The GOP released it’s platform in advance of their convention next week and it is VERY extreme.  Here’s some of the planks:

  • Women banned from combat – yet another right and responsibility they want to take away from my gender.
  • Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – what will happen to all those soldiers who have already come out?  Some have been promoted into the High Ranks.  Will we lose these highly trained and exceptional soldiers because of this?
  • Deny any legal recognition of Same-Sex Marriage–even a lot of moderates think Civil Unions are ok, but not the GOP.  And what about state rights?  If a state wants to allow Civil Unions or Marriage, why does the supposedly “small government” GOP want to prohibit states from doing that?
  • Salute to Forced Ultrasounds – remember the VA bill that made it legal for a doctor to force a woman to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound WITHOUT THE WOMAN’S CONSENT?  That particular gem was specifically praised.
  • No abortion in cases of rape or incest – this speaks for itself
  • Replicate AZ Immigration laws – what do they not understand about the concept of constitutionality?  What do they not understand about the Feds constitutional  responsibility for maintaining our borders?  Why the HELL don’t they advocate for a complete Immigration overhaul so that the Feds can do their job?
  • No new taxes except for war – what if we have several major natural catastrophes that are unplanned for?  What if we have a largescale epidemic for which no funds or not enough funds were appropriated?  If those are too remote a possibility for you, here’s one that is already occurring.  What if population and thus the need for basic services increase without a corresponding equal increase in tax revenues to cover the cost of those services?  This is happening now with the Baby Boom generation.  The wealthy have not paid their fair share of taxes since Reagan was in office reducing revenues to historic lows while our population has naturally grown through birth and legitimate immigration and combine all that with the aging Baby Boomers who will need more and more services as they age.   An increase in revenue MUST occur or our debt and deficit WILL become dangerous.  One more point.  Republicans (and Dems) allowed President Bush to start two unfunded wars.  They are not fiscal conservatives and this plank is utter bullshit.

Source:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/22/723241/gop-approves-most-conservative-platform-in-modern-history/

Advertisements
Comments
  1. mhasegawa says:

    On the last point, no new taxes except for war, the Republicans didn’t raise taxes to fund the last wars they started. In fact, they gave us all our tax refund checks. This is why there, as you point out, there is an underlying problem with this plank. Plus, I think Republicans then to add more public employees and contractors paid with taxpayer money than Democratic administrations. More spending without revenue. And don’t forget they have all signed the Norquist pledge.

    • drangedinaz says:

      I know, the hypocrisy of the right to spend so much, refuse to even pay for it and then blame it on the left is mind boggling. And what’s worse is the average voter believes the lie.

  2. Carol C. says:

    “Women banned from combat – yet another right and responsibility they want to take away from my gender”
    Our rights are those listed in the United States Constitution (the supreme law of our land) and as far as I am aware, it does not now and never has listed any rights regarding anyone serving in combat within our military. (Although it does specifically mention our right to bear arms – specifically to use in overthrowing our own government if it should become corrupt.) Is there any existing law which allows women to serve in combat and which Republicans want to repeal? If not, why wasn’t such a law passed in 2009 and 2010 when the Democrats held majorities in both the house and the senate chambers of the US legislature and also held the presidency? I think that neither party fully supports allowing women to serve in combat.

    “Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – what will happen to all those soldiers who have already come out?”
    It was my understanding that the “Don’t Tell” part meant that soldiers are not allowed to “come out” – as in, openly stating that they are gay would be telling and thus not complying with “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell”. Repealing it would allow soldiers to come out although they would then face the possibility of being discharged for coming out – just as it is now. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is actually nearly pointless aside from providing some protection for someone who hasn’t come out but is found out anyway. And when you consider what constitutes “telling” (it’s not just speech) it really is just about as pointless as could be.

    “Deny any legal recognition of Same-Sex Marriage”
    As a Libertarian, I wish that our government (and others before it) had left marriage as a religious rite and just stayed out of it entirely. Since they are in it, I do hope they continue to draw the line somewhere, such as not allowing marriage between siblings, not allowing marriage between adults and children, or between people and animals, and not allowing polygamous marriages (three or more spouses at a time.) I have a feeling that that nothing good would come of our society legitimizing such things. Same sex marriage is at the bottom of my list of this election’s issues when sorted by importance. Homosexuals make up about 3% of the population nationally – less than 10 million people. Currently 15% of Americans are living below the poverty line. I’d like to see the majority of our efforts focused on significantly reducing that.

