Jump to content

Archived

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

Jackrabbit

The New Democratic Party

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

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. 

Now you're just talking about a continuation of what's been taking place since 2009 - an ongoing upgrade and extension of the existing 750 miles of barriers, something about which both parties were already in agreement.

Here's a good article published in the U-T on the 13th: Here's What You Need to Know About the Border Wall

Regarding the underlined portion of your post, migrant farm workers form an invaluable, irreplaceable cog in the wheel of our agriculture industry. Without them, produce would be prohibitively expensive. And they ain't coming up here on H1Bs.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Now you're just talking about a continuation of what's been taking place since 2009 - an ongoing upgrade and extension of the existing 750 miles of barriers, something about which both parties were already in agreement.

Here's a good article published in the U-T on the 13th: Here's What You Need to Know About the Border Wall

Which is why I also said I don’t think this is so much about the wall as it is a power struggle and posturing for the next election. Five billion dollars is a pittance in the overall scheme of the budget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

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

It is literally only a democratic government problem so I guess they are running against themselves.

It is a municipal/local government issue, putting it on a national platform is ridiculous and stupid.   I guess I should run my next local election on legalizing the unlimited immigration of mexicans and creating a nuclear weapon so Humboldt county can defend itself!

Not surprising you think it is an issue.  There is no accounting for the moron vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

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. 

Why do you think that we don't already have fencing or walls or some sort of vertical barrier in high traffic crossing areas? Obama and Bush between them essentially walled off the areas that were economical (which means economical to cross too, convenient that it worked out that way). 

I think you have to do the solution before you sting employers. They hire illegals because economically there has been essentially no recourse for them; lots of employers would have to fold just due to lack of manpower. We don't want that. Create the guest worker program first and then gradually tighten the screws as the new bracero program or whatever you want to call it grows and succeeds. Maybe have some sort of immigration incentive attached to it; if you do, say, 2 years in the bracero you're eligible to serve in the military, upon which you get residency and a path to citizenship along with a clause for no service but more onerous terms. 

8 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

It is literally only a democratic government problem so I guess they are running against themselves.

It is a municipal/local government issue, putting it on a national platform is ridiculous and stupid.   I guess I should run my next local election on legalizing the unlimited immigration of mexicans and creating a nuclear weapon so Humboldt county can defend itself!

Not surprising you think it is an issue.  There is no accounting for the moron vote.

No, it isn't, blues. It is a certain time period of construction problem. We used to use lead pipes and they're gradually degrading across areas regardless of voting affiliation. Flint just did a stupid thing to accelerate their degradation; political decisions in 2010 did not affect house construction a century earlier.

I mean just looking at Flint itself, 90% of its growth came between 1910 and 1930, in which Michigan voted Republican in every single presidential election. That's when the pipes were laid, if you are unaware of the issues surrounding Flint or, like, how construction works. 

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

5 minutes ago, Bob said:

you really don't understand the life and teachings of Jesus, do you? I'll leave it at that

Love they neighbor, resist authority, don't worry about how much shit you have, nobody is ever even remotely worthy under the eyes of God so forgive others their failings?

Of course that doesn't work as a political message. The only way any political animal can use Christ is to pervert His message. There are a multitude of reasons why "render unto Caesar" is in there, Bob. 

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

8 minutes ago, Bob said:

Democrats and liberals just have other deities in the absence of religion

Well that is certainly a viewpoint that has basis in reality. True to form them, I guess. 

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

9 minutes ago, Bob said:

Democrats and liberals just have other deities in the absence of religion

Leave me out of this.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob said:

No. I'm saying that most aren't. I said that mormons can't be democrats

75% of Americans identify as Christians. Therefore by math, even if 100% of Republicans AND conservatives identify as Christians (which... lol, I have met exactly as many conservative athiests as I have liberal ones), then at least half of liberals and democrats are Christians.

Seriously Bob do you ever stop to examine your opinions?

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

2 minutes ago, Bob said:

The point is that religion is far less important to democrats and they are far less likely to believe in God, less likely to give to charity and more likely to to be godless, despite your irrelevant personal experience.

What exactly are you basing this off of? You say that happy's personal experience is irrelevant, so that means you must have actual empirical data to back up your own assertions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bob said:

So you're saying that no democrat or liberal can be Christian because only 83% of Democrats believe in God, unlike 93% of republicans? 

Bob, do you understand basic mathematics?

