tululush
New member
More projection from you. Your cancerous commentary clearly paints you as the person you continue to accuse others as being. Typical Trump mentality.
TRHFIM
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
More projection from you. Your cancerous commentary clearly paints you as the person you continue to accuse others as being. Typical Trump mentality.
sturg33
I
Sure sure little one. The man who insults others but can never make an original point on his own.
Must be fun to scream racist at everyone to feel good about your low iq.
It's all good. I know you're dumb. I know you're a racist. I know you need others to tell you what to think.
It's pathetic. But you are not alone.
tululush
New member
Do you actually read a single thing you post? You are king of projection. Uh huh. I’m all alone...says the man who literally has nothing to do all day but sit on this message board and hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with your fantasy world. Right. C’mon. Work a little harder. See if you can’t hit triple digit posts tomorrow. I know you have it in you.
tululush
New member
Ok dude. Whatever you say.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/...action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
good luck Denver Riggleman!
good luck Denver Riggleman!
It ain’t happening. You’ll never see spineless squishy candidates like this guy again win a GOP primary.
But they’ll be able to cash in on this grift for another few years from dog**** propaganda papers like the NYT.
The way to take back the country is to fully engage on the culture war and be on the offensive.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Wow, we imprison more people of our own people than any country barring North Korea and maybe China. And my home state is the incarceration capitol of the world. **** Tom Cotton.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I feel like "conservative" is starting to have a lot of different definitions. It has certainly been Chamber of Commerce friendly for several decades. The new economic populism turn that many in the GOP are at least paying lip service to is not that.
A socially conservative (or traditionalist,) economically populist party is much closer to the Christian Democrats of Europe or the Blue Dogs of the 80s than it is to Pubs of our lifetime. I'm not sure what to call it.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
This from the Guardian discusses it well. It also raised my opinion of Hawley
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/08/republicans-economic-populist-josh-hawley
In 1956, the Republican party met for its national convention in San Francisco and laid out a platform that won President Dwight D Eisenhower a second term in office.
The Republican platform boasted about raising the minimum wage, expanding social security and increasing the number of workers joining unions.
But in the decades following, the party drifted away from economic populism and the belief that the machinations of government could be put to work to tame the market and empower workers.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” Ronald Reagan quipped in 1986. Under Reaganism, the conservative intelligentsia came to view the market as supreme – often in opposition to its own voting base.
That is still the case. Today, 50% of Republican voters support Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal, but not a single Republican in Congress does.
But there are signs that economic populism may be returning to the Republican party.
At a recent conservative conference in Washington DC, Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, told attendees that an “economy driven by money changing on Wall Street ultimately benefits those who have the money to start with, and that economy will not support a great nation”.
This is the sort of language you would typically associate with a Republican lawmaker in the pre-Reagan years, when it produced senators such as Wisconsin’s Bob La Follette, a thundering populist who took on railroad companies and defended small farmers.
Lest you think that Hawley is all talk, the legislation he has introduced suggests he is breaking from the Republican establishment in real ways.
He has introduced a bipartisan bill to ban the sale to minors of predatory video game “loot boxes”, an addictive technology that is being used by the electronic gaming industry to suck money out of children. His drug pricing bill would ban pharmaceutical companies from charging Americans more for the same prescription drugs than they charge to customers in other industrialized countries.
His college debt legislation would hold well-off colleges and universities directly accountable for offering expensive or mediocre educations to their students; the bill would require institutions to pay off 50% of the balance of loans of students who default. Legislation he introduced with the Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin would impose fees on foreign capital in order to revalue the dollar in a way that would increase US exports.
Perhaps his biggest foe is Silicon Valley, which he blames for pursuing a “business model of addiction”. He has introduced legislation that would ban certain social media company practices – such as autoplay videos and endless scrolling – that he blames for manipulating human psychology.
The conservative establishment’s response to Hawley’s crusade against these powerful economic titans has been skeptical. The National Review’s David French argued that Hawley’s bill regulating big tech practices was an “affront to limited government and personal responsibility”.
