Jesus sending Jayden Goodwin to Zimbabwe

Well in the US its interesting to note that the last time the GOP won the popular vote in a general election was 2004. They've only won the popular vote once in the last 8 elections (ie the last 28 years). I think it indicates that the US has been a relatively center-left nation, especially in terms of presidential politics. Of course most other developed nations like Canada, the EU, Australia, NZ are even further to left.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 2:09 am

eugene wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:38 am

With Trump on his way out people like Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert are in big trouble. Both were struggling ratings-wise before Trump as they seemingly had trouble coming up with good material.

Trump will most likely announce his 2024 campaign on Jan 20 or shortly thereafter. And given how popular he is within the party he will EASILY scoop up the nomination. Nikki Haley will have to wait till 2028 to lose the GOP nomination to an old white guy or possibly Ivanka.

If all that doesn't happen, he still has Parler on which to parl into the wee hours of morning.

I actually don’t think Trump is that popular within the GOP. He’s popular with GOP voters as he represents the new brand of conservatism which is no BS and getting things done.

GOP voters are sick of the warmongering and platitudes of career politicians, and just want s**t to happen and straight talk.

Republicans have largely failed to conserve anything.

Trump if anything is actually more left than most.

The GOP tried to block his nomination in 2016 and there is the ‘never trump’ Romney faction.

The GOP are just good at uniting and backing their leader. Dems make it very easy with their dirty tricks. Will see how it pans out when the Trump hangover happens.

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:25 am

I actually don’t think Trump is that popular within the GOP. He’s popular with GOP voters as he represents the new brand of conservatism which is no BS and getting things done.

GOP voters are sick of the warmongering and platitudes of career politicians, and just want s**t to happen and straight talk.

Republicans have largely failed to conserve anything.

Trump if anything is actually more left than most.

The GOP tried to block his nomination in 2016 and there is the ‘never trump’ Romney faction.

The GOP are just good at uniting and backing their leader. Dems make it very easy with their dirty tricks. Will see how it pans out when the Trump hangover happens.

That "warmongering" you speak of is a cornerstone of the Right. They are all about defense spending even as they strive for tax cuts - which is why GOP always racks up a tremendous defecit. The US deficit was 500 billion when Obama left office and before COVID Trump pushed it to over double that or over 1 trillion (The COVID stimulus has pushed that up further to over 3 Trillion).

Trump's popularity within the GOP leadership is 50-50, somewhat less so in the Senate but siginificant in the House. 120 House Republicans signed off on Trump's lawsuit to the Supreme Court yesterday whereas very few if any Senate republicans did.

But 90% of the GOP rank and file - some 60-70 million people are FIRMLY in Trump's corner. He's a messianic figure who has remade the Republican party in his image. And that image is not any different from traditional conservatism. Consider how many of Trump's policies or idealogies align with traditional conservatism:

- Immigration and border security - double check (went further to the Right of traditional GOP)

- commitment to Israel/Middle East - double check

- BLM/Police issues - check

- Fiscal policy, tax cuts - check

- Government deregulation, limited gov - check

- Robust defense spending - check

- judicial appointments - double check

- LGBTQ issues - check

And I find only two main things where Trump went against the traditional GOP grain:

- NATO/EU relations - divergence

- tariffs - divergence

So 8-2 Trump was actually a very traditional GOP candidate which is why even his establishment nay-sayers like Lindsey Graham became his stalwart allies. The never Trumpers didn't oppose Trump on his policies - they primarily didn't like his personality or "straight talk".

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:04 pm

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:25 am

I actually don’t think Trump is that popular within the GOP. He’s popular with GOP voters as he represents the new brand of conservatism which is no BS and getting things done.

GOP voters are sick of the warmongering and platitudes of career politicians, and just want s**t to happen and straight talk.

Republicans have largely failed to conserve anything.

Trump if anything is actually more left than most.

