Top | Newest First | Oldest First
TonyNorwenglish · 41-45, C
I'm prior military and one of the first things that I learned in my younger days is that when there's a republican president, the military always gets a raise. 20 years ago I was a proud republican.
I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore now. I really really wish I could support the right. Some of the ideas from back then are great.
Just nowadays the extremes are winning more and more. The loudest, dumbest voices get the most attention and the reasonable people get bashed for every stupid thing they've ever done.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm really glad I'm not in politics right now. They'd probably tear my life apart.
I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore now. I really really wish I could support the right. Some of the ideas from back then are great.
Just nowadays the extremes are winning more and more. The loudest, dumbest voices get the most attention and the reasonable people get bashed for every stupid thing they've ever done.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm really glad I'm not in politics right now. They'd probably tear my life apart.
View 5 more replies »
Anopenheart · 51-55, M
@TonyNorwenglish the president does not control military spending or whether they get a raise. Congress does.
AurelieWilliams · 80-89, M
You have to go back more than 10-20 years ago. Reagan's second term was pretty much ended the Republican party. As his initial appointees resigned they were replaced under the leadership of his vice-president and Reagan himself became more of a figurehead for people working behind him. That's when the party began to slide into the camp of the NWO and Bush, now President, was the first to use the term, New World Order, and with the exception of Trump, every President since then has signed on to the concept. The DC dog & pony show became more like courtroom attorneys, arguing before a jury, and then drinking beer together at the end of the day. Our congress-critters pulled the levers and worked the smoke and mirrors of a supposed two party system, but all the while sliding us toward the NWO end game. Then along came Obama, the biggest puppet of them all and conservative Republicans reacted with the Tea Party.
There's an old saying in the sales world that you should give a customer two choices, both of which are favorable to the salesman, like, "Will that be cash or charge?" or "would you like the large or extra large?" We've had the same thing in politics. The RNC and DNC are 'owned' by the same people and they decide who the best two candidates should be - both of which of course are willing to commit to their agenda. Trump screwed that up royally. We were supposed to get the choice of Jeb Bush or Hillary but Jeb Bush couldn't win a primary in his home state, and most people paying attention knew that Hillary really was 'crooked' as Trump claimed.
So Trump slid in and messed up their agenda. Kerry and Hillary had both played a hand in developing the UN's 2030 agenda, and if you haven't read that I suggest that you do ASAP. The goal is a one world gov't, ruled by the UN, and based on the "China model" or in other words, a police state.
As a result, the Democrats HAD TO win this last election by any means possible. They're already four years behind and major players have mounting evidence of their collusion and subject to indictment.
By the way, part of that agenda is curtailing pandemics by vaccinating everyone world wide. I think it's a little scary that the same people that have been telling us for 20-30 years that the biggest problem in the world today is over population are now telling us, with their best used car salesman smile, that vaccinations will save millions of lives each year.
There's an old saying in the sales world that you should give a customer two choices, both of which are favorable to the salesman, like, "Will that be cash or charge?" or "would you like the large or extra large?" We've had the same thing in politics. The RNC and DNC are 'owned' by the same people and they decide who the best two candidates should be - both of which of course are willing to commit to their agenda. Trump screwed that up royally. We were supposed to get the choice of Jeb Bush or Hillary but Jeb Bush couldn't win a primary in his home state, and most people paying attention knew that Hillary really was 'crooked' as Trump claimed.
So Trump slid in and messed up their agenda. Kerry and Hillary had both played a hand in developing the UN's 2030 agenda, and if you haven't read that I suggest that you do ASAP. The goal is a one world gov't, ruled by the UN, and based on the "China model" or in other words, a police state.
As a result, the Democrats HAD TO win this last election by any means possible. They're already four years behind and major players have mounting evidence of their collusion and subject to indictment.
By the way, part of that agenda is curtailing pandemics by vaccinating everyone world wide. I think it's a little scary that the same people that have been telling us for 20-30 years that the biggest problem in the world today is over population are now telling us, with their best used car salesman smile, that vaccinations will save millions of lives each year.
Northwest · M
I believe these folks have always been there, they just did not have a political party they can belong to.
Up until the 1960s, they used to identify as Democrats
Later, they identified as Republican
Later, they followed the Tea Party
Now they follow the Trump party.
