(Opinion) I Wonder About Democrats...

[spartan max2]

18 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Hell full blown Republicans are no longer truly "conservative"...

They just want to blow massive amounts of money on  different things.

My state voted in a Republican governor this last cycle.

First thing he has tried to do is tax gas 18 cents a gallon lol

What is the point of having a R gov if my taxes still go up  lol

Edited March 28, 2019 by spartan max2

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

My state voted in a Republican governor this last cycle.

First thing he has tried to do is tax gas 18 cents a gallon lol

What is the point of having a R gov if my taxes still go up  lol

It's just the way it goes.  If something really needs to be done, vote in the party that says they don't do it.  That way there is no opposition when they break their word and do it anyways.  We've had Branstad for dang near 30 years and he did most of the tax hikes on gas as well: https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/tns-iowa-gas-tax.html

Trump appointing him to ambassador to China was one of his few smart moves.  Xi and Branstad were buddies long before Xi became president.  They toured Iowa Agriculture together, it's how the basis of many of Iowa's soy and pork deals came to be with China.  Xi got to see first hand what we do and how it benefits both countries (and also how to put hurt on it). Pity he had to strain that relationship with the current trade war. 

[aztek]

52 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

My state voted in a Republican governor this last cycle.

First thing he has tried to do is tax gas 18 cents a gallon lol

What is the point of having a R gov if my taxes still go up  lol

and a democrat would tax it by 98c,  they have to pay for free education for illegals somehow, and welfare for those unwilling to work

Edited March 28, 2019 by aztek

[Gromdor]

15 minutes ago, aztek said:

and a democrat would tax it by 98c,  they have to pay for free education for illegals somehow, and welfare for those unwilling to work

That's what Republican candidates say, yes. 

[RavenHawk]

39 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That's what Republican candidates say, yes. 

A Prog would say that everyone is getting free gas and then hope that people aren’t paying attention when they raise gas taxes.

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

A Prog would say that everyone is getting free gas and then hope that people aren’t paying attention when they raise gas taxes.

 

Really, that would be great!   Oh wait, I checked.  No prog ever said that........

But you guys are demonstrating what I said earlier.  Not a peep from either you or Aztek about how horrible it was that a Republican governor had to do it.  You know, because it would be so much worse with a Democrat governor. 

[aztek]

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Really, that would be great!   Oh wait, I checked.  No prog ever said that........

But you guys are demonstrating what I said earlier.  Not a peep from either you or Aztek about how horrible it was that a Republican governor had to do it.  You know, because it would be so much worse with a Democrat governor. 

absolutely, it is always worst with democrats. 

[RavenHawk]

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Really, that would be great!   Oh wait, I checked.  No prog ever said that........

Then you aren't paying attention to current events.  The Green New Deal is just the latest scheme to fleece America.

 

 

 

Quote

But you guys are demonstrating what I said earlier.  Not a peep from either you or Aztek about how horrible it was that a Republican governor had to do it.  You know, because it would be so much worse with a Democrat governor. 

 

I haven’t said anything because it doesn’t make sense.  I obviously don’t have the full story to be able to comment on it enough.  If I would take it at face value, then I’d say he was not a Republican or at least a Rino.  Until I know more, that’s the only peep you’ll hear from me.

Edited March 28, 2019 by RavenHawk

[Phaeton80]

20 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You’re starting to sound like me.  The extremes are so far out that they are actually the same.  As I’ve said before, if you take the standard political spectrum and fold it in half, the two extremes end up traveling together.  What’s left are the true Conservative/Tea Party and Democrats that have left the party to become Independents or Libertarians.  This is what is left of the original Federalist/anti-Federalist, Classical Conservative/Liberal ideology.  Trump is right there but because the extremes are so far out that to them, he is extreme along with the rest of us Deplorables.

 

 

 

Isn’t the Netherlands under a parliamentary system?  So ultimately you have coalitions that form two sides?  Sounds like a head to head situation.

