Why vote Republican if your not in the 1% or have a big business? (Without being up Democrats)


Recommended Posts

PGHammer
17 minutes ago, seta-san said:

they don't hate me for being a straight white man.

they are push-back on absolute post-modern cultural lunacy.

the democrats are really just the party of college educated white women and welfare recipients. they don't give a crap about the working poor.

the liberal platform is self contradictory. GM is firing 1600 workers so let's bring in 7000-10000 low skill central American workers.  they don't seem to understand what is good for the environment is bad for people and vice-versa. Macron is getting a lesson in that right now.

Dead-on, seta-san.  I pointed out that "let everybody in" blows up the desire for wage increases two different ways - it grows the labor force (which if you already have unemployment, is the last thing you want to do) AND you are forced to pay out more via the social safety not (again - a no-no).  On top of that, the EU has exported their manufacturing base (to both the PRC and the US) which has further screwed up the tax base (in fact, it shrunk it), which makes the EU less able to take in the increased number of workers they added to said labor force (insult to injury) - which Reuters has pointed out.

You can't increase wages in the face of a labor surplus sensibly - and you can't increase TAXES when you have shrunk your tax base - and the EU has done both - which is why they are a mess. (Reuters - again!)  Trump wants stability to both (hence Tax Reform 2.0) - further, if we want to grow the labor force by importing more workers, we need jobs for them (hence H1-B and H2-B reform)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san
5 hours ago, PGHammer said:

Dead-on, seta-san.  I pointed out that "let everybody in" blows up the desire for wage increases two different ways - it grows the labor force (which if you already have unemployment, is the last thing you want to do) AND you are forced to pay out more via the social safety not (again - a no-no).  On top of that, the EU has exported their manufacturing base (to both the PRC and the US) which has further screwed up the tax base (in fact, it shrunk it), which makes the EU less able to take in the increased number of workers they added to said labor force (insult to injury) - which Reuters has pointed out.

You can't increase wages in the face of a labor surplus sensibly - and you can't increase TAXES when you have shrunk your tax base - and the EU has done both - which is why they are a mess. (Reuters - again!)  Trump wants stability to both (hence Tax Reform 2.0) - further, if we want to grow the labor force by importing more workers, we need jobs for them (hence H1-B and H2-B reform)

not only that. those people have to live somewhere. realestate and rent prices are going up. they have to eat. food prices are going up. traffic is going to be more packed which means more gas is going to burn idling. it also means you have to leave earlier for work which means less sleep and/or social life.

 

but isn't it all worth it? being poorer and more exhausted in exchange for such vibrant diversity? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
40 minutes ago, seta-san said:

not only that. those people have to live somewhere. realestate and rent prices are going up. they have to eat. food prices are going up. traffic is going to be more packed which means more gas is going to burn idling. it also means you have to leave earlier for work which means less sleep and/or social life.

 

but isn't it all worth it? being poorer and more exhausted in exchange for such vibrant diversity? 

It is NOT about logic, seta-san.  The Paris Climate Accord was all about beating up on the United States in particular - because we dared not JUST kick everybody's can in terms of manufacturing efficiency, but by and large did it with lower levels of pollution (as even the PRC, India, and other "developing nations" that got lots of favoritism from the PCA are finding out the hard way).  They expected to use our political system to guilt us into cooperating - however, three different US Presidents (two of them were Democrats - Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) refused to cooperate.  Bill Clinton walked away and let the Doha Round implode, and Barack Obama - another Democrat - saw the resulting PCA, and refused to submit it to the Senate (maybe he recognized it as a dead duck if he dared submit it?)  Remember, he was a Senator before being elected President. 

 

Donald J. Trump - a man with ZERO political experience - saw the PCA - which two of his predecessors - of the other party - turned their nose up at it - of COURSE he would wonder why. (*I* wondered why - and I am not President.)  He - like President Obama - recognized the document for what it was - and wanted no part of it.  (Note that President Obama has not commented on the PCA since President Trump said no - maybe because the no made sense?  He HAS dared open his mouth on several other Trump decisions - but not this one.)

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kcbworth

I voted conservative all my life because I felt they were:

 

1. More pragmatic and less idealogical

2. Less radical

3. Less wasteful

 

None of these things are true anymore in the era of smack-my-ideology-in-your-face Trumpism and more importantly the current crew are worse in those 3 points than I ever recall the left being, at least since the 70s.

