(July 23, 2016 at 12:38 am)wallym Wrote: When Trump says America first, this is what I think of.  Stopping outsourcing with the trade deals written by corporate lobbyists looking to drive up their stocks, and stop corporations/shady business from driving down wages through shady legal, and illegal immigration.  People try to paint it as some Aryan white thing.  But when I think America first, I think about giving poor black community at least a chance.  My family got ours when the getting was good.  But now, that opportunity is gone.  I'd like to see it brought back.  I don't know if Trump can do it.  Probably not.  But at least he'll be pushing in the right direction, I think.

I get this sentiment, but he is speaking purely to the populists when he says stuff like this. He is part of the Republican Party now. De-regulators. Not the party that is going to enact laws that will force companies to do things that will cost them money. I don't understand how people believe him. This man is speaking in terms that are solely for the people that want to hear it.

His party, the Republicans, live off of making promises that they know they can't or won't fulfill. That run contrary to their very core, which is smaller government, less corporate regulation. There is simply no trade deal that China will not undercut. There is no realistic corporate tax haven that some de-regulated country will not do better. It will always be cheaper to move your business elsewhere once it grows to a certain size with the capital to do so. Getting rid of illegal labor has been tried. It was a disaster in Alabama, as no one wanted to do the work that was left over. Even the people they found or forced to do it did a shitty job and the farmers who were against it in the first place got a big "I told you so."

It's a red herring to think any political party can significantly change this.

(July 23, 2016 at 12:48 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: His party, the Republicans, live off of making promises that they know they can't or won't fulfill.

I dunno, dude. I had a serious man crush on Obama, but in retrospect, I think everyone, Obama himself, knew he couldn't fulfill even 10% of the promises he made during his first campaign.

I see your point. Both parties do it. I think one party does it more than the other.

Besides, I don't think even Obama thought he would see the type of unprecedented obstructionism he sees now.

(July 23, 2016 at 12:57 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I see your point. Both parties do it. I think one party does it more than the other.

Besides, I don't think even Obama thought he would see the type of unprecedented obstructionism he sees now.

Totally agree.

In his first term, Obama had the House and Senate majority IIRC.  He literally could have pushed every bill he wanted to, and the republicans could have done relatively little to stop him.  And when the Republicans started cock-blocking him, he STILL had a huge swell of support.  I was waiting for him to make a public announcement: "Look what these fuckers are doing. . . they are blocking the will of the people.  Let's take action!"  Instead, he negotiated, played diplomacy, and realized to late that there was never, EVER going to be cooperation from the Republicans. . . not on anything.

I consider myself a democrat, and socially liberal. But I think a big part of that is because I'm transgender and thus I'm big about LGBT rights. I think there is a correlation between atheism and being liberal, but I feel like even if I was a Christian, I still would fall to the left.

I think a lot of atheists will align with the socially liberal policies of Democrats. If they are fiscally conservative, they may align with Republicans because they may assign more value or importance to fiscal conservatism than socially liberal policies.

I am becoming less and less fiscally conservative. I find that fiscal conservatism tends towards the rich becoming richer and less and less opportunity for everyone else. Ten years ago I would have said that the fiscal portion is more important for me than the social portion. Now it's the opposite.

(July 22, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Otherwise known as "Texas".  





Sweet, sweet release. 

Hey now! Cut out them thar generli -- genera -- aw, hell, cut that shit out.

(July 22, 2016 at 10:08 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 22, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Without conservative values, there is no engine for liberal programs...without liberal programs there is no need for conservative values.  They owe their very existence to each other...but for whatever reason..people who identify strongly with one or the other seem to be chiefly engaged at tearing out each others throats over imaginary sleights.

Yeah, I think things in the US have gone from different ideas about governing to enemy gangs, much like the Roman blues and greens or the Crips and Bloods.  It doesn't matter who says what, you must declare and maintain a lifelong, unquestioning loyalty to your colors, or face exile by angry family or peers.  That's why, IMO, so many Democrats voted for Hillary, though she's clearly quite conservative, or is at least much LESS progressive than Sanders-- she's on Team Democrat, she's the current team captain, and that's just that-- there's really nothing more to be considered.

Now, I don't know this for sure, but let me speculate-- I'll bet if you polled Clinton supporters, you'd find an awful lot of Christians; I'll bet Sanders had the atheist democrats pretty much on lockdown.

In a nutshell, if you want in the group, you have to accept the group's platform, lock, stock, and barrel.

Saves you the problem of actually thinking. Much easier to regurgitate pre-digested answers than it is to chew on your own thoughts and maybe -- horror of horrors -- come to a conclusion of your own.

(July 23, 2016 at 12:14 am)wallym Wrote: It struck me that the party that supports seizing your land because of an endangered spotted inch worm would be the one to value all organisms [...]

... and it struck me that a party which values a small government was wanting to stick said government into a woman's uterus.

Funny times we live in, eh?

(July 23, 2016 at 1:01 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 23, 2016 at 12:57 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I see your point. Both parties do it. I think one party does it more than the other.

Besides, I don't think even Obama thought he would see the type of unprecedented obstructionism he sees now.

Totally agree.

In his first term, Obama had the House and Senate majority IIRC.  He literally could have pushed every bill he wanted to, and the republicans could have done relatively little to stop him.  And when the Republicans started cock-blocking him, he STILL had a huge swell of support.  I was waiting for him to make a public announcement: "Look what these fuckers are doing. . . they are blocking the will of the people.  Let's take action!"  Instead, he negotiated, played diplomacy, and realized to late that there was never, EVER going to be cooperation from the Republicans. . . not on anything.

This is what pissed me off with Obama: his first two years, he had both houses of Congress. The Republicans threatened several filibusters, and not once did he say, "Yeah? Go on ahead and do it, so I can paste that to your resume." He folded on a strong hand, in my opinion.