GOP History: 1981-Present

@wajoma said
You don't have to be loyal to appreciate the humor in people taking an obvious joke seriously, in fact the more obvious the joke and the more seriously you take it the funnier it gets.

Another essential element of humor is originality, you've got to go out on the edge. Perhaps you're envious of Trump for having that ability.

There is nothing funny about a narcissist wearing a big red tie.
A lot of diplomats did not think hitler was serious about his intentions and extra sadly neither did a lot of Jews until it was too late
Trump has told you who he is and you love him for who he is. Sad but true.

@phranny said
There are really two major Republican political stories dominating the news these days. The more obvious of the two is the attempt by former president Donald Trump and his followers to destroy American democracy. The other story is older, the one that led to Trump but that stands at least a bit apart from him. It is the story of a national shift away from the supply-side ideo ...[text shortened]... /2024/04/10/theyre-still-playing-games-ex-prosecutor-warns-may-face-asset-seizure-over-invalid-bond/

During the Reagan years, this was known as the 'trickle-down theory': if the rich are allowed to pursue profits unhindered by govt regulation and encouraged by tax cuts, then the rich will get richer and some of it will eventually 'trickle down' to the poor and the middle class. The only thing about trickle-down economics which is valid is the trick of getting the middle class, the Average Joes of America, to vote for it, by holding up the illusion that if Average Joe works hard enough, he too will someday be among the rich. Didn't happen. The rich got richer all right, but the middle class didn't, and the poor got even poorer.

Just to refresh people's memories what happened when Reagan deregulated the banks: a handful of bank CEOs absconded with billions of little old ladies' life savings, they were never caught and brought to justice, and Reagan's successor, Bush Sr., had to levy a tax to cover the bank collapse. It was the biggest bank robbery of all time, and the losers not only lost their life savings, they had to pay Bush's tax to cover the bank failures.

@moonbus said
Evangelicals know perfectly well The Donald is no model Christian and that Trump himself even mocks them in private. He’s a useful tool, unwittingly doing God‘s work. They cite the fact that he stacked the Supreme Court, which then overturned Roe. The logic of this is stupendously stupid. If God had wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, God would’ve stacked the Supreme Court in the 1970s and they never would’ve made that decision in the first place.

So, you too? Don't understand the logic, common sense, rationale and the law with regard to the Roe decision?. What else could their findings have been? You are aware, I am sure, that their total deliberatoins are based solely on the provisions of the Constitution. Why, you seem to disagree with Constitutional law??

@averagejoe1 said
So, you too? Don't understand the logic, common sense, rationale and the law with regard to the Roe decision?. What else could their findings have been? You are aware, I am sure, that their total deliberatoins are based solely on the provisions of the Constitution. Why, you seem to disagree with Constitutional law??

It’s funny how Roe vs Wade was possible, until fundamentalists took over the supreme court… and suddenly it’s not.

Anyhoo, as I’ve stated before, your supreme court and constitution both need a serious do-over; antiquated garbage.

@moonbus said
During the Reagan years, this was known as the 'trickle-down theory': if the rich are allowed to pursue profits unhindered by govt regulation and encouraged by tax cuts, then the rich will get richer and some of it will eventually 'trickle down' to the poor and the middle class. The only thing about trickle-down economics which is valid is the trick of getting the middle clas ...[text shortened]... the losers not only lost their life savings, they had to pay Bush's tax to cover the bank failures.

I actually have no problems with the rich pursuing wealth unhindered as long as they:

1) Don't harm, impose on, or place others at risk without consent, and,
2) Support the government that protects all our rights equally, proportionate to their wealth.

It's exactly the same standard I hold the Middle and Poorer Classes to.