They are racists, xenophobes, misogynists and haters.
They were really never Democrats, or Republicans.
Up until the 1960s, they used to identify as Democrats
Later, they identified as Republican
Later, they followed the Tea Party
Now they follow the Trump party.
They are racists, xenophobes, misogynists and haters.
They were really never Democrats, or Republicans.
CopperCicada · M
@Northwest This is sort of interesting. It speaks to some earlier comments I made about parties losing their ideological identities. It seems the GOP became a slush bucket of a lot of different views. The DEM has done the same. A democratic socialist running as a party DEM. Peculiar. It speaks to not really having party identities beyond "beating the other guy".
I get it. We win elections on such small margins. You have to pander to the religious conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives. If you can grab the white supremacists, racists, xenophobes then you have a larger slice of pie. Trump stumped very differently in different areas. Capturing different pieces of the demographic pie.
Bernie did the same. Grabbing disenfranchised DEM's, progressives, socialists, greens, libertarians and even conservatives. The difference is that he had an ideological position. Trump does not.
I get it. We win elections on such small margins. You have to pander to the religious conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives. If you can grab the white supremacists, racists, xenophobes then you have a larger slice of pie. Trump stumped very differently in different areas. Capturing different pieces of the demographic pie.
Bernie did the same. Grabbing disenfranchised DEM's, progressives, socialists, greens, libertarians and even conservatives. The difference is that he had an ideological position. Trump does not.
WalksWith · 56-60, F
I have very good friends that are/were die hard Republican and they were lost in 2016 because of the outright cruelty of the current party. One of them told me that "The party of Lincoln became the party of Trump and that is a slap in the face." of course, I argued that Nixon was the undoing of the party, but....ok!! lol!!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
AurelieWilliams · 80-89, M
@Pherick HUge difference between the millions of small business owners and the big corporations. To understand that, you have to go back a LOT further to the most evil man in American history, by my estimation. John D. Rockefeller had his fingers in everything that is wrong with the U.S. today, from the development of big pharma, to the Federal Reserve system, to allowing for-profit businesses to use the corporate vale.
CopperCicada · M
Yes.
Some people claim I'm a libtard because I am critical of Trump. It's not being critical of right values. I just can't connect Babbitt, von Mises, Hayek or Eisenhower with Trump et al. Conservatism used to mean something beyond being the mortal enemy of Hillary Clinton.
And I have a similar narrative for the left.
Some people claim I'm a libtard because I am critical of Trump. It's not being critical of right values. I just can't connect Babbitt, von Mises, Hayek or Eisenhower with Trump et al. Conservatism used to mean something beyond being the mortal enemy of Hillary Clinton.
And I have a similar narrative for the left.
WalksWith · 56-60, F
@CopperCicada My best friend and her husband are Republican and have been always, we have argued about politics for the better part of 30 yrs. W. Bush got wild in our communications. Now, we agree, the trump admin. and his followers are NOT normal. Thought we'd never agree on politics!!!
You're right, it does seem if you don't like or support trump, they give you their, albeit ignorant, worst opinion, which is being called 'libtard'. For me it just confirms that they are uneducated and filled with hate, greed, and ignorance.
You're right, it does seem if you don't like or support trump, they give you their, albeit ignorant, worst opinion, which is being called 'libtard'. For me it just confirms that they are uneducated and filled with hate, greed, and ignorance.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
I thought the ultra-religious right have always been lost. All my encounters with them even from a few years ago have been the same arguments and hasn't changed in the slightest.
Of course this wasn't 10 years ago so I am just not sure what they were before.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNo0Sng-Zk]
This isn't my comment but this pretty much sums up the video lol
[quote]
[b]10 Things I've learned today:[/b]
1. I should Let God's love pop a cap in my butt and say hallelujah.
2. Feminists and homosexuals caused 9/11
3.) using a mousetrap to demonstrate faith is a bad idea.
4.) god said we must eat grass
5. we must immediately burn posters of Buddha before we let demons in.
6: Haitians are cursed by a deal with the devil
7. God made Bananas with a non slip grip to prove he's real
8.) I must check all my goldfish crackers before consumption
9.) there was no earth before Jesus and it may be flat.
