Wait — did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office?

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  one week ago  •  62 comments

By:   Matthew Walther

Wait — did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office?
What I don't understand is why so so many of the president's critics are still pouting. Gee, it's so disappointing that you got exactly what you wanted and roughly half of the American people nominally agree with you about it.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners

Democrats have become too conventional.  The obvious political strategy has been to stir up public outrage, run a few polls, and declare political victory.  That is in keeping with the political conventional wisdom of viewing the President as a heroic figure whose heroic status can be tarnished by throwing mud.  That has been the political status quo since forever.  Democrats have been trapped in their own conventional wisdom and haven't learned a damned thing from the 2016 election.

Donald Trump was not elected to be a hero.  Trump wasn't elected to feed us political pablum about what is good, right, and proper.  Trump wasn't elected to lead us to that shining hill on the horizon.  Trump was elected to bring factories and jobs back to the United States.  Trump was elected to remove parasites gorging themselves, like fat ticks, on the lifeblood of the American Dream.  Donald Trump was elected to do whatever was necessary to save the American Dream.

Now, it is true the American Dream can mean different things to different people.  But that doesn't change the reason for electing Donald Trump.  The voting pubic has decided the American Dream is more important than climate change, health care, US leadership on the world stage, or any other problem the nation is confronting.     

If the American Dream dies, the United States dies.  That's the fear being expressed by voters.  Democrats simply don't get it because they've become trapped in their own conventional wisdom.  The American Dream was invented by the United States; Europe cannot provide a model.  Globalism has harmed the American Dream.  Democrats need to dump the Clinton nonsense and reacquaint themselves with Franklin Roosevelt.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


I don't know how to put this delicately, so I will just out with it, in the hope of sparing the feelings of as many New York Times columnists as possible: The American people are not all that shot up with impeachment.

It's true that polls show that many of us are broadly in favor of it, whatever that means (though others also show, oddly enough, Trump beating every single one of the roughly 437 Democratic hopefuls). But even those who will blandly affirm their support for the process in a poll were not exactly taking to the streets on Tuesday night.

Impeachment was always going to be like this: one of those pet causes beloved of (mostly wealthy or very young) liberal activists and very serious people in the media. The rest of the country, whatever they think about Donald Trump, have more important things to do than develop detailed and passionate opinions about the contents of the House's nearly 700-page impeachment report. As soon as it became clear that "Trump Ukraine impeachment" was not going to be a story involving Eurasian hookers and coke and urine-related videocassettes, people started tuning it out. Bill Clinton's impeachment also divided the country 20 years ago, but for some reason people seemed to care more about the details.

All of this was, as I say, predictable. So too were the increasingly serious-sounding negative repercussions from impeachment in crucial states like Wisconsin and Michigan. This is the price you pay for a self-aggrandizing cynical strategy long opposed by your own party's leadership.

What I don't understand is why so so many of the president's critics are still pouting. Gee, it's so disappointing that you got exactly what you wanted and roughly half of the American people nominally agree with you about it. What a pity that ordinary working men and women feel like they have better things to do than join the rent-a-protester mobs being put on by various well-endowed SuperPACs to protest — what, exactly? This impeachment game has been going on for a long time. Everyone knew what the final score would be.

So why shouldn't Trump's opponents enjoy impeachment for what it's been — that is, a massive if mostly symbolic victory? They got under the old lizard's skin. They made it almost impossible for him to pursue infrastructure or any of the other things he campaigned on. They are living rent-free in his head and rarely leave their apartments. The same goes for his supporters. So have some fun. Invite friends over. Tweet your pronouns, thank your local graduate student or journo union, bathe in avocado liqueur, or whatever it is that people slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman are popularly supposed to do in the right-wing imagination. It doesn't matter what the lumpenproletariat think. Just keep dancing on your own.

Liberals will be glad they did six months from now, when they find themselves in the exact same position they did four years ago: trying to prevent the guy who once got paid millions of dollars to pretend to fire Gary Busey on television from being duly elected president of the United States. They thought it would be easy in 2016. They should know better now.

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
Nerm_L
1  seeder  Nerm_L    one week ago

Democrats need to focus more attention on what is important rather than trying to score political points.  Phony pandering and wrapping themselves in the the Constitution accomplishes nothing if the American Dream dies.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2  pat wilson    one week ago

No one thought they were gonna remove trump from office unless they're morons. House members impeached trump because they all swore an oath to uphold the constitution. No one is wrapping themselves in anything, uh, except...

384

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  pat wilson @2    one week ago
House members impeached trump because they all swore an oath to uphold the constitution.

They swore an oath to remove Trump.  Nothing more.  Outside of that they have done NOTHING.  

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1    one week ago
House members have passed or agreed to 389 bills and 151 resolutions since January, when Democrats took control. But McConnell has left many untouched in the GOP-led Senate, having vowed to block their progressive policies as the "grim reaper" to their bills on issues such as election security and background checks. Link

Put the blame where it belongs...with the senate.

Where is this oath? I never heard of it. May be time to lay off hannity for a while.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @2.1.1    one week ago
Put the blame where it belongs

Oh I do.  Democrats.  If it didn't benefit them and only them, they didn't do shit.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.3  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.2    one week ago

Oh please. I could say the same about republicans and we can go around and around.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2  bugsy  replied to  pat wilson @2    one week ago
House members impeached trump because they all swore an oath to uphold the constitution.

Not the first one of them gave a crap about the Constitution when they impeached Trump. They have been vying to do it since before he was impeached. He had not even been in office yet, so there was no way he violated the Constitution.

Many of them are on video screaming that they were elected to impeach him.

Look what that hatred got them.....2 articles that don't even make sense

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.1  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @2.2    one week ago
before he was impeached

meant to say before he was inaugurated.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.3  XXJefferson#51  replied to  pat wilson @2    one week ago

And you think it a bad thing that Trump hugged our flag?  Why?  

 
 
 
bugsy
2.3.1  bugsy  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.3    one week ago
Why?

Because socialists would never do that.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.3.2  jungkonservativ111  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.3    one week ago

You have to try to remember, Democrats think burning the American flag or stomping on it is patriotic. So what more should we really expect?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.3.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.3.2    one week ago

What do the 2020 Super Bowl and Democrats have in common?

No Patriots..............jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  pat wilson @2    one week ago

Maybe they should’ve swore an oath to act more intelligently than their deranged base and less like some wingnuts from the Middle East.

 
 
 
Ender
3  Ender    one week ago
Trump was elected to bring factories and jobs back to the United States.  Trump was elected to remove parasites gorging themselves, like fat ticks, on the lifeblood of the American Dream.  Donald Trump was elected to do whatever was necessary to save the American Dream

Either a load of crap or wishful thinking. Factories are never going to come back like they were before.

The only reason we had a boom of factory jobs was after WW2 we were one of the few countries that still had all of our infrastructure in tact.

trump ran as a populist and a nationalist and is one of the fat ticks.

I don't know of anyone that thought trump would save the American dream (like it needed saving) except fellow nationalists and religions that thought he would ensure their freedom to discriminate, and of course the anti-abortion nuts that he made promises to.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1  bugsy  replied to  Ender @3    one week ago
except fellow nationalists and religions that thought he would ensure their freedom to discriminate, and of course the anti-abortion nuts that he made promises to.

You have to be honest here. Trump won with many people who voted for Obama and decided that Hillary was going to be the knife that went in the back of Americans.

Are you saying Obama voters are now nationalists, religious who wanted to come out and discriminate and anti abortion?

If you really believe that, then somebody is truly stuck in the liberal bubble with no way of getting out. Must be a sucky way to live.,

Trump was a newby in politics so Americans decided to push the woman who vocally stated she hates half of America and went with the newby.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  bugsy @3.1    one week ago

trump ran before. He is not a 'newby', not in the public eye or trying to involve himself in politics.

We had one of the largest voting turnouts with people voting for and against trump. Some electoral votes were a slim margin.

Are you going to deny trump courted the religious sect and the anti-abortion crowd with promises?

Hell half of the country shakes in their boots just at the word socialism, without understanding the meaning. It is the new commie under your bed meme.

I agree with you on one thing..Hillary lost it herself.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    one week ago
Hillary lost it herself.

With a whole lot of help from Putin.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3    one week ago
Either a load of crap or wishful thinking. Factories are never going to come back like they were before.

China became the world's second largest economy in 30 years with manufacturing.  If factories aren't important then why are we importing manufactured goods?  You do know that Amazon is completely dependent upon the availability of manufactured goods?

The only reason we had a boom of factory jobs was after WW2 we were one of the few countries that still had all of our infrastructure in tact.

The United States infrastructure is no longer in tact.  The United States is no longer capable of supplying its own needs.  If an asteroid struck China then western civilization would collapse because the United States and Europe are no longer capable of supplying their own needs.

I don't know of anyone that thought trump would save the American dream (like it needed saving) except fellow nationalists and religions that thought he would ensure their freedom to discriminate, and of course the anti-abortion nuts that he made promises to.

That's the problem with being trapped inside a bubble of conventional wisdom.  It's too easy to miss what is happening outside the bubble.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.1  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2    one week ago

Do you think factories will come back? It is the same as auto manufacturing. If it is cheaper to build in Mexico, then they will.

China is also now bringing about more stringent pollution laws while we are relaxing ours. There are people outraged and upset about environmental quality over there. Especially on air pollution and ground water quality. Yes they had a boom just like we did and are now facing the problems, just like we did.

In this global economy, I don't see any one country being able to be completely independent. We even ship food to China.

There are people trapped in bubbles now that still refuse to see the whole picture.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3.2.1    one week ago
Do you think factories will come back? It is the same as auto manufacturing. If it is cheaper to build in Mexico, then they will.

If the American Dream dies, the United States dies.  Factories will come back to the United States IF (big if) appropriate policies are put in place.  If the bureaucracy can micromanage consumption of fossil fuels then that bureaucracy is certainly capable of micromanaging consumption of imports.  

What are Democrats' priorities?  Are profits more important than jobs?

China is also now bringing about more stringent pollution laws while we are relaxing ours. There are people outraged and upset about environmental quality over there. Especially on air pollution and ground water quality. Yes they had a boom just like we did and are now facing the problems, just like we did.

China's pollution laws are nowhere as stringent as those of the United States.  China has a long, long way to go.  One of China's new pollution initiatives is to stop accepting waste from the United States.  China becoming more environmentally friendly is going to cause huge problems for the United States.

In this global economy, I don't see any one country being able to be completely independent. We even ship food to China.

China imports chicken parts that are processed into convenience food and exported back to the United States.  Just because China is importing agricultural products doesn't mean those imports are consumed in China as food.  China is a manufacturing country.  Agricultural products are also raw materials for manufacturing and export.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.3  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.2    one week ago

The problem I see with statements like that is the American dream is different for different people, different throughout the centuries.

What policies could be put in place to bring in a factory? Let them pollute? Have them not have to comply with wage requirements? The only way I could see it is if it was forced. A corp will not stay if the difference is 2.00 a day in another country vs at least minimum wage and some benefits.

The American dream (imo) was having the freedom to do what one wanted. I don't see that going away just because we don't have assembly line jobs.

What losing those jobs did though, I think, is hurt the middle class, which is what made America great. With the wealth divide continuing, I don't see things moving forward.

 
 
 
TTGA
3.2.4  TTGA  replied to  Ender @3.2.1    one week ago
Do you think factories will come back? It is the same as auto manufacturing. If it is cheaper to build in Mexico, then they will.

And to whom are they going to sell them?  Ender, what you're missing is that Henry Ford was right over 100 years ago when he said that your workers ARE your customers.  If the American people don't have jobs, they cannot and will not buy the foreign made products.  If the manufacturing jobs stay gone, the American consumers will not have the means to buy those products.  That's 300,000,000 potential sales that the manufacturers will be giving up in order to make their unsellable products cheaper.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.5  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3.2.3    one week ago
The problem I see with statements like that is the American dream is different for different people, different throughout the centuries.

Which I already stated.  But concepts of the American Dream have been embedded in political ideology and government policy.  Government policy for liberalized trade is at odds with policy for full employment.  

What policies could be put in place to bring in a factory? Let them pollute? Have them not have to comply with wage requirements? The only way I could see it is if it was forced. A corp will not stay if the difference is 2.00 a day in another country vs at least minimum wage and some benefits.

Make international trade less liberal.  Decentralize investment capital.  Provide larger incentives for creating long term business equity rather than increasing incentives for short-term profit.  Strengthen labor reforms.  Focus more attention on small manufacturers than on multinational corporations.

Government policy needs to be redirected toward increasing resilience and sustainability.  Profit oriented government policy has weakened the United States.

The American dream (imo) was having the freedom to do what one wanted. I don't see that going away just because we don't have assembly line jobs.

Freedom has little value when one lacks the means to do what one wants.  Democrats are pursuing a political objective of regulating the means that gives value to freedom.  The fabulously wealthy object because their wealth maximizes their freedom.  Democrats are claiming they can give everyone freedom by redistributing wealth; which turns freedom into a commodity provided by government.

What losing those jobs did though, I think, is hurt the middle class, which is what made America great. With the wealth divide continuing, I don't see things moving forward.

Donald Trump was not elected by the wealthy or the poor.  Trump is a middle class President.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.6  Ender  replied to  TTGA @3.2.4    one week ago

What Ford did was made a product cheap enough that the average Joe could buy one.

When one can buy a flat screen tv for cheap from China vs double what it would cost to be made here, I think for most people the choice is easy.

Even here in my state where some auto manufacturers have come, they are not paying as much as other places. I make more than they do managing a small business. Any attempt to unionize is quickly shot down and answered with threats to leave.

Most manufacturing jobs have been gone for decades with the majority being replaced with service work.

The places we do have are also turning to more automation making assembly line work obsolete and the techs running the line a higher skilled worker.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
3.2.7  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.5    one week ago

That's my problem with free market capitalism in a global society. I think laws need to be reworked to include universal labor laws. If a country is not enforcing labor laws that provide a decent quality of life for their workers, we should not be doing business with them. Slavery is slavery whether it happens in your borders or not. Profiting off of people who have no choice but to work for cheap is just as immoral as having an actual slave.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.8  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.5    one week ago

I disagree. trump was elected by the poor with some false hope that he is on their side. With some false hope that giving wealthy a tax break would be a boon for them. With a hope that extreme conservative justices will be in their best interest. With some false hope that he can bring back coal and manufacturing jobs when in fact that is a pipe dream. With the claim that all Dems want socialism and will ruin their American dream and way of life.

Which is completely false as most Dem policy objectives are not socialism.

Redistribution of wealth may be an objective of some, like Sanders, but not all. Not all in the Dem camp have the same goals and objectives. There are parts I agree with and parts I don't. Like taxing the wealthy more instead of consistently less. It in no way hurts their overall fortune. So instead of making 50 mil they made 49. Not much pain there.

The wealthy have always had more freedom whether it be from the justice system to the making, forming of laws and their access to government reps.

Profit oriented government is exactly what the republicans in congress are doing.

I disagree with investment capitol as it also mainly impacts the wealthy.

 
 
 
TTGA
3.2.9  TTGA  replied to  Ender @3.2.6    one week ago
When one can buy a flat screen tv for cheap from China vs double what it would cost to be made here, I think for most people the choice is easy.

Yes, the choice is very easy.  If you don't have a job, the only choice is to not buy at all, no matter what the price savings are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.2.8    one week ago
 trump was elected by the poor with some false hope that he is on their side. 

Completely false.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016...

Under $30k voted 53-41% for Hillary.

Under $50k voted 51-42% for Hillary.

You will have to do better than this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.11  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3.2.7    one week ago
That's my problem with free market capitalism in a global society. I think laws need to be reworked to include universal labor laws. If a country is not enforcing labor laws that provide a decent quality of life for their workers, we should not be doing business with them. Slavery is slavery whether it happens in your borders or not. Profiting off of people who have no choice but to work for cheap is just as immoral as having an actual slave.

The United States has been doing what you suggest by incorporating labor reforms into trade agreements.  The problem has been enforcing those reforms.  The reality is that political Washington has turned a blind eye on enforcement because that would interfere with liberalized trade.  The only thing the US government could do to enforce labor reforms in trade agreements would be imposing tariffs and embargoes.  And the conventional wisdom is that tariffs and embargoes harms a service economy dependent upon liberalized trade.

