Is it true Trump supporters just want a father figure?

[SkepticThinker]

You know what I find depressing? 7.5 million Californians living in poverty, with 150,000 homeless living on the streets.

...and that's just my State of California.

...And you want us to help non-Americans, when we can't even help our own. That's worse than selfish, that's being a bas***d...literally... A government who doesn't care about it's own citizens, and instead takes care of someone else's.

California Has One Of The Nation's Highest Poverty Rates, Again

California's homelessness crisis — and possible solutions — explained | CalMatters

That is depressing. So what are you doing about it?

I think all human beings need to help all human beings, as much as possible.
We're all in this together, and we're stuck sharing the planet together. I would prefer that the most amount of people as possible, live in a world where their human rights matter.

But what you had said was not this, exactly. It was this, "Yes. human rights and justice only concern me when they're in my own back yard... This is how everyone should be."
Which is something quite different to what you've said here about not wanting to "help non-Americans."

Human rights everywhere concern me. Because I'm a human and so is everyone else. Nobody is more special than anyone else, just because they were lucky enough to be born in a certain geographic location.

As to the claim that California has "one of the three states tied for highest poverty rate, alongside Florida and Louisiana," ...
That doesn't seem to be the case:
U.S. Poverty rate by state 2019 | Statista
Why Are Some States So Poor and Others So Rich?
List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia


Not that it really matters to the broader point.

 

[Cooky]

That is depressing. So what are you doing about it?

I think all human beings need to help all human beings, as much as possible.
We're all in this together, and we're stuck sharing the planet together. I would prefer that the most amount of people as possible, live in a world where their human rights matter.

But what you had said was not this, exactly. It was this, "Yes. human rights and justice only concern me when they're in my own back yard... This is how everyone should be."
Which is something quite different to what you've said here about not wanting to "help non-Americans."

Human rights everywhere concern me. Because I'm a human and so is everyone else. Nobody is more special than anyone else, just because they were lucky enough to be born in a certain geographic location.

As to the claim that California has "one of the three states tied for highest poverty rate, alongside Florida and Louisiana," ...
That doesn't seem to be the case:
U.S. Poverty rate by state 2019 | Statista
Why Are Some States So Poor and Others So Rich?
List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia


Not that it really matters to the broader point.

What is California doing about it? We're building "sanctuary cities" to continue getting more immigrants and incarcerating mass amounts of poor people. It's is the gold standard for leftist States. The gold standard is (misplaced) compassion over planning.

...But I'm just a "racist".

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is California doing about it? We're building "sanctuary cities" to continue getting more immigrants and incarcerating mass amounts of poor people. It's is the gold standard for leftist States. The gold standard is (misplaced) compassion over planning.

No. What are you doing about it?

Any comments on the actual point?

 

[Cooky]

No. What are you doing about it?

Any comments on the actual point?

I'm voting republican to try and stop the nonsense.

 

[Cooky]

Hey, @SkepticThinker, what are you doing about it? You care about everyone equally right? Maybe your tax dollars should be divided up and spread evenly across the world instead of mostly going to Canada, eh?

...I hear they need paved roads in third world countries more than in your backyard.

Are you complaining to your government?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey, @SkepticThinker, what are you doing about it? You care about everyone equally right? Maybe your tax dollars should be divided up and spread evenly across the world instead of mostly going to Canada, eh?

...I hear they need paved roads in third world countries more than in your backyard.

Are you complaining to your government?

What do I do about it? Whatever I can. Work in soup kitchens, donate clothing and furniture to those who need it, donate to charities, organize charity drives, sign and circulate petitions, write articles, participate in social media campaigns, advocate on behalf of those who can't advocate for themselves, etc.
Because I care about the rights of all human beings, everywhere. Which is what this conversation was originally about. You said you didn't.

This is why I asked if you were going to address the point.
Because you're not. Instead, you've latched onto this California thing.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I agree that many speeches were inflammatory. I don't think it is one sided but certainly he is the head.