A few more principles:

1) Taxes have to match spending. No exceptions. If you want a tax cut, reduce spending FIRST. (Trump's and Bush's tax cuts were WRONG - plain and simple because spending was not cut!)
2) The justice system has to be FAST! Alleged crime? Fine. Decide within 30 days - guilty or innocent. No delays. Guilty means pay the fine or do the time. After that you can appeal. If we have more than a 5%* successful appeal rate, that's a problem. Start firing judges and hiring new ones.
3) The public space has to be protected. Pollution is too easy. It needs to be hard.
4) Voting is to hard. It needs to be easy.
5) As for laws and regulations, they should be simple and clear. Businesses should know that if they screw over their customers or depositors, neither they nor the shareholders will walk away with a payday. Executives and fund managers should know that they will do time in jail and lose all their gains if they tolerate fraud on their watch.
6) Bailouts with public funds are wrong and violate the 14th amendment of equal protection. Tax breaks are also wrong and violate the 14th amendment.

The rich are just taking advantage because We The People aren't paying attention.

We have to start paying attention.

*1% is a tad ambitious. Let's say 5.

@AverageJoe1
Sure, and I have a NICE bridge for sale in Brooklyn, real cheap.

@spruce112358
The Trump tax cut was a clear bribe to the ultrawealthy, he touted it saying companies will be rushing to build manufacturing back in the US but what really happened was they used the bribe to do stock buy backs, yep, SO many new factories built.
And a 2 trillion dollar tax cut meant they still needed that 2 trillion dollars so strangely enough the national debt went up 2 trillion dollars.
What a shocker.

@shavixmir said
It’s funny how Roe vs Wade was possible, until fundamentalists took over the supreme court… and suddenly it’s not.

Anyhoo, as I’ve stated before, your supreme court and constitution both need a serious do-over; antiquated garbage.

The real funny part is we have all those fundamentalists lying on tape after swearing on a Bible not to.

@moonbus said
Just to refresh people's memories what happened when Reagan deregulated the banks: a handful of bank CEOs absconded with billions of little old ladies' life savings, they were never caught and brought to justice, and Reagan's successor, Bush Sr., had to levy a tax to cover the bank collapse. It was the biggest bank robbery of all time, and the losers not only lost their life savings, they had to pay Bush's tax to cover the bank failures.

This is exactly what happened when Hoover deregulated the banks.

In Hoover's time, he also took the lids off the protections against this affecting the economy as a whole. Reagan was lucky that the big money didn't go insane. By his time, protections were solidly in place preventing another Great Depression. Also luckily, Clinton was able to right the ship during his terms.

@averagejoe1 said
So, you too? Don't understand the logic, common sense, rationale and the law with regard to the Roe decision?. What else could their findings have been? You are aware, I am sure, that their total deliberatoins are based solely on the provisions of the Constitution. Why, you seem to disagree with Constitutional law??

Overturning a previous Supreme Court ruling for political expedience has nothing to do with logic, common sense, or Constitutional law. Nothing in the Constitution either requires or forbids abortions, so the previous ruling should have stayed in force; it's called "precedent." The recent court's overturning of the previous court's decision was arbitrary. There is quite a large body of scholarly legal research into the topic of "arbitrariness" in law -- I'll cut to the chase, it's a bad thing when courts and policy makers change things arbitrarily. Continuity is needful for long-range planning and stability. The recent court's decision to overrule the previous court's decision has plunged the country into a frenzy of hasty and poorly thought-out measures, some draconian and others even more lax than Roe, leading to a patchwork across multiple states. This is no improvement over Roe; it is worse. And that is why arbitrary reversals of previous decisions are to be avoided. Roe was sensible and testable (since it is pretty well-known when a fetus is viable outside the womb, including in incubators); what the USA has now is a stupid patchwork. For example, a zygote is a legal person at conception in Alabama now. A woman cannot possibly know whether she has conceived at the moment a sperm penetrates an ovum, but if she does something which causes her miscarry, she's a murderer! That is the stupidest court decision since Dread Scott.

