Why would anyone vote Democrat this midterms?

Whatever dude.... Back to your regularly scheduled programming because I have no more time for you

 

Why vote against republicans? Easy, I have hopes the Constitution can be saved.

 

It's shallow and pointless.

"Well, you just increase this and that, and the prices will come down!"

Stuff you can write on a napkin without explaining how you're going to do it isn't "policy".

 

Beyond that, the GOP doesn't seem to give a **** about the rule of law and is chaotic. So chaotic that it cannot be relied upon to govern or follow some sort of coherent policies.

Hell, they keep bitching about "inflation" and "crime" but haven't said a damned thing about their plans for doing anything about it. Because they know they can't/won't do anything.

 

So? I'm not a congressional aide so I have no experience in drafting bills to introduce in Congress.

 

Still stuck in the hazy bigotry of Reagan's "welfare queen" hysteria I see. Time to move on.

 

If you can't come up with anything beyond what you posted, keep it to yourself.

If you can quote any Republican whining aout those things and actually offering a (likely pretend) soultion, quote it.

 

I don't often listen to congressional candidates.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/us/politics/midterms-gop-republican-inflation-plans.html

WASHINGTON — Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture the House and the Senate this fall, hammering Democrats on President Biden’s economic policies, which they say have fueled the fastest price gains in 40 years.

Republican candidates have centered their economic agenda on promises to help Americans cope with everyday price increases and to increase growth. They have pledged to reduce government spending and to make permanent parts of the 2017 Republican tax cuts that are set to expire over the next three years — including incentives for corporate investment and tax reductions for individuals.

And they have vowed to repeal the corporate tax increases that Mr. Biden signed into law in August while gutting funding for the Internal Revenue Service, which was given more money to help the United States go after high-earning and corporate tax cheats.

“The very fact that Republicans are poised to take back majorities in both chambers is an indictment of the policies of this administration,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, noting that “if you look at the spending that they did on a partisan basis, we certainly would be able to stop that.”

On Wednesday, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee held a virtual meeting where they detailed plans to make the 2017 tax law provisions permanent, billing the move as a crucial step toward improving the nation’s economy.

“As we look forward to the strong probability of an upcoming recession, there is new urgency to preserve these pro-growth policies,” said Representative Vern Buchanan, Republican of Florida.

As they position themselves for the midterm elections, Republicans have also indicated that they might try to hold the nation’s borrowing limit hostage to achieve spending cuts. The debt ceiling, which caps how much the federal government can borrow, has increasingly become a fraught arena for political brinkmanship.

Multiple top Republicans have signaled that unless Mr. Biden agrees to reduce future government spending, they will refuse to lift the borrowing cap. That would effectively bar the federal government from issuing new bonds to finance its deficit spending, potentially jeopardizing on-time payments for military salaries and safety-net benefits, and roiling bond markets.

Mr. Biden has tried to push back against the Republicans and cast the election not as a referendum on his economic policies, but as a choice between Democratic policies to reduce costs on health care and electricity and Republican efforts to repeal those policies. He has accused Republicans of stoking further price increases with tax cuts that could add to the federal budget deficit, and of risking financial calamity by refusing to raise the debt limit.

“We, the Democrats, are the ones that are fiscally responsible. Let’s get that straight now, OK?” Mr. Biden said during remarks on Monday to workers at the Democratic National Committee. “We’re investing in all of America, reducing everyday costs while also lowering the deficit at the same time. Republicans are fiscally reckless, pushing tax cuts for the very wealthy that aren’t paid for, and exploiting the deficit that is making inflation worse.”

(Why, I have no idea, as they've proven no ability to handle the economy)

The challenge for Mr. Biden is that voters do not seem to be demanding details from Republicans and are instead putting their trust in them to turn around an economy that voters believe is headed in the wrong direction. Polls suggest Americans trust Republicans by a wide margin to handle inflation and other economic issues.

In a nationwide deluge of campaign ads and in public remarks, Republicans have pinned much of their inflation-fighting agenda on halting a stimulus spending spree that began under President Donald J. Trump and continued under Mr. Biden, in an effort to help people and businesses survive the pandemic recession. Those efforts have largely ended, and Mr. Biden has shown no desire to pass further stimulus legislation at a time of rapid price growth.

Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that “the first step in combating inflation is to stop the historically reckless spending spree occurring under one-party Democrat rule in Washington, and that will only happen with a Republican majority in Congress.”

Economists largely agree that the Federal Reserve is most responsible for fighting inflation, which policymakers are trying to do with rapid interest rates increases. But they say Congress could plausibly help the Fed by reducing budget deficits, in order to slow the amount of consumer spending power in the economy.

One way to do that would be to significantly and quickly reduce federal spending. Such a move could result in widespread government layoffs and reduced support for low-income individuals — who would be less able to afford increasingly expensive food and other staples — and could prompt a recession.

“The amount of cuts you’d have to do to move the needle on inflation are completely off the table,” said Jon Lieber, a former aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky who is now the Eurasia Group’s managing director for the United States.

Still, Mr. Lieber said that likelihood would not sully the Republican pitch to voters this fall. “Midterm votes are a referendum on the party in power,” he said, “and the party in power has responsibility for inflation.”

A budget proposal unveiled this year by the Republican Study Committee, a conservative policy group within the House Republican conference, included plans to permanently extend the Trump tax cuts and to impose work requirements on federal benefits programs, in hopes of reducing federal spending on the programs and increasing the number of workers in the economy.

“We know for a fact that federal spending continues to keep inflation high, which is why a top priority in next year’s Republican majority will be to root out waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money,” Representative Kevin Hern, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a statement. Mr. Hern, who helped devise the budget, called it “one of many proposals to address the dire situation we’re in.”

As they eye the majority, top Republicans have suggested that they will consider an economically risky strategy to potentially force Mr. Biden to agree to spending cuts, including for safety-net programs. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, who is the minority leader and is seen as the clear pick to be speaker should Republicans win control of the House, suggested to Punchbowl News this month that he would be open to withholding Republican votes to raise the federal borrowing limit unless Mr. Biden and Democrats agreed to policy changes that curb spending.

How to use that leverage has divided Republicans. Some, like Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who fended off a Trump-backed primary challenger, are supportive of that option.

But other Republicans — particularly candidates laboring to present a more centrist platform in swing districts held by Democrats — have shied away from openly supporting cuts to safety-net programs.

“Absolutely not,” Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a Republican and former mayor running in Oregon’s Fifth Congressional District, said when asked if she would support cuts to Medicare and Social Security as a way to rein in federal spending. “Cutting those programs is not where I, as a Republican, see myself. I want to make sure that we can fill those coffers.”

 

The United States has definitely "moved on", Lee... by 2022, to a much more precarious, dangerous situation in every sense, geopolitically and ECONOMICALLY. But, since you've chosen to call Ronald Reagan a "bigot", you may want to remember that real GDP grew over one-third during Reagan's presidency, an over $2 trillion increase. The compound annual growth rate of GDP was 3.6% during Reagan's eight years, compared to 2.7% during the preceding eight years. In 1981 and 1982, Reagan made more than $22 billion in cuts to social welfare programs, including federal student loans..

The net-net of the Reagan years? A robust, growing economy based in a strong U. S. Dollar (thanks largely to Paul Volcker, Fed. Chairman), stunning recovery from the 'Stagflation' and inflation of the previous ten years, and the end of the Soviet Union as any kind of 'threat' to the United States!

Thanks to every American president since Clinton, including Trump, we're now THIRTY TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT, and our national debt-versus-GDP ratio has skyrocketed to 125%... Remember that all the best economists believe that when it goes over 77%, any nation is at serious risk of serious, enduring economic trouble.

What's this got to do with "welfare"? When a growing number of Americans choose to become slackers, cheaters, and parasites, even at a time when employers are literally begging for people to go to work, all it does is further weaken an already distorted economy which is dominated by a dangerously overvalued stock market, thanks to conniving 'insiders' at the Federal Reserve System! Disclaimer: people who have suffered from debilitating physical injuries, horrible diseases, birth defects, etc., ACTUALLY DESERVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, and it should be provided to them on an unending basis so long as they are afflicted, and it can be proven....

So, put in terms that even a radical Democrat can understand, 'When everybody wants to ride in the rowboat, but nobody want to ROW, the boat ain't going anywhere!' But the welfare mob will go on voting for Democrats because that's the political party that always gives them the most 'free stuff'....



search recall marker

 

Your fanatical and fantasy post seems to make you the denier. Cut the crap your self.

