Political Roundtable Part XXX

[popper]

Delve in to the chronology of events surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop from the point it was authenticated by the NY Post before the election to last weeks authentification by the NY Times (many months after the election). Why, without evidence did 50 ex-intelligence executives say that it had all the signs of Russian disinformation? At least one poll showed that the election may have turned out differently had voters known that Hunter was vacuuming up cash in Moscow, Ukraine and other foreign countries.

Do you really care about Russian money interfering with American politics? Or do you care about trying to discredit Biden.

Because here you cite a sketchy story reported in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post with sketchy sources VS acknowledged transactions between Jared Kushner and Trump companies exchanging large amounts of cash with Russian oligarchs via Deutsche Bank, and the Trump organization suing to prevent the bank from complying with a Federal subpoena.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html

Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

The Trump foundation being the organization that was ordered to pay $2 million in damages for acting like a private slush fund for Trump instead of supporting the 8 charities that it was supposedly created to benefit.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation

On the one hand we have alleged activity with a questionable chain of evidence of stolen property. Vs actual transactions between Russian oligarchs who are friendly with Putin and Trump's illegal organization. Where multiple employees of the lending bank suggest money laundering is likely and ought to be investigated. But perfectly innocent Trump sued to prevent disclosure.

Of course I care. I think Biden and Trump are both corrupt fools and I don't need to discredit them. They do just fine on their own.

[popper]

is it trolling to drop into a thread like this, throw out wild accusations about censorship and spread white wing conspiracy talking points, stir up a bunch of discussion and then not respond to any of it?

I'm trying to respond but every time I get in to the fourth or fifth paragraph an ad pops up and won't allow me to continue. So I'll respond in pieces.

Ah I feel ya.

Dems asked the Republican nominees if they intended to strike down Roe v Wade and they lied and/or evaded the question. So I don't know what you're expecting when the Republicans ask the same sort of questions from the Dem nominee. I mean, you can ask whatever question you want, so I don't agree these are inappropriate questions. But it would be stupid for KBJ to volunteer more than the Republican nominees did. I do object to the Republican senators who shouted over her and generally ignored the rules. That's childish. The least that can be expected from Senators is to have some dignity, or lacking that have some respect for the office.

You guys should give up on the Hunter Biden thing, it's shameful. You lost that argument when Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskiy over it. It doesn't matter what was on it now. For all we know the whole thing was manufactured by Russian spies anyway. They probably what, sent some honeypot Russian blondes to get him high, stole his laptop and planted all sorts of crazy stuff on it, so Trump could use it during his campaign. So what.

Popper you know you are welcome here. When I say nasty things know that I'm saying it about people who deserve it, like Trump, not about you. People like you and me, we should be on the same side. The true enemy is the billionaires like Trump who are trying to set us poors against each other, so we don't focus on the real source of the problem, which is corrupt bastards like him who twist the rules to get away with whatever they want and noname numbnuts like us get the short end of the stick. Trump hates you, you know that right? He's literally trying to kill you guys with covid. Guys like us, our only defense against power mad lunatics like Trump and Putin is to stick together and not let the right wing propaganda machine drive wedges between us.

I appreciate that Zonk. I invited Pancakes to make a list of important principles and concepts where he thinks we might disagree. My hunch is that we will agree on almost every item. We shall see. I've posted this before but I believe most Americans want honest government, an honest press, a healthy environment, peace in the world and the economic freedom necessary to build a future for themselves. What D or R doesn't want that? If that's true, then we individually exercise judgement on what imperfect candidate gets us closer to that ideal. I don't care whether any candidate has a D or R behind their name. It doesn't affect my vote at all. As I've posted here before, I would have voted for Jim Webb over Trump had he won the D primary.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm trying to respond but every time I get in to the fourth or fifth paragraph an ad pops up and won't allow me to continue. So I'll respond in pieces.

Ah I feel ya.

Dems asked the Republican nominees if they intended to strike down Roe v Wade and they lied and/or evaded the question. So I don't know what you're expecting when the Republicans ask the same sort of questions from the Dem nominee. I mean, you can ask whatever question you want, so I don't agree these are inappropriate questions. But it would be stupid for KBJ to volunteer more than the Republican nominees did. I do object to the Republican senators who shouted over her and generally ignored the rules. That's childish. The least that can be expected from Senators is to have some dignity, or lacking that have some respect for the office.

You guys should give up on the Hunter Biden thing, it's shameful. You lost that argument when Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskiy over it. It doesn't matter what was on it now. For all we know the whole thing was manufactured by Russian spies anyway. They probably what, sent some honeypot Russian blondes to get him high, stole his laptop and planted all sorts of crazy stuff on it, so Trump could use it during his campaign. So what.

Popper you know you are welcome here. When I say nasty things know that I'm saying it about people who deserve it, like Trump, not about you. People like you and me, we should be on the same side. The true enemy is the billionaires like Trump who are trying to set us poors against each other, so we don't focus on the real source of the problem, which is corrupt bastards like him who twist the rules to get away with whatever they want and noname numbnuts like us get the short end of the stick. Trump hates you, you know that right? He's literally trying to kill you guys with covid. Guys like us, our only defense against power mad lunatics like Trump and Putin is to stick together and not let the right wing propaganda machine drive wedges between us.

I appreciate that Zonk. I invited Pancakes to make a list of important principles and concepts where he thinks we might disagree. My hunch is that we will agree on almost every item. We shall see. I've posted this before but I believe most Americans want honest government, an honest press, a healthy environment, peace in the world and the economic freedom necessary to build a future for themselves. What D or R doesn't want that? If that's true, then we individually exercise judgement on what imperfect candidate gets us closer to that ideal. I don't care whether any candidate has a D or R behind their name. It doesn't affect my vote at all. As I've posted here before, I would have voted for Jim Webb over Trump had he won the D primary.

Imperfect as they were, Unions were a great way to bring everybody together in the same room and counter all the disinformation out there designed to set us against each other. Now that global competition and the advance in technology has made it impossible for unions to function we're pretty much at the mercy of anybody with an agenda and enough money to bribe some cable "news" company to push it. The internet is a useful tool but what it seems to be best at is helping us create little bubbles around ourselves that just make it easier to manipulate us.

I'm not going to say both sides are equally guilty, because clearly there's a side that has gone completely off the deep end. But I have noticed on my twitter timeline that everybody wants their opinion to be protected from criticism, and they want people who disagree with them sent to jail. In our primitive lizard brains we are all authoritarian. Tolerance for opposing viewpoints does not come naturally to us. It's ok to say Trump is scum. It's not ok to demand the FCC take Fox News off the air.

