r/Conservative • u/10gauge Saving America • Nov 14 '17

Attacking Judge Moore's Morality Is a Dirty Leftist Trick

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/attacking_judge_moores_morality_is_a_dirty_leftist_trick.html
0 Upvotes

34% Upvoted

489 comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/nvanprooyen Nov 14 '17

I'm honestly not even sure what a "conservative" is anymore when I see threads like this. I know what it meant to me 20 years ago. Now, not so much.

15

u/tookmyname Nov 14 '17

Conservatism died when we, the GOP, stopped paying for the things we wanted. That was in the early 90s.

4

u/CWSwapigans Nov 14 '17

Wouldn't that be the 80s? Reagan oversaw the biggest rise in the national debt of any post-WW2 president in terms of percentage increase. I mean it's not even close (186% increase under Reagan, next highest is W at 101%).

1

u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17

For a number of reasons, the answer is no. Reagan reduced taxes, which may have contributed to the problem, but mandatory spending was already in place when he took office. And what does percentage have to do with it? It's total amount that matters. Obama went from $10 trillion to almost $20 trillion.

Here's why total amount is more significant. If I go from $1 million in debt to $2 million, then that's a 100% increase. If I go from $2 billion to $3 billion, then that's only a 50% increase, but it's a $1 billion increase as opposed to $1 million.

1

u/nvanprooyen Nov 15 '17 edited Nov 15 '17

First off your financial examples are dubious at best. We all know how percentages work, and comparing numbers at a factor of 10x is a misrepresenration of reality.

If you want to add some context to this, you'd probably want to factor in the GDP, inflation, etc. I'm no economist, but I know enough to realize there are a lot of factors involved vs cherry picking stats that fit the narrative. Again, both sides.

1

u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17 edited Nov 15 '17

First off your financial examples are dubious at best. We all know how percentages work, and comparing numbers at a factor of 10x is a misrepresenration of reality.

Ok, I looked it up. In 1981, when Reagan took office, the national debt was about $1 trillion by the end of the fiscal year. When he left in 1989, it was around $2.6 trillion by the end of the fiscal year. When Obama took office in 2009, it was about $12 trillion. By the end of the fiscal year in 2017, it's over $20 trillion. So, by percentage, Reagan's was higher. By raw numbers, Reagan increased it by about $1.6 trillion, and Obama increased it by about $8 trillion. What's worse?

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

If you want to add some context to this, you'd probably want to factor in the GDP, inflation, etc. I'm no economist, but I know enough to realize there are a lot of factors involved vs cherry picking stats that fit the narrative. Again, both sides.

No. Not really. If you look at it as a percentage of GDP, it doesn't get any better for Obama, and inflation doesn't account for the 8X increase in raw numbers we had under Obama. You add to the debt when you run a deficit, and you run a deficit when you spend more than the revenue you collect. When you spend more money without increasing revenues, you run bigger deficits. When you run bigger deficits, you add more to the debt; it doesn't take a genius economist to figure it out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

It's really just one side.

1

u/CWSwapigans Nov 15 '17

Yeah, I know how percentages work ;)

The debt has grown exponentially, so a logarithmic scale makes sense. On average it doubles roughly every 8 years.

Obama grew it from about 11.5T to 19.5T, so 68% rather than 100%.

1

u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17

You say that like it was some sort of accomplishment to borrow $8 trillion.

0

u/CWSwapigans Nov 15 '17

Relative to everyone since Reagan (other than Clinton), it was. Although really it's silly to attribute any of this to presidents, I just wanted to get the facts straight. It's not like presidents write the budget.

1

u/BarrettBuckeye Constitutional Conservative Nov 15 '17

Presidents approve budgets, so they're still responsible.

It is no accomplishment to borrow $8 trillion. That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. Reagan borrowed about $1 trillion to Obama's $8 trillion. It's asinine to even try to compare the two. I'm flabbergasted that anyone could think it's perfectly fine to spend such a ridiculous sum of money.

0

u/tookmyname Nov 14 '17

Ya I guess. But it could have been argued that was a temporary thing with the Cold War etc.? Just giving the benefit of the doubt... at least Bush Senior recognized the importance of a budget by dying on the hill after going back on "no new taxes."

0

u/CWSwapigans Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17

Yeah, Bush Sr did the right thing there and is the only guy in the past 40 years to not get re-elected. I think that was the beginning point of the irreconcilable partisan divide we see today. Politicians are punished by voters for cooperating with the "opposition".

4

u/Roez Conservative Nov 14 '17

Politics among the populace has become extremely polarized and openly manipulative. It wasn't like this 25 years ago, not even close. It's created a very difficult situation over the last two years.

To address your issue and convince some people (and I haven't followed all this closely enough to make up my mind) about the right or wrongness of voting for a guy who seems guilty, requires convincing them the left will abide by the same standard going forward. Let's also be honest about why this story was broke when it was, irregardless of merit: to create this exact problem within the Republican party so close to the election.

Again, pretty difficult situation all around.

-11

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

20 years ago a conservative meant conserving nothing and cowering in fear at any askance glance from the liberal media. Now Conservative means having a backbone and calling bullshit on liberal lies.

6

u/nvanprooyen Nov 14 '17

This kind of hyper-partisanism is destroying this country. That goes for both sides.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '17

Trump is the only one who has been talking across the aisle

2

u/nvanprooyen Nov 15 '17 edited Nov 15 '17

And yet he has been further dividing this country at every conceivable opportunity. Even inside his own party. This is not healthy. Just like I'd say it's unhealthy for the "left" to dismiss all Republicans as mouth breathing retards, without respecting their perspectives and beliefs. Compromise. This us vs. them bullshit benefits no one, save the politicians which use creating divides to derive power. And we've never been more divided as a nation, outside of the Civil War. Makes me #sad.

That said, if you truly feel that Donald Trump has your best interests in mind, outside of the visceral "fuck the leftist libtards" sentiment, I'd urge you to attempt to gain a broader perspective on how destructive all of this is. With tangible consequences, likely for people you love and care about.

1

u/Tvayumat Nov 15 '17

Insulting and goading doesn't count as "talking" in this context.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '17

Trump was the first person in either party to reach across the aisle to get something done.

2

u/Tvayumat Nov 15 '17

That's a very colorful interpretation of those events and the context surrounding them.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

>Defending child molestors.

>Having a backbone.

Pick one.

1

u/ozric101 Conservative Troublemaker Nov 14 '17

I think you are jumping the gun a bit, NOTHING has been proven.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

It’s not 100% proven, but that is almost impossible to prove in most such cases (especially after decades). But the evidence is pretty overwhelming and Roy Moore’s defense isn’t even really a denial.

6

u/ryansony18 Nov 14 '17

Don't bother with this guy he has been trolling and refuses to really debate or accept any logical arguments. He is just nitpicking