US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[chemiclord]

You don't want government to work at all. You have this delusion that government is keeping people down, rather than the "champions of industry" you admire.

Sorry, we don't, and won't, go back to the 1910s, which is where your heroes want to take us. The labor laws and regulations you sneer at exist because your champions used unfettered power in despicable and criminal ways. They would not use their power any more benevolently if they were to get that same control now.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

Yes….I think all governments are self-serving, corrupt, and not to be trusted. History is on my side here.

again…I’m a nihilist. It’s not that I “don’t want it to work”….it’s that I see it for how it DOES work, rather than how I’d like it to work.

I’m a descendant of poor Jewish/German and Irish immigrants who fled governmental tyranny….distrust of government has been passed down like eye color.

[Futureshock]

That might be your opinion of conservative, but it certainly isn't the stance of the Republican Party now. They don't "want to be left alone." They want to impose their morality on the rest of the country.

IKR. It's not enough that most "areas" in America are under Republican control so the "issues" that some Republicans want to pound through are concerning:

1. Controlling the other areas with their brand of life. Doesn't sound very American Idealistic
2. Not conforming to National law so in those red areas they can do what they want whenever they want.

Federal law keeps everyone on as even a level playing field as can be, and prevents an area from making laws that go against national law, like abolishing gun rights. Or an area having legal slavery or rape or abortions, etc...

[Futureshock]

House Oversight Committee chides Daniel Snyder for being “afraid” to testify

Posted by Mike Florio on June 20, 2022, 10:18 AM EDT

Getty Images

If Daniel Snyder indeed reconsidered his decision to not testify before the U.S. House Oversight & Reform Committee on Wednesday, he ended up making the same decision as before. Chances are he spent no time reconsidering his position at all.

Via Mark Maske of the Washington Post, Snyder’s lawyer has sent a letter to the Committee regarding Friday’s request that Snyder reconsider his decision not to testify and instead make himself available. A Committee spokesperson had this to say in response: “His refusal to testify sends an unmistakable signal that Mr. Snyder has something to hide and is afraid of coming clean to the American public and addressing major worker protection concerns facing the NFL.”

The fact that there is something to hide has been obvious since last July 1, when the NFL hid all facts developed during a 10-month investigation by attorney Beth Wilkinson, instead trotting out a ridiculous argument that, because some current or former employees wanted anonymity, everything about the investigation should be kept secret.

Once the Jon Gruden emails became public, it became untenable for him to remain the coach of the Raiders. If/when specific facts harvested or recommendations crafted by Wilkinson became public, it quite possibly would become untenable for Snyder to remain the owner of the Commanders. That’s why, in my opinion, everything has been hidden.

From Snyder’s perspective, the consequences of not appearing to testify are better for him than the consequences of actually showing up. Even without Snyder, Commissioner Roger Goodell will be appearing and testifying. It will be interesting to see whether the various Committee members are able to drill down to the truth, and to break through the disingenuous defense that Big Shield has used to protect Snyder and, in turn, to ensure that other owners won’t have to worry about a complaint from a disgruntled employee spiraling into a no-stones-unturned audit of the business that could force that owner to sell, too.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

IKR. It's not enough that most "areas" in America are under Republican control so the "issues" that some Republicans want to pound through are concerning:

1. Controlling the other areas with their brand of life. Doesn't sound very American Idealistic
2. Not conforming to National law so in those red areas they can do what they want whenever they want.

Federal law keeps everyone on as even a level playing field as can be, and prevents an area from making laws that go against national law, like abolishing gun rights. Or an area having legal slavery or rape or abortions, etc...

But Democratic areas have been diluting gun rights for years….and what about federal drug law, or immigration law?

Areas in control by the left do as much “controlling other areas with their brand of life” as areas controlled by the right.

Thinking this is a one-sided thing might come from some sort of (self-awarded) moral high ground…but it’s still hypocritical.