Here, I would say it is a lot more complicated than that and somewhat wrong and opinions run over the full gammet. When you just say corporate and wealthy people's tax breaks, it fails to mention that it went all the way down. Everyone received a tax break.

Let's take the bottom brackets:

View attachment 43919

View attachment 43918
amounts went nighter for each tax break and then the amount for the second level went from 15% down to 12%

So to say "only" the wealthy and corporate would be wrong. It is a political selling point that has been overused.

Another example: If you gave a 5% tax break at the lower level and a 1% tax break at the higher level... all you hear is how that translates into "the wealthy are the ones that get to keep more money". Well... obviously. But percentage wise it was still the lower 5% that got the larger tax break.. another political selling point that is being utilize.d

I'm not sure that is "encroaching government". If it is federal property, it is their right. If it isn't, They can't do it without city/state permission. And, judging by the pictures, we aren't talking about the peaceful protests. We are talking about violent ones.

Don't understand... where?

Yes! I agree that executive orders are out of control.

The greatest offenders was Franklin Roosevelt at 3721 and then Woodrow Wilson at 1803

Obama 277 -

The surprising number of executive orders by each U.S. president


Trump 190
Executive Orders

Kenji, the problem I was trying to point out with the tax cuts--which I didn't do well and which expire for those very levels you mentioned, yep, but not the corporate cuts--wasn't so much their inequality in the distribution of benefits (trickle down theory, my sweet bippee), but the fact that it substantially reduces the very income the government needs to fund its liabilities. So it borrows and pledges to pay it back with income it won't get.

That is not a sustainable financial model and the piper will most assuredly come a-calling soon. The national debt belongs to us and our progeny and this year will nearly equal the entirely of our nation's output (GDP). So not only do we all need to try harder to keep our own selves afloat, somehow we're asked to float the government's profligate spending boat, too. How much more can you give? Some mini-refreshers which I always need to look up:

When a government's expenditures on goods, services, or transfer payments exceed their tax revenue, the government has run a budget deficit. Governments borrow money to pay for budget deficits, and whenever a government borrows money, this adds to its national debt.

The ratio of debt to gross domestic product is more important that the dollar amount of debt. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the U.S. federal debt held by the public will reach 98.2% of GDP, or $20.3 trillion, by the end of 2020.
​

Regarding "encroaching government," this is a pattern I've seen since the '50s, put in place by both Dems and 'Pubs with lots of laws of do's and don'ts, the "we know what's best for you (even if we can't keep our own **** straight") kinds of legislation. Arghhh. And every square inch of federal property belongs to me. And you. Therefore, if I'm peacefully assembling on my property, the federal government has no right to push me aside for a megalomaniac's photo op. Nor to send troops to cities and states who DID NOT ASK for them, did not want nor need them. Brazen.

Regarding the concerted effort to retake the right to determine decisions which should be worked out between a woman and her God, of course I'm referring to ramming through another conservative judge who wants to impose her Christian views on the population. Nominated by a guy who probably can't remember how many abortions he's arranged or paid for, all with NDAs, of course. The hypocrisy of it all. More grrrrr.

 

[fantome profane]

Hey, @SkepticThinker, what are you doing about it? You care about everyone equally right? Maybe your tax dollars should be divided up and spread evenly across the world instead of mostly going to Canada, eh?

...I hear they need paved roads in third world countries more than in your backyard.

Are you complaining to your government?

I am going to admit that you have a good point here. We all tend to care more about those who are close to us than we do about those more distant. First ourselves, then our family, our friends, our community, our nation-state etc. In a series of ever expanding circles. This is the weakness of the human condition that we care less for someone suffering on the other side of then world than we should.

I believe it is the sign and goal of enlightenment to continue to expand this circle of compassion.

 

[Kenny]

Captain obvious here to remind us that 8 year is longer than 4 years.