That's what's so hard about getting an honest press, an honest government, economic freedom. How you get there is key. If you get an honest press by using the terrifying power of the government's monopoly on violence to point guns at news agencies you don't agree with so they'll shut up, that's a double edged sword that will be used the most viciously by the most evil people. You absolutely do not want that. The only other route is for everybody to get together and hold the government and the press accountable for lying. But then we all have to agree on what is a lie, and that's hard with everybody carved up into different information bubbles. And let's face it, under capitalism, lies are what make the most money. Fox News is making money hand over fist, it's the biggest cable "news" organization in the country. Well, I shouldn't pick on Fox News, who at least report somewhat straight news during the day, the lies are mainly during the opinion segments when liars like Tucker Carlson come on.

We all have to agree to stop voting for people because they tear down our so-called enemies and vote for people who are trying to bring us together. In my experience almost all of those candidates are what we consider the far left. I don't know what to do about the far left always asking for handouts. Intellectually I know that's fair - automation is destroying jobs and funneling money from workers to the owners of capital and there's no invisible hand of the market preventing that from happening, quite the opposite. But the moderate lib desire to be rewarded for grinding academically is not invalid, and entrepreneurs who hustle out a living running a business deserve to be rewarded too. And the hustlers and the grinders will create jobs to help lift everybody else out of poverty. That's where a lot of our solutions have to come from.

I think the compromise is to recognize that income inequality has become so extreme in this country that having a $400 medical bill can bankrupt you. I think we can afford safety nets that prevent that from happening, without eliminating the incentive to grind and hustle. I think that is the kind of political discussion we need to be having right now, not who is toughest on crime or who can say the meanest things about our opponents.

Right now we're literally living in a nightmarish capitalist dystopia with rampant homelessness and drug addiction. Our health care system is so broken that a $400 medical bill can bankrupt you. Black people are literally living in a police state. Kids today who don't have a college degree have no future, unless you're one of the lucky 1 out of 10 people with the entrepreneurial talent to successfully run a business. Kids with college degrees but don't have rich parents are saddled with career crippling debt. We are all under assault by the Trumps of the world who want to fool us into thinking this is ok, that it's desirable. It's NOT. We have to do something about it. Hustling and grinding is how we get out of this problem, but hustling and grinding alone isn't going to address homelessness, it's not going to fix the criminal justice system, it won't fix the opioid epidemic, it's not going to keep the super wealthy from hoovering up higher and higher shares of the country's income, leaving the rest of us to fight with each other over the scraps. We have to agree to work together on these things, to concede that sacrifices need to be made until these problems get solved. Potentially big sacrifices, and probably we're going to need the billionaires to contribute a lot. The billionaires are going to fight like hell against us and they are really powerful. It's not going to be easy, and that's why we have to have each other's backs.

[pancakes3]

KBJ is a nothing of a story. She should be confirmed with no more controversy than Gorsuch, and Gorsuch wrote that contraception destroys fertilized eggs (uh, it doesn't). stoking fears that KBJ is some sort of neo-black panther who's facilitating child trafficking is slander. the only reason she's in the news cycle is so that Fox doesn't have to continue to run stories on the Ukrainian war where their stars keep sticking their foot in their mouths re: Putin.

Nobody cared about SCOTUS nominations prior to Garland's failed nomination and now it's a circus. Kagan was confirmed 63-37. Sotomayor 68-31. Alito 58-42. Roberts 78-22. Breyer 87-9, and RBG 96-3. The last SCOTUS nominee that even came close to not being confirmed was Coke-Can Clarence at 52-48. This is because (a) Republicans love politicizing the Court; and (b) Republicans can't help but nominate nutjobs.

Prior to Garland, the last 3 failed nominations were all Republican nominations: Robert Bork, G. Harrold Carswell, and Clement Haynsworth.

Carswell and Haynsworth were both Nixon nominations, and both failed because they wrote opinions in support of segregation, like upholding the decision of an entire county to shut down their public schools rather than integrate. This led to Nixon nominating Harry Blackmun, who happened to be the author of the Roe decision.

Bork's nomination in 1987, 20 years after the civils rights act, failed on a double whammy because he was on the record as criticizing the civil rights act not only racist beliefs(segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.), but also sexist beliefs (equal pay, right to privacy, etc.)

Like, sorry, but these guys are freaks. There are 2 justices on this court that have credible accusations of sexual assault. ACB is in a cult that preaches religious obedience of the wife to the husband. Even Gorsuch, he actually believes that contraception destroys a fertilized egg, and that a fertilized egg means something, in a moral/soul context. The influences of Church in the State are undeniable. These are not the best and brightest, but they are the ones who have proven to be most doggedly dogmatic to the Republican (FedSoc) agenda of reversing Roe, protect corporate interests, and expand executive power.

It's not to say all republican judges are rapists, or religious wackjobs. But the names that keep cropping up on the FedSoc list of nominees certainly are. And this is all for a reason - the last thing that capital R republicans want is another Blackmun, who can't be controlled, and actually judges things based on the merits and a neutral, unbiased opinion on law.

I would be appalled if it came out that a Dem candidate had sexual assault allegations, and would absolutely demand that a different candidate be found. I am similarly appalled when a Republican candidate does. This turnabout simply doesn't exist for Republicans, and THAT to me is the frustrating thing. THAT is why I have to laugh when Nate or Popper or any number of other Republicans poke their heads in here and say "Oh it's never civil discourse with you people."

Ok, bro. How about you just take more than 2 seconds to evaluate the state of events before just digging your heels in along party lines out of default.

Ok bro. How about you take more than 2 seconds to evaluate where you and I may differ on important issues. I have 10+ years of history here so that shouldn't be difficult for you. List them and I'll address each according to my honest beliefs and positions. I think you will be quite surprised.

ok well, the initial post was about partisan support about SC nominees and my point still stands:

Why were you supportive of Kavannaugh and ACB - candidates that have such large skeletons in their closets? why does the Republican Party feel so confident in nominating these candidates and other similarly skeletoned nominees (thomas, bork, et. al)? Why are you taking the same umbrage to KBJ who has much less controversy embroiled in her confirmation? You have to understand that Senator Blackburn's question was not just inappropriate but poorly phrased. KBJ was not just being political in her response in that she cannot define a "woman" as asked. There are so many different factors to address that she couldn't give an answer. Even the X-Y chromosonal basis is not entire scientifically accurate, and that only addresses sex, not gender. It gets even more eye-rolly after you consider the political machinations that R's pulled on Garland that everyone knows that she's not being asked questions in good faith.

But to your larger point, I think the disconnect will be on what are important issues, and proposals on achieving those issues. i don't doubt that you want what's best for america, or that we have differing views on what is "best" for america. I just don't think Republicans have an articulable strategy on how to get there.

