Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-04-2019, 08:40 AM   #1
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Republicans and Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists

Republicans claim that Democrat's "ties" to Communists and Socialists are a really big and dangerous deal. And that Democrats are tainted because the Communists and Socialists supposedly are part of their constituency. But how about Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists close ties to the Republican Party?

Democrats know that not all Republicans are racists. But we are puzzled that so many are complicit in, or at least unwilling to condemn, the takeover of their party by those who are. Accusations of racism first lead to outrage, then to rationalizations and reminders about the health of the economy. Seemingly racist rants are nothing of the kind, only idiosyncrasies that we must tolerate. Even bad guys do good things. The ends justify the means.

Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum could have been talking about Donald Trump when he said of his opponent, “I’m not calling (him) a racist. I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist” (USA Today).

Paul Waldman expands on this: “But you know who doesn’t have to worry about getting endorsed by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racists? People who don’t give neo-Nazis, white nationals, and racists any reason to believe that they share their views” (Washington Post). Republican rationalizations and denials ring hollow in light of this.

A record number of self-described white supremacists and neo-Nazis ran for office this year under the Republican banner, to the chagrin of many party leaders and conservative pundits. Several won primaries, and some won re-election to federal or state offices.

Here are a few of them:

Rep. Steve King, who has served in Congress since 2003, was narrowly re-elected in Iowa. For him, civilization has been built largely by white European Christians (nevermind the highly sophisticated pre-Columbian American, Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern cultures that thrived while Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages). Immigrants’ children will detrimentally redefine our culture. Hispanic are “dirt.” He has ties to the far-right Austrian Freedom Party (The Guardian). His constituents love him, and Republican Party officials, except possibly Gov. Kim Reynolds, who recently called him out, at least tolerate him.
Arthur Jones from Chicago, an unapologetic former leader of the American Nazi Party whose website is littered with anti-Semitic rants, ran unopposed in the Republican primary for a congressional seat but lost the midterm (The Guardian). Ted Cruz said even a Democrat would be preferable to Jones (Vox).
Another self-described white nationalist, Paul Nehlen, who enjoyed early support from Steve Bannon, lost the Wisconsin election for Paul Ryan’s seat. He’s considered too racist even for Gab (Vox)!
North Carolina State House candidate Russell Walker won a low-turn-out Republican primary but lost the midterm. His views? “Jews are the children of Satan.” “What is wrong with being a white supremacist?” Barack Obama is “genetically inferior.” Interracial couples are “race traitors.”
Corey Stewart lost the race for Virginia governor to Tim Kaine. He associates with Charlottesville protest organizer and white supremacist Jason Kessler. His nomination prompted the resignation of Virginia’s Republican state chairman.
That most lost isn’t the point. That they felt free to run on their beliefs and were widely supported is.

Negative campaign ads sky-rocketed this year over 2016 (USA Today). Many were overtly racist. Robocalls in Florida mocked Andrew Gillum with minstrel language and jungle music. An Oprah impersonator in Georgia described Stacey Adams as “a poor man’s Aunt Jemima.” In New York, a candidate who is African-American and a Rhodes Scholar was called a “big-city rapper.” A candidate in California’s 50th Congressional District ran ads trying to tie his opponent, who has Palestinian-Mexican heritage, to radical Muslims, suggesting he was a “national security risk” and trying to “infiltrate Congress.”

Mark Meadows vowed in his campaign to send Obama back to Kenya.

That name calling sword has two edges.

I PUT THE QUESTION IN RED

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 08:53 AM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Republicans claim that Democrat's "ties" to Communists and Socialists are a really big and dangerous deal. And that Democrats are tainted because the Communists and Socialists supposedly are part of their constituency. But how about Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists close ties to the Republican Party?

Democrats know that not all Republicans are racists. But we are puzzled that so many are complicit in, or at least unwilling to condemn, the takeover of their party by those who are. Accusations of racism first lead to outrage, then to rationalizations and reminders about the health of the economy. Seemingly racist rants are nothing of the kind, only idiosyncrasies that we must tolerate. Even bad guys do good things. The ends justify the means.

Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum could have been talking about Donald Trump when he said of his opponent, “I’m not calling (him) a racist. I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist” (USA Today).

Paul Waldman expands on this: “But you know who doesn’t have to worry about getting endorsed by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racists? People who don’t give neo-Nazis, white nationals, and racists any reason to believe that they share their views” (Washington Post). Republican rationalizations and denials ring hollow in light of this.

A record number of self-described white supremacists and neo-Nazis ran for office this year under the Republican banner, to the chagrin of many party leaders and conservative pundits. Several won primaries, and some won re-election to federal or state offices.

Here are a few of them:

Rep. Steve King, who has served in Congress since 2003, was narrowly re-elected in Iowa. For him, civilization has been built largely by white European Christians (nevermind the highly sophisticated pre-Columbian American, Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern cultures that thrived while Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages). Immigrants’ children will detrimentally redefine our culture. Hispanic are “dirt.” He has ties to the far-right Austrian Freedom Party (The Guardian). His constituents love him, and Republican Party officials, except possibly Gov. Kim Reynolds, who recently called him out, at least tolerate him.
Arthur Jones from Chicago, an unapologetic former leader of the American Nazi Party whose website is littered with anti-Semitic rants, ran unopposed in the Republican primary for a congressional seat but lost the midterm (The Guardian). Ted Cruz said even a Democrat would be preferable to Jones (Vox).
Another self-described white nationalist, Paul Nehlen, who enjoyed early support from Steve Bannon, lost the Wisconsin election for Paul Ryan’s seat. He’s considered too racist even for Gab (Vox)!
North Carolina State House candidate Russell Walker won a low-turn-out Republican primary but lost the midterm. His views? “Jews are the children of Satan.” “What is wrong with being a white supremacist?” Barack Obama is “genetically inferior.” Interracial couples are “race traitors.”
Corey Stewart lost the race for Virginia governor to Tim Kaine. He associates with Charlottesville protest organizer and white supremacist Jason Kessler. His nomination prompted the resignation of Virginia’s Republican state chairman.
That most lost isn’t the point. That they felt free to run on their beliefs and were widely supported is.

Negative campaign ads sky-rocketed this year over 2016 (USA Today). Many were overtly racist. Robocalls in Florida mocked Andrew Gillum with minstrel language and jungle music. An Oprah impersonator in Georgia described Stacey Adams as “a poor man’s Aunt Jemima.” In New York, a candidate who is African-American and a Rhodes Scholar was called a “big-city rapper.” A candidate in California’s 50th Congressional District ran ads trying to tie his opponent, who has Palestinian-Mexican heritage, to radical Muslims, suggesting he was a “national security risk” and trying to “infiltrate Congress.”

Mark Meadows vowed in his campaign to send Obama back to Kenya.

That name calling sword has two edges.

I PUT THE QUESTION IN RED
You really are something. Your side is never wrong, the other side is never right. Never.

"Socialists supposedly are part of their (democrats) constituency".

Supposedly? The de facto leader of that party is Cortez, an admitted socialist. One of the leading presidential contenders (I think he's leading the polls as of right now?) is Bernie Sanders.

"how about Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists close ties to the Republican Party?"

There aren't "close" ties. I would assume that most racists and white supremacists identify as Republicans. Which shows you, yet again, how utterly stupid these people are. Because there just isn't anything in the conservative platform that's racist, or bad for black people. Furthermore, the empirical evidence tells me, that the liberalism that rules in places with huge numbers of blacks, hasn't worked so well.

So to repeat, there are actual policy items endorsed by the democrats leading presidential contender (Bernie), and it's most influential congressman (Cortez), which are obviously, on-their-face, socialist. These people freely identify as being socialist (despite each having multiple homes, but we can save that for another day).

To contrast, there is nothing in the conservative agenda, which is similarly racist or white supremacist. Obviously there are racists in the millions and millions of conservatives. But there isn't anything racist in the Republican platform. Just because you desperately want there to be, doesn't make it so. Wanting people to work (if they can work), rather than making them addicted to welfare, isn't racist.

"For him, civilization has been built largely by white European Christians "

That's how the world was then.

"Arthur Jones from Chicago, an unapologetic former leader of the American Nazi Party whose website is littered with anti-Semitic rants, ran unopposed in the Republican primary for a congressional seat "

And why is that? You didn't post why that was? I sit because all Republicans are racist, or is it because no serious Republican would waste their time in Chicago?

"Another self-described white nationalist, Paul Nehlen, who enjoyed early support from Steve Bannon, lost the Wisconsin election for Paul Ryan’s seat"

OK. So two racists who lost, are the equivalent to socialkists not only winning, but then helping to shape and lead, the entire democratic party?