Almost twice as long.

That is true! But it has slowed down.

 

[fantome profane]

That is true! But it has slowed down.

Has it?

Simple math (the best kind of math) tells us that if Trump is re-elected and continues at the same rate he will have 380 executive orders to Obama’s 277.

But really I don’t care about the number. It is what is in the order that matter. And Trump’s have been a mix of horrible and meaningless.

 

[Kenny]

Kenji, the problem I was trying to point out with the tax cuts--which I didn't do well and which expire for those very levels you mentioned, yep, but not the corporate cuts--wasn't so much their inequality in the distribution of benefits (trickle down theory, my sweet bippee), but the fact that it substantially reduces the very income the government needs to fund its liabilities. So it borrows and pledges to pay it back with income it won't get.

I thought I would check up on that theory. It doesn't seem to follow.

Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

FY 2021 $3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020 $3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019 $3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 $3.32 trillion

So... more people have spendable money and the income for the government increased... win - win.

The problem is we have increased the spending thinking that it doesn't matter. The problem isn't income... it is spending and no one seems to care on either party as they continue to spend as if there is no limit.

Regarding "encroaching government," this is a pattern I've seen since the '50s, put in place by both Dems and 'Pubs with lots of laws of do's and don'ts, the "we know what's best for you (even if we can't keep our own **** straight") kinds of legislation. Arghhh. And every square inch of federal property belongs to me. And you. Therefore, if I'm peacefully assembling on my property, the federal government has no right to push me aside for a megalomaniac's photo op. Nor to send troops to cities and states who DID NOT ASK for them, did not want nor need them. Brazen.

No argument here!!!!!!! Agree completely that encroaching government started in th 50's

Regarding the concerted effort to retake the right to determine decisions which should be worked out between a woman and her God, of course I'm referring to ramming through another conservative judge who wants to impose her Christian views on the population. Nominated by a guy who probably can't remember how many abortions he's arranged or paid for, all with NDAs, of course. The hypocrisy of it all. More grrrrr.

That is interesting in your interpretation. Basically you are saying the EVERY Supreme Court judge judges according to their beliefs? And not according to the law?

If that is the case... what kind of judge do we select? Who is the determinant of what kind of judge? When do we know that they determine a judgment according to law? Or do we trust the integrity of a person who has already proven that she can buck the White House position?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The elitists, I think, are on the right. It's always been the right that supported the interests of the rich. The left, historically, has advocated equality and human rights.

Historically, Left vs Right is a product of the French Revolution with the RW (named so for sitting in the right side of the room) being pro-monarchy while those who sat on the left side were opposed to the monarchy. Later it would take on an approach of economics, with LW being tied to liberal policies, socialist economies, and communism, with the RW being pro-Capitalism and still Conservative towards the system in place.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I thought I would check up on that theory. It doesn't seem to follow.

Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

FY 2020 $3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019 $3.46 trillion (actual)

So... more people have spendable money and the income for the government increased... win - win.

The problem is we have increased the spending thinking that it doesn't matter. The problem isn't income... it is spending and no one seems to care on either party as they continue to spend as if there is no limit.

In 2019, the US collected $3.46 trillion but spent $4.4 trillion.
For 2020, the US estimates revenue at $3.71 trillion, but expenditures are a new record--before September's numbers are added in!--of approx $6.1 trillion. My shoulders sink just thinking about that burden.

In any event, a graphic from your link shows that it's the individual who is carrying and will have to carry the bulk of the burden in the future, through income taxes and most of the payroll taxes (employers pay a portion).

That is interesting in your interpretation. Basically you are saying the EVERY Supreme Court judge judges according to their beliefs? And not according to the law?

If that is the case... what kind of judge do we select? Who is the determinant of what kind of judge? When do we know that they determine a judgment according to law? Or do we trust the integrity of a person who has already proven that she can buck the White House position?