To me the top 3 issues facing America today are:

1) wage inequality
2) climate change
3) immigration.

and the goals of these issues are:

1) achieving greater parity in wealth distribution, such that the general population (everyone) is able to satisfy their basic, and even intermediate needs in an affordable manner. this means housing, education, childcare, and healthcare.
2) having a comprehensive policy that reduces emissions and pollution in such a way that mitigates and reverses the impact that fossil fuels and other pollutants have on the planet, and its inhabitants.
3) having a system that can handle the influx in labor, and manages that labor accordingly, and in conjunction with goal 1, is able to treat this influx of labor as human beings and not a subclass.

with a caveat that there is an umbrella issue, the fact that both political parties are actively engaged in distracting from issues 1-3, and other important issues in favor of less important issues so as to further stoke culture wars. with a further caveat that Republicans are much more engaged in the distraction, because, again, at least Dems have proposals for 1-3, and Republicans have thus far offered nothing as far as platforms, Trump, Webb, Cruz, or otherwise.

so to facilitate discussion, I don't believe that a) you think that my top 3 issues are the same as the top 3 issues you see as most important for this country; and b) there is no articulated political position on the side of the Republicans to address 1-3. feel free to rebut, but I'm fairly certain I already know the answer, because I am a reformed libertarian and have trump-voting parents.

I'm fairly certain the rebuttal is going to be:

1) can't interfere with the free market; no handouts
2) free market
3) free market; no handouts

which, again, goes to my previous point about Republicans carving out an obstructionist niche for them politically. nothing can be done, dem proposals are pipe dreams, therefor keep with the GOP for the status quo, or a return to a status quo where things were "good." but how exactly would that happen? my parents bought their first house for $135k and now it's worth $600k. They've bought 3 more properties since then, for $125k, $230k, and $300k, and are worth $550k, 650k, and $700k now. there is no way for me to live a life that was equally as great as my parents, while having my parents retain the fruits of their investments. we are already living in late stage capitalism, where by definition, money is consolidated by the "successful." there is no mechanism in capitalism to redistribute wealth. money is consolidated in the successful and those who fail get nothing. you extend that out across the generations and you have the children of previous failures destined to fail through no fault of their own - trapped in poverty. it's no way to run a country.

but ok, prove me wrong.

[popper]

KBJ is a nothing of a story. She should be confirmed with no more controversy than Gorsuch, and Gorsuch wrote that contraception destroys fertilized eggs (uh, it doesn't). stoking fears that KBJ is some sort of neo-black panther who's facilitating child trafficking is slander. the only reason she's in the news cycle is so that Fox doesn't have to continue to run stories on the Ukrainian war where their stars keep sticking their foot in their mouths re: Putin.

Nobody cared about SCOTUS nominations prior to Garland's failed nomination and now it's a circus. Kagan was confirmed 63-37. Sotomayor 68-31. Alito 58-42. Roberts 78-22. Breyer 87-9, and RBG 96-3. The last SCOTUS nominee that even came close to not being confirmed was Coke-Can Clarence at 52-48. This is because (a) Republicans love politicizing the Court; and (b) Republicans can't help but nominate nutjobs.

Prior to Garland, the last 3 failed nominations were all Republican nominations: Robert Bork, G. Harrold Carswell, and Clement Haynsworth.

Carswell and Haynsworth were both Nixon nominations, and both failed because they wrote opinions in support of segregation, like upholding the decision of an entire county to shut down their public schools rather than integrate. This led to Nixon nominating Harry Blackmun, who happened to be the author of the Roe decision.

Bork's nomination in 1987, 20 years after the civils rights act, failed on a double whammy because he was on the record as criticizing the civil rights act not only racist beliefs(segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.), but also sexist beliefs (equal pay, right to privacy, etc.)

Like, sorry, but these guys are freaks. There are 2 justices on this court that have credible accusations of sexual assault. ACB is in a cult that preaches religious obedience of the wife to the husband. Even Gorsuch, he actually believes that contraception destroys a fertilized egg, and that a fertilized egg means something, in a moral/soul context. The influences of Church in the State are undeniable. These are not the best and brightest, but they are the ones who have proven to be most doggedly dogmatic to the Republican (FedSoc) agenda of reversing Roe, protect corporate interests, and expand executive power.

It's not to say all republican judges are rapists, or religious wackjobs. But the names that keep cropping up on the FedSoc list of nominees certainly are. And this is all for a reason - the last thing that capital R republicans want is another Blackmun, who can't be controlled, and actually judges things based on the merits and a neutral, unbiased opinion on law.

I would be appalled if it came out that a Dem candidate had sexual assault allegations, and would absolutely demand that a different candidate be found. I am similarly appalled when a Republican candidate does. This turnabout simply doesn't exist for Republicans, and THAT to me is the frustrating thing. THAT is why I have to laugh when Nate or Popper or any number of other Republicans poke their heads in here and say "Oh it's never civil discourse with you people."

Ok, bro. How about you just take more than 2 seconds to evaluate the state of events before just digging your heels in along party lines out of default.

Ok bro. How about you take more than 2 seconds to evaluate where you and I may differ on important issues. I have 10+ years of history here so that shouldn't be difficult for you. List them and I'll address each according to my honest beliefs and positions. I think you will be quite surprised.

ok well, the initial post was about partisan support about SC nominees and my point still stands:

Why were you supportive of Kavannaugh and ACB - candidates that have such large skeletons in their closets? why does the Republican Party feel so confident in nominating these candidates and other similarly skeletoned nominees (thomas, bork, et. al)? Why are you taking the same umbrage to KBJ who has much less controversy embroiled in her confirmation? You have to understand that Senator Blackburn's question was not just inappropriate but poorly phrased. KBJ was not just being political in her response in that she cannot define a "woman" as asked. There are so many different factors to address that she couldn't give an answer. Even the X-Y chromosonal basis is not entire scientifically accurate, and that only addresses sex, not gender. It gets even more eye-rolly after you consider the political machinations that R's pulled on Garland that everyone knows that she's not being asked questions in good faith.

But to your larger point, I think the disconnect will be on what are important issues, and proposals on achieving those issues. i don't doubt that you want what's best for america, or that we have differing views on what is "best" for america. I just don't think Republicans have an articulable strategy on how to get there.