Trade negotiators know that the fluff and perfume of labor reforms will make trade agreements more politically acceptable but will accomplish almost nothing.  

United States policy makes international trade a competition between consumers; not a competition between suppliers.  Since US consumers will pay more to buy things in the global marketplace then the workers in those foreign factories can't afford what they are manufacturing.  There's more profit in selling to the United States than selling domestically.  Consumers in the United States are tacitly enforcing slavery by competing for goods manufactured by foreign workers.

Liberalized trade has been good for the US consumer.  However, the cost around the world has been wrecked environments, conscripted labor, and an increase in the number of working poor.  Liberalized trade has created an illusion of greater freedom in the United States but the cost has been loss of freedom by foreign workers.  

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.12  Ender  replied to  TTGA @3.2.9    one week ago

And when people have jobs that have roughly the same purchasing power as they did in the seventies, price does matter.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.13  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    one week ago

Ok, I was wrong on that. A weird anomaly to me as his most ardent supporters are under educated white people.

  • White voters,   who make up 69% of the total , voted 58% for Trump and 37% for Clinton. Non-white voters, who make up 31% of the electorate, voted 74% for Clinton and 21% for Trump.
  • White men opted 63% for Trump and 31% for Clinton; white women voted 53% for Trump and 43% for Clinton.
  • Among non-college-educated whites, 67% voted for Trump – 72% of men and 62% of women.
  • Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates.
  • More 18- to 29-year-old whites voted for Trump (48%) than Clinton (43%).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @3.2.13    one week ago
Ok, I was wrong on that

Not really, Trump did win with the poor as he said, just not poor financially...

"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," - DJT

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.15  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3.2.8    one week ago
I disagree. trump was elected by the poor with some false hope that he is on their side. With some false hope that giving wealthy a tax break would be a boon for them. With a hope that extreme conservative justices will be in their best interest. With some false hope that he can bring back coal and manufacturing jobs when in fact that is a pipe dream. With the claim that all Dems want socialism and will ruin their American dream and way of life.

A family income of $40-50k is middle class in the heartland.  And the middle class in the heartland resent being called poor.  Income and wealth disparity in the United States is a regional phenomena; it's not just about the 1 pct.

Donald Trump won in the heartland; Trump was elected by the middle class.  Trump was elected to preserve the American Dream of the middle class in the heartland.  Urban areas are fabulously wealthy compared to the heartland.  So, urban areas have nothing to complain about.  In the heartland, urban politics is all about protecting the wealthy.

Redistribution of wealth may be an objective of some, like Sanders, but not all. Not all in the Dem camp have the same goals and objectives. There are parts I agree with and parts I don't. Like taxing the wealthy more instead of consistently less. It in no way hurts their overall fortune. So instead of making 50 mil they made 49. Not much pain there.

The redistribution being touted by Democrats is all about throwing more money at urban areas.  It's not an equitable redistribution.  The 'socialism' introduced into Democratic politics is about treating the heartland like a foreign country.  Democrats view people in the heartland the same way they view undocumented immigrants.  And Democrats are promising to treat the middle class in the heartland the same way they treat undocumented immigrants. 

Democrats are deliberately attacking the American Dream for the middle class in the heartland.

Profit oriented government is exactly what the republicans in congress are doing.

Republicans aren't promising to make the heartland dependent upon money redistributed from the wealthy.  Democrats are promising to make the middle class in the heartland dependent upon the urban rich becoming richer.  Unfortunately, Republicans have become champions and defenders of liberalized trade which is counterproductive for creating middle class jobs in the heartland.  

Liberalized trade benefits urban areas.  Liberalized trade harms the heartland.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.14    one week ago

Sure he loves the poorly educated--don't Democrats?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.17  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3.2.13    one week ago
Ok, I was wrong on that. A weird anomaly to me as his most ardent supporters are under educated white people.

It's kinda difficult to attract diversity to rural America when there aren't any jobs.  The under educated meme is a farce because it is based upon urban standards.  A single class in an urban school can be larger than an entire rural school.  The educational challenges for sparsely populated areas are orders of magnitude larger than for urban schools.

