I think a lot of their agenda is to strengthen the economy by tax cuts, deregulation of the financial and fossil fuel industries, and improving the nation's positions on international trade. Not that I agree, but that seems obvious to me. Whether it is cause and effect or coincidence the economy on the whole seems to have done well, at least until recently.Originally Posted by jp1
As the intro for The Apprentice goes "money, money, money."
We have sadly become an oligarchy, and the citizenry has been intentionally marginalized. People's lives, and freedoms, and well-being are irrelevant.
"People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!" --Greta Thunberg
Without indulging in cartoonish straw men of each side’s motivations and positions, I think the essential difference between the two parties for the last century or so is over the the proper size of the public sphere in citizens’ lives. In general, and there are exceptions, Democrats would enlarge it and Republicans would limit it.
From the health care industry to wedding cakes, the argument is over which decisions should be made collectively and which should be made individually. When government should mobilize people and their property for some purpose or other, and when individuals should be left to their own devices. When decisions should be taken at a central level, and when decisions are best made at the state or local level. Whether enforcing justice should apply based on some larger categories or based on the actions of individuals.
Strip out the self-interest, fear, and immature outrage addiction found in good measure up and down the political spectrum, and I think that is the basic difference we see today.
So true LDAHL. However this leads to so many inconsistencies. For instance, many people want to ban abortion in any circumstance, are for the death penalty and want no controls at on on our god-given right to own any guns in any circumstances. People want their religious beliefs respected yet don’t want to respect others beliefs. Many get all upset about taxes, yet want 911 to show up when they call, want great schools and roads. They want the federal government out of their beliefs but want to intrude on others beliefs.
We are a complicated species, but I think the 24/7 media and internet has been awful. To much information too fast, much of it dubious or untrue.
And then there is the wayback machine. Lindsey Graham is upset about the impeachment inquiry but said something to the effect of “you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime if you are out of bounds in your role ” About Clinton in 1999. He also said the whistleblower was all heresay, but had no Problem when the hearsay by Linda Tripp was used to go after Clinton.
Talk and selective memory is cheap but integrity and honesty is priceless.
I think either side (which may be a misnomer in that there are multiple factions within each) could point out the hypocrisy of the other until doomsday. Which party was for the Iraq war, the filibuster, the traditional definition of marriage and slavery before they were against it? Do such points accomplish anything beyond some kind of emotional benefit.
of course! One can argue that this POV is short term gain and long term detriment to our country, but I wouldn't make that case necessarily.I simply dont know.
Last week DH was poking me about spending and said “I am going to make you pay for that shiny red car you bought” and
I reminded him “Donald J. Trump paid for that car, buddy!” I give The Donald all the credit in the world for providing me with a frivolous car, purchased with stock market gains.
I think you and I have a different definition of hypocrisy. I personally don't include changing one's mind when new information becomes available in the definition of hypocrisy. Nor is it hypocrisy if one acknowledges their past opinion and can explain why they have changed it. I doubt Lindsay Graham has suddenly changed his mind on impeachment. I'm sure he'd still be against impeaching trump even if trump did the worst imaginable thing which we all know is lying under oath about a blow job.
Is there a definitive list of when it's ok to lie under oath?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I'll check with Brett Kavanaugh and get back to you.
I understand the next Supreme Court candidate will be a child molester and everything he/she says that doesn't confirm that portrayal will be considered perjury. I feel for that as of yet unknown person.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote