Trump Alone at the Top

[Nanker]

The Party of the Puritans is aghast at locker room talk and/or boorish behavior. Oh my! Color me shocked!

Whatever Trump may or may not have done over the last 30 years pales in comparison to what Hilary has been up to.

She's a main cog if not an architect of the state of affairs that we're currently enmeshed in.

Trump has nothing to do with that. Hillary has everything to do with that.

 

He's an iconoclast. She's an icon. None of the others in the gang of 17 offered much in the way of real change.

Now the Puritans will stand at the sidelines with arms folded tightly across their bodies and turn on their heels and let The Lord wreak his havoc upon the land in fitting punishment for sexual transgressions.

 

In eight years virtually everyone in America will either be working for the government, or a ward of it.

 

Congratulations Puritans. You've won.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

I don't think the GOP will ever recover from this, if "recover" is to be defined as "going back to the way things were before". One way or another, the party is changed. Most republicans I know gravitate toward libertarian values anyway - I know I do. An exodus to a party that more accurately represents limited government and constitutional liberties is a good thing in my book.

 

 

The conservative Republican Party sold its soul for victory when Reagan opened the big tent to the Dixiecrats and invited a future welfare state into the tent. Reagan's seed has, 30 years later, grown into the Republican nominee who caters to the lowest denominator in racism and misogyny, while at the same time a party that can't in any way enact fiscally conservative law due to its freebie loving base.

 

The Constitution sets up a two party system. With the blurring of the lines between Democrat socialism and Republican socialism, there is largely one super-party now. So it will be interesting to see what second party forms in opposition.

 

Can the right build a tent that encompasses fiscal responsibility, decries racism, embarks on intelligent immigration reform, builds an efficient military, tackles social security and welfare without demonizing those in need? If yes, there's a way forward, because working class values--but caring working class values--will resonate with a growing minority electorate, especially the Hispanic sect.

 

But if the Republicans continue to cater to the Dixiecrat or Evangelical sect, they are doomed and good riddance.

[B-Man]

TAX FOUNDATION: Trump’s Estate Tax Plan Would Raise GDP, Incomes By 1%; Clinton’s Would Shrink GDP, Incomes By 1%.

[Azalin]

 

The conservative Republican Party sold its soul for victory when Reagan opened the big tent to the Dixiecrats and invited a future welfare state into the tent. Reagan's seed has, 30 years later, grown into the Republican nominee who caters to the lowest denominator in racism and misogyny, while at the same time a party that can't in any way enact fiscally conservative law due to its freebie loving base.

 

The Constitution sets up a two party system. With the blurring of the lines between Democrat socialism and Republican socialism, there is largely one super-party now. So it will be interesting to see what second party forms in opposition.

 

Can the right build a tent that encompasses fiscal responsibility, decries racism, embarks on intelligent immigration reform, builds an efficient military, tackles social security and welfare without demonizing those in need? If yes, there's a way forward, because working class values--but caring working class values--will resonate with a growing minority electorate, especially the Hispanic sect.

 

But if the Republicans continue to cater to the Dixiecrat or Evangelical sect, they are doomed and good riddance.

 

The republicans were barely a party of conservatism outside of the Goldwater faction that eventually led to the Reagan administration. In fact, in my lifetime they are the ones that gave us Earth Day, the EPA, and Nixonian price controls, hardly policies that can be considered conservative. And despite bringing the dixiecrats into the fold, it was the republican party that gave LBJ the congressional support during the civil rights era, while his own party largely fought it. To pretend that one side or another holds a monopoly on racism couldn't be further from the truth; which side has exploited minorities for the last 55 years or so for political gain without actually doing a thing to help lift them out of poverty or dependence?

[B-Man]

UNBELIEVABLE: CNN Host Blames Trump for Bombing of GOP Office (VIDEO)
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

All too believable actually.

‘Political Terrorism’ in North Carolina. An Outlier or a Harbinger?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441137/political-terrorism-north-carolina-outlier-or-harbinger

On the other hand................

Dems Raise $13K to Reopen Firebombed GOP Office.

.

Edited October 17, 2016 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

 

UNBELIEVABLE: CNN Host Blames Trump for Bombing of GOP Office (VIDEO)

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

All too believable actually.

‘Political Terrorism’ in North Carolina. An Outlier or a Harbinger?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441137/political-terrorism-north-carolina-outlier-or-harbinger

 

Weimar...

[B-Man]

I agree there are plenty of examples of hate crime Munchausen-by-Proxy. To think Republicans are immune is naïve.

 

but, until someone is arrested for the firebombing, I'm not assuming anything.

 

 

 

YOU WENT FULL REICHSTAG, MAN. NEVER GO FULL REICHSTAG:

 

The New Republic on the firebombing of the GOP’s North Carolina HQ:

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The conservative Republican Party sold its soul for victory when Reagan opened the big tent to the Dixiecrats and invited a future welfare state into the tent. Reagan's seed has, 30 years later, grown into the Republican nominee who caters to the lowest denominator in racism and misogyny, while at the same time a party that can't in any way enact fiscally conservative law due to its freebie loving base.

 

The Constitution sets up a two party system. With the blurring of the lines between Democrat socialism and Republican socialism, there is largely one super-party now. So it will be interesting to see what second party forms in opposition.

 

Can the right build a tent that encompasses fiscal responsibility, decries racism, embarks on intelligent immigration reform, builds an efficient military, tackles social security and welfare without demonizing those in need? If yes, there's a way forward, because working class values--but caring working class values--will resonate with a growing minority electorate, especially the Hispanic sect.

 

But if the Republicans continue to cater to the Dixiecrat or Evangelical sect, they are doomed and good riddance.

The Constitution absolutely does not set up a two party system, and you don't believe that Christians should be represented in government?

Edited October 17, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Benjamin Franklin]

The Constitution absolutely does not set up a two party system, and you don't believe that Christians should be represented in government?

 

The Constitution is set up in a way that encourages two parties. It's not an accident that there have pretty much always been two.

 

Christians will be in government, and represented by government. But catering an entire party to a religious sect alienates those who are not part of it.

Trump “Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP.”

 

Future commander, err, knee-jerk reactor, in chief.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The Constitution is set up in a way that encourages two parties. It's not an accident that there have pretty much always been two.

 

Christians will be in government, and represented by government. But catering an entire party to a religious sect alienates those who are not part of it.

Trump “Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP.”

 

Future commander, err, knee-jerk reactor, in chief.

The Constitution doesn't lend itself to a two party system; if it did the two major parties wouldn't have any need to craft law to protect their interests.

 

As far as Christians aligning themselves with one party; Democrats campaign on largely unChristian values and make up about half of the country's population. The Republicans need to build their platforms around the values of Christians, or Christians will leave for greener pastures, and Republicans won't win.

[B-Man]

YOU STAY CLASSY, LIZ WARREN: Trump’s a ‘selfish little sleaze ball’

 

Speaking of selfish, Warren “got paid $350,000 to teach just one class at Harvard,” despite that school’s crushing tuition costs.

 

 

 

 

CNN’s Brian Stelter: It’s ‘False’ and ‘Ludicrous’ that the Media Colluded with Clinton Campaign.

Wow, where would the public get the wacky, kooky notion that CNN was colluding with the Democrats?

 

 

 

 

#Women Who Vote Trump

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/womenwhovotetrump-meet-female-voters-who-continue-supporting-trump/

[GG]

The Constitution doesn't lend itself to a two party system; if it did the two major parties wouldn't have any need to craft law to protect their interests.

 

As far as Christians aligning themselves with one party; Democrats campaign on largely unChristian values and make up about half of the country's population. The Republicans need to build their platforms around the values of Christians, or Christians will leave for greener pastures, and Republicans won't win.

 

The Constitutional construct of the Electoral College absolutely results in a two party system, but it doesn't require that the existing two parties are the ones who survive.

 

That's why the two major parties are crafting laws (local redistricting) to ensure that they are the two who are always standing.

[TH3]

 

TAX FOUNDATION: Trump’s Estate Tax Plan Would Raise GDP, Incomes By 1%; Clinton’s Would Shrink GDP, Incomes By 1%.

 

 

Seriously dude...posting links to blatantly biased sources is weak sauce...grow your game a little bit,,,do a little R and D....form your own opinions....

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The Constitutional construct of the Electoral College absolutely results in a two party system, but it doesn't require that the existing two parties are the ones who survive.

 

That's why the two major parties are crafting laws (local redistricting) to ensure that they are the two who are always standing.

I strongly disagree. That's been the evolution, but not the intent.

 

At the time of the Founding, there was roughly a 50-50 split over whether or not political parties should exist within the government at all.

[GG]

I strongly disagree. That's been the evolution, but not the intent.

 

At the time of the Founding, there was roughly a 50-50 split over whether or not political parties should exist within the government at all.

 

I never argued intent. I said that the way it's constructed has resulted in a two-party system.

[B-Man]

 

Seriously dude...posting links to blatantly biased sources is weak sauce...grow your game a little bit,,,do a little R and D....form your own opinions....

 

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

Again Baskin demonstrates his buffoonery,

 

TaxProf Blog A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

http://law.pepperdine.edu/faculty-research/faculty/?faculty=paul_caron

 

Now does that mean Prof. Caron is always right ?, not remotely

 

but dismissing someone (who has posted for 12 years) because He doesn't know him

 

both funny and a little sad.

 

 

Also note...............on this same page I posted links from National Review, New Republic, CNN, Legal Insurrection, and Newsbusters,

 

but "Johnny-One-Note Baskin" cannot process all that.

 

 

 

.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I strongly disagree. That's been the evolution, but not the intent.

 

At the time of the Founding, there was roughly a 50-50 split over whether or not political parties should exist within the government at all.

 

The parties do not exist WITHIN the government at all. They exist without. But they formed almost immediately on its formation.

 

The Constitution invites a two party system, but just not which two parties. That's why the two parties have evolved over time both in name and platform.

 

The current two parties do everything they can to ensure they remain the two, but that is outgrowth.

 

My post that started this discussion was framed around what would form in opposition to the Democratic party, which is trending to dominance, especially based on demographic realities, if the Republican party doesn't change.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I never argued intent. I said that the way it's constructed has resulted in a two-party system.

mea culpa

 

I misunderstood you.

Edited October 17, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

 

TAX FOUNDATION: Trump’s Estate Tax Plan Would Raise GDP, Incomes By 1%; Clinton’s Would Shrink GDP, Incomes By 1%.

 

 

Interesting he's talking about getting rid of the step up on basis for estates over $10 million. That could raise boatloads of money. Think of the taxes due upon the death of Ralph and the subsequent sale of the team. There are lots of companies/properties/assets that have massive non-realized gains that are currently wiped out upon the death of the owner of those assets. I think having the people that inherit an appreciated asset should have to pay a tax on the gain above and beyond the original basis. I'd rather see that and eliminate the estate tax however with one caveat. As long they keep the threshold to higher valued estates. I'd hate to see people inheriting mom's $150k home that mom and dad paid $20k for in the 50's have to pay a capital gain on it....I think anyway.

[DC Tom]

 

Interesting he's talking about getting rid of the step up on basis for estates over $10 million. That could raise boatloads of money. Think of the taxes due upon the death of Ralph and the subsequent sale of the team. There are lots of companies/properties/assets that have massive non-realized gains that are currently wiped out upon the death of the owner of those assets. I think having the people that inherit an appreciated asset should have to pay a tax on the gain above and beyond the original basis. I'd rather see that and eliminate the estate tax however with one caveat. As long they keep the threshold to higher valued estates. I'd hate to see people inheriting mom's $150k home that mom and dad paid $20k for in the 50's have to pay a capital gain on it....I think anyway.

 

Or just make it applicable to liquid assets. Dad has 10k shares of IBM at a cost basis of 22...I can sell those when I inherit and assume a tax liability. A house, on the other hand, is a little less liquid.