Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:49 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
Was she talking about this year's figure, or next year's? I've noticed that politicians will often discuss budgetary matters and will cite their cumulative cost over some time period (ten years is a popular span); perhaps Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez used that assessment to come up with the $21 trillion figure. What is the projected total defense budget over the next decade, at its current rate of growth? I did a web search, but couldn't find it.
The two statements AOC made were talking about different, but related topics.

The first one was -
Quote:
"Just last year we gave the military a $700 billion dollar budget increase, which they didnít even ask for," Ocasio-Cortez said July 26. "They were like, we donít want another fighter jet! Donít give us another nuclear bomb. They didnít even ask for it. And we gave it to them."
So I misstated that - it was only $700 billion. She confused the total military budget with an increase. Politifact rates that statement as False, which it obviously is.

The $21 trillion statement is -
Quote:
"$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions Ďcould not be traced, documented, or explained.í $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And thatís before our premiums."
The US hasn't spent $21 trillion on the military since the founding of the Republic. Also rated as False, obviously. Saying "we could have" seems to refer to the past, so it isn't exactly a projection.

The 2019 US military budget is about $686 billion. I don't know if there are reliable projections on how much the US military will cost over the next ten years (or twenty), but AOC's figure for M4A is $32 trillion over ten years. That's $3.2 trillion per year, and Ms. AOC says this does not include premiums. How you get $3.2 trillion a year from a budget of less than $700 billion is the problem.
Quote:
Regardless of the actual numbers, if she wants to spend money on one thing and tries to offset it by cutting spending on something else, that at least shows a grasp of basic mathematics.
It's not so much mathematics as accounting. And the actual numbers show that Ms. AOC has rather less than half a clue.
Quote:
Raising spending, and trying to pay for it by cutting revenue, is a Republican fantasy.
And raising spending and trying to offset it by cutting the military budget by three or four times more than we are actually spending is a progressive one.

Regards,
Shodan
  #102  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:58 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And raising spending and trying to offset it by cutting the military budget by three or four times more than we are actually spending is a progressive one.

Regards,
Shodan
Vote for the Republican fantasy because of a gaffe from a freshman representative? Makes sense to me!
  #103  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:03 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is a textbook case of ad hominem. If a honest and decent Republican says, "A low corporate income tax rate attracts foreign investment in America," that is no different than if a racist bigot misogynist Republican says, "A low corporate income tax rate attracts foreign investment in America."


It is tantamount to saying, "If Einstein says 4+4=8, I'll believe him, but not if Hitler tells me the same thing."
The faulty assumption here is that the proposition about tax rates is as certain as the proposition that 4+4=8. It isn't, if it were we would no longer be debating it as we are no longer debating basic addition.
  #104  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:12 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
The faulty assumption here is that the proposition about tax rates is as certain as the proposition that 4+4=8. It isn't, if it were we would no longer be debating it as we are no longer debating basic addition.
My point was, the character of a person is irrelevant to the validity of what is being said.

If a misogynist racist bigot doctor tells you you have leukaemia, you can't brush it off as "nah, he's a bigot!"
  #105  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
My point was, the character of a person is irrelevant to the validity of what is being said.

If a misogynist racist bigot doctor tells you you have leukaemia, you can't brush it off as "nah, he's a bigot!"
It's quite reasonable to question the judgment of someone who regularly expresses bigoted or misogynistic things, or who abused women. I'd want a second opinion if the first came from such a doctor. Wouldn't you?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-11-2019 at 09:17 AM.
  #106  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:22 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
My point was, the character of a person is irrelevant to the validity of what is being said.

If a misogynist racist bigot doctor tells you you have leukaemia, you can't brush it off as "nah, he's a bigot!"
How trustworthy would you take a misogynist racist bigot doctor to be?
  #107  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:23 AM
Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And raising spending and trying to offset it by cutting the military budget by three or four times more than we are actually spending is a progressive one.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Vote for the Republican fantasy because of a gaffe from a freshman representative? Makes sense to me!
The Republican fantasy has actually been proposed, voted on, signed, and implemented. Multiple times. It's a big part of why we have the huge deficits that we do. Republicans seem not to grasp these facts.

The Democratic fantasy is a couple speeches by a junior Representative. I know which of those two things I think is the bigger problem.

Besides which, this thread is about what Republicans could do to win over Democratic voters. If they accepted some difficult facts about our budget, demonstrated real fiscal responsibility and not just lip service, while the Democrats cling to unrealistic budget proposals, that would be a mark in the R's favor. To me, at least.

