What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Archy1221]

31 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Let me rephrase the question you refused to answer:  what will the GOP be running on this next cycle: adherence to Donald Trump's claims the election was stolen, or viable long term solutions to Social Security?

To answer your question, The points I already gave you that you refused to to read come from the proposed 2024 plan to address SS.  

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I'm guessing there is a lot of possibilities of fraud.  Taxes, insurance, Social Security, etc...

 

 

Not discounting it but How so?  

[DevoHusker]

56 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Most of those posts have no substance (i.e. linked proposals, videos, full statements) along with them.   It’s basically “I don’t like the guy and he’s this…..”.  No doubt Mike Johnson voted against election certification, but guess what…..the current minority leader is an election denier too.   Maybe it’s fair both leaders are now election deniers  

 

as far as cutting SS benefits, the RSC has put out a 75 yr plan that looks at the following: 

—raising full retirement age from 67-69

–reduce benefits for above average wage earners.   This would need to be looked at to ensure the above avg means something like 3 times the avg wage earner which I don’t think it currently does.   So area for some compromise with Dems?

—eliminate COLA adjustments for high earners.  Sounds plausible but what constitutes a high earner etc…again area for compromise.  
 

So this isn’t a take away SS from those low income folks, throw granny off a cliff Dem fear monger proposal like people here make it out to be.  
 

If we do nothing, social security has drastic automatic cuts for everyone so there’s that. And Biden claims to have pledged no new taxes for those under $400,000 which means not raising FICA.  And as we know, SS is a money in/money out program.  
 

 

 

I think what I viewed was pretty definitive. When I heard the vote, I was hoping for an unknown moderate. I don't think Johnson is moderate about anything...except maybe racism one time in May 2020.

 

I also don't like that he puts too much emphasis on religion. Having faith is great, and I think a good quality, but don't base political/Government decisions on that faith. Use faith to help make good decisions, but don't make decisions based on faith. And, if he is truly that pious, but still supports Trump as a person, then he isn't a very good Christian. 

 

I am okay with modifications to Social Security, to provide better benefits to more people...and to make sure it's solvent when I get to collect lol

[suh_fan93]

 

[Lorewarn]

46 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Hmmm, it is against the law!

 

Why?  What reasoning would there be for that from a legal/government view?

 

A few reasons. Partly similar to how you can't buy alcohol in sundays in a lot of places; that is, a remnant of the judeo-christian influence on legislation in the history of our country.

 

Also partly to protect women - most notable examples of polygamy ended up with crazy power dynamics and was rife with abuse, and also often leads to a surplus of young, angry men unable to find a partner because the rich and powerful have snatched them all up (see, incels).

 

Get the government out of marriage altogether and everyone's got the right to make themselves as miserable as they want to be with how they live and who they do it with.

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I think what I viewed was pretty definitive. When I heard the vote, I was hoping for an unknown moderate. I don't think Johnson is moderate about anything...except maybe racism one time in May 2020.

 

I also don't like that he puts too much emphasis on religion. Having faith is great, and I think a good quality, but don't base political/Government decisions on that faith. Use faith to help make good decisions, but don't make decisions based on faith. And, if he is truly that pious, but still supports Trump as a person, then he isn't a very good Christian. 

 

I am okay with modifications to Social Security, to provide better benefits to more people...and to make sure it's solvent when I get to collect lol

I don’t discount anything you’ve just said.   My ears perk up however when the criticism is “gutting SS Medicaid and Medicare” with absolutely no context as to what is considered gutting, destroying, etc….I think the propositions presented on SS are worthy of discussion and compromise to a final solution.   
 

I still don’t know a whole lot about him, but he will need to moderate his views apparently on some subjects.  I think it’s ok for him personally to have those views such as abortion, but as a leader he needs to support a broader view on subjects.   
 

We shall see how he acts in the near future though and can then pass judgement.  

[suh_fan93]

 

[Scarlet]

This seems well grounded in reality 

 

 

"Before his election to the House, Johnson worked as a spokesman and senior attorney to what’s now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group working to erase the boundary between church and state. In this capacity, Johnson—a Louisiana state senator at the time—filed suit against the state of Kentucky on behalf of Ken Ham, who runs the same Answers in Genesis website, which serves as a “scientific” backstop attempting to justify the validity of YEC.

 

The 2015 lawsuit by Ham demanded economic subsidies from the state’s tourism-focused sales tax to realize his dream of building a Bible-based Noah’s Ark theme park in northern Kentucky. Ham envisioned a monument to the “real” story of human creation and the Flood, featuring as its centerpiece a 510-foot long, 85-foot wide, and 51-foot high wooden “replica” of the Ark; along with museum displays on pseudoscientific topics like the Grand Canyon being formed during the Flood, and dioramas of Noah’s workshop. According to the Museum, there were at least 85 pairs of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark."

[suh_fan93]

Why do I have a funny feeling there is a lot of projecting going on here.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t discount anything you’ve just said.   My ears perk up however when the criticism is “gutting SS Medicaid and Medicare”

 

Fascinating how those same ears allow you to ignore the many more pertinent questions being posed to you in this thread. 

[suh_fan93]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Fascinating how those same ears allow you to ignore the many more pertinent questions being posed to you in this thread. 

How will you define a “move to the far right”?  
 

LOL you want me to answer a nebulous question as some might say.  Or dare I say nuanced. 

[suh_fan93]

 

[suh_fan93]