The Democrat Utopia

JJ Husker said:
IDK, ole JD sure had a weird defense of racist attacks on his wife. Almost as if he didn’t want to offend the racists. But he loves his wife and calls her a good mom….

Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is,” he told host Megyn Kelly on her show Friday. “Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.”

“She’s such a good mom,” Vance added of his wife. “She’s such a brilliant lawyer, and I’m so proud of her. But yes, her experience has given me some perspective on the way in which it’s really hard for working families in this country.”

Pretty lackluster denouncement of what has been said about her. But she’s a good lawyer so maybe if his kids are good at something too….
Click to expand...
Kind of reminds me of Ted Spineless, U-Turn Cruz

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/24/one-day-after-endorsement-cruz-refuses-say-trump-f/

In an interview with the Texas Tribune’s Evan Smith, Cruz said he endorsed Trump because the November election is a binary choice between Hillary Clinton and Trump. The junior senator from Texas and unsuccessful presidential candidate said he is voting Trump because he worries Clinton would appoint liberal justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and do damage to the country. 

Smith asked: “Do you consider Donald Trump to be fit to be president?”

Cruz paused, then answered: “I think we have one of two choices.”

But that was as far as he was willing to go. With each of his carefully worded answers, Cruz made clear that he worries about what a Trump presidency would mean. And he still struggles with some of the things Trump did during the campaign, such as mock Cruz’s wife’s looks and suggest without any evidence that Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

“I have no intention of defending everything Donald Trump says and does,” he said. “I have been very clear that I have significant disagreements with him.”
Click to expand...


This article states 9 times Cruz insults the Felon. (Not unlike JD making all of his negative comments about the Felon before he needed the Felon) Put # 9 is pathetic.  He states one thing at the convention breakfast and then later endorses the Felon.    He did indeed go like a servile puppy dog to become one of the Felon's biggest lap dogs.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/ted-cruz-donald-trump-insults-endorse-228594

9. In July, Cruz still hadn’t forgiven Trump for the attacks on his family

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” Cruz said, answering questions at a Texas delegation breakfast at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and facing backlash for not yet endorsing Trump.

Referring to his pledge to support his party’s nominee, Cruz said that statement “was not a blanket commitment that if you slander and attack Heidi I’m going to nonetheless go like a servile puppy dog” and support him.
Click to expand...




Less we forget, The Felon, spent a lot of time attacking the wives of his competition in 2016.   His wife was his trophy wife 'thing' he used to compare to everyone else.  What a narcistic POS.   He's trying to slander VP Harris in the same way but it won't work this time around. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-under-fire-for-jabs-aimed-at-cruzs-wife

“Meet Melania Trump. Your Next First Lady. Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday,” it read. Trump responded by falsely accusing Cruz of running the ad and warning, “Be careful, Lyin’ Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!” Cruz’s wife is a former Goldman Sachs investment manager and White House aide, who served as economic policy adviser to President George W. Bush.

On Wednesday night, Trump escalated things when he re-tweeted side-by-side images of Cruz’s wife, with an unflattering grimace, and Melania in a gauzy, glamorous pose. “No need to ‘spill the beans'” read the caption. “The images are worth a thousand words.”

At an event Thursday in Wisconsin, Cruz responded by calling Trump “a sniveling coward” who has a problem with women – particularly “strong women.”

Cruz continued to dig in Friday, painting Trump’s comments as part of a larger pattern of misogyny.

“He’s directed these attacks at Megyn Kelly. He’s directed these attacks at Carly Fiorina. He’s directed these attacks at Columba Bush, Jeb Bush’s wife,” he said.

Though Trump continues to outdistance Cruz in the delegates that will decide the GOP nomination, recent polls have shown the billionaire’s favorability on the decline, particularly among women.

In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 70 percent of women had a negative opinion of Trump. Nearly three quarters of women overall, and 39 percent of Republican women, had an unfavorable view of him in a recent CNN poll.

“He already had a gender gap prior to all this,” said Republican pollster David Winston. “The potential for that to be bigger now looms on the horizon.”
Click to expand...

 
Archy1221 said:
I guess I’d have to see or hear from the people you speak of.   If you reference someone who doesn’t believe in a hand up then I would agree with you.  If you are talking about someone who doesn’t believe in a perpetual hand up or hand out for someone who is  perfectly capable of getting back on their feet then I would disagree with you. 
Click to expand...


I'm talking about people who use public libraries, attend public schools, accept government handouts, and take advantage of federal programs that allow them to rise above their economic birth status. Then having achieved success, they want to withhold it from the people now underneath them. People much like they were, who now strike the fledgling Republicans as lazy and dependent. 

