Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:20 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Give us a few examples.
If your answer to the question is "no", then a few examples are unlikely to convince you otherwise. If your answer is "yes", then the examples are unnecessary as we already agree on the matter.
  #102  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:22 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Sure. Why does this specifically concern republicans.
I haven't claimed it does specifically concern Republicans. I'm simply trying to help you to discover the answer to your question "Why, if not for being tax cheats." It sounds like you already understand the answer though, so I guess my work here is done.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-13-2019 at 10:22 AM.
  #103  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:24 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They certainly appear to share a liking for this particular tactic.
It is surprising that Republicans look back on McCarthyism with fondness. When you elect a President with such fondness for the likes of Cohn and Stone, I should have guessed that your side would fall in line with orders to resurrect such an embarrassing debacle. But I didn't, which is my error.
  #104  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:29 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you recognize the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns besides them containing evidence of cheating (which the IRS apparently missed)?
I guess you think American citizens' need to know whether their President is governing for their benefit or his own very personal benefit doesn't supersede the President's desire to keep his financial info out of the public eye.

Can't say I'm surprised.
  #105  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:30 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I haven't claimed it does specifically concern Republicans.
Wrong again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
Trying to kick one of the major party's candidates off the ballot isn't disenfranchisement? 'you can vote for anyone you want as president, as long as it's a Democrat'.

Your argument here is absurd. Of course that would disenfranchise Republicans voters.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #106  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Wrong again.
I think you got lost somewhere along the way.

The "it" from the first quoted post is "the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns". That could be a concern for candidates from either party.

The efforts to kick one party's candidate off the ballot do appear to be coming almost entirely from Dems and targeted at Republicans. Those efforts are, I'm fairly confident, more of a concern to Republicans than Democrats, unfortunately.
  #107  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:37 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If your answer to the question is "no", then a few examples are unlikely to convince you otherwise. If your answer is "yes", then the examples are unnecessary as we already agree on the matter.
So you don't have any. Gotcha.
  #108  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:45 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,942
I just want to say that no one on this board has responded to the wager I proposed in Post 56. Don't we have any compulsive gamblers here?

I'm not looking to shame anyone publicly. If anyone wants to contact me by PM to discuss the details before they make a wager, I won't mention it here. I also won't mention any names here unless you agree to it.
  #109  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:45 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think you got lost somewhere along the way.

The "it" from the first quoted post is "the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns". That could be a concern for candidates from either party.

The efforts to kick one party's candidate off the ballot do appear to be coming almost entirely from Dems and targeted at Republicans. Those efforts are, I'm fairly confident, more of a concern to Republicans than Democrats, unfortunately.
Wow. Direct quote from you and you still deny it.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #110  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:52 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Wow. Direct quote from you and you still deny it.
I didn't "deny it", I corrected your misunderstanding of the first "direct quote from [me]". You think you've got a gotcha here, but you don't, and it's a little humorous and a little sad to watch.
  #111  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:53 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
I just want to say that no one on this board has responded to the wager I proposed in Post 56. Don't we have any compulsive gamblers here?

I'm not looking to shame anyone publicly. If anyone wants to contact me by PM to discuss the details before they make a wager, I won't mention it here. I also won't mention any names here unless you agree to it.
Perhaps your wager is a bit too unlikely to come to pass for anyone to think it's worth bothering with. If you had to guess, what are the odds that Condoleeza Rice even runs for president in 2024? 1%? More? Less?
  #112  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:56 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I didn't "deny it", I corrected your misunderstanding of the first "direct quote from [me]". You think you've got a gotcha here, but you don't, and it's a little humorous and a little sad to watch.
This is why you have an 18 page pit thread. Buh bye.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #113  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:01 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
I just want to say that no one on this board has responded to the wager I proposed in Post 56. Don't we have any compulsive gamblers here?
Per that post:
Quote:
I will bet anyone on this board $100 American cash (or at least PayPal) money that if Condoleeza Rice ever runs for President, she will not have a first ballot majority of delegates going into the Republican Convention.
First of all, there's the 'if.' We're talking about a bet that's almost certain not to materialize.

And second, she's the sort of potential GOP candidate that certain classes of pundit always like, but never get much of a following when they run. (And as much as I hate to say it, we Dopers have way more in common with pundits than we do with the average GOP voter.) If Condi were to run in 2024, she'd be lucky to get any delegates at all, and would most likely drop out well before Iowa.
  #114  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:06 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
I just want to say that no one on this board has responded to the wager I proposed in Post 56. Don't we have any compulsive gamblers here?

I'm not looking to shame anyone publicly. If anyone wants to contact me by PM to discuss the details before they make a wager, I won't mention it here. I also won't mention any names here unless you agree to it.
Yeah dude, I'm not taking that bet.

~Max
  #115  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:26 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,576
How about just betting Condi Rice runs for President, then? Hint: She won't.
  #116  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:52 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
How about just betting Condi Rice runs for President, then? Hint: She won't.
Which is kind of a chicken-and-the-egg thing. Republicans won't vote for Rice, so she will never run.
  #117  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Or she won't run for entirely different reasons such as her age or lack of presidential ambitions.
  #118  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:04 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,343
Hey HurricaneDitka, do you have any thoughts on how the Republican party will look like after Trump?
  #119  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Hey HurricaneDitka, do you have any thoughts on how the Republican party will look like after Trump?
I doubt he'll ever achieve a Reagan-like level of fame among Republicans, but if he wins again in 2020, I suspect Republicans will be more willing to follow a model that twice assembled a winning coalition. I see that as being more protectionist and less globalist than the Republicans have been in the past.
  #120  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:16 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, they are.
I'm sure you believe this to be the case, but your opinions aren't fact-based. You proved this when you attempted to use Tucker Carlson as a scientific reference.


Quote:
I support some basic election security measures. I, like the vast majority of Americans, don't believe asking for an ID amounts to disenfranchisement.
Are you not aware that the GOP has already been busted in court more than once for trying to implement laws with the goal of preventing people from voting? Well, they have. And you support them. Therefore you support their disenfranchisement efforts. That you deny they exist doesn't change that, it just makes you someone who's in denial about opposition to free and fair elections.

Quote:
You've said this twice now, and I have no idea what you're talking about or why you interjected it here (again).
You once claimed to be patriotic. Perhaps you've forgotten, but I haven't. I was just pointing out that your support of right-wing voter-suppression efforts contradicts that claim.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #121  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:12 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 827

Fiscal conservatism


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I doubt he'll ever achieve a Reagan-like level of fame among Republicans, but if he wins again in 2020, I suspect Republicans will be more willing to follow a model that twice assembled a winning coalition. I see that as being more protectionist and less globalist than the Republicans have been in the past.
What's going to happen to the pipe dream of fiscal conservatism? So far I don't have any indication that the current Republican party cares about balancing the budget, not that either party has ever actually practiced fiscal responsibility. But it seems that even the talking point of fiscal responsibility has been pushed to the wayside. Sure, there was a tax cut - for many - but spending went up, not down.

~Max
  #122  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:24 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
I just want to say that no one on this board has responded to the wager I proposed in Post 56. Don't we have any compulsive gamblers here?

I'm not looking to shame anyone publicly. If anyone wants to contact me by PM to discuss the details before they make a wager, I won't mention it here. I also won't mention any names here unless you agree to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Perhaps your wager is a bit too unlikely to come to pass for anyone to think it's worth bothering with. If you had to guess, what are the odds that Condoleeza Rice even runs for president in 2024? 1%? More? Less?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Per that post:
First of all, there's the 'if.' We're talking about a bet that's almost certain not to materialize.

And second, she's the sort of potential GOP candidate that certain classes of pundit always like, but never get much of a following when they run. (And as much as I hate to say it, we Dopers have way more in common with pundits than we do with the average GOP voter.) If Condi were to run in 2024, she'd be lucky to get any delegates at all, and would most likely drop out well before Iowa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yeah dude, I'm not taking that bet.

~Max
First of all, I agree she will almost certainly never run. Second, I agree with RTFirefly. But I think if the Republicans have to pick up the pieces in 2024, Condi Rice is the one prospective candidate I see who could instantly eliminate the knee-jerk reaction independent voters would have against voting for any Republican candidate.