No, not every. I'm saying that the judgeships "awarded" during this administration have been done so with the implicit understanding that when Roe v. Wade gets challenged again, stare decisis will get a new "alternative" interpretation. Precedent in law, let alone norms of comportment, has been tossed out the window deliberately, with abandon. And that is because, as I've stated before, the separation between church and state has been systematically eroded, even nullified by the takeover of ALL the halls of government by the Christian religious right. Downright scary what those people have in mind for us, US.

 

[Kenny]

In 2019, the US collected $3.46 trillion but spent $4.4 trillion.
For 2020, the US estimates revenue at $3.71 trillion, but expenditures are a new record--before September's numbers are added in!--of approx $6.1 trillion. My shoulders sink just thinking about that burden.

In any event, a graphic from your link shows that it's the individual who is carrying and will have to carry the bulk of the burden in the future, through income taxes and most of the payroll taxes (employers pay a portion).

View attachment 43928



No, not every. I'm saying that the judgeships "awarded" during this administration have been done so with the implicit understanding that when Roe v. Wade gets challenged again, stare decisis will get a new "alternative" interpretation. Precedent in law, let alone norms of comportment, has been tossed out the window deliberately, with abandon. And that is because, as I've stated before, the separation between church and state has been systematically eroded, even nullified by the takeover of ALL the halls of government by the Christian religious right. Downright scary what those people have in mind for us, US.

Notice, then, that indeed I was right. It isn't the income--it is the spending. Tax cuts didn't hurt the income at all.

And what is the answer? Another 2 trillion dollar economic help - if not 4. And what are we going to do about the spending? Next year, just spend more.

So, if you don't want to cary the burden, start a campaign of a "balanced budget" like every normal household has to do. Have we been trained? If the government wants to spend more and feels like it needs more, then just dip your hands into our pockets. If we want to spend more and feel like we need more, just dip our hands into the corporate and wealthy people.

Forget personal responsibility and balancing budgets... just rob the next person by force.... legally of course. Next, it all belongs to the state and we will tell you what you are going to get.

And...

As we can see, the judges selected didn't necessarily go in the direction that Trump won.

Separation of church and state started in the 1960's after almost 200 years and it continues to be separated. And I disagree with your premise:
34% of Christians believe abortions is OK
almost 50% say that the Bible doesn't address it.

https://www.worthynews.com/53367-ne...stians-believe-bible-is-ambiguous-on-abortion

Which leaves me to believe that non-Christians are having second thoughts and that the "It's the religious fault" is simply a political hot button that people push.

It could never be because the law was constructed wrong and needs to be readdressed? And that science has now improved and realized that the baby can feel pain in the womb?

So... who decides what the judges must believe AND DO when then are in the Supreme Court? You? Me? What is the measuring stick?

It is already stipulated, and as she said, "when I put my rob on I don't look at the law according to my values..."

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Notice, then, that indeed I was right. It isn't the income--it is the spending. Tax cuts didn't hurt the income at all.

And what is the answer? Another 2 trillion dollar economic help - if not 4. And what are we going to do about the spending? Next year, just spend more.

So, if you don't want to cary the burden, start a campaign of a "balanced budget" like every normal household has to do. Have we been trained? If the government wants to spend more and feels like it needs more, then just dip your hands into our pockets. If we want to spend more and feel like we need more, just dip our hands into the corporate and wealthy people.

Forget personal responsibility and balancing budgets... just rob the next person by force.... legally of course. Next, it all belongs to the state and we will tell you what you are going to get.

And...

As we can see, the judges selected didn't necessarily go in the direction that Trump won.

Separation of church and state started in the 1960's after almost 200 years and it continues to be separated. And I disagree with your premise:
34% of Christians believe abortions is OK
almost 50% say that the Bible doesn't address it.

https://www.worthynews.com/53367-ne...stians-believe-bible-is-ambiguous-on-abortion

Which leaves me to believe that non-Christians are having second thoughts and that the "It's the religious fault" is simply a political hot button that people push.