 

Not to mention the radical ideology spewed by the current lot is both incredibly cruel and seemingly evil (e.g. seems to have a sadistic pleasure in destroying positive things to instead replace with destructive things) whereas at least the ideology of the left, while lacking practicality, was always aiming for a kinder more harmonious world, something I believe we were progressing nicely towards until the current lot.

 

All in all I don't understand how right now anyone could contemplate going anywhere near the Trump world, but that's what this thread is about

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
3 hours ago, kcbworth said:

I voted conservative all my life because I felt they were:

 

1. More pragmatic and less idealogical

2. Less radical

3. Less wasteful

 

None of these things are true anymore in the era of smack-my-ideology-in-your-face Trumpism and more importantly the current crew are worse in those 3 points than I ever recall the left being, at least since the 70s.

 

Not to mention the radical ideology spewed by the current lot is both incredibly cruel and seemingly evil (e.g. seems to have a sadistic pleasure in destroying positive things to instead replace with destructive things) whereas at least the ideology of the left, while lacking practicality, was always aiming for a kinder more harmonious world, something I believe we were progressing nicely towards until the current lot.

 

All in all I don't understand how right now anyone could contemplate going anywhere near the Trump world, but that's what this thread is about

 

kcbworth - you are thinking of the religious right (and certain other groups among the Trump supporters), and there I agree - however, that is not why I am where I am - and my arguments don't come from that quarter.

 

The liberal argument is just as in-your-face (and is just as destructive if not worse - look at what has happened in their protests) - there's no *clean* there, either.  Worse, they are perfectly willing to trainwreck their own position just to screw the other side (all too often based on bad assumptions or outright bad data).

 

Cruel?  Logic tends to BE cruel - nature is not *red in tooth and claw* for nothing, and the penalties that it will exact are just as ugly.  You want higher wages at the low end of the labor force?  So do I - however, you can't do that in the face of a labor surplus at that end of the workforce (which is what faced both the US and EU in 2016's tailchase).  The EU both shrunk the labor market AND grew the labor force - and is reaping the results; the US (under both Obama and Trump) did neither.

Obama - clamped down on border-jumping (and took a ton of heat for it); however, it DID reduce unemployment by attacking illegitimate employment.

Trump - reduced regulation gone cuckoo (which even environmental groups such as NRDC and Oxfam have given him kudos for) and kiboshed unemployment to the point where there IS no unemployment - a first in my fifty-seven years of life.  Result - wages are actually going up at the low end - and largely due to actions by employers directly - NOT regulatory prodding. Labor shortfalls produce wage increases - because you can't do it in the face of surplus labor.

The EU can't do it because they have exported their labor market - not alone to the PRC, but even to the US.  Result - a screwed tax base - and no reform of taxes (you can't - too much reliance on the social safety net - which was larger than that of the US to begin with - now, atop that, you used mandating in environmental terms to add a larger burden to that same safety net).  You can't blame Trump for that - the EU made that decision prior to our (US) elections.  That is why Reuters (which is based in the EU, and is no fan of Trump) is slapping the entirety of the PCA signatories a good one via that cursed-everywhere-but-the-US dose of hard numbers.  The signatories were hoping to use the Reuters data to beat up on the US - which the PCA was supposed to do - especially if the US ratified it.  Not only did the US NOT touch the PCA with a ten mile spork - all the signatories - including the PRC - look like idiots for ratifying the document.

 

The EU - a screwed tax base, a shrunken labor force, and higher (not lower) unemployment.  What is kind about any of that?

The PRC - failed to meet production targets; worse, the US didn't export as much production as the PRC hoped.  (Gee; I wonder why; some of that is NOT Trump's fault.)

The US - the only developed nation to reduce unemployment (in fact, it has NO unemployment at all); atop that, it did so while reducing greenhouse gases more than every other nation that had any reductions in such gases at all - put together.  (So much for US-bashing.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
kcbworth
On 12/3/2018 at 10:35 PM, PGHammer said:

you are thinking of the religious right (and certain other groups among the Trump supporters), and there I agree

No. I'm referring to any single person that continues to support Trump after he pushed through an ideology driven deficit funded tax cut driven purely by ideology rather than any justifiable economic or ROI outcome (fails 1 on my list HARD, as well as 2 and 3)

 

I'm referring to the crusade to resurrect environmentally harmful industries that benefit scaringly few at the expense of everyone else and has no tie in with any kind of sustainable outcome (fails 1, 2, and 3 on my list)

 

I'm referring to people who describe compassionate and hopeful people as weak and laugh at people who are concerned about the cruelty coming from the current mobsters in charge (fails 1 and 2 to the extreme)

 

And so on...