You are suggesting that Paul Nehlen and Arthur Jones, who no one has ever heard of, are as influential to the GOP, as Cortez and Sanders are to the Democrats??

Not reaching there, nope.

"That name calling sword has two edges"

It sure does. But it cuts deeper with Alexandria Cortez and Bernie Sanders, than it does with Paul Nehlen and Arthur Jones, whoever the hell they are.

Yeesh.

You put the question in red. Oops, I put the answer in black, does that mean I'm racist?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:15 AM   #3
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Sanders and AOC think Society should fund Medical Care, Trump thinks Society should fund his Golf Courses.

But that's not Socialism, keep believing

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:32 AM   #4
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
The majority of Repub. are not racist but the majority of racists are Repubs.
PaulS is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:46 AM   #5
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
If you listen to Jim republicans haven’t moved in 15 years. Look at cpac and who spoke . Commies and socialism are far more dangerous . It’s in the republican DNA .. racism’s and white supremacy is also in their DNA they look the other way because they vote republican
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:15 AM   #6
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Republicans claim that Democrat's "ties" to Communists and Socialists are a really big and dangerous deal. And that Democrats are tainted because the Communists and Socialists supposedly are part of their constituency. But how about Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists close ties to the Republican Party?

That name calling sword has two edges.

I PUT THE QUESTION IN RED
Your question in red is a howaboutism. Your how about Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists stuff has been reiterated over and over ad nauseum on this forum as if it was supposed to be a really big and dangerous deal. Now that you've been given proof (not merely insinuation or conjecture) that their is a comparable connection but of far (extremist) left orientation to the Democrat party, that doesn't merit a disparaging word. It doesn't merit repetitive and incessant condemnation. It merits only a doubling down repetition of what you have been incessantly revealing to us.

We've already heard your stuff about Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists. Over and over. Not a new revelation!

Would you care to, deem it fitting to, regale us with your condemnation or approval of the Communist stuff?

That name calling sword has two edges.
detbuch is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:19 AM   #7
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Sanders and AOC think Society should fund Medical Care, Trump thinks Society should fund his Golf Courses.

But that's not Socialism, keep believing
Taking 70% of other people's money to pay for it, is socialism. Giving other people's money to those able to work, but unwilling to work, is socialism.

Sanders and Cortez freely identify themselves as socialists, but you refuse to admit they are socialists. If it doesn't bother them, I don't know why it bothers you.

No denial there, no sir.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:23 AM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
The majority of Repub. are not racist but the majority of racists are Repubs.
That's probably true. But again, that shows they're stupid. There isn't anything inherently racist in the conservative agenda. Is there?

Paul, if I look at Bridgeport and Hartford, which are (1) failing sh*tholes, and (2) purely liberal, and I say "these people deserve much better, we need to try something different", and liberals say "no no, we need more of the same", how does that make me the racist?

The facts on which side has what impact to minorities, is one of the big reasons why I'm a Republican. Building strong families in the black culture, rather than incentivizing the extinction of those families, is in my opinion the path out of poverty.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:42 AM   #9
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

That name calling sword has two edges.
And you seem to be a huge user of it. I'm surprised you haven't thrown in a few "Dems. hate the constitution" also.
PaulS is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:47 AM   #10
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
That's probably true. But again, that shows they're stupid. There isn't anything inherently racist in the conservative agenda. Is there?No, not inherently.

Paul, if I look at Bridgeport and Hartford, which are (1) failing sh*tholes, and (2) purely liberal, and I say "these people deserve much better, we need to try something different", and liberals say "no no, we need more of the same", how does that make me the racist?

The facts on which side has what impact to minorities, is one of the big reasons why I'm a Republican. Building strong families in the black culture, rather than incentivizing the extinction of those families, is in my opinion the path out of poverty.

Yet, one side constantly cuts budgets which impacts minorities more and one side provides things which help their lives. The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc. The inner cities thus have a much higher % of the poor and the non profits, no/low paying taxes of those entities which provide those services like hospitals.
PaulS is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:04 AM   #11
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
And you seem to be a huge user of it. I'm surprised you haven't thrown in a few "Dems. hate the constitution" also.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Pete's use of the phrase "That name calling sword has two edges." He, and you, constantly bring up, and conjure up, as well as exaggerate associations between racists, Nazis, whatever, and Republicans. I bring up the other edge of the sword and Pete has a fit and doubles down on his edge of the sword. Neither you nor Pete nor any other anti-Trumpers care to comment on the Communist/Democrat edge of the sword. But you sure as hell beat the drum of the other edge.

