot and playing x-box, whatever ... it really should not be anyone's business because that kind of stuff really does not hurt anyone (assuming we are talking about consenting adults) ... it should not matter who someone wants to marry .. it should not matter of 20 people want to marry each other ... follow any religion, not follow any religion, etc etc etc.
When the state gets involved in those sorts of things it generally leads to no good. It is a disturbing that society wants to get into this big group think and shun anyone who does not go with the flow. Bad idea, not that long ago the group think was gay=bad and there was "science" to back that up. It is easy to throw out the "well Nazi's" card and if that was really all this was about, I might go along with you. But it really is not, there is nothing wrong with an exchange of ideas .. even bad ones, because when they are expressed fully it shows how bad those ideas are.
Social issues are not really at the bottom of my priority list, I think they are important, but I think both parties have deep deep deep flaws when it comes to dealing with them.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Look, I don't disagree with your general philosophical outlook here; in fact I have a great deal of time for most of what you've written. But when you vaguely throw around comments like "Just leave people the fuck alone, who cares what people do in their own home"; I'm thinking, what, like child abuse; just leave people to get on with it? You know what I'm saying? That comment went way beyond what you really meant. You list stuff like sexual orientation, drugs, & recreational gaming. I thought it was pretty obvious that I wasn't referring to things that innocuous. It's an interesting philosophical position to take, I just don't think it's that practical. I'd much prefer my politicians attempting to solve social problems and failing (as frustrating as that is), than just plain ignoring them because they're too difficult.
The only reason I really jumped in here is because when I read people dismissing "social issues" as unimportant (to them); it strikes me that these issues probably don't really effect them. It seems quite, for wont of a better word, uncaring sounding. But I understand where you're coming from a little better now.
The only reason I really jumped in here is because when I read people dismissing "social issues" as unimportant (to them); it strikes me that these issues probably don't really effect them. It seems quite, for wont of a better word, uncaring sounding. But I understand where you're coming from a little better now.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I think I did say something along the lines of "not causing direct harm to others" and "assuming we are talking about consenting adults". Child abuse certainly falls under both of those. But assuming no one is being harmed, I think the general philosophy of "you live your life the way you see fit and I'll do the same" is not a bad way to go about life. I might disagree with some choices people make or would make different ones myself, but it is not really up to me (or "us") to tell people how they should go about their business.
As to stuff like gaming, drugs .. and add in porn, prostitution, gambling and other "vices" .. they are really good examples of how people on the left and right have treated all these like social problems and fucked them up royally .. .beyond the usual government wasting time and money failing .. but actually causing more harm to people than the good that came out of those efforts. I do care about social issues and in my opinion the problems we see with them and the issues around them are generally with laws that hold people back and limit their rights. There are always going to be assholes (of all races/orientations/etc) that do not like some group of people for whatever reason ... but individual assholes can be dealt with .. the power of government, much harder to deal with. At best on social issues government is really trying mistakes they have made in the past.
As to stuff like gaming, drugs .. and add in porn, prostitution, gambling and other "vices" .. they are really good examples of how people on the left and right have treated all these like social problems and fucked them up royally .. .beyond the usual government wasting time and money failing .. but actually causing more harm to people than the good that came out of those efforts. I do care about social issues and in my opinion the problems we see with them and the issues around them are generally with laws that hold people back and limit their rights. There are always going to be assholes (of all races/orientations/etc) that do not like some group of people for whatever reason ... but individual assholes can be dealt with .. the power of government, much harder to deal with. At best on social issues government is really trying mistakes they have made in the past.
Missing a word or two?
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Probably ... trying to work and type here at the same time
... trying to fix mistakes ... make a lot more sense
Well, that's what I thought. I agree that right now government is making things more equal by fixing previous mistakes, at least in general in the US with the legalization of gay marriage, and in Canada with the upcoming legalization of pot. Though I wonder how much that would matter if society wasn't wanting to make this change.