POLL: Who do you expect will win? (NOT who do you want to win)

[Webhead123 | 679]

Dr. Thomas Sowell said it well when he said "some people are absolutely immune to facts". We are rapidly approaching a point in this country where the social construct is placing more value on opinions/views than evidence. We're also under attack by an ideology that says censorship is desirable. In other words, your opinion is valued before your facts...but that opinion should only be heard as long as it matches the general consensus. Rome's decline began long before the Goths invaded. With the imminent election of one invalid and one opportunist as the leaders of the country, I fear for the direction the next several years will take.

I just hope there's enough moral fiber left in the average American to not just sit back and allow this country to mutate into a Socialist nightmare.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Webhead123

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

23 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

Dr. Thomas Sowell said it well when he said "some people are absolutely immune to facts". We are rapidly approaching a point in this country where the social construct is placing more value on opinions/views than evidence. We're also under attack by an ideology that says censorship is desirable. In other words, your opinion is valued before your facts...but that opinion should only be heard as long as it matches the general consensus. Rome's decline began long before the Goths invaded. With the imminent election of one invalid and one opportunist as the leaders of the country, I fear for the direction the next several years will take.

I just hope there's enough moral fiber left in the average American to not just sit back and allow this country to mutate into a Socialist nightmare.

Sounds like we have some Trumper tears!

Care to elaborate on how this country could become socialist all of the sudden with a conservative senate?

 

The whole part about “being immune to facts” is rich coming from a Trump supporter too

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

28 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

Dr. Thomas Sowell said it well when he said "some people are absolutely immune to facts".

MrWunderful -- THIS is your example of cognitive dissonance.

[Tulpa | 3,514]

BTW, this was the scene four years ago.

Note to GOP: there were still hundreds of thousands of uncounted votes when this photo was taken, and no states had certified the results.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Tulpa

[Californication | 1,477]

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

1 hour ago, Webhead123 said:

Socialist nightmare.

This country is already a socialist nightmare!! Welfare! Social Security! Food Assistance! THE HORROR!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

[Webhead123 | 679]

41 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Sounds like we have some Trumper tears!

Care to elaborate on how this country could become socialist all of the sudden with a conservative senate?

 

The whole part about “being immune to facts” is rich coming from a Trump supporter too

True. If we manage to keep the Senate majority conservative, that will certainly help keep things from getting too out of line (well, any more out of line than they already are).

Them Dems are clambering for (among other things) more social services, increased minimum wage, immigration leniency, student debt leniency and increasing taxation of upper classes. Also elimination of school choice and charter schools, increased gun control, etc. Listen, I'm not some heartless lizard-person but none of these things have ever or will ever do our country a favor. For the past 60 years, we've slipped ever further into a society that incentivizes people to depend on their government to provide for them instead of empowering them to provide for themselves. Somebody's paying the price for all that economic windfall. Those in the system aren't paying it and those who aren't even legal citizens certainly aren't paying it. The wealthy aren't paying it (because they know how to manage their affairs accordingly). So it's just the working middle class folks that end up shouldering the burden of the rest of society.

I don't like Trump as a person and his rhetoric is terrible. He's a bully, an egotist and a bit infantile at times. His foreign policy approach is also pretty sloppy. I don't watch any of his addresses, honestly. I find his personality abrasive. But I have to give credit where the facts say to give credit. He's bolstered the domestic economy. He's bolstered employment and education, particularly for those minorities that he's constantly accused of being discriminatory toward. He supports strong borders. I'm willing to set aside my personal bias in favor of valuing the facts that matter for the longevity of this country.

I'm very much a Milton Friedman when it comes to politics. Minimal government, minimal intervention, minimal taxation. Friedman said that the government should really serve only 3 roles: 1) to protect its citizens from dangers without (aka the military and securing borders), 2) to protect its citizens from dangers within (aka police, public safety, courts and the supporting infrastructure) and 3) to collect the taxes needed to pay for these services.

