Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #701  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:57 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
Pantastic:

You don’t seem interested in responding to what an actual conservative has to say about your list.

Do you just prefer to argue against your strawman?
  #702  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:01 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Tax cuts help people who pay taxes. The wealthy pay more taxes than the poor. This is an intrinsic truth.


Various cites say somewhere between 2/3 and 80% of all taxpayers got a tax cut due to Trump’s tax bill;


https://time.com/5570679/trump-tax-cuts/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/b...e-tax-cut.html

https://www.atr.org/8-facts-about-go...talk-about?amp

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...t-dont-know-it

https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/t...lan-explained/


You are just wrong.
As usual the big picture shows that Trump once again does a nice job on breaking things.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-you...ut-by-tariffs/
Quote:
Many American families may find themselves no better off this year as their tax cut will be almost entirely wiped out by higher costs from the Trump administration's tariffs on Chinese imports, economists are saying. And if tariffs on Mexican products go into effect starting next week, the typical American consumer could end up in the hole by thousands of dollars.

The math works like this: The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act delivered tax savings to the average American family of about $930 per year, according to the Tax Policy Center. But so far, the tariffs alone on Chinese imports are adding costs of $831 for the average family in the U.S., according to economists at the New York Federal Reserve.

In 2019, the typical American family -- meaning a family in the middle of the income distribution, earning about $56,000 per year -- is only ahead by about $100.
  #703  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:01 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Tax cuts help people who pay taxes. The wealthy pay more taxes than the poor. This is an intrinsic truth.... Various cites say somewhere between 2/3 and 80% of all taxpayers got a tax cut due to Trump’s tax bill;
From one of your articles: "High earners did far better under the law. The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock."

As I said, "Conservative tax cuts consistently result in lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest at worst, and huge cuts (by percentage, not raw numbers) on the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest at best." When the top 20% get 60% of the tax cut benefits, I'm going to class that as huge cuts for the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest.
  #704  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:03 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Pantastic:

You don’t seem interested in responding to what an actual conservative has to say about your list.

Do you just prefer to argue against your strawman?
I have responded. I am not going to continue to reiterate the same points I've already made to someone who claims that used actual facts is "bigotry". If you want to call it a strawman for me to not repeat what I've already said, or to not keep going line by line with someone who thinks that using real world facts is 'dickery', I can't stop you from redefining words.
  #705  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:09 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
From one of your articles: "High earners did far better under the law. The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock."

As I said, "Conservative tax cuts consistently result in lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest at worst, and huge cuts (by percentage, not raw numbers) on the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest at best." When the top 20% get 60% of the tax cut benefits, I'm going to class that as huge cuts for the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest.
I will add that with the deficit growing and guys like Rush Limbaugh telling the Republicans that the deficits do not matter, the big picture shows something that should be anathema to what a conservative should be. Fiscal responsibility is as dead as a dodo among the Republicans in power.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 07-23-2019 at 11:09 PM.
  #706  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:09 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
From one of your articles: "High earners did far better under the law. The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock."

The top quintile pays 69% of taxes;

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/w...SAAEgK82_D_BwE

If they got 60% of the tax savings, than that is less than they would have gotten if it were applied evenly.

Trump’s tax cut favored the bottom four quintiles percentage wise over the top quintile. It was a progressive tax cut.


Are you being obstinate, or are you genuinely having trouble understanding?



Quote:
As I said, "Conservative tax cuts consistently result in lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest at worst, and huge cuts (by percentage, not raw numbers) on the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest at best." When the top 20% get 60% of the tax cut benefits, I'm going to class that as huge cuts for the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest.
And, as demonstrated, you would be wrong.
  #707  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:12 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The top quintile pays 69% of taxes;

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/w...SAAEgK82_D_BwE

If they got 60% of the tax savings, than that is less than they would have gotten if it were applied evenly.

Trump’s tax cut favored the bottom four quintiles percentage wise over the top quintile. It was a progressive tax cut.


Are you being obstinate, or are you genuinely having trouble understanding?


And, as demonstrated, you would be wrong.
As mentioned already, when one takes into account the tariff taxes, that "progressive tax cut" is a very silly point to make.
  #708  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:12 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
You get that the bottom 80% of tax payers pay 31% of taxes. The top 20% pay 69%.

If you cut everybody’s taxes by 1%, 69% of the saving go to that top 20% as a mathematical necessity.
  #709  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:18 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
You get that the bottom 80% of tax payers pay 31% of taxes. The top 20% pay 69%.

If you cut everybody’s taxes by 1%, 69% of the saving go to that top 20% as a mathematical necessity.
And as a necessity, the result are deficits that even some Republicans are finally noticing that it was a dumb thing to do even though it may had been politically ok then.

https://thinkprogress.org/deficit-ha...-46e0ba2f20a5/
Quote:
In 2017, the Republican Congress passed Trump’s “Tax Cut and Jobs Act,” slashing tax rates for the richest Americans and corporations. Proponents falsely claimed that these revenue cuts would pay for themselves in economic growth, but even they now admit that that was a lie. Despite what Trump frequently hails as the greatest economy ever, tax receipts are down as a result of the law and the budget deficit is predicted to hit $1 trillion in 2019.

Several conservative lawmakers who backed these tax cuts angrily denounced the bipartisan agreement, objecting to the increased deficits that they helped create.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) voted for the tax cut bill. But now that the bill is due for this unfunded giveaway, he does not want to authorize payments. “The debt ceiling is here again. Our credit card is maxed out,” he complained.
  #710  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:21 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As mentioned already, when one takes into account the tariff taxes, that "progressive tax cut" is a very silly point to make.
This is unfortunately 100% correct as you’ve written it.

***

Personally, I strongly believe that tariffs are the wrong way to attempt to solve the trade problem and believe Trump is making a mistake.

It remains vaguely possible that in fact what appears to be incredibly bad policy is actually a genius negotiating move that will result in far better trade conditions long term, and these tariffs will have been proven to be a smart short term sacrifice that was fleeting in its duration but laying in the benefits that they brought.

It’s possible.


Despite what anybody might argue you are correct though in saying that the tariffs are a tax on us, not the Chinese.
  #711  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:25 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And as a necessity, the result are deficits that even some Republicans are finally noticing that it was a dumb thing to do even though it may had been politically ok then.

https://thinkprogress.org/deficit-ha...-46e0ba2f20a5/

Yeah, deficits are basically stealing from our kids (with a few technical exceptions that are kind of abstract.). Not a super fan.

They are hardly unique to Republicans, but we certainly deserve the greater bitch slapping over this as we advertise as the party of fiscal responsibility.

So I agree. Please note that I didn’t disagree with you, and made no comment whether the tax cuts were awesome or terrible in the bigger picture of things. I was just pointing out that Pantastics premise that the tax cuts are somehow penalizing the poor is wrong.


Better arguments along these lines would relate to sales taxes which are intrinsically regressive and actually penalize the poor.
  #712  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:30 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Yeah, I have to notice your agreement there because it is really super rare in discussions like this.

You may get again as I remember you, so we will see.
  #713  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:35 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Yeah, I have to notice your agreement there because it is really super rare in discussions like this.

You may get again as I remember you, so we will see.
Facts should be both of our friends. They have no political affiliation.
  #714  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:40 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,367
In a similar vein, I hope I don’t have to argue the concept that the tax cuts almost certainly helped the economy.

We can accept that that is a reasonable statement.