To me the top 3 issues facing America today are:

1) wage inequality
2) climate change
3) immigration.

and the goals of these issues are:

1) achieving greater parity in wealth distribution, such that the general population (everyone) is able to satisfy their basic, and even intermediate needs in an affordable manner. this means housing, education, childcare, and healthcare.
2) having a comprehensive policy that reduces emissions and pollution in such a way that mitigates and reverses the impact that fossil fuels and other pollutants have on the planet, and its inhabitants.
3) having a system that can handle the influx in labor, and manages that labor accordingly, and in conjunction with goal 1, is able to treat this influx of labor as human beings and not a subclass.

with a caveat that there is an umbrella issue, the fact that both political parties are actively engaged in distracting from issues 1-3, and other important issues in favor of less important issues so as to further stoke culture wars. with a further caveat that Republicans are much more engaged in the distraction, because, again, at least Dems have proposals for 1-3, and Republicans have thus far offered nothing as far as platforms, Trump, Webb, Cruz, or otherwise.

so to facilitate discussion, I don't believe that a) you think that my top 3 issues are the same as the top 3 issues you see as most important for this country; and b) there is no articulated political position on the side of the Republicans to address 1-3. feel free to rebut, but I'm fairly certain I already know the answer, because I am a reformed libertarian and have trump-voting parents.

I'm fairly certain the rebuttal is going to be:

1) can't interfere with the free market; no handouts
2) free market
3) free market; no handouts

which, again, goes to my previous point about Republicans carving out an obstructionist niche for them politically. nothing can be done, dem proposals are pipe dreams, therefor keep with the GOP for the status quo, or a return to a status quo where things were "good." but how exactly would that happen? my parents bought their first house for $135k and now it's worth $600k. They've bought 3 more properties since then, for $125k, $230k, and $300k, and are worth $550k, 650k, and $700k now. there is no way for me to live a life that was equally as great as my parents, while having my parents retain the fruits of their investments. we are already living in late stage capitalism, where by definition, money is consolidated by the "successful." there is no mechanism in capitalism to redistribute wealth. money is consolidated in the successful and those who fail get nothing. you extend that out across the generations and you have the children of previous failures destined to fail through no fault of their own - trapped in poverty. it's no way to run a country.

but ok, prove me wrong.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Pancakes. Two of the three items you mention as your priorities would fall in my top 5. My goals might be slightly different than yours for instance in your #1 I'd require able-bodied people to work (unless they are too old or are disabled in some way). I'd like to reinstitute the childcare payments as soon as we can right-size the budget (I think it's unwise to borrow or print the money to fund it)

I agree with your climate change goal but would like a comprehensive (not piecemeal) plan that doesn't bankrupt the country or its citizens. I have trouble with the viability of your #3. I don't see how a generous welfare state can coexist with an open border policy for very long (maybe I'm misunderstanding your intentions).

I agree that billionaires should be more heavily taxed but not so much as to incent them to flee the country. I agree that R's in congress don't have a comprehensive plan for the items you mention (and neither to D's).

Lastly, I believe in a wisely regulated free enterprise system. I support taxpayer funded welfare for those in need and would like to broaden the scope of such aid as soon as we fix the budget.

[Pointgod]

For all the right wing hand wringing about judge Jackson not falling for the gotcha questions about defining a woman, here’s judge Coney Barrett, a constitutional law professor, not being able to name all 5 freedoms of the first amendment. I actually don’t care, it’s another pointless and irrelevant question, but it just shows how the freak out from the right is hypocritical, even though this was supposed to be a layup question from a Republican Senator.

Read on Twitter

[popper]

It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation?

For what its worth I agree with this half of the post. I'm diehard lefty. Union guy. Raised in communal housing. Marched for Nuclear disarmament and organized protests when in middle school. I'll knock Bernie for the political expedience of his silence on NRA and gun control issues, even while I understand he wouldn't have stayed in office if he were vocal on the issue. So I'm left of Bernie.

That said I'm with others in this thread in that I can understand the logic behind various conservative viewpoints, but really don't understand how the Right got so thoroughly coopted by the last resident of the White House. To the point where republicans positions also got flipped like pancakes. That the party of Ronald Reagan was suddenly arguing Russian talking points, in support of a bad hairpiece who failed at business. Who was immoral in his personal life, and destructive to our basic American values when in office.

What values do republicans stand for now? Can we list the core few, just so we know what we are disagreeing about? Because it is not about KBJ being cautious with her words when being grilled by hostile parties.

That's a good question. Like the D's current situation (the progressive caucus vs. the more moderate wing) the R's are also going through an identity crisis of sorts. Not sure if they could reach or articulate a consensus position on certain policies. They broke the bank with Trump so the R party can no longer claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. I hope they return to their roots but I'm not holding my breath.

I think most R's still believe in a strong defense. I think R's are generally in support of repeal of Roe v Wade resulting in the individual states defining their own policies on the matter.

Most R's support school choice. Most R's support a parents right to know, and have some influence over, the subject matter being taught in K-12.

I believe most R's agree that the Russia collusion thing against Orange Man was perhaps the biggest dirty trick in American political history.

I think most R's would agree that the legacy and social media are corrupt. Most R's believe that the inflation rate has been juiced primarily because of the massive increase in money supply (now exacerbated by the Russia Ukraine war).

Most R's believe there is a mountain of government waste.

I live in South Florida and am registered as an independent so maybe I'm not the best guy to speak for R's. These are obviously just my opinions.

[Ruzious]

In case people haven't been paying attention to that little skirmish in Europe that might be WW3, I think Biden made the speech of his life in Poland. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/26/biden-putin-poland-speech-00020671 And Lloyd Austin took a more visible role and sounded great.

[doclinkin]

What values do republicans stand for now? Can we list the core few, just so we know what we are disagreeing about? Because it is not about KBJ being cautious with her words when being grilled by hostile parties.

That's a good question. Like the D's current situation (the progressive caucus vs. the more moderate wing) the R's are also going through an identity crisis of sorts. Not sure if they could reach or articulate a consensus position on certain policies. They broke the bank with Trump so the R party can no longer claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. I hope they return to their roots but I'm not holding my breath.

I think most R's still believe in a strong defense. I think R's are generally in support of repeal of Roe v Wade resulting in the individual states defining their own policies on the matter.

Sure, strong defense. Problem being the military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about is still raking in taxpayer dollars hand over fist. Much of it grifted by private contractors.

GAO Summary.

Congress mandates all federal agencies to comply with annual independent audits, but the Defense Department remains the only U.S. federal agency that is unable to pass a clean audit opinion – preventing GAO from expressing an audit opinion of the entire federal government.

Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the U.S. has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud – all while making significant profits on government contracts. About half of the Pentagon’s budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors.

Our defense is not starved. As Bernie says we spend more on our military than the next 13 countries combined. Is it spent well? Or is it frankly stolen by unscrupulous actors who dodge accountability by kickbacks to political campaigns of key political figures. Or is it spent on pork projects for Congresspeople whose districts are represented.

Regulation and oversight would seem to be the way to go, and putting the DOD on a diet would force them to trim the fat and prioritize projects that are actually necessary. Efficient. Useful. Impossible to do if you cannot even identify where the waste is going.

But then of course Bernie is a socialist peacenik who wants to kill off our Defense department.

