2016 Election
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat I am saying is so many liberals say they are for higher taxes but on the wealthy or on the rich, etc. But since you brought it up, liberals from all over said they did not "need" the Bush tax cuts, yet not a one ever gave a nickel of it back. At the least they did not make it public that they did.
Okay, but it's just as likely some people who vote against government programs on principle, also ended up using one instead of going without.
Quote: rxwineOkay, but it's just as likely some people who vote against government programs on principle, also ended up using one instead of going without.
Not the question.
Obama, Hillary, Moore, and how many others bragged how rich they were and said, "I didn't need the tax cut."
Now, any person can make a "Gift to the Treasury" at any time. Some do for various reasons. I would have respect for those who said they were so well off they did not need the cut had they sent it back. None did, and I even heard he idea put forth that they "had to take it."
I wish I was a talk show host sometimes...........
Quote: AZDuffmanNot the question.
Obama, Hillary, Moore, and how many others bragged how rich they were and said, "I didn't need the tax cut."
Now, any person can make a "Gift to the Treasury" at any time. Some do for various reasons. I would have respect for those who said they were so well off they did not need the cut had they sent it back. None did, and I even heard he idea put forth that they "had to take it."
I wish I was a talk show host sometimes...........
If you're saying conservatives would change their minds because of this respect, it would mean something.
I still say, some redstate people are taking government money freely too while mouthing the words they are against it.
Quote: rxwineIf you're saying conservatives would change their minds because of this respect, it would mean something.
I still say, some redstate people are taking government money freely too while mouthing the words they are against it.
We are not talking about "some red state people" of average means and some general program. We are talking both party leaders and leading liberal mouthpieces.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe are not talking about "some red state people" of average means and some general program. We are talking both party leaders and leading liberal mouthpieces.
Yeah, but it's a red herring. You wouldn't change your mind even if they did. No more than I'm going to change my mind just because maybe an honest man believes certain deities exists.
Quote: rxwineYeah, but it's a red herring. You wouldn't change your mind even if they did. No more than I'm going to change my mind just because maybe an honest man believes certain deities exists.
Correct, not changing my mind. I have drifted a bit more libertarian the last few years (e.g.: decriminalize dope), but never will I drift liberal. However, someone needs to point them out.
Quote: rxwineIf you're saying conservatives would change their minds because of this respect, it would mean something.
I still say, some redstate people are taking government money freely too while mouthing the words they are against it.
Most people who are on government assistance can be lumped into two groups. 1) those have been dealt great misfortune in their life due to a handicap, defect, accident, health concerns, that make them unhireable due to no fault of their own and everyone across the board from Libs to the staunchest conservative are for helping those that cannot help themselves. But then there is group 2, which consists of people who are fully capable of doing so, but choose not to for whatever reason or excuse. You, me and everyone here has met someone in their life who has been on unemployment and magically found a job the week the benefits expire. Those are the people that offend me to the core to help. The ones that have the ability to live and support themselves that won't
Quote: AZDuffmanActually, this is totally incorrect. Liberals love to yell DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, and think that is the end of it. It is not. Liberals assume hispanics and asians will block-vote same as blacks forever. This is doubtful.
It wasn't incorrect at all. I don't think Democrats and Liberals are synonymous like you seem to, either. But I do notice that people who identify with Latino, Black, Asian, Gay, or Women concerns, whether they're part of that demographic or not, can look to the Democrats to look at their concerns and attempt to address them, and Republicans (mostly) to insult, condescend, or actively work to continuing or exacerbating those concerns.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd the liberal advice to the GOP is, "You had better get out there and be in favor of unlimited illegal immigration or you will lose forever!" Which is just advice to lose the country..
I say again, neither the Liberals nor anybody else is saying that! You're (as the self-designated rightist) the only one who twists this problem into a claim that anybody is supporting illegal immigration. Gets really old.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.
You be sure and embrace those outliers and tokens (which represent maybe, at most, 15% of their demographics, since you're so hung up on the word) while your party continues its work to keep them "in their place".
I can't think of any more illustrative example of how "your demographic" does things than funding Viagra in nearly all US health coverage while defunding and restricting female birth control and screaming about costs in Obamacare. Hypocrites. It's all about you getting yours, and the rest of us are supposed to take a back seat, clean up after you, and say thanks. Bleah.
Quote: boymimboCome on.
Clearly, the GOP and especially the Christian/Tea Party right within the GOP is anti-gay. You and several other posters have been criticizing the gay marriage movement since I've been on here. The GOP policy on immigration is also strongly against immigrants at this current time. 1st generation immigrants (and there are a lot of them) will favor amnesty over any other program that will require a hurdle for them or their family members to gain citizenship. That alone will block most of these people (there are exceptions) from voting GOP. And women? Reproductive rights and wage parity are a big deal to them, and far-right reversing of decisions in states around right-to-life are important to some of these voters -- these voters themselves may be pro-lifers themselves but they have a strong belief that women should be able to make their own decisions around the fate of what's growing inside of them, just on principle alone.
All GOP candidates unfortunately have to play cards that appease both the center Republicans (those whose votes are required to win) and the far right (those who will vote GOP anyway). Democrats can then grab on to these bites of hard right rhetoric to sway those thinking about voting GOP away from that decision.
I think the ideal GOP candidate's play is to ignore the far right entirely. They will vote for him anyway over Hillary as you know that the GOP candidate's view have got to be to the right of Hillary. The closer the GOP stays in the center the better their chances will be to win. And then you let those righter leaning politicians in the Congress and Senate to push their agenda.
well said. Definitely the wise course. However, in this election, all bets seem to be off, and the adults are standing back and letting the kids run the asylum for now.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt wasn't incorrect at all. I don't think Democrats and Liberals are synonymous like you seem to, either. But I do notice that people who identify with Latino, Black, Asian, Gay, or Women concerns, whether they're part of that demographic or not, can look to the Democrats to look at their concerns and attempt to address them, and Republicans (mostly) to insult, condescend, or actively work to continuing or exacerbating those concerns.
Effectively the Democrat Party is the liberal party. It has lurched further and further left since 1964. You are right, though, in that Democrats pander to special interest groups like blacks, gays, etc. The GOP is more about everyone having the same rights and no "special" rights for minority groups as said special rights tend to Balkanize the population. BTW: I have not seen the GOP insult, condescend, or do anything you seem to charge. The leader of your party (Democrat) did claim that people like me "cling to their guns and religion." If that is not condescending I do not know what is.
Quote:I say again, neither the Liberals nor anybody else is saying that! You're (as the self-designated rightist) the only one who twists this problem into a claim that anybody is supporting illegal immigration. Gets really old.
Uh, yes they effectively are. Who tries to stop enforcement of illegal immigration? Who sets up the "sanctuary cities?" Who tries to get them drivers licenses, welfare, and a host of other benefits? Meanwhile, when the GOP tries to enforce immigration law they are told, "YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE THE LATINO VOTE!"
Actions speak, Democrats love illegal immigration as shown by their actions.
Quote:I can't think of any more illustrative example of how "your demographic" does things than funding Viagra in nearly all US health coverage while defunding and restricting female birth control and screaming about costs in Obamacare. Hypocrites. It's all about you getting yours, and the rest of us are supposed to take a back seat, clean up after you, and say thanks. Bleah.
We'll forget that Viagra and birth control are two different things for the moment. I'd be happy to take Viagra off the approved list if that would satisfy feminists, both are elective. Nobody is saying "take a back seat." (Well, Obama said for the GOP to sit in back, but I digress.) The GOP just says, "we are all equal, if you want what someone else has you need to go out and hustle for it like they did!"
Let me state it again. The GOP field has a self-made woman, a black, and a hispanic all trying for the nod. The Democrats have a woman who's claim to qualification is who she was married to, and one potentially two "old white guys." Tell me again who is "inclusive?"