The GOP tried to block his nomination in 2016 and there is the ‘never trump’ Romney faction.

The GOP are just good at uniting and backing their leader. Dems make it very easy with their dirty tricks. Will see how it pans out when the Trump hangover happens.

That "warmongering" you speak of is a cornerstone of the Right. They are all about defense spending even as they strive for tax cuts - which is why GOP always racks up a tremendous defecit. The US deficit was 500 billion when Obama left office and before COVID Trump pushed it to over double that or over 1 trillion (The COVID stimulus has pushed that up further to over 3 Trillion).

Trump's popularity within the GOP leadership is 50-50, somewhat less so in the Senate but siginificant in the House. 120 House Republicans signed off on Trump's lawsuit to the Supreme Court yesterday whereas very few if any Senate republicans did.

But 90% of the GOP rank and file - some 60-70 million people are FIRMLY in Trump's corner. He's a messianic figure who has remade the Republican party in his image. And that image is not any different from traditional conservatism. Consider how many of Trump's policies or idealogies align with traditional conservatism:

- Immigration and border security - double check (went further to the Right of traditional GOP)

- commitment to Israel/Middle East - double check

- BLM/Police issues - check

- Fiscal policy, tax cuts - check

- Government deregulation, limited gov - check

- Robust defense spending - check

- judicial appointments - double check

- LGBTQ issues - check

And I find only two main things where Trump went against the traditional GOP grain:

- NATO/EU relations - divergence

- tariffs - divergence

So 8-2 Trump was actually a very traditional GOP candidate which is why even his establishment nay-sayers like Lindsey Graham became his stalwart allies. The never Trumpers didn't oppose Trump on his policies - they primarily didn't like his personality or "straight talk".

He’s been the friendliest LGBT president. In the sense he doesn’t get involved in that.

But tell me, why don’t you like trump?

I hate to make assumptions but I have a feeling you’re not in love with left wing issues of transgenderizm and normalising homosexuality and I’m sure you don’t mind low taxes?

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 9:24 pm

He’s been the friendliest LGBT president. In the sense he doesn’t get involved in that.

But tell me, why don’t you like trump?

I hate to make assumptions but I have a feeling you’re not in love with left wing issues of transgenderizm and normalising homosexuality and I’m sure you don’t mind low taxes?

Now that Biden is president, I'm trying to keep my posts as neutral as possible :D

I will say that I generally support ideas in the which the greatest good benefits the maximum number of people. I can't reconcile reduced taxation or LGBTQ rights or ignoring systemic racism against African Americans with that principle.

I may not personally be homosexual, but that shouldn't mean I should oppose them.

If you are opposed to low taxes because you want more money (who doesn't want more money?), why would you refuse to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple? Thats a contradiction which leads me to believe its more about stepping on as many people's toes out of spite than anything else.

To ask you a similar question, Zimdoggy, what about a Bernie Sanders would you find dislikeable?

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:17 pm

To ask you a similar question, Zimdoggy, what about a Bernie Sanders would you find dislikeable?

I don’t hate him, but I think his ideas are completely unrealistic and he’s a closet communist, trying to deliver the ideas of it through a Trojan horse.

His economical ideas are absurd.

Firstly, he wants free tuition for everyone. That will send the US broke. Denmark has that and it’s becoming a huge drain on their system and they are already crazy taxed. There are too many instances of ‘career students’ who never leave. The uni’s could easily just charge double for a degree and gauge the government. It’s also unfair to the ones who have paid their way.

I don’t dislike his idea for medical reform and increasing the minimum wage, but again, he’s gone full retard with the idea by suggesting non citizens will have the same access, AND opening the borders to Mexico.

The fact he hasn’t the foresight to see that that’s going to lead to an influx of South American and Mexican border hoppers concerns me. With the higher min wage, Mexicans will see more of an opportunity to work black market under the min wage and that will promote employers to be equally as dodgy. This again will break the system.