It could never be because the law was constructed wrong and needs to be readdressed? And that science has now improved and realized that the baby can feel pain in the womb?

So... who decides what the judges must believe AND DO when then are in the Supreme Court? You? Me? What is the measuring stick?

It is already stipulated, and as she said, "when I put my rob on I don't look at the law according to my values..."

Enuf a'ready. Income and spending are two sides of the same coin, you don't see that? If the tax cuts hadn't been enacted, there would be more income to cover the spending. But I'm done with this and we've taken the thread way off topic, i.e., do Trump supporters really want an authority figure for president? No matter his character?

 

[Kenny]

Enuf a'ready. Income and spending are two sides of the same coin, you don't see that? If the tax cuts hadn't been enacted, there would be more income to cover the spending. But I'm done with this and we've taken the thread way off topic, i.e., do Trump supporters really want an authority figure for president? No matter his character?

Again... the proof is in the pudding... tax cuts (which benefits PEOPLE) increased income (which benefitted the government)....

They are not "two sides of the same coin"... it is called "deficit spending".

If it is a person of character... then there is no one to vote for (maybe in the Congress races there are options).

 

[metis]

If the tax cuts hadn't been enacted, there would be more income to cover the spending.

The main gripes I have with the Pubs tax cut is that it ramped up the budget deficit, thus not even getting remotely close to paying for itself, plus it was done at a time whereas there was no need to do as such as we were not in any kind of crisis mode. And yet the Pubs passed it anyway, thus showing their hypocrisy of claiming they want balanced budgets.

OTOH, the "stimulus" passed early this year very much was called for, as is another one. We have millions of people here in dire straights with an estimated 30,000,000 people possibly being evicted over the next several months. So, what does Trump want to do? Answer: bail out the aviation industry. Why? Maybe so people will fly to his resorts?

Thus, the "Party of Law & Order" and the "Party if Fiscal Responsibility" is dead as a doornail, which is why so many Republicans have left the party and/or decided to vote for Biden/Harris. Even George Will, former chief editor of the conservative magazine "National Review", says Trump must be defeated as well as the spineless congressional Republicans who have refused to stand up to Trump.

Maybe the networks can feature a new t.v. program on them and call it the "Stepford Party"-- "Yes Master President, what kind of damage do you want me to do next?".

 

[Valjean]

You know what I find depressing? 7.5 million Californians living in poverty, with 150,000 homeless living on the streets.

...and that's just my State of California.

...And you want us to help non-Americans, when we can't even help our own. That's worse than selfish, that's being a bas***d...literally... A government who doesn't care about it's own citizens, and instead takes care of someone else's.

Who is the "someone else?"
The poverty and homelessness are the result of 'small government'. They're the result of Reagan &al's shift to neoliberalism and the defunding of the social programs that could have dealt with these problems.
Billions for the military and the already rich. Nothing for the poor.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- MLK.

 

[Valjean]

How, by taking more jobs away from natural born citizens? Half of our jobs were already given to China by Bush Sr., and the other neo-con cohorts.

...This is why we have Trump. Because the neo-cons failed. They got fired.

But Trump failed, too. He said he'd bring back industry. He didn't. Plants closed. Corporate heads pocketed any stimulus money.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In fact, we shouldn't take in any immigrants until we fix these numbers. Lest we all be rotten bast**rds.

I'm open to this idea.

The problem is, Donald Trump is unfit to be a good steward of any sensible idea or plan around immigration - whether conservative, or otherwise.

Should we let in fewer immigrants? Or more? Reasonable minds may disagree. But this is a big person discussion. Trump just lies about a wall Mexico will pay for, tries to block Muslims from entering the country (defying Constitutional protections of freedom of religion), foments racism and victimizes innocent children at the border. None of the reasonable concerns that conservatives have about immigration can be discussed as long as Bozo the Clown is their leader.