Yeah, it's all a big what-if. But my offer stays on the table and anyone who wants to take the bet can back out right up until the day before the first Republican delegate event (primary, caucus, convention, meeting of superdelegates, etc.)
  #123  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What's going to happen to the pipe dream of fiscal conservatism? So far I don't have any indication that the current Republican party cares about balancing the budget, not that either party has ever actually practiced fiscal responsibility. But it seems that even the talking point of fiscal responsibility has been pushed to the wayside. Sure, there was a tax cut - for many - but spending went up, not down.

~Max
Fiscal responsibility, as a talking point, is still serving exactly the same purpose it always served.
House Republicans released a proposal Tuesday that would balance the budget in nine years — but only by making large cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare, that President Trump vowed not to touch.

The House Budget Committee is aiming to pass the blueprint this week, but that may be as far as it goes this midterm election year. It is not clear that GOP leaders will put the document on the House floor for a vote, and even if it were to pass the House, the budget would have little impact on actual spending levels.

Nonetheless the budget serves as an expression of Republicans’ priorities at a time of rapidly rising deficits and debt. Although the nation’s growing indebtedness has been exacerbated by the GOP’s own policy decisions — including the new tax law, which most analyses say will add at least $1 trillion to the debt — Republicans on the Budget Committee said they felt a responsibility to put the nation on a sounder fiscal trajectory.
It has always been an excuse to slash social safety net programs. Republicans never care about "fiscal responsibility" when they're in power. They never think, "how will this affect the budget" when they pass another huge tax cut or drive us into another unnecessary imperalistic war. But in the aftermath, they're perfectly happy to point to the massive deficits they racked up and scream about how debt is enslaving our children and that we have to do something - and that something is always cutting government services that overwhelmingly benefit the poor and working class.

I'd say "It's just slightly more shameless than before," but that might not be true, it was always pretty damn shameless. There's a reason Clinton balanced the budget, then Cheney said "deficits don't matter". The party that actually cares about the national debt as more than a cudgel to beat their political opponents with is the democratic party. So this isn't changing.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-14-2019 at 02:15 AM.
  #124  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:42 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,870
So Republicans are tax cheats, huh? (scribble scribble scribble) Good to know. Thanks, Ditka.


I expect the Republicans post-Trump will continue to try to undermine regulatory agencies and appoint like-minded judges. Trump is their current vehicle - they'll hitch to another by and by. Basically, the U.S. will continue to lag behind the other liberal democracies.
  #125  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:52 AM
The_Peyote_Coyote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
But here's the scary part. Trump is currently a drag on his party. But that largely comes down to him being grossly incompetent, stupid, self-destructive, obviously corrupt, et cetera et cetera et cetera. What if, in 2024, the person who runs shares Trump's authoritarian tendencies, but, just to name one obvious example, isn't so stupidly self-destructive that he'd fire the head of the FBI that's currently investigating him for ties to Russia, then admit on national television that he fired the head of the FBI because of his handling of an investigation into him. Imagine if, instead of a scandal-prone man who cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star then paid said porn star to keep quiet, we had just... someone who wasn't that.

We're fucked.
I agree with you Budget Player Cadet. That's my biggest concern. I don't think the next 20 to 40 years are going to be good ones for the US even if the Democrats win the 2020 election.
  #126  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:12 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Republicans never care about "fiscal responsibility" when they're in power. They never think, "how will this affect the budget" when they pass another huge tax cut or drive us into another unnecessary imperalistic war. But in the aftermath, they're perfectly happy to point to the massive deficits they racked up and scream about how debt is enslaving our children and that we have to do something - and that something is always cutting government services that overwhelmingly benefit the poor and working class.
Yes, but I wish we would stop being such hypocrites and actually think about the fiscal implications.

~Max
  #127  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:31 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Peyote_Coyote View Post
I agree with you Budget Player Cadet. That's my biggest concern. I don't think the next 20 to 40 years are going to be good ones for the US even if the Democrats win the 2020 election.
I think the makeup of the Senate in the years to come -- narrowly Republican and with states containing about 35% of the nation's population dominating -- will be the real drag on the country's progress. Mitch McConnell, and Tom Cotton after him, won't give a shit about obstructing every bit of modernization the Dems in the House and, hopefully, White House, propose. And we'll fall further behind the rest of the developed world as a result.

But we'll have a giant military that will make everyone else fear us and our increasing slide away from democracy, so there's that.
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 08:55 PM.

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