10.) Dragons are real but evolution is not.[/quote]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Ydoh_5EjU]
Of course this wasn't 10 years ago so I am just not sure what they were before.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNo0Sng-Zk]
This isn't my comment but this pretty much sums up the video lol
[quote]
[b]10 Things I've learned today:[/b]
1. I should Let God's love pop a cap in my butt and say hallelujah.
2. Feminists and homosexuals caused 9/11
3.) using a mousetrap to demonstrate faith is a bad idea.
4.) god said we must eat grass
5. we must immediately burn posters of Buddha before we let demons in.
6: Haitians are cursed by a deal with the devil
7. God made Bananas with a non slip grip to prove he's real
8.) I must check all my goldfish crackers before consumption
9.) there was no earth before Jesus and it may be flat.
10.) Dragons are real but evolution is not.[/quote]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Ydoh_5EjU]
CopperCicada · M
@SatanBurger I almost choked laughing. That banana argument works for cocks too.
I'd put the break with reality in the GOP back a little farther ... mid '90s. That was when the Newt and the fraudulent "Contract with America" were en vogue, Talk Radio started pushing it's ultra-right propaganda and rank and file republicans became more interested in what Clinton did with his penis than his presidential pen.
One could point back to the Reagan Revolution as being the start of the insanity. Reagan certainly promoted the cause of the conservative movement. The "Moral Majority" came into being around the time of his campaign and enjoyed influence throughout his presidency. But Reagan could and did work with the democrats. And while his foreign and fiscal policy was sometimes reckless, it pales in comparison to the lunacy that was to follow.
One could point back to the Reagan Revolution as being the start of the insanity. Reagan certainly promoted the cause of the conservative movement. The "Moral Majority" came into being around the time of his campaign and enjoyed influence throughout his presidency. But Reagan could and did work with the democrats. And while his foreign and fiscal policy was sometimes reckless, it pales in comparison to the lunacy that was to follow.
M1keW · 26-30, M
Just my opinion, but I don't think either party truly represents the vast majority of Americans anymore. The Republicans just seem to be too afraid to rock the boat too much, so they're pretty much content to not do anything at all. While the Democrats seem to have gone a little nuts, trying to appease a very vocal minority to the extreme left.
Anopenheart · 51-55, M
that is a cornerstone of the democratic platform.. getting rid of the money so politicians are more accountable.. the GOP has fought against every single attempt to limit money or dark money.. The democrats are at least working to make healthcare more affordable and available to everyone. @M1keW
M1keW · 26-30, M
@Anopenheart While I don't agree with the Republican stance on donations 100%. I also don't agree with the Democratic solution to all that ails America. The way I see it, the Democratic position can be boiled down, in most case, to "let the government run this for everyone". I'm a small-government guy, and not at all sold on socialism.
The way to make healthcare more affordable is to get the government out of it. The biggest reason that healthcare costs so much in America, is because it is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. You want lower prices, which come about due to greater efficiency, deregulate healthcare, and increase competition in the market.
The way to make healthcare more affordable is to get the government out of it. The biggest reason that healthcare costs so much in America, is because it is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. You want lower prices, which come about due to greater efficiency, deregulate healthcare, and increase competition in the market.
Anopenheart · 51-55, M
healthcare is not like cars.. we don't buy cars the same way so regulations work differently.. and if you were right then please explain how europeans pay a lot less for their healthcare and get better care and live longer? they have just as many regulations.. competition doesnt work with healthcare because nobody shops for the cheapest surgery or doctor.. @M1keW
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MethDozer · M
@PixieCutLover Keep going. What does all that mean? What are the implications and why is that all important?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Anopenheart · 51-55, M
that is a nice way of saying you make nazism all warm and fuzzy without all the death and hate and fear and war and division.. LOL.. @MethDozer
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Anopenheart · 51-55, M
luckranger71 · 51-55, M
CopperCicada · M
@luckranger71 I think we're in agreement. Like Roy says. It's not without nuance. It's not that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same. They're not. These pragmatic differences matter.
But I don't see a way out of the massive level of political non-participation, the inability to form competitive third parties, and the influence of special interests without balancing these pragmatic differences with the understanding that we have no choice.
