Jump to content

Archived

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

Jackrabbit

The New Democratic Party

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Bob said:

What keeps things out better:

a)  barier with holes in it

b) barrier with no holes in it

If by "things" you mean people, the border patrol wants a barrier composed steel slats which would allow them to see what's happening on the other side. Can you manage to visualize that or do you need to be drawn a picture?

If by "things" you mean tumble weeds, I'll agree that a barrier without holes would be preferable.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a 2012 article - Anyone thinking that today's post year 2000 GOP is anything like the pre-Reagan years is living in a delusional world created by their immersion in endless right wing media saturation :shrug: If anything the 2010 era democrats are somewhat where the 1970's GOP used to be 

GOP platform through the years shows party’s shift from moderate to conservative

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html?utm_term=.4b61c1950030

The word “abortion” does not appear in a Republican Party platform until 1976, when the party concedes that it is deeply split between those who support “abortion on demand” and those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn.

The quest for lower taxes does not define Republicanism until the 1980s, and matters of faith play almost no role in the GOP’s plank until the 1990s.

The Republican Party, viewed through its quadrennial platform documents, is consistently business-oriented and committed to a strong defense, but has morphed over the past half-
century from a socially moderate, environmentally progressive and fiscally cautious group to a conservative party that is suspicious of government, allied against abortion and motivated by faith
.

For decades, the party presented itself as “moderate” or even “progressive.” The 1960 plank, for example, touts “progressive Republican policies” such as “liberal pay” and says the government “must be truly progressive as an employer.”

In 1972, the platform celebrates Republicans’ use of wage and price controls to curb inflation, a doubling of federal spending on manpower training, and a tripling of help to minorities.

Even the party’s most conservative platforms avoid that word, which first appears in 1992. From the 1960s to 2008, platforms liberally criticize “liberals,” but “conservative” is used almost exclusively to refer to judges.

From the 1960s through the ’80s, each plank reads like a snapshot of its time, capturing the frustrations of the party or the pride of those in power, sometimes wryly needling Democrats, other years slamming them hard. But from the 1990s forward, the platforms exhibit a sameness of rhetorical style, a reflection of the cut-and-paste reality of the computer age, in which entire sentences appear over and over in successive planks.

For decades, Republicans emphasize federal funding for public transit. Then, in 1980, a turn: “Republicans reject the elitist notion that Americans must be forced out of their cars. Instead, we vigorously support the right of personal mobility and freedom as exemplified by the automobile.”

Throughout the 1960s and ’70s, the GOP platform includes vigorous support for an equal-rights amendment to protect women. Then, in 1980, the party stalemates: “We acknowledge the legitimate efforts of those who support or oppose ratification.”

In the 1960s and ’70s, the party positions itself as a strong advocate for D.C. voting rights, in the Senate as well as the House. Then, in 1980, all mention of voting rights vanishes; the subject has not appeared since.

The 1960 plank calls for government workers to receive “salaries which are comparable to those offered by private employers.” In 1984, public-sector workers are redubbed “bureaucrats” and “Washington’s governing elite,” and are blamed for “an epidemic of crime, a massive increase in dependency and the slumming of our cities.” Republicans pledge a major cut in the government workforce.

The platforms of 1980 and 1992 are the party’s big pivots, both in positions and rhetoric. But the roots of today’s Republicanism become clear during the 1964 conservative uprising that led to Barry Goldwater’s presidential nomination.

In 1960, Republicans give “firm support” to “the union shop and other forms of union security” and say that “Republican conscience and Republican policy require that the annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.” Four years later, the GOP bashes Democrats for being “federal extremists” wedded to an ever more intrusive central government. (Calls to limit benefits for illegal immigrants and deny citizenship to U.S.- born children whose parents arrived here illegally enter the platform in 1996.)

The 1968 platform would strike many voters today as a Democratic agendaaddressing air and water pollution, crowded slums, and discrimination against minorities, all with “a new mix of private responsibility and public participation in the solution of social problems.”

