What has Paul Ryan actually done?

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 13, 2012 21:17:17 GMT -5 druidp said:

Yeah... I refuse to feel gross. Refuse. I took a fine Saturday morning to haul my derriere to the GOP county assembly so I could voice my socially liberal stances via my little platform ballot - where I clearly marked that I did not, in fact, want the platform to be for legislating against gay marriage.

:::thumbs up:::

[aw]

Aug 13, 2012 21:17:17 GMT -5 druidp said:

But I really hope llama voices yet again her sentiments on why her stance should trump any of mine. I'm only worried about my kids' futures and exactly when I should start them in Chinese language lessons, as well as how to accurately receive the token economy kicked can.

We just added Chinese to DS's Kindergarten homeschooling curriculum. I can send you a link to what we're using if you're interested

I'm actually serious.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2012 14:08:44 GMT -5 teflep said:

Okay, well, this is helpful, sbp. Glad any supporter of Ryan is a bigot. At least we now have it in writing and can get that out of the way. Phew.

You can climb down from that cross. No one accused anyone of being a bigot. They said they were surprised at the number of supporters that Ryan has here, considering how many of his views are diametrically opposed by even the most conservative posters here.

It's something I also don't understand - how the conservatives on this board can say I support A, B, and C, but I Lurve this candidate who is wholly opposed to A, B, and C. We all understand that no candidate is perfect and we pick the lesser of evils, but it's clear that our more conservative posters value fiscal conservatism way more than issues of civil liberties.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2012 16:13:23 GMT -5 y4m said:

I wish there was a way to break social conservatism out on a scale like this--this scale treats them as equal which of course they are not for me.

And there's the rub - if you break out conservatism into social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, why is fiscal conservatism more important to you? Even to the extreme that you will overlook socially conservative viewpoints you hate in order to have a more fiscally conservative candidate?

It would seem to me that the usual decision process would involve finding a candidate who comes closest to all your views, not just one sub-set of them.

[llama]

Aug 13, 2012 21:17:17 GMT -5 druidp said:

Yeah... I refuse to feel gross. Refuse. I took a fine Saturday morning to haul my derriere to the GOP county assembly so I could voice my socially liberal stances via my little platform ballot - where I clearly marked that I did not, in fact, want the platform to be for legislating against gay marriage.

But I really hope llama voices yet again her sentiments on why her stance should trump any of mine. I'm only worried about my kids' futures and exactly when I should start them in Chinese language lessons, as well as how to accurately receive the token economy kicked can.

I am not saying my perspective should trump yours. People are free to vote for the candidates who reflect their own beliefs and values. I just find the explanations provided by conservatives on this board about their voting behavior to be intellectually disingenuous.

Look, I absolutely believe that every single one of you that posts regularly is not *personally* a bigot. I just don't understand why, pretty much without fail, you all justify your votes by trying to argue that the social positions of the [very very] conservative candidates you are supporting are somehow irrelevant. In every single one of these threads the biggest thing I have taken issue with is the assumption that the president and vice president's positions on these issues don't have a real impact on peoples' lives. And if you're ok with that impact and what these social positions mean for real people and are willing to live with that as a byproduct of caring first and foremost about the economy, I think it's really ridiculous for you to be pissed off that I take issue with your voting strategy.

It's my life you're compromising. This isn't a let's all take a hit together for the good of the country kind of scenario. You are compromising MY rights with no ill effect to yourself. Pretty easy to do when it doesn't impact you, no? Talk is cheap and compromises are always easier when it's someone else you are selling out.

[llama]

Aug 13, 2012 23:08:50 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Aug 13, 2012 14:08:44 GMT -5 teflep said:

Okay, well, this is helpful, sbp. Glad any supporter of Ryan is a bigot. At least we now have it in writing and can get that out of the way. Phew.

It's something I also don't understand - how the conservatives on this board can say I support A, B, and C, but I Lurve this candidate who is wholly opposed to A, B, and C. We all understand that no candidate is perfect and we pick the lesser of evils, but it's clear that our more conservative posters value fiscal conservatism way more than issues of civil liberties.