Let me know when it happens. I won't hold my breath.
  #108  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:00 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's quite reasonable to question the judgment of someone who regularly expresses bigoted or misogynistic things, or who abused women. I'd want a second opinion if the first came from such a doctor. Wouldn't you?
For a diagnosis as serious as leukemia, I'd want multiple medical opinions no matter what, but not because of the doctor's character. That's irrelevant.


If that doesn't work as an analogy, then consider car components. If a racist bigot mechanic tells me my car engine has been overheating, there is no reason for me to consider that analysis any less credible than if a non-racist, non-bigot mechanic tells me that my car engine has been overheating. It is a technical issue unrelated to personal character.


The viewpoint that "So-and-So has bad character, therefore he must be wrong about things unrelated to character is.....".......problematic.
  #109  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:02 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How trustworthy would you take a misogynist racist bigot doctor to be?
If he says "Hispanics are inherently inferior people because of race and skin color," then nope, not trustworthy.


If he tells me, "Your habit of smoking two packs a day has now caused you to develop Stage II lung cancer and you now face a 30% chance of death within the next seven years," I'd take that completely seriously with as much credibility as from any other doctor.
  #110  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:03 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
No-The problem is that you would reward such a person with your business.
  #111  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:18 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
For a diagnosis as serious as leukemia, I'd want multiple medical opinions no matter what, but not because of the doctor's character. That's irrelevant.

If that doesn't work as an analogy, then consider car components. If a racist bigot mechanic tells me my car engine has been overheating, there is no reason for me to consider that analysis any less credible than if a non-racist, non-bigot mechanic tells me that my car engine has been overheating. It is a technical issue unrelated to personal character.

The viewpoint that "So-and-So has bad character, therefore he must be wrong about things unrelated to character is.....".......problematic.
I'm not saying "...he must be wrong" -- I'm saying "I'm not interested in seriously considering the arguments of bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women."
  #112  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:24 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,082
I won't derail the thread further, but again, that's a textbook case of ad hominem. It's like saying that if Einstein were racist, then his claim that E equals MC square is therefore less credible.
  #113  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I won't derail the thread further, but again, that's a textbook case of ad hominem. It's like saying that if Einstein were racist, then his claim that E equals MC square is therefore less credible.
I think this directly addresses the question in the OP -- for me, and many liberals/Democrats to consider the GOP, they'd have to stop enabling, supporting, and celebrating bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women in power, as a necessary but not sufficient first step.

And I don't think the 2nd part actually addresses my point. I have a limited amount of time to listen to the arguments of others. There are plenty of non-bigoted, non-misogynistic, non-abusers in America who make arguments on conservative principles and for conservative policies. I consider those arguments. Why do you believe it's so important that I also seriously consider the arguments of bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-11-2019 at 11:28 AM.
  #114  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:34 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Start by not nominating Trump.

After that, I think their best approach is go back to the good ol' "Main Street Republican." Pro-business, but suspicious of Big Business. Not really in favor of unions, but too polite to try to destroy them entirely. Thrifty with spending, they were more likely to want to root out bloated government budgets than gut social programs. They were mainline Christian, but not particularly anti-anybody when it came to race, religion, gender, gender identity or much else.

In the 1960s there were people like Gov. William Scranton and Senator Birch Bayh. Bayh even wrote Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and opposed two of Nixon's most whackadoodle Supreme Court nominees.

In the 1970s there were Gerald Ford and Bob Dole (that was the Dole who pushed the Americans with Disabilities Act and special education, not the old and cranky Dole.)

Throw in a dash of Jack Kemp's "we can revitalize the inner city" ideas and there's a Republican who could beat a Democrat in the bluest of blue areas.
Uh, if memory serves me, Republicans got Democrats to vote for their last Presidential candidate by having one that directly addressed the concerns, both real and manufactured, of a significant portion of voters that had been taken for granted - - white blue-collar workers and their families. If the economy does not take a turn for the worse and Trump can keep up enough hatred/intolerance/fear of immigrants and work up enough concern over the evils of Socialism, he may just squeeze out another victory. That is, unless his head explodes before then. After this morning's rants, I'm betting on the explosion.
  #115  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:34 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimfromNapa View Post
Uh, if memory serves me, Republicans got Democrats to vote for their last Presidential candidate by having one that directly addressed the concerns, both real and manufactured, of a significant portion of voters that had been taken for granted - - white blue-collar workers and their families. If the economy does not take a turn for the worse and Trump can keep up enough hatred/intolerance/fear of immigrants and work up enough concern over the evils of Socialism, he may just squeeze out another victory. That is, unless his head explodes before then. After this morning's rants, I'm betting on the explosion.
So you think all Republicans have to do "to win Democratic votes" is to do what they're already doing. I interpreted the question to include Velocity's second paragraph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the OP
So it is fair enough to ask what the Republicans ought to be doing to win over blue or light-blue voters. But, IMHO, this task is far harder. Blue voters are such a far distance away from the Republican Party that there is essentially nothing the GOP can do to win them over (a black woman in inner-city Philadelphia, for instance, has virtually no reason to vote Republican.)
Do you think a favorable economy is all it will take for those voters to vote for Trump?
  #116  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:56 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Vote for the Republican fantasy because of a gaffe from a freshman representative? Makes sense to me!
But it does make sense to some people.