I also find it funny that he was against millionaires until he became one, then it was billionaires only that drew his ire. He also plays into the whole identity politics that I hate seeing politicians do.

He was better in 2016, and it showed in the polls when he got more of the white Americans vote. If he wants to win zimdoggys support all he really has to do is drop the free tuition thing (or at least make it a co payment) and be tough on the border. His plan can only work with tough borders anyway so he really should be for this.

Why would free college for those that want to go bother folks who by and large don't want or need to go to college? You don't need a college degree to be a farmer or a plumber or coal miner or be a small business owner.

If someone was advertising free laser hair removal, or a free pulled pork sandwich, I wouldn't care because I'm not in the market for that anyways.

As for non-citizens, if they pay the same rate of taxes - which MOST of them do - they ought to get the same minimum wage. The only difference that should exist between citizens and non-citizens is the right to vote and the ability to be President.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:12 am

Why would free college for those that want to go bother folks who by and large don't want or need to go to college? You don't need a college degree to be a farmer or a plumber or coal miner or be a small business owner.

If someone was advertising free laser hair removal, or a free pulled pork sandwich, I wouldn't care because I'm not in the market for that anyways.

As for non-citizens, if they pay the same rate of taxes - which MOST of them do - they ought to get the same minimum wage. The only difference that should exist between citizens and non-citizens is the right to vote and the ability to be President.

But that wasn’t what Sanders said. He said everyone, no matter who they were or their circumstances can get free healthcare in the US as it’s a human right.

I could go take a medical holiday if I wanted too.

And the min wage thing. It only works if everything is legal, but even as is we have Central Americans coming and undercutting wages... what do you think will happen when min wages are higher and the gates are open further?

Sanders doesn’t see how that will be exploited. Maybe it’s because he’s lived in a bubble his whole life.

The college thing is just too much of a cost.

Harvard could triple their law degree and they would be laughing because the government will just pick up the tab.

The idea is toxic and stupid and he really should dump it, and the only reason he hasn’t is because he loves that student vote and how they parrot for him.

Sanders had a real shot this year to make it happen but warren f***ed him and he turned his back on the whites.

Someone will come along eventually with radical healthcare reform accompanied by sane policies elsewhere. Sanders wasn’t the guy to do it because he wasnt based in reality.

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:30 am

But that wasn’t what Sanders said. He said everyone, no matter who they were or their circumstances can get free healthcare in the US as it’s a human right.

I could go take a medical holiday if I wanted too.

If poorer nations than the US can achieve it, we can too. It doesn't have to even be completely free. The insurance companies by acting as a middle man are scamming healthcare providers and patients alike. You pay $200 a month for "insurance" but then still have to shell out money to get a simple X-ray. Thats a scam.

And the min wage thing. It only works if everything is legal, but even as is we have Central Americans coming and undercutting wages... what do you think will happen when min wages are higher and the gates are open further?

Sanders doesn’t see how that will be exploited. Maybe it’s because he’s lived in a bubble his whole life.

Is there a problem with Central Americans that I'm not aware of? I agree with making sure only legals come in (whilst allowing for amnesty for those in need of it).

The college thing is just too much of a cost.

Harvard could triple their law degree and they would be laughing because the government will just pick up the tab.

The idea is toxic and stupid and he really should dump it, and the only reason he hasn’t is because he loves that student vote and how they parrot for him.

Harvard is a private university. The government doesn't get involved in their day to day affairs. Government programs are only for government run universities and colleges.

And if you can get a high enough LSAT score to get into Harvard law (even perfect scores aren't enough), then you oughta go for free I say.

Someone will come along eventually with radical healthcare reform accompanied by sane policies elsewhere. Sanders wasn’t the guy to do it because he wasnt based in reality.

Thats a fair criticism.

