Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jackrabbit

The New Democratic Party

Recommended Posts

Just now, SDSUfan said:

Name one.  

 Nationalization of the medical industry?

Open borders?

90% top marginal tax rates?

 

:huh:

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Overgeneralize much?

 

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

:huh:

So?

Name one.

Nice pithy comebacks .Substance free and non responsive but pithy nonetheless

I'm willing to be educated. 

Give me a modern Democrat policy preference that could "gain traction"


 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

So?

Name one.

Nice pithy comebacks .Substance free and non responsive but pithy nonetheless

I'm willing to be educated. 

Give me a modern Democrat policy preference that could "gain traction"

Modernizing water treatment and investing in broadband infrastructure

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

So?

Name one.

Nice pithy comebacks .Substance free and non responsive but pithy nonetheless

I'm willing to be educated. 

Give me a modern Democrat policy preference that could "gain traction"

I'll let happy speak for himself but my point was the following.

1. Assuming you mean the term as happened with oil productiuon in Mexico, Dems have never as a party supported "nationalization" of health care. They simply support everyone having private coverage of some sort, which I believe the majority of Americans now support.

2. The Democratic Party has also never supported open borders. They simply see Trump's "wall" plan as being highly naive. As Mark Warner put it, Trump's plan is so simplistic that it smacks of a moat around a castle during the Dark Ages. Border Patrol personnel don't want a wall, they want steel slats they can see through. They also don't think the structure needs to be built everywhere like Trump does and the sad fate of some kids trying to cross with their parents through barren desert is proof that simply being able to walk across the border at such places is not going to allow people to immigrate to the U.S. If Trump - who is losing the PR battle on this - would just reopen the government for even a few weeks like Lindsey Graham advocated and Trump wouldn't be so adamant about trying to appease the Sean Hannitys of the world about a wall, a deal would get done to fund a lengthening of the present structure supplemented by technological upgrades that would be far more effective.

3. As to the tax rate, if the Democratic Party rather than just some of its leaders is in favor of increasing the top rate to 90%, that's news to me. Even if they were, you should acknowledge that the plan of people like Ocasio-Cortes and Sanders is to limit the 90% amount to the amount of income above a certain amount, $2 million or something.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Modernizing water treatment and investing in broadband infrastructure

That's it?

since when are either of these things national issues?  Broadband only happened when the feds broke up MaBell and auctioned of the spectrum to private industry.

Water treatment is performed at the municipal level.

I guess you mean the Democrats want to nationalize these functions too? 

 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I'll let happy speak for himself but my point was the following.

1. Assuming you mean the term as happened with oil productiuon in Mexico, Dems have never as a party supported "nationalization" of health care. They simply support everyone having private coverage of some sort, which I believe the majority of Americans now support.

2. The Democratic Party has also never supported open borders. They simply see Trump's "wall" plan as being highly naive. As Mark Warner put it, Trump's plan is so simplistic that it smacks of a moat around a castle during the Dark Ages. Border Patrol personnel don't want a wall, they want steel slats they can see through. They also don't think the structure needs to be built everywhere like Trump does and the sad fate of some kids trying to cross with their parents through barren desert is proof that simply being able to walk across the border at such places is not going to allow people to immigrate to the U.S. If Trump - who is losing the PR battle on this - would just reopen the government for even a few weeks like Lindsey Graham advocated and Trump wouldn't be so adamant about trying to appease the Sean Hannitys of the world about a wall, a deal would get done to fund a lengthening of the present structure supplemented by technological upgrades that would be far more effective.

3. As to the tax rate, if the Democratic Party rather than just some of its leaders is in favor of increasing the top rate to 90%, that's news to me. Even if they were, you should acknowledge that the plan of people like Ocasio-Cortes and Sanders is to limit the 90% amount to the amount of income above a certain amount, $2 million or something.

nice try. "Single Payer"  in healthcare nationalization.

The wall  isn't naive, It's symbolism and the vast majority of his supporters view it as such. No reasonable person thinks a wall will fix our immigration system. Its a start, His other actions such as  'extreme" vetting have been fought tooth and nail by the leftist party also. If you think Democrats are on the "right" side of this issue, it's you who are being naive.

Like it or not Bernie! and Occasional Cortex are the thought leaders of the Democrats. If they could raise taxes on everyone and everything, they would.  Neither is really big on the market economy, private property or the Constitution for that matter.

You still have yet to identify an actual Democrat policy. 

You get to "Trump Sucks!!!!" ....and that's pretty much as far as it goes.

 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

They would first have to kick Devin Nunes' sorry ass into Arizona. None of us who are moderates with a brain would ever join a party for which he was a leader.

Nah, doesn't look like CAs the place to start this :) 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SDSUfan said:

nice try. "Single Payer"  in healthcare nationalization.

The wall  isn't naive, It's symbolism and the vast majority of his supporters view it as such. No reasonable person thinks a wall will fix our immigration system. Its a start, His other actions such as  'extreme" vetting have been fought tooth and nail by the leftist party also. If you think Democrats are on the "right" side of this issue, it's you who are being naive.

Like it or not Bernie! and Occasional Cortex are the thought leaders of the Democrats. If they could raise taxes on everyone and everything, they would.  Neither is really big on the market economy, private property or the Constitution for that matter.

You still have yet to identify an actual Democrat policy. 

You get to "Trump Sucks!!!!" ....and that's pretty much as far as it goes.

So the taxpayers should belly up to subsidize "symbolism?" C'mon man!

As to which party is on the "right" side of the immigration issue, neither is. Which is among the reasons I'm not a member of either one anymore.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bob said:

I call BS. you were never a Democrat. Either that or you converted to mormonism recently. You cannot be a faithful mormon and reconcile the social behaviors of the Democrats.

Unlike card-carrying Republican Jesus, amirite?

6d4e71fa121254f7c39ce8fcf0395305.jpg

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

So the taxpayers should belly up to subsidize "symbolism?" C'mon man!

As to which party is on the "right" side of the immigration issue, neither is. Which is among the reasons I'm not a member of either one anymore.

Please enlighten us on your solution on immigration. Also, tell us why we should have sanctuary cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Please enlighten us on your solution on immigration. Also, tell us why we should have sanctuary cities. 

Well, one of the main reasons which is often given, is so illegal immigrants will cooperate with police, without fear of deportation, in order to help solve violent crimes.

Does that reason not make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Well, one of the main reasons which is often given, is so illegal immigrants will cooperate with police, without fear of deportation, in order to help solve violent crimes.

Does that reason not make sense?

It sounds logical, but do they really cooperate? How many are going to rat out their fellow countrymen? It has a much larger effect of welcoming illegals into those cities where they feel they will be protected from deportation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

It sounds logical, but do they really cooperate? How many are going to rat out their fellow countrymen? It has a much larger effect of welcoming illegals into those cities where they feel they will be protected from deportation. 

Well, then isn't that a good thing for those cities/states that aren't so inclined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renoskier said:

Well, then isn't that a good thing for those cities/states that aren't so inclined?

The non sanctuary states still pay for services to illegals through federal tax dollars. Harboring illegals only invites more illegals to cross the border knowing they will be protected from deportation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Some did. That's why there was briefly a stalemate over the electoral college. The federalists finally caved on that point. If I'm not mistaken, although many countries subsequently followed our Declaration of Independence, not a single one adopted the electoral college part.

A few years ago I rejected the anti- two party rhetoric hammered at me in poly sci and history classes I took as an undergraduate. I'll admit there are many reasons to think that system doesn't work very well. However, as Old_Dude said above, because the Dems and Repubs are now both so obstinate, this country truly needs a third party. Even if that third party can do nothing more than put a scare into the other two, it will force them to work together for the good of the country.