They want to see the world in simple terms. So they make certain assumptions. They divide the world up into good and bad. And good things are all good and bad things are all bad. And good and bad are always opposites.

Now apply these simple assumptions:

1. Donald Trump is a Republican.
2. Republicans are either all good or all bad.
3. Democrats are the opposite of Republicans.
4. Democrats are either all good or all bad.
5. Bill Clinton is a Democrat.
6. Bill Clinton committed adultery.
7. Adultery is bad.
8. Bill Clinton is all bad.
9. The Democrats are all bad.
10. The Republicans are all good.
11. Donald Trump is all good.

All they feel they need to do is point out one bad thing that any Democrat has ever done. And by their logic, they have proven that every Republican is good.
  #117  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:59 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimfromNapa View Post
Uh, if memory serves me, Republicans got Democrats to vote for their last Presidential candidate by having one that directly addressed the concerns, both real and manufactured, of a significant portion of voters that had been taken for granted - - white blue-collar workers and their families. If the economy does not take a turn for the worse and Trump can keep up enough hatred/intolerance/fear of immigrants and work up enough concern over the evils of Socialism, he may just squeeze out another victory. That is, unless his head explodes before then. After this morning's rants, I'm betting on the explosion.
The problem is that one of the main concerns that Trump manufactured was disgust with politicians. In 2016, Trump could exploit this by claiming he was a political outsider who was going to "drain the swamp". Trump is now the President of the United States; he won't be able to pretend he's an outsider in 2020.
  #118  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:00 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The problem is that one of the main concerns that Trump manufactured was disgust with politicians. In 2016, Trump could exploit this by claiming he was a political outsider who was going to "drain the swamp". Trump is now the President of the United States; he won't be able to pretend he's an outsider in 2020.
Well, even amongst the Trump followers, there's still plenty of disgust with Washington. He will probably campaign on the idea that there are still a few institutions of government he hasn't torn completely down yet
  #119  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:04 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
So you think all Republicans have to do "to win Democratic votes" is to do what they're already doing. I interpreted the question to include Velocity's second paragraph.



Do you think a favorable economy is all it will take for those voters to vote for Trump?
A favorable economy will go a long way to getting the bastard re-elected. What will seal the deal is a Democratic candidate who does not win back the blue voters that were lost the last time and who are not benefiting from the economy. If they still think Trump can do more for them, they will stay with him.
  #120  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:49 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimfromNapa View Post
A favorable economy will go a long way to getting the bastard re-elected. What will seal the deal is a Democratic candidate who does not win back the blue voters that were lost the last time and who are not benefiting from the economy. If they still think Trump can do more for them, they will stay with him.
Sad but True.

VOTE TRUMP! There are still some major trading partners he has not screwed over yet!
  #121  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:57 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,505
Looks like farmers are going to feel the economic effects of a Trump presidency soon, if they aren't already.

Whether that will be enough to shock farmers into voting Democratic is another issue.
  #122  
Old 07-13-2019, 09:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
So you think all Republicans have to do "to win Democratic votes" is to do what they're already doing. I interpreted the question to include Velocity's second paragraph.



Do you think a favorable economy is all it will take for those voters to vote for Trump?
I can't speak for any particular black woman in inner-city Philadelphia, but yeah, I suspect if the economy is good, President Trump will easily win re-election, and bring along some of those "light-blue Dems".
  #123  
Old 07-14-2019, 03:02 AM
bowlweevils is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: at home
Posts: 74
They can be non-racist technocrats who don't think all taxation is theft. Democrats already vote for Republicans in Massachusetts and Maryland. I voted for Ayanna Pressley and Charlie Baker (though I am not an official Democrat).

