ActualCornHusker

38 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Equating the Dems after 2016 with the Republicans after 2020 is a drastic exaggeration and you know it.  There was a peaceful transition of power and Clinton basically went out of public life.  That is completely different than what we are seeing now.  Were there people that still talked about it?  Sure....but how many rallies did Clinton old across the US over the next 3 years?  How much damage to the US capital happened in January 2017 from peaceful vacationers visiting the capital?  How many people died from it?

The damage done with the psychotic Russia narrative post 2016 was FAR worse than anything that's happened post 2020. You just weren't told by your overlords to be outraged about the Democrats and media framing their political opponents and lying their asses off about it for 3+ years, and you've also been programmed that orange man is the most evil politician ever to hold office in America. So there's that.

5 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

The distinction between this and 2020 would be that Putin did help Trump, that's actually factually true, and the Democrats (with very few exceptions) still admitted that Trump won.

HAHA! So not only is that certifiably false, it also creates a false equivalency between the standards you're setting for Dems vs the ones you're critiquing Trump for... 

11 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Yeah, all those Democrats openly railing against Democracy sure are making the news!

 

In all seriousness, stop trying to both sides this issue. One party has convinced huge swaths of their voters that the previous election was "stolen" and the other did not. One party replaced their electors in Michigan and the other party did not. This is just one of many stories that are similar.  (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096641003/republicans-in-michigan-have-replaced-election-officials-who-certified-bidens-wi)

 

One party believes in Climate change and offers poor-to-mediocre solutions and the other calls it a hoax by China.

 

I understand that the best way to rationalize your tacit support for Republicans is to equate the two parties, but for the love of God get a reality check. It's not close.

Regarding "democracy" - Please tell me about the 2016 election.... I recall bascially the entire democratic party and their media allies talking non-stop for about 3 years about how the only way that Trump won the election is because Putin helped him.

You can attempt to claim that the Democratic party isn't as corrupt as the Republican party all you want, but the facts do not support that claim.

Edit to add: Not only did Democrats claim the 2016 election was stolen and convince a gigantic portion of their base that it was, they entrapped and spied on candidate Trump, then fabricated and doctored evidence to prop up their sham of a claim. Then prominent Dems such as Adam Schiff went on national TV and told their audience that they had seen the evidence that would put the nail in orange man's coffin, and they knew they were lying the entire time.

Give me a break with the self-righteous non-sense.

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This is Putin's talking point. It ignores, for political reasons, that a free nation is comprised of a diverse group of people. 

 

Let's take America. There are Nazis here, too. If the Russians attacked us and it was "every man on deck," would you refuse to fight the invaders because American Nazis fought, too? Would you consider yourself a Nazi if you fought, and they fought, too?

 

Let's look at Husker Football. You're a fan, right? You realize you share that fandom with White Supremacists, murderers down in the State Pen, and all kinds of unsavory people, right? Does that make you a murderer? 

 

It doesn't take much time to see through this propaganda. It just takes a tiny bit of effort.

Surely you would agree that there's a difference between sharing a favorite sports team or country with neo-nazis, and explicitly arming them using American money, no?

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's a good question about the Republican party.

Yikes

23 minutes ago, funhusker said:

These questions get a bit more difficult since it can apply to both parties.  Could create some fun discussions in class!

If we're going to teach partisanship, I'd rather teach students that both parties actively work against the interest of Americans and that they should both be discarded with extreme prejudice. At least that might help students to question the motives of the people in power rather than to have them believe that one party is the good and the other is bad and evil when the truth is that both are evil.

9 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'd be 100% in favor of education curriculum that teaches and quizzes kids on identifying tropes and accurate or perceived stereotypes of people in political parties and ideologies.

 

Which major political party is a person flying a Nazi flag likelier to belong to?

 

Which major political party is a person who wants universal access to healthcare likelier to belong to? 

 

Stuff like that would be fun and able to help kids have better street smarts as they grow into real world

 

Better and more accurate questions would be:

Which major political party wants dissenting voices silenced entirely and then whines about the other party wanting to do away with democracy?