In the heartland the American Dream is based on work; not education.  Sparsely populated areas need a higher number of manual trades per capita than does urban areas.  Sparsely populated areas cannot support a large number of office workers.  A factory employing 100 workers can be more important for a community in the heartland than a auto plant in an urban center.

The 'under educated' meme is not an apples to apples comparison.  

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.18  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.15    one week ago

First I don't understand what you mean by distribution of wealth. I see that as more of a boogie man than anything. Do you mean social security, medicare or medicaid? Do you mean making the wealthy pay more in taxes? As I see none of that as wealth redistribution. I see them as necessities in order to have a functioning society.

I don't know where you get Dems want the urban rich to take off the heartlands back. That makes zero sense to me.

Do Liberal politicians want to benefit Liberal urban areas? Of course they do just as conservative politicians want to benefit conservative areas.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.19  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.17    one week ago
A factory employing 100 workers can be more important for a community in the heartland than a auto plant in an urban center

I think a city like Detroit would think differently.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.2.20  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.17    one week ago
It's kinda difficult to attract diversity to rural America when there aren't any jobs.

Jobs have nothing to do with it.

It is more difficult to address the diversity issues in rural America because there is little diversity to begin with. These communities are insular by nature and thus the distrust and fear of the coming changes, and sooner rather than later. Their reactions are neither right nor wrong, unless blatantly racist in nature, but the changes are inevitable. How these challenges to the status quo (knowing your preference for that phrase) are dealt with is the key...do we accept them and move forward to everyone's benefit, or do we dig in our heels and tilt against windmills, to no-one's. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
3.2.21  jungkonservativ111  replied to  r.t..b... @3.2.20    one week ago
Do we accept them and move forward to everyone's benefit

See there it is again. Assuming that diversifying your community automatically makes things better. I can provide plenty of evidence that shows this is not the case. From crime, to education, to civil engagement, diverse communities often do worse. I'm not saying it isn't inevitable, but I am not sold that it is to everyone's benefit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3.2.21    one week ago

There's that nonsense again.  I bet you were salivating for the opportunity to post that garbage 

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.23  Ender  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3.2.21    one week ago

I wouldn't say so. The community I live in is diverse, black, white, Asian, Latino...

We are no more better or worse off than other places.

Are larger areas going to have more diversity and more crime? Yes but I would say that is just statistically normal.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.24  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3.2.18    one week ago
First I don't understand what you mean by distribution of wealth. I see that as more of a boogie man than anything. Do you mean social security, medicare or medicaid? Do you mean making the wealthy pay more in taxes? As I see none of that as wealth redistribution. I see them as necessities in order to have a functioning society.

Democrats have been promising to tax wealth but haven't really explained what they intend, either.  And distributing revenue obtained from taxes levied on wealth is a redistribution.  

Spending revenue obtained from wealth taxes on multi-billion dollar urban infrastructure projects would not be an equitable redistribution.  Spending more on urban education would not be an equitable redistribution.  Spending more on tax incentives to attract multinational corporations to urban areas would not be a equitable redistribution.  Even using that revenue for SoSec, Medicare, and Medicaid would not be an equitable redistribution because that doesn't account for income disparities between urban and rural areas.  

Democrats (and Republicans) have been imposing inflation in an equitable manner but haven't been providing a equitable means of absorbing the effects of inflation.  The difference between political promises made by Democrats and Republicans is rather stark.  Democrats really are prioritizing urban politics while Republicans are prioritizing rural politics.  The growing political division in the United States really does correlate with population density.

Democrats haven't been promising to lessen regional economic disparities between urban and rural areas.  If anything, Democrats are working to increase those economic disparities.  That's why Democratic policy proposals are viewed as a deliberate attack on the American Dream for the middle class in the heartland.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.2.25  r.t..b...  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3.2.21    one week ago
but I am not sold that it is to everyone's benefit.

The operative word being 'everyone'.

I'd much rather live in a community that lives, works, and recreates together, warts and all, than in a constantly defensive populace that has no desire in experiencing the benefits of reaching out and accepting different cultures. Having lived in both, the former is far more live-giving than the latter. Plain vanilla is just that...there is so much more if willing to open one's mind and more importantly, one's heart. 