Most R's support school choice. Most R's support a parents right to know, and have some influence over, the subject matter being taught in K-12.

One problem being that people already vote with their feet in moving to districts where schools are better due to better tax base. On the left the argument would be that our country benefits if even poor folks get a top notch education. Otherwise we have a permanent underclass with no opportunity to advance and fight their way to the middle class. Magnet programs exist whereby kids who show merit can bus to better schools. Should education be reserved only for those born into privilege? School choice commonly is a wolf in sheeps clothing to weaken the strength of the Teacher's Union. Sure, because as a block this union tends to vote for public support of schools. Schools are already notoriously underfunded and overburdened. We don't recruit the best and the brightest, because we don't pay enough for those best and brightest to choose the work. And don't give logistical support to them. No class room should have 30 students for 1 teacher.

I believe most R's agree that the Russia collusion thing against Orange Man was perhaps the biggest dirty trick in American political history.

And those on the other side of the aisle, and the intelligence agencies tracking it, believe that the Russian collusion by the Orange man has been one of the biggest dirty tricks against America in American political history. Even now with Russia invading the Ukraine I find it stunning that people do not connect the dots. Knowing people in NYC real estate, there were only 2 sources of extra national funding when Trump was losing and re-losing his fortune: after Japan stopped buying property it was only China, and Russian oligarchs/grifters/crime bosses. Trump was rejected by all but the Russians. I cited one link earlier where multiple internal Duetschebank watchdogs pointed out suspcicious money transfers between Trump and Russian bigwigs. That is documented fact. The Trump organization and Jared Kutchner did big business with Russia. Russia benefitted by Trump being in office, millions were spent in russian troll farms spreading disinformation in american social media. It only makes sense from the Russian perspective to promote their interests in our political body. Especially as it was a reaction to our doing the same in the Ukrainian elections that weakened Russian influence over their breadbasket. As justification for his invasion of Ukraine Putin essentially stated that he believes promoting Democracy is effectively using a weapon of mass destruction. If he believes that, why wouldn't he turn the tables on us and do the same. Trump didn't have to directly collude with Russia for them to have similar aims. For him to receive benefit from them and vice versa. Still, we won't know because he sued and stonewalled and obstructed the investigations without sanction.

I think most R's would agree that the legacy and social media are corrupt.

Agreed about social media. But Cui Bono? To whom does it benefit? Zuckerberg was sanctioned for taking large dollars from Russia for allowing them to use his platforms to spread misinformation. And since Russia has neutered facebook within their borders his company is losing Billions of dollars of Russian business.

Most R's believe there is a mountain of government waste.

Most Lefties would agree. But look at any chart of where our money is spent. Year after year the largest chunk of the budget is spent on the military. If there is fat to trim, start there. No defense contractor is going to go homeless if they are forced to deliver their product on time and on a budget. But cutting social programs is where you endanger public health. We have just seen the greatest danger to our countries health, lives, and economy, comes not from foreign invasion or the need to have a 20 year long war in Afghanistan to give terrorists a hard target in a faraway country, but instead from a microscopic invasion of our immune systems. Seems to me Republicans who care about defense should be demanding we spend our dollars there, in protecting our grandparents and workers.

If we had a robust public health system it would have been far easier to track and stifle an epidemic. Nate cites numbers from Israel and England in his arguments on virus countermeasures and policy. Why. Because they have exacting and exhaustive standards for covering the health needs of their countries.

We can argue details, but again I think most americans generally agree. We just get turned against each other by big money interests who want to distract us from pointing at the real culprits. We need tax fairness and programs that safeguard American workers and expand our economy to give more avenues to becoming middle class, maintaining middle class status, expanding the population of the comfortably middle class. Instead we pass laws that protect shareholders more than citizens and working stiffs. Most working joes don't trade stocks, or pay much attention to it even if they have a 401k through their job. They don't have extra income beyond paying bills, rent, mortgage, car notes, college loans, etc.

Letting billionaires and megacorporations pay zero dollars in taxes in the country that gave them their wealth, while the people who work for them and buy from them are cussing about 1/3 of their paycheck disappearing, seems unconscionable to me. Show me the Republican effectively working to address those problems and I'd vote for him.

[popper]

What values do republicans stand for now? Can we list the core few, just so we know what we are disagreeing about? Because it is not about KBJ being cautious with her words when being grilled by hostile parties.

That's a good question. Like the D's current situation (the progressive caucus vs. the more moderate wing) the R's are also going through an identity crisis of sorts. Not sure if they could reach or articulate a consensus position on certain policies. They broke the bank with Trump so the R party can no longer claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. I hope they return to their roots but I'm not holding my breath.

I think most R's still believe in a strong defense. I think R's are generally in support of repeal of Roe v Wade resulting in the individual states defining their own policies on the matter.

Sure, strong defense. Problem being the military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about is still raking in taxpayer dollars hand over fist. Much of it grifted by private contractors.

GAO Summary.

Congress mandates all federal agencies to comply with annual independent audits, but the Defense Department remains the only U.S. federal agency that is unable to pass a clean audit opinion – preventing GAO from expressing an audit opinion of the entire federal government.

Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the U.S. has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud – all while making significant profits on government contracts. About half of the Pentagon’s budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors.

Our defense is not starved. As Bernie says we spend more on our military than the next 13 countries combined. Is it spent well? Or is it frankly stolen by unscrupulous actors who dodge accountability by kickbacks to political campaigns of key political figures. Or is it spent on pork projects for Congresspeople whose districts are represented.

Regulation and oversight would seem to be the way to go, and putting the DOD on a diet would force them to trim the fat and prioritize projects that are actually necessary. Efficient. Useful. Impossible to do if you cannot even identify where the waste is going.

But then of course Bernie is a socialist peacenik who wants to kill off our Defense department.

Most R's support school choice. Most R's support a parents right to know, and have some influence over, the subject matter being taught in K-12.

One problem being that people already vote with their feet in moving to districts where schools are better due to better tax base. On the left the argument would be that our country benefits if even poor folks get a top notch education. Otherwise we have a permanent underclass with no opportunity to advance and fight their way to the middle class. Magnet programs exist whereby kids who show merit can bus to better schools. Should education be reserved only for those born into privilege? School choice commonly is a wolf in sheeps clothing to weaken the strength of the Teacher's Union. Sure, because as a block this union tends to vote for public support of schools. Schools are already notoriously underfunded and overburdened. We don't recruit the best and the brightest, because we don't pay enough for those best and brightest to choose the work. And don't give logistical support to them. No class room should have 30 students for 1 teacher.

I believe most R's agree that the Russia collusion thing against Orange Man was perhaps the biggest dirty trick in American political history.

And those on the other side of the aisle, and the intelligence agencies tracking it, believe that the Russian collusion by the Orange man has been one of the biggest dirty tricks against America in American political history. Even now with Russia invading the Ukraine I find it stunning that people do not connect the dots. Knowing people in NYC real estate, there were only 2 sources of extra national funding when Trump was losing and re-losing his fortune: Japan, and Russian oligarchs/grifters/crime bosses. Trump was rejected by all but the Russians. I cited one link earlier where multiple internal Duetschebank watchdogs pointed out suspcicious money transfers between Trump and Russian bigwigs. That is documented fact. The Trump organization and Jared Kutchner did big business with Russia. Russia benefitted by Trump being in office, millions were spent in russian troll farms spreading disinformation in american social media. It only makes sense from the Russian perspective to promote their interests in our political body. Especially as it was a reaction to our doing the same in the Ukrainian elections that weakened Russian influence over their breadbasket. As justification for his invasion of Ukraine Putin essentially stated that he believes promoting Democracy is effectively using a weapon of mass destruction. If he believes that, why wouldn't he turn the tables on us and do the same. Trump didn't have to directly collude with Russia for them to have similar aims. For him to receive benefit from them and vice versa. Still, we won't know because he sued and stonewalled and obstructed the investigations without sanction.

I think most R's would agree that the legacy and social media are corrupt.

Agreed about social media. But Cui Bono? To whom does it benefit? Zuckerberg was sanctioned for taking large dollars from Russia for allowing them to use his platforms to spread misinformation. And since Russia has neutered facebook within their borders his company is losing Billions of dollars of Russian business.

Most R's believe there is a mountain of government waste.

Most Lefties would agree. But look at any chart of where our money is spent. Year after year the largest chunk of the budget is spent on the military. If there is fat to trim, start there. No defense contractor is going to go homeless if they are forced to deliver their product on time and on a budget. But cutting social programs is where you endanger public health. We have just seen the greatest danger to our countries health, lives, and economy, comes not from foreign invasion or the need to have a 20 year long war in Afghanistan to give terrorists a hard target in a faraway country, but instead from a microscopic invasion of our immune systems. Seems to me Republicans who care about defense should be demanding we spend our dollars there, in protecting our grandparents and workers.

If we had a robust public health system it would have been far easier to track and stifle an epidemic. Nate cites numbers from Israel and England in his arguments on virus countermeasures and policy. Why. Because they have exacting and exhaustive standards for covering the health needs of their countries.

We can argue details, but again I think most americans generally agree. We just get turned against each other by big money interests who want to distract us from pointing at the real culprits. We need tax fairness and programs that safeguard American workers and expand our economy to give more avenues to becoming middle class, maintaining middle class status, expanding the population of the comfortably middle class. Instead we pass laws that protect shareholders more than citizens and working stiffs. Most working joes don't trade stocks, or pay much attention to it even if they have a 401k through their job. They don't have extra income beyond paying bills, rent, mortgage, car notes, college loans, etc.

Letting billionaires and megacorporations pay zero dollars in taxes in the country that gave them their wealth, while the people who work for them and buy from them are cussing about 1/3 of their paycheck disappearing, seems unconscionable to me. Show me the Republican effectively working to address those problems and I'd vote for him.

Agree on defense spending. There is a ton of waste, fraud and abuse there. I don't want to lose any capability but if it were better managed we could save hundreds of billions.

I don't understand your comments on the subject of education. R's have no influence over the education systems in CA, NY, NJ, HI, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, etc. If D's know how to fix the education system why don't they do it?

Agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs. Our government is not working effectively for the bottom half of the economic strata. Ultimately the voters are to blame because they elect self serving idiots. My solution to that dilemma would set this thread on fire so I'll refrain. The hamster will continue to spin his wheel until calamity strikes and then we will be forced to make very painful choices.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=5xc2hyH1Gf_HR1AoHzxE3w&s=19

[pancakes3]

Ok bro. How about you take more than 2 seconds to evaluate where you and I may differ on important issues. I have 10+ years of history here so that shouldn't be difficult for you. List them and I'll address each according to my honest beliefs and positions. I think you will be quite surprised.

ok well, the initial post was about partisan support about SC nominees and my point still stands:

Why were you supportive of Kavannaugh and ACB - candidates that have such large skeletons in their closets? why does the Republican Party feel so confident in nominating these candidates and other similarly skeletoned nominees (thomas, bork, et. al)? Why are you taking the same umbrage to KBJ who has much less controversy embroiled in her confirmation? You have to understand that Senator Blackburn's question was not just inappropriate but poorly phrased. KBJ was not just being political in her response in that she cannot define a "woman" as asked. There are so many different factors to address that she couldn't give an answer. Even the X-Y chromosonal basis is not entire scientifically accurate, and that only addresses sex, not gender. It gets even more eye-rolly after you consider the political machinations that R's pulled on Garland that everyone knows that she's not being asked questions in good faith.

But to your larger point, I think the disconnect will be on what are important issues, and proposals on achieving those issues. i don't doubt that you want what's best for america, or that we have differing views on what is "best" for america. I just don't think Republicans have an articulable strategy on how to get there.

To me the top 3 issues facing America today are:

1) wage inequality
2) climate change
3) immigration.

and the goals of these issues are:

1) achieving greater parity in wealth distribution, such that the general population (everyone) is able to satisfy their basic, and even intermediate needs in an affordable manner. this means housing, education, childcare, and healthcare.
2) having a comprehensive policy that reduces emissions and pollution in such a way that mitigates and reverses the impact that fossil fuels and other pollutants have on the planet, and its inhabitants.
3) having a system that can handle the influx in labor, and manages that labor accordingly, and in conjunction with goal 1, is able to treat this influx of labor as human beings and not a subclass.

with a caveat that there is an umbrella issue, the fact that both political parties are actively engaged in distracting from issues 1-3, and other important issues in favor of less important issues so as to further stoke culture wars. with a further caveat that Republicans are much more engaged in the distraction, because, again, at least Dems have proposals for 1-3, and Republicans have thus far offered nothing as far as platforms, Trump, Webb, Cruz, or otherwise.

so to facilitate discussion, I don't believe that a) you think that my top 3 issues are the same as the top 3 issues you see as most important for this country; and b) there is no articulated political position on the side of the Republicans to address 1-3. feel free to rebut, but I'm fairly certain I already know the answer, because I am a reformed libertarian and have trump-voting parents.