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

On 1/18/2019 at 1:05 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Would probably say that most people who follow politics would say Reagan couldn't run as a republican today, he's too liberal in a lot of aspects 

About the only thing similar to Reagan and today's GOP is that the evangelical influence that wags the GOP dog was started during Reagan's terms in office by Jerry Falwall, Pat Robertson & Ralph Reed's "Moral Majority" organization and tax cuts for the wealthy, Reagan was very favorable to the CEO crowd 

W.   T.    F.  !!!!!!!!!!

You obviously have some reading to do on Reagan. If anything, the GOP has gotten more centrist.

Let’s take a look at the issues, shall we?

Supported School Prayer

Opposed the creation of the Dept. of Education that Carter started.

Against Gay Marriage 

Hawk on fighting drugs

Pro Death Penalty

Pro Life on abortion

Questioned the science on acid rain 

In favor of making Social Security voluntary

Very much against socialized healthcare, single payer, whatever you want to call it.

Supported Free Trade

Hawk on national defense

Believed in using tax cuts to stimulate economy

Believed in supply side economics

Believed in trickle down economics, not overly tax rich, assumed that the rich will use extra money in their businesses and that will trickle down to worker bee’s with more jobs, opportunities, etc. 

Pro immigrant, but wanted it done legally. Wanted the border sealed, especially for drugs. The early to mid 80’s was much different than today in what was going on at the border. 

 

I’m sure I could think of more. Trump has actually tried to copy some of Reagan’s philosophy on certain issues. If Reagan were alive today, I think he would be very upset with Trump’s lack of class, the childish arguments he gets into, inconsistencies on where he stands on things, loose on facts, etc. And then he would be impressed with Trump’s charisma, ability to connect with audiences, intelligent on many economic matters, etc. He would say that he has so much potential to be a great leader but chooses to regularly kill himself. He would meet with him knowing how much Trump looks up to him, and he’d try to be a mentor on character and other issues, but still knowing you can’t change someone that old. You can only hope to influence. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

W.   T.    F.  !!!!!!!!!!

You obviously have some reading to do on Reagan. If anything, the GOP has gotten more centrist.

Let’s take a look at the issues, shall we?

Supported School Prayer

Opposed the creation of the Dept. of Education that Carter started.

Against Gay Marriage 

Hawk on fighting drugs

Pro Death Penalty

Pro Life on abortion

Questioned the science on acid rain 

In favor of making Social Security voluntary

Very much against socialized healthcare, single payer, whatever you want to call it.

Supported Free Trade

Hawk on national defense

Believed in using tax cuts to stimulate economy

Believed in supply side economics

Believed in trickle down economics, not overly tax rich, assumed that the rich will use extra money in their businesses and that will trickle down to worker bee’s with more jobs, opportunities, etc. 

Pro immigrant, but wanted it done legally. Wanted the border sealed, especially for drugs. The early to mid 80’s was much different than today in what was going on at the border. 

 

I’m sure I could think of more. 

You forgot a couple:

Raised taxes seven times

Didn't believe the USSR was his butt buddy

Called for global nuclear disarmament

 

As far as the bolded policy statements above, they are . direct departure from today's GOP platform.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex-GOP chairman: The Republican Party traded Ronald Reagan for Donald Trump, so I quit

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/14/republicans-abandoned-reagan-caved-trump-ex-gop-chairman-column/945268002/

Sadly, today, President Trump would beat Ronald W. Reagan, head-to-head, in a Republican primary — and I’m not sure it would be close.

Republicans, do you care that Ronald Reagan would no longer be welcome in Donald Trump’s Republican Party? According to Gallup, 89% of my fellow Republicans are just fine with this reality, as they approve of the president's job performance. In the space of a generation, have 89% of Republicans really forgotten the powerful force for good that was the Reagan Revolution? Perhaps even more disheartening, this same 89% are content, if not intent, on driving away anyone not fully on board on the Trump Train, branding them traitors to America in the process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

You forgot a couple:

Raised taxes seven times

Didn't believe the USSR was't his butt buddy

Called for global nuclear disarmament

 

As far as the bolded policy statements above, they are . direct departure from today's GOP platform.

His philosophy that tax cuts would stimulate the economy is a conservative philosophy. He raised some taxes a bit because he couldn’t ignore the growing debt, especially in a Cold War with mega military spending. And he hoped the taxes wouldn’t hurt the economy too much.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...