Thanks for listening. Now, turn down your music and get off my lawn. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Webhead123

[Californication | 1,477]

6 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

True. If we manage to keep the Senate majority conservative, that will certainly help keep things from getting too out of line (well, any more out of line than they already are).

Them Dems are clambering for (among other things) more social services, increased minimum wage, immigration leniency, student debt leniency and increasing taxation of upper classes. Also elimination of school choice and charter schools, increased gun control, etc. Listen, I'm not some heartless lizard-person but none of these things have ever or will ever do our country a favor. For the past 60 years, we've slipped ever further into a society that incentivizes people to depend on their government to provide for them instead of empowering them to provide for themselves. Somebody's paying the price for all that economic windfall. Those in the system aren't paying it and those who aren't even legal citizens certainly aren't paying it. The wealthy aren't paying it (because they know how to manage their affairs accordingly). So it's just the working middle class folks that end up shouldering the burden of the rest of society.

I don't like Trump as a person and his rhetoric is terrible. He's a bully, an egotist and a bit infantile at times. His foreign policy approach is also pretty sloppy. I don't watch any of his addresses, honestly. I find his personality abrasive. But I have to give credit where the facts say to give credit. He's bolstered the domestic economy. He's bolstered employment and education, particularly for those minorities that he's constantly accused of being discriminatory toward. He supports strong borders. I'm willing to set aside my personal bias in favor of valuing the facts that matter for the longevity of this country.

I'm very much a Milton Friedman when it comes to politics. Minimal government, minimal intervention, minimal taxation. Friedman said that the government should really serve only 3 roles: 1) to protect its citizens from dangers without (aka the military and securing borders), 2) to protect its citizens from dangers within (aka police, public safety, courts and the supporting infrastructure) and 3) to collect the taxes needed to pay for these services.

Thanks for listening. Now, turn down your music and get off my lawn. 

We're a consumption economy the programs you're talkinng about increase GDP i.e. they grow the economy.

The republican party is the party is the party of useless give aways.

Milton Friedmans ideology has destroyed economies all over the world. He destroyed economies all over South America in the 70's and 80's. And then his ideas famously destroyed Kansas under Sam Brownback.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Californication

[Webhead123 | 679]

2 minutes ago, Californication said:

The republican party is the party is the party of useless give aways. 

I don't follow.

[Tulpa | 3,514]

11 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

The wealthy aren't paying it (because they know how to lobby for tax loopholes and demolish the upper tax bracket that was in place since the 50s, aka the time conservatives say they want to go back to).

FIFY

Edited November 10, 2020 by Tulpa

[Webhead123 | 679]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

FIFY

Exactly right, although I hear the liberals crying about readjusting tax rates, not the conservatives. So, guess who gets stuck with the bill.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Webhead123

[Californication | 1,477]

1 minute ago, Webhead123 said:

I don't follow.

You don't follow the 2 trillion dollar tax cut and the between $7-$9 trillion the Fed has poured out inefficiently? That is just this administration.

[Tulpa | 3,514]

2 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

Exactly right. So, guess who gets stuck with the bill.

We wouldn't be stuck with it if we could follow the Democrats plans to raise taxes on the wealthy. But the right goes apeshit if we even want to go back to the 39% that the Clinton administration had, let alone the 90% that the Eisenhower administration had.

But hey, let's drop the upper bracket even more, even though the whole trickle down model was debunked years ago.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Tulpa

[Webhead123 | 679]

Just now, Tulpa said:

We wouldn't be stuck with it if we could follow the Democrats plans to raise taxes on the wealthy. But the right goes apeshit if we even want to go back to the 39% that the Clinton administration had, let alone the 90% that the Eisenhower administration had.

But we just demonstrated that the wealthy won't end up with the tax burden anyway because they have the tools to get around it. So, "taxation of the wealthy" just ends up being symbolic jargon. Funding has to come from somewhere and there's not many options left if you cut out both the lower and upper classes.