 

We dont have a two party system; our parties are populated across the spectrum; most of them employ both 'left' as well as 'right' policies. Our nation isnt cut up in two opposing sides like yours seems to be (and increassingly so). Thats based on observations from across the pond mind you, but thats how it seems from where Im standing.

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

We dont have a two party system; our parties are populated across the spectrum; most of them employ both 'left' as well as 'right' policies. Our nation isnt cut up in two opposing sides like yours seems to be (and increassingly so). Thats based on observations from across the pond mind you, but thats how it seems from where Im standing.

But you still form two coalitions.  The one in power and the one out of power.  Otherwise, nothing gets done.  And I bet that the majority of one can be categorized as Liberal and the other Conservative.

[Phaeton80]

24 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

But you still form two coalitions.  The one in power and the one out of power.  Otherwise, nothing gets done.  And I bet that the majority of one can be categorized as Liberal and the other Conservative.

 

Look, we dont identify or classify others in simple terms of Left or Right as civilians because our parties do thesame, and as a rule we certainly dont hate others based on those labels. If you cant see the obvious reprecussions of a two party system populated by a single Left/Liberal and Right/Conservative party in terms of potential for division, you might want to take some time to reflect on it some more.

[Ashotep]

Democrats and republicans alike will pluck you over, they will just do it in different ways.  Right now the left has went so far left I don't think they are even the same party anymore.  They seem to be the party of foreigners, especially illegals and free everything.  You would have to be deaf dumb and blind to not see there is a national emergency at our southern border but the left doesn't care.  How are we suppose to be able to help our poor, which we should, when you have people swarming across the border with their hand out.  What will end up happening is no one will get any help.

[ShadowSot]

10 minutes ago, Ashotep said:

Democrats and republicans alike will pluck you over, they will just do it in different ways.  Right now the left has went so far left I don't think they are even the same party anymore.  They seem to be the party of foreigners, especially illegals and free everything.  You would have to be deaf dumb and blind to not see there is a national emergency at our southern border but the left doesn't care.  How are we suppose to be able to help our poor, which we should, when you have people swarming across the border with their hand out.  What will end up happening is no one will get any help.

Trump turned down a deal which secured funding for his border wall and spent non of the funding allocated for border security in order to get a wall. If anything he's aiming to make the problem worse. 

 Note that the deal he was presented with was bipartisan and he agreed to sign it if it was so. Backing out of it showed he wasn't going to work with elected officials to get his wall built, making a stalemate. 

 In his own words, it's not really an emergency. 

 Border crossing has been in steady decline for over a decade. 

 As far as free stuff goes, I'd like to think we can successfully adopt working policies that have benefited other country's population instead of buying more tanks and planes to be mothballed. 

[aztek]

4 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Trump turned down a deal which secured funding for his border wall and spent non of the funding allocated for border security in order to get a wall. If anything he's aiming to make the problem worse. 

 

if anything you have no idea what else was attached to that bill, i have 0 doubt trump had a good reason to refuse. 

[ShadowSot]

5 minutes ago, aztek said:

if anything you have no idea what else was attached to that bill, i have 0 doubt trump had a good reason to refuse. 

The proposal included protection for DACA which was supported by Republicans and funding for the wall and border security. It didn't include ending visa or chain migration, but did offer a compromise that offered what Republicans wanted. 

Well, Republicans aren't any more desiring of a wall really, so more what Trump wanted. As noted when his own proposal failed. 

 That failing Trump has resorted to decreasing demands for funding without any compromise and is now allocating funding away from other funding. Some of this resulted in removing his bargaining chips. 

 

 

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/26/2019 at 9:32 PM, Likely Guy said:

I'm glad that this was given as an 'opinion' piece and not the gospel. That way there might be a decent discussion.

Through four pages or so, a lot of partisan surface chatter thus far.

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/26/2019 at 9:54 PM, Likely Guy said:

Oh. The BIG thread. I asked a couple questions early on and left well enough alone.