Last edited by bowlweevils; 07-14-2019 at 03:03 AM.
  #124  
Old 07-14-2019, 03:12 AM
bowlweevils is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: at home
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I have been of the opinion that conservatives could get aboard with single-payer healthcare big time if someone managed to successfully convince them that it is efficient and saves money - rather than appealing to something like "compassion" or "think of the undocumented immigrants who need healthcare" which just drives them away from the idea. Point out that we could save many trillions of dollars in the long run. Also, make it a matter of national pride - how can we let Canada have a better system than us, etc.
They can't do this because it conflicts with their core belief that government can't possibly work better. You should see the denial when it's pointed out to them that people in other countries pay much less for heath care - they insist there's a hidden tax for everyone but America that isn't included in the price that secretly makes it more expensive than what's shown in the international comparison charts.
  #125  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Looks like farmers are going to feel the economic effects of a Trump presidency soon, if they aren't already.

Whether that will be enough to shock farmers into voting Democratic is another issue.
For farmer to vote Democratic, they would probably need to be convinced that Democrats as a party care enough about the farmers in the first place. Democrats are seen visiting the border and threatening to hold up legislation over migrant detention, but they hear hardly a peep about the plight of farmers. In fact some moderate Democrats are on record agreeing with Trump on anti-Chinese tariffs. Republicans are still the party of God and guns. If they're pissed off at Trump, my guess is that they'll just stay home, or they'll vote predictably R down ballot but less predictably at the top.
  #126  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:38 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,217
I imagine the farmers will get truckloads of money shoveled their way so only their pride and cognitive dissonance will be wounded and not their pocketbook.
  #127  
Old 07-15-2019, 12:55 AM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Why do you believe it's so important that I also seriously consider the arguments of bigots, misogynists, and abusers of women?
Do you think that atoms are nuclei surrounded by negatively-charged particles, and mostly empty space?

Do you know that large raindrops are not teardrop shaped?

Be very careful how you answer those questions. Wouldn't want to be incorrect here, hein?
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #128  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:55 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,751
What do Republicans have to do to win Democratic votes?

When your president says stupid shit like Americans who were born here should go home to where they came from because their skin is not white....

Then perhaps the Republican leaders of the party should call him out, and say that was not a presidential thing to do. Tell him that did not help to unite the country. You don't even have to call him a fucking racist.

What you should NOT do to win Democratic votes is to call these elected, American born women "communists, and say that they hate America for disagreeing with Trump.

That would be A REALLY GOOD FUCKING START.
  #129  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:00 PM
Les Wizerables is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 17
This need not be a hypothetical. There are Republican governors in three deep blue states (MA, MD, VT). All three of them won reelection easily during the "blue wave" cycle of 2018.

They won over Democratic voters in massive numbers by rejecting Trumpism and embracing a "fiscal conservative, social liberal" approach that appeals to white suburban voters. They are also fairly low key guys who have spent a significant portion of their lives in public service.

It's not rocket science.

Last edited by Les Wizerables; 07-16-2019 at 03:01 PM.
  #130  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:02 AM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
What do Republicans have to do to win Democratic votes?

When your president says stupid shit like Americans who were born here should go home to where they came from because their skin is not white....
Then Republicans should probably have a hissy fit over - you know - the actual racism than using the adjective "racist" to describe the words* in Congress.

Words do matter. There are places where vulgarity** is not proper. But I'm generally far less concerned when someone says the word "shit" in one of those places than when someone drops their pants and takes an actual dump on the table in those places. The current GOP leadership seems confused about that in a way that is distancing to some people who might be in alignment with them w.r.t., say, economic theory.


*not the person, the words.
** "racist" is not a swear word. Just need to be clear about that.
  #131  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:44 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
There are a lot of Black and Hispanic voters who are socially conservative, mainly because of their religion. I've felt for some time that if either party could find a way to build a tent in which they welcome diversity and campaign on moderate social conservatism and moderate fiscal conservatism, that party would be unbeatable.

The problem with that theory is that there are enough racist voters and hardcore evangelical radicals out that they're attractive to the Republican party. They're attractive because they're repulsive to moderates and liberals, and they're fully aware of that fact. They're repulsive, but substantial enough in numbers that they can be a valuable prize to the party that's willing to offer them a home.

The problem with moderate voters is you don't even know if they're committed to voting; they might have other plans on voting day, or the weather might discourage them from voting. Not the case with bigots and fundamentalists: they know that voting is power, and they never miss an opportunity to use it.

Last edited by asahi; 07-17-2019 at 11:44 AM.
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 08:30 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