[Da Geezer]

says aboout

IKR. It's not enough that most "areas" in America are under Republican control so the "issues" that some Republicans want to pound through are concerning:

1. Controlling the other areas with their brand of life. Doesn't sound very American Idealistic
2. Not conforming to National law so in those red areas they can do what they want whenever they want.

Federal law keeps everyone on as even a level playing field as can be, and prevents an area from making laws that go against national law, like abolishing gun rights. Or an area having legal slavery or rape or abortions, etc...

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is what the Constitution says states "not conforming to National law.." Again I say, go ahead and amend the Constitution to make national law paramount. But as it is, Red states have the right to make laws. We delegate certain law-making rights to the Federal government, not the other way around.

You say, "Federal law keeps everyone on as even a level playing field as can be, and prevents an area from making laws that go against national law, like abolishing gun rights. Or an area having legal slavery or rape or abortions, etc" Well, The Constitution was amended post-Civil War, to do away with legal slavery. What you understand but are afraid to say is that very few Americans view things the way you do. Most want to be left alone. It is only on matters that are truly horrific, like slavery or killing babies in the womb, that "the people" rise up and change the status quo.

[Da Geezer]

You don't want government to work at all. You have this delusion that government is keeping people down, rather than the "champions of industry" you admire.

Sorry, we don't, and won't, go back to the 1910s, which is where your heroes want to take us. The labor laws and regulations you sneer at exist because your champions used unfettered power in despicable and criminal ways. They would not use their power any more benevolently if they were to get that same control now.

I think there are plenty of things that government needs to do because the private sector cannot. Building roads or conservation of wild animals for example. But the government should produce public goods and services. The Ds use government primarily to redistribute income, and they use the votes so purchased to push social goals. I don't give a shit about your pronouns; I speak English. I don't want kids under the age of 8 being groomed sexually or told about gender identity. I abhor the killing of babies for convenience reasons.

But I do take your point about the Robber Barons and the illegal market manipulation they engaged in. We have the same thing today with technology companies doing the bidding of the D party. You don't seem to be against that.

Let me put it this way. Power and Money are interchangeable. One can turn Money into Power (Trump 2016) and one can turn Power into Money (Hillary, 2016). Money is only to be feared when it begins to acquire political power, because power corrupts.

[chemiclord]

Oh, I would love for money to be taken out of politics. Problem is this conservative-dominated Supreme Court has decided corporations are people. That's your (allegedly yours, at least) party's doing. And what few attempts to legislate the Citizen's United case have been either blocked by GOP majorities or fillibustered by GOP minorities. Should Democrats be trying harder on that score? Absolutely, and I'm sure they really don't care all that much... but right now, the GOP is holding the bag on that nonsense, and it would be helpful if some criticism on that score started happening inside the house there.

[JGSpartan]

But Democratic areas have been diluting gun rights for years….and what about federal drug law, or immigration law?

Areas in control by the left do as much “controlling other areas with their brand of life” as areas controlled by the right.

Thinking this is a one-sided thing might come from some sort of (self-awarded) moral high ground…but it’s still hypocritical.

You do understand that the Republican party actively prides itself as the small government, leave us alone, individualism party right? The Democrats do not claim to be that. Going against that is only hypocritical of the Republicans.

[Da Geezer]

Oh, I would love for money to be taken out of politics. Problem is this conservative-dominated Supreme Court has decided corporations are people. That's your (allegedly yours, at least) party's doing. And what few attempts to legislate the Citizen's United case have been either blocked by GOP majorities or fillibustered by GOP minorities. Should Democrats be trying harder on that score? Absolutely, and I'm sure they really don't care all that much... but right now, the GOP is holding the bag on that nonsense, and it would be helpful if some criticism on that score started happening inside the house there.

Well, that was decided in 2010, when the Liberal wing controlled the court. Citizens United was enjoined from making a film critical of Hillary. She argued that even one word of political content made the film a contribution in kind to her opponents, and was banned under a 2002 campaign finance law. Hillary prevailed in the lower courts, but the SC overturned citing the 1st amendment right to free speech.

You Dems should thank your lucky stars that the Hillary position was not upheld. If it had been, the whole dog and pony show about Jan 6 would have been a violation of campaign finance laws. FOX News would be making an in-kind contribution to the Rs and CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, the WaPo and the NYT would be making a donation to the Ds. Ds make a big deal of Citizen United, but it has worked to their advantage. That's why they have never really tried to change it, even when they had fillibuster-proof majorities in the Senate.

[Futureshock]

You do understand that the Republican party actively prides itself as the small government, leave us alone, individualism party right? The Democrats do not claim to be that. Going against that is only hypocritical of the Republicans.

Thank you.

That was exactly my point. All this small government stuff is bull that most people don't even want. Most don't want what they don't want and instead of saying such, they try to fit their square issue in a round hole. The example I gave was if this mythical land where they made their own laws. Would most Republicans be happy with Democratically controlled lands abolishing gun laws? Making racism a death sentence? No they would not and honestly, I highly doubt most Democrats giving up their guns or making racism a death sentence. But a lot of R's would absolutely believe that because it is group think processing. Anyway, think small government when you where PPE at your job. Or you make more then 45 cents at your job. If you think for 1 NY second that your employer would pay you more because they pay less taxes you are a fool.

[chemiclord]

The Liberal wing most certainly did not control the Supreme Court in 2010, Roberts (a conservative) has been the Chief Justice since 2005.

[Futureshock]

Marko, you got some 'splaining to do...

[Da Geezer]

• ---

  
  #1316
  Yesterday, 03:57 PM
  Originally posted by JGSpartan View Post
  You do understand that the Republican party actively prides itself as the small government, leave us alone, individualism party right? The Democrats do not claim to be that. Going against that is only hypocritical of the Republicans.
  Thank you.
  
  That was exactly my point. All this small government stuff is bull that most people don't even want. Most don't want what they don't want and instead of saying such, they try to fit their square issue in a round hole. The example I gave was if this mythical land where they made their own laws. Would most Republicans be happy with Democratically controlled lands abolishing gun laws? Making racism a death sentence? No they would not and honestly, I highly doubt most Democrats giving up their guns or making racism a death sentence. But a lot of R's would absolutely believe that because it is group think processing. Anyway, think small government when you where PPE at your job. Or you make more then 45 cents at your job. If you think for 1 NY second that your employer would pay you more because they pay less taxes you are a fool.

I thought JG was saying that the Republican party "prides itself as a small government, leave us alone, individualism party". That is true. He says Dems can't claim that (being small-government etc.). Being for big government is hypocritical for Rs but not Ds. That is how I understood it. And true enough.

You say "All this small government stuff is bull that most people don't even want." Is it OK if I have my own opinion? Or, because I may disagree with you, does that make me a racist? Factually, when FOX news started the MSM laughed. Turns out that over 50% of those who watch cable news at night chose to watch FOX. Most working people in the US want to have small government and individualism. Most folks like you who lived off the dole want bigger government. Rural people want to be left alone. City folks like yourself want big government. It is really simple.

Tell me Future, why are all the shithole cities (like NY, Chicago, Plila, LA, SF) in the US run by Dems with a government answer for everything. California has been totally ruined by the policy prescriptions you prefer. Why not look at the places where government works well and ask yourself how that is different from MI.

The rest of your reply is utterly incoherent. What does personal protective equipment have to do with differing views on the size of government?

[chemiclord]

California has been ruined? If California were to secede from the United States, they would immediately become the world's sixth largest economy and one of the highest quality of life countries in the world. Does it have problems? Absolutely; their unwillingness to build more affordable housing is a big one that comes to mind right quick, but every state, city, and country is going to have problems.

If you consider that "ruin," lemme have some of that ruin.