The ’68 plank also proposes to expand Social Security by lowering the age for universal coverage from 72 to 65. Future platforms remain supportive of maintaining benefits until 2004, when the party endorses George W. Bush’s proposal to shift to personal retirement accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
36 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

My bad Stunnner. I'll treat you to a scoop of vanilla ice cream when you finally buy me the Hodads burger you owe me. Fair?

Yes, and I'll even give you a Hodad's sticker to put on your car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, happycamper said:

 

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. 

Sorry, every responsible municipality of small government in the world has long since replaced lead and steel piping.   Towns of 2000 people in Nevada have long since gone away from lead or steel and they did that in the 80's or 90's at the latest.  If you have lead piping you have incompetent and almost assuredly corrupt government.

This is a corrupt democratic government problem in the same big cities where they have uncontrollable crime problems, and race issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, happycamper said:

Uh... yeah, it does home skillet. crises of and wavering faith is not uncommon. 

Jack, you are surrounded by Republicans, you only talk to Republicans, you only consume far right media. Of course the only thing you hear about Democrats is them in relation to Trump because that's the only way you'd hear about them in the first place. 

You only have to listen to any media for a minute , except fox and ......I am right.

My wife is a Democrat who supports trump...... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Sorry, every responsible municipality of small government in the world has long since replaced lead and steel piping.   Towns of 2000 people in Nevada have long since gone away from lead or steel and they did that in the 80's or 90's at the latest.  If you have lead piping you have incompetent and almost assuredly corrupt government.

This is a corrupt democratic government problem in the same big cities where they have uncontrollable crime problems, and race issues.

Blues, the problematic pipes are often owned by the homeowner. For that matter,  they're everywhere. 

I don't get how you claim to be non partisan and then blame every problem and many you invent in solely democrats.

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

7 hours ago, happycamper said:

Blues, the problematic pipes are often owned by the homeowner. For that matter,  they're everywhere. 

I don't get how you claim to be non partisan and then blame every problem and many you invent in solely democrats.

I bought and sold old houses for decades, that was how I made money to start with before i discovered better ways.   I have never ever seen a lead pipe in any of them.

The problems that exist with lead pipes exist in democratic run cities.   Who are we supposed to blame?   If little shitty towns in the center of Nevada and I bet Wyoming with hundreds of people can figure it out.  Why are you giving cities with hundreds of thousands or millions a break?   If you aren't biased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I bought and sold old houses for decades, that was how I made money to start with before i discovered better ways.   I have never ever seen a lead pipe in any of them.

The problems that exist with lead pipes exist in democratic run cities.   Who are we supposed to blame?   If little shitty towns in the center of Nevada and I bet Wyoming with hundreds of people can figure it out.  Why are you giving cities with hundreds of thousands or millions a break?   If you aren't biased?

What "old houses" blues, and in what towns? All this in "didn't grow until the 1940s" Nevada, whereas lead pipes where common from the late 1800s until the 1920s?

 For that matter, did you... look?

Seriously, blues, your utter ignorance of any kind of construction practice is commonplace but your apparent self-confidence in your knowledge of it is mind-boggling. It's as if you bought a computer and thought that that made you Steve Wozniak. 

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

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

What "old houses" blues, and in what towns? All this in "didn't grow until the 1940s" Nevada, whereas lead pipes where common from the late 1800s until the 1920s?

 For that matter, did you... look?

Seriously, blues, your utter ignorance of any kind of construction practice is commonplace but your apparent self-confidence in your knowledge of it is mind-boggling. It's as if you bought a computer and thought that that made you Steve Wozniak. 

You're clueless again, Nevada communities are all 19th century communities.  Lots of houses more than a 100 years old.

You went to 5 minutes of school listened to a leftist professor for a half hour and think you know everything.   

Lead pipes are not a problem anywhere there is competent government.   You would know this if you were older than 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2019 at 2:34 PM, 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.

Yep, he would have to be left in the dying Republican Party along with Tom McClintock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

You're clueless again, Nevada communities are all 19th century communities.  Lots of houses more than a 100 years old.

You went to 5 minutes of school listened to a leftist professor for a half hour and think you know everything.   

Lead pipes are not a problem anywhere there is competent government.   You would know this if you were older than 12.

Those old mining and ranching towns in the rural parts of the state are old as +++++, from Carson City to Elko, Lund, Caliente, Ely, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

You're clueless again, Nevada communities are all 19th century communities.  Lots of houses more than a 100 years old.

You went to 5 minutes of school listened to a leftist professor for a half hour and think you know everything.   

Lead pipes are not a problem anywhere there is competent government.   You would know this if you were older than 12.

Blues, I actually understand how piping works. Nevada had a population of 77 thousand 100 years ago. That's less than Flint alone did. Flint grow up to almost 200,00 people and then compressed back to its current size - about what it was in 1920. By contrast, Nevada is 3000 percent larger by population. 

Seriously, your arguments make it just mind-blowingly clear how little you give a shit about any issue vs how much you want that issue to be DEMOCRATS FAULT!!!!!!!!!! You're captain identity politics. 

9 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

Those old mining and ranching towns in the rural parts of the state are old as +++++, from Carson City to Elko, Lund, Caliente, Ely, etc. 

It doesn't really matter what year the city was founded, it mattered when it experienced growth, Joe. Nevada has less people than Wyoming for a long time - only 77 thousand people in 1920. Now Nevada has what, 3 million people? So less than three percent of the current population of Nevada when lead pipe installation was well and truly dead - and given how demographics have changed, that's right around 1.5 percent, or less, of the remaining homes. The numbers aren't as extreme for, say, Fallon, but it still has gone from ~1700 people to ~8600 people in that time frame - so on the very high end, 25% of its residences would even be possibly affected, and again given demographic trends, it's going to be more like 10%. 

By comparison, Flint experienced most of its growth prior to 1920. Its population in 1920 was 92 thousand people, today it is... uh... 96 thousand people. 

This is even going without saying that for decades and during the entire growth run, it was solidly republican. 

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

34 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

It doesn't really matter what year the city was founded, it mattered when it experienced growth, Joe. Nevada has less people than Wyoming for a long time - only 77 thousand people in 1920. Now Nevada has what, 3 million people? So less than three percent of the current population of Nevada when lead pipe installation was well and truly dead - and given how demographics have changed, that's right around 1.5 percent, or less, of the remaining homes. The numbers aren't as extreme for, say, Fallon, but it still has gone from ~1700 people to ~8600 people in that time frame - so on the very high end, 25% of its residences would even be possibly affected, and again given demographic trends, it's going to be more like 10%. 

By comparison, Flint experienced most of its growth prior to 1920. Its population in 1920 was 92 thousand people, today it is... uh... 96 thousand people. 

This is even going without saying that for decades and during the entire growth run, it was solidly republican. 

Sure it does. There's lots of old towns that predate the turn of the century and as such, there's a lot of buildings with old piping in them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joe from WY said:

Sure it does. There's lots of old towns that predate the turn of the century and as such, there's a lot of buildings with old piping in them. 

No, it doesn't. If your city was founded in 1850, but saw 99% of its growth after 1930, there's going to be effectively no exposure to this issue. By contrast, if your city was founded in 1890 but saw 70% of its growth by 1920, it has the potential to have major issues. It's the dates of construction that matter, not the governmental incorporation date. 

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, happycamper said:

No, it doesn't. If your city was founded in 1850, but saw 99% of its growth after 1930, there's going to be effectively no exposure to this issue. By contrast, if your city was founded in 1890 but saw 70% of its growth by 1920, it has the potential to have major issues. It's the dates of construction that matter, not the governmental incorporation date. 

I'm familiar with Nevada's historic growth rates. All I'm saying is there's a lot of really old towns in Nevada with lots of really old buildings in them. Fires and other disasters have ruined a lot of them, but there's still a lot of old ones floating around there. I'm sure there's plenty of houses/buildings built past the time period of lead pipes, but there's a lot that aren't too. 

A similar situation to some place like Butte, MT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

I'm familiar with Nevada's historic growth rates. All I'm saying is there's a lot of really old towns in Nevada with lots of really old buildings in them. Fires and other disasters have ruined a lot of them, but there's still a lot of old ones floating around there. I'm sure there's plenty of houses/buildings built past the time period of lead pipes, but there's a lot that aren't too. 

A similar situation to some place like Butte, MT. 

Sure, that's why I qualified everything too. If a house was built after 1920, it is almost certainly ok. If it was built before, it has the potential to have issues. Flint got hammered because they grew in that 1890-1920 sweet spot (shit spot?) of almost modern plumbing and also still using lead pipes. Nothing political about it. 

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 hours ago, happycamper said:

No, it doesn't. If your city was founded in 1850, but saw 99% of its growth after 1930, there's going to be effectively no exposure to this issue. By contrast, if your city was founded in 1890 but saw 70% of its growth by 1920, it has the potential to have major issues. It's the dates of construction that matter, not the governmental incorporation date. 

There are dozens of towns in Nevada that have the same or lower population than they did in the 19th century.

Nevada is more than las vegas and Reno moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

There are dozens of towns in Nevada that have the same or lower population than they did in the 19th century.

Nevada is more than las vegas and Reno moron.

Other than Washoe and Clark County, there are 14 counties and Carson City in Nevada.

In 1890, Carson City had 3900 people. Today, it is at about 55,000.

In 1890, Fallon, the seat of Churchill County, did not exist. In 1900 it had 741 people. Today it has ~8600.

In 1890, Douglas County had 1551 people. Today, it has 48,000 (minden isn't incorporated).

In 1890, Elko, the seat of Elko County, had 766 people. Today, it has over 20,000.

In 1890, Goldfield, the seat of Esmeralda County, didn't exist. It had 36 people by 1902, exploded in 1906 to 20,000, and has 268 people today. Lead pipes don't matter if nobody inhabits the residences (or if it was a tent city).

Eureka County is tough for me to figure out because it was split at one point. I can't tell if the historical population figures are decreasing from 1880 to 1900 because of that, or because of actual decline. 

Winnemucca, the seat of Humboldt County, had 1307 people in 1890. Today, it has 7800.

In 1890, Lander County had 2200 people. Today, it has about 5700 people (again, unincorporation issues). 

In 1890, Lincoln County had 2400 people. Today, it has 5200 people.

In 1890, Yerington, the seat of Lyon county, didn't exist. In 1900, it had 682 people. Today, it has 3100 people.

Mineral County was created in 1911. In 1920, it had 1800 people. Today, it has about 4400 people.

In 1890, Nye County had 1290 people. Today, it has 43,000 people.

In 1890, Lovelock, the seat of Pershing County, did not have census data. In 1910, it had 1100 people. Today, it has 1800 people. 

In 1890, Virginia City had 6400 people. Today it has 855 people. Huzzah, blues! One county in which you have a point! That's 5,000 whole people out of about 320,000 non-Washoe and Clark county residents!

In 1890, Ely, the seat of White Pine County, had 203 people. Today it has a smidge under 4,000 people. 

And again, What matters is 1) construction era and 2) people still living in those residences. Nevada seems to have neither. 

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

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Other than Washoe and Clark County, there are 14 counties and Carson City in Nevada.

In 1890, Carson City had 3900 people. Today, it is at about 55,000.

In 1890, Fallon, the seat of Churchill County, did not exist. In 1900 it had 741 people. Today it has ~8600.

In 1890, Douglas County had 1551 people. Today, it has 48,000 (minden isn't incorporated).

In 1890, Elko, the seat of Elko County, had 766 people. Today, it has over 20,000.

In 1890, Goldfield, the seat of Esmeralda County, didn't exist. It had 36 people by 1902, exploded in 1906 to 20,000, and has 268 people today. Lead pipes don't matter if nobody inhabits the residences (or if it was a tent city).