But what is fictitous is that the USA can't afford it when countries like Denmark can. We already have the money (trillion dollar tax cuts). It just takes re-allocation of funds. Its like a person saying they have money for booze and cigarettes but not for bread or milk.

zimbos_05 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:58 pm

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:25 am

I don’t hate him, but I think his ideas are completely unrealistic and he’s a closet communist, trying to deliver the ideas of it through a Trojan horse.

His political history suggest completely otherwise, but I love how the right tries to build this narrative of him being a Communist and never backing it up.

Theres a lot that's been said here, but the one thing you've failed to take in to account in all of the back and forth with Krtierion is that the rich are not doing their fair share. So for all the questions about where the money will come from, perhaps taxing the rich would be a good start. As it is, a lot of them are getting away with paying zero tax. Then you also have Donor Advised Funds which instantly reward the rich with tax cuts for doing nothing.

I'm not saying the left is perfect. There are people on that side doing the right thing, but the arguments the right use don't stack up especially when you consider that they pretend to care for the poo-middle, yet it is the poor-middle who are suffering the most.

My favourite part of one of the Trump rallies was a guy who was happy that his business was booming under Trump, he is a debt collector.

Bernie backs up the narrative of him being a communist himself. He endorses left wing anarchist candidates in mayoral races, supports Nicaraguan dictators and seems to believe people lining up for food is a sign of a successful socialist system. He knows to tone down his commie tendencies when running for office, but if you dig deeper into his endorsements and past statements he at heart is a communist, even if his policies don't quite make that leap.

Bernie backs up the narrative of him being a communist himself. He endorses left wing anarchist candidates in mayoral races, supports Nicaraguan dictators and seems to believe people lining up for food is a sign of a successful socialist system. He knows to tone down his commie tendencies when running for office, but if you dig deeper into his endorsements and past statements he at heart is a communist, even if his policies don't quite make that leap.

If we looked at endorsements (David Duke), support of other politicians (Putin, Dutuerte), social preferences (lack of police accountability, only rich people can afford healthcare as being successful), and past statements (we can’t want black people to be successful more than black people do); couldn’t one achieve an analogous understanding of various conservatives?

I will add this.

If I ever end up making a billion dollars, I’ll give half of it away for two reasons. First, no one should need more than $500 M and secondly, if one can go from zero to a billion, one can regain a mere half billion starting from a half billion.

And you’d know I would keep my word because I’d brag about it.

Who else is willing to join me in this pledge.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 1:51 am

Bernie backs up the narrative of him being a communist himself. He endorses left wing anarchist candidates in mayoral races, supports Nicaraguan dictators and seems to believe people lining up for food is a sign of a successful socialist system. He knows to tone down his commie tendencies when running for office, but if you dig deeper into his endorsements and past statements he at heart is a communist, even if his policies don't quite make that leap.

If we looked at endorsements (David Duke)

Explain how this is a retort to Eugene’s point about Sanders endorsing a Nicaraguan dictator.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:57 pm

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:30 am

But that wasn’t what Sanders said. He said everyone, no matter who they were or their circumstances can get free healthcare in the US as it’s a human right.

I could go take a medical holiday if I wanted too.

If poorer nations than the US can achieve it, we can too. It doesn't have to even be completely free. The insurance companies by acting as a middle man are scamming healthcare providers and patients alike. You pay $200 a month for "insurance" but then still have to shell out money to get a simple X-ray. Thats a scam.

And the min wage thing. It only works if everything is legal, but even as is we have Central Americans coming and undercutting wages... what do you think will happen when min wages are higher and the gates are open further?

Sanders doesn’t see how that will be exploited. Maybe it’s because he’s lived in a bubble his whole life.

Is there a problem with Central Americans that I'm not aware of? I agree with making sure only legals come in (whilst allowing for amnesty for those in need of it).

The college thing is just too much of a cost.

Harvard could triple their law degree and they would be laughing because the government will just pick up the tab.

The idea is toxic and stupid and he really should dump it, and the only reason he hasn’t is because he loves that student vote and how they parrot for him.

