The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2019, 08:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-09-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi does have those appealing qualities, which is reflected in her above average horoscope score and an even higher score for advantage in the party. However, her deceptions and failures have discredited her, and so her stock is falling. She made an unjustified slap at Buttigieg at the last debate, which revealed these tendencies again. She may hang on for a while in the current race because of her media appeal and borderline charisma, and so forth, but I don't see her anymore as a potential party leader, at least not for a long while. She has sabotaged herself badly.

Americans approaching retirement are not going to favor messing with social security and medicare, as Mitch, Donald and the other Republicans you vote for want to do. We all know how you, Mr. Classic, are a typical representative of those Americans whose priorities are keeping their guns, keeping immigrants out, keeping their taxes from going for welfare, as well as upholding outdated and phony Christian values. I am glad you are here to represent these views, but being a clear example of these distorted and deceptive priorities and values is also valuable as exhibiting how narrowly-focused on the wrong things your "red" Republican side is. And falling for Trump's ploy that immigrants are "militarized" or "terrorists" etc. just shows how easily duped you can be, sorry to say.

What deceptions and personal failures of hers are you speaking of? I don't know her personally and I'm not all that familiar with her politically either.

Time to go the quote route on this, dear Classic!

I don't know much about Tulsi's "personal" failures; I speak of her announced policies and prejudices. She approved openly of Putin's war crime of bombing of innocent people in northern Syria to support the tyrant Assad, and does not recognize that the Syria civil war is an Arab Spring uprising of the people of Syria for freedom against their brutal dictator. Assad answered them by mowing them down with gas, tanks and barrel bombs, just because they wanted action on their drought and the resulting needs of the people. And they wanted more freedom like the other young people rising up in 2011. Assad has now killed over 400,000 of these people, and tortured and exiled most of the rest. Tulsi's background is that of a warrior against Islam and a Hindu nationalist. Her professions of opposition to regime change wars may be relevant, but they are entirely dishonest.

Quote: What is the small time mayor of South Bend, Indiana doing running for President of the United States? No offense but that seems like a major leap to me. Is he viewed by the liberal establishment as someone extra special and therefore politically untouchable or something. What, can't a more independent Democratic woman like her take a swipe at a fellow Democratic gay guy who probably shouldn't be there in the first place? Did she or did she not deliver the blows that eliminated a US Senator? I'm sure if she's capable of doing that, she's capable of doing it to a city mayor. I'm also sure that blue beta women with power given to them by fake liberal alpha women/men who inherited their power are either directly threatened or extremely jealous of a more natural alpha type woman who looks better them without as much make up or high priced work done to their faces.

I agree about Buttigieg. I don't think he should be running, and I don't think he can win. He's declining in the polls now. I think that started recently, rather than because of Tulsi's jabs at him, which did more harm to herself because it was more of her dishonest rhetoric about her supposed opposition to wars. The polls and the pundits all agreed she lost this debate. But Tulsi, being an attractive and skilled candidate, is recovering from this. I think Tulsi was more effective taking down Kamala Harris, who had no chance to win to begin with.

Quote:I don't think the Republicans are going to touch social security or medicare. I think they're more likely to strengthen it by accepting minor increases to the percentages and by eliminating all kinds of wasteful and needless spending at home and abroad to shore up their funding. Personally, I don't care if California and other blue states accept the full burden and the full responsibility for supporting its low end legal and low end illegal populations and forces every American Democratic voter and every Republican voter who live there to pay much higher taxes to completely pay for them all.

We in CA probably will do that. But Mitch has already stated his intention to reduce social security. Cutting waste by Republicans usually translates to cutting help for people who need it. As a liberal, I have an awareness that having a system to protect others who may be left out in the cold by ruthless businessmen and rampant speculation/recessions protects me and my friends as well. None of us is self-reliant or immune to such events. The wasteful spending is mostly on the military side, as I see it. Right now, politicians of both sides are kicking the can of our horrendous debt down the road rather than seeking to eliminate actual waste or raise taxes to pay for what we spend tax money for instead of borrowing like there's no tomorrow.

Quote:Dude, who do I have a problem with these days. The welfare recipient who has been taught to take advantage and accept whatever is available to them exclusively for basically nothing or the Quasi socialists promoting it as being best for America and the Quasi socialist system in charge of diving it up and redistributing the bulk of the wealth to themselves and then distributing the morsel of what's left to those that liberals claim to need it the most to live. You, you view it more as an insurance that prevents you from being killed, robbed or beaten by the worst minority or white groups of the lot so to speak. Guess what, the Quasi Socialists ain't dumb people either.

Yes. Right now, welfare has already been cut to the bone and Clinton/Gingrich reduced it so that people can't take advantage of it, but many fall through the cracks. I was in favor of moderate reform back then, which might have reduced welfare for people who never wanted to contribute even though they could. But now I am more liberal about it, because I see that our economy is being reduced to robots and being sent overseas, and our workers have no unions or any bargaining power. The value of work is being destroyed, so on what basis can trickle-down libertarian economics schemes base their denunciations of welfare? Who is going to buy what the owners make with their machines? Other machines? Meanwhile the owners get 300 times more in salaries than workers, and Trump and the Republicans are making this inequality worse. The economy is recovering OK right now, but most of the benefits still go to the top while most still struggle to barely make it. This unequal and poor economy is what Republicans have created, and what people who vote Republican, vote for.