Category Archives: republicans


Rand Paul, being retarded.

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,”

Well then why do we even have a Supreme Court, chucklefuck? Obviously you know better than them, we might as well skip the whole thing and let you jacknuts decide everything.

I love it when the right doesn’t get their way and suddenly the problem is that everyone else is just some piddly nobody trying to ruin things.

Romney carefully details how he’ll pay for his tax cuts

Haha just kidding he won’t say shit. Now let me map out why a candidate would dodge this kind of questioning:

  1. He has a plan he won’t let us in on. Maybe he’s telling the truth. Maybe Mitt has discovered some mathematically feasible way to pay for gigantic tax cuts. So why wouldn’t he tell us? Well…
    1. His plan would be wildly unpopular with moderates. Given that he’s an ultra-wealthy businessman, odds are pretty good that anything he’s got on hand wouldn’t be with the middle and lower class in mind, likely slashes to social programs and the like.
    2. His plan would be wildly unpopular with the base. Okay, etch-a-sketch comments aside, Mitt can’t just abandon Republicans entirely in the hopes of courting the middle/left. So let’s say the only way to pay for tax cuts is via chopping away at defense spending and other GOP-friendly programs. What then? Keep a lid on it.
    3. He’s under the impression that tax plans are intellectual property and he doesn’t want Obama stealing it. If, you know, Mitt is just completely bonkers.
  2. He has no plan at all.Maybe he’s lying. Maybe Mitt is banking on the lie carrying him into the White House, hoping…
    1. By the time he gets elected he’ll come up with something. We’ve all done this and you know it. You say you have a plan for something before you do (I totally know how we’ll sneak you into the concert), crossing your fingers that when it comes time to actually do it, you’ll have it set.
    2. He can just get into the White House and not worry about it. So this one is pretty cynical, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Make a crazy claim with a “secret way to do it”, knowing that there’s kind of a “no backsies” policy with electing presidents, so he can just refocus on other things once in office like how Bush ran solely on an anti-terror platform in 2004 and immediately set about attempting economic reform.

These are all just possibilities. Who knows.

So yeah. Paul Krugman is amazing.

I say it a lot, but it’s true. One thing that really needs tackled by everyone is the myth of Ronald Reagan. He’s attained truly legendary status to the right, but based on, apparently, what they imagine he did versus the reality of his actions. And Krugman really nails is here.

Why was government spending much stronger under Reagan than in the current slump? “Weaponized Keynesianism” — Reagan’s big military buildup — played some role. But the big difference was real per capita spending at the state and local level, which continued to rise under Reagan but has fallen significantly this time around.

And this, in turn, reflects a changed political environment. For one thing, states and local governments used to benefit from revenue-sharing — automatic aid from the federal government, a program that Reagan eventually killed but only after the slump was past. More important, in the 1980s, anti-tax dogma hadn’t taken effect to the same extent it has today, so state and local governments were much more willing than they are now to cover temporary deficits with temporary tax increases, thereby avoiding sharp spending cuts.

Possibly my greatest qualm with the American media-ocracy (not to be confused with American mediocrity) is that the echo chamber has people voting based on completely incorrect assertions concerning the candidates, leaving the people getting their “information” based mostly on which media source best lines up with their inherent biases. Democracy is rooted in everyone voting and having a say, but that only works when their votes are educated, and so few are.

Bit of a digression there, but every time I read an article about Reagan (and I want to point out that this is one of the instances where I actually think ol’ Ronnie did a good job) it just reminds me of how twisted and distorted all talk of him has become and its affect on current policy.

QotD and some rumination thereof

Mitt Romney on the world, security, and US military strength:

We have two courses we can follow. One is to follow the pathway of Europe, to shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs. The other is to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world. We choose that course. We choose that course for America not just so that we can win wars, but so we can prevent wars. Because a strong America is the best deterrent to war that ever has been invented.

There are so many problems with this statement it’s almost difficult to begin with.

First of all, Europe is an ally. Or at least they’re supposed to be. I have no idea why the Republican strategy seems to be to insult the entire continent whenever possible, and use the word “European” in the pejorative, as if to say that Europe is a disaster and we should avoid being like them. Then we can’t seem to figure out why they don’t want to back us up when the shit hits the fan.

Secondly, this notion that the only path toward security is throwing trillions of dollars into the military to build more tanks and bombs is such a childish view of strength I’m surprised the phrase “tree fort” didn’t Freudian slip its way in there. We’re not in the middle of the Cold War or WWII. The era of needing swarms of fighter jets and six million boots on the ground is over. Technology is advancing, and so is military strategy. In the 21st century, we’re capable of tactical bombing into someone’s toilet with our iPhones and ransacking a dictator’s HQ with a team of six.

Add in the fact that we have billions upon billions of dollars being wasted every year on projects that go nowhere and produce nothing, and the amount of money we can trim from the military budget without having a negative impact on our ability to defend ourselves is enormous. Mitt Romney’s blockheaded “WE NEED MOAR TANKS” nonsense is what someone who only cares about dick-waving says. Someone who’s less concerned with genuine capability and more concerned with being able to strut around talking about how we have more missiles than anyone else.