 

I bucket anyone who defends this radicalism into this group.

 

I'm a lifelong conservative voter, but it turns out what I have learned in the recent dark era is that I liked the moderate caution... and absolutely zero of the extremism.

 

And there is only 1 major political party that shows an iota of extremism at the moment. And it's the one you are defending.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
3 hours ago, kcbworth said:

No. I'm referring to any single person that continues to support Trump after he pushed through an ideology driven deficit funded tax cut driven purely by ideology rather than any justifiable economic or ROI outcome (fails 1 on my list HARD, as well as 2 and 3)

 

I'm referring to the crusade to resurrect environmentally harmful industries that benefit scaringly few at the expense of everyone else and has no tie in with any kind of sustainable outcome (fails 1, 2, and 3 on my list)

 

I'm referring to people who describe compassionate and hopeful people as weak and laugh at people who are concerned about the cruelty coming from the current mobsters in charge (fails 1 and 2 to the extreme)

 

And so on...

 

I bucket anyone who defends this radicalism into this group.

 

I'm a lifelong conservative voter, but it turns out what I have learned in the recent dark era is that I liked the moderate caution... and absolutely zero of the extremism.

 

And there is only 1 major political party that shows an iota of extremism at the moment. And it's the one you are defending.

Trump used as his example the tax cuts under Reagan (which worked - as even Democrats admit) - what the DEMOCRATS griped about is the lack of tax relief for high-local-tax states (invariably blue) - which they want to fix when they take power in the House next year (which even THEIR pundits are saying will benefit the rich to a greater degree than either Tax Reform 1.5 (Trump's tax cuts of last year) or the planned Tax Reform 2.0).  Source - Reuters).  In other words, the Democrats want to give a bigger gift to the rich than Trump did.  (And this is kind to the middle-class - in the liberal sense - how?  Since when do liberals kiss the backsides of the wealthy?  We now know - when you need their campaign contributions.)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
notta

I went to Thanksgiving dinner and my brother-in-law's brother is a retired stock broker. He has been coming to dinner for the last 20 years and I can count on one hand the amount of times we have spoken to each other. Well we talked a lot this Thanksgiving.  He said to me at one point that it blows his mind why the middle class are voting Republican. He said he is set for the rest of his life so he'll be OK, but the middle class are voting against themselves by voting Republican. They are all for the wealthy. He also said he has sold a lot of his stock recently because he thinks in the next 2-3 years there is going to be another recession.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
1 hour ago, notta said:

I went to Thanksgiving dinner and my brother-in-law's brother is a retired stock broker. He has been coming to dinner for the last 20 years and I can count on one hand the amount of times we have spoken to each other. Well we talked a lot this Thanksgiving.  He said to me at one point that it blows his mind why the middle class are voting Republican. He said he is set for the rest of his life so he'll be OK, but the middle class are voting against themselves by voting Republican. They are all for the wealthy. He also said he has sold a lot of his stock recently because he thinks in the next 2-3 years there is going to be another recession.

notta - a retired stock broker has been the exact sort of person that hs been *guilted* into now supporting Democrats (Michael Bloomberg himself is another example).  They are wealthy themselves; however, they are largely living off that accumulated wealth they earned while working; they aren't vulnerable the way the *true* working middle-class (let alone the working lower classes) are to current liberal policies; they are thinking *image* rather than *process*.  That is where things fall apart (for me) when it comes to liberalism - it's not merely the image; the process itself also has a great deal to do with it.  (Remember, I mentioned growing the labor force in the face of a labor surplus, and increasing the tax burden at the same time.)  The process DOES matter, people - as the EU pols are discovering (both Macron and UK PM May are getting it HARD in the neck currently due to policy flubs).  I have also been following the US stock market today - including the hammering that the DJIA and NASDAQ are taking. Where is the hammering taking place?  No surprise - companies that have been relying on China - Apple and GM are getting it rather hard in the neck; so is Caterpillar (same reason).  Another interesting item dropped today - Trump also has a complaint before the WTO - a multi-page one.  Target: the People's Republic of China.  And it was filed BEFORE the current tariff spat.  Could that be the other shoe?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kcbworth
7 hours ago, PGHammer said:

Trump used as his example the tax cuts under Reagan (which worked - as even Democrats admit) - what the DEMOCRATS griped about is the lack of tax relief for high-local-tax states (invariably blue) - 

I don't care what the Democrats griped about.

