cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I finally get it. Why you and the the are so logically challenged. I was arguing with Democrats the whole time. I wish I knew. Would have saved me the time.
2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
I finally get it. Why you and the the are so logically challenged. I was arguing with Democrats the whole time. I wish I knew. Would have saved me the time.
Todays democrats and the ones from 15+ years ago are a different breed.
No 40 hour work week.
No safety measures at work.
No strict regulations on the stock market to keep from another depression.
All of this is communism. lol
I’m just wondering why the opposite side of the argument isn’t discussed. Well, I wonder but know the answer.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You learned from the people who ditched their old fat that you don't need to ditch your old fart? Trump wasn't cognitively all that great in 2016 and it's still a big difference. Seriously though I wonder what it would take. I have heard Trump wouldn't even cease power while he was having medical procedures don't which is just standard operating procedure.
acesfull86
Well-known member
No it isn’t, but I guess if that’s how you feel, there’s no limit to what you’ll support, so long as it originates from the mouth of Trump and not Harris.
acesfull86
Well-known member
You’ve lobbed accusations of communism against (D) regularly for years. So why don’t you tell us what the guardrails are? Because like I said to garmel, it seems like the standard is whether or not the idea came from the leader of your team.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Lol silly goose cajun.
I support limits on large coroporations and want to provide all benefits to smaller corporations. I favor more competition. Your ideology restricts competition.
Why are labor laws not communism but restrictions on interest rates communism?
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/trumps-scattershot-policy-pandering/
At this stage in the proceedings, it feels almost churlish to write earnestly about the public-policy implications of the coming presidential election. In Kamala Harris, we have a candidate who will commit to nothing lest she is subjected to a follow-up question; in Donald Trump, we have a candidate so determined to discharge his every thought that there is no time left for his auditors to speak. As an old-fashioned “issues” voter, I am not sure which is more annoying: that Kamala Harris answers every inquiry by talking distractedly about the sanctity of middle-class grass, or that Donald Trump promulgates novel positions with the fecundity of a sunfish. Irrespective, the spectacle is an unedifying one.
…
All things being equal, Kamala Harris’s reticence may help her win the White House. Likewise Trump’s pandering. But it will not help either of them enact an agenda — which, lest we forget, is the purpose of securing power in the first instance. We are thoroughly modern, I’m quite sure, but there is still no alternative to a clear and deliberate agenda.
Alas, neither clarity nor deliberation is on display this time around. Last week, in the course of a truly pathetic interview with ABC Philadelphia, Kamala Harris proved unable to even hint at how she would go about fulfilling her routine promise to “lower prices.” “I grew up in a community of hard-working people,” Harris said, “you know, construction workers and nurses and teachers, and I try to explain to some people who may not have had the same experience — you know, a lot of people will relate to this.” Exactly to what those people were supposed to “relate” was never explained — even in outline. Nor will it be. Harris believes that she is winning, and she is aware that talking in public is the intervention most likely to change that fact. From now until November 5, she will let us eat joy.
Donald Trump is going for the opposite approach. Yesterday, Trump promised that, if he were to be chosen as president once again, Americans would not only end up paying “no tax on tips,” “no tax on overtime,” and “no tax on Social Security benefits,” but that he would help repeal one of the biggest achievements of his first term, the cap on the state-and-local-tax (SALT) deduction within the income-tax code. Why? Because Trump thinks that these declarations will be popular among the groups he needs to win — and hasn’t considered them beyond that. Nevada has a large number of tip-reliant service workers; Trump wants to win Nevada; therefore . . . Social Security recipients vote in higher numbers than any other group; Trump wants them to vote for him rather than for his opponent; therefore . . . Trump is speaking in New York tonight; New Yorkers want their SALT-subsidy back; therefore . . . Regrettably, there is nothing more to any of it than that. It’s Oprah Winfreyism, writ large.