And yes, Progressives do hate the restrictions that the Constitution places on Government. I've documented that. You haven't discredited or debunked what I've said about it. Why do you throw that in. Just sarcasm and piling on to give the appearance of substance to your accusation that I'm a big user of "That name calling sword has two edges?" I'm not a flamethrower of "names." Not a "huge" one as you state. If I call a name, I usually back it up. That you can't refute what I say doesn't discredit it.

By the way, you do seem to be a huge user of the phrase, as in your remark in this thread about the majority of racists being Republicans. Would the other edge of the sword be "not all Democrats are Communists or socialist, but the majority of socialists and Communists in this country are Democrats or Democrat supporters"?

Last edited by detbuch; 03-04-2019 at 11:12 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:04 AM   #12
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Yet, one side constantly cuts budgets which impacts minorities more and one side provides things which help their lives. The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc. The inner cities thus have a much higher % of the poor and the non profits, no/low paying taxes of those entities which provide those services like hospitals.
Oh, because spending money like we do in CT, has helped these people?

Spending more money is only beneficial, if it's spent on things that actually help people. Making more of them choose single parenthood, hasn't been an overly productive use of public money from their perspective. Crippling them, by making them addicted to welfare, hasn't been an overly productive use of money. Getting more of them to be self sufficient, giving them skills (not cash) they can use to get ahead, makes sense to me. I'll help pay for it. I'll happily pay for free day care so teenage parents can learn a trade or go back to school. I'm less thrilled about sending them cash for the rest of their lives so they can sit around.

"The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc"

And because they don't have the skills they need to acquire the wealth necessary to live in a suburb.

If huge numbers of poor people got off welfare and became self sufficient, they'd be less likely to vote democrat. You're telling me, that doesn't factor into democrat policy? That democrats don't have a self serving reason to keep them poor?

Democrats offer more freebies to poor people than republicans, I would never deny that. I see it as a good thing for the GOP.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:09 AM   #13
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Yet, one side constantly cuts budgets which impacts minorities more and one side provides things which help their lives. The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc. The inner cities thus have a much higher % of the poor and the non profits, no/low paying taxes of those entities which provide those services like hospitals.
don't the democrats control the budgets of most major cities?
scottw is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:11 AM   #14
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Pete's use of the phrase "That name calling sword has two edges." He, and you, constantly bring up, and conjure up, as well as exaggerate associations between racists, Nazis, whatever, and Republicans. I bring up the other edge of the sword and Pete has a fit and doubles down on his edge of the sword. Neither you nor Pete nor any other anti-Trumpers care to comment on the Communist/Democrat edge of the sword. Why respond to the scumminess of someone who calls a whole political party communist. Let them stew in their anger and misery. But you sure as hell beat the drum of the other edge.

And yes, Progressives do hate the restrictions that the Constitution places on Government.Trump with his 90% approval rating amongst Rep. doesn't know the constitution (amongst other things) I've documented that. You haven't discredited or debunked what I've said about it. Why do you throw that in. Just sarcasm and piling on to give the appearance of substance to your accusation that I'm a big user of "That name calling sword has two edges?" I'm not a flamethrower of "names." Not a "huge" one as you state. If I call a name, I usually back it up. That you can't refute what I say doesn't discredit it.
NM

Last edited by PaulS; 03-04-2019 at 11:17 AM..
PaulS is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:16 AM   #15
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Oh, because spending money like we do in CT, has helped these people?
I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. - whose budget went up a higher %? and what did the Repub (who got arrested for being a crook) do in terms of the emp. benefits/pensions?
Spending more money is only beneficial, if it's spent on things that actually help people. like food stamps? Making more of them choose single parenthood, hasn't been an overly productive use of public money from their perspective. Crippling them, by making them addicted to welfare,I guess you thing all people on any assistance are addicted to welfare - does that include the mentally/physically challenged? I know Rep. separate people into 2 group - makers and takers. Are those the takers? hasn't been an overly productive use of money. Getting more of them to be self sufficient, giving them skills (not cash) they can use to get ahead, makes sense to me. I'll help pay for it. I'll happily pay for free day care so teenage parents can learn a trade or go back to school. I'm less thrilled about sending them cash for the rest of their lives so they can sit around.

