The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by SomeDude » Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:12 pm

Kbg wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:16 pm

Maybe CA gets an army and an Air Force and decides everything up to the Rocky Mountains sounds like a nice security buffer with lots of open space for endless solar and wind farms.

Maybe China or Russia decides that CA looks pretty enticing and since that state doesn't have any nuclear weapons, why not, who is to stop them?

As Colin Powell wisely said about Iraq, you break it, then what?
I have one: Maybe aliens come from outer space to destroy us and we need will Smith and Jeff Goldblum to blow up the mothership but they are in different countries so the entire planet gets wiped out.

Here's a history lesson i remember, it was the United States in all it's current power that "broke" Iraq. Also, Colon Powell was a chief architect of it, lied in front the world about Iraq, and is a complete disgrace with the blood of millions on his hands. His advice is probably best avoided.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by SomeDude » Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:49 pm

Simonjester wrote: this all seems like a good argument for federalism, ..say... a federal government that operated like a light weight exoskeleton that allowed the states to operate as a unit but were all self governing within it...

not that limited government is a good idea >:D
That would work if enough of the people/states wanted it. Currently 50% of the population and about 20-22 of the states would rather have an all powerful government so they could impose their values on the other states.

Hence.....let it be broken up. The free states can band together for support. They can have friendly relations and whatnot with the communist countries on their border too (ok this might be a stretch).

The point is, everyone could be happier if they have the government they want. Neither group fully has that now. The communists have a very close representation but they still riot and try to impose more on their countrymen who disagree with them.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by SomeDude » Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:42 am

Kbg wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am

The United States has a very good gig going right now, we ought not to screw it up.
That sums it up.

I went with aliens because the endless imaginary scenarios you would no doubt come up with have to lead somewhere, might as well skip to the end. It's only slightly less plausible than Russia sailing across the Pacific to invade Cali, although that's up for debate.

See you think things are good as is. Other people see that every 2 years 1/3 of the people call another 1/3 nazis, cities on fire, a military used as a global police force, religious and personal freedoms of half the county at risk from the other half that despises them, politicians calling for lists made of people that disagree with then so their lives can be ruined etc. AND it's getting worse not better.

Maybe you don't see that stuff. That's ok.

Discussing the partition of the country, how it might happen and the consequences could be interesting (on another thread). Since you said anyone who disagrees with you is a moron though......Discussing it with you would prove you right kbg. It's not a good way to have an honest discussion of a topic, surely you can see that?
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:43 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:39 am
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:42 am
Kbg wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am

The United States has a very good gig going right now, we ought not to screw it up.
That sums it up.

I went with aliens because the endless imaginary scenarios you would no doubt come up with have to lead somewhere, might as well skip to the end. It's only slightly less plausible than Russia sailing across the Pacific to invade Cali, although that's up for debate.

See you think things are good as is. Other people see that every 2 years 1/3 of the people call another 1/3 nazis, cities on fire, a military used as a global police force, religious and personal freedoms of half the county at risk from the other half that despises them, politicians calling for lists made of people that disagree with then so their lives can be ruined etc. AND it's getting worse not better.

Maybe you don't see that stuff. That's ok.

Discussing the partition of the country, how it might happen and the consequences could be interesting (on another thread). Since you said anyone who disagrees with you is a moron though......Discussing it with you would prove you right kbg. It's not a good way to have an honest discussion of a topic, surely you can see that?
They don't want an honest discussion because they have no valid arguments.
This is just another example of their "win at all cost" mentality, different only in magnitude from the election fraud.
Tech once again proving he is the hypocrite in chief.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by SomeDude » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:18 am

Kbg. Maybe we can start a thread on the possibilty of the country breaking up, for weal or woe, and keep it civil.

I think this issue will come front and center in our lifetime, and maybe soon.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:24 am

SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:18 am
Kbg. Maybe we can start a thread on the possibilty of the country breaking up, for weal or woe, and keep it civil.

I think this issue will come front and center in our lifetime, and maybe soon.
Tangent!

I have an extremely large vocabulary but you just sent me on a search to find out what one word you used meant.

"weal": a red, swollen mark left on flesh by a blow or pressure.

I was going to stop there but then saw that you were using the word in a phrase I don't think I'd ever prior encountered.

Weal and woe. Meaning : Good and bad days. Usage : Weal and woe comes in everybody's life.One should learn to live with them.

Now you have me curious if the "weal and woe" phrase is a regional country phrase. Do you know?

Thanks

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:53 am

Simonjester wrote: this all seems like a good argument for federalism, ..say... a federal government that operated like a light weight exoskeleton that allowed the states to operate as a unit but were all self governing within it...

not that limited government is a good idea >:D
+1, I was thinking same. Why not devolve more power to the individual states and let them steer their own ships? It's what they're doing already anyway. New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California can keep on passing all the taxes and regulations they want, and no one is stopping them.

Of course, the main problem with this scheme is that taxpaying (as opposed to welfare-recipient) residents are fleeing in large numbers. Which says that the high tax and welfare plan isn't really sustainable. So what you want is to isolate those places so they can't hide from this reality. New York City is a microcosm that shows this process quite well, because it functions as a state within a state. There's a cycle of Democratic regimes that screw up the city followed by Republican regimes that fix it and make it liveable again, after which people get complacent and Democrats get back in power. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Breaking up states is one way to handle this that is far less drastic than breaking up a country.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:23 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:57 am
pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:43 am
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:39 am
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:42 am
Kbg wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am

The United States has a very good gig going right now, we ought not to screw it up.
That sums it up.

I went with aliens because the endless imaginary scenarios you would no doubt come up with have to lead somewhere, might as well skip to the end. It's only slightly less plausible than Russia sailing across the Pacific to invade Cali, although that's up for debate.

See you think things are good as is. Other people see that every 2 years 1/3 of the people call another 1/3 nazis, cities on fire, a military used as a global police force, religious and personal freedoms of half the county at risk from the other half that despises them, politicians calling for lists made of people that disagree with then so their lives can be ruined etc. AND it's getting worse not better.

Maybe you don't see that stuff. That's ok.

Discussing the partition of the country, how it might happen and the consequences could be interesting (on another thread). Since you said anyone who disagrees with you is a moron though......Discussing it with you would prove you right kbg. It's not a good way to have an honest discussion of a topic, surely you can see that?
They don't want an honest discussion because they have no valid arguments.
This is just another example of their "win at all cost" mentality, different only in magnitude from the election fraud.
Tech once again proving he is the hypocrite in chief.
That was possibly the shortest unblocking on record.
Thanks for clearing up how nasty you are.
So you're ok insulting me, but can't take it when I dish it right back? Once again, hypocritical.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:29 am

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:24 am

Tangent!

I have an extremely large vocabulary but you just sent me on a search to find out what one word you used meant.

Weal and woe. Meaning : Good and bad days. Usage : Weal and woe comes in everybody's life.One should learn to live with them.

Now you have me curious if the "weal and woe" phrase is a regional country phrase. Do you know?

Thanks

Vinny
I’ve heard it - had to point out that WV schools are not so hillbilly backwater as the stereotype might indicate.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by SomeDude » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:03 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:24 am

Now you have me curious if the "weal and woe" phrase is a regional country phrase. Do you know?

Thanks

Vinny
Hmmmm....well I'm born and raised in Michigan but its probably just something picked up from reading. Could be from the King James. I'm certain its an old phrase from England.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:53 pm

DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:08 pm

Thanks, Mountaineer, for the continuing education....

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:18 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:08 pm
Thanks, Mountaineer, for the continuing education....

Vinny
👍🏼👍🏼
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:52 am

Let's revive this thread, now that the election results are put to rest and we can start to forecast the events of the next four years.

The NRP as I've described it prioritizes policies that support the existence and health of the American middle class, and American prosperity in general. It also forswears identity politics, in which certain self-selected or racial groups are elevated to an artificially high status, whereas other groups are denigrated - essentially, a new form of discrimination, just with the major players shuffled around.

Biden appears to be sympathetic to some of these concerns, most notably his take on global trade agreements. That is promising. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that the plan to open the floodgates to illegal immigrants will have a large negative impact on the American lower and middle classes, by suppressing wages at the low end of the scale and increasing state/local expenses resulting in increased taxes and reduced services. Nor does he realize that banning contract work removes a critical financial pillar from the middle class - who often use extra gigs to make ends meet. For example, Uber drivers who pick up passengers on the commutes to and from their regular jobs, or full time employed people doing side jobs as handymen or car mechanics.

Biden is also unlikely to influence policy all that much, given who he is surrounded by. And as time goes on, I expect he will become progressively less influential because that's how dementia works.