 

Like I said, you have no evidence.

Thus far, none has survived forensic scrutiny.

 

NEWS FLASH: Having no evidence and surviving forensic scrutiny are two wholly different things.

 

The past-tense of "sing" is "sang"....

 

they are two related things.

Having evidence that servivies forensic scrutiny substantiates the evidence.

What I've found is that when I asked for evidence, people on the right often point to something they think is evidence, but isn't, actually

so, one way to verify it is to submit the evidence to a court of law, with an allegation and evidence backing up claim.

If it survives that, then no one can deny it.

But the catch is this:

If there was solid evidence, the kind of evidence that survives forensic scrutiny, Trump's lawyers would have offered it.

Now, I've often heard the argument that 'no, the Judge dismissed the lawsuit because of standing'.

That's a half baked argument, because if evidence is submitted to a court of law, the judge will speak to the merits of the evidence submitted, and they do this to be thorough because if they didn't, doubts would linger and the lawyers would resubmit faulty evidence to another court where they did have standing and thus continue to waste the Justice department's time. So, I look up the rulings and found their language which spoke to the merits of the evidence submitted, and in every case where evidence was submitted, it was shot down on merits.

If there was evidence, real evidence, it would have withstood a court of law somewhere, because if there is evidence, and Trump's lawyers didn't submit it, they could be sued for malpractice. Given Trump's litigious history, party to some 4000 lawsuits, I suggest that he is the kind of guy who would sue a lawyer for sitting on available evidence.

Team Trump, including Giuliani, called up Rusty Bower, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, they wanted him to set aside Biden's electors and replace them with Trump's electors because team Trump claimed they had evidence that the election was fraudulently won. Well, Bowers asked Giuliani if they had evidence. Giuliani said yes. Trump was in on the conversation and Trump told Giuliani to give the evidence to Bowers. Bowers never received the evidence. Why? THere wasn't any.

so, if you have real evidence, I suggest you offer it, because if you can't, then I will conclude that this whole claim that Democrats stole the election was pure fabrication by Donald Trump to shake the confidence in Biden's win, to get his flock to Believe that Biden's win was illegitimate.

Why would Trump do that? Because, that way, he can blame his loss on fraud, and not on the fact that He lost to a guy whom Republicans claim has dementia, a plight which Trump believed was untenable.

There it is, the bottom line, the truth and nothing but the truth.

Trump can't handle the fact that he lost, and he is trying to make it seem that it wasn't his fault, so he invents the lie.

In fact, he invented the lie before the very first ballot was ever cast. He started his campaign by shouting via the loudest megaphone on earth, the bully pulpit: He said "The only way democrats can win is if they rig the election'. ANd he's been shouting that at every rally and continues to this day, and NO, no Democrat has done what he has done, there is no equivalent on the left, Hillary whined a bit, yes, but not on the order of magnitude that Trump has, not at rallies, she didn't continue to have rallies. Trump continued to have rallies even after he won the first election, he needs an audience applause. He's a malignant narcissist. He was afraid of losing when the campaign started, because all of his life, he claimed he was a 'winner', and Trump is all about winning, and a winner can't lose, can't admit the lost.

I vote for Democrats because I believe in Democracy.

Republicans don't, they are trying to kill democracy given that over 300 candidates for public office tomorrow are election deniers, and election deniers do not believe in democracy. They don't believe in democracy because they don't understand what constitutes evidence, (proof of that is how they believe Trump's bogus claims that Democrats stole the election) and if you can't know what evidence is, and isn't, you can't ever believe in democracy. Oh, you might pay lip service to it, but in truth, you can't believe in democracy, because if you can't understand rule of law and it's application, you'll never rise to a competency required in the administration of a democracy. Rule of law is a fundamental principle within the broader scope of democracy, and what constitutes evidence requires the ability to discern, and without that ability, no court could function, and without a functioning court, you can't have rule of law and then you can't have a democracy.

It's all tied together, and these are but one aspect of democracy, because, in fact, what a democracy is is even broader than this. But, the sad truth is that Republicans going around barking that 'America isn't a democracy' utterly fail to realize just what it means to live in a democracy, it's broader scope.