    “Salute to Forced Ultrasounds ”
    I agree that it’s outrageous to force this on anyone. I also happen to think that 1.2 million abortions a year (as we have in America) is an incredibly sad state of affairs. I wouldn’t support illegalizing abortion but I do think we have a rather alarming failure occuring here… either a whole lot of non-functional birth control or a whole lot of irresponsible and selfish behavior. However, I have no idea what to do about the situation beyond pleading with people to stop risking pregnancy when they don’t want offspring. Also, I find it particularly bizarre that while this is occuring, American couples are adopting babies from Africa, China, Russia etc. because the wait times to adopt U.S. babies are too long.

    “No abortion in cases of rape or incest – this speaks for itself”
    I agree once again, the government has no business within anyone’s body unless the person somehow poses a health threat to the public (Typhoid Mary for instance.) I do see the point the pro-life side is making, which is that the baby is innocent and ending it’s life is morally wrong. I use part of that argument against the death penalty – that ending a life is morally wrong – but when the state / government does it, I don’t consider the state a murderer (as in guilty of a criminal act) and nor do I consider a woman who chooses abortion a murderer either.

    “Replicate AZ Immigration laws – what do they not understand about the concept of constitutionality?”
    Certainly the federal government should be protecting our national borders and also enforcing the laws which have been passed by our legislature regarding immigration (and that is currently not happening – ordering ICE officers not to hold persons who are in the country illegally is in direct violation of the federal laws which President Obama has sworn to follow.) The President is not a king and is not allowed to pick-and-choose which of the laws passed by congress he will follow but rather we employ him to preside over the implementation of all our national laws and he is not doing so. Aside from the “border” issue, do states have the right to pass their own laws and implement them? YES, of course they do and illegal immigrants 100 miles within the borders of the state of Arizona is no longer a “national border” issue – it’s a state law issue.

    “No new taxes except for war – what if we have several major natural catastrophes that are unplanned for?”
    First off, the government does not earn money, someone else made that happen (you, me, etc.) How much of someone else’s income is anyone entitled to take from them under threat of imprisonment? If I have an emergency, how much in percent of your income may I take from you under threat of imprisoning you if you don’t comply? I don’t believe that I am -entitled- to even one cent of the money that you earn. It’s yours because you earned it. I’m grateful that my fellow citizens and I all consent to being taxed to fund our government to uphold our constituional rights, to implement the laws passed by our legislature, and to provide for our defense.

    Some folks don’t make much and I’m one of them ($27,000 income last year.) I know there are people worse off than I am (the official poverty line for an individual is $14,000 income per year or below, I believe.) I feel for them, I volunteer some time and help as I am able and I still think that they should contribute something to our country, just as I do. $1 per year would be fine, but something. Some people make a lot more. I’ve worked with some of those people in my life, I can tell you that one of them was the founder and owner of a small business in the midwest that has employed dozens of people for decades. He was also the most dedicated, dilligent and tireless worker I have ever known. I happened to work for him when I was young (25 years ago) and he became a role model to me. That guy put in hellish hours and there were stretches where every month he would worrry about making payroll -and- paying for goods to resell. Compared to me he’s very wealthy now – becuase he’s still there, still working hard while I chose a different life. I’m grateful that he pays taxes just like I do. I can’t tell you exactly how much the taxes he has paid have benefitted all of us but I can tell you exactly how much of his money I think that I or anyone else is entitled to… NOT ONE CENT. He’s a good citizen and he has done far far more for far more people than I ever will be able to…

  3. drangedinaz says:

    1. “Women banned from combat…..Our rights are those listed in the United States Constitution (the supreme law of our land) and as far as I am aware, it does not now and never has listed any rights regarding anyone serving in combat within our military. ”

    The 2nd Amendment says…..”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People include women (Not thinking of what the Founders thought of that, I”m sure they didn’t think women or blacks were people, but we have as a nation, for quite some time, so legal precedence says women are people). In regards to being “necessary to the security of a free State”, that says nothing only domestic enemies nor would it. The militia in Colonial America didn’t just fight the British and it wasn’t just to keep our Government in check. They also fought the Native Americans, particularly in the frontier regions and incursions by the French and Spanish. The old style militia became the modern National Guard, which is used both for domestic peacekeeping and foreign wars–and they include women. So it’s implied. That’s the beauty of the Constitution. It’s specific enough to follow as a guideline but open enough to allow the country to evolve to handle future situations unanticipated by the Founders. Obviously I’m not a “strict constructionist” but you probably are. Finally, where in the Constitution does it specifically say that Men have the right to fight in combat. It doesn’t. Do you believe Men don’t have the right to fight in combat? Would you have the nerve to look a serviceman who risks his life every day and tell him that? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

    “If not, why wasn’t such a law passed in 2009 and 2010 when the Democrats held majorities in both the house and the senate chambers of the US legislature and also held the presidency? I think that neither party fully supports allowing women to serve in combat.”