This exactly. It's not even that I think the position is necessarily bigoted, I just don't understand the rush to defend. Clearly you don't care THAT much about the civil rights issues if you are willing to vote for candidates who intend to eliminate, roll back, or stall the advancement of those rights. Just own it. Your vote will contribute to the oppression of LGBT people, among others whose civil liberties are at stake here. It will contribute to keeping employment discrimination legal. It will make impossible a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It will roll back current protections for LGBT people and families in federal employment and interpretation of immigration laws. Those are actual things that will happen as a result of Romney/Ryan in office even if they don't go out of their way to advance a socially conservative agenda. And it could only get worse from there. Why keep insisting that these are not real issues that will come up in the next 4 years? Why keep insisting that the president and vice president have no impact on these policy areas? It's simply false.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 0:28:11 GMT -5 llama said:

Aug 13, 2012 23:08:50 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

It's something I also don't understand - how the conservatives on this board can say I support A, B, and C, but I Lurve this candidate who is wholly opposed to A, B, and C. We all understand that no candidate is perfect and we pick the lesser of evils, but it's clear that our more conservative posters value fiscal conservatism way more than issues of civil liberties.

This exactly. It's not even that I think the position is necessarily bigoted, I just don't understand the rush to defend. Clearly you don't care THAT much about the civil rights issues if you are willing to vote for candidates who intend to eliminate, roll back, or stall the advancement of those rights. Just own it. Your vote will contribute to the oppression of LGBT people, among others whose civil liberties are at stake here. It will contribute to keeping employment discrimination legal. It will make impossible a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It will roll back current protections for LGBT people and families in federal employment and interpretation of immigration laws. Those are actual things that will happen as a result of Romney/Ryan in office even if they don't go out of their way to advance a socially conservative agenda. And it could only get worse from there. Why keep insisting that these are not real issues that will come up in the next 4 years? Why keep insisting that the president and vice president have no impact on these policy areas? It's simply false.

OK, I totally get what SBP etal is saying here. But it keeps bringing me back to what do you guys expect these particular conservative posters to do? Vote for Obama?

[y4m]

Aug 14, 2012 7:12:04 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Aug 14, 2012 0:28:11 GMT -5 llama said:

This exactly. It's not even that I think the position is necessarily bigoted, I just don't understand the rush to defend. Clearly you don't care THAT much about the civil rights issues if you are willing to vote for candidates who intend to eliminate, roll back, or stall the advancement of those rights. Just own it. Your vote will contribute to the oppression of LGBT people, among others whose civil liberties are at stake here. It will contribute to keeping employment discrimination legal. It will make impossible a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It will roll back current protections for LGBT people and families in federal employment and interpretation of immigration laws. Those are actual things that will happen as a result of Romney/Ryan in office even if they don't go out of their way to advance a socially conservative agenda. And it could only get worse from there. Why keep insisting that these are not real issues that will come up in the next 4 years? Why keep insisting that the president and vice president have no impact on these policy areas? It's simply false.

OK, I totally get what SBP etal is saying here. But it keeps bringing me back to what do you guys expect these particular conservative posters to do? Vote for Obama?

Of course! That's what they did when their candidate in 2008 was publicly opposed to gay marriage, right? Just vote for Obama and it'll all be fine.

Llama--I'm curious how you explain or mentally process the concept of gay Republicans.

[teflep]

Aug 13, 2012 23:08:50 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Aug 13, 2012 14:08:44 GMT -5 teflep said:

Okay, well, this is helpful, sbp. Glad any supporter of Ryan is a bigot. At least we now have it in writing and can get that out of the way. Phew.

You can climb down from that cross. No one accused anyone of being a bigot. They said they were surprised at the number of supporters that Ryan has here, considering how many of his views are diametrically opposed by even the most conservative posters here.

It's something I also don't understand - how the conservatives on this board can say I support A, B, and C, but I Lurve this candidate who is wholly opposed to A, B, and C. We all understand that no candidate is perfect and we pick the lesser of evils, b
ut it's clear that our more conservative posters value fiscal conservatism way more
than issues of civil liberties.

Thank you for your useful commentary on what has been discussed, as nauseum. Drop the martyr silliness and dredge through past threads from Saturday and then come back.

[pescalita]

It's not about more money for me or less civil rights for you, though that makes it easy to paint your rival as evil.

IMO, a large part of the conservative solution to the tragic life problem is improving the economy so everyone benefits. (Also they prefer community-based solutions - the kind that many in that thread praised - instead of federal ones)

You may not agree that that is the most effective solution, you may prioritize different issues, that's why we have political discussion. But every person who has accused the cons of valuing money over people the last two days is being intellectually dishonest and kind of an asshole.

[eclaires]

Aug 14, 2012 8:59:48 GMT -5 pescalita said:

It's not about more money for me or less civil rights for you, though that makes it easy to paint your rival as evil.

IMO, a large part of the conservative solution to the tragic life problem is improving the economy so everyone benefits. (Also they prefer community-based solutions - the kind that many in that thread praised - instead of federal ones)

You may not agree that that is the most effective solution, you may prioritize different issues, that's why we have political discussion. But every person who has accused the cons of valuing money over people the last two days is being intellectually dishonest and kind of an asshole.

I need to find you a certificate of grossness!

Plus, you're wrong. Those of us who are willing to listen to Paul Ryan and like that he talks about the economy are the intellectually dishonest ones! Who believes what politicians say while they campaign? That's ridiculous! Idiots!

Unless they are Obama. Then you should listen and vote for him because his position has evolved and he totally cares about civil rights.

[soontobeka]

Aug 14, 2012 9:04:33 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Aug 14, 2012 8:59:48 GMT -5 pescalita said:

It's not about more money for me or less civil rights for you, though that makes it easy to paint your rival as evil.

IMO, a large part of the conservative solution to the tragic life problem is improving the economy so everyone benefits. (Also they prefer community-based solutions - the kind that many in that thread praised - instead of federal ones)

You may not agree that that is the most effective solution, you may prioritize different issues, that's why we have political discussion. But every person who has accused the cons of valuing money over people the last two days is being intellectually dishonest and kind of an asshole.

I need to find you a certificate of grossness!

Plus, you're wrong. Those of us who are willing to listen to Paul Ryan and like that he talks about the economy are the intellectually dishonest ones! Who believes what politicians say while they campaign? That's ridiculous! Idiots!

Unless they are Obama. Then you should listen and vote for him because his position has evolved and he totally cares about civil rights.

Disclaimer: I admit I am bit hypersensitive right now about politics because I just go accused at work of "burying my head in the sand" because I refuse to go see the movie Obama 2016, but is this directed at me because I used the term evolving.

[eclaires]

No, not at all! Seriously, I <3 you and I feel like you're someone who has been debating issues and asking genuine questions.

I didn't even see your post about him evolving - I've just seen that used everywhere re: his position. I thought he had used it or Biden had in describing it when it first happened?

I know I'm very jokey and sarcastic, but I hope my sincerity is coming across in this post, because I would be really upset with myself if you thought that the post above was directed at you. It was not - not at all. I've really been appreciative of your posts over the past few days.

[heyjude]

I've been sort of tuning in and out of this post but just wanted to say that the lack of Ryan's legislative record is nbd. I'm sure it's comparable to other members. It's pretty hard to get bills out of congress, esp. when some of your time is spent as the minority party.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Aug 14, 2012 9:04:33 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Aug 14, 2012 8:59:48 GMT -5 pescalita said:

It's not about more money for me or less civil rights for you, though that makes it easy to paint your rival as evil.

IMO, a large part of the conservative solution to the tragic life problem is improving the economy so everyone benefits. (Also they prefer community-based solutions - the kind that many in that thread praised - instead of federal ones)

You may not agree that that is the most effective solution, you may prioritize different issues, that's why we have political discussion. But every person who has accused the cons of valuing money over people the last two days is being intellectually dishonest and kind of an asshole.

I need to find you a certificate of grossness!

Plus, you're wrong. Those of us who are willing to listen to Paul Ryan and like that he talks about the economy are the intellectually dishonest ones! Who believes what politicians say while they campaign? That's ridiculous! Idiots!

Unless they are Obama. Then you should listen and vote for him because his position has evolved and he totally cares about civil rights.

FTR, while I do find it shocking that people take campaign talk seriously, I called nobody an idiot. I know that I am far more jaded and apathetic than most on here which is why I said I ought to just sit out until mid-November. I somewhat envy those that can really get into campaign season and hold hope in it.

And I'm not really an Obama fan either.

[cookiemdough]

Aug 14, 2012 0:28:11 GMT -5 llama said:

This exactly. It's not even that I think the position is necessarily bigoted, I just don't understand the rush to defend. Clearly you don't care THAT much about the civil rights issues if you are willing to vote for candidates who intend to eliminate, roll back, or stall the advancement of those rights. Just own it. Your vote will contribute to the oppression of LGBT people, among others whose civil liberties are at stake here. It will contribute to keeping employment discrimination legal. It will make impossible a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It will roll back current protections for LGBT people and families in federal employment and interpretation of immigration laws. Those are actual things that will happen as a result of Romney/Ryan in office even if they don't go out of their way to advance a socially conservative agenda. And it could only get worse from there. Why keep insisting that these are not real issues that will come up in the next 4 years? Why keep insisting that the president and vice president have no impact on these policy areas? It's simply false.

Well if everything goes to hell with the economy, having equal access to nothing doesn't add up to much. I don't mean to be facetious but I am a little surprised at how much you think will change in the next four years. It is only recently that Obama publicly supported gay marriage and it almost seemed as if he stumbled into it. Do I think he will be a safer bet? Sure, but a lot seems to be driven by the state level without regard to what is done at the federal level.

As a minority whose group has aligned with democrats through the years, I can't say that I think Dems have done much for my community recently. They haven't put up additional barriers, but there are not specific improvements either. While I can say for myself personally that the rhetoric surrounding African-Americans put forth by Reps has been a complete and utter turn off and will keep me from voting Rep, it doesn't impact my ability to see why others would choose to vote Republican for other issues. While I think the welfare queen stigma and the janitor type comments from Newt show me their thoughts, I can't say that dems outside of denigrating these types of comments, have actually done anything that was specifically targeted to improving my community. So they get the benefit of being the civil rights party without actually having to take firm stances on civil rights and quite frankly I think they have taken these groups for granted.

It is kind of how I see the LGBT issue. I do think that the two groups are at different places in the civil rights process so I can see why you feel this is a more critical time. But not everyone thinks dems have the backbone to do what you think is going to happen in the next four years. With that kind of thinking why would everyone choose to make that the deciding factor in a candidate?

[y4m]

Aug 14, 2012 9:28:29 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

The bottom line is, voters care about and prioritize different things; and naturally everyone believes their hard-line issue is the most important. I don't think it's ever necessary to call someone an asshole. Is everyone PMSing on this board lately?

Do you really not see that several regular posters have said, repeatedly, that people who do not prioritize issues the way they do are gross, bigots, etc.? Calling those people out for being "kind of assholes" is PMSey though?

[soontobeka]

Eclaires- Thank you dealing with my hypersensitivity. I appreciate your sincerity. Glad we still have some bipartisan love going on!

[IIOY]

Aug 14, 2012 9:28:29 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

The bottom line is, voters care about and prioritize different things; and naturally everyone believes their hard-line issue is the most important.

We actually had this discussion on here not too long ago and it was a unity horse issue. As it is, a lot of people, including regulars normally not prone to such things, devolved into utter histrionics over the past three days, and lots of "how can you possibly support/believe/embrace/prioritize fiscal issues unless you are a raging idiot/bigot/ignorant/gross??" has been slung around. It would be funny in a Chicken Little kind of way if it wasn't so damn obnoxious.

[mominatrix]

Aug 14, 2012 8:59:48 GMT -5 pescalita said:

You may not agree that that is the most effective solution, you may prioritize different issues, that's why we have political discussion. But every person who has accused the cons of valuing money over people the last two days is being intellectually dishonest and kind of an asshole.

That might be the case, but the reverse is also true:

every con who's been claiming that Obama's record on civil rights, or even LGBTQ civil rights, begins and ends with one vote on gay marriage years ago is also being intellectually dishonest and kind of an asshole.


The truth is that these parties, these candidates, have very different views on civil rights, for the LBGTQ community and for the rest of us.

Personally, civil rights are kind of important to me, so I'm curious as to why people who are pro-CR would vote the non-CR candidates, and here's what I get:

1. They might be anti-CR, but it doesn't matter, because the POTUS doesn't really set civil rights policy or control civil rights legislation.

2. Part of generalized con theory is to make for more local and community based legislation. So, we don't need ENDA, and any state or locality that wants to pass a law saying that discrimination against the LGBTQ community is illegal, that needn't be federal.

3. The cons are better at the economy, and if we better the economy, the rising tide will lift all boats, making less need for CR in the first place, because everybody will be in a better place.

Correct me, please, if I'm wrong on those points, or if there are more.


...and, see, those three points don't sway me.

on 1: with the judiciary (especially the SCOTUS) picked by the president, he has a huge voice on CR issues. There's the bully pulpit, which we want used in the pro-CR direction. There's the veto power. ...and, given the history of CR legislation, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that Johnson wasn't pretty much THE driving force behind the centerpiece CRA of 1964.

on 2: the patchwork of civil rights laws is a PITA, and everybody knows it. Why should you have the right to fire somebody for being gay in Louisiana, but not in Massachusetts? What happens in other places does effect me here - that's why if some idiot elected official posts on his FB wall that we should kill all the gays, that diminishes me even if I don't live in his district and I'm not gay.

on 3: yes, a rising tide might lift all boats, and even if you believe that conservative solutions will better the economy (and many of us don't), the problem is that there are still the relative inequalities. So, while unemployment might go down, if the population of African Americans unemployed remains out of kilter with the rest of the population, that's a problem. Also, gay marriage isn't a position that changes with a better economy.


...that's where I am right now.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 9:27:29 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

Aug 14, 2012 9:04:33 GMT -5 eclaires said:

I need to find you a certificate of grossness!

Plus, you're wrong. Those of us who are willing to listen to Paul Ryan and like that he talks about the economy are the intellectually dishonest ones! Who believes what politicians say while they campaign? That's ridiculous! Idiots!

Unless they are Obama. Then you should listen and vote for him because his position has evolved and he totally cares about civil rights.

FTR, while I do find it shocking that people take campaign talk seriously, I called nobody an idiot. I know that I am far more jaded and apathetic than most on here which is why I said I ought to just sit out until mid-November. I somewhat envy those that can really get into campaign season and hold hope in it.

And I'm not really an Obama fan either.

No, sorry I hold the gold in cynicism.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 9:43:02 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 7:12:04 GMT -5 2vermont said:

OK, I totally get what SBP etal is saying here. But it keeps bringing me back to what do you guys expect these particular conservative posters to do? Vote for Obama?

I expect them to feel luke warm about Ryan, but vote for him because he's (in their mind) the lesser of two evils (a position a lot of Kerry supporters are familiar with). I do not expect them to be popping the bubbly and going all Jesse Spano about it:

So it's more about the reaction....I get that. To be fair, however, although the initial reaction from many was "popping the bubbly", unless I'm reading things wrong, I think most have re-considered their initial reaction (and thinking hard about the ticket) as well as stated that they may still be voting 3rd party. Am I wrong about that?

[cookiemdough]

I was excited about the ticket and I don't even plan on voting for it. I thought he would likely open the door to a discussion of fiscal issues that has largely been ignored or soundbited to death at this point. Not everyone's excitement is due to loving every aspect of the candidate.

[mominatrix]

Aug 14, 2012 10:02:53 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Aug 14, 2012 9:43:02 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I expect them to feel luke warm about Ryan, but vote for him because he's (in their mind) the lesser of two evils (a position a lot of Kerry supporters are familiar with). I do not expect them to be popping the bubbly and going all Jesse Spano about it:

So it's more about the reaction....I get that. To be fair, however, although the initial reaction from many was "popping the bubbly", unless I'm reading things wrong, I think most have re-considered their initial reaction (and thinking hard about the ticket) as well as stated that they may still be voting 3rd party. Am I wrong about that?

I don't see that - I see, actually, some posters here who would otherwise have voted third party who are saying they'll vote R because of the Ryan pick.


...and I'm on the SBP train as well. The reaction is the issue. If it was a reaction of holding ones nose but voting it anyway, that would be way better. We've all done that.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 10:11:18 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I don't see that - I see, actually, some posters here who would otherwise have voted third party who are saying they'll vote R because of the Ryan pick.

Maybe it's a bit of both because I can think of a couple of people off the top of my head that I recall thinking "my" way: Druid, Tef

[cookiemdough]

Aug 14, 2012 10:11:18 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I don't see that - I see, actually, some posters here who would otherwise have voted third party who are saying they'll vote R because of the Ryan pick.

The ones I thought were third party still seem to be indicating that they will go third party. Tef comes to mind, but it could be because MD is really blue. I have seen talk that for those in states where the vote will really matter, that they are comfortable enough to vote R with this pick.

[mominatrix]

Aug 14, 2012 10:17:30 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Don't feel bad, I'm pretty sure I cinched the gold in the asshole olympics.

[/quote]

I thought that was me.

Maybe we'll have to share the podium.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 10:20:16 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:15:14 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Maybe it's a bit of both because I can think of a couple of people off the top of my head that I recall thinking "my" way: Druid, Tef

I can only think of Tef and Prescalita as falling into this category. But maybe I'm wrong.

I specifically remember a post from Druid saying she needed to "meditate" on it.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 10:23:44 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:21:35 GMT -5 2vermont said:

I specifically remember a post from Druid saying she needed to "meditate" on it.

Okay.

Here (from the Ryan Abortion thread):

I definitely initially got excited about the Ryan pick with regards to the economy. And I still think it'll add a bit more fire to the lead-up to November. But I do have hang-ups about his social stances, since he doesn't represent me in that regard. Thus my quandary continues, and the shit is still real for me... I have some meditating to do.

[2vermont]

Aug 14, 2012 10:27:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:26:04 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Here (from the Ryan Abortion thread):

I definitely initially got excited about the Ryan pick with regards to the economy. And I still think it'll add a bit more fire to the lead-up to November. But I do have hang-ups about his social stances, since he doesn't represent me in that regard. Thus my quandary continues, and the shit is still real for me... I have some meditating to do.

I believe you. That "okay" wasn't sarcastic.

I knew you did ;-)....just thought I'd copy and paste it for everyone to see her exact words.