But the premise of this thread, like most opinion pieces, is tainted in that it assumes all democrats/liberals/progressives to be Anti-American.

Like most opinion pieces though, you can take it or leave it for what it's worth.

Separating Democrats from liberals/progressives is a requirement. Most lib/prog folks I've chatted with seem to be anti-current version of America in almost every comment they make. They seem to want to become Sweden or the country the Founders fled. Hard to use those countries as a template when they are 1/5th and 1/33rd the size of the US. And both have their own issues.

Same with Republicans, the establishment, lifer R's (RINO's) are gutless and not nearly as gifted in the game of rhetoric played by the left. Conservatives and Tea Party folks hate RINO's as bad as the left does.

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/26/2019 at 10:00 PM, Raptor Witness said:

Look, this is not an argument about how wonderful conservatism is, anymore, it's an argument about backwards vs. forwards, thinking. The GOP is living in the stone age on almost every issue I can think of.

I'm done with all of the GOP .....   DONE!

LOL, the Stone Age huh? Enforcing laws, showing deference to innocent, law abiding people, asking people to be responsible for themselves...that's backwards thinking?

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/27/2019 at 2:39 AM, ShadowSot said:

 

While it should not be done without majority consent, the constitution is not holey writ. It must be tested, reexamined, and rebuilt to purpose. 

 

 

Agree here. The issue, as you likely well know, is that the left has no interest in following the methods of amending the Constitution. They use the activist courts to do their bidding when they know they don't have the votes on their own side, much less the other side. Changing the ultimate law of the land should require blood, sweat, tears and time. Instead, they use the court to declare a penalty for not buying a gov't product is actually a tax and thus legal. They enable gay marriage and abortion by legislating from the bench. (And I don't oppose gay marriage at all, just wish they'd make an amendment that can't be undone by the next activist Conservative court). They tie up things in court when they have something to pander to others for votes like immigration law. So the issue here is one of having one side that plays dirty pool to get their way, never conceding an inch, while the other side is left with no choice but to stand their ground or give away the farm and have nothing to show for it. The current brand of leftism doesn't care about what the other side wants.

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/27/2019 at 2:52 AM, ShadowSot said:

Would these men be P. O. W who's name gets drug through the ground by a sitting president for points? 

These people have to be elected. They have to follow precedent (a noted failing as late) and follow the stated law. 

 Despite your fear, this is no more likely than the same complaints and fears coming from the left. 

Let's be honest here, McCain was for McCain and the older he got, the more that was true.

He chose Palin to appeal to women and voters more conservative than him and then trashed her when it didn't work. He fought against repeal and replace when no sane person thought Obamacare was a good idea. And he forwarded a fake dossier because Trump was a jerk to and about him, likely as much because he couldn't win the Presidency as a war hero while Trump won as a foul-mouthed reality TV star. He wasn't a maverick, he was often guilty of getting even towards the end. I probably wouldn't trash McCain post-death, but I won't prop him up either.

 

[aztek]

1 hour ago, ShadowSot said:

The proposal included protection for DACA which was supported by Republicans and funding for the wall and border security. It didn't include ending visa or chain migration, but did offer a compromise that offered what Republicans wanted. 

..................

 

true, but that is the whole idea,  trump does not think what republicans wanted or agreed was good enough,  and he is not alone, reps wanted compromise, trump wants to get the job done.  

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/27/2019 at 3:02 AM, ShadowSot said:

Hey dude. 

Hey. 

First off, you want to make a threat, I'll gladly respond in kind. 

 Yes. This country was never based on Democracy. It's a republic. The founders thought that the poor, unlanded, and un wealthy shouldn't have a choice in this country. 

 Frankly, the countrys development away from that has been historically one of its strengths. 

 Which is why they are following due process. Running for election. Making campaign processes. Responding to what people want. As an example, certain gun regulations have bipartisan support, until they reach the federal level. 

The founders got some things right. They got some things wrong. Some of those things were flatly diasterous to our country, and the handling of the fallout was worse still. 