That is different than saying that they were wise or needed or a good trade off, or the best way to stimulate the economy, or the best choice among the list of all possible choices that could have been done instead, all of which are subject to debate.
  #715  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:10 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,370
nm

Last edited by Little Nemo; 07-24-2019 at 12:11 AM.
  #716  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:21 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
You get that the bottom 80% of tax payers pay 31% of taxes. The top 20% pay 69%.
The top twenty percent owns 69.7% of the wealth in the country. So 69% of the taxes seems fair.
  #717  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:28 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Conservative values don’t exist without conservatives. They are the home.
Quote:
I did not describe liberals as repugnant. I said they need to fix what everybody else finds repugnant.
It's fascinating, the hairs you choose to split and the hairs you choose not to split. Predictable, but fascinating.

Quote:
I am not angry. I am more disappointed and disgusted, that you thinking is ok to attribute such vile motives to your political opponents.
Earlier in this thread, you called Ilhan Omar anti-American.

Quote:
It is such an inherently obviously stupid thing to do. It suggests such a basic mental inflexibility and failure of critical thinking and empathy that it is difficult to believe it exists. It requires only the most basic tools to dismantle. It’s the kind of attitude that intelligent thinkers are always wary of, that tendency to demonize those they disagree with. When they catch themselves doing it, they commit to a hard stop.

It’s not hard. “Hmmmm, roughly half my country identifies this way. Probably I know some of them that are really smart, who are truly good people, who are deep and careful thinkers. They hold to conservative and Republican values yet they do not demonstrate racist or bigoted tendencies, and tend not to tolerate those that do.
Right, see, that's the thing.

I've never seen these Republicans. I see Republicans who utter the most crassly offensive, bigoted drivel. And I see other Republicans do absolutely nothing about it. Ever. Yeah, they stripped Steve King of his committees. After the election, and how many years of him saying shit like that? And it sure as shit didn't stop the Republicans in his district from voting him again.

Earlier I posted more than thirty cites to times when the Republican party amended state (STATE) constitutions to explicitly discriminate against people like me. But apparently, I'm mentally inflexible for thinking maybe the Republican party has some kind of fucking problem with gay people.

Quote:
Yes. Yes. No.
And there's our deep and careful conservative thinker, demonstrating that he tends not to tolerate people who express bigoted tendencies.
  #718  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
None whatsoever. I asked you if I had your views pegged a couple of pages ago and you didn’t respond. I didn’t troll after you whining for an answer. I don’t see you demonstrating good faith. You misrepresented my earlier post to suggest I was horribly upset of]r filled with rage or something. You are being obstinate and obstructive over basic issues that should not be an issue like the meaning of bipartisan, and, you should be familiar enough with the issue to guess what my answer would be without insisting I type it out. Past performance suggests you will be obstinate and obstructive and just waste my time.



I don’t owe you an answer. I respond to what is interesting to respond to. I don’t find it interesting.



So that’s the third time I’ve told you no. It won’t be interesting to respond to this any further.
Did you have my views pegged? Which post? I'd be happy to respond if I missed it.

As for bipartisan, we may have had a different definition earlier, but in my more recent posts I've been using your definition - the bill the Democratic congress passed, with no Republican action, was previously unanimous and fully bipartisan in the Senate, which was what I said in the first place that you challenged.

Of course you don't owe me anything, but don't you owe it to yourself to consider the facts when it comes to your own positions, and rethink things if it turns out your understanding of the facts were wrong?

As for "misrepresenting" your post, I was just responding to what I read. If I misunderstood, then I was wrong. You said some inaccurate things about me, like that I believed conservative positions were all based on bigotry, which I've never said. I assumed that was driven by anger. If I was wrong, I'm sorry.

We've had interesting discussions before. Why not give it a try again?
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-24-2019 at 04:31 AM.
  #719  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:25 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
My guess is that most non-bigots would just simply explain why they weren't bigots. If a person is truly non-bigoted, it's not that hard to explain that fact.
My guess is most women who aren't really whores would just explain why they weren't whores. It's not that hard to explain.

Ridiculous
  #720  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:28 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I think most liberals understand that conservatives put the military into a different category of "big government spending" than they do any other sort of government expenditure.

We just don't buy conservative reasoning as to why they're different.