Harvard is a private university. The government doesn't get involved in their day to day affairs. Government programs are only for government run universities and colleges.

And if you can get a high enough LSAT score to get into Harvard law (even perfect scores aren't enough), then you oughta go for free I say.

Someone will come along eventually with radical healthcare reform accompanied by sane policies elsewhere. Sanders wasn’t the guy to do it because he wasnt based in reality.

Thats a fair criticism.

But what is fictitous is that the USA can't afford it when countries like Denmark can. We already have the money (trillion dollar tax cuts). It just takes re-allocation of funds. Its like a person saying they have money for booze and cigarettes but not for bread or milk.

The problem with Central Americans in this context is when America offer free healthcare to everyone, no matter what, and they see an opportunity to work for 13 dollars an hour cash in hand AND an easy ride across the border, watch the system collapse. Surely you can see this.

Maybe Harvard was a bad example of what you say is true, but just replace Harvard with a government uni and the point still stands.

Poorer nations can achieve it, but they reserve free healthcare for citizens and residents. Where I am, you need to be working to be on the free healthcare register and to be working you need a residency permit.

I do agree that insurance scammers need to be stopped and half the issues in American health are solved if that one point is addressed.

Someone once explained it to me in detail after watching a doco and the price gouging is horrendous. They see an opportunity similar to my university/free tuition example and big pharma and insurance exploit it.

ZIMDOGGY wrote:

Explain how this is a retort to Eugene’s point about Sanders endorsing a Nicaraguan dictator.

Why do we insist on making simple things so complicated? But the appropriate one was Duterte in Phillipines and Putin in Russia.

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 5:57 am

The problem with Central Americans in this context is when America offer free healthcare to everyone, no matter what, and they see an opportunity to work for 13 dollars an hour cash in hand AND an easy ride across the border, watch the system collapse. Surely you can see this.

If they pay their taxes which would go to funding the "free healthcare" (misnomer since its not FREE, but rather universal healthcare), then there is no problem.

Why would the system collapse? Once the $13 dollar an hour jobs become saturated, there would be no room for excess migrants and they would stop coming in. Its a natural built in solution.

Maybe Harvard was a bad example of what you say is true, but just replace Harvard with a government uni and the point still stands.

No the point falls fast. State schools are 1/8th as expensive as Harvard, but the real reason is all the GOV has to do is say "we will reimburse you as long as your tution rate increases only at the rate of inflation (around 2.5% annually)". Its the government, they can create any stipulatin they want and the universities will have to agree if they want the money. Simply beautiful.

Universities aren't a for-profit business, they are an essential educational institution and thus have no right or need to arbitrarily jack their prices up just to scam money.

Poorer nations can achieve it, but they reserve free healthcare for citizens and residents. Where I am, you need to be working to be on the free healthcare register and to be working you need a residency permit.

As a good capitalist, I hope that you are still voluntarily paying for your healthcare even if you can get it for free. :D

Just teasing. So we would apply the same rule to Central American migrants coming over, to use your example. You get to the border, apply for asylum, if you are deemed to be in genuine danger, you come in and get a green card. Voila imaginary problem solved.

There are many Christian migrants who apply for asylum from Iraq and Syria, claiming that their lives are in danger in their homelands due to their religious beliefs. Would you wish for these people to be turned away just so the average taxpayer can save 100 bucks a year on taxes? Central Americans are Christians too.

I do agree that insurance scammers need to be stopped and half the issues in American health are solved if that one point is addressed.

Someone once explained it to me in detail after watching a doco and the price gouging is horrendous. They see an opportunity similar to my university/free tuition example and big pharma and insurance exploit it.

If this is solved it would end 90% of the problems we have. Like I said, we ALREADY have the money for this stuff: its in the trillion dollar tax cuts, and the trillion dollars we've invested in places like Afghanistan - money which Trump and his supporters want to save.