I think we're probably 1-2 election cycles from seeing an organic emergence of a centrists' party that incorporates the interquartile range (politically-speaking) of the genpop.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

The non sanctuary states still pay for services to illegals through federal tax dollars. Harboring illegals only invites more illegals to cross the border knowing they will be protected from deportation. 

You asked for a reason of why sanctuary cities exist. I gave you the reason that I've heard most often. It's usually given by the Chiefs of Police in those respective municipalities. If they didn't think the reason had any merit, why would they support it? 

With respect to tax dollars, do the "feds" reimburse local municipalities for the full cost of "holding" a suspected illegal? I don't know. Of course I also don't know if Reno is a sanctuary city. Don't really care one way or the other either.  If the majority of folks in an area think it's a good idea for their community, I'm okay with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

That's it?

Uh... no. You asked for "one" and "a" policy. I provided it, deliberately choosing the most milquetoast one my casual perusal found.

4 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

since when are either of these things national issues?  Broadband only happened when the feds broke up MaBell and auctioned of the spectrum to private industry.

Water treatment is performed at the municipal level.

I guess you mean the Democrats want to nationalize these functions too? 

 

Since when the internet economy accounts for 5% of the GDP, literally all of which is interstate commerce? Also, water treatment is performed at a municipal level but it has been typically funded federally as well. This is called the "layer cake" style of federalism which has been in existence since the '30s. Most people learn about it at 14.

Do you even understand what "nationalization" is?

4 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

nice try. "Single Payer"  in healthcare nationalization.

The wall  isn't naive, It's symbolism and the vast majority of his supporters view it as such. No reasonable person thinks a wall will fix our immigration system. Its a start, His other actions such as  'extreme" vetting have been fought tooth and nail by the leftist party also. If you think Democrats are on the "right" side of this issue, it's you who are being naïve.

You have every single Trump supporter on here flipping out when the lack of utility of the wall is mentioned. Soup slam, Nevada convert, Norcal, they are all ride or die on the WALL!!!!!! being effective. There's nothing symbolic about the debates going on on this board - and this board is by far the most nuanced and highest level of discourse I've seen. If you're talking elsewhere it's a miracle if people know that it isn't mostly Mexicans crossing.

 

3 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Link me a democrat outside of Flint running on that?  Not really a national level issue, it is only an issue if you live under a racist democratic local government.

 

It's literally part of their 2016 party plank blues. Yes, it is a national issue - it's an issue regardless of politics just due to what types of water line construction we used in the past. Flint is just prologue dude.

https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/#infrastructure

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Uh... no. You asked for "one" and "a" policy. I provided it, deliberately choosing the most milquetoast one my casual perusal found.

Since when the internet economy accounts for 5% of the GDP, literally all of which is interstate commerce? Also, water treatment is performed at a municipal level but it has been typically funded federally as well. This is called the "layer cake" style of federalism which has been in existence since the '30s. Most people learn about it at 14.

Do you even understand what "nationalization" is?

You have every single Trump supporter on here flipping out when the lack of utility of the wall is mentioned. Soup slam, Nevada convert, Norcal, they are all ride or die on the WALL!!!!!! being effective. There's nothing symbolic about the debates going on on this board - and this board is by far the most nuanced and highest level of discourse I've seen. If you're talking elsewhere it's a miracle if people know that it isn't mostly Mexicans crossing.

 

It's literally part of their 2016 party plank blues. Yes, it is a national issue - it's an issue regardless of politics just due to what types of water line construction we used in the past. Flint is just prologue dude.

https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/#infrastructure

Actually if you go back and reread some of my posts, I think the wall has some benefit if properly constructed in high traffic crossing areas. Other areas can be watched through electronic surveillance and border patrols. It’s not an end all. People will always find ways to circumvent it, but not in mass numbers. 

And if you want to know what I really think, employers that hire illegals should face mandatory jail time and fines. If there Is no work they are much less likely to come. However, politically that will never fly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...