As you are keen to do, you've inserted the words "perpetual hand out" to muddle the larger point.

Actually Craig T. Nelson already made your case on Glen Beck saying "I was on welfare. I was on food stamps. Did anyone help me?" with neither conservative influencer catching the massive irony. 





 
Guy Chamberlin said:
As you are keen to do, you've inserted the words "perpetual hand out" to muddle the larger point
Click to expand...
That’s actually an extremely important distinction which you purposely ignore as you are keen to do.  
 

I’m of the opinion, the mass majority of Republicans are quite fine supporting libraries, public schools, government assistance programs for those in temporary need (and yes I include in this long term need programs for those unable to take care of themselves).  Medicaid programs for the above folks mentioned.  
 

Im also of the opinion, most Republicans would like to not have to pay for the people perpetually looking for handouts who are fully capable of taking care of themselves but decide it’s easier to squeak out an existence of the government rather than provide for themselves.   
 

That distinction is important and quite a difference.  

 
Archy1221 said:
That’s actually an extremely important distinction which you purposely ignore as you are keen to do.  
 

I’m of the opinion, the mass majority of Republicans are quite fine supporting libraries, public schools, government assistance programs for those in temporary need (and yes I include in this long term need programs for those unable to take care of themselves).  Medicaid programs for the above folks mentioned.  
 

Im also of the opinion, most Republicans would like to not have to pay for the people perpetually looking for handouts who are fully capable of taking care of themselves but decide it’s easier to squeak out an existence of the government rather than provide for themselves.   
 

That distinction is important and quite a difference.  
Click to expand...


I'd say it's precisely as nuanced as your original post, saying that getting taxes withheld from their paychecks turns young people from socialists into conservatives. 

Also, you really need to check with your party about where they stand on supporting libraries, public schools, and government assistance programs. I think the ground has shifted under your feet a bit.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'd say it's precisely as nuanced as your original post, saying that getting taxes withheld from their paychecks turns young people from socialists into conservatives
Click to expand...
You mean the meme poking fun a liberal utopia youngsters who think the government can pay for everything and just tax everyone else for it.  They then realize how much income tax can be once they start paying and decide that the government should prioritize spending and not be all things to all people.  
 

i thought it was pretty nuanced in a meme sort of way.  
 

Guy Chamberlin said:
Also, you really need to check with your party about where they stand on supporting libraries, public schools, and government assistance programs. I think the ground has shifted under your feet a bit.
Click to expand...
You will probably find some “abolish the department of eduction” folks out there, but beyond that, please show me where the party, or even the main stream of the party is against libraries, government assistance programs and public schools.  
 

It’s possible you will find this and I will be shown that the ground has shifted under my feet.   I eagerly await to see.   

 
Archy1221 said:
You mean the meme poking fun a liberal utopia youngsters who think the government can pay for everything and just tax everyone else for it.  They then realize how much income tax can be once they start paying and decide that the government should prioritize spending and not be all things to all people.  
 

i thought it was pretty nuanced in a meme sort of way.  
 

You will probably find some “abolish the department of eduction” folks out there, but beyond that, please show me where the party, or even the main stream of the party is against libraries, government assistance programs and public schools.  
 

It’s possible you will find this and I will be shown that the ground has shifted under my feet.   I eagerly await to see.   
Click to expand...


It's also possible that I will provide you with the 900+ page Project 2025 blueprint written by Trump appointees and embraced by large swaths of the GOP, and you will declare it silly lib paranoia without reading it.

In fairness, Project 2025 is pretty f#&%ing crazy. But the presumptive Republican President and VP, Speaker of the House, and prominent congresspeople are quoting from it directly. In a simpler and better America, you'd say the Supreme Court would never let this stuff happen, but that ground has shifted under everyone's feet.

Of course in Archy world, if Republicans merely cripple the DOE and HHS rather than abolish them, you would say "see?"

Here's something shorter and simpler. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4171756-2024-republicans-want-to-eliminate-the-education-department-what-would-that-look-like/

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
It's also possible that I will provide you with the 900+ page Project 2025 blueprint written by Trump appointees and embraced by large swaths of the GOP, and you will declare it silly lib paranoia without reading it.
Click to expand...
You are correct that I will not be reading some 900 page manifesto you send me especially if you don’t read it first  :D

I don’t see it as silly Lib paranoia either though.  As you said, it comes from people across a swath of the Republican landscape.   Only going by public used reports, it seems that project has some extreme right ideas, moderate ideas and some in between.   I could be all wet with that assessment too given I haven’t read one page of it.  That said,  walk me through a realistically likely scenario on how the Department of Education actually gets abolished and the realistic aftermath