"The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc"

And because they don't have the skills they need to acquire the wealth necessary to live in a suburb.

If huge numbers of poor people got off welfare and became self sufficient, they'd be less likely to vote democrat. You're telling me, that doesn't factor into democrat policy? That democrats don't have a self serving reason to keep them poor?I don't think so.

Democrats offer more freebies to poor people than republicans, I would never deny that. I see it as a good thing for the GOP.
Your last statement confirms what I think a lot of Rep. feel - that social services are just freebies. I view the Dems. policies as a good thing and why I very infrequently vote Rep any more.
PaulS is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:17 AM   #16
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

Why respond to the scumminest of someone who calls a whole political party communist. Let them stew in their anger and misery.

NM
you just called someone a word that isn't even a word...that's REALLY bad...
scottw is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:27 AM   #17
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
Ha,it is what it is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:30 AM   #18
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

social services are just freebies.
if they are are services that you don't pay for...then they are freebies...no?
scottw is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:36 AM   #19
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Why respond to the scumminest of someone who calls a whole political party communist. Let them stew in their anger and misery.

I suppose I shouldn't expect you to respond to something you haven't read. Or misread. I didn't say the whole Democrat party was Communist. Nor did I even say the Democrat party was a Communist party. Nor was I stewing or angry. You have this whole picture of what I said and how I felt because of something you concocted in your head. Perhaps you're suffering from some inner delusionary malady of pent up anger that causes you to project it all in your opinions and responses. You do very often resort to calling others angry when you disagree with them.

And be careful about flame throwing "names" like "scumminest" around when you are referring to something you concocted in your own head.


Trump with his 90% approval rating amongst Rep. doesn't know the constitution
Is this more projection, or your edge of the name calling sword? How do you know what he knows about the Constitution. Do you know more about it than he does? Are you projecting your degree of knowledge onto him? And what does that have to do with Progressives hating the restrictions that the Constitution places on government?
detbuch is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:39 AM   #20
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
He's saying that racism is as rampant in the GOP, as socialism is among democrats.

On the democrats side, a leading presidential contender and the de facto leader of that party at the moment, are admitted socialists, and are advocating specifically for socialist policies.

On the GOP side, he cited two disgusting racists that no one has ever heard of, who ran or office and lost.

Not exactly the same scope and scale.

If Trump and Lindsay Graham were openly advocating to bring slavery back, then he would have a point. They aren't, so he doesn't.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 02:31 PM   #21
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
The majority of Repub. are not racist but the majority of racists are Repubs.
you don't have any way of measuring or proving the former but I'm sure that's how you feel based on how you define racism
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	212248_5_.jpg
Views:	579
Size:	88.5 KB
ID:	66044  
scottw is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 02:39 PM   #22
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Who said

We have people in Congress, right now we have people in Congress, that hate our country," "And you know that, and we can name every one of them, if they want."
They hate our country. Sad, it is very sad,"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 02:53 PM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Your last statement confirms what I think a lot of Rep. feel - that social services are just freebies. I view the Dems. policies as a good thing and why I very infrequently vote Rep any more.
"I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. "

And I've responded before with this...the Republican governors were liberal, and had liberal legislatures to work with. Are you aware who crafts budgets and writes laws? It's not the governor, it's the legislature. I'll ask again, please point to any conservative economic principles tat were implemented under te Republican governors? You can't, because there weren't any. Our economic landscape is pure, unchecked liberalism, and the results speak for themselves.



"like food stamps"

to a point. Not given to people who are capable of working. And not to be used for anything other than food, staples. When I worked at a supermarket a million years ago, the same cheats were always trying to use food stamps to buy makeup, perfume, alcohol, cigarettes. I don't even think they should be able to be used for soda or candy. Healthy food only, if you don't like it, tough nuggets.

"I guess you thing all people on any assistance are addicted to welfare "

Never said anything close to that. But some get addicted to it, obviously it robs some people of the urge to be self sufficient, and that's only good for one group...democrats. It's not good for the person who is ruined, it's not good for the public who know has another dependent to care for.

Again, I point to Bill Clinton. He kicked MILLIONS off welfare, and they didn't all starve to death. If a Republican tried to do that today, you'd say they hate poor people. Clinton gave them a needed kick in the rear end.

"does that include the mentally/physically challenged?"

