Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Gerrymandering is wrong. Why we don't have a national prohibition against it is beyond me. 

 

 

 

 

 

He's right, and there are simple mathematical ways to do it that are unbiased. Or simple rules to make it harder. #1 - no district shall have more than 6 sides to its shape, unless bordered by a natural feature such as a river.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

#1 - no district shall have more than 6 sides to its shape, unless bordered by a natural feature such as a river.

 

 

I've thought this for years! This is a super no-brainer solution to this problem. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Related:

While $20billion is pocket change in today's federal budget, it would go a long way in helping families, single parent homes, etc esp at this time of covid and job losses.

 

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

The United States provides a number of tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry as a means of encouraging domestic energy production. These include both direct subsidies to corporations, as well as other tax benefits to the fossil fuel industry. Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.

Historically, subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry were designed to lower the cost of fossil fuel production and incentivize new domestic energy sources. Today, U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to fund many fossil fuel subsidies that are outdated, but remain embedded within the tax code. At a time when renewable energy technology is increasingly cost-competitive with fossil power generation, and a coordinated strategy must be developed to mitigate climate change, the broader utility of fossil fuel subsidies is being questioned.

This is a big frustration to me when people complain about ethanol and claim the only reason it's cost effective is because the government is subsidizing farmers.  Now, farm subsidies is a topic that's worth discussing.  However, don't give me the BS that we should be using fossil fuels because farmers and the ethanol industry are just getting big subsidies to grow ethanol....and OMG>.....Farmers are getting rich off of subsidized ethanol.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The democrats continue to be the most moronic morons in the history of morons.

 

 

I agree that Dems aren’t ruthless enough in general, but I wonder if in this case they are worried they won’t get a filibuster proof majority vote in the Senate if they don’t “play nice.”   

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Decoy73 said:

I agree that Dems aren’t ruthless enough in general, but I wonder if in this case they are worried they won’t get a filibuster proof majority vote in the Senate if they don’t “play nice.”   

 

I agree, but that's the wrong play. McConnell wouldn't do that if the situations were reversed. He'd force a vote through to end the filibuster, then unilaterally act as he deemed necessary. The Dems won't even sniff that kind of action, even if it means saving the country in the process. 

 

They're morons. They continually rely on fair play from a party that has shown they will betray them time and time again. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

I agree, but that's the wrong play. McConnell wouldn't do that if the situations were reversed. He'd force a vote through to end the filibuster, then unilaterally act as he deemed necessary. The Dems won't even sniff that kind of action, even if it means saving the country in the process. 

 

They're morons. They continually rely on fair play from a party that has shown they will betray them time and time again. 

The Neville Chamberlain of parties.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

I agree, but that's the wrong play. McConnell wouldn't do that if the situations were reversed. He'd force a vote through to end the filibuster, then unilaterally act as he deemed necessary. The Dems won't even sniff that kind of action, even if it means saving the country in the process. 

 

They're morons. They continually rely on fair play from a party that has shown they will betray them time and time again. 

If ever there was a time I wanted to change the filibuster rule it is now.  The Dems have got to get this commission going.   While the GOP leaders are corrupt in their own right, I believe that Trump has something on them for the 'Ghost of President's Past" to haunt them so much.  Since the mid 60s, there have been 6 presidents who did not serve 8 years in the WH:    LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, GHWB, Trump.  None of them have had the post presidency party support that Trump is getting from the GOP.   One could easily argue that of these 5, Trump was the least qualified, least prepared,  governed the worse of them all (not talking about economic performance, but his grasp of govt, policy combined with his actions/words).  YET, the current GOP leaders hold on to him and worship him as if he were Washington, Lincoln, FDR.  One has to ask why:dunno.  I suspect there are skeletons in the closet for this type of blind loyalty.  I hope the closet is opened wide open and the skeletons are revealed. 

Link to comment

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...