*characterization
Why they are different? Limited government is different from big government spending

Limiting government is seen as keeping government less intrusive. The armed forces aren't intrusive. (At least to us)

I mean, there are lots of things that Republicans do and advocate for that can't be seen as limiting government but this isn't one of them.
  #721  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:31 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,895
Perhaps today's conservatives can explain something that we libs just don't understand: how can you be willing to accept a bigoted and racist President yet not be willing to suffer the criticism for doing so? This seems to be a fundamental disconnect; liberals like me will not allow any policy considerations to sway me from opposing a man so devoid of the fundamental American values of equality and justice for all.

Maybe I'm assuming too much but it appears that the argument about the President's racism and bigotry is over.
  #722  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:33 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
From one of your articles: "High earners did far better under the law. The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock."

As I said, "Conservative tax cuts consistently result in lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest at worst, and huge cuts (by percentage, not raw numbers) on the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest at best." When the top 20% get 60% of the tax cut benefits, I'm going to class that as huge cuts for the wealthy and tiny cuts for the rest.
nm

Last edited by Kearsen1; 07-24-2019 at 07:37 AM.
  #723  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:35 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Perhaps today's conservatives can explain something that we libs just don't understand: how can you be willing to accept a bigoted and racist President yet not be willing to suffer the criticism for doing so? This seems to be a fundamental disconnect; liberals like me will not allow any policy considerations to sway me from opposing a man so devoid of the fundamental American values of equality and justice for all.

Maybe I'm assuming too much but it appears that the argument about the President's racism and bigotry is over.
Aside from your personal opinion that the President is bigoted and racist (which I won't even try to deny) what policies do you think he put in place to further those causes?
  #724  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:42 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Kearsen1, surely you've heard of the wall, or the Muslim immigration ban (in its various versions)? How about separating Hispanic families and caging their kids? Do those policies answer your question? Come on, dude.

But thanks for pulling this thread back from The Scylla Show.
  #725  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:56 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Kearsen1, surely you've heard of the wall, or the Muslim immigration ban (in its various versions)? How about separating Hispanic families and caging their kids? Do those policies answer your question? Come on, dude.

But thanks for pulling this thread back from The Scylla Show.
Elvis, indeed I have heard of them. The Muslim ban, I will grant you, even though I can certainly see that he was trying to limit his own version of 'terroristic' threat. He should probably have identified countries that they thought were a threat and limit immigration from them.
The separation of families, can (and still should) be changed with legislation. It isn't something new that he came up with, it predated him. The wall isn't necessarily bigoted or racist, he is doing what he thinks he needs to do to protect the border. We do have a large immigration problem from our southern neighbors.

Immigration from Mexico is one of those things I think that no one wants to actually solve. For all the hand wringing and shouting about it, a good amount of Americans rely on that labor but it always seems to be a popular talking point.
  #726  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:06 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Elvis, indeed I have heard of them. The Muslim ban, I will grant you, even though I can certainly see that he was trying to limit his own version of 'terroristic' threat. He should probably have identified countries that they thought were a threat and limit immigration from them.
The separation of families, can (and still should) be changed with legislation. It isn't something new that he came up with, it predated him. The wall isn't necessarily bigoted or racist, he is doing what he thinks he needs to do to protect the border. We do have a large immigration problem from our southern neighbors.

Immigration from Mexico is one of those things I think that no one wants to actually solve. For all the hand wringing and shouting about it, a good amount of Americans rely on that labor but it always seems to be a popular talking point.
Immigration is indeed an important issue to many (not so much to me) and reasonable debate can be had. Our president started off the debate, however, by calling Mexicans "rapists" and has never stepped back from that overall stance. So, again, I ask how Trump supporters can value "policy" over non-bigotry.
  #727  
Old 07-24-2019, 09:05 AM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The actual conservative value here is not “Less Spending.” It is actually “Limited Government.”
They often go hand in hand, but not always, do it is an important distinction. The first purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. During WWII, or times of crisis that might mean almost infinite spending. Military and border security are prioritized because if you can’t defend yourself or keep your borders you don’t necessarily get to stay a country very long. There is no contradiction on military spending or border protection, as that is the first purpose of government and if it can’t do that, it can’t do anything.
[ . . . ]