So four years from now, the New Republican populism, especially if paired with a strong candidate with the right personality, may be a powerful force. It'll be good to see! I'm hoping to re-trigger a discussion of the elements of this populism and how they might resonate with voters (presumably despite continued media opposition). What gives me the most hope for the future is the fact that despite a nonstop, intense 4 year propaganda machine otherwise known as the mainstream media, nearly half the population still went for the NRP. I think that's a safe assumption, because of how the downballot elections played out. In those, well over half the population went for NRP-style policies - even in solid blue states like California. Much more, if you include things like decriminalizing recreational drugs (which you could argue is another facet of NRP).

That's why, with the right candidate, a well thought out campaign, a continuation of the shifting of the Republican party to NRP values, and less opposition from the mainstream media (admittedly a long shot), we could be looking at a huge red wave in four years.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pmward » Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:11 am

sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:52 am

The NRP as I've described it prioritizes policies that support the existence and health of the American middle class, and American prosperity in general. It also forswears identity politics, in which certain self-selected or racial groups are elevated to an artificially high status, whereas other groups are denigrated - essentially, a new form of discrimination, just with the major players shuffled around.
I do agree that the "progressive" left does try to solve discrimination with reverse discrimination. Biden is not a "progressive" however, he is an old school moderate Democrat. So I'm not sure you will see movement in this realm that would spark an uproar on the right like you would if a populist democrat like say Elizabeth Warren were president.
sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:52 am

Biden is also unlikely to influence policy all that much, given who he is surrounded by. And as time goes on, I expect he will become progressively less influential because that's how dementia works.
I don't think it's fair to assume Biden has dementia. Moreover, in a thread that is meant to stick to policies and not personalities, I think it would be best if we also agree to look at Biden's policies in isolation as well. To not grant the same respect to both sides creates a playing field that is not even.
sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:52 am
Biden appears to be sympathetic to some of these concerns, most notably his take on global trade agreements. That is promising. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that the plan to open the floodgates to illegal immigrants will have a large negative impact on the American lower and middle classes, by suppressing wages at the low end of the scale and increasing state/local expenses resulting in increased taxes and reduced services. Nor does he realize that banning contract work removes a critical financial pillar from the middle class - who often use extra gigs to make ends meet. For example, Uber drivers who pick up passengers on the commutes to and from their regular jobs, or full time employed people doing side jobs as handymen or car mechanics.
I have one big pushback here. "Illegal" immigrants do suck out of the economy, because they take jobs, take the money, and then leave the country with the money. They are not consumers that support the economy in any way. Legal immigrants on the other hand become consumers. They come and bring their families, their kids go to American schools, American colleges, and grow up to be full productive members of the economy. Even if the first generation immigrant works entry level jobs, the economic impact of that family being here compounds each generation.

I would also say the deflationary problem we have had for the last 13 years now is all demographics and population based. What is the easiest way to cure that? Increasing population. Population has a direct correlation on GDP, as more consumers directly mean more GDP growth, and in turn more low and mid-tier jobs to support that population. We need an increase in population to finally get out of this deflationary cycle. Since American citizens are not growing the population naturally, immigration would really help to fill the gap. The real problem is that the economy has been growing at a sluggish rate for 13 years and going. The root of that problem is crappy demographics and low population growth. I don't see how placing further pressure on the root of the issue can possibly solve anything.

So long story short, I don't think your argument here is true. Though I guess it doesn't have to be true from the political perspective you're looking at; belief is really all that matters in politics. If half the country believes it to be true that means that half of the country is likely to vote for the Republican, even if they are unknowingly sentencing themselves to a further extension of the problematic low growth economy in the process.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:23 am

Thanks for picking up this thread pmward!

I said in my post that Biden is not necessarily a far-left progressive. But, he is surrounded by those, and his VP is certainly that. So I rather expect that the progressive, far-left agenda will dominate his Presidency. Enough said - though I would like to point out that the medical information about Biden that has been released is 100% indicative of an Alzheimer's diagnosis: he's on a medication that is used only for that indication.

Your points about immigrants contributing positively to society and the economy are well taken. Unfortunately, that assumes it's an immigrant who is willing to learn English, does not require immediate financial support from the state/local/federal government, and brings marketable skills enabling them to get jobs. Unfortunately, illegal immigrants do not meet any of these criteria.

