Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yep. I think both parties are natural shills with an unhealthy hunger for wealth and power.Then the Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on this.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yep. I think both parties are natural shills with an unhealthy hunger for wealth and power.Then the Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on this.
Yours is a strange standard of evaluation.Republican supporters always seem to bring it up as if it was true, so probably?
False equivalence. One party is all about suppressing workers while elevating elitists.Yep. I think both parties are natural shills with an unhealthy hunger for wealth and power.
Your claims about the budget are not very accurate. The last time that we had a surplus in the budget before Reagan was 1969. We did have four years of surplus after Reagan. Those were in Bill Clintons last term and the first term of George Bush. I would credit all of those to the combination of the Clinton White House and the Republican congress. Between the two of them it worked.:False equivalence. One party is all about suppressing workers while elevating elitists.
What's the republican policy on wage increases? Republicans support unions?
You should expand your information sources. Or just look at which states have better economies for worker classes. You choose not to look. Go with the propaganda and fear mongering conspiracies.
Fact is prior to supply-side "Reaganomics" America had two things:
1) Higher tax rates on the wealthy
And
2) Budget surpluses
After Reaganomics we've had:
1) The wealth gap ballooning to unreasonable levels, worse than it's been prior to the Great Depression
And
2) Trillion dollar deficits* and an exponentially growing debt
*this trend bucked by the Omnibus package signed in the early 90s by the Clinton administration, which rose the wealthier brackets' taxes and had a couple years with a good economy where we had the one and only budget surpluses ever seen in my waking life. Then of course Dubya happened and that was history.
Weren't you a rather vocal supporter of one of these parties' presidential candidates at some point, or was that a wrong impression I had of you?Yep. I think both parties are natural shills with an unhealthy hunger for wealth and power.
Of course. I voted for a Trump as a stick of dynamite. However I started a search for a new party after the Capitol riot occurred.Weren't you a rather vocal supporter of one of these parties' presidential candidates at some point, or was that a wrong impression I had of you?
I'll give you at least this much.False equivalence. One party is all about suppressing workers while elevating elitists.
What's the republican policy on wage increases? Republicans support unions?
You should expand your information sources. Or just look at which states have better economies for worker classes. You choose not to look. Go with the propaganda and fear mongering conspiracies.
Fact is prior to supply-side "Reaganomics" America had two things:
1) Higher tax rates on the wealthy
And
2) Budget surpluses
After Reaganomics we've had:
1) The wealth gap ballooning to unreasonable levels, worse than it's been prior to the Great Depression
And
2) Trillion dollar deficits* and an exponentially growing debt
*this trend bucked by the Omnibus package signed in the early 90s by the Clinton administration, which rose the wealthier brackets' taxes and had a couple years with a good economy where we had the one and only budget surpluses ever seen in my waking life. Then of course Dubya happened and that was history.
Haven't liberals historically supported the expansion of civil rights in every area, for the past few hundred years? Perhaps compassion, idealism, and weak tribalism simply select for political liberals, naturally.Republican supporters always seem to bring it up as if it was true, so probably?
I don't know how that would even work, by the way.
Doesn't getting US citizenship involve a very long, arduous and costly process that takes years, and isn't it flat out impossible for illegal immigrants to become citizens in the first place?
So how would any given Democrat even get all these illegal immigrants to vote for them even if they wanted to? And how would they guarantee that these immigrants would vote for them in the first place?
This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me, so could you guys clarify how you think that would work?
Look who’s talking. All I said was, “So you don’t believe countries should have borders,” then y’all went ballistic. So easily triggered. LolOthers saw it too.
You might need a bit of mental exercise. When a simple step looks like a jump that is not a good sign.
No, you so easily showed our bias with such a foolish statement. There was no triggering. Here is a suggestion. Never play poker.Look who’s talking. All I said was, “So you don’t believe countries should have borders,” then y’all went ballistic. So easily triggered. Lol
No, you actually showed your bias (as did others) when responding to a perfectly legit question. And by the way, I always come out ahead when playing cards.No, you so easily showed our bias with such a foolish statement. There was no triggering. Here is a suggestion. Never play poker.
Oh my. That is another bad sign. People with a gambling problem never recognize it. Think about it, if your claim was true that should be your profession.No, you actually showed your bias (as did others) when responding to a perfectly legit question. And by the way, I always come out ahead when playing cards.
Nope. I asked a legit question and was criticized and bullied. Believe me. You don’t know my politics and couldn’t guess if you tried.Oh my. That is another bad sign. People with a gambling problem never recognize it. Think about it, if your claim was true that should be your profession.
And no, you tipped your hand. You told us that you were prejudiced in how you described others that appeared to disagree with you. You may be able to play poker with your friends, but here you have a habit of tipping your hand.
No, you asked a loaded question. And you were treated accordingly.Nope. I asked a legit question and was criticized and bullied. Believe me. You don’t know my politics and couldn’t guess if you tried.
As for gambling, I play about twice a year and do well. Hardly an addiction. Looks like you’re wrong again. And why would I need to make that my profession when I’m already incredibly successful in my chosen line of work?
Wasn’t loaded. Was legit. You read it through your biased eyes. If you look back, you’ll see one person offered an actual response and we had a short back and forth. People are plenty nice to me. But people like you are only nice to those who agree with you.No, you asked a loaded question. And you were treated accordingly.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
That is an example of a loaded question. Don't do that and people will be nicer to you.
Nope.. Loaded. It had a false assumption built into it. As a result it can't be legit.Wasn’t loaded. Was legit. You read it through your biased eyes. If you look back, you’ll see one person offered an actual response and we had a short back and forth. People are plenty nice to me. But people like you are only nice to those who agree with you.
To clarify my query, I am asking what Democrats are doing in the real world to faciliate an expansion of the franchise to their benefit right now, not whether it would be theoretically possible in some hypothetical version of the US at some point.Haven't liberals historically supported the expansion of civil rights in every area, for the past few hundred years? Perhaps compassion, idealism, and weak tribalism simply select for political liberals, naturally.
I think this political strategy of populist pandering for votes is a new phenomenon, originating on the Right but now beginning to sweep Democrats along in the wake.
I believe this also coincided with the only period in the 20th century when the US government made cutbacks to its military budget.Your claims about the budget are not very accurate. The last time that we had a surplus in the budget before Reagan was 1969. We did have four years of surplus after Reagan. Those were in Bill Clintons last term and the first term of George Bush. I would credit all of those to the combination of the Clinton White House and the Republican congress. Between the two of them it worked.:
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-us-federal-budget-deficit-3321439
Could be. Wait a second . . . Are you trying to pull a fast one? Everyone knows it is anti-American to oppose military spending! There must be better way.I believe this also coincided with the only period in the 20th century when the US government made cutbacks to its military budget.
Heh. I'm old enough to remember Americans writing about a "peace dividend" after the Cold War ended, yet still young enough to not have forgotten how quickly that changed once a certain clique of elitist conmen managed to manufacture a new threat on the horizon.Could be. Wait a second . . . Are you trying to pull a fast one? Everyone knows it is anti-American to oppose military spending! There must be better way.