Arguments in favor of limited government and personal responsibility have their place, but the conservative movement’s modus operandi has long been to advocate personal responsibility for society’s poorest and most vulnerable but not society’s most powerful. Who has held big tech responsible for its role in promoting technologies that may foster addiction and suicide? Is the pharmaceutical industry acting responsibly when it is pricing drugs out of the reach of ordinary Americans?
When a younger Hawley sat down and wrote a book about a towering Republican figure in 2008, he chose to profile not Reagan but Teddy Roosevelt, the progressive populist Republican president from the early 20th century.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/08/republicans-economic-populist-josh-hawley
In 1956, the Republican party met for its national convention in San Francisco and laid out a platform that won President Dwight D Eisenhower a second term in office.
The Republican platform boasted about raising the minimum wage, expanding social security and increasing the number of workers joining unions.
But in the decades following, the party drifted away from economic populism and the belief that the machinations of government could be put to work to tame the market and empower workers.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” Ronald Reagan quipped in 1986. Under Reaganism, the conservative intelligentsia came to view the market as supreme – often in opposition to its own voting base.
That is still the case. Today, 50% of Republican voters support Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal, but not a single Republican in Congress does.
But there are signs that economic populism may be returning to the Republican party.
At a recent conservative conference in Washington DC, Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, told attendees that an “economy driven by money changing on Wall Street ultimately benefits those who have the money to start with, and that economy will not support a great nation”.
This is the sort of language you would typically associate with a Republican lawmaker in the pre-Reagan years, when it produced senators such as Wisconsin’s Bob La Follette, a thundering populist who took on railroad companies and defended small farmers.
Lest you think that Hawley is all talk, the legislation he has introduced suggests he is breaking from the Republican establishment in real ways.
He has introduced a bipartisan bill to ban the sale to minors of predatory video game “loot boxes”, an addictive technology that is being used by the electronic gaming industry to suck money out of children. His drug pricing bill would ban pharmaceutical companies from charging Americans more for the same prescription drugs than they charge to customers in other industrialized countries.
His college debt legislation would hold well-off colleges and universities directly accountable for offering expensive or mediocre educations to their students; the bill would require institutions to pay off 50% of the balance of loans of students who default. Legislation he introduced with the Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin would impose fees on foreign capital in order to revalue the dollar in a way that would increase US exports.
Perhaps his biggest foe is Silicon Valley, which he blames for pursuing a “business model of addiction”. He has introduced legislation that would ban certain social media company practices – such as autoplay videos and endless scrolling – that he blames for manipulating human psychology.
The conservative establishment’s response to Hawley’s crusade against these powerful economic titans has been skeptical. The National Review’s David French argued that Hawley’s bill regulating big tech practices was an “affront to limited government and personal responsibility”.
Arguments in favor of limited government and personal responsibility have their place, but the conservative movement’s modus operandi has long been to advocate personal responsibility for society’s poorest and most vulnerable but not society’s most powerful. Who has held big tech responsible for its role in promoting technologies that may foster addiction and suicide? Is the pharmaceutical industry acting responsibly when it is pricing drugs out of the reach of ordinary Americans?
When a younger Hawley sat down and wrote a book about a towering Republican figure in 2008, he chose to profile not Reagan but Teddy Roosevelt, the progressive populist Republican president from the early 20th century.
Would they have supported having multiple levels of intermediaries between a voter and the submitted vote?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
modern elections are run in a more secure manner than the old days
a little primer on how Americans have voted over the centuries
https://www.history.com/news/vote-by-mail-soldiers-war
That’s an irrelevant point.
Having any layer between the voter and a submitted vote is adding fraud risk to an election and that process should have much heavier scrutiny and controls. This is basic stuff really.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Again, you focus only on injustices from one side. Media and tech intentionally colluding to suppress information that would damage Dem candidates doesn't matter to you, because it wasn't Trump's side. Legitimate complaints about unlawful changes made to the voting process don't matter to you, because they worked against Trump. You defend plans to make fundamental changes to our government like expanding the Court, adding states, or abolishing the Electoral College...because...Trump. You have no problem with social media companies silencing people or manipulating data, because they only do it to people on Trump's team.
Respectfully, it doesn't appear that your last sentence holds water.