Which major political party has repeatedly pushed to lower the voting age to 16 because they know that age group is easily manipulated through emotion and will expand their voter base?

Which major political party cried for 4 years about how embarrassing and incompetent their president was and then chose to elect a man with obvious signs of dementia, who for his prior 40 years in politics prior to his mental deterioration was consistently considered one of the dumbest members of congress?

I think the point is that NONE of these questions should be taught in school because ALL of the examples provided show significant bias just with the wording of the questions. Students should be taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

Evidently the GOP believes the "fake news" too...

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gop-leaders-denounce-greene-gosar-speaking-white-nationalist-event-rcna18050

 

Even some high-profile Trump allies said they were disgusted. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted that Greene was “playing footsie” with “anti-Semitic neo-Nazis." And Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, also did not mince words.

Meanwhile the Biden admin is arming ACTUAL Nazis in Ukraine because "Russia bad" (which it is, but Ukraine is also a pit of corruption, so...)

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Even if your anti occam's razor speculation is true, why would left-wing folks stage this and why would it work? What climate do we live in where it's entirely and easily believable that MAGA Republicans are larping as neo-nazis?

A fake one 

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Very likely? 
 

Based on what?  
 

I believe it was during the trucker convoy in Canada that the left sent out people with their face fully covered with Nazi flags to try to discredit the convoy. 

I've never understood the Republican support for Israel. I mean, I'm fine with them being an ally, and I surely wouldn't trade them for Palestine, but the treatment of Israel as basically an extension of our own country has always been really strange to me

27 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Elon definitely has Libertarian leanings

I'd highly consider a vote for Elon if he were eligible to run, but he's one of the people I think can have a lot greater positive impact continuing to do what he's already doing.

The best part of this whole outrage is that it has made democrats once again discover the gender binary. Glorious.

4 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

I'm personally sick of both parties.  It's embarrassing to try to explain to my children why we don't have better candidates running for the most important position in our country and possibly the planet.  Money and corruption abound on both sides.  Someone above had it right, try to vote for the lesser of two evils... or rather the person who markets themselves as such.  

The other problem is that the parties we have to choose from that aren't D & R aren't very appealing either. Even as a more libertarian-minded person, I look at the libertarian party and see mostly a clown show, mostly because a lot of libertarians are straight-up anarchist and would rather make a mockery out of politics than actually put forth quality candidates. Although Jorgensen wasn't the worst candidate so I ended up voting gold all the way down the ticket in 2020, including the state positions that were up for election.

What it's going to take for a 3rd party candidate to break through is a really charismatic and marketable person who holds popular views, and is also well-known before running. Who would even fit that bill? Mark Cuban? F that guy IMO.

8 minutes ago, Enhance said:

It wouldn't be if more people had a conscience IMO.

 

If we all had a dollar for every time an American b!^@hed about R's and D's but voted for R's and D's anyways... we'd all be billionaires. I regularly and firmly push back against the binarism of our political landscape. It is fundamentally democratic to vote, and it is fundamentally undemocratic to be pigeon-holed into believing you only have two options. That's what our political powers want you to think and people keep buying that stock time and time again even though they have the power to change it.

Agreed 10000000%. But unfortunately, the belief that voting 3rd party would be a waste of a vote because they're not electable, and the marketing both parties do that if the other gets in power it's going to be hell on earth (they're both right about this one) keep people voting for R & D.

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Oooh. So you HAVE been fully indoctrinated. That’s the only explanation you needed to provide.

 

The real answer is, if it does swing as it’s likely to, the economy. Unfortunately many of the brainwashed hardcore will interpret any change as validation of their weird issues.

You're welcome to ignore the myriad of issues that voters care about, but those are all issues that work against the current administration. You're right that economic concerns are the biggest swing factor (which also works against democrats), but all of the things I listed will impact the elections, and you'll see that real soon in the midterms.

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Sorry, I get that part.

