cawacko and mott - what would it take for them to flip parties?

[USFREEDOM911]

Pro-life is an idea that all life is sacred, and should be treated with the respect it deserves. From abortion, all the way down to treating animals bred for slaughter, with the proper respect. The Native Americans had the last one down. If republicans want to run with this concept, they either have to take the religion out of it, or embrace the religion behind it. No picking, and choosing.

Says who??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you could be pro-life without being religious. if you truly believe it's a baby being killed you don't need religion to tell you that such a thing is wrong.

I wish you had your "thanks" turned on.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

so mott, getting back to the topic at hand before we had the tourettes crew jump in about abortion, what would be meaningful, tangible steps by republicans that they could make to win you over? what do you exactly mean about southern populism and how would you fix that element within the party?

By Southern Conservative populism I mean modern right wing populism.

The first step the GOP could take would be to advocate delisting weed as a schedule 1 narcotic and legalizing its interstate commerce. Ending the war on drugs and implementing a public health approach wouldn’t hurt either. It would get people help, end the black market by limiting demand, save a shit to of money, and, most important it would greatly reduce the police state and the commercial prison industry that is arguably the greatest threat to our freedom.

Next they need to stop the racist dog whistling. It’s stupid, it’s ignorant and it plays into the hands of the extreme left. If a political party needs those stupid fucks to govern then it stands to reason they probably can’t govern very well.

Then they could denounce Supply Side Economics for what it is a failed economic system like communism that doesn’t work and favor economic policy that is a blend of moneterism and Keynesian policies.

Advocating incredibly stupid shit like building a wall on our border doesn’t help either.

Reducing the size and scope of our military probably wouldn’t hurt. We are over extended and militarism and authoritarianism are never healthy for a republic.

Support the right of labor, both white and blue collar, to negotiate collectively. I used to think that could never happen with Ronald Reagan’s GOP but Trump has shown that it’s more than possible. It helped him win election. It is a point in policy that Democrats have stupidly dropped the ball. Returning these powers to labor would go a long way towards reducing income inequality and healing political divisions. I’m sure that’s something most CEO’s shudder in fear over but most officers of publicly owned companies aren’t worth 10,000 times what their employees earn. If they want to get rich they can do it they way we have to. Risk our money by investing their money in stock

Shoot Grind. (I couldn’t forget you 3D).

How’s that for starters?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

By Southern Conservative populism I mean modern right wing populism.

The first step the GOP could take would be to advocate delisting weed as a schedule 1 narcotic and legalizing its interstate commerce. Ending the war on drugs and implementing a public health approach wouldn’t hurt either. It would get people help, end the black market by limiting demand, save a shit to of money, and, most important it would greatly reduce the police state and the commercial prison industry that is arguably the greatest threat to our freedom.

Next they need to stop the racist dog whistling. It’s stupid, it’s ignorant and it plays into the hands of the extreme left. If a political party needs those stupid fucks to govern then it stands to reason they probably can’t govern very well.

Then they could denounce Supply Side Economics for what it is a failed economic system like communism that doesn’t work and favor economic policy that is a blend of moneterism and Keynesian policies.

Advocating incredibly stupid shit like building a wall on our border doesn’t help either.

Reducing the size and scope of our military probably wouldn’t hurt. We are over extended and militarism and authoritarianism are never healthy for a republic.

Support the right of labor, both white and blue collar, to negotiate collectively. I used to think that could never happen with Ronald Reagan’s GOP but Trump has shown that it’s more than possible. It helped him win election. It is a point in policy that Democrats have stupidly dropped the ball. Returning these powers to labor would go a long way towards reducing income inequality and healing political divisions. I’m sure that’s something most CEO’s shudder in fear over but most officers of publicly owned companies aren’t worth 10,000 times what their employees earn. If they want to get rich they can do it they way we have to. Risk our money by investing their money in stock

Shoot Grind. (I couldn’t forget you 3D).

How’s that for starters?

Now I’m not silly enough to think any of these issues, except the last one, would gain support by the GOP but as you can see they are hardly left wing, progressive, social justice warrior issues.

The last one could possibly earn broad support.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is what they actually believe
I don’t know how they think this way. This is basic stuff that I knew at 12 years old

The issue isn’t redistributionism anyways. I don’t have a problem with tax cuts.

I have a problem with regressive tax cuts based on the lie that tax cuts alone will increase revenues then continuing to spend money like drunken sailors and running up more debt than tax and spend liberals do.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

no, it doesn't. who ever said that? nobody. i think you've been confused for a very long time. it wouldn't even make sense, because again a perceived innocent life is different from a serial killer. surely you can understand that difference even if you are pro choice

*I* agree with that; however, that is not the stance that truly pro-life ppl (like the Catholic Church) take. I'm sure that you've seen the vigils outside of a prison when they are about to execute a convicted murderer? They're not there to support the death penalty.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The issue isn’t redistributionism anyways. I don’t have a problem with tax cuts.

I have a problem with regressive tax cuts based on the lie that tax cuts alone will increase revenues then continuing to spend money like drunken sailors and running up more debt than tax and spend liberals do.

The (R)s in DC are too stupid to see that this is the time when we should have been reducing the deficit and amassing a cushion for the next economic downturn. Not handing out a pittance of a tax cut for the middle class and a huge give-away to the alleged "job creators."

 

[christiefan915]

I'll offer an example then answer your question.

We all know cities and states offer economic incentives to businesses. One way they do it is by offering a dollar amount, say $10m, if they promise to move their HQ to the state and hire a certain number of workers. The city/state will pay that money up front and often rely on the good word of the business to fulfill their promise. So the city/states make this "investment" with the belief it will pay more back to the city/state in the long run. But the city/state is taking our money up front and giving it to the business.

Another way they do it is to tell a business if you move here and create X number of jobs we will give you a break on your taxes. So they aren't giving money away up front. They aren't taking money from you and me and just giving it to the business. In this scenario the business has to produce. (one can still call this corporate welfare but if you're going to do corporate welfare would you rather the first or second example?)

It's the same with taxes. I understand your point about the lowering of marginal rates. But keeping more of the money you earn, via lower rates, isn't taking from someone else. Let's say you make $100K and pay $25K in taxes one year and $22K in taxes the following year because rates were reduced, you didn't "take" $3K from "me" because you paid less. The government can't give me, you or us something it never had.

Okay let's go back a sec. First 3D wrote "What is being given to rich people?" Then I responded "tax cuts." Then grind jumped in and basically called me an idiot for using trump's term for his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Nowhere did I say that the rich were being "given" money that was taken from someone else. I used the term "tax cuts" the same way trump did, to describe a tax rate lowering that greatly benefited the top 1%. trump also said "We have eliminated a record number of job-killing regulations and passed a massive tax cut for working families..." It didn't work out for them, though.

I completely understand your first two paragraphs, cawacko. After all Pgh. was one of the cities that offered economic incentives to Amazon in the hopes they'd put a location here. Some years ago we gave economic incentives to Google. There are plenty of articles in the local news, both positive and negative, about giving tax incentives to businesses here.

WADR I think you and grind are commenting on what you think I said rather than what I really did say. And the question remains, what words should trump have used to name the 2017 act, if "tax cuts" is inaccurate.

Edit: I suppose he could have called in the Rate Reduction and Jobs Act of 2017 but that just doesn't have the same je ne sais quois as "Tax Cuts", lol.