But I don't see a way out of the massive level of political non-participation, the inability to form competitive third parties, and the influence of special interests without balancing these pragmatic differences with the understanding that we have no choice.
luckranger71 · 51-55, M
@CopperCicada Change is hard in our system because it really was set up but the to act reactively, not proactively. We are practically taught in school that American democracy is divinely ordained, but the reality is that most new democracies choose to set up their government along parliamentary lines (Canada often forms the template)
If you think about it, it really took cataclysms to spur change. The Civil War begat the 13th-15th amendments.
The Great Depression begat the social safety net and banking regulation.
The period from ‘64-66 is a bit odd: The Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Voting rights Act and Great Society measures. I chalk that up to LBJ capitalizing on grief from JFK’s assassination, a candidate so outside accepted discourse at the time (Goldwater) that allowed for huge, temporary majorities. Again, not a comment on whether that change was all good (little debate on CRA or VRA); just that it’s rare in American history.
If you think about it, it really took cataclysms to spur change. The Civil War begat the 13th-15th amendments.
The Great Depression begat the social safety net and banking regulation.
The period from ‘64-66 is a bit odd: The Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Voting rights Act and Great Society measures. I chalk that up to LBJ capitalizing on grief from JFK’s assassination, a candidate so outside accepted discourse at the time (Goldwater) that allowed for huge, temporary majorities. Again, not a comment on whether that change was all good (little debate on CRA or VRA); just that it’s rare in American history.
CopperCicada · M
@luckranger71 I don't think it's just about affecting change. It's about the clarity of our political discourse.
If you look just across one election cycle, differences seem to be monumental. Hillary and Trump are both the anti-christ to their opponents. But if you look at both of them through the lens of real conservative (Hayek) or progressive (Zinn) thinkers.. or through the historical lens of real conservative (Eisenhower) or liberal (FDR) former POTUS's.. then the differences are huge.
That's not necessarily an exercise in trying to prove Hillary = Trump, but rather is shows how far we've come from historical benchmarks in leadership.
I really see it as the only way to get beyond the insanity in our discourse.
If you look just across one election cycle, differences seem to be monumental. Hillary and Trump are both the anti-christ to their opponents. But if you look at both of them through the lens of real conservative (Hayek) or progressive (Zinn) thinkers.. or through the historical lens of real conservative (Eisenhower) or liberal (FDR) former POTUS's.. then the differences are huge.
That's not necessarily an exercise in trying to prove Hillary = Trump, but rather is shows how far we've come from historical benchmarks in leadership.
I really see it as the only way to get beyond the insanity in our discourse.
NorthernBear · 51-55, M
sissychloe · 26-30, M
[b][c=#666666]not just them but every right wing political organisation. we have something similar happening over here in india - the BJP used to mean something when Vajpayee and his cabinet of ministers were there back in early 2000s. It was still okay-ish in the first term but the last couple of years have been numbing and horrifying to look at.[/c][/b]
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Underconstruction Certainly feels like it doesn't it sometimes? I think trump is what highlights this for me, the people who support him seem so blind to all of his many many many faults. Its just "he wasn't Hillary" seems to be enough to get someone elected. Which is abit frightening. I am not a huge fan of Hillary, but compared to trump, its not even close.
@Pherick Right
JP1119 · 36-40, M
10-20 years ago? Maybe it’s because I was too young to be politically aware back then, but I haven’t really seen much of a change. Basically, it’s the party of conservatives or at least neo-conservatives. I have understood the conservative worldview, though I think I understand it now better than I did 20 or probably even 10 years ago, and I have always been opposed to it. What do you mean?
Riptideocean86 · F
I@GoldButterfly I don’t know I think I’m more independent now
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Sarahcantstop Which I totally get, but why do the people who feel left out think that the party of big business is the way to go? Better to go vote 3rd party ...
CopperCicada · M
@Sarahcantstop I guess I'm curious how either the DEM or GOP parties put anyone in a position to have a say in changes in society?
I have found since Reagan that there has been an embracing of the Conservative side. W Bush was infamous for that.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls]
softspokenman · M
"All men/women are (NOT) created equal."
jimjim1969 · M
Totally agree with you. They are nuts
MethDozer · M
Both parties became about identity politics and in the case of the GOP it meant abandoning the true American conservatism which is classical liberalism.
What we are left with is two different flavors of neo-cons with a smattering of farther leftist in one and smattering of farther right in the other
What we are left with is two different flavors of neo-cons with a smattering of farther leftist in one and smattering of farther right in the other