What is the Republican message?

[n...not crazy]

Family and responsibility and shit. That's the good part.

Peel back a few layers and it becomes rig the system, make a billion dollars, and physically enslave the populace. As opposed to Dem desire to mentally enslave us. It's a big difference you see, 2 types of slavery.

 

[zebby23]

Family and responsibility and shit. That's the good part.

Peel back a few layers and it becomes rig the system, make a billion dollars, and physically enslave the populace. As opposed to Dem desire to mentally enslave us. It's a big difference you see, 2 types of slavery.

But this is not part of their platform. They like to SAY it is but it certainly is not

 

[Teppodama]

Family and responsibility and shit. That's the good part.

Peel back a few layers and it becomes rig the system, make a billion dollars, and physically enslave the populace. As opposed to Dem desire to mentally enslave us. It's a big difference you see, 2 types of slavery.

Mental slavery is worse as you don't even realize you're a slave or come to accept and relish your servitude.

 

[IGIT]

Except a job with insufficient wages, benefits, and security doesn't solve any of that. And shitty jobs didn't do much to address those issues until big gubment stepped in in the 1930s.

Your post does encapsulate what the GOP is about: reductive taglines that serve to punctuate political issues without ever substantively addressing them.

hiya Trotsky,

you know what? lol, that encapsulates alot of my grievances with the GOP's platform.

sunny platitudes in the place of serious thinking to address systemic issues.

it reminds me of religion, actually.

- IGIT

 

[Rational Poster]

Republican platform.

Make pretend the world is perfect when in power.

Make pretend the world is ending when you're not.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Much like the Democrat message, it's basically just a cobbled together collection of special interest groups' agendas at this point.

Gun rights, no gay marriage, no abortions, low taxes, high military spending and interventionism and a punitive stance on crime.

I don't think it accurately represents the views of most conservatives at this point which is probably why an outsider like Trump was able to win the nomination.

I think Americans get too caught up trying to to defend either party's stance on a lot of those issues without really valuing them all that much.

Democrats should dominate every election but they put forth such a collection of absolute boobs every time out that they make it pretty competitive.

Both parties need to be disassembled into several smaller parties with more crystalized messages.

A pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro gun rights, pro free speech, anti foregn intervention, low taxes, high personal accountability platform would get my vote every time out but that doesn't exist.

I think the old conservative values of 'do what you want and leave me the fuck alone' are needed now more than ever. Everyone is so up in everyone else's business these days it's nauseating.

 

[Jack V Savage]

without pulling up his articles, i remember him writing a few pieces on how a President Trump might cruise to re-election by just pointing to the ecnomy...an economy that's been steadily cresting upward in every metric since 2009.

I believe you, but I'd like to see it. If you don't remember, that's fine, though.

I think it's just something that happens. Even though in ordinary circumstances (2009 was an exception because we were in a deep recession with monetary policy maxed out), presidents have very little to do with the economy, the public mostly judges elected leaders by the strength of the economy.

so much of their message seems to revolve around resentment vis a vis the "takers vs the makers". the takers being urban black Americans - the makers being snowy white middle America. you know, like those Iowa farmers suckling on the teat of ethanol subsidies.

the remedy?

just cut off the black and brown parasites and financial health will follow.

That's kind of how the two messages fit together, I guess. Confuse people about who you mean when you talk about "takers" so they don't realize that they're the ones getting fucked.

PS - don't you think the racist scaremongering from the GOP was more overt (and more sincere) in the 2004 campaign?

Weren't gays the more targeted group in 2004. I've never seen anything like 2016 in my lifetime.

that's true, but isn't poverty also a function of low wages, as in, a lifetime of low wages?

its the low wage that prohibits any kind of wealth accumulation, aye?

Could contribute, but almost half of Americans over 65 have sub-poverty market income (including investment income). SS lifts 4/5ths of that group over the line. So normal wages don't really get the job done for the years Americans are no longer able to work.

 

[IGIT]

Democrats should dominate every election but they put forth such a collection of absolute boobs every time out that they make it pretty competitive.

hiya Yorklist,

"collection of absolute boobs".

what does this mean?

are you talking about state and local elections? the congress? or the Presidency?

in the 2008 primary, you had Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards (who, in light of Trump's triumph, seems relatively normal in comparison) and Bill Richardson.

in 2016 you basically had both sides of the Democratic Party. the neoliberal wing represented by Mrs. Clinton and the leftwing hero, Mr. Sanders. by 2016, both were both very experienced legislators with solid resumes for their constituents.

what were you hoping for?

- IGIT

 

[Der Eisbär]

in other words.....
Dear govt... poor people need money! give it to them..
oh hey poor people.. do not get part-time jobs either..

That's pretty convenient.

You said the message is "jobs jobs jobs". I then point out how so many jobs are not paying enough, and how Republicans are against having jobs that pay enough and the resulting welfare. You respond with bitching about poor people. This doesn't make any sense from any perspective.