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.26  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.24    one week ago

I don't see it that way. Taxes have always been progressive. The more you make the more you pay. Saying that the wealthy pay far more is true yet with the progressive system we have that is what occurs. That is what is supposed to occur. When one keeps lessening what the wealthy owe, then more and more falls on the middle class.

If a corporation depends on the roads for distribution and transportation, they are benefiting just as much as the average driver. If not more so. Drive on any interstate and count the big rigs going down the highway.

Also talking about even distribution is a misnomer. Would a city with 1,000 students receive more money than a city with 100? Of course they would as they would have more of a need. There would never be an equal amount of distribution based just on geography. Why should a class of just 100 get the same amount as the class with 10,000..

Tax incentives can vary within states and cities. I personally don't believe in those but as it is now the companies have a choice and so do the cities that would house them.

SS is also progressive, the more one pays, the more one gets. I would say Medicare is about even.

And yes the Dems are in charge in a lot of the coastal regions and Reps are in charge in most of the heartland. Why do you think the Dems should not try to benefit their own areas? I don't see any plans or bills being passed that would disparage and make it harder for people in flyover country.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.27  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @3.2.20    one week ago
It is more difficult to address the diversity issues in rural America because there is little diversity to begin with. These communities are insular by nature and thus the distrust and fear of the coming changes, and sooner rather than later. Their reactions are neither right nor wrong, unless blatantly racist in nature, but the changes are inevitable. How these challenges to the status quo (knowing your preference for that phrase) are dealt with is the key...do we accept them and move forward to everyone's benefit, or do we dig in our heels and tilt against windmills, to no-one's. 

If the American Dream dies then the United States dies.  Rural America isn't a foreign country.  Yet, rural America is treated like a foreign country.  Rural America has become insular because people are leaving.  Government policy has favored urban growth while imposing more challenges on rural America.

Rural America has been experiencing the coming changes for decades.  Detroit is facing challenges because factories have closed and the population has declined.  And Detroit receives less political attention as the population declines.  Rural America has been dealing with those challenges since the 1970s.  Like it or not, the United States cannot continue without a rural population.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.28  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.27    one week ago
Rural America has become insular because people are leaving. 

Rural America has always been insular, due to distance from other areas, challenging terrain, etc.

But yes, we need our rural population. The challenge is what to do about the decline.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.29  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @3.2.26    one week ago
I don't see it that way. Taxes have always been progressive. The more you make the more you pay. Saying that the wealthy pay far more is true yet with the progressive system we have that is what occurs. That is what is supposed to occur. When one keeps lessening what the wealthy owe, then more and more falls on the middle class.

Property taxes are levied on wealth.  Same for inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes.  Taxing earned interest on bank savings is a tax levied on wealth.  

Sales taxes are not progressive.  Any tax on consumption is not a progressive tax.

Our overall federal tax system functions like a flat tax; Federal taxes are no longer progressive.  Adding FICA taxes into the mix means that the Federal tax brackets are actually the same across income levels.  A household with an income of $52k is in the 22 pct income tax bracket.  Adding FICA taxes means the actual tax burden for household income of $52k is 37 pct which is the same tax burden for household incomes of $510k and above.  An individual income of $40k carries the same Federal tax burden of 37 pct as all higher incomes.  Federal taxes can only be called progressive by ignoring the overall tax burden that includes FICA taxes.

The overall Federal tax system is a flat tax; not a progressive tax.

If a corporation depends on the roads for distribution and transportation, they are benefiting just as much as the average driver. If not more so. Drive on any interstate and count the big rigs going down the highway.

The interstate highway system connects the west coast shipping ports to east coast consumers.  The states in the heartland are being forced to subsidize liberalized trade and coastal consumers.  Interstate highways are intended to provide the most benefit to urban centers and facilitate urban growth.  Would urban consumers accept a sales tax to maintain those rural interstate highways?

Also talking about even distribution is a misnomer. Would a city with 1,000 students receive more money than a city with 100? Of course they would as they would have more of a need. There would never be an equal amount of distribution based just on geography. Why should a class of just 100 get the same amount as the class with 10,000.