 

I'm telling you what I AM GRIPING about. What do the democrats have to do with anything?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
8 hours ago, notta said:

I went to Thanksgiving dinner and my brother-in-law's brother is a retired stock broker. He has been coming to dinner for the last 20 years and I can count on one hand the amount of times we have spoken to each other. Well we talked a lot this Thanksgiving.  He said to me at one point that it blows his mind why the middle class are voting Republican. He said he is set for the rest of his life so he'll be OK, but the middle class are voting against themselves by voting Republican. They are all for the wealthy. He also said he has sold a lot of his stock recently because he thinks in the next 2-3 years there is going to be another recession.

That's extremely hard to believe since the republican class has always about giving especial care to the middle and upper class.  You know, the tax payers...  The lower class isn't forgotten, but the hand-outs are to a lesser extent than what the democrats "fight" for.  We're well past proving that throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem.  If 8 years of Obama proved anything, it's that the democrats are just as in bed with the rich as the republicans are.  Hilary proved that as well.  They also seem to be well willing to screw over the middle class to give more phony hand-outs to the poor, which in the end don't even help them. How Obama managed to expand the lower class while we exited the recession is quite an amazingly sad stat.

 

Regarding the recession, I too have heard that some people are predicting a recession in the 2-3 year time frame.  The data point that I haven't seen is why that will happen.  Personally, I think that people are simply "guessing" that the economy can't keep booming like this forever and eventually there will be a market correction.  Sure, maybe I believe that could happen, but that doesn't trigger a recession.  The last recession was the decades in the making and plenty of people predicted it and watched it happen.  Pure greed and bad policy.  There is data out there that shows that tidal wave coming. Those same charts don't show another one coming any time soon.   Housing is one of those markets that affects the masses, and that crashing had major consequences.  What market is at risk today?  We did in fact learn from the past and lots of people are paying attention to these things than ever before.  So what's going to cause that recession?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Melfster
On 12/4/2018 at 5:24 PM, Astra.Xtreme said:

That's extremely hard to believe since the republican class has always about giving especial care to the middle and upper class.  You know, the tax payers...  The lower class isn't forgotten, but the hand-outs are to a lesser extent than what the democrats "fight" for.  We're well past proving that throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem.  If 8 years of Obama proved anything, it's that the democrats are just as in bed with the rich as the republicans are.  Hilary proved that as well.  They also seem to be well willing to screw over the middle class to give more phony hand-outs to the poor, which in the end don't even help them. How Obama managed to expand the lower class while we exited the recession is quite an amazingly sad stat.

 

Regarding the recession, I too have heard that some people are predicting a recession in the 2-3 year time frame.  The data point that I haven't seen is why that will happen.  Personally, I think that people are simply "guessing" that the economy can't keep booming like this forever and eventually there will be a market correction.  Sure, maybe I believe that could happen, but that doesn't trigger a recession.  The last recession was the decades in the making and plenty of people predicted it and watched it happen.  Pure greed and bad policy.  There is data out there that shows that tidal wave coming. Those same charts don't show another one coming any time soon.   Housing is one of those markets that affects the masses, and that crashing had major consequences.  What market is at risk today?  We did in fact learn from the past and lots of people are paying attention to these things than ever before.  So what's going to cause that recession?

what you said is BS.  The last recession wasn't decades in making it happened under Bush and his bad policies.    Trump policies aren't any better.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
PGHammer
On 03/12/2018 at 03:48, kcbworth said:

I voted conservative all my life because I felt they were:

 

1. More pragmatic and less idealogical

2. Less radical

3. Less wasteful

 

None of these things are true anymore in the era of smack-my-ideology-in-your-face Trumpism and more importantly the current crew are worse in those 3 points than I ever recall the left being, at least since the 70s.