I'm fairly certain the rebuttal is going to be:

1) can't interfere with the free market; no handouts
2) free market
3) free market; no handouts

which, again, goes to my previous point about Republicans carving out an obstructionist niche for them politically. nothing can be done, dem proposals are pipe dreams, therefor keep with the GOP for the status quo, or a return to a status quo where things were "good." but how exactly would that happen? my parents bought their first house for $135k and now it's worth $600k. They've bought 3 more properties since then, for $125k, $230k, and $300k, and are worth $550k, 650k, and $700k now. there is no way for me to live a life that was equally as great as my parents, while having my parents retain the fruits of their investments. we are already living in late stage capitalism, where by definition, money is consolidated by the "successful." there is no mechanism in capitalism to redistribute wealth. money is consolidated in the successful and those who fail get nothing. you extend that out across the generations and you have the children of previous failures destined to fail through no fault of their own - trapped in poverty. it's no way to run a country.

but ok, prove me wrong.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Pancakes. Two of the three items you mention as your priorities would fall in my top 5. My goals might be slightly different than yours for instance in your #1 I'd require able-bodied people to work (unless they are too old or are disabled in some way). I'd like to reinstitute the childcare payments as soon as we can right-size the budget (I think it's unwise to borrow or print the money to fund it)

I agree with your climate change goal but would like a comprehensive (not piecemeal) plan that doesn't bankrupt the country or its citizens. I have trouble with the viability of your #3. I don't see how a generous welfare state can coexist with an open border policy for very long (maybe I'm misunderstanding your intentions).

I agree that billionaires should be more heavily taxed but not so much as to incent them to flee the country. I agree that R's in congress don't have a comprehensive plan for the items you mention (and neither to D's).

Lastly, I believe in a wisely regulated free enterprise system. I support taxpayer funded welfare for those in need and would like to broaden the scope of such aid as soon as we fix the budget.

1) wage inequality begins with how corporate america shares its revenues internally, dividing it between compensation for labor, management, and investors. labor compensation has been cast to the wayside as executive compensation and investment dividends skyrocket. the dem proposal of fixing this inequality is to tax executives and investors so as to recapture the undeserved compensation that's rightfully the laborer's and give it back to the laborers in the form of basic needs: healthcare, loan repayments, housing subsidies, child care, etc.

So, I take issue with your caveats because (1) labor force participation isn't really a problem for this specific problem; and (2) it's not really a governmental budget problem because it doesn't require printing new money but rather using taxes as a tool to effect redistribution.

2) climate change policy is even less cost-prohibitive because it can easily be shifted to the corporations, who again, are taking in massive profits without bearing their fair share of the cost. unregulation and de-regulation of companies allow them to operate in a way where they don't have to deal with their fair share of the consequences. this is basic, 2nd grade, Captain Planet stuff.

but if this question is to go back to our original debate re: voting along party lines, if climate change is a top 3 concern for you, and you agree with the climate change goal, and want to see plans, why vote Republican? And what does "bankrupt the country or its citizens" mean? Are you ok with coal mining companies going bankrupt so that renewable companies take its place?

i never understood the GOP talking point about "bankrupting the country." it evokes this scenario where the US government is going to start issuing trillions of dollars in blank checks instead of what actual policy looks like - tax incentives for renewables, tax disincentives and fines for polluters. for instance, the Obama-era incentives for buying electric cars. it wasn't like applicants just got a blank check for buying an electric car. the applicants still paid full price, and received a tax credit for it. the applicants had to have the same amount of money, and the car companies received the same amount of money. the government just collected a little less in taxes and everyone walks away better for it.

3) I don't know how else to describe your view that a generous welfare state (which we do not have) can coexist with an open border policy for very long other than it's xenophobic. the amount of effort it takes to leave a country to go to another country is tremendous. the quality of life for an immigrant in the United States is pretty low. there's no universal health care, no child care, housing is expensive, and wages are low. despite this, there are millions of skilled and unskilled workers every year vying to immigrate every year. think of the industries we can form with these workers.

I'm not saying every person who crosses the border becomes a citizen, but it makes no sense to have a limit. It makes no sense to incentivize illegal crossings where the immigrants are now not only undocumented, but further incentivized to live below the law. an open border policy where everyone can enter without being hassled incentivizes immigrants to be documented. once documented, they can pay taxes, they can enroll in schools, they can sign leases, they can work and contribute to society.

this doesn't even get into the H1B quota problem. H1B are for college/grad school graduates looking to stay in the US after graduation. It's currently capped at 65,000, with an additional 20,000 spots for graduates with masters or higher - 85,000 spots. The US on average receives ~200,000 applications a year (they received 300k for 2022), meaning we deport more than 100,000 US-educated workers every single year. Talk about a brain drain.

The entire approach to immigration as a drain on society rather than a source of strength is completely upside down.

4) Billionaire expatriation as a means to dodge taxes is not a secret, and is largely a myth. See: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/this-tactic-wont-help-rich-people-dodge-warren-tax-plan.html

Additionally, a wealth tax actually helps open transparency on foreign holdings, which is how these loopholes are currently exploited anyway. The US currently does not have a wealth tax, only income tax. Bezos can claim very little income, and never sell his stock, but then make extra-jurisdictional deals relating to his assets without having any of those deals come under the purview of the IRS because ostensibly, he's not collecting income, and he's not realizing capital gains.

But at the end of the day, while I'm more or less happy to have conversations like this, for me personally, I still don't see the Republican position on it, or the Republican alternative. Immigration is a problem. Ok. What's the solution? It's not building a wall. Wealth disparity is a problem. What's the solution? "I don't know but it has to balance the budget somehow. And lazy people have to agree to work." So my boss gets to continue to exploit me, billing me out at $500/hr, but only paying me $100/hr, and Congress can't enact any solutions because... welfare queens exist? theoretically? Or that I knew at least 5 friends from college who had to go back to their countries because they didn't win the H1B lottery - and there is literally no reason for it to happen.

These aren't rhetorical questions that America needs answers to. They're real questions facing its citizens, every single day. My daily spending money continues to be depressed and corporate america's spending power continues to grow, day by day because of wealth inequality. Climate change gets JUUUUUuuust a little worse, every single day. some **** gets paid salary plus pension to go raid a farm for undocumented migrant workers every single day - a farm that is in America, producing food for Americans. But ok. KBJ can't answer what a "woman" is and that's why the political powers that be are entrenched where they are. 40% of the population want to overturn supreme court precedent that's 50 years old at this point, and we can't get any meaningful legislation passed because any concession is a sign of weakness, and Trump will pull your endorsement.

Isn't it obvious which side has actual proposals and which side is completely comprised of smoke and mirrors?

[Zonkerbl]

yeah I don't understand H1-B policy at all. I mean, imagine. China invests half a million dollars training someone to be a scientist or whatever, and then they come over here to work and use all that human capital to create jobs and add value in the United States. Every H1-B recipient is basically a theft, by the United States, of half a million dollars from another country. It's easy money. It's why we're the wealthiest nation in the world, because everyone wants to work here. LET THEM.