Come on, talk sense. I want to offer a better safety net for those people, because those are people who can't care for themselves.

Summer of 2017 in CT, democrat governor, democrat legislature. They shut down 26 non profits which relied on state funding, vital agencies who serve the people you talked about. But the families who depend on those non profits, unfortunately, aren't unionized, so Malloy and the legislature happily threw them under the bus.

"I don't think so (that democrats benefit when poor people remain poor).

Well, obviously, I think you're wrong.

"I view the Dems. policies as a good thing "

In Hartford and Bridgeport?

Paul, CT is one of the wealthiest states in the nation, and it's dying. The other states as bad off, are IL and NJ. Do you see any similarities there? Any commonalities among the political persuasion of those states?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 03:04 PM   #24
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Who said

We have people in Congress, right now we have people in Congress, that hate our country," "And you know that, and we can name every one of them, if they want."
They hate our country. Sad, it is very sad,"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'll guess everybody on MSNBC.....
scottw is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 03:24 PM   #25
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. "

And I've responded before with this...the Republican governors were liberal, and had liberal legislatures to work with. Are you aware who crafts budgets and writes laws? It's not the governor, it's the legislature. I'll ask again, please point to any conservative economic principles tat were implemented under te Republican governors? You can't, because there weren't any. Our economic landscape is pure, unchecked liberalism, and the results speak for themselves.
In Conn. the governor submits the proposed budget to the state legislature in February and then The legislature adopts a budget in early summer.

We as a state have decided that we want a certainly level of a saftey net and do not want be like those conserv. utopia states like KS, KY, etc. Utah voters overwhelmingly passed a law to expand medicaid and then the legislature rolled back the scope and impact of the expansion. I think the Maine Rebup. govenor did the same thing even though the feds pays the vast majority. It is bc they viewed those people on medicare as takers and we know how Repub. hate takers.

Those poor (unfortunate) folks hurt by the tornados in Alabama prob. hate the govern and complain constantly about taxes but will have tears of joy when the FEMA trucks start pulling up.

I'll stick w/the liberal states and you can go to the conserv. states. I like that we believe in good education for all, culture, science and the willingness to take care of the less fortunate.
PaulS is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 03:35 PM   #26
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
In Conn. the governor submits the proposed budget to the state legislature in February and then The legislature adopts a budget in early summer.

We as a state have decided that we want a certainly level of a saftey net and do not want be like those conserv. utopia states like KS, KY, etc. Utah voters overwhelmingly passed a law to expand medicaid and then the legislature rolled back the scope and impact of the expansion. I think the Maine Rebup. govenor did the same thing even though the feds pays the vast majority. It is bc they viewed those people on medicare as takers and we know how Repub. hate takers.

I'll stick w/the liberal states and you can go to the conserv. states. I like that we believe in good education for all, culture, science and the willingness to take care of the less fortunate.
"then The legislature adopts a budget in early summer."

And the budget adopted by the legislature, is voted up or down, by the governor. His budget may serve as a starting point, I guess. But "the" budget that is passed, goes from the legislature to the governor, right??

In any event, as I said, being a Republican, especially in this state, doesn't make you a conservative.. They didn't do anything conservative, either because they chose not to, or because the legislature blocked them. But in any event, no one can say that in CT, conservatism has been tried and it failed. It has never been tried, not even close, not by any stretch.

"We as a state have decided that we want a certainly level of a saftey net and do not want be like those conserv. utopia states like KS, KY, etc"

yeah, that's some effective safety net we have in our cities. What we have decided, is that the legislature will give a blank check to labor unions, which is the only way you have a retired UCONN professor who no one has ever heard of, with a 300k-a-year pension, while vital social services (the safety net you alluded to), get cut. Everyone I know who works for true social services in this state, says at their budgets are cut every year, despite massive tax hike sand increased spending. Because the spending isn't, in fact, funding safety nets for those who need it, the spending is on fat pensions and cheap healthcare for labor unions.

I also never heard anyone say we should emulate KS or KY. Of course, when discussing conservative economies, you run to the flops. How about NH, NC, SC, GA, TX, FL? There are places within those states that are (1) very low tax, and (2) offer a high quality of life. CT has precisely zero places like that.

" like that we believe in good education for all"

Yeah, the education in the cities is great.

"the willingness to take care of the less fortunate labor unions.".


Fixed it.
Jim in CT is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com