Eureka County is tough for me to figure out because it was split at one point. I can't tell if the historical population figures are decreasing from 1880 to 1900 because of that, or because of actual decline. 

Winnemucca, the seat of Humboldt County, had 1307 people in 1890. Today, it has 7800.

In 1890, Lander County had 2200 people. Today, it has about 5700 people (again, unincorporation issues). 

In 1890, Lincoln County had 2400 people. Today, it has 5200 people.

In 1890, Yerington, the seat of Lyon county, didn't exist. In 1900, it had 682 people. Today, it has 3100 people.

Mineral County was created in 1911. In 1920, it had 1800 people. Today, it has about 4400 people.

In 1890, Nye County had 1290 people. Today, it has 43,000 people.

In 1890, Lovelock, the seat of Pershing County, did not have census data. In 1910, it had 1100 people. Today, it has 1800 people. 

In 1890, Virginia City had 6400 people. Today it has 855 people. Huzzah, blues! One county in which you have a point! That's 5,000 whole people out of about 320,000 non-Washoe and Clark county residents!

In 1890, Ely, the seat of White Pine County, had 203 people. Today it has a smidge under 4,000 people. 

And again, What matters is 1) construction era and 2) people still living in those residences. Nevada seems to have neither. 

It is funny how you pick different years to find your biggest differences.  There were also many more towns back then with people.

So the 632 people in Yerington didn't build houses?

The 1100 people in Lovelock didn't build houses?

The 2000 people in Tonapah didn't build houses.

 

You better find another strawman argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Other than Washoe and Clark County, there are 14 counties and Carson City in Nevada.

In 1890, Carson City had 3900 people. Today, it is at about 55,000.

In 1890, Fallon, the seat of Churchill County, did not exist. In 1900 it had 741 people. Today it has ~8600.

In 1890, Douglas County had 1551 people. Today, it has 48,000 (minden isn't incorporated).

In 1890, Elko, the seat of Elko County, had 766 people. Today, it has over 20,000.

In 1890, Goldfield, the seat of Esmeralda County, didn't exist. It had 36 people by 1902, exploded in 1906 to 20,000, and has 268 people today. Lead pipes don't matter if nobody inhabits the residences (or if it was a tent city).

Eureka County is tough for me to figure out because it was split at one point. I can't tell if the historical population figures are decreasing from 1880 to 1900 because of that, or because of actual decline. 

Winnemucca, the seat of Humboldt County, had 1307 people in 1890. Today, it has 7800.

In 1890, Lander County had 2200 people. Today, it has about 5700 people (again, unincorporation issues). 

In 1890, Lincoln County had 2400 people. Today, it has 5200 people.

In 1890, Yerington, the seat of Lyon county, didn't exist. In 1900, it had 682 people. Today, it has 3100 people.

Mineral County was created in 1911. In 1920, it had 1800 people. Today, it has about 4400 people.

In 1890, Nye County had 1290 people. Today, it has 43,000 people.

In 1890, Lovelock, the seat of Pershing County, did not have census data. In 1910, it had 1100 people. Today, it has 1800 people. 

In 1890, Virginia City had 6400 people. Today it has 855 people. Huzzah, blues! One county in which you have a point! That's 5,000 whole people out of about 320,000 non-Washoe and Clark county residents!

In 1890, Ely, the seat of White Pine County, had 203 people. Today it has a smidge under 4,000 people. 

And again, What matters is 1) construction era and 2) people still living in those residences. Nevada seems to have neither. 

Nevada is pretty much the Las Vegas area.............the Reno/Sparks to Fallon to Douglas County triangle (includes Carson City) - Everything outside of that is pretty much devoid of any economic impact except for a few mining areas which are subject to mineral price swings.

Bottom line is there is zero to little investment by any business sector in rural NV outside of mining or a little mining support - Lot's of burgs in central and eastern NV not on I-80 are basically on life support 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...