It's really bizarre to me how people like you are against individuals receiving welfare but you didn't even respond to me pointing out that corporations are receiving vast sums of public welfare.

That kind of sums up the point I made about the republican message: "Corporations > All"

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I believe you, but I'd like to see it. If you don't remember, that's fine, though.

I think it's just something that happens. Even though in ordinary circumstances (2009 was an exception because we were in a deep recession with monetary policy maxed out), presidents have very little to do with the economy, the public mostly judges elected leaders by the strength of the economy.



That's kind of how the two messages fit together, I guess. Confuse people about who you mean when you talk about "takers" so they don't realize that they're the ones getting fucked.



Weren't gays the more targeted group in 2004. I've never seen anything like 2016 in my lifetime.



Could contribute, but almost half of Americans over 65 have sub-poverty market income (including investment income). SS lifts 4/5ths of that group over the line. So normal wages don't really get the job done for the years Americans are no longer able to work.

I read yesterday that 20% of millenials are below the poverty line compared to 4% for the same age group in 1970 , that isn't the fault of millenials today , things have clearly shifted

A bit off your topic but I found that interesting

 

[IGIT]

ahoy JVS,

I believe you, but I'd like to see it. If you don't remember, that's fine, though

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...dnt-elect-trump-but-it-might-reelect-him.html

Chait concludes his piece by saying, more or less, that Mr. Obama sowed and Mr. Trump is going to reap.

it was just one article and it stuck in my head for some reason.

I think it's just something that happens. Even though in ordinary circumstances (2009 was an exception because we were in a deep recession with monetary policy maxed out), presidents have very little to do with the economy, the public mostly judges elected leaders by the strength of the economy.

although i've heard and read this numerous times, do you believe that a President McCain would have reacted in the same manner as Mr. Obama to the meltdown in 2009? don't you remember reading accounts of McCain racing back to the DC in 2008 while the market was collapsing to "help"?

Heilemann and Halperin wrote about McCain wandering aimlessly around Capital Hill. well meaning and clued out.

That's kind of how the two messages fit together, I guess. Confuse people about who you mean when you talk about "takers" so they don't realize that they're the ones getting fucked.

lol. ya.

Weren't gays the more targeted group in 2004. I've never seen anything like 2016 in my lifetime.

from 2004 right up to 2012, the amount of bigotry directed at Muslims was pretty crazy. don't you remember Peter King going basically insane about Sharia law sweeping the continent on a monthly basis?

freaking MIchelle Bachmann claiming on national television that Islamic agents had infiltrated the Obama White House?

the round-the-clock absurdities that our POTUS was a kenyan-marxist-islamo Manchurian candidate?

i found that stuff pretty out there.

Could contribute, but almost half of Americans over 65 have sub-poverty market income (including investment income). SS lifts 4/5ths of that group over the line. So normal wages don't really get the job done for the years Americans are no longer able to work.

i'll believe you, since this kind of stuff is your bailiwick. i just feel that if one's income wasn't so meager over a lifetime, then those golden years might be less perilous.

i mean, you always have come across as a financially secure individual.

don't you agree?

- IGIT

 

[machidafan99]

Those memes are really funny.

BUT Republican states donate more to charity than Dems states by a wide margin. Repubs are not against charity.

 

[Jack V Savage]

ahoy JVS,

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...dnt-elect-trump-but-it-might-reelect-him.html

Chait concludes his piece by saying, more or less, that Mr. Obama sowed and Mr. Trump is going to reap.

it was just one article and it stuck in my head for some reason.

Great piece. And, yeah, that's the same point I was making regarding credit.

although i've heard and read this numerous times, do you believe that a President McCain would have reacted in the same manner as Mr. Obama to the meltdown in 2009? don't you remember reading accounts of McCain racing back to the DC in 2008 while the market was collapsing to "help"?

Heilemann and Halperin wrote about McCain wandering aimlessly around Capital Hill. well meaning and clued out.

I don't think McCain would have reacted as well, but I do think he'd have pushed for and easily gotten some form of fiscal stimulus that would have helped at least somewhat. But that's one of the rare instances where the president does matter. I think in an economy that isn't in recession, the president doesn't matter and the Fed fixes normal recessions. It's only twice in the past 100 years that we had recessions so bad that the Fed couldn't fix them and a presidential response was needed.

from 2004 right up to 2012, the amount of bigotry directed at Muslims was pretty crazy. don't you remember Peter King going basically insane about Sharia law sweeping the continent on a monthly basis?

freaking MIchelle Bachmann claiming on national television that Islamic agents had infiltrated the Obama White House?

the round-the-clock absurdities that our POTUS was a kenyan-marxist-islamo Manchurian candidate?

i found that stuff pretty out there.

Sure, it was all crazy, but much more coded among mainstream Republicans before 2016.

i'll believe you, since this kind of stuff is your bailiwick. i just feel that if one's income wasn't so meager over a lifetime, then those golden years might be less perilous.

i mean, you always have come across as a financially secure individual.

don't you agree?

