Dr. Strangelove

It is, but it's politically impossible to change. Without massive tax increases and draconian spending cuts, programs that drive spending will continue. There is no serious plan to fix it.

Precisely. The Republican Party and the right wing mechanisms that enable then tried to shed themselves of the MAGA movement knowing it's toxic sludge that's bad for their politics and bad for America. The main problem is that MAGA voters love it. They do not care about Democracy, American values, or anything that doesn't conform to their misplaced anger and downright delusion.

Which is how Biden won against an opponent with an incumbency advantage and a large Electoral College bias that favors Republican candidates. https://twitter.com/HeatherCherone/status/1743686568827601219?s=19 Meanwhile, Republicans are nominating and trying to rationalize why they're voting for this.

Well said. We have a center left President. He won the Democrat primary by running to the right of most of the other Democrat nominees. Granted, as President he has governed solidly liberal on many issues but does hold positions to the Right of his party on issues like immigration. Unfortunately, people in the political center are the least likely to vote. So third party candidates that try to capture the center inevitably lose.

Fong bomb to come here.

America's preferred candidate.

I typically agree with a lot of the non-wall related strict immigration policies of HR 2. The biggest problem is that it does not address the expansion of legal immigration that is necessary. The reality is that the economy needs these workers, and "asylum" seekers at the border have acted as de-facto immigrants to fill necessary jobs. Until Democrats accept that their stance on Aslyum is far to broad - basically anybody living south of Texas could have "credible asylum" and until Republicans are willing to accept massive increases in the caps associated with legal immigration, the problems at the border aren't going to be fixed without an actual compromise neither side wants to make.

This is well put and exactly where I am. It's doubtful that the conditions exist for Nebraska to win another national championship, but competing for conference championships every 10-15 years is possible. The good news is that revenue sharing is going to dramatically change the sport, should bring parity, and give programs like Nebraska access to talent that allows them to compete.

About four in 10 U.S. adults are highly confident that scanning paper ballots into a machine provides accurate counts. Democrats are about twice as confident in the process as Republicans —63% compared to 29%.

No what if is necessary. Those counties account for 55% of population and the vast majority of the tax dollars. 3 Nebraska counties subsidize the other 90. The same is true for all states, the bigger cities pay the bills. For America as a whole, the same is true. That source was simple and measured taxes going to and from the government. Red States give less and take more; Blue states give more and take less. I did this because you really did not understand the point - Red States vote against their interests. This did not account for Social Security or Medicare spending. Once Medicare and Social Security are accounted for, the biggest government expenditures, only 8 states pay more than they receive. These are mostly blue states. 1. Connecticut 2. Massachusetts 3. New Jersey 4. New York 5. Colorado 6. Nebraska 7. Utah 8. Minnesota You can mess with he charts if you want. States that are older and poorer receive far more socialized dollars than they receive. They also vote in ways to make their situations worse.

I would be of the opinion that states like Illinois ruling in favor of these residents would not be good for Democrats. Trump has no chance of winning the state anyway, so throwing his name off the ballot only fuels his "deep state is stealing the election" narrative his horde of voters use as fuel. States should probably wait for SCOTUS to run before continuing with these.

Sure 7 of the top 10 states that receive more than they pay are Republican. They are socialized states that vote in ways that decry Socialism. This is contradictory voting behavior. 7 of top 10 states that send the most money to the government are Democrat states. They subsidize the red states. They vote in ways to support those programs. You seen to not understand the point. I didn't say that urban voters don't collect more than they pay. You do understand the point that those urban voters vote in ways to... enable this, right? Because it seems lost on you. Again, you seem to not understand what I'm saying. This map shows the % of state revenue that comes from the federal government. You seen to not understand that those states send money to the Government. See the top of the post. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand what I'm saying. This is easy to discern based on what you told me. You stated that your friends are in a Red State. And they live in an area that votes 70% for Republicans. Because data shows that any moderately sized city votes for Democrats, the characteristics of the town you're referecing suggest the size is less than ~25k. This suggests they are not a large city in their state. I also know that in any state, like Nebraska, the large cities generate the vast majority of the tax revenue. In Nebraska, Douglas (Omaha), Lancaster (Lincoln), and Sarpy (Omaha suburbs) counties are home to 55% of Nebraska's population but are responsible for 64% of all sales tax and even more of the corporate, gasoline, and all other taxes collected by the state. Those 3 counties subsidize the rest of Nebraska. The same is true for Kansas with Wichita and KC or any state. To answer your question, no. But again, you really seem to not understand the point. I'm not sure how or why you don't but here we are. Rural voters benefit from federal programs but HATE federal programs. Poor urban voters benefit from federal programs and LOVE federal programs. Hopefully that simplifies it for you.

If the family members you refer to live in a rural community in a rural state, their livelihoods are almost certainly subsidized. Their states economies are probably based on agriculture, which is one of the most heavily subsidized economic sectors in the country. Let alone the roads they drive on, schools they build or many other services provided by taxes paid by the states urban economic center. So if your family members live in a rural area dominated by Republican pick-yerself-up-by-the-bootstraps cuz we don't like big gubmint handouts even though their towns economic well being is entirely dependent on subsidies and they're leeches on the Federal Government because they receive more than they pay in, and they too have a 'Big Gubmint just needs to stay out' mentality, then yes they are stupid. If my previous answer was unsatisfactory, I'll try again. Fixing systemic poverty isn't something a politician can fix easily through policy since the problem is multifaceted and is the result of policy failures at multiple layers of government. From City Councils setting zoning requirements to limit housing supply driving up costs, to state and federal governments cutting spending, all while one political party has most of their political platform targeting welfare as a pillar of politics dating back to Reagan, fixing systemic poverty is impossible given the political mechanisms in our country. But at least those voters vote in ways that help. Rural voters have caved to culture wars in lieu of what's best for their economic interests.

I did answer your question, you bizarrely claim I didn't when I clearly did. Generationally poor minorities in the cities vote in ways that help them the best - and that is expending social programs, funding public schools, in favor of SNAP programs, etc. Fixing systemic poverty goes beyond who you vote for in local, state, or national elections because the problems are hard to fix. It's also disingenuous to claim its a result of their voting behavior considering their reduced voting weight in federal elections compared to their rural counterparts because of the extreme rural bias of the Senate (where 60 votes is impossible) and moderate rural bias of the Electoral College. Compared to rural voters that vote against anti-poverty programs that benefit the poor - even though rural America itself is poor - or complaining about government spending that disproportionately benefits them, clamoring for their dislike of taxes even though their livelihoods are entirely subsidized, or a host of other contradictory positions rural voters hold. That isn't too say that those on the Political Left don't hold dumb positions - they do. But it's not anywhere near as contradictory as Conservative voters in rural America.

I agree with taxing the rich to fund programs that themselves further create more revenue. The SNAP program gains more money in economic creation than is spent on it for example. Funding it as robustly as possible via taxes on the wealthy is a win for everybody. As far as spending, I would personally prefer various changes to taxes that fund them. Changes to the programs themselves are necessary: increasing eligibility ages, reducing payouts to certain income ranges, decreasing veterans benefits, increasing taxes to fund the programs, etc. Taxing the wealthy is a small start. But the debt is large and neither side has plans to adequately address it.

They tend to vote in favor of expanding the social safety net, increases in early childhood education, funding for public services, etc. Rural voters vote against Big Gubmint while their small communities and states' agricultural economies completely rely on government subsidies, they vote against anti-poverty programs that benefit would benefit them, and the list goes on.

This isn't directed at you specifically, but to anybody reading who thinks illegal immigration is a drain on society: The cost of undocumented workers as a positive or negative number is small, as is nearly all government spending that doesn't involve all but 6 things. 80% of the yearly spending of the US government is spent on 6 things: -Social Security -Defense -Interest on the debt -Medicare -Medicaid -Veterans Benefits Thus, the national debt problem will never be addressed. The remaining 20% of spending is everything else. You could get rid of all foreign spending, fire every government employee, cut funding to NASA, end food stamps and other programs for the poor, etc. After doing all of that the United States would still run a slight yearly budget deficit and the overall debt would still grow.

The 'ol pass the tax burden onto the poorest strategy, ya love to see it. But hey, if the people of Nebraska want the tax burden on the poorest Nebraskans, so be it. I own a house and welcome saving money. Screw those dirty poor people and their dirty hungry children.

I never said laws should be changed. I said voters should look themselves in the mirror if they've previously voted for Trump and if they plan on voting for him in 2024 they should kindly not visit a voting booth because it's not a place they should be. Are rural voters dumb? On average, yes. But that's an entirely different discussion. Making poor electoral choices and holding contradictory political opinions doesn't mean I think those people shouldn't vote; they should change how they vote. It just so happens that a huge majority of those same voters are also Trump voters which is why they shouldn't show up to the polls in November because the country is better off if they don't.

This is hilarious. The point is all moot though because SCOTUS is almost certainly going to rule in favor of Trump.

The only opinions that matter are the Supreme Court Justices who are going to rule against Colorado. Ultimately Trump being off the ballot in Colorado doesn't change the calculus for the 2024 election in the unlikely event SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado. Trump has a ~50-55% chance to win no matter what.

Woah, that's not entirely true. I said people who voted for Trump twice should look themselves in the mirror, and if they don't recognize the danger their voting preferences pose, they should kindly step away from the voting booth. Mocking Trump voters isn't the same thing as advocating for changes in voting laws.

Really "educated" just means "bachelor's degree", it's really just a social science term, I'll try to be more clear on the future. Democrats certainly do have a chance, although more reliably in the future. Right now, I think the odds of Trump winning Wisconsin/Pennsylvania are much higher than Biden winning Texas. In future elections, that will change. If you can point to specific Biden policies that support that view, you're free to provide it. Because the current reality is that purchasing power erosion has happened for a long time. Compares to peer countries, the United States is performing better on nearly all economic metrics. We're very fortunate. I issued a blanket statement to make a point. Yes, some voters do vote differently. But those voters make up a very small portion of the electorate. Political campaigns don't focus on changing voters opinions - that's hard and doesn't work. They try to focus on engagement, getting their base to show up, and depressing their oppositions turnout. Bingo. Look, I think people really struggle with the idea that Trump has a real chance at winning considering everything he's said and done. I get that, he's insane. But you should dramatically lower your expectations for what matters to the average American voter and what motivates their vote. Trump has a real chance of winning.

Can't mention slavery and has to mention stupid things like "states rights" because she risks losing huge swaths of the Southern Republican voting base.

The incumbency is an advantage and I never said it was a huge advantage. It's a diminishing advantage but an advantage nonetheless. It's why Democrats would be stupid to nominate somebody else as their nominee, with a razor thin election, a .25% incumbency bump is the difference between winning and losing. Wacko stuff Trump has said didn't deter voters from voting for him in 2016 or 2020. Republican voters aren't going to suddenly realize they're voting for an idiot. They're going to show up and vote for him again in 2024. You seem caught into thinking that Trump only became deranged and said insane things after losing in 2020, he hasn't. You just ignored it to justify voting for him. Winning a popular vote by 8% isn't possible. Voters don't change their minds nor do they vote based on reality. A main point is you referring to Biden as "The Big Guy" because you believe, without evidence, that President Biden is as corrupt in order to justify voting for obviously bad candidates. You also believe, against mountains of evidence, that economic performance is bad. You aren't the only one who bases their voting behavior on what they want to be true vs what is actually true. Firstly, Virginia and Colorado are not competitive swing states. They are countered by Iowa, Ohio and Florida becoming reliably Republican. Secondly, incorrect. I stated this: Democrats are turning other states blue: namely Texas, Arizona and Georgia. The issue for Democrats is that they're losing ground in states faster than they're gaining ground in other states. Eventually Arizona, Georgia, and Texas will be reliably blue states. But at the moment, Republicans have a better chance at flipping Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan and Pennsylvania than Democrats do of flipping Texas. By the 2030s, that will change. But until Texas is a true swing state, Republicans have a massive electoral college advantage. Republicans have shot themselves in the foot by hitching their wagon to Trump. They should be winning elections easily but they can't help themselves from nominating terrible candidates.