That's not a rational argument.  Would a rural school receive public money to build a sports complex or an auditorium/theater?  The answer is obvious because a rural school couldn't use a sports complex or theater; there aren't enough students.  Any public money received by rural schools is more likely to be spent on education or maintenance of the infrastructure.  But the way public money is allocated, all schools receive a per capita amount for education while urban schools receive a bonus amount for extracurricular activities.  Rural schools do not enjoy the same extracurricular opportunities as do urban schools.  But urban schools claim that extracurricular activities is an important part of the educational experience. 

Tax incentives can vary within states and cities. I personally don't believe in those but as it is now the companies have a choice and so do the cities that would house them.

Small business, as a conglomerate, doesn't receive the same tax incentives as large corporations.  Supporting small business would provide more bang for the public buck but won't provide the same political benefit.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @3.2.13    one week ago
weird anomaly to me as his most ardent supporters are under educated white people.

What was the voting splits for under educated minorities? 

 
 
 
TTGA
3.2.31  TTGA  replied to  Ender @3.2.12    one week ago
And when people have jobs that have roughly the same purchasing power as they did in the seventies, price does matter.

Except that far fewer people do have jobs than they did then, and to those people price doesn't matter since they can't afford to buy anything.  Their jobs were the ones sent overseas.  Or do you just consider those people to be deplorables so they don't matter?

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.32  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.29    one week ago

FICA is still calculated on how much is made, with the exception of caps. So yes I would say it is progressive. Smaller earners pay less where larger earners pay more. Sales tax is a flat tax as no matter who buys a product, the tax is the same.

Sorry but people in flyover country benefit just as much from interstates as people on the coasts. If you notice, in most rural areas, a town will be closer to an interstate. They bring goods and services as well as tourism. Believe me, they do benefit.

You act like rural schools don't have any sports programs, while at the same time admit they get bonus resources. Some rural schools may not have a massive sports complex but I bet most of them have at least a track, football field and baseball field.

Small business, as a conglomerate, doesn't receive the same tax incentives as large corporations.  Supporting small business would provide more bang for the public buck but won't provide the same political benefit.

On this I agree.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.33  Ender  replied to  TTGA @3.2.31    one week ago

Why do you assume what I think about people? Yes I do think quite a few are deplorable but employment does not factor into that decision.

Most of these factories have been decades gone. You are acting like this is a new phenomenon when it is not. A lot of these jobs we are talking about 30, 40, 50 years ago.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.34  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.16    one week ago

Haha   That made me laugh. This may set my keyboard on fire but I had to vote it up.

Hahaha

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.35  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.14    one week ago

I think that is something lefties folks to make themselves feel better, the reality is much different, particularly in my circle of influence where precisely the opposite is true.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.2.34    one week ago
Haha   That made me laugh. This may set my keyboard on fire but I had to vote it up.
Hahaha

I see that quoted so often, and I always ask, but never really get an answer. The people who quote it usually mean it in a mean-spirited way, like it is some horrible thing for Trump to have said, and refuse to acknowledge that both parties depend on those votes.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.37  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.29    one week ago

That’s all fine but I just want to point out that a married couple is probably earning somewhere in neighborhood of $125k annually before they hit the 22% marginal federal tax bracket.  Add a kid and it’s even higher. 

Also, note that the progressiveness of the FICA comes in the form of relative benefits as imposed by the bend points applied to AIME which drop from a high of 85% to 15% at the third income tier.

 
 
 
Ender
3.2.38  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.36    one week ago

I am going to say this and people may not like it. Not very pc.

Imo it would be like me walking up to a retarded person and saying you are retarded. I like my retarded people.

I don't think it would go over very well. There are things called couth and decorum which very seldom factor into the trump brain.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  Tessylo    one week ago

81762635_10221756240442050_1695050689232

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    one week ago

"did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office ?"

House Democrats :

The Show Must Go On
Leo Sayer

I've been a fool, oh, what a fool
I broke all the rules Oh, yeah
But I must let the show go on

Now.… Nancy "Bot" Pelosi wants the Senators to do what the house "Couldn't"  do.

Find actual "First Hand" Witness's to testify.

The House Dems were just looking for the "Guilt by Perception" thingy. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @5    one week ago

384

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    one week ago

It's her....for real ! OMG ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



GregTx
Old Hermit


28 visitors