Your rosy scenario is possible only if there is an intelligent effort at matching desirable immigrants to needed skill sets in the US. A points-based immigration system, like those used in Canada, Australia, and other countries with saner immigration policies, would be the perfect way to ensure this. This is part of the NRP - but unfortunately one that was blocked in Congress.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pmward » Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:42 am

sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:23 am
I said in my post that Biden is not necessarily a far-left progressive. But, he is surrounded by those, and his VP is certainly that. So I rather expect that the progressive, far-left agenda will dominate his Presidency.
I would say the opposite of his VP and those he is surrounded with. I think that Kamala was specifically chosen as VP for a very important reason... to learn from Biden how to work across the isle. The strengths of the old school flexible moderate democrats counter the weaknesses of the stubborn populist progressive left. I think Democratic Party is playing the long game here and looking beyond just a Biden presidency. In many ways Kamala will be Biden's apprentice for the next 4 years.

I also think Pelosi and other more extreme leftists could learn a lot from Biden in this term. We cannot look passed the fact that Biden's main message these days is "compromise" and "working across the isle". He will lead the party in this direction by example. It's obviously up to them whether or not they allow themselves to learn and continue that going forward. But if they do, I think the Democratic Party could wind up stronger for it, and as a whole come a bit more to the middle. There are a lot of strengths of the old school moderate Democratic Party that the new school progressives could learn.
sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:23 am
Your points about immigrants contributing positively to society and the economy are well taken. Unfortunately, that assumes it's an immigrant who is willing to learn English, does not require immediate financial support from the state/local/federal government, and brings marketable skills enabling them to get jobs. Unfortunately, illegal immigrants do not meet any of these criteria.

Your rosy scenario is possible only if there is an intelligent effort at matching desirable immigrants to needed skill sets in the US. A points-based immigration system, like those used in Canada, Australia, and other countries with saner immigration policies, would be the perfect way to ensure this. This is part of the NRP - but unfortunately one that was blocked in Congress.
Obviously just letting any person into the country that wants to come in would not be ideal. We wouldn't for instance want to bring in people that are known cartel members. There obviously would have to be some kind of planning and screening here. Also, I don't know if the common right theme of immigrants wanting to come here just for a handout is true. Maybe in some rare cases, but from my experience living in a border state (as well as my experience having both sides of my family being immigrants, one of which came here unable to speak English on day 1) I think that most just want to come here so they can work hard, get a fair shake, and allow their children to grow up with more hope and opportunity than they had.

I don't think they are lining up for our social systems. But yes, a degree of filtering for this would help. The U.S. until recently always has been a world leader, one who was diplomatic, and welcoming of the refugees and downtrodden of other countries. I'm not familiar enough with a points based system, but we would have to be careful that it wasn't crafted in a way that basically prevented us from filling this global humanitarian role we have filled for all of modern history. Our very country was founded by people fleeing an oppressive country that wanted a place they could get a fair shake. It would be rather hypocritical of us to suddenly refuse to fill that role now given the centuries of precedent we have set for this. So basically, it's a tricky line to walk. What is the proper and fair mix of humanitarian acceptance and filtering out of undesirables? I'm not sure I know exactly where that line lies. But I do know we need to increase our population, and there are plenty of people willing to come here, work for a living, raise a family, and participate in our economy.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by D1984 » Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:03 pm

sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:52 am
Let's revive this thread, now that the election results are put to rest and we can start to forecast the events of the next four years.

The NRP as I've described it prioritizes policies that support the existence and health of the American middle class, and American prosperity in general. It also forswears identity politics, in which certain self-selected or racial groups are elevated to an artificially high status, whereas other groups are denigrated - essentially, a new form of discrimination, just with the major players shuffled around.

Biden appears to be sympathetic to some of these concerns, most notably his take on global trade agreements. That is promising. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that the plan to open the floodgates to illegal immigrants will have a large negative impact on the American lower and middle classes, by suppressing wages at the low end of the scale and increasing state/local expenses resulting in increased taxes and reduced services. Nor does he realize that banning contract work removes a critical financial pillar from the middle class - who often use extra gigs to make ends meet. For example, Uber drivers who pick up passengers on the commutes to and from their regular jobs, or full time employed people doing side jobs as handymen or car mechanics.
The issue here is that if the so-called "New Republican Populism" actually gave a tinker's damn about the middle class (which it doesn't seem to me to do one bit.....most of their policies that would supposedly help the middle class are just window dressing...populist lipstick on a plutocratic-friendly pig, if you will) then they would support policies that actually HELPED the middle and working class in America at the expense of the top 1 or 2%.

Why should the middle class NEED to take extra gigs to make ends meet? Given our productivity growth over the past 45-50 years why was it possible for one breadwinner to support a family back in the early 1970s but now (after decades of economic growth) it typically requires two (or one who works a regular job then has to cobble together enough gig work--or perhaps a second part-time job--to make ends meet)?

I'm not in favor of "banning" contract/1099 work at all (although employers shouldn't be allowed to misclassify actual employees as independent contractors just to avoid paying FICA and benefits) but what the middle class needs is not more opportunities at contract work; what it needs is a much higher minimum wage (if the minimum wage had kept up with productivity it would now be north of $20 per hour), unionization rates on par with Scandinavia's (or at least the European average), 50% worker representation on large company corporate boards and on works councils (like in Germany), sharply higher tax rates on high incomes in order to flatten the income distribution, universal affordable healthcare separate from employment, lower-cost housing (esp in big cities and their immediate suburbs), refundable child and dependent tax credits, a retirement pension system that provides a higher replacement rate than the current Social Security system, free or very cheap higher education (and this would include trade school, vocational education, apprenticeships, community college, etc as well as traditional four year college), a massive infrastructure rebuilding plan, and a decent UBI/BIG/citizens dividend (or if that is too much of a political long shot then at least a job guarantee....or at the very least a massive expansion of the EIC starting from $0 income and this time including childless adults and those from 18-26 years old as well).

If a political party combined the above with a policy of equal rights for all but special privileges for none, being against actual real discrimination but also standing up against the excesses of political correctness and woker-than-thou culture, legalization/decrim of (at least) soft drugs, the US ceasing to be the world's policeman and generally doing our best to avoid foreign conflicts/entanglements unless we are attacked, and being in favor of legal immigration that helps America (i.e. those who can at a bare minimum at least speak English and have a high school diploma--or at least could pass a test showing they had the intelligence to get said diploma even if they don't have one....and of course higher priority would go to those with more education/skills/wealth/business experience/scientific knowledge/etc) while securing the borders and minimizing further illegal immigration....well, that would be a true populist party and they'd stand a decent chance at a win in 2024 or 2028.

The likelihood the GOP will actually adopt much of the above (except for maybe the immigration part of the proposal)? Well....let's put it this way: English is a very strange language; in English a "fat chance of that happening" and a "slim chance of that happening" are exactly the same thing!
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by SomeDude » Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:17 pm

sophie wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:52 am

Biden is also unlikely to influence policy all that much, given who he is surrounded by. And as time goes on, I expect he will become progressively less influential because that's how dementia works.
Biden is already far enough with dementia that he has zero influence on anything and to the extent he still has opinions about anything, they don't matter.

If he does take office, he is subject to removal by the 25th amendment at any time.

If he does take office, any public figure directing anger or opposition towards him is trying to missdirect the American people. Biden is the pick of the oligarchy who used lies and fraud to install a puppet.

If he takes office, rather than spend energy in opposition i think the good people in the freedom loving states need to push for secession like the Texas GOP alluded to in their response to SCOTUS.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:54 am

Hmmm....SomeDude, I was hoping you might be a bit more optimistic (like I am). It does depend on who controls the Senate, but honestly I hope that it doesn't come to a national split. It's hard to understand how that would work anyway.

D1984's post though is a good example of why you're so pessimistic. If I had the time today I could easily rebut practically every sentence in it (and so could you). But, I don't. D, could you please do some of your own fact checking???

Will just say one thing: the minimum wage vs contract work split is precisely along party lines. It is an article of faith among Democrats that a higher minimum wage will be good for the middle class. Republicans however can point to plenty of data showing that increasing the minimum wage decreases available entry level jobs, which kinda just makes sense. So if you passed a minimum wage law AND banned contract work, you'd really be putting the screws on.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by vnatale » Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:25 am

sophie wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:54 am
Hmmm....SomeDude, I was hoping you might be a bit more optimistic (like I am). It does depend on who controls the Senate, but honestly I hope that it doesn't come to a national split. It's hard to understand how that would work anyway.

D1984's post though is a good example of why you're so pessimistic. If I had the time today I could easily rebut practically every sentence in it (and so could you). But, I don't. D, could you please do some of your own fact checking???

Will just say one thing: the minimum wage vs contract work split is precisely along party lines. It is an article of faith among Democrats that a higher minimum wage will be good for the middle class. Republicans however can point to plenty of data showing that increasing the minimum wage decreases available entry level jobs, which kinda just makes sense. So if you passed a minimum wage law AND banned contract work, you'd really be putting the screws on.
If what you say is true, then that would solidly cement me as an Independent. I'm against the blanket $15 minimum wage AND would never, ever ban contract work.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by vnatale » Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:29 am

MangoMan wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:52 am
D1984 wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:03 pm

I'm not in favor of "banning" contract/1099 work at all (although employers shouldn't be allowed to misclassify actual employees as independent contractors just to avoid paying FICA and benefits)
Except the irony is that the Gig Economy is IC according to the IRS definition of employee vs independent contractor, yet states like CA are trying to make up their own definitions to force expensive, unprofitable outcomes on the the companies that don't fit the existing legal categorization.
"IC"

?????

This reminds me when I first came into the forum and was asking questions.

I'd get all kinds of answers absolutely loaded with acronyms that had absolutely no meaning to me. Somethings to be aware of when throwing them around -- that like me, they may all be meaningless to newcomers.

IC = Independent Contractor?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pp4me » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:50 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:25 am
sophie wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:54 am
Hmmm....SomeDude, I was hoping you might be a bit more optimistic (like I am). It does depend on who controls the Senate, but honestly I hope that it doesn't come to a national split. It's hard to understand how that would work anyway.

D1984's post though is a good example of why you're so pessimistic. If I had the time today I could easily rebut practically every sentence in it (and so could you). But, I don't. D, could you please do some of your own fact checking???

Will just say one thing: the minimum wage vs contract work split is precisely along party lines. It is an article of faith among Democrats that a higher minimum wage will be good for the middle class. Republicans however can point to plenty of data showing that increasing the minimum wage decreases available entry level jobs, which kinda just makes sense. So if you passed a minimum wage law AND banned contract work, you'd really be putting the screws on.
If what you say is true, then that would solidly cement me as an Independent. I'm against the blanket $15 minimum wage AND would never, ever ban contract work.

Vinny
The voters just approved a measure mandating a $15 hour wage here in Florida. I have no idea what they were thinking. I'm not sure what is the full extent of it but if it applies to restaurants and small businesses what a gift it must have been to them while they are still trying to stay afloat during Covid.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by vnatale » Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:24 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:41 pm
Yes, IC = Independent Contractor. I thought it was obvious since I spelled it out in the next sentence.
First as an aside...while the use of acronyms makes it easier for the communicator it does not always make it easier for the intended recipient of the communications. The burden of clear communications resides with the communicator and not the recipient.

Getting back to what you originally stated.

I find this: Gig Economy: a labor market characterized by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work as opposed to permanent jobs.

There is an "or" in the definition Therefore, one can also in in the Gig Economy by being short-term employee and NOT a subcontractor?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by vnatale » Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:31 pm

pp4me wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:50 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:25 am
sophie wrote:
Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:54 am
Hmmm....SomeDude, I was hoping you might be a bit more optimistic (like I am). It does depend on who controls the Senate, but honestly I hope that it doesn't come to a national split. It's hard to understand how that would work anyway.

D1984's post though is a good example of why you're so pessimistic. If I had the time today I could easily rebut practically every sentence in it (and so could you). But, I don't. D, could you please do some of your own fact checking???

Will just say one thing: the minimum wage vs contract work split is precisely along party lines. It is an article of faith among Democrats that a higher minimum wage will be good for the middle class. Republicans however can point to plenty of data showing that increasing the minimum wage decreases available entry level jobs, which kinda just makes sense. So if you passed a minimum wage law AND banned contract work, you'd really be putting the screws on.
If what you say is true, then that would solidly cement me as an Independent. I'm against the blanket $15 minimum wage AND would never, ever ban contract work.

Vinny
The voters just approved a measure mandating a $15 hour wage here in Florida. I have no idea what they were thinking. I'm not sure what is the full extent of it but if it applies to restaurants and small businesses what a gift it must have been to them while they are still trying to stay afloat during Covid.
I assume that I am preaching to the choir here with almost no exceptions when I write the following?

1) If there is to be a minimum wage then it should not be done on a federal level but only on a state level (and, ideally, even on a locality by locality basis)? $15/hour where I live is going to go much farther than $15/hour in New York City or San Francisco or innumerable other places in the country.

2) A minimum wage is going to be inflationary. Those already at $15/hour will then want more and so on. Raising costs of workers will eventually cause a rise the the selling prices for certain products that all consumers buy.

I'm essentially a free market person when it comes to wages. Generally, the more skills you have to offer the more you will get paid. Generally, the more skilled employees an organization or business has the more effective / profitable it will be. Therefore, if you want to earn more as an employee, increase your skills. If you want to be more effective as a business / organization pay your employees more so that you get the more skilled employees.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply