Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Israel's right to exist is ratified by the U.N. Period.
Think I care about what those globalists say? I would think that you, being a supposed "conservative", wouldn't either....
Created:
-->
@Imabench
In 2016 less Sanders supporters voted for Sanders than they said they would as well, thats the nature of depending on the youth vote for anything. They may vocally advocate for something online, but when it comes to vote in person those voices die down real fast.
That is true, he did try to go for voters that historically haven't voted and got the expected result.
Sanders couldn't bring in Warren's base once her campaign faltered while the moderates all united behind Biden, and then ever since Super Tuesday Bernie has gotten whipped 10% to 30% in every state.
But you'll notice that Bernie Bros are quite schizophrenic. They count Biden getting all of the moderate endorsements and Warren staying in until after Super Tuesday as "The establishment coalescing or whatnot". I have watched some Secular Talk and he keeps talking about all of these "smoke-filled backroom" deals and Obama making calls.
In reality, the Bernie campaign was trying to bank on all of the moderates staying in and splitting that vote until the convention, but that isn't how they see it. So, they are spiteful. That vote isn't completely negligible.
Hell Sanders even outraised and outfunded Biden almost every quarter of the primary, and Sanders has better name recognition now than he did in 2016 and he still somehow did WORSE than in 2016. In 2016 Bernie finished with about 1,850 delegates, this year he is sitting at HALF that, and California has already voted.
Yeah, he doesn't understand politics very well. If you look, he had like no endorsements, while Biden had tons. That just shows that he can't make deals and has no political capital to pass his legislation. All of that money can't buy you votes, fortunately. #NoRefunds
But let's not limit this to Sanders voters. Hillary in 2016 was also a more moderate candidate, but depending on the study, 9.2% of Obama voters voted for Trump or another that said 13% of Trump voters voted for Obama in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
It could also be that presidents just run on further right or left positions than they will actually implement in order to make sure their base goes out to vote. Remember, Obama was the "change" candidate, but many of his voters were disappointed at the supposed "concessions" he kept making. Reagan was much more moderate in office than on his campaign trail.
I agree that Trump has done a lot of good, as you mentioned he represented and brought resentment for Bush-type neocons, and he did make good on his trade promises. In terms of immigration, he has actually got that "public charge" rule in, but he has failed on many other grounds.
I'd say that a populist-nationalist running is entirely based on Trump winning this year as to whether or not the Republican party will run neo-cons again or make some progress in leaving that all behind. The parties mostly care about power and they will run what wins.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
So you believe that at this point, for a significant number of individuals(moderates) to switch parties in a general election, two things have to happen:
1) their typical party has to run an "extreme" candidate and
2) the other party has to run a moderate(practically centrist)
Does that sum it up about right?
I don't think that this is really even worthwhile at this point because there may not be enough that switch or stay home to actually run a moderate candidate for winning. For instance, 15% of Bernie Sanders supporters have said they will vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee.
I'm not sure if this is a fluke, spite-type thing, or if this is because they would rather back a right-wing populist than what they perceive to be part of the establishment, despite agreeing with Biden's policies more. In 2016, less Sanders supporters voted for Trump than they said they would, but it may be different this year because this is the second time Sanders got screwed and they are livid.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Nikki Haley maybe
I just looked into Nikki Haley. Outside of foreign policy and maybe trade, she seemed like a pretty good candidate that I wouldn't mind voting for at all. Heard lots of good things about her.
Do you think that partisanship is just too big of an issue today, or do you think a decent amount of Democrats would actually switch parties if perhaps a Bernie-like fella was on the (D) ticket? How willing are people to switch parties in a general election in your opinion?
Created:
-->
@Barney
Yeah, I respect that. I don't agree with his decision, but he truly believed that it was the right thing to do, and he did have the "balls" to do it. There wasn't much to gain from it.
During the 2012 election, though, he was railed for not having integrity because he flip flopped on lots of issues. I'm more concerned with his voting record than him impeaching Trump in terms of securing my future vote. Principle over party.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Mitt Romney has really become an outcast in the Republican Party in the past few years. Based on his political record, a lot of people don’t find him conservative or consistent enough. Like how Romneycare and Obamacare were practically identical. Then voting to remove the sitting Republican president from office is never a popular action.
He might appeal to centrists, though. I’m curious as to how he’d perform when facing a non-incumbent, less popular Democrat.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
He is actually a pretty common choice for liberals to consider voting for. Why do you guys like Rubio?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I’d be perfectly happy with Tucker Carlson at the top of the ticket tbh.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Think he has a decent chance of winning? Facing an incumbent, I presume?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I mean, he is a liberal, so I wouldn’t expect him to vote for a nationalist, true conservative candidate like we would like lol. That is why I separated questions based on politics. So yeah, he picked liberal-type Republicans, or as we would call them RINOs.I think what you’re saying is that you’d only be open to RINOS lol
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I’m not so sure that the “return to normalcy” look is going to win elections right now. That’s what Hillary ran on. Candidates like Bernie and Trump rose on populist rhetoric and policies because regular people feel like the system has screwed them. They don’t want to go back to that. That is why a small yet surprising amount of Bernie voters are going to vote for Trump despite a huge change in policy between the two.
I am too young to have voted for McCain or Romney, but in my opinion neither would have been a whole lot better than Obama. Not familiar with the other Republicans you mentioned, so I will look into them a bit.
Thanks for the feedback. I’m not sure that any of these would get the Republican base excited. I just wanted to see what types of candidates open-minded liberals would think about voting for.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I wouldn't vote for Crenshaw or Cruz
Yeah, not a huge fan of Crenshaw, myself. Why don't you like these two fellas?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I see that he is a veteran and has business experience in supply-chain, which are both great traits for him to have, but I didn't see his stances on his campaign website. What does he support?
Created:
I just wanted to get a feel for what the community's opinions on the future are.
Trump hasn't taken very drastic measures thus far to bring back a lot of the troops from the Middle East, deporting all illegal immigrants, and taking more drastic actions to reduce drug prices (he said in 2016 he wanted Medicare negotiating drug prices). He has kept a lot of promises, but these are some glaring areas that not a lot of progress was made on.
Do you believe that he hasn't pursued some of these issues because he doesn't want to upset special interests that would do everything they could to prevent reelection? Will he have more conviction when reelection isn't a concern of his? Or did he not believe in them at all?
Also, I wanted to get the feelings of the community on what types of candidates will run after Trump is out of office, whether that be this November or in another 4 1/2 years. Will they continue running more nationalistic and populist-like candidates, or will they return to the typical Bush neo-con-type presidents? I have heard a lot of support for having Pence run, but I'm not sure that he is palatable to most independents or that he can be as confrontational when he needs to be.
So, in the future:
For Conservatives: who do you want to run in 2024?
For Liberals: who is a Republican that you could potentially see yourself voting for in 2024?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"Fly-over" America deserves a voice too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I’ll have to see what happens after Trump is out. Don’t know if they’ll return to their normal bs after Trump.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
do you really want trump to win so you can pretend you're being principled?
I would love that. Stick it to the man, comrades! Four more years!!!!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Gosh dang! You two can’t just body slam me like that! How can I motivate myself to simultaneously take on two of the best debaters on the site on a topic I am only moderately informed on?!?! REEE!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Not even, bro. Lmao. He said nothing about gay people in the video or even race. All he talked about was that WHO is favoring China and how we spend billions of dollars for bad advice.Censor anything that you think is racist and homophobic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, don't read that h0m0ph0b1c, r@c1$t @$$h0l3'$ response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why not? Don't you want to have a laugh at the people you want to kill? Hitler did.
Haha, what???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Sorry didn't keep it concise lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Thanks for your patience. I will try to be concise.
I have a hard time believing that Israeli troops generally aren't being used to address issues related to illegal immigration, given that it's a near-existential threat for them. Just because they aren't stationed on the border doesn't mean that they aren't functioning in anything related to immigration or anti-terrorism, which are inherently linked in their case. I agree, America having more soldiers wouldn't put most of them on the border. That's part of the difference between Israel and America in this regard.
And I am having a hard time believing that the vast majority of Israeli troops are involved with illegal immigration. Because that is what you would have to be asserting for your point on forced conscription and higher military to civilian ratio to be relevant. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter that they have more troops available if not a vastly higher number of them are related to illegal immigration than the US can afford to equally provide for its border defense. And the numbers I have found online simply aren't leading me to that conclusion.
I believe that I was quite generous in the troops per mile calculation because in my calculation I pretended that all of the border guard were put on the 150 mile stretch in question to come up with 40 troops per mile. Obviously not all of them are there, and it was my intention to ignore that to allow for a decent margin of error.
Now, the border guard is diverse in application, including special riot teams and other such divisions, so I don't know why a potentially large number of military troops would be involved in illegal immigration and not be a part of the border guard.
We can easily afford the liberal estimate of 40 troops per mile based solely on military reserves, and I would urge you to provide a source backing the claim that their border patrol numbers are too high for us to match to reach similar levels of illegal immigration curtailment.
We're not just talking about desert ecosystems, hence I'm talking about floodplains and river banks (though to be clear, we do prize some desert ecosystems, hence Death Valley, Joshua Tree, the Mojave National Preserve, Red Rock Canyon and others). They do have much broader effects. We could cover those, though I do think it's somewhat tangential to dig into those too deeply.
Suffice to say that this is also something that would need to be made on a case-by-case basis similar to the commercial market concerns expressed earlier. I will take your word that there will be some cases in which the wall will become more expensive in order to maintain these ecosystems. Either that, or there could just be increased troops presence in these areas as the lack of wall will attract illegal immigrants to these areas.
I guess my perspective is that this "full steam ahead" approach to the wall is inherently damaging if it brushes over considerations of commerce and ecosystems. I agree, the Trump administration is likely a lot more focused on getting it built than on the logistics regarding passage through it. That's generally what I find so problematic in this regard. I understand that they don't feel that another administration would take building the wall seriously (they're probably right), but I don't think these are issues that we can realistically paper over. From my perspective, if Republicans want to show that the wall is a necessity for future administrations to continue building and maintaining, then they should be focused on ensuring that it doesn't cause undue harms that their opponents can continually cite against it. Preparing for these problems makes their positions far less assailable, though I guess that's not the point.
I couldn't agree more. I am not entirely pleased with what I have seen with their approach. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world in which we have time and partisan politics makes this impossible. The current Administration has had to go through so many hoops just to simply get funding for the wall, that it is a primary concern that planning has unfortunately not been possible when funds are an uncertainty.
Now, while the Trump Administration has had a perverse incentive to build the wall by all means necessary, it could also be said that the Democrats have a perverse incentive to block the wall, even if they believed it was a good idea. Trump was elected on building the wall, and it would be a lot easier to get reelected building an imperfect wall that is more "assailable" than it could be than to defend the position of "I know you elected me to build the wall and I tried to, but I have nothing to show for four years". The Democrats know this and it is a political game. If they actually cared, they would be the ones arguing for a wall that takes every little detail into consideration. But you have Nancy Pelosi saying that simply "a wall is n immorality". It isn't, and she knows it, but they will attack it to destroy his campaign promise.
So overall, the options are: have a "full steam ahead approach" or have no wall at all. I would prefer the "full steam ahead approach" reluctantly because the issues of stopping drugs and illegal immigrants are such vital issues to solve right now.
That being said, in a situation where everyone's terrified, it's all the more important for our leaders to present information clearly and correctly. Trump did say that the FDA had approved the use of chloroquine to treat patients infected with COVID-19, which is blatantly false. That sends the message that this is a safe and effective treatment for this infection, which it is not. This treatment has only been tested in vitro, which is insufficient evidence to show that patients should be taking this medication. Trump's statement in no way reflected this, and he can at least partly be blamed for shortages of these drugs across the country, though admittedly, many of these people may have decided to buy these meds based solely on the preliminary scientific evidence. Even if I assume that's entirely the result of people making dumb decisions, though, Trump shouldn't be feeding into those mentalities by bolstering a false narrative about this medication. That in and of itself is dangerous.
I have found out that the woman likely killed her husband *conspiracy theory perhaps, so no need to argue about it, but just food for thought because it is interesting* Also, the Blaze reported on it, so expect bias. So, the woman had been arrested for domestic abuse against her husband and had expressed desire for a divorce. She had been diagnosed with PTSD, had anxiety, and had a long history of voting for Democrats. So, I doubt a big time Democrat would take the president at his word, but maybe. If you want to see the whole story, take a gander here. https://www.theblaze.com/news/woman-who-blamed-trump-for-her-husbands-chloroquine-death-is-dem-donor-who-was-once-charged-with-domestic-abuse-in-divorce-argument
As for that press briefing, the FDA commissioner stated that it would be allowed to be prescribed under "compassionate use", which is where they allow an experimental drug to be used on patients. This requires FDA approval, which is what Trump was likely referring to. That clarification was made during the briefing by the FDA commissioner. https://www.businessinsider.com/chloroquine-remdesivir-compassionate-use-coronavirus-what-it-means-2020-3
Trump has not only said that quote that you put above for GrayParrot, but he has also said things like:
“so we know if things don't go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody.”
“I think it could be a game-changer, and maybe not,”
So he by no means was saying this was some miracle drug. Most of his optimistic statements were followed by statements about how it might not actually work. So, while this could influence some individuals to try to obtain the drug, you also have to contrast that with the other option of being pessimistic and offering no potential solutions, which would have led to more panic. You have to be an optimistic leader during troubling times. Imagine if FDR said something like "we may get out of this depression some day, but I have no clue when that will be. I don't even know how we will get there". You have to be confident and try to create that light at the end of the tunnel for people.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, yes. The ideal solution would be to make the monopolistic insurance companies more competitive because a competitive private sector has the best incentive structure. So, I would personally like to see actions to make that happen from a Republican president and then anyone who truly cannot afford it after that could perhaps get a voucher to a private company or something of that sort.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really think it would be ideal for each state to have their own plans. They generally control costs better than the federal government and they can tailor their coverage to meet the needs of their people. Some states have more air pollution, so they will need to cover respiratory issues more broadly, for instance. Only issue I could see with that is making sure that out-of-state hospitals would accept your insurance if you had a heart attack, car crash, etc. out of your home state. A federal plan would aid in solving that particular issue.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
At the same time because the US only needs to breakeven with such a program rather than achieve max profit, the buy-in for the public option could be low enoughthat it would keep the private healthcare providers form making their costs too high otherwise people would just keep opting for the public option.
With our current borderline-monopolistic system, the max-profit model is certainly hurting us. However, firms have an incentive to keep costs low and prices high to maximize profits. With competition, they have an incentive to undercut their competitions' prices as well, making it great for consumers. Bureaucratic institutions have an incentive to maximize costs to expand their budgets, so I'm not sure if it this may cost us more in the long-run.
And while I certainly hope this reaches the happy medium as outlined above, I hope that this doesn't just continue to do what Medicaid/Medicare have done in the past. Historically, they have underpaid hospitals, which has shifted the bill to private insurers, which is also part of the reason that private insurance is so costly. This may just be another nail in the coffin for private insurers if the public option continues this trend.
Regardless of what we do, we need to make insurance more affordable for everyone, and the Republican party is unfortunately making this a secondary-issue it seems.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Reason #3) His platform wasn't practical.
Something else to add is that the Bernie crowd likes to tout the idea that "Medicare for All" is a popular policy based on opinion polls. However, when they actually get into the specifics of the plan, by mentioning things such as raising taxes and elimination of private insurance, the support for the plan is well below half. The most popular plan once informed of what M4A actually means is a public option, which Biden is running on. So, Medicare for All likely wouldn't even pass with a Democrat majority. As a conservative, I would honestly not be too opposed to a public option, although I would need it to come with private insurance reforms to make them more competitive, therefore making it a viable alternative to government healthcare.
That being said, partisanship would likely lead to Republicans blocking a public option just because no party likes the other party's president getting anything done. Nothing will likely change by much no matter who is elected in November barring some landslide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
With allies like the UN and WHO giving a pass to China for helping create and spread Covid19...who needs enemies?
100x this! They just take our money and give nothing but orders and/or finger wagging in return. Because we should pay money to be "obligated" to take refugees.... Such a waste. Our "allies" just like to take advantage of us by having us pay for all of their defenses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
and doing that slowly through government policy over years would be one thing. Doing it by order during a crisis that is almost guaranteed to cause further shortages and will certainly piss off America's closest ally, is a shitty way to go though.
I'm not saying it is an optimal position, but saying that we should continue to export millions of masks that are currently manufactured when we are suffering from shortages is a much worse position. Sure, we could stay on good terms with Canada by saving their citizens instead of ours, but I doubt it is worth it.
Yes, work on slowly bringing back supply lines in the future, but right now, worry about keeping hospitals in America stocked up. I'm really not buying the idea that the only place to get sufficient materials are from Canada, even, or that they will stop supplying us (their companies are also capitalists trying to turn a profit).
Canada is america's closest ally. They are supplying the materials needed to make the masks. Without Canadian products, there are no masks. So ordering a company to refuse to sell any masks to Canada, and likely destroying their ability to make masks at all is both counter productive to supplying america with masks as well as screwing over other co-operation that might have come from Canada during this and other crises.
Apparently there was a deal worked out to import over 100 million of its masks from China and continue to export masks to Canada. I'm fine with this development. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/us-blocks-face-masks-canada-n95-protection-equipment
even if they sold no masks to anyone else, they couldn't meet the demand in america. Are you advocating for america saying "fuck you" to all of it's allies and screwing them over in a crisis? Because believe what you want, but america cannot survive and thrive without it's friends and allies.
They really haven't helped us out recently. They try to dictate how we act through the UN. They don't help fight terrorism in the Middle East, which is more their problem than ours. Not even helping combat predatory Chinese trade, which hurts them as well. They don't even contribute as much to NATO as they AGREED to. We have carried their burden long enough- I think we can take care of ourselves. These just really show the need for policies that allow us to survive alone. We are better off with allies, but we shouldn't need them.
no, that is not even remotely what I am saying. where did you get that idea from?
Punishing successful people: you are against low taxes
Shipping out jobs referred to high regulation and corporate taxes, which make America a more expensive business environment to operate in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
wow that is completely fucked up. You want government controls so that companies will be forced to disrupt their supply lines and cause people to die during a crisis. But no government controls when companies are cutting corners and killing people during the rest of the time.
I am advocating for moving supply lines back to the US through protectionist policies so that they won't be disrupted during a crisis.
I want necessary materials to go to American citizens. I guess you just care about Canadian citizens more than Americans... for some reason.
When did you become the hands-off government-type? Being libertarian just to contradict me?
no, the materials needed to make the masks come from canada. If the US refuses to allow the masks to be sold to Canada, then not only can they not produce the masks for Canadians, they can't produce any for americans either. You are saying that 3M should stop producing masks for as long as it takes to get a new supplier, which could be weeks or months.
I'm more concerned about the future implications of all of this and how it proves that we cannot suffer this outsourcing of necessary industries. However, I would say that 3M should certainly give preference to Americans, not necessarily that they should stop sending all masks to Canada. We had a government worker put in an order and offer money because he needed masks for our medical workers. The order was rejected, and that should not be allowed.
i see. so you want the worst aspects of both. Cruel authoritarian control, but also cruel, heartless greed.
I see. so you want the worst aspects of both. Punishing successful people domestically and shipping out vital industries so that our national security is constantly threatened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh remember, buddy. They want FrEe CoLlEgE too.People don’t go through med school and accrue thousands of dollars in debt just to get less money with socialized healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so let me get this straight. you are now advocating for state controls on companies. You realize that makes you a communist right?
I don't care what this makes me. I am advocating for state coercion of companies if they act against the country's interest during times of crisis, such as a pandemic or war. During the rest of the time, they should be left on their own because state direction of resources is not viable is the long-run whatsoever. In the short term, a little inefficiency is worth it to protect medical personnel.
In the long-term, I would like protectionism to keep vital industries in operation. Preferably these would be privately-run companies, but not necessarily.
Ok. so your argument is that you should screw over your ally, and therefore reduce the amount of masks available both for them and for Americans because they might theoretically do the same to you? do you see how you are advocating for causing the problem you think you are avoiding?
Masks are being given to foreign countries in preference to ours, when some cities are running into shortages. Federal employees had the funds and put in an order at 3M and the request was denied. Companies operating in America should have a duty to America first. The argument that "there will be less masks overall" is just a BS statement put out by them to justify making a larger profit by selling to the highest bidder.
so you want the government to control what companies are allowed to do, who they can trade with etc. When did you become a communist?
Well, in the past month, I have become more nationalistic, but hardly a communist. Not to big of a fan of the "free market". Still like low taxes and little regulation, but more protectionist and not really tolerant of letting companies sell out America.
As outlined above, only when there is some sort of very pressing emergency do I think this is a good idea to prohibit certain actions from companies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'm not a big Turning Point fan. Too libertarian for my liking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You didn't deny being a dog, though! Aha!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lmao, you dirty dog. American lives > trade deficit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
We should be investing in our country to make sure we can also create materials for masks. We shouldn't have to depend on foreign countries for our own safety. That doesn't make sense. Because when there is a global emergency, such as the one we are experiencing, a nation has a duty to look out for its citizens. When it comes down to it, Canada would screw our citizens over to save theirs. If another country is starts stockpiling medical supplies and using it as leverage, as we are seeing China do, then we are entirely at their mercy.
And the "protectionism" I was referring to was for the future about what I just outlined above. We need to make sure that we protect domestic industries vital to our national safety and ensure that we cannot be left out to dry if something like this happens again. We need to bring our supply chains, especially medical supply chains, back to the US from China by any means necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nope, I meant betraying its home country when it needs them most.