At this stage in the proceedings, it feels almost churlish to write earnestly about the public-policy implications of the coming presidential election. In Kamala Harris, we have a candidate who will commit to nothing lest she is subjected to a follow-up question; in Donald Trump, we have a candidate so determined to discharge his every thought that there is no time left for his auditors to speak. As an old-fashioned “issues” voter, I am not sure which is more annoying: that Kamala Harris answers every inquiry by talking distractedly about the sanctity of middle-class grass, or that Donald Trump promulgates novel positions with the fecundity of a sunfish. Irrespective, the spectacle is an unedifying one.
…
All things being equal, Kamala Harris’s reticence may help her win the White House. Likewise Trump’s pandering. But it will not help either of them enact an agenda — which, lest we forget, is the purpose of securing power in the first instance. We are thoroughly modern, I’m quite sure, but there is still no alternative to a clear and deliberate agenda.
Alas, neither clarity nor deliberation is on display this time around. Last week, in the course of a truly pathetic interview with ABC Philadelphia, Kamala Harris proved unable to even hint at how she would go about fulfilling her routine promise to “lower prices.” “I grew up in a community of hard-working people,” Harris said, “you know, construction workers and nurses and teachers, and I try to explain to some people who may not have had the same experience — you know, a lot of people will relate to this.” Exactly to what those people were supposed to “relate” was never explained — even in outline. Nor will it be. Harris believes that she is winning, and she is aware that talking in public is the intervention most likely to change that fact. From now until November 5, she will let us eat joy.
Donald Trump is going for the opposite approach. Yesterday, Trump promised that, if he were to be chosen as president once again, Americans would not only end up paying “no tax on tips,” “no tax on overtime,” and “no tax on Social Security benefits,” but that he would help repeal one of the biggest achievements of his first term, the cap on the state-and-local-tax (SALT) deduction within the income-tax code. Why? Because Trump thinks that these declarations will be popular among the groups he needs to win — and hasn’t considered them beyond that. Nevada has a large number of tip-reliant service workers; Trump wants to win Nevada; therefore . . . Social Security recipients vote in higher numbers than any other group; Trump wants them to vote for him rather than for his opponent; therefore . . . Trump is speaking in New York tonight; New Yorkers want their SALT-subsidy back; therefore . . . Regrettably, there is nothing more to any of it than that. It’s Oprah Winfreyism, writ large.
acesfull86
Well-known member
There’s nothing stopping a credit card company from lowering their interest rates to 10% if they so choose
Of course not - But they are more profitbale by extending credit out to non-worthy individuals and banging them with interest.
Again - You have no limits as to how large corporations profit.
If you were born in yesteryear you would have been fighting every one of those things calling it socialism/communism.
We have laws against predatory loans. Are those socialism too? Where's your limit?
I don't agree with Trump on everything he says but this is a good idea. I know I'm a socialist cult member for Trump now.
There's a good reason why your party can't get 3% of the vote.
acesfull86
Well-known member
If that’s what you believe, then great!
But don’t tell me we need to stop Harris because she’s a communist, then tell me that you, Trump, and Steve Bannon know the proper level of profit that businesses should earn!
Going to answer my question as to the difference in labeling on Labor laws versus top lines on interest rates?
I get why you want to avoid that question but jsut curious if you had an answer.
As it stands currently, Harris can't win without pulling the entire rust belt. GA and AZ are near locks to flip back red. NC is likely to stay red. And no other red states are realistically in play other than NV, which accomplishes nothing for Kamala.
Trump could still pull out a tie or a narrow while losing the entire rust belt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trends are going to go rapidly in Trumps favor the next 45 days.
The teamsters members internal polling is disastrous for Harris hopes on winning PA/WI/Nv and maybe even Mi/Mn. Mn being hte most unlikely.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Im not the one going around calling everything communist/socialist…(R) is doing that, then they’re turning around calling for limiting interest rates charged by private companies. If that’s what you want to support, that’s fine.
Some labor laws, stock market regulations, and loan practice restrictions are good, some are terrible, and some fall in between. I personally don’t find labeling things “communist “ as helpful, unlike today’s (R).