[Tulpa | 3,514]

3 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

But we just demonstrated that the wealthy won't end up with the tax burden anyway because they have the tools to get around it. So, "taxation of the wealthy" just ends up being symbolic jargon. Funding has to come from somewhere and there's not many options left if you cut out both the lower and upper classes.

Back in the day, no one wealthy actually paid the full 90% tax rate. Instead, they had to avoid it by either investing in their community or investing in their company properly, putting more money in the hands of the middle class. And it worked; infrastructure was paid and people could afford to buy a home on one income, while sending kids to college or trade school or whatever.

That was demolished in the Reagan era, giving them "the tools to get around it," aka, the loopholes, and reducing the tax rate itself to a pittance. And every GOP president since then has only worked to keep it that way.

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Tulpa

[Webhead123 | 679]

4 minutes ago, Californication said:

You don't follow the 2 trillion dollar tax cut and the between $7-$9 trillion the Fed has poured out inefficiently? That is just this administration.

Oh, I'm not saying that we're not in the midst of a shit storm. We certainly are. But liberal politics are taking us the wrong direction. We need to course-correct toward smaller, less-intervening government.

[Tulpa | 3,514]

1 minute ago, Webhead123 said:

We need to course-correct toward smaller, less-intervening government.

And you think the GOP is that? Come on, they want just as much control, just in other areas.

[Webhead123 | 679]

And we need to wean people off dependence on social services. Let's teach people to fish for themselves instead of teaching them to stand in line to receive government-catch.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Webhead123

[Tulpa | 3,514]

Just now, Webhead123 said:

And we need to ween people off dependence on social services. Let's teach people to fish for themselves instead of teaching them to stand in line to receive government-catch.

Let's start with the corporations.

[Webhead123 | 679]

Just now, Tulpa said:

And you think the GOP is that? Come on, they want just as much control, just in other areas.

I may be an idealist at heart but I can't deny the truth of that statement. I WISH we lived in a world where the government genuine wanted the best for the people and not just for itself.

[Webhead123 | 679]

You folks have convinced me. To hell with both parties. We're screwed either way.

Cheers!

[Gloves | 11,791]

No matter which way things go, neither will ever be MY president!

[Californication | 1,477]

19 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

Oh, I'm not saying that we're not in the midst of a shit storm. We certainly are. But liberal politics are taking us the wrong direction. We need to course-correct toward smaller, less-intervening government.

Republican ideals are failures. The conservatives want smaller govt. when it doesn't suits them and they want big govt. when it does. 

The repubublicans expanded the govt. to socialize business failures during this pandemic and left everyone else on their own. And then the left the states (small govt.) to respond to the pandemic on an individual bases that failed.

This pandemic needed a big govt. response mask manufacturing, health guidelines, contract tracing, federal guidelines, and people should have been protected financially (which would have allowed more parties of the economy to continue). 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Californication

[Webhead123 | 679]

1 minute ago, Californication said:

This pandemic needed a big govt. response mask manufacturing, health guidelines, contract tracing, federal guidelines.

As long as that "big govt." stayed/stays confined to the crisis-intervention, that's proper use of reach and funding, in my opinion.

As I said, I'm a Friedman-ist. I'm sure we'll never get there but I can dream of a day when we return to the fundamentals.

[Californication | 1,477]

5 minutes ago, Webhead123 said:

As long as that "big govt." stayed/stays confined to the crisis-intervention, that's proper use of reach and funding, in my opinion.

As I said, I'm a Friedman-ist. I'm sure we'll never get there but I can dream of a day when we return to the fundamentals.

Like I said, Freedman's ideas have been disproven many, many times. And if you want to look at Kansas were, Brownback, went full blown Friedman, he destroyed the economy. And. Friedmanites using the same logic, the Chicago Boys, went down to South America to marketize/privatize things and they caused hyper-inflation. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Californication