Created:
Posted in:
3M, an AMERICAN company, was caught exporting protective gear to foreign countries while their home country was experiencing a crisis. Should companies have some sense of loyalty to their home country, at the very least during times of emergency like we are experiencing? I would certainly argue that they should. Our good markets and taxes are what made them successful, so they should in turn have a duty to help us.
3M says that they don't want to jeophardize their trade relations with other countries under an export ban. They would much prefer that we countries get into bidding wars with one another. Canada is worried that their medical workers may be imperiled when an export ban is implemented.
This really shows the issues with globalism/free trade. We, for many medical devices and drugs, have China create them for us. They are a borderline-hostile regime. Our country's safety should not be dictated by foreign powers, nor others be based on ours, as Canada and Latin America will soon learn. Outsourcing critical industries is a mistake.
Perhaps people will begin to adopt protectionist and nationalist policies in the future, at the very least I hope we do! I certainly support pro-market policies during times when these devices aren't critical for our national security, but this conflict of interest cannot be tolerated during a pandemic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
because investing in future technologies is bad.... for some reason.
Personally, I have no issue with the tax credits. But that is something that should be pushed in a separate bill. It has nothing to do with helping out Americans affected by this crisis, and its intention was to cause a partisan divide.
because in a democracy, people being able to vote without having to jump through hoops is bad.... for some reason....
Voter fraud is bad for democracy.
You're missing the point. You can disagree or agree with a lot of what they tried to put in the bill. The point is that a crisis is no time to attempt to slip pork barrel BS into a bill to further your ideology. The bill's sole purpose should be to help Americans as quickly as possible. If the American people want these unrelated things, they will elect you in the future so you can pass them.
For instance, I would agree with a third-trimester abortion ban. However, if Republicans put that provision in a bill meant to aid workers put out of a job because of Coronavirus, I would be pissed that they are taking advantage of a crisis to sneakily push an agenda.
yeah, shovel as much taxpayer money as possible to billionaires as fast as possible. Super easy. Doesn't fix anything though.
It was easy to fix to make it accepted by the other side. Simply add oversight and then they have no problem passing it. Other items like voter ID need to be taken out entirely. There is no fixing that part of the bill. It doesn't belong there.
democracy and investing in new technology.... how evil.
Nice framing. Holding Americans hostage to push tax credits and hoping to increase voter fraud. See? I can frame things too. Doesn't contribute much to the discussion, though.
they wanted to bleed taxpayers of trillions of dollars so they can funnel it to the richest people in america. That is a horrible plan.
And the Democrats are complicit in it. Don't try to make this all about Republicans. I'm angry about it, too. Every day the news is making me much more populist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well, I believe it was a bill more tenable than the ones that Democrats offered, with solar and wind tax credits of all things..... Also trying to eliminate voter ID. Republicans' bill was an easy fix. Democrats did the same exact thing- holding Americans hostage to push a stupid agenda. Republicans just wanted a lot of money with no supervision, not attempting to make huge changes to the way our country operates.
And btw, I don't like the Republicans, but unfortunately because of our two party system, I have to vote for them because I hate them less than the Democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The real issue is how politics works. The Republicans made a really good political move that dicked the Democrats. They made a bill that had some good and some bad provisions. They publicized the easily-recognizable benefits, but the Democrats couldn’t pass the bill because of the complex “bad” things. They then looked terrible for blocking the good relief. The Democrats then tried to do the same thing, but their bill had very noticeably unrelated items in it.
Nobody wanted to get stuck with the blame for not getting aid to the Americans that needed it, so a very imperfect bill was passed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I find it odd that people of essentially every political persuasion can agree with what you just said, but this bill got passed essentially unopposed by both political parties. Perhaps this is why voter turnout is so shit- no matter who you vote for, it is the same corrupt bullshit of us getting taxed one way or another to pay for special interests.
Fuck cruiselines that don’t employ many Americans and (as you point out) do everything they can to avoid our taxes. Fuck incompetent airlines, and fuck globalism, which has shafted American workers and put our medical personnel at the mercy of China, who produces most of our medical gear.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Hopefully voters will have memories longer than a week, they'll remember her scaring Amazon jobs away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ha, you bigot. You think there are only 58 genders?
As a half-eaten Go-Gurt tube, I find this offensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Are you just mad that he will pick a transgender instead of you for his “female sex expert”?
Created: