SoCal Deek Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 30 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I want an end to the war on the poor. A serious look at the war on drugs to start. There’s a war on the poor? How about we stop shipping middle class manufacturing jobs overseas? How about we make our own energy? How about we stop illegally importing cheap labor? How about we move to a flat tax so top earners aren’t incentivized to inflate their wages? Just a few suggestions off the top of my head.
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, SoCal Deek said: There’s a war on the poor? How about we stop shipping middle class manufacturing jobs overseas? How about we make our own energy? How about we stop illegally importing cheap labor? How about we move to a flat tax so top earners aren’t incentivized to inflate their wages? Just a few suggestions off the top of my head. War on drugs is all about hurting poor people. Big Pharma making the drugs and money are laughing Manufacturing over seas means consumers pay less. Green energy is a great idea! Republicans are fighting to kill it, to kill energy independence Immigration makes us stronger Flat tax is dumb and regressive 2
HamSandwhich Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: I want an end to the war on the poor. A serious look at the war on drugs to start. With Texas turning blue I have no problem at all with the electoral college. Love ❤️ it.! Pretty soon, we can start locking Republicans out of the WH using it. Again, BLM/Antifa have not tried kidnappings, massacres (like right wingers are doing) bomb plots or trying to undermine faith in our voting system, like the president is. I’ll believe Texas is blue when I see it. We can agree with socio-economic issues as long as you’re not trying to make it a race baiting issue. I will never agree with a socialist/communist approach to it. Did you even see the video one of your so called “right wingers” posted about their dislike of all government, including his hatred of Dems and republicans? He was not right wing, he was all anarchy. BLM and Antifa are left wing antagonists and they do cause harm to others. BLM is going into neighborhoods, what is the next step. There will be escalations if we don’t stop it. Burning down buildings, shooting others point blank to protect their friends of color from a non-imminent threat is dangerous. Political violence is dangerous no matter what side. It’s coming from the left predominantly but anytime there is violence, the Dems and media want to do a slight of hand and say it’s right wing. It’s so easy to see through. 1
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Posted October 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said: I’ll believe Texas is blue when I see it. We can agree with socio-economic issues as long as you’re not trying to make it a race baiting issue. I will never agree with a socialist/communist approach to it. Did you even see the video one of your so called “right wingers” posted about their dislike of all government, including his hatred of Dems and republicans? He was not right wing, he was all anarchy. BLM and Antifa are left wing antagonists and they do cause harm to others. BLM is going into neighborhoods, what is the next step. There will be escalations if we don’t stop it. Burning down buildings, shooting others point blank to protect their friends of color from a non-imminent threat is dangerous. Political violence is dangerous no matter what side. It’s coming from the left predominantly but anytime there is violence, the Dems and media want to do a slight of hand and say it’s right wing. It’s so easy to see through. Texas has the same demographics as California and changing more every day. Just a matter of time. The war on drugs is being prosecuted racially. Blacks and people of color and poor whites get arrested, incarcerated and given records at a much higher rate than the middle class, who use drugs just as much. This rioting you are talking about is way overstated. The bloody masssares have been carried out by bigots. 2
Teddy KGB Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Texas has the same demographics as California and changing more every day. Just a matter of time. The war on drugs is being prosecuted racially. Blacks and people of color and poor whites get arrested, incarcerated and given records at a much higher rate than the middle class, who use drugs just as much. This rioting you are talking about is way overstated. The bloody masssares have been carried out by bigots. It’s everyone else’s fault you chose to work at a laundromat. Now change your thread title.
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Posted October 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Teddy KGB said: It’s everyone else’s fault you chose to work at a laundromat. Now change your thread title. 😂 Request again denied 😂
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 18 hours ago, WideNine said: Thanks for the reply. I read it, considered your thoughts and rejected most of it. 1. The disenfranchising doesn’t come from harsh attacks ads (old as time, predictable as the rain, existed long before Trump caused a bunch of knots in the backside portion of liberal underwear), it comes in this case from post election activity with the intent to unseat the president and nullify the vote. -My bottom line is simple—when you say the president is a lying treasonous scumbag, that’s one thing. When you say that, a panel of sharks is installed with virtually unlimited power and resources, that’s another. When you say, do that, and allow 3 years unrestricted access to just about everything, when all is said and done, you better knock him out and take him away in cuffs. John Brennan—keeper of secrets and burier of the suddenly dead—said they had the goods on Trump. Mueller report ends with barely a whimper from a doddering old fool with nothing. 0. Zilch. The finger flippers don’t give a crap. They keep saying I’m the deplorable. 2. Trump on taxes. The IRS figures that stuff out. Get back to me on the tax evasion charges. I’ll wait. Now, as far as complaints by nitwits about taxes, that’s fair game and in my opinion doesn’t go in the finger flipper category. 3. Trump on spending. Again, fair game. Say what you want, vote accordingly. There was a time that mattered to me but since no political party seems intent in reconciling that particular issue, I don’t worry about it anymore. 4. Global respect. 3 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize based on peace keeping efforts across the globe. Reorganization of priorities as it relates to NATO. Strengthens alliance with Israel. No new war efforts on a global level. I suppose if global respect is earned by screwing up Benghazi and leaving Americans to die, well, I’m not down with that. I’ve long believed amour respect internationally stretched as far as our dollars are lined up. Be that as it may, if global respect from manscaped Frenchmen is a hit button issue, fair game. 5. Sophomoric attacks. Fair game, but only insofar as it takes an awful lot of hubris to completely and flatly disregard decades of political mudslinging and pretend that’s new to a Trump. They called him all sorts of names and implied all sorts of things early on, he simply supersized in reply. Hillary Clinton tossed the word racism around like her husband tossed clumpy albino salsa on interns. This argument is weak. 6. “Any deeper connections to Russia...I don’t know...but...”. Look, we’re having a conversation and I appreciate the dialogue, but if you’ll permit me the following, said in the voice of an old friend you’ve got a great relationship with and who tells you the truth when you need it: “Get the 🤬 outta here with that BS”. There’s nothing there, there never was, and the reason you don’t know is because you’ve been bamboozled and your subconscious has not accepted it yet. This is finger flipping territory. 7. 30 years of service was not Trump, it was Brett Kavanaugh. If you believe the attempt to destroy him in front of the nation was fair and just, you’re a finger flipper. If you think lining up to vote for Harris and Gropey Joe is a vote for civility and unity, you’re kidding yourself. 8. I am a lifelong R but did not support the Clinton investigation. I was a young man, viewed it as you did but as I look back now, I think Clinton is a classic predator. He’s also one of the dumbest smart guys on the planet, and got himself into a pickle with his, uh, pickle. I will point out, too, that all the fainting libs who stridently scream #ibelieveher seems extraordinarily cozy with the likes of a Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. 9. Joe Biden has moved far left based on his rhetoric and platform positions. He’s not Venezuela left but he’s moving there. 10. As I said earlier, the civil discourse argument is weak, soft and would require me to ignore decades of political hectoring to spend much time answering. I think what people really want is to watch their guys pummel the other guy with racist.homophobic.xenophobic.bigoted characterizations and pretend to be offended when he replies thereafter like some societal norm has been violated. It hasn’t, it wasn’t and it will be that way forever. DJT is just spectacularly good at telling someone who trashed him to F off. You’ve been civil, you seem to be consistently and I appreciate that. I’d appreciate you and lib voters demanding accountability on the bogus Russia case that jammed up 3 years of my candidates time, but since that doesn’t happen, I just recognize that’s the way the game has to be played.
ComradeKayAdams Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 On 10/11/2020 at 3:36 AM, Capco said: Hi, Capco! Do you know the source and the date for that graphic? I’m surprised to see the Democratic Party positioned to the left of the Western world’s median party line. The voter base of the Democrats may be moving left, but the party leadership under Obama, Hillary, and Biden has been a continuation of the slow rightward drift since the 1990’s (at least on the meat-and-potatoes issues in economics, health care, environment, and foreign policy). On the European side of my surprise, I must be mentally stuck in the era before politicians like Marine Le Pen were considered serious political candidates. European politics shifted sharply to the right during the Syrian Civil War refugee crisis. Maybe I have been too slow to realize just how large and enduring the shift has been. What complicates this graphic are big policy issues that don’t fit so neatly into the simple left-right political spectrum anymore (namely economic nationalism versus free trade globalism). Also, some of the recent major losses for the European left (Jeremy Corbyn the most notable) can be attributed to candidate personality weaknesses and political strategy blunders more so than to unfavorable leftist policies. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you type, so I’m curious to know what you consider your political ideological orientation to be? My own is Revisionist Marxism, somewhere on that red “social democracy” rectangular region of the image you posted…somewhere between AOC and Tulsi Gabbard (who, incidentally, are now squabbling with each other over ballot harvesting voter fraud…I’m taking Tulsi’s side). On 10/11/2020 at 2:28 PM, Cinga said: I told you schools have been teaching wrong and you quote curriculum? The main problem is, some things really are as simple as a straight line. If you ant quotes on socialism and fascism, here you go:https://libquotes.com/adolf-hitler/quotes/socialism Cinga, I highlighted the text where I believe you went wrong in your thinking. A lot of important nuances are lost when you try to force the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum onto a one-dimensional line. Consider splitting public policy issues into two dimensions: all of the economic freedom ones and then all of the personal freedom ones. A common mistake people make when thinking along the traditional left-right 1-D spectrum is that they place too much weight on the economic freedom issues and overlook the civil liberties stuff. It’s a very understandable mistake because we Americans now take for granted the full list of civil rights victories that have been achieved for women, minorities, non-Christians, and LGBTQ over the past generation. But we can’t forget the unresolved left-wing libertarian issues like police brutality, protest/civil disobedience rights, immigrant human rights, drug legalization, animal rights, capital punishment, euthanasia, and whistleblower protections…or right-wing libertarian ones like gun rights and internet neutrality/censorship/first amendment stuff…or poorly defined ones like abortion and affirmative action. So once we move from a 1-D line to a 2-D square, I hope the distinctions between socialism and fascism become a bit more clear. Socialism doesn’t technically address the personal freedoms, but it’s traditionally associated with a generally more libertarian perspective on these matters. Fascism is authoritarian on both the economic and personal freedoms, although the government’s economic intrusion is different in nature from that of socialism with respect to how ownership of the means of production is organized. When you apply these distinctions to Hitler’s historical “accomplishments” as a political leader, you will see that he ruled as a quintessential fascist and not at all like a socialist. In fact, Hitler thought of workers as inherently inferior to business owners and not to be trusted with large shares of responsibility. The use of the “socialist” label in the “Nazi” title was hollow, done solely for political strategic gain in Germany between 1918-1933. “Actions speak louder than words” is the apt maxim here. Hitler can say to historians that he is a socialist…just like I can say to TSW posters that I am everyone’s favorite GMFB host!! My biggest frustration with modern American political discourse is how sloppy we all tend to be with political labels, including “socialism” and “fascism.” I’m guilty of this, too, from time to time! Words should have specific meanings and political labels should have specific definitions. Political labels should be applied with historical context in mind. Is Trump actually a fascist? Well he certainly dabbles in strongly worded law-and-order rhetoric and nebulous racial dog whistling, but compared to early twentieth century European politics? In practice, I’d say of course not! Political labels should also have well-understood demarcations among policy gradations. Much of what gets called “socialism” these days can be more accurately described as “mixed economies.” Referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer as “socialists” is cringeworthy to me (they are “liberals”). Referring to AOC or Bernie as “socialists” is still problematic because they are proponents of mixed economies, but it’s acceptable enough to me because a nationalized health care industry would represent a significant chunk of our total economy. For my final point before turning my attention to the Bills game, I encourage everyone to challenge the common association of authoritarianism with tyranny and libertarianism with freedom. With either authoritarianism or statism or totalitarianism, I’m referring to a simple definition of more government control, while with libertarianism I mean less government control. When you take that 1-D line of yours and keep moving from authoritarianism toward libertarianism, you will escape government tyranny but will then approach another type of tyrannical dystopia called “corporate tyranny.” The American libertarian movement (and therefore most of the PPP forum) aggressively denies the manifold losses of economic freedom under corporate tyranny (dissolution of unions, no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, monopolies, crony capitalism, all types of market failures, etc.), so let’s focus on another type of freedom that is near and dear to my heart. Let’s try expanding that 1-D line into a 5-D hyperdimensional public policy cube (lol…all my wonderful readers are hating on me now…) featuring economic issues, personal/cultural freedom issues, foreign policy, political rights, and environmental issues. I’m very libertarian on the middle three, but the devilish little eco-socialist in me wants everyone to focus on that environmental “dimension.” More government control in this domain can irrationally limit economic growth, but it can also INCREASE our individual ENVIRONMENTAL freedoms from corporate tyranny by protecting our health and property and financial resources from all the negative economic externalities (i.e. pollution) that companies otherwise get away with under free-market capitalism. There are other types of tyranny besides the corporate one, of course, with which government can help rectify. Religious tyranny played a dominant role for much of recorded human history, but its effect has (mostly) receded for the West with the help of government (and scientific reasoning). I would also generalize the word “tyranny” a bit to include genetic tyranny, biological/physical limit tyranny, random life misfortune tyranny…government CAN have a positive role in some aspects of these domains, but yeah…it’s complicated… 1 1
Capco Posted October 14, 2020 Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, RealKayAdams said: Hi, Capco! Do you know the source and the date for that graphic? I’m surprised to see the Democratic Party positioned to the left of the Western world’s median party line. The voter base of the Democrats may be moving left, but the party leadership under Obama, Hillary, and Biden has been a continuation of the slow rightward drift since the 1990’s (at least on the meat-and-potatoes issues in economics, health care, environment, and foreign policy). On the European side of my surprise, I must be mentally stuck in the era before politicians like Marine Le Pen were considered serious political candidates. European politics shifted sharply to the right during the Syrian Civil War refugee crisis. Maybe I have been too slow to realize just how large and enduring the shift has been. What complicates this graphic are big policy issues that don’t fit so neatly into the simple left-right political spectrum anymore (namely economic nationalism versus free trade globalism). Also, some of the recent major losses for the European left (Jeremy Corbyn the most notable) can be attributed to candidate personality weaknesses and political strategy blunders more so than to unfavorable leftist policies. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you type, so I’m curious to know what you consider your political ideological orientation to be? My own is Revisionist Marxism, somewhere on that red “social democracy” rectangular region of the image you posted…somewhere between AOC and Tulsi Gabbard (who, incidentally, are now squabbling with each other over ballot harvesting voter fraud…I’m taking Tulsi’s side). Hi, RealKayAdams. This is the original piece from June 26, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html I agree that the main weakness of many left leaning candidates is personality weakness and strategy blunders rather than policies. It amazes me sometimes how they can't articulate what are genuinely good ideas. I think I'm very close to where you reside on the spectrum. I like many Marxist principles but I'm not so far to the left (or so far authoritarian) that I would call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I think in the (very) long run communism of some form will prevail, if only out of necessity. Capitalism is fascinating in that it has sown the seeds of its very own destruction; it's only a matter of time. I'd like to write more but I have a Contracts midterm exam tomorrow that I need to study for. I look forward to reading more of your posts! EDIT: I'm Polish too! Edited October 14, 2020 by Capco 2 1
Reality Check Posted October 15, 2020 Posted October 15, 2020 The real terrorism is the draconian response to the common cold. The business of fear never disappoints. 1
Cinga Posted October 15, 2020 Posted October 15, 2020 On 10/13/2020 at 6:15 PM, RealKayAdams said: Cinga, I highlighted the text where I believe you went wrong in your thinking. A lot of important nuances are lost when you try to force the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum onto a one-dimensional line. Consider splitting public policy issues into two dimensions: all of the economic freedom ones and then all of the personal freedom ones. A common mistake people make when thinking along the traditional left-right 1-D spectrum is that they place too much weight on the economic freedom issues and overlook the civil liberties stuff. It’s a very understandable mistake because we Americans now take for granted the full list of civil rights victories that have been achieved for women, minorities, non-Christians, and LGBTQ over the past generation. But we can’t forget the unresolved left-wing libertarian issues like police brutality, protest/civil disobedience rights, immigrant human rights, drug legalization, animal rights, capital punishment, euthanasia, and whistleblower protections…or right-wing libertarian ones like gun rights and internet neutrality/censorship/first amendment stuff…or poorly defined ones like abortion and affirmative action. So once we move from a 1-D line to