Yeah, you can’t cut taxes on the wealthy indefinitely, while expecting the middle/lower class to shoulder the whole burden, at the same time that you’re cutting programs aimed at helping them. It takes a certain amount of money to run the country. It has to come from somewhere.
Gee, you’ve just summed up the Republicans’ agenda for the foreseeable future.
Ms. Spotted Eagle is much more palatable for the office that Mr. Trump.
Not the point. None of the Washington electors should have done anything but vote for HRC. Instead, one-third of them went faithless. But, if Washington state Democrats are comfortable leaving their vote for president up to whatever odd-balls get selected as electors, I guess that’s fine with me.
What portion of the tax burden do you think the middle/lower class are shouldering today?
I’m a Washington state Democrat and I’m not terribly bothered by this. People want to make statements. I doubt (despite claims to the contrary) there would have been such votes if the election hung in the balance.
I’m not sure, however, how the party would prevent this simply by requiring party registration in this state.
I doubt just requiring party registration would prevent it either. It would be a first step in that direction though. But hey, if you like your open primary / no party registration, go for it. Your state, your rules.
I have to quibble with the last clause. The media is not left wing, they bend so far over backwards to not appear to be left wing that they are actually right wing. Look at the 2016 campaign- Hillary’s emails got more coverage than all real issues combined.
As it stands, even though more people voted for Hillary it didn’t matter.
Democrats at this point are just a part of the coasts (the west coast and the northeast, about 15 states total) as well as the party of big cities. I do not see the GOP making inroads in either area. The dems will hold the coasts and the big cities for a long time for various reasons.
But virtually everything else is under GOP control and probably will be for a while.
The democrats cannot be destroyed, but they are pretty much neutered. Even though the dems control the big cities, many of those big cities are in red states so the state legislature can just neuter any city based progressive legislation. If a city wants to push renewable energy, gay rights, minimum wage hikes, etc. the red state legislature can block them.
How should we go about distinguishing “real issues” from non-real ones? I’d say that, since it was a big part of her losing the election, it certainly turned out to be a “real issue”, despite her best spinning and damage control efforts to avoid that outcome.
No.
It can’t short of an armed revolution which isn’t happening anytime soon. And note, the vast majority of political violence in the U.S. in the past 60 or so years has been instigated by left leaning groups.
See above.
It can’t.
It can’t.
No.
But it would make an awesome plot to a movie.
Slee
Where do people think the 65 million people who voted Democrat went off to?
We’re hoping for Canada.
Conquest has worked pretty well in the past. It’s how Germany funded its war machine. Hell, Rome conquered so much, it was paying its own citizens with the surplus, forget taxes entirely.
We have the biggest and most expensive military on earth. I’d hate to think so, but it’s probably just a matter of time before it gets used like municipal police are now – for revenue generation.
How does that work in an age where there aren’t crown jewels or big piles of gold to steal and most money is just digital 1’s and 0’s? If we conquered Cuba, for example, how do we turn that venture into a big profit?
ETA: I’m not just being my normal smart-ass self either. I’m struggling to imagine a profitable venture that starts with shooting people and blowing up a bunch of stuff in the location that a profit is supposed to be made, so I was hoping you could give me some ideas (asking for a friend ;)).
And that will work until further splitting occurs as all the progressives leave the cities in the red states, and move to cities in the blue, brain draining these red states, and leaving them with empty, unproductive cities that provide little tax base.
The conservatives in the rural parts of the blue states may move to red states where they can’t get abortions, but I doubt many of them will willingly move into a state with fewer economic prospects than where they would leave, even if the red state conforms more to their social ideals.
So, red states will become sparsely populated, and more conservative, while the blue states become more populous and progressive. As we have seen, the electoral system in the US represents land area, rather than people, so this may not turn the country blue any time soon. Instead, the red states will vote to get the blue states to increase their financial support of the red states, then continue to complain about them.
So is Canada. They experienced the brain drain to the US for decades, now it’s our turn to reverse that trend.
There’s no way any one party can permanently dominate another party. It’s inevitable that either the losing party will shift in the ideological direction that gets them more votes, or that the majority party will then split into factions (one or both of which might then peel off voters from the minority party).
People tend to overreact to single elections as if they represent monumental shifts in the political landscape. Big mistake.
Rome had taxes. It just didn’t charge them equally; Italy was exempt from taxes and other provinces of the Empire therefore paid a disproportionate share.
No, neither major political party is capable of “destroying” the other. Both major parties continually adapt to the social issues of the day, and absorb the best parts of more successful 3rd parties. As long as they keep evolving, they will both remain a major force in U.S. elections.
If a U.S. political party were to be destroyed, it would come from within it’s own party. If they chose to stop listening to the other side, if they refuse to listen to their constituents (those people in their state who actually elected them), if they chose to get their political news from comedians, then that party is doomed to run out of people who chose to vote for them.
Many people in the Democrat Party have recently been repeatedly predicting the end of the GOP. At the same time the Democrats were losing control of both houses of Congress. I guess they thought they were winning by losing???
I think they were winning by losing. It’s not an oxymoron.
One reason the Democrats lost popularity is by getting a lot of their agenda enacted. That can be a worthwhile trade, IMO. Get your agenda enacted, hunker down for a few years while you pay a political price, then get re-elected when the public gets tired of the other party, enact more of your agenda, and so on again and again. Can be a worthwhile long term strategy.
A lot of states are one-party states *now. *Conservatives would perhaps like having a choice between two conservative parties. The Democrats are seen as anti-American Communists, and thus one-party rule is seen as a necessity.
And people like you can be disenfranchised if you vote for the Enemy.
You need to understand that power may now be in the hands of people whose ideology doesn’t tell them to share it, but to keep it.