@spruce112358 said
I actually have no problems with the rich pursuing wealth unhindered as long as they:

1) Don't harm, impose on, or place others at risk without consent, and,
2) Support the government that protects all our rights equally, proportionate to their wealth.

It's exactly the same standard I hold the Middle and Poorer Classes to.

A few more principles:

1) Taxes hav ...[text shortened]... en't paying attention.

We have to start paying attention.

*1% is a tad ambitious. Let's say 5.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting rich either. I do think using political office to get rich should impossible, and politicians' assets should be put into blind trusts while they are in office. This should be extended to their families too, insofar as family members are in a position to make capital out of it (viz. Jared Kushner getting $2 bn. from the Saudis for unknown services rendered).

'No taxation without representation' was a battle cry for the original British colonists in the 18th c. It needs to be tightened up these days: 'no tax without a plebiscite.' Govt. should have no power or authority to levy a new tax, or reduce or increase an existing tax, without putting it to a vote of those affected by it (meaning the people who will have to pay for it or it's effects). This is how Switzerland runs, by the way. If the Swiss govt. wants a tax, the constitution requires a plebiscite to be held; if the govt. says 'yes' and the tax payers say 'nay', the 'nays' have it and the govt. must accept this. This is a practicable recipe for fiscal responsibility. I would recommend this for every industrialized and post-industrialized nation. It presupposes, of course, a well- and truthfully-informed public, and that means a reliable and free press.

@averagejoe1 said
So, you too? Don't understand the logic, common sense, rationale and the law with regard to the Roe decision?. What else could their findings have been? You are aware, I am sure, that their total deliberatoins are based solely on the provisions of the Constitution. Why, you seem to disagree with Constitutional law??

Your constitution is chimera Joe, no one ever comes to the same conclusion based on the text, they only agree with each other based their own political philosophies.
Do you find it suspicious at all that a right wing conservative dominated SCOTUS manages to interpret the constitution in such a way that it favours right wing conservative values and a left wing liberal dominated SCOTUS can interpret it in favour of left wing liberal values
I would argue that a liberal interpretation is more in keeping with the over riding principal of individual freedoms but then I’m obviously a left wing liberal 🤷🏻‍♂️

@spruce112358 said
I actually have no problems with the rich pursuing wealth unhindered as long as they:

1) Don't harm, impose on, or place others at risk without consent, and,
2) Support the government that protects all our rights equally, proportionate to their wealth.

It's exactly the same standard I hold the Middle and Poorer Classes to.

A few more principles:

1) Taxes hav ...[text shortened]... en't paying attention.

We have to start paying attention.

*1% is a tad ambitious. Let's say 5.

I agree! There are people on this forum, who believe that wealth be redistributed on a regular basis.
Just that one concept means that they could not agree with what you wrote above.

@phranny said
There are really two major Republican political stories dominating the news these days. The more obvious of the two is the attempt by former president Donald Trump and his followers to destroy American democracy. The other story is older, the one that led to Trump but that stands at least a bit apart from him. It is the story of a national shift away from the supply-side ideo ...[text shortened]... /2024/04/10/theyre-still-playing-games-ex-prosecutor-warns-may-face-asset-seizure-over-invalid-bond/

what do you get out of posting entire articles from far left propaganda web sites?

Can you not think and speak for yourself?

Meanwhile deomocrats are actually jailing their political opponents…fuking idiot!

@moonbus said
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting rich either. I do think using political office to get rich should impossible, and politicians' assets should be put into blind trusts while they are in office. This should be extended to their families too, insofar as family members are in a position to make capital out of it (viz. Jared Kushner getting $2 bn. from the Sa ...[text shortened]... pposes, of course, a well- and truthfully-informed public, and that means a reliable and free press.

Agree. The Swiss version of Democracy is excellent in a lot of ways.

The main complaint I've heard from the Swiss about their society is a funny one: 'so damn perfect, it's boring!' I've especially heard this from younger people...