|
Ze Pollack posted:Reid and Pelosi got a lot of credit for running a tight ship, but it is amazing how much easier the Tea Party made their jobs. Reid and Pelosi also managed to flip the Tea Party from being an anti-GWB, anti-Lott organization to being a Republican aligned organization. That said, you're probably right. Villains are useful in politics.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:it also makes cruz look like a dick and zelot. trump is willing to do whatever to keep people alive and health care. Wait, I thought the whole premise of this thread was that Trump was a dangerous demagogue, not s squishy moderate?? OP: "So what happened between 2012 and 2016 that the Republican Party has gone from Mitt Romney to Donald Trump?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
meristem posted:Of course. As long as the benefits went to the deserving. The real Americans. That is, white, Christian, and, in the case of women, those who know their place (= not the bossy bitches). Yes, Yes, of course, everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe  meristem posted:And they love defining the in-/out-groups, too.... that people they see as either beneath them or as complete outsiders are in their ingroup. The latter is... more difficult. I'd argue that neither is common a Conservative (or at least Protestant) point of view. The typical starting premise is that we are all equally unworthy of God's grace. edit: I should say U.S. conservatism. European conservatism is a different beast. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The base is more moderate than the establishment at this point. Now were getting somewhere. ..Trump isn't a 'right wing' populist. He's a centrist populist. One of his problems in the Republican Party's nomination contest is the feeling that he's 2/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican. SlipUp posted:The establishment appealed to the extremes on every issue, but most people are only extreme in one area. I don't see where you are getting this. The "establishment lane" candidates are/were Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Christy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
menino posted:It's just so goddamn juvenile--"Yeah I know he's going to make life worse for millions of people but AT LEAST HE PRETENDS TO RESPECT ME" give me a loving break. Or maybe it's a strategic negotiating ploy to make the Democratic Party prioritize working class issues. Bernie's success has already forced Clinton to adopt some of his issues
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I honestly don't get why minorities like Haley and Jindal are in the GOP. The so-called Reagan Democrats are Republican nowadays, too. You need to update your stereotypes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
go3 posted:Don't worry Democrats will get right back around to fighting for labor protections after they finally win Gun Control And saving the environment. And boycotting Isreal. And slavery reparations. And... Labor issues (union or not) are simply not on the Democrats priority list anymore, which is why most of the Reagan Democrats switched over to the Republican side.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes what's Trump's opinion on wages, did you even watch the debates? Or reducing the overhead we must all overcome. For example, my large, multinational employer literally has billions of dollars in foreign earnings sitting abroad. If it tries to invest that cash back into its U.S. operations, the government takes a huge tax bite first. The net effect is that my government is making my location 35% more expensive as we compete internally for new investment. And for what? Absolutely nothing; it's a complete pipe dream to expect that the government will ever get to tax that income. There are plenty of opportunities abroad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Pervis posted:We had a tax holiday on foreign earnings during the Bush years, and it did not result in more investment, only executive bonuses, stock buybacks, and some special dividends. It was a big deal when it happened. Tax-wise most domestic earnings end up as "foreign" through various means (the whole Dutch-Irish thing being the most public), so the entire thing is basically "we don't want to pay corporate income taxes despite them being 30+% of revenue during the 50's through 70's". Even if what you say is 100% true, it helps a little, cost the government nothing, and indirectly increases tax revenue (from your executive bonuses and some special dividends). It's a no brainer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Higsian posted:Globalisation is a terrible idea that even violates fundamentals of capitalism. Specialisation is supposed to increase productivity and efficiency, but globalisation actually reduces both by moving production away from the countries with the most productive labour to the countries with the cheapest labour. That's where comparative advantage and gains from trade come in. The high skill workers are better off if they spend more time working on high skill tasks and paying someone else to do the low skill tasks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 14:45
|
|