This is “Limited Government” again. There are certain things the government and other things it should not. Police and prisons and border protection are all things conservatives tend to feel a limited government should be doing. Protecting the lives of it’s citizens is another. Many conservatives feel that an unborn child is a human being and has a right to life. The government has a responsible to protect that life, just as it does to protect yours. Drugs, bathroom laws, and the appropriateness of specific civil rights are issues best handled individually.
In other words, conservatives want the government to do things that they think ought to be done, no matter how expensive or personally intrusive they are; and want the government not to do things they think ought not to be done.

Liberals, and for that matter pretty much everybody else, also want the government to do things they think ought to be done, and not to do things they think ought not to be done. It's not a "limited government" value. It's an "enforce what I think should be enforced value". A bit more honesty about that would be welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Respect for traditional values is also a conservative value. Conservatives have a bit of a schism within their ranks on how they feel about this. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism put forth relatively agnostic reasons for this respect. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch, and before you tear a fence down, you need to know why it was put up.
I actually agree with that last line, and think I've more or less said so previously in this thread.

The problem is, that when you actually look hard and seriously about why some of our fences exist, sometimes (not always) the answer really is 'because they were deliberately enforcing racism, sexism, and/or religious bigotry.' And sometimes (not always) the answer is 'because the people who built them were carelessly making assumptions that, even if they weren't intended to do so, have the effect of enforcing racism, sexism, and/or religious bigotry.' And sometimes (not always) the answer is 'because the fence looked like a good idea for good reasons at the time; but we've discovered new information on the subject which means that it's not a good idea, and/or we've discovered that -- hey, law of unintended consequences! -- it's producing bad results.'

Yes, before you tear a fence down, you should know why it was put up. But you have to actually look at why it was put up, with as clear eyes and as much information as possible, and then be willing to remove it or modify it if the original reasons don't stand up well. Just saying 'we should keep it because we're used to it and there's probably a reason it's there in the first place' isn't sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I generally agree with this, but I need to reserve the right to disagree on a case by case basis based on what specifically you mean by “how they were born” and what “civil right” you are referring to. With that proviso I tend to be live and let live..
Would you care to expand on which particular cases you think should be excluded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
You are being obstinate and obstructive over basic issues that should not be an issue like the meaning of bipartisan
If you'd actually read the cite you're refusing to read, you'd see that it agrees with you about the meaning of bipartisan. It disagrees with you about whether the issue in question actually had bipartisan support, and brings evidence to show that it did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Me too. That’s not what is happening. The proposition is being put out that the values behind conservatism are founded on bigotry. it is being generally met with acceptance, and defended. With the exception of the last post that I responded in detail to, those values themselves have not even been identified and discussed. To the extent that they have, they have been woefully misrepresented to the point of blatant willful ignorance.
I agree that the title of the thread is somewhat problematic. I disagree that no one in the thread has, other than in one post, attempted to identify conservative values not founded on bigotry, or to discuss them in good faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I will likely vote for Trump not because of any moral example he embodies, but because the policies of his administration are better than the ones being proposed by his opponents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
when I say that the Democratic Party has gone so far past liberalism and into radical leftism as to sincerely disturb me so much that Trump is looking like the lesser of two evils, know that that is not the normal hyperbolous bullshit political hacking that people make every election. I am sincere..
Which policies of the Trump administration are you so strongly in favor of? And which proposed policies of the Democratic Party are you so strongly opposed to? (Policies reasonably mainstream within the party, please; not just suggestions made by one or two members. It's true Trump is only one person, but as the Republicans have mostly been either voting in lockstep with his policies or refusing to vote on them at all, I think that at this point it's fair to hold the party in general responsible for them.)