The complaint about immigration is that we're letting a bunch of no talent criminals over the southern border, which is racist and incorrect, but that's not what the H1-B is. H1-B is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to siphon the most valuable labor from other countries. I get that there have to be some restrictions on it for it to work the way it's supposed to work, but generally speaking it should be a pretty generous policy. Right? The "picking half a million dollars off the ground" policy should be pretty generous? In the number of times you're allowed to bend over and pick it up? Don't you think?

I guess the problem is the large majority of them end up Democrats. That's a really dumb reason to sabotage a policy that earns your country so much money. It's unpatriotic, is what it is.

[Ruzious]

If they're going to err, they'd prefer to err on the side of being more racist.

[Zonkerbl]

I wonder if China and India and other low income countries put pressure on the US to restrict the H1-B policy - "we agree to subsidize study abroad only if you agree to limit the number of students you poach from us"

[popper]

Whenever we discuss issues and problems facing our country I know the frustration levels are going to rise considerably. To give a basketball analogy, say your interviewing for the job of Wizards GM. You ask what authority you will have to hire and fire coaches, players, etc. The owner replies that generally you'll have an abundance of authority with some caveats and one major carveout (you must pay your star player twice his market value). Such as it is with our government's attempt to solve problems.

Take immigration for instance. Most Americans want some version of the following;

1. Identify our goals for legal immigration and set up an effective system to achieve them
2. Implement an effective system to prevent illegal immigration

Unfortunately, even if congress could achieve consensus and pass laws to this effect the person in charge of enforcement can simply skirt them through the use of discretionary prosecution and other means. If the leader's base constituency doesn't raise hell then the law is easily skirted.

So, in my mind, and for the moment, it's really a waste of time to attack the problem knowing you are unable to control a leader's discretionary authority to circumvent a solution. And so it is with much of what we identify here as problems. I wish it weren't so.

[Zonkerbl]

it's true on both sides, there's sanctuary cities who try to make life easier for immigrants and there are vigilante cowboys out there threatening to murder people.

My recommendation is that we make it as difficult as possible for people to get in, so we're skimming off the top of the talent pool, and then once they get in you try to integrate them as quickly as possible so they are creating jobs rather than competing for them. But yeah you try to superimpose that on the mishmash of enforcement mechanisms we have and you get chaos.

[Zonkerbl]

Here's an interesting twitter take to freshen your morning:

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=Y9R-oL0UcRiGnT8TX3Xcuw

[queridiculo]

is it trolling to drop into a thread like this, throw out wild accusations about censorship and spread white wing conspiracy talking points, stir up a bunch of discussion and then not respond to any of it?

It's not trolling when it's just 100% an accurate representation of what the GOP stands for.

No original ideas, just boiler plate talking points, and wild accusations about bothsidesism with a few whataboutisms sprinkled on top.

The GOP isn't interested in taking any real positions because quite frankly, they have devised a system where they can govern without it and none of the ones they're principled over have a prayer of standing up to scrutiny.

Just imagine what kind of pretzel you have to twist your mind into attempting to reconcile positions like energy independence with a continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Imagine decrying the death of domestic manufacturing while actively lobbying against the enormous growth potential of the clean energy sector.

Imagine being anti-crime while pursuing strategies that produce more career criminals despite a persistent and sustained decrease in crime over the last 50 years.

You have deficit and anti-entitlement hawks in a tizzy over fine arts and SNAP, while actively advocating for the largest entitlement program the world has ever seen.

As a secular wing nut how do can you be on the side of originalism and at odds with the establishment clause?

It just goes on and on and on and that's why I don't really find it surprising that when popper is feigning the desire for a dialogue it just ends up being more of the same.

[Pointgod]

It would seem to me that intelligent people would reach out to those that have differing viewpoints. Isn't that the only way that we can become more understanding of the world and wiser of its operation?

For what its worth I agree with this half of the post. I'm diehard lefty. Union guy. Raised in communal housing. Marched for Nuclear disarmament and organized protests when in middle school. I'll knock Bernie for the political expedience of his silence on NRA and gun control issues, even while I understand he wouldn't have stayed in office if he were vocal on the issue. So I'm left of Bernie.

That said I'm with others in this thread in that I can understand the logic behind various conservative viewpoints, but really don't understand how the Right got so thoroughly coopted by the last resident of the White House. To the point where republicans positions also got flipped like pancakes. That the party of Ronald Reagan was suddenly arguing Russian talking points, in support of a bad hairpiece who failed at business. Who was immoral in his personal life, and destructive to our basic American values when in office.

What values do republicans stand for now? Can we list the core few, just so we know what we are disagreeing about? Because it is not about KBJ being cautious with her words when being grilled by hostile parties.

That's a good question. Like the D's current situation (the progressive caucus vs. the more moderate wing) the R's are also going through an identity crisis of sorts. Not sure if they could reach or articulate a consensus position on certain policies. They broke the bank with Trump so the R party can no longer claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. I hope they return to their roots but I'm not holding my breath.

I think most R's still believe in a strong defense. I think R's are generally in support of repeal of Roe v Wade resulting in the individual states defining their own policies on the matter.

Most R's support school choice. Most R's support a parents right to know, and have some influence over, the subject matter being taught in K-12.

I believe most R's agree that the Russia collusion thing against Orange Man was perhaps the biggest dirty trick in American political history.

I think most R's would agree that the legacy and social media are corrupt. Most R's believe that the inflation rate has been juiced primarily because of the massive increase in money supply (now exacerbated by the Russia Ukraine war).

Most R's believe there is a mountain of government waste.

I live in South Florida and am registered as an independent so maybe I'm not the best guy to speak for R's. These are obviously just my opinions.

Here’s where it gets hard for me to square the circle with you. Republicans do nothing but to destroy and tear down. If your top concerns are wealth inequality, climate and immigration, then you should never vote for Republicans until they move to the Center. Right now they’re the part of QAnon, reactionary, far right extremists and conspiracy theorists. You argue that you don’t want the government to overstep on certain issues, but electing Republicans just means you’ll either move backwards or nothing gets done. The way to get things done in the US is through incrementalism. The problem with Republicans is that they don’t want to work with Democrats or improve anything. It’s all just blow everything up. Get rid of Obamacare, tear up the Iran deal, blow up the child tax credit etc.

The Republican Party won’t moderate unless they start losing elections. As long as the crazy anti democratic and anti American arm keep winning, you won’t get better candidates. And your worries about the Democrats moving too far left is unfounded. Joe Biden is an incrementalist. He’s someone that wants to work with Republicans, much to the frustration of voters in his own party. Learn from the diverse posters and viewpoints in this thread. There is no threat of the Democrats moving further left any time soon. And if Republicans wanted to slow down that move left they’d vote in more moderates.