 

Not to mention the radical ideology spewed by the current lot is both incredibly cruel and seemingly evil (e.g. seems to have a sadistic pleasure in destroying positive things to instead replace with destructive things) whereas at least the ideology of the left, while lacking practicality, was always aiming for a kinder more harmonious world, something I believe we were progressing nicely towards until the current lot.

 

All in all I don't understand how right now anyone could contemplate going anywhere near the Trump world, but that's what this thread is about

 

kcbworth - the Democrats - less ideological?  I not only don't buy that (remember, I used to be one), but I am, instead, seeing far more evidence that the left is MORE willing to accept authoritarianism than conservatives - and especially libertarians - are.  If anything, the methodologies used to drive down Covid-19 exposure in states with Democratic governors AND legislatures, as opposed to those with either entirely GOP governors and legislatures, or those where the two are split, are exposing that divide.  Look at New Jersey vs. Wisconsin or even New Jersey vs. Maryland (Maryland is split - GOP governor and Democratic legislature).  It is the states with all-Democratic governments that had not only the highest number of deaths for Covid-19, but the highest number of such deaths among their at-risk populace.  They are basically "dressing up" authoritarian measures and calling it "mandating"; however, even "mandating" is still authoritarian. (It's used for seat-belt and motorcycle helmet law - which I have pointed out.)

 

That is, in fact, the ONLY thing that is true of the left (as opposed to the right) - they are more willing to impose (and thus "dress up") authoritarian measures, whereas most conservatives (and especially libertarians) find such distasteful and disgusting on their face.  There is a minority on the right that are in favor OF such measures; however, they are not the driving force ON the right - any more than the anti-authoritarian LEFT are a driving force. 

 

Go on Quora and merely lurk - don't post.  While there are a rather surprising number of ex-government (SOF and former IC) on Quora, it is largely liberal and left-leaning as a site.  It is NOT that a measure is authoritarian that the left finds objectionable; it is that a measure is not emotionally-based that they find objectionable.  The left does not use logic in arguing for anything; they cloak their arguments in symbolism and emotion (examples of which are the NRDC, World Wildlife Fund, and even Amazon's recent spate of "green" ads). 

 

I'm not saying that emotionalism is not effective; in fact, I've never said that. What I HAVE said about using such tactics is that it's not honest - and it isn't.  You can even have an ad campaign be BOTH (the current ad campaign of the ASPCA); however, that means you can compare the logical vs. emotional components of each part of the ad on their effectiveness.  As a viewer, which would YOU say is MOST effective in what the ASPCA is trying to convey?  The hard data - or the emotional part of the same ad?

 

Lastly, why is it that masking mandates have fallen down HARDEST in the biggest bastion of the left and liberalism - college and university campuses? (That is NOT me saying that - that is all the hard data coming out OF those very campuses - including two second cousins - one a sophomore at Vanderbilt University, and the other that is a senior at Cornell; neither campus is anything close a conservative bastion - and they are brother and sister.)  Authoritarianism has issues - which, is, in fact, ALL I have said about it.  Not that it has issues from the left - or from the right; but that it has issues "period".  College and university students and faculty are anything BUT stupid; yet mandating is anything BUT a "success story" there; has anyone taken a poll OF these bastions of failure to get an idea why?  I'm curious myself.

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
FloatingFatMan

Why did you reply to an almost 2 year old post with an essay of drivel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne
6 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Why did you reply to an almost 2 year old post with an essay of drivel?

The same reason he dredged up one from 7 years ago last week. I mean I don’t know the reason but I’m certain it’s not a coherent one. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tjarboe

Republicans preserve more of our freedoms and let us think for ourselves.  