-- my, the thread's moved on while I typed. Think I'll leave it there for now, though.
  #728  
Old 07-24-2019, 09:15 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
My guess is most women who aren't really whores would just explain why they weren't whores. It's not that hard to explain.

Ridiculous
How do you know what most women would do? Are you a woman?
  #729  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:01 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Apologies if this has already been posted and I missed it, but it definitely seems relevant to this thread:

Study: Highly Educated Democrats Know Hardly Anything About What Republicans Believe

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 07-26-2019 at 12:03 AM.
  #730  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:20 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Are you being obstinate, or are you genuinely having trouble understanding?
A cut that gives the richest 20% 60% of the benefit is not progressive, as I said the majority of the benefit percentage-wise goes to the richest segment of the population. Trying to redefine a tax cut that benefits the richest 20% vastly more than the other 80% as 'progressive' is absurd. Not going to apologize for obstinately sticking to actual facts.
  #731  
Old 07-26-2019, 07:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Apologies if this has already been posted and I missed it, but it definitely seems relevant to this thread:

Study: Highly Educated Democrats Know Hardly Anything About What Republicans Believe
IMHO the conclusion of that article applies to what Democrats don't know about the Republican rank and file beliefs, on some issues they are ignorant, but that comes from the Democrats looking at the highly reported news coming from the Republicans that are in power. The Democrats are mostly correct on that.

Look for example at the issue of climate change that is mentioned in that article, while I was aware already that most Republicans report that we should be doing something about climate, most if not all of the Republicans in congress and the president show to be inside an even more extremist information bubble.

That does distort the survey in a key way, many Democrats are then just aware that the Republicans in congress are disconnected from reality and are also aware about what Republicans in congress are not doing about the issue, but this is where the conclusion of the article is an incomplete one:

The propaganda that is directed towards the Republicans in power (Lobbies and Newt Gingrich can be blamed for this) is not letting the Republicans that would want to do something about the issue to have a voice. More than once in the past I made notice of that disconnect; that most Republicans that are not politicians are not being aware much about the gross incompetency or most of the inaction that their representatives are allowing (and this is also the fault of the poisonous right wing sources of information). The Democrats in this case would have trouble, like the survey reported, in realizing the actual number of Republican outside congress that want to do something about the issue, but what shows in their radar are the actions of Republican representatives that in reality also do not care about what their constituents do think regarding this dangerous issue.

And on this tread, as I remember most of the conservatives in the SDMB, most are also not aware or dismiss that most Republicans are listening to the climate scientists, the current Republicans in congress and the president that do not are the weakest link in dealing with the issue.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 07-26-2019 at 07:52 PM.
  #732  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:01 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Apologies if this has already been posted and I missed it, but it definitely seems relevant to this thread:

Study: Highly Educated Democrats Know Hardly Anything About What Republicans Believe
Rank and file republicans can state that they believe things that make them feel sophisticated and decent when they answer a survey, but if they don't engage in real-world behavior consistent with those claimed beliefs, I don't see how the survey answers convey any real information. If you claim to believe that forcing an 11-year old to carry her rapists baby to term is completely wrong, but also vote for the people who vote for the law, then your theoretical beliefs are irrelevant as your practical actions produce the result you claim not to want. If you claim that you're not homophobic, but do vote for the people that want to deny LGBT people human rights, then the fact that you're in theory in favor of equality doesn't matter since in practice you're opposed to it.

Also, relevant to this thread: When directly asked on this board for what 'conservative values' they hold that aren't based on bigotry, conservatives listed a scarce few things that aren't very complimentary in themselves, claimed values that are directly contradicted by conservative actions, and outright bigotry with defenses like 'is not treating the gays as human really bigotry' and 'basing opinions on facts and observation is the real bigotry'.
  #733  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:13 PM
Rayks Marcial is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 90
To answer the OP, anything described as asceticism.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017