a 2-D square, I hope the distinctions between socialism and fascism become a bit more clear. Socialism doesn’t technically address the personal freedoms, but it’s traditionally associated with a generally more libertarian perspective on these matters. Fascism is authoritarian on both the economic and personal freedoms, although the government’s economic intrusion is different in nature from that of socialism with respect to how ownership of the means of production is organized. When you apply these distinctions to Hitler’s historical “accomplishments” as a political leader, you will see that he ruled as a quintessential fascist and not at all like a socialist. In fact, Hitler thought of workers as inherently inferior to business owners and not to be trusted with large shares of responsibility. The use of the “socialist” label in the “Nazi” title was hollow, done solely for political strategic gain in Germany between 1918-1933. “Actions speak louder than words” is the apt maxim here. Hitler can say to historians that he is a socialist…just like I can say to TSW posters that I am everyone’s favorite GMFB host!! My biggest frustration with modern American political discourse is how sloppy we all tend to be with political labels, including “socialism” and “fascism.” I’m guilty of this, too, from time to time! Words should have specific meanings and political labels should have specific definitions. Political labels should be applied with historical context in mind. Is Trump actually a fascist? Well he certainly dabbles in strongly worded law-and-order rhetoric and nebulous racial dog whistling, but compared to early twentieth century European politics? In practice, I’d say of course not! Political labels should also have well-understood demarcations among policy gradations. Much of what gets called “socialism” these days can be more accurately described as “mixed economies.” Referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer as “socialists” is cringeworthy to me (they are “liberals”). Referring to AOC or Bernie as “socialists” is still problematic because they are proponents of mixed economies, but it’s acceptable enough to me because a nationalized health care industry would represent a significant chunk of our total economy. For my final point before turning my attention to the Bills game, I encourage everyone to challenge the common association of authoritarianism with tyranny and libertarianism with freedom. With either authoritarianism or statism or totalitarianism, I’m referring to a simple definition of more government control, while with libertarianism I mean less government control. When you take that 1-D line of yours and keep moving from authoritarianism toward libertarianism, you will escape government tyranny but will then approach another type of tyrannical dystopia called “corporate tyranny.” The American libertarian movement (and therefore most of the PPP forum) aggressively denies the manifold losses of economic freedom under corporate tyranny (dissolution of unions, no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, monopolies, crony capitalism, all types of market failures, etc.), so let’s focus on another type of freedom that is near and dear to my heart. Let’s try expanding that 1-D line into a 5-D hyperdimensional public policy cube (lol…all my wonderful readers are hating on me now…) featuring economic issues, personal/cultural freedom issues, foreign policy, political rights, and environmental issues. I’m very libertarian on the middle three, but the devilish little eco-socialist in me wants everyone to focus on that environmental “dimension.” More government control in this domain can irrationally limit economic growth, but it can also INCREASE our individual ENVIRONMENTAL freedoms from corporate tyranny by protecting our health and property and financial resources from all the negative economic externalities (i.e. pollution) that companies otherwise get away with under free-market capitalism. There are other types of tyranny besides the corporate one, of course, with which government can help rectify. Religious tyranny played a dominant role for much of recorded human history, but its effect has (mostly) receded for the West with the help of government (and scientific reasoning). I would also generalize the word “tyranny” a bit to include genetic tyranny, biological/physical limit tyranny, random life misfortune tyranny…government CAN have a positive role in some aspects of these domains, but yeah…it’s complicated… Tyranny is tyranny, whether it's from government or from the corporate world and belongs on the end along with your statism or totalitarianism. After al, aren't you just handing control over to another entity in both? And that entity is still taking away your freedoms, whether it is control over you directly, or control over your life through your work life. If to the extreme right you have anarchy, how in the world can there by corporate tyranny since anarchy is by definition the lack of government, ie and overseer of any kind. I'm with you in that also to that extreme, something or someone will greedily take over, probably by force. But you can also argue that in the other extreme, pure utopia will never happen either, because some will refuse to labor for the good of the many... So I am still going to argue to the left is control, to the right is liberty. Each extreme is wrong, be it total communal control, or total anarchy.
Backintheday544 Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 11 hours ago, Reality Check said: The real terrorism is the draconian response to the common cold. The business of fear never disappoints. Not going to lie, I've been wanting to say this for awhile. Post Hillary Republicans would say everything was...well that's why Hillary lose the election. This right here. This idea. This is why Trump will lose the election. Polls show it. Trump was going to win prior to COVID.
Capco Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 On 10/15/2020 at 4:42 PM, Cinga said: So I am still going to argue to the left is control, to the right is liberty. Each extreme is wrong, be it total communal control, or total anarchy. There's just no hope with you.
All_Pro_Bills Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) On 10/14/2020 at 5:29 PM, Capco said: Hi, RealKayAdams. This is the original piece from June 26, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html I agree that the main weakness of many left leaning candidates is personality weakness and strategy blunders rather than policies. It amazes me sometimes how they can't articulate what are genuinely good ideas. I think I'm very close to where you reside on the spectrum. I like many Marxist principles but I'm not so far to the left (or so far authoritarian) that I would call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I think in the (very) long run communism of some form will prevail, if only out of necessity. Capitalism is fascinating in that it has sown the seeds of its very own destruction; it's only a matter of time. I'd like to write more but I have a Contracts midterm exam tomorrow that I need to study for. I look forward to reading more of your posts! EDIT: I'm Polish too! The thing is generally everybody's for: better education better health care eliminating poverty less people in prison eliminating racial bias income equality equal rights for everyone eliminating hunger a clean environment solving student debt problems good housing for everyone good paying jobs for everyone The contention is generated from differences in how to accomplish these goals. So what are you willing to do in order to accomplish these objectives? Edited October 17, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills
SDS Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The thing is generally everybody's for: better education better health care eliminating poverty less people in prison eliminating racial bias income equality equal rights for everyone eliminating hunger a clean environment solving student debt problems good housing for everyone good paying jobs for everyone The contention is generated from differences in how to accomplish these goals. So what are you willing to do in order to accomplish these objectives? Oh, I don’t think that list is common to people at all.
All_Pro_Bills Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, SDS said: Oh, I don’t think that list is common to people at all. I said most people. Do you see anyone campaigning for more poverty, or more hunger, or more bias? If you have I'd like to see it. The difference of opinion is how to achieve these things. Like the Green New Deal. I'm all for it if you can support base load power requirements without interruption or variance in output at a cost that is competitive with current and conventional power generation sources. But if you're going to tell me my power bill is going to be 4 times higher and we'll experience rolling blackouts every day then I'm against it. Like all ideas and objectives the "devils in the details".
SDS Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I said most people. Do you see anyone campaigning for more poverty, or more hunger, or more bias? If you have I'd like to see it. The difference of opinion is how to achieve these things. Like the Green New Deal. I'm all for it if you can support base load power requirements without interruption or variance in output at a cost that is competitive with current and conventional power generation sources. But if you're going to tell me my power bill is going to be 4 times higher and we'll experience rolling blackouts every day then I'm against it. Like all ideas and objectives the "devils in the details". no one uses those terms like more X, but the result is the same. Honestly, I suspect 35-40% to be hostile to most of the those goals. 🤷🏼♂️
All_Pro_Bills Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, SDS said: no one uses those terms like more X, but the result is the same. Honestly, I suspect 35-40% to be hostile to most of the those goals. 🤷🏼♂️ 35-40% seems very high to me. But don't you think that estimate says more about your thought process than it does about the suspected 35-40 percenters?
SDS Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: 35-40% seems very high to me. But don't you think that estimate says more about your thought process than it does about the suspected 35-40 percenters? I don’t follow. 😀
Brueggs Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 On 10/12/2020 at 8:51 AM, Tiberius said: I want an end to the war on the poor. A serious look at the war on drugs to start. With Texas turning blue I have no problem at all with the electoral college. Love ❤️ it.! Pretty soon, we can start locking Republicans out of the WH using it. Again, BLM/Antifa have not tried kidnappings, massacres (like right wingers are doing) bomb plots or trying to undermine faith in our voting system, like the president is. Interesting. So you must be a fan of the border wall? It helps the poor by not allowing ILLEGAL immigrants in who would occupy many of the jobs the poor could fill. It would also help to curtail the influx of illegal drugs coming over the border. So, you like the electoral college when it works for you, but when it doesn't you want to destroy it? Change the rules as you go mentality? You really don't think mail in voting is a plot to undermine the voting system? OK. I guess its easier to understand how you come to your conclusions when we see how conflicted you are... 2 1
Recommended Posts