Jump to content

Archived

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

pokebball

Tulsi continues to impress

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

IMO, that is no longer true.  The two sides are just too far apart.  We used to play between the 40 yard lines.  Now it's the 20 yard lines, at best.  There just isn't much in the way of common ground anymore.  How is a committed capitalist going find common ground with someone like AOC? 

The objective of either side is not to make things better for everyone, it's to attack and discredit the other side, even if they have a good plan.  A dim simply cannot support a position held by Trump and escape attacks from their own party.  The same was true with repubs when Obama was in office. If you weren't a supporter of the Tea Party, you were a Rino.  There is no compromise, you are either with us or against us.  You must tow the party line or face the consequences. 

Civility has to start at the top.  We haven't had a president who placed a high value on civil discussions and finding common ground since Bush 1.  And it will not happen with leadership like Pelosi and Trump and their ilk who thrive on hyperbolic statements, insults and manipulation of the facts.  And there is no one running who will change that.  And if there is, they won't make it out of the primaries.  

You don't need to find common ground with AOC or any of the fringe. There's still 100-200 Dems in the house who can find compromise. You can start by not call8ng them all "socialists" or "commies" because they happen to be a little more socialist than you.

And can we all please be more American and get the hell out of people's bedrooms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mugtang said:

But this is the problem. We’re not willing to listen to each other.  So we retreat further into our echo chambers and have our own beliefs reinforced which causes us to not want to work with anybody.  Compromising shouldn’t be seen as surrendering.  Working together shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. 

It has to start with our leadership and the banner has to be picked up by the media and they have to run with it.   It ain't gonna happen via social media.  

Perhaps one of the problems is much our news, especially cable news, is largely driven by tribal divisions.  It's good for business. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, renoskier said:

You don't need to find common ground with AOC or any of the fringe. There's still 100-200 Dems in the house who can find compromise. You can start by not call8ng them all "socialists" or "commies" because they happen to be a little more socialist than you.

And can we all please be more American and get the hell out of people's bedrooms?

Who's going to start the trend towards civility?  It's not going to be Trump, Pelosi or any of the "mainstream" politicians.  Tribalism is the new mainstream.  It's all "gotcha politics" nowadays.  

When the party not occupying the White House expends most of it's energy trying to defame, discredit, accuse or impeach the sitting president, or one of his cabinet members, it just widens the divide.  And it doesn't matter which party is in power.  Neither side can claim the highroad in regards to tribal politics, and their tactics are very similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideologies of the Democrat and Republican Party have diverged markedly over the last two decades. Just about everything the Democrats stand for I’m against.

Essentially an open border policy, sanctuary cities, and amnesty leading to citizenship for illegals- Hell no

Big government- Hell no

Single payer health care- Hell no

Higher taxes- Hell no unless spending is cut dollar per dollar across the board

Gun Control- Hell no

Unlimited Abortion- Hell no

Electoral College Deletion- Hell no

Socialism- Hell no

Im sure there are many others that escape me at the moment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soupslam1 said:

The ideologies of the Democrat and Republican Party have diverged markedly over the last two decades. Just about everything the Democrats stand for I’m against.

Essentially an open border policy, sanctuary cities, and amnesty leading to citizenship for illegals- Hell no

Big government- Hell no

Single payer health care- Hell no

Higher taxes- Hell no unless spending is cut dollar per dollar

Gun Control- Hell no

Unlimited Abortion- Hell no

Electoral College Deletion- Hell no

Socialism- Hell no

Im sure there are many others that escape me at the moment. 

 

That's how I feel too.  And there is no chance of compromise with most of those issues.   The libshits have their "no comprise" issues too.  Some are just the opposite side of the views you posted.  

Where do we go from here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

It has to start with our leadership and the banner has to be picked up by the media and they have to run with it.   It ain't gonna happen via social media.  

Perhaps one of the problems is much our news, especially cable news, is largely driven by tribal divisions.  It's good for business. 

 

We're older, we can still remember when the nightly news was actually the news. However, since the abandonment of the "fairness doctrine", which I don't really oppose, there isn't any such thing as TV news, outside of maybe some local coverage. Cable "news" shows, are just ridiculous entertainment, and very good money making businesses. 

You call out Pelosi. However, she's been vocally pushing back against the fringe freshman reps who really have you, rightfully so, on tilt. Or how about our local leader who preceded McConnell, Harry Reid. Didn't you often vilify him as being "far left"? If you ever had a chance to meet and talk with him, you'd know that wasn't true.  There's no way he could have been elected in a redder Nevada all those years if he was really left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, renoskier said:

We're older, we can still remember when the nightly news was actually the news. However, since the abandonment of the "fairness doctrine", which I don't really oppose, there isn't any such thing as TV news, outside of maybe some local coverage. Cable "news" shows, are just ridiculous entertainment, and very good money making businesses. 

You call out Pelosi. However, she's been vocally pushing back against the fringe freshman reps who really have you, rightfully so, on tilt. Or how about our local leader who preceded McConnell, Harry Reid. Didn't you often vilify him as being "far left"? If you ever had a chance to meet and talk with him, you'd know that wasn't true.  There's no way he could have been elected in a redder Nevada all those years if he was really left.

I have met Harry.  IMO, he never showed his true colors until Obama was elected.  Before that, Harry was actually good for Nevada.  He even got republican votes.  Lots of them.  As you will recall, our district has never failed to elect a republican representative.  Yet Harry won in our district.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

The ideologies of the Democrat and Republican Party have diverged markedly over the last two decades. Just about everything the Democrats stand for I’m against.

Essentially an open border policy, sanctuary cities, and amnesty leading to citizenship for illegals- Hell no How about citizenship for Dreamers?

Big government- Hell no  Umm...if you haven't noticed, Government is huge and it has been for 150 years. It won't be getting smaller, ever.

Single payer health care- Hell no  Why not? 

Higher taxes- Hell no unless spending is cut dollar per dollar across the board

Gun Control- Hell no Okay

Unlimited Abortion- Hell no  Umm...you know, we've already had unlimited abortion for almost 50 years, we'll survive

Electoral College Deletion- Hell no Okay, but how about some more Reps for really populated states so they can have somewhat equal representation?

Socialism- Hell no Do you no more than we already have? Okay.

Im sure there are many others that escape me at the moment. 

 

See, compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

That's how I feel too.  And there is no chance of compromise with most of those issues.   The libshits have their "no comprise" issues too.  Some are just the opposite side of the views you posted.  

Where do we go from here?  

No one is coming to the table to learn from one another if we're using terms like libshits, nazis, commies, cons and libtards. Labeling is a lazy way to debate/discuss and is a non-starter for most human interactions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

I have met Harry.  IMO, he never showed his true colors until Obama was elected.  Before that, Harry was actually good for Nevada.  He even got republican votes.  Lots of them.  As you will recall, our district has never failed to elect a republican representative.  Yet Harry won in our district.  

 

Harry was a good "politician" and certainly no better or worse than Mitch M., who's also very good at his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, toonkee said:

No one is coming to the table to learn from one another if we're using terms like libshits, nazis, commies, cons and libtards. Labeling is a lazy way to debate/discuss and is a non-starter for most human interactions. 

It's one thing for a bunch of message board guys to speak disrespectfully about elected officials.  Our system encourages us to question and criticize our leaders. Unfortunately, our leaders no longer respect one another.  And the ugliness isn't limited to just the campaigns.  If they refuse to respect those on the other side, we sure as Hell won't respect them either.  

They are the ones who have to come together and say "enough is enough."  They need to lead by example.  They need to remind us all what respectful disagreements look like.  They don't have those anymore.  They just go tribal.  

People leaving the two parties in masse and perhaps the formation of a strong, 3rd party might do the trick, or it might not.  The only certainty is the current state of things is not going to self correct.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, toonkee said:

No one is coming to the table to learn from one another if we're using terms like libshits, nazis, commies, cons and libtards. Labeling is a lazy way to debate/discuss and is a non-starter for most human interactions. 

All true.  But to get this party started, we need leaders that will come to the table despite being called all of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Harry was a good "politician" and certainly no better or worse than Mitch M., who's also very good at his job.

I lost a lot of respect for him once he became majority leader.  He changed.  He got mean and dirty.  Or more likely, I had bought in to his act and he was just waiting for his moment.  

And honestly, I don't think MM is good at his job.  He's not terrible, but not good.  I have never forgave him for his idiotic comment once Obama was elected.  The dumbass publicly said, " Our number one priority is to make sure Obama is a one term president."  Or something close to that.  You can think that, you can say it privately to your colleagues, but you don't announce it to the public.  

His job is to work with the president, no matter which party is in power.  He basically announced he was going full tribal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

It's one thing for a bunch of message board guys to speak disrespectfully about elected officials.  Our system encourages us to question and criticize our leaders. Unfortunately, our leaders no longer respect one another.  And the ugliness isn't limited to just the campaigns.  If they refuse to respect those on the other side, we sure as Hell won't respect them either.  

They are the ones who have to come together and say "enough is enough."  They need to lead by example.  They need to remind us all what respectful disagreements look like.  They don't have those anymore.  They just go tribal.  

People leaving the two parties in masse and perhaps the formation of a strong, 3rd party might do the trick, or it might not.  The only certainty is the current state of things is not going to self correct.   

 

I feel like you're just shooting from the hip with barstool bullshit.  There's plenty of compromise in DC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lets-make-a-deal-aoc-and-ted-cruz-yes-thats-right-teaming-up-to-fix-washington/2019/05/30/bb9dbbfa-832c-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.be79bd7e1ad7

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Orange said:

Good god, you're a crazy person.

As corrupt as Nixon?    How so?  And in your response, try not to invoke bursts of laughter with "Benghazi!" or "Fast and Furious!".

He murdered Americans.  This isn't arguable he admitted it.

He used the IRS to attack political enemies.

He claimed executive privilege and would not allow anyone to investigate him.  Unlike Trump, Obama never allowed a Mueller type investigation.

Obama actually lied to the American people to change the outcome of an election.

Not to mention several other incidents of lesser value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Orange said:

Good god, you're a ...

You may call me Aslowhiteguy.  Just be certain to bow you're head when you speak my name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Government only became huge during FDR's terms as president for life.

Federal taxes were 3% of GDP before FDR, they were 20%+ of GDP when he left office.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

We were still in WW2 when he died, so I imagine that those values are skewed somewhat (not that I'm arguing the overall point, just stating that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

We were still in WW2 when he died, so I imagine that those values are skewed somewhat (not that I'm arguing the overall point, just stating that)

Sure but as you can see from the graph it did not go down much after that.  As you can see from the graph taxes have been that high several times like under Clinton.

It has only once been below 15% of GDP since and then only for a short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×