 

 Maybe you're comfortable with a lobby receiving large donations by a hostile country, I'm not. 

Now, you scare dlittle man can rant and rave at me over the internet as much as you want. I doubt I'll see your tail in any sort of formation. 

 I'm sure as we see social systems underfunded as they're double dipped and having funding cut, we'll see an angry response there as well. 

 As a liberal who generally weighs on the side of non interference I can still respect things like faithfulness, duty, honor, respect, honesty, and again and especially duty. 

 You're currently supporting a man who repeatedly reneged on deals, lied, cheated, had affairs, divorced, squandered, and is still attacking a man who showed honorable courage and is currently cold in the ground. 

 I've read revelations, it sounds familiar. 

 

On 3/27/2019 at 5:12 AM, ShadowSot said:

Honestly it's a flawed plan. Like most government plans it needs to be suggested, reworked, submitted, reworked, disappear into a committee, and later on some kludge together monstrosity of compromise and lobbed interest will be motioned. 

Cart before the horse there. The media first and foremost wants eyes and clicks. The incoming Democrats are getting attention and are popular, so they get more attention over more reasonable and reliable candidates. 

 That isn't to say they don't have a swing, but profit plays a large part. 

 Especially when you have a 24 hour news cycle coupled with general declining viewership as people drop existing mediums and go online. You need to try to attract people who's most in depth interaction with news is sharing memes online. 

We'd be better served to admit that most televised news, save for Fox, is clearly in the tank for the left. Late night talk, most print media (newspaper and mags), all social media and Hollywood as well.

The right gets Fox and talk radio. If we can't agree on that much, the exercise is pointless.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

On 3/27/2019 at 2:43 PM, OverSword said:

There is nothing wrong with the democrats and republicans that two more parties, one left and one right, won't solve.  When the republicans absorbed the tea party and when the democrats absorbed the Sanders people, both parties were forced away from their moderate base in order to satisfy their more extreme voters.  What is needed is for socialists to vote socialist and not democrat and libertarians to vote libertarian and not republican.  That should give a much healthier balance to our narrative and minimize the extreme views we are currently the victims of. This is the only thing that is going to fix our government.  As it is and if things stand we will go from one extreme to the other and the only moves made will p*** off 50% of the people all the time.

Neither side, even the leaners and the more moderate within the groups will ever take the chance to go to three or more major options. The times it's been done...Ross Perot anyone?...it cost one side dearly. This last election was a prime opportunity to have the socialist vs the left moderates, the establishment R hacks and the Tea Party-ish. Problem was, Hillary crushed Bernie illegally, the sixteen R's were so busy being typical politicians that most voters said "screw it, all things being equally putrid, we'll take the outsider". The issue is the new breed's only option is to infest into the old party". Our elections are too close to chance it. And at the end of the day, nearly all voters go with the closest to what they are.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Really, that would be great!   Oh wait, I checked.  No prog ever said that........

But you guys are demonstrating what I said earlier.  Not a peep from either you or Aztek about how horrible it was that a Republican governor had to do it.  You know, because it would be so much worse with a Democrat governor. 

He said while campaigning that he would form a committee to see what to do about infrastructure. How to address the needs while dealing with debt service created by Kasich's leasing idea. Kasich's plan ultimately took on debt Ohio didn't have and someone would have to pay for. If $0.11 (the current rate of acceptance I've read about) addresses infrastructure AND debt service, I'd think everyone would support it over partisan finger pointing. This is the essence of why threads like this must exist. The issue isn't important, it's who can be mocked over it.

[Katniss]

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

LOL, the Stone Age huh? Enforcing laws, showing deference to innocent, law abiding people, asking people to be responsible for themselves...that's backwards thinking?

Maybe he meant the rise of white nationalism, calls for the bible to be taught in public schools again, calls for constitutional amendments to overturn legalized same-sex marriage, deregulation to curtail many environmental protections, tax cuts that really only benefit the most upper class and corporations, and I guess moving in a direction back to isolationism?