    The Dems may have had a simple majority, which is anything over 50%, but it wasn’t a supermajority. A supermajority is the percentage of votes a bloc needs to overcome a filibuster (in the Senate, it is 3/5). A filibuster is basically hold and refusal to allow something to even be voted on. The Dems had a supermajority for a period of perhaps 7 weeks. Some claim that it was up to as much as 6 months. However, during that six month period, two Senators (Byrd and Kennedy) were either dead or dying and could not cast a vote. Technically they held a seat but it’s unwise to take a man off life support so he can go vote. So what happened was that any time the Dems wanted to bring something up for discuss before they voted on it, the Republicans automatically filibustered. It only takes one Senator to set up a filibuster. To overcome this, the Dems would then have to convince every single Dem, the two Independents AND some Republicans to vote to override the filibuster. IF they managed to do that, then they would be allowed to debate the bill. Now, the next step is to have Cloture, which is the closing of the debate on a bill. Without cloture, they can’t hold a vote. Again, the Republicans would put a hold on Cloture. Only one Senator was needed to put a hold on Cloture and they could do so anonymously. Again, the Dems would have to y would then have to convince every single Dem, the two Independents AND some Republicans to vote to override the hold on Cloture. FINALLY IF they were able to that, then they had to convince enough people to vote their way on the law. Now, you might say this system would also be an obstacle for the Republicans too. Except, and here’s the kicker, the use of this blocking procedure is pretty steady since it was begun in 1917. However, since President Obama was elected, it has almost doubled and it has exclusively been used as a weapon by the Republicans. So no they didn’t have a supermajority and a simple majority doesn’t count for squat. Therefore, your question is pretty much moot.

    2. “Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ”

    This was poorly written on my part. What I meant to say was, what if they bring back Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. DODT was ended on Sept 20, 2011. Since then many soldiers have outed themselves and many of them are extremely qualified people in key positions. The US taxpayers has invested millions of dollars into educating and training these individuals to perform their duties. IF DODT is reinstated, as Romney wants to do, we will lose all of those individuals. That’s a huge mistake, just from a pragmatic viewpoint (personal morality aside).

    3. “Deny any legal recognition of Same-Sex Marriage– Since they are in it, I do hope they continue to draw the line somewhere, such as not allowing marriage between siblings, not allowing marriage between adults and children, or between people and animals”

    Comparing marriage between consenting adults to marriage of an adult to a child, to an animal, etc is absolutely absurd. Please look up what “legal consent” means and you will have a better understanding of what I am saying.

    “Homosexuals make up about 3% of the population nationally – less than 10 million people.”

    The number of people does not determine whether they should have equal rights. If that were the case then no minority would ever have equal rights in the U.S. because they are, by basic definition, a minority of the population. The 3% you are quoting is incorrect. The correct number is somewhere between 15-20% (maybe more, but I’m being conservative here). That means there are as many, if not more, homosexuals in the U.S. as there are African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders combined. Again, numbers have nothing to do with it anyway, but thought you should know your % was way, way off

    4. “Forced Ultrasounds”

    If you deny a woman to have control of her body for the sake of a fetus then you are essentially establishing in law that the fetus is more important than the woman. It’s a very, very simple argument. If a woman can’t say don’t shove that thing into me because she is pregnant, then she has no control over her own body. She is no longer a fully autonomous person. The fetus is already not a fully autonomous being and technically no underage person, according to the law, is fully autonomous either. By claiming that the number of abortions are too high, you are implying that forced ultrasounds would somehow affect the rate of abortions. Is that the case? Because that’s pretty offensive. That’s like saying, “There are too many poor children in the U.S. so let’s sterilize the poor against their will”. Yes, there are too many poor children, but by forced sterilization would probably solve the problem but in so doing you’d violate the rights of the potential parents. We can come up with better solutions that don’t involve harming people.

    The reason why there are so many abortions in the U.S. is because there 1) aren’t many other options (adoption is only for the rich and patient and they usually only want white babies), 2) the foster system in the U.S. is absolutely horrid, 3) we don’t have orphanages anymore (because they were horrid too), 4) too many fathers are not willing to pitch in to take care of their progency (almost all the responsiblity falls on the mother and the law doesn’t support her enough in forcing the father to pitch in) and 5) ignorance of proper contraception and other medical issues regarding sex. They just reported the results from a study on birth control. The availibility and quality of birth control drastically affects abortion rates. What have we been doing in the U.S? Teaching abstinence only. Teaching abstinence only for the last decade has caused not only the number of unwanted pregnancies in teens to rise but also the rate of STD’s to rise. Why? Because they were told not to have sex and they weren’t told about the dangers of non-traditional sex. A lot of girls resorted to other much more dangerous forms of intercourse AND they didn’t use condoms….So you want to drastically reduce abortions? Educate teenagers about sex in school (like they did when I was young), provide birth control or at least educate them on how to get birth control, and make it affordable (somehow, someway). It’s as simple as that.

    5. “No abortion in cases of rape or incest”

    Glad we could agree on something

    6. “Replicate AZ Immigration laws – Certainly the federal government should be protecting our national borders and also enforcing the laws which have been passed by our legislature regarding immigration (and that is currently not happening – ordering ICE officers not to hold persons who are in the country illegally is in direct violation of the federal laws which President Obama has sworn to follow.) ”

    The President is enforcing security of the border with Mexico more vigorously than any other President in the history of the U.S. 1. There are twice as many border patrol agents than there were prior to 2004. The buildup begun by Bush has been continued by Pres. Obama. The increase was even beyond what was requested by some republicans. 2) The President has requested more money from Congress to improve Border Security than any other President. As of 2011, the budget the Customs and Border Patrol Budget increased by 3.3 billion. Much of this at the urging of Republicans who turned around and criticized him for increasing the size of government. Conservatives demand the Federal Government provide services but then refuse to pay taxes and criticize the Government for increasing in size and budget. And they only seem to complain when it’s a Dem in the White House, nary a peep when a Rep is in office. 3) Pres has deported more illegal immigrants in his first three years in office than Pres. G.W. Bush in all 8 of his.

    “we employ him to preside over the implementation of all our national laws….ordering ICE officers not to hold persons who are in the country illegally is in direct violation of the federal laws”

    You are correct, we do employ him to “implement” and “enforce” national laws. However, you are misstating (and misunderstanding the law) and the reality of law enforcement. I have a Master’s degree in Criminal Justice and I used to be a law enforcement officer so I am pretty informed on such matters. ICE officers have the authority to detain illegal immigrants. In our country, when the term authority is used, it also implies the concept of discretion. EVery single Executive Govt offical in the country, every single Law Enforcement agency in the country and every single officer in the country works according to policies that flesh out how they will enforce a given law. Within that policy there is institutional discretion and with officers in the field there is individual discretion. Let’s take reckless driving. The more reckless it is, the more serious it is and one can be arrested for it. Let’s say the officers sees a person driving very erratically endangering themselves and others. The officer pulls him over and finds that the guy had a dangerously low blood sugar level. Does the officer HAVE to arrest him? No. The law doesn’t say it is mandatory, but that he has the authority to do so. If every law were mandatory, our society would not be able to function. No society could. Can discretion be abused? Absolutely. If so can the person abusing it, be held accountable criminally and/or civilly? Yes.

    That being said, lets look at your claim that not detaining illegal immigrants is a violation of federal law. Federal law states that an individual is subject to mandatory detention if all of the following are true: person was released from some other law enforcement agency after Oct 8, 1998 AND the offense for which they were detained was he entered without inspection or arrived at a port of entry AND he committed a crime involving moral turpitude, drugs, prostitution-related crimes or terrorist activities (have committed or will commit them). So, does every illegal immigrant HAVE to be detained? No. So how can the President be in violation of Federal law if he tells them to weed out the dangerous ones, the ones that meet his legal definition? His order didn’t say, let them all go, it said do a better job of filtering the bad ones out and let the rest go until they can be dealt with.

    Final point on this legal issue, an illegal immigrant is NOT a criminal. The statute and the punishment is Civil. If they are in the U.S. and use a fake identity or misrepresent themselves, then it becomes criminal. Not all immigrants use fake ID, many don’t use any or just use whatever Mexican docs they have. That’s why it’s so hard to get decent jobs because they don’t have proper, legal ID.

    “and illegal immigrants 100 miles within the borders of the state of Arizona is no longer a “national border” issue – it’s a state law issue”

    This one is completely false. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say explicitly or implicitly that any state with a border has the right to take over federal powers if they feel threatened. Nowhere in legal precedence does it say that either. The Constitution is VERY, VERY clear on who has the authority and it is the Federal Government.

    Violent crime in AZ has been dropping for over a decade. The crime rates in border towns are stable or decreasing (actually this is true all around the country, crime rates have dropped and have been for 20 years now, experts don’t really know why). What violence there is Arizona is partially responsible for. Lax gun laws and enforcement of existing ones has caused there to be too many loopholes that allow weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, who are perpetrating the violence. Approximately 3 out of every 4 guns used in a crime in Mexico came from the four border states for a total 19,000 weapons (between 2006-2009). Texas supplied four in ten of the weapons and the other three states provided the rest. What Arizona can do is enforce the damn laws that are already on the books, educate them on the consequences of allowing drug gangs to buy the guns and how to spot a potential straw buyer and finally, encourage them to communicate with ATF when someone makes an unsual buy. You know how many billions and billions of dollars we’d probably save nationally if the border states just did their job and enforced their own laws in the first place?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s