  • Haha 5
  • Facepalm 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nexus-
On 29/05/2018 at 02:22, trag3dy said:

"and don't want to put laws in for guns which they don't care about school shootings because of they want to please NRA"

 

There's so much wrong with just this one little part of a sentence it's really hard to know where to start.

actually there is zero wrong with this one. its completely true. Republicans favor their 'A' rating with the NRA meaning they do the gun and NRA lobbyist bidding. You want facts? you can find tons of polls showing americans (all not red or blue or brown, black, or white) favor enhanced background checks, favor closing loopholes at gun shows and more I don't have off the top of my head. Its however a very common theory that what think is what's reality, however its not. But lets spin this around on the republican message: all a mental health problem... Well why haven't republicans introduced legislation to do more for mental health?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
PGHammer
On 03/10/2020 at 12:44, Nexus- said:

actually there is zero wrong with this one. its completely true. Republicans favor their 'A' rating with the NRA meaning they do the gun and NRA lobbyist bidding. You want facts? you can find tons of polls showing americans (all not red or blue or brown, black, or white) favor enhanced background checks, favor closing loopholes at gun shows and more I don't have off the top of my head. Its however a very common theory that what think is what's reality, however its not. But lets spin this around on the republican message: all a mental health problem... Well why haven't republicans introduced legislation to do more for mental health?

Then I would like an honest answer - why is it that the Democrats have insisted and insisted and INSISTED on online learning, DESPITE the issues it has on the effectiveness AND mental-health fronts (and that is from the WHO, CDC, and even the teachers' unions (specifically, the NEA))?  In fact, both the WHO and NEA whacked not merely online learning (the NEA - again!) but shutdown mandating (the WHO) in terms of merely straight effectiveness.  In fact, the WHO - rather bluntly - stated that shutdown mandating should ONLY be used for the purpose of staving off health-system swamping - as opposed to it being used as a political tool.

 

Also, what would YOU suggest in terms of legislation be done in terms of mental health? Warehousing (the pre-community mental-health-center approach) was certainly a disaster; however, we are finding that there are limits to the community-mental-health-center approach (which is what is in use today).  We need a middle-ground; however, is there one that would be acceptable to all sides and all stakeholders?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nexus-
On 13/10/2020 at 15:37, PGHammer said:

Then I would like an honest answer - why is it that the Democrats have insisted and insisted and INSISTED on online learning?

No idea online learning is only really useful in a pandemic as a crutch. Even countries in europe and Asia that give their kids better educations favor in person learning. I mostly hear from republican politicians that its a mental health issue and there is little to nothing that needs to be done in respect to gun law. That's outrageous because a majority of American (red and blue) constituents support 'common sense gun reform' such as Stricker background checks and gun show loopholes. Basically those things which will have no bearing on most republicans because they 'haven't done anything wrong' so they will still get their guns. Problem is republican politicians wont do those things (because they care more about appeasing their donors more than appeasing their constituents)  but keep talking about it being a mental health issue and wont put up real legislation to support/fix the mental health issue.

 

kind of like health care. Oh we are for saving pre existing conditions but we have to blow up obama care first which would torpedo pre existing conditions protections then trust us to come up with legislation 'better' than obamacare/ACA even though we have had a decade to show you the republican health care plan and haven't done so. And about that lets not forget that when McCain thumbed down the Obamacare repeal vote the plan (or what part of it) that republicans had was so incoherent that no one in their right mind thought it was anything near a suitable replacement. 

 

Quote

Also, what would YOU suggest in terms of legislation be done in terms of mental health? 

I don't know but I haven't seen the republican plan, still waiting on how that solves the issue.

Quote

That is, in fact, the ONLY thing that is true of the left (as opposed to the right) - they are more willing to impose (and thus "dress up") authoritarian measures, whereas most conservatives (and especially libertarians) find such distasteful and disgusting on their face.  There is a minority on the right that are in favor OF such measures; however, they are not the driving force ON the right - any more than the anti-authoritarian LEFT are a driving force. 

That is absolutely not true as right now PA state legislators are working to be able to control the vote to such a degree during this presidential election that if they even feel that the vote hasn't been "fair" they can invalidate the vote and award the electors to the presidential candidate of their choosing which will be trump.

 

This new Supreme court nominee will absolutely allow authoritarianism because of her inability to answer simple softball questions like 'can a president delay the election?' or "is it illegal to intimidate voters?" and she told a 2006 graduating class "keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God.”  Sorry lady 26% of Americans don't believe in God. She has only been a judge for 2 3/4 of a year and has been raised from a child as a robot to enact extreme radical views.

Edited by Nexus-
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
On 17/10/2020 at 22:27, Nexus- said:

No idea online learning is only really useful in a pandemic as a crutch. Even countries in europe and Asia that give their kids better educations favor in person learning. I mostly hear from republican politicians that its a mental health issue and there is little to nothing that needs to be done in respect to gun law. That's outrageous because a majority of American (red and blue) constituents support 'common sense gun reform' such as Stricker background checks and gun show loopholes. Basically those things which will have no bearing on most republicans because they 'haven't done anything wrong' so they will still get their guns. Problem is republican politicians wont do those things (because they care more about appeasing their donors more than appeasing their constituents)  but keep talking about it being a mental health issue and wont put up real legislation to support/fix the mental health issue.

 

kind of like health care. Oh we are for saving pre existing conditions but we have to blow up obama care first which would torpedo pre existing conditions protections then trust us to come up with legislation 'better' than obamacare/ACA even though we have had a decade to show you the republican health care plan and haven't done so. And about that lets not forget that when McCain thumbed down the Obamacare repeal vote the plan (or what part of it) that republicans had was so incoherent that no one in their right mind thought it was anything near a suitable replacement. 

 

I don't know but I haven't seen the republican plan, still waiting on how that solves the issue.

That is absolutely not true as right now PA state legislators are working to be able to control the vote to such a degree during this presidential election that if they even feel that the vote hasn't been "fair" they can invalidate the vote and award the electors to the presidential candidate of their choosing which will be trump.

 

This new Supreme court nominee will absolutely allow authoritarianism because of her inability to answer simple softball questions like 'can a president delay the election?' or "is it illegal to intimidate voters?" and she told a 2006 graduating class "keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God.”  Sorry lady 26% of Americans don't believe in God. She has only been a judge for 2 3/4 of a year and has been raised from a child as a robot to enact extreme radical views.

The PA state legislature is liberal - not conservative.  If you are talking about individual state legislators from central PA (the T) they may be conservative; however, the legislature in PA as a whole is not - largely driven by Pittsburgh and Philadelphia - the Commonwealth's two population centers.  The PA legislature is closer to that of Maryland than either New Jersey or Delaware (while there are *red* parts of Maryland, they are far from the most populous) in state legislatures, populace drives the power structure; in Pennsylvania, it's Philly and Pittsburgh; in Maryland, it's the city of Baltimore, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County.  Further, in both PA and MD, ticket-splitting at he ballot box is more common; it is why both PA and MD have had GOP governors and Democratic legislatures - when was the last time either New Jersey OR Delaware elected a GOP governor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Nexus-
On 20/10/2020 at 17:02, PGHammer said:

The PA state legislature is liberal - not conservative.  If you are talking about individual state legislators from central PA (the T) they may be conservative; however, the legislature in PA as a whole is not - largely driven by Pittsburgh and Philadelphia - the Commonwealth's two population centers.  The PA legislature is closer to that of Maryland than either New Jersey or Delaware (while there are *red* parts of Maryland, they are far from the most populous) in state legislatures, populace drives the power structure; in Pennsylvania, it's Philly and Pittsburgh; in Maryland, it's the city of Baltimore, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County.  Further, in both PA and MD, ticket-splitting at he ballot box is more common; it is why both PA and MD have had GOP governors and Democratic legislatures - when was the last time either New Jersey OR Delaware elected a GOP governor?

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/spl/pa-popular-vote-presidential-election-legislature-bypass-donald-trump-20200925.html

 

They are working on it. Lets hope they are not able to make it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
PGHammer
On 31/07/2018 at 10:33, kcbworth said:

 

Huh? The deficit is climbing at record levels predominantly due to the dramatic reduction in government revenue.

 

Reducing revenue while increasing spending = giving away money

The deficit is climbing for the same reason it ALWAYS does - silly-season spending sprees- (in the US case, by Congress in specific). I'm not pointing the finger at a specific party - or even power bloc OF Congress - instead, I have whacked Congress as an institution - and have been doing it here (primarily in Real World Issues AND Domestic Politics) - but NOT in the Presidential politics threads (wrong place).

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland Fifth Congressional District) has been the primary target of my verbal and textual assaults - but NOT because of his place in the power structure of either the Democratic party OR of Congress - but because I live in the District (due to the District boundaries being redrawn in1990); my scorn of him has, in fact, resulted in my never voting for the man since the redistricting occurred; instead, I voted for his opponent. (Bigger problem - Hoyer has not been primaried once since 1980; and my critics wonder why I left?)

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.