It's not just the parochial meaning delivered by Madison where he made a distinction between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. This usage is merely a parochial use of the term. Entire books are literally hundreds of books written about democracy, and an encyclopedia entry on it will occupy 50 pages and even that is scratching the surface of it's full scope. Morons like Mark Levin use only the strictest narrow usage of the term, reducing democracy down to a dictionary entry, utterly oblivious of it's broader usage.

I vote for Democracy, which requires my voting for Democrats because unlike Republicans, they grasp it's value and scope.

 

Destroying Democracy? LOLOL... how? Through energy independence? Law and Order? 1.6% inflation? Strong military? $2 gas?

 

To not vote for Republicans?

Have you heard them? Elections are fraud unless we win, CRT in schools with no proof, mass banning of books that might make you critically think. Honestly, how anybody can bear the Republican bullshit baffles me.

P.s: No condoms, immediate executions of “drug” users, ****ing Christian Nationalism. Yeah, real world of freedom.

 

Please be informed that the one grammatical error that drives me up the wall is the incessant misuse of who versus whom as they relate to subject and object in a sentence, though most get the prepositional use correct.

I can live with 'sung', no problem.

 

Actually, your usage is right. They just don’t have a rebuttal.

 

Why vote for a GOP House?

Because they will rid the building of the metal detectors, restore it as The People's House and end proxy and remote voting. You want to vote? Show up!

 

So your against voting and the military. Got it.

 

Nope! Try to guess again.

 

Do you actually know people who vote Dem because they think they can quite their jobs and just collect 'handouts'? I don't know an, because in the real world people understand that living on welfare means you live on crumbs compared to what you earn by having a real job. This is also why they are more likely to seek higher education, while Republicans are far more likely to think higher education has a negative impact on a person

And sure enough, Dems are better at creating jobs, while GOP is better at creating welfare recipients: "unemployment rate fell under Democratic presidents by an average of 0.8 percentage points, while it increased under Republican presidents by an average of 1.1 percentage points."

 

Democrats are better at creating jobs...? Really? I'd love to see links to credible information you got that from, hoping that it illustrates how Democrat policies caused the new job hiring, as differentiated from the normal peak-and-trough rhythms of hire/fire progression that follow economic cycles that have nothing to do with anything Democrats did....

And while you're at it, I'd also appreciate some evidence for your claim that Republicans "think higher education has a negative impact on a person". That's QUITE a claim, Pro... can you support that statement with a link to credible information? Still, it could be that Conservatives think that some kinds of higher-education do have a subsequent "negative impact". Obvious example: if a person majors in some essentially worthless field of Liberal Arts study that guarantees a crap job with crap pay afterward, the actual benefit of such an 'education' is doubtful....

Next, in my Post #201, which you edited down to only the portion you wanted, I did explain further that, "What they really WANT is government handouts, cradle-to-grave welfare programs, and more and 'subsidies' so that as long as they aren't millionaires, they will pay little or nothing for ANYTHING. This concept has had growing appeal ever since Frankie Roosevelt started the big 'welfare' ball rolling ninety years ago!"

Welfare recipients rarely live 'large' on welfare handouts alone, Pro, but as we've seen for decades, "bottom-feeders" can live a hell of a lot LARGER if they are supplemented with lots of nice, fat subsidies that are tailor-made to target their bottom-feeder incomes -- provided by those who very often get no (NO) subsidies for anything at all! So, no, direct money payments from the government, per se, although a huge portion of the incentive many have for just falling back on welfare, isn't the only 'tool' in a conniving Democrat's 'tool chest'.



search recall marker

 

Or you can just google the stats yourself.

You claimed that Dems vote "D" because they think they can quit their jobs and live on handouts, and if that is the depth of your knowledge of their views then you are probably not worth the time.

As for the education part, its no secret Republicans are openly hostile towards idea of education. They try to see institutions of education as places where people are brainwashed into believing the weirdest thing, and teachers are demonized and portrayed as the enemy etc

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-...rtisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/



The share of Americans saying colleges and universities have a negative effect has increased by 12 percentage points since 2012. The increase in negative views has come almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican. From 2015 to 2019, the share saying colleges have a negative effect on the country went from 37% to 59% among this group. Over that same period, the views of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic have remained largely stable and overwhelmingly positive.