And finally, I don’t think I can say nearly enough how much I hate this notion that the United States is what keeps the world safe. Yes, the US had a great spurt between 1910 and 1950 where we helped win some damn big wars, but after the Cold War, Vietnam, and our Middle East adventures, it’s a safe bet that the world largely sees us like that guy who you always want on your side in a bar fight but tends to cause more problems than he helps. A rottweiler with a bad attitude that guards the house but also bites the neighbors.

Our military budget isn’t a numbers game, nor is anything else. Look at the world we live in. It’s not terrifying. There has been one significant terrorist attack on US soil in the last 20 years, and it caused about 7% as many deaths as traffic accidents that year. Since then, the worst thing Americans have had to worry about has been whether or not they’ll have a job and how much gas will cost. We’re not living in Beirut or Damascus. No one walks out of their house and goes to the store crossing their fingers that a guy wearing a TNT sweater vest will fuck up their day. Our leaders aren’t afraid of having stadium-sized rallies, because they know no one’s going to shoot at them or set off a dirty bomb. Our police aren’t worried about IEDs and we don’t need the military patrolling our streets.

Some places of the world may be unsafe, but the United States is quite safe, and wrecking our economy just to impress no one with how much we spend is a disastrous policy.

GOP: white, old, dying

It’s a genuine problem.

The GOP is in a reactionary phase right now, more than anything. A time of responding to the leftward-drifting political landscape and, rather than modifying their positions on key issues, hunkering down and redoubling the anti-progressive stances. In a lot of ways, the United States is less progressive than it was in the past, less accepting of sweeping changes to the way we do things. But that’s how the world is: it moves left.

A fun activity, if you’re a history geek, is to dig through revolutionary thinkers of the past and seeing where their ideas and stances are in an absolute sense rather than relativistic. You’ll find that even the most wildly liberal thinkers of bygone days would be almost laughably backward in the 21st century. Anti-slavery advocates didn’t think blacks were equal people, just that slavery was wrong. Even Lincoln didn’t see the negro as rising particularly high in society.

This sounds contradictory, but the point is that the paradigm as a whole will always, always shift to the left. However, what we’re seeing now is such a hard press against it that wasn’t the case throughout American history. Ours has been a country that, generally speaking, prided itself on pressing forward into the new age, forging new territory and showing the world how we as a goddamn species can advance from century to century.

What does that have to do with the Republican Party? Well, everything. Their emotional-level, cranky grandpa response to gay rights, womens rights, secularism and domestic policy are necessarily self-defeating. We’re getting less dogmatically religious (high percentages of people claim Christianity, but the number who believe the Bible literal truth drops every year), women are a larger percentage of the population than men, gays are more comfortable with being open, and whites are slowly losing their majority. So a party that largely appeals to white, Christian males is one that is painting itself into a corner.

The Republicans are going to have to make a decision: step forward into the 21st century, or die off entirely. Time will tell what they do.

So Ron Paul has a few states under his belt, what does this mean?

Honestly, not much. There’s a lot to remember when it comes to Ron Paul’s sudden spurt in the numbers:

  1. The delegate split right now is so far it’s comical. Like, Romney is creeping up on four digits and Paul is creeping up on three.
  2. There’s a reason he only started making a dent after everyone else dropped out: he’s riding the “anyone but Romney” wave now.
  3. Paul’s wins are in states like Maine, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which went for Obama in 2008, one for Kerry in 2004 (and the other two were within 1%), two of ’em for Gore in 2000. We’re not talking red states. His support simply is not the Republican base.
  4. The media doesn’t take Paul seriously, which is a big problem. Remember how they stole the Tea Party from him.
  5. Seriously, Paul would have to hit the equivalent of throwing a bowling ball down the lane so hard each pin flies into the adjacent lanes and knocks down those pins.

I think it’s evident that Paul’s focus is less on actually winning the nomination and more about keeping the “rEVOLution” (ugh) going, and keeping the fight right up to the RNC floor is just another piece of that for him.

More power to the guy, and naturally I like ‘im better than the other GOP fellas, but uh… he’s not gonna beat Mittens.

No, no it wouldn’t, Mr Scott

Okay, so, at the RNC this year, water guns are banned and concealed handguns are allowed. Bad enough, but what’s really awful is the justification.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott said this week that banning handguns from downtown Tampa during the convention, as the city’s Mayor Bob Buckhorn requested, “would surely violate the Second Amendment.”

No. No no no. No. Shut up. No. Dammit.

The 2nd amendment is likely the most contentious in the lot thanks to its incredibly vague wording, because this interpretation is rooted in the clear belief that not only can’t the government bar you from owning handguns, but can’t stop you from having them on you wherever you want.

This is absolute bullshit. Go to any government building and try to walk in with a weapon. Most places like county courthouses won’t even let you walk in with a pocket knife or a box cutter, let along a goddamn Smith & Wesson. That’s a federal law, mind. The reason you can’t take guns on an airplane isn’t because of Jet Blue or Delta telling you that you can’t, it’s more legislation. You can’t carry weapons in all kinds of places as per federal law. And not allowing handguns at a convention isn’t a violation of your right to bear arms either; you can keep your gun, just don’t go to the damn convention.

What we’re seeing is pure pandering of the most craven variety. It’s nothing but the GOP putting effing LIVES at risk so they can keep on courtin’ the Ted Nugent NRA wackadoodle vote. I would hope that most reasonable gun owners would realize that it’s a good idea to keep a big-ass political convention firearm-free.