If someone has a high income while they're working, they're less likely to be in poverty as they age. But someone at the median is pretty close to 50/50 for needing SS to keep them out of poverty. It's no incomes rather than low incomes that are mainly to blame.

Also, a little off topic but I think interesting, if old people invested more, that would lower incomes for everyone else (collectively) exactly as much as if we raised SS payments and paid for it with higher taxes, and no one would notice the difference (it would show up as lower wages rather than higher taxes). People don't appreciate how investment income and rent are gov't-led redistribution.

 

[surgeyou1]

Easy

Work hard, obey the law, quit bitching, dont blame others and you'll be successful.

Lol this is so cute.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

hiya Yorklist,

"collection of absolute boobs".

what does this mean?

are you talking about state and local elections? the congress? or the Presidency?

in the 2008 primary, you had Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards (who, in light of Trump's triumph, seems relatively normal in comparison) and Bill Richardson.

in 2016 you basically had both sides of the Democratic Party. the neoliberal wing represented by Mrs. Clinton and the leftwing hero, Mr. Sanders. by 2016, both were both very experienced legislators with solid resumes for their constituents.

what were you hoping for?

- IGIT

They need to purge their ranks and get some new blood in there. Biden is unelectable, the media would have a field day with his creepy pics with young girls.

Hillary s an absolute piece of shit with far too much baggage to win.

John Edwards got caught cheating on his wife so there goes the female vote...

They must be able to put forward someone who doesn't have a bunch of dirt on them... Their vetting sucks. Even Obama who was pretty much a nobody had that shit with the anti-American preacher...

I just have to believe they can come up with someone who isn't a creep, a witch, a philanderer... They can't ALL be that bad.

 

[IGIT]

hi Yorklist!

They need to purge their ranks and get some new blood in there. Biden is unelectable, the media would have a field day with his creepy pics with young girls.

Hillary s an absolute piece of shit with far too much baggage to win.

John Edwards got caught cheating on his wife so there goes the female vote...

this is all pretty shallow stuff, all due respect. all of it is also disproven by the election of Mr. Trump. you may hold tightly to puritan values, but Americans clearly doesn't care about such matters.

They must be able to put forward someone who doesn't have a bunch of dirt on them... Their vetting sucks. Even Obama who was pretty much a nobody had that shit with the anti-American preacher...

what dirt did Hillary Clinton have on her, exactly? i forget.

i mean, i know she was the most corrupt politician in the history of human civilization, but can you remind me what she actually did that was so corrupt?

and no, saying "Benghazi" won't do. you'll have to expound a bit.

I just have to believe they can come up with someone who isn't a creep, a witch, a philanderer... They can't ALL be that bad.

you say that as if the country hadn't just elected a fat, creepy philanderer.

gotta head to work, nice meeting you!

- IGIT

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

hi Yorklist!



this is all pretty shallow stuff, all due respect. all of it is also disproven by the election of Mr. Trump. you may hold tightly to puritan values, but American clearly doesn't care about such matters.



what dirt did Hillary Clinton have on her, exactly? i forget.

i mean, i know she was the most corrupt politician in the history of human civilization, but can you remind me what she actually did that was so corrupt?

and no, saying "Benghazi" won't do. you'll have to expound a bit.



you say that as if the country hadn't just elected a fat, creepy philanderer.

gotta head to work, nice meeting you!

- IGIT

Like you said, it's shallow stuff. You're trying to win a general election where regular people get to vote. You can't run someone with stuff like this floating around.

'But Trump' won't work. The dude is a special case and seems to defy all the things we hold to be common knowledge when it comes to elections. The interesting question is will that become the trend or will Trump be seen in 10 years as an outlier.

For all we know American elections me that be exclusively between reality TV hosts you g forward. It seems unlikely though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

what dirt did Hillary Clinton have on her, exactly? i forget.

i mean, i know she was the most corrupt politician in the history of human civilization, but can you remind me what she actually did that was so corrupt?

and no, saying "Benghazi" won't do. you'll have to expound a bit.

She ran a well-regarded charity and people donated money to it.

Really, she's "corrupt" because she was the Democratic frontrunner. That's it. People who say it are either wackos who think (as Chait said) that she routinely has people murdered or that the charity was some kind of front or they're people who don't really have a good answer for why they think it.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

She ran a well-regarded charity and people donated money to it.

Really, she's "corrupt" because she was the Democratic frontrunner. That's it. People who say it are either wackos who think (as Chait said) that she routinely has people murdered or that the charity was some kind of front or they're people who don't really have a good answer for why they think it.

BUT SPIRIT COOKING.

 

[FrankensteinMMA]

Easy

Work hard, obey the law, quit bitching, dont blame others and you'll be successful.

dont blame others?

but the mexicans are taking away jobs and muslims ate grooming the kids....the blacks are using tax dollars that needs to be spent on the military...

its not fair!