Any LGBT+ Republican individual out here?

[NEDenver]

What do you mean by “classical liberal?”  Like, I know it’s going to be a difficult, amoral answer, but go ahead.

 

[50latinos]

On 2/17/2024 at 2:19 PM, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

I'm tired of the roadblocks to common sense infrastructure in security. 

What exactly do you mean? 

I think every viewpoint is equally important but only if we understand it and I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, 50latinos said:

What exactly do you mean? 

I think every viewpoint is equally important but only if we understand it and I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Sorry I wrote in instead of and. I'm not the most well-versed on any of this so please forgive me if I'm not super informed here. Part of what piqued my interest in this topic is that I do enjoy learning and listening to people with other viewpoints. From my observations, whichever party is in charge effectively plays zero sum politics and seemingly for their bases. I understand supporting friends and allies, but we seem to be ok with crumbling infrastructure and weak security domestically. I feel like those are issues that require more attention than they are given as it is something that we deal with as a populous daily. Whichever party is in charge tends to be the one I am more frustrated with admittedly. From my vantage points D can't stop talking about Trump, but R tends to be talking more about infrastructure and security. R tactics have caused attention to be paid to those issues. D tactics have been grinding government to a halt.

[Orlbttmntraining]

One of my regulars feeders is a down and proud repulican, and it baffles the fuck out of me. We hava chatted about it in the past and he said its because Republicans keep Cuba in line (His parents fled Castro) and he likes lower taxes. Last I heard he is full MAGA and has started down the self hating gay path.

[KatrinaSassy2019]

I'm Trans and lean conservative.  I see myself more libertarian  than democrat or socialist.  I want my freedom of speech and freedom  to bear arms. All firearms. 

[hntnhole]

18 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

but I was maxed

No need to apologize; the way to "earn" more "responses" (i.e. the little icons in the lower right hand corner) is to compose replies to threads, or start new ones of your own.  The more you participate in the discourse, the more "responses" you earn. All of us, which, of course, is the purpose of BZ.  

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

From my vantage points D can't stop talking about Trump

For good reason.  If you've heard any of the things he's been saying, it's not hard to notice that he wants to become a "strong-man", just like the dictators of any number of countries around the world.  Can you point to any worthwhile policies his (presumed) candidacy is touting? (the golden slippers don't count)  The man is a clear and present danger - described clearly by his own lips - to our system of Government, and unless you believe that Democracy needs to be discarded, it's no wonder the Democrats are going on about the threat Trump is.  

 

5 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

we seem to be ok with crumbling infrastructure and weak security domestically.

On the contrary, replacing old, crumbling infrastructure is one of the hallmarks of the Biden Administration, plus, advancing new energy-saving infrastructure.  I know we're pumping more oil at the Administrations behest, and I don't think that's a terribly good idea, but I'm no expert on the issue.  Biden got a collapsed bridge on I-95 replaced in an astoundingly short time.  He's replacing the bridge that's been crumbling for years over the border with Canada.  There are brand new energy plants (solar, wind) being built in many parts (Red as well as Blue) of the country, and in a mere 3 years.   What can T. show that he's accomplished in any of these areas? The answer would be nothing.  

If by "weak security" you mean the issues on the border with Mexico, who promised to build a wall, and never bothered to get around to doing it?  Who is blathering about getting out of NATO, which security treaty has kept the peace since WW2?  It's been 80 years since despots around the world have dared to actually threaten peace, and it's not Biden who's giving these despots the green light.  Was it President Biden who finally agreed to sign a "border-bill" that the House constructed, giving the R's everything they wanted (because an unelected private citizen) decided he wanted to use it against the opposition) in their border proposal? And the R's still refused.  

 

5 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

From my vantage points

 I would be interested to know what vantage points those are.  Everyone gets to follow what makes the most sense to them, so please share that information. 

Thanks. 

[BootmanLA]

19 hours ago, barefucker44 said:

There aren't too many classical liberals left or so it seems.  I have nothing against classical liberals, we need two voices, but most of the dem leadership seems to be anything but that.

What are the tenets of classical liberalism, as you see them? And in what specific ways do you think most Democratic leaders differ? I'm not saying I would agree with you, but I'd like to know more about this shift you seem to have detected.

[BootmanLA]

16 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

Absolutely. Dem leadership has been disappointing to me to say the least. Dogma runs both ways. I don't consider myself any particular ideology. I just prefer what works without having to please the bases.

And referring back to the post that you were replying to: If you don't consider yourself "any particular ideology", then what DO you believe in? Do you believe in anything in particular, or just "what works"? Because if you don't have principles by which to evaluate "what works", you end up with things like the Holocaust - it certainly "worked" to achieve the goals of the Nazis, which was to largely eradicate Jews (and other undesirables) from Europe. "Just works" can be used to justify all sorts of awful things, and it seems like a pretty piss-poor way to evaluate what's right and what's wrong.

[NWUSHorny]

20 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

If by "weak security" you mean the issues on the border with Mexico, who promised to build a wall, and never bothered to get around to doing it? 

Actually the main reason he never got around to building his wall, was his lack of understanding of how our 3 branch, with checks and balances Constitutional Republic works. He could have had his emissaries in Congress propose legislation, have it debated and pass at least some of what he wanted to do. The other problem is the MAGA in Congress don't understand it either, and have actively sought to prevent the debate, which makes passing any legislation that moves the needle virtually impossible. The only meaningful piece of legislation that came out of Trump's term was the tax cut, and the only reason he achieved that was because Paul Ryan agreed with him enough to push part of what Trump wanted through the lawmaking process. The MAGA have been on a quest ever since to remove anyone capable of following the Constitutional process of lawmaking from elective office.

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

Part of what piqued my interest in this topic is that I do enjoy learning and listening to people with other viewpoints.

And that's a good thing.

6 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

From my observations, whichever party is in charge effectively plays zero sum politics and seemingly for their bases. 

And I'd say that your observations may be somewhat circumscribed from the total of reality. One of our two major parties has repeatedly, throughout my adult life, reached out to the other side for input and to accommodate its concerns. For instance, Bill Clinton implemented a drastic cutback in welfare assistance, shifting to block grants to the states (which was a Republican demand). He also was the first president in decades to balance the federal budget, by the end of his term - and a balanced budget is - or rather, USED TO BE, a key Republican goal. In return, Clinton got impeached and most of his legislative priorities died on the table.

Barack Obama also reached out, repeatedly, to the other side. During the long, extended negotiations to produce the Affordable Care Act, he watered down the legislation dramatically to appease Republicans, gutting some of the things his own base were demanding (like a public option, aka something like Medicare for people under 65). But before Obama had even put forward any agenda at all, the Republicans publicly avowed not to vote for ANY of his proposals - including the ACA he tailored to their demands - because they wanted him to fail and thus become a one-term president.

Biden is finding much of the same to be true. He spent his entire career in the Senate trying to bring his party around to support any reasonable proposal of the GOP's, and the MAGA nuts cast him as the devil incarnate because he doesn't kiss Mango Mussolini's ass and had the gall to defeat him.

On the other hand, the other major party has made a career of not compromising with the Democrats at any turn, from Newt Gingrich to Mitch McConnell to Mike Johnson to Donald Trump. So, yeah, you're half right; one party plays for its base. The other, not so much. You wouldn't read so many stories about how liberals and progressive are frustrated with Biden specifically because he's NOT a hard-liner, if in fact your perception of "both sides" were valid.

6 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

but we seem to be ok with crumbling infrastructure and weak security domestically. I feel like those are issues that require more attention than they are given 

Hair Furor made a mockery of infrastructure by promising at least 30 times during his failed term in office that the next week upcoming would be "infrastructure week", where the GOP would finally unveil its plan to invest in infrastructure. "Infrastructure Week" became a running joke as emblematic of just how dysfunctional the Trump White House was - and much of that was during a period when the Republicans controlled the House AND the Senate and could ram through whatever they wanted - like they did with Supreme Court justices, twice.

When Biden came to office, he actually PUSHED a major infrastructure bill - and while the final version wasn't as big as most of us would like, that's solely due to GOP opposition and the defection of two Democrats from supporting it (Sinema and Manchin). Billions of dollars of new infrastructure projects are coming online now and over the next couple of years, and it's NOT thanks to the Republican party in the slightest.

6 hours ago, suBBcuBB4DOMBBear said:

From my vantage points D can't stop talking about Trump, but R tends to be talking more about infrastructure and security. R tactics have caused attention to be paid to those issues. D tactics have been grinding government to a halt.

That's all the Republicans do - TALK. They were offered a bill to address border security that was 100% "stick" - that is, all penalties and more border guards and all the things the GOP claims are critical, and 0% of the things Democrats want, like fixing the situation for the Dreamers and starting some sort of workable guest worker program (to accommodate the massive need for laborers for jobs in things like agriculture and construction). The bill was custom-tailored to Republican demands for what's needed on the border. Then Trump demanded that the GOP kill the bill, because if they actually PASS something to solve the problem, right-wing assholes can't run campaigns screaming about how the border is out of control. It's Schroedinger's Border: simultaneously a threat to the safety of the entire US and something that can wait until after the next Congress takes office in January 2025.

So, no, it didn't grind to a halt because of Democrats. It ground to a halt because of Trump desperately wanting an issue to run on that will motivate his racist base.

Those are facts. Inconvenient facts for the Republicans and their quisling apologists, but facts nonetheless.

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, KatrinaSassy2019 said:

I'm Trans and lean conservative.  I see myself more libertarian  than democrat or socialist.  I want my freedom of speech and freedom  to bear arms. All firearms. 

Well, just realize that if and when the GOP takes power, your being trans will trump (no pun intended) everything else about you. And you having firearms won't help very much against the kind of firepower authoritarians tend to have.

[BathhouseCumdumpDC]

Registered Independent, formerly a registered Democrat. I will vote mostly R going forward, but NOT for any batshit crazy Republicans like Trump. Dumbocrats have moved far too left for my comfort. Most of my views are conservative anyway.

 

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

quisling

Absolutely appropriate, and, may I say, deee-fukkin-licious !!!!

[50latinos]

16 hours ago, BathhouseCumdumpDC said:

Registered Independent, formerly a registered Democrat. I will vote mostly R going forward, but NOT for any batshit crazy Republicans like Trump. 

 

Good luck finding one! The ones that are not completely crazy are leaving the party or are pulling out of their races, and those who stay ae doing it out of cowardice and personal convenience . . . 

16 hours ago, BathhouseCumdumpDC said:

Dumbocrats have moved far too left for my comfort. Most of my views are conservative anyway.

 

Oh, sure! That's probably why they were aligned with the bipartisan border security bill negotiated in the Senate, which complied with every item in the conservative wish list in the border including money for the wall, which was killed by Trump's peons to prevent Biden to take action in the border for electoral expediency.

What do you vote in DC other than president anyway? Mayor?