 

I guess what I mean is why are those states flipping or why would they flip?

 

What has changed since 2 years ago?

 

With the exception of inflation and I guess gas prices...why would someone flip their vote?  Or is that enough? 

Mainly what I said at first. Independents are realizing (not quickly enough, but they are) that maybe it wasn't so bad under Trump.

The Ukraine and Afghanistan fiascos will certainly have an impact (if people remember that in 2 more years)

When you look at states like VA, the governor race was decided mainly due to school issues and parents not wanting their children groomed by their teachers. That's becoming a bigger and bigger deal as people realize how bad that's gotten and put their foot down.

As the truth begins to come out about the jabs, people who were forced to get it or lost their jobs as a result (or were personally or had family or friends injured by the jabs) will surely be swayed.

Gas prices (whether president poopy-pants is directly to blame for that or not, that will be the perception by voters who aren't die-hard Dems)

The pushing of fluid gender theory on society at-large, especially within the military.

There's a long list. And again, I'd rather it not be Trump, but I'd take that any day over the clown show we have now.

Edit: Forgot to mention possibly the biggest one: the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop have now been verified as true (as they were pre-election but the "intelligence" agencies kept it under cover till the election was over)

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

But enough to swing it all the way over?

 

I guess my question is, what states will vote R instead of D, assuming they voted D last time?

PA, GA, AZ, WI, MI, NV, & maybe VA. All of those were basically a coin flip and have been almost every election

1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

 

That just means they aren't paying attention. 

To MSNBC maybe

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

How though?

 

Why would Biden, if running vs Trump, not win again?

Because the independent voters swing the elections, and a lot of them are waking up to the idea that maybe it wasn't so horrible under orange man compared to current leadership...

11 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I'm just trying to understand your Libertarian point of view.

 

Obviously, the problem with TARP was that it wasn't big enough. The financial calamity without it would've caused a depression that we would likely still be dealing with. Furthermore, states like Nebraska - and other small states - owe their entire agricultural economy to government subsidies which allow their prices to compete with much cheaper alternatives from overseas.

 

Your argument concerning business taxes is... something. Corporate stock buybacks should be evidence enough that taxes on them are not 'WAY to high' but an argument based on facts isn't going to persuade you at this point.

Hahahahahaha oh I see! TARP want big enough but all the executives at the big banks used the money to give themselves giant bonuses. Got it....

17 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senator-says-may-true-233002349.html

 

This guy is going to win. But, you know,  Republicans are a political party our national media needs to regard with equal dignity and respect. Yup, there super-duper serious.

I'm sure a fine Libertarian like yourself is firmly against government subsidies to business. The invisible hand of the free market and all that. 

 

Totally worked in 2008!

Am I opposed to subsidies? Absolutely. That includes to farmers, as well as to billionaire professional sports owners to foot the bill for their shiny new stadiums with taxpayer money.

If you read back a little ways in the thread, I am quite critical of TARP as well as the covid "relief/stimulus"

But if you're going to try to confuse subsidies and tax cuts, I'll also be perfectly clear that our taxes are WAY too high, especially on businesses. The biggest businesses just pass the tax burdens on to their customers in the form of price increases anyways...

10 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I always wondered when they say Make America Great Again......when do they mean?  What era do they want to go back to?

 

Just getting on the board for the day, but it's quite obvious that Make America Great Again means "over the last several decades due mostly to massive government creeping overreach and outsourcing of our manufacturing, America's position in the world has slipped and at a fragile position as the world's super power, and we should implement mostly economic policies that enhance American exceptionalism and improve the lives of the average American."

It was never explained like that because Trump can't get through a sentence without a strange tangent that doesn't allow him to finish a thought, and the left likes to project their feelings about black and brown people onto people they disagree with.

15 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I'm not usually stay in your lane guy, but stuff like this makes me reconsider.

According to Democrats men can give birth now too so I guess we all get opinions on abortion now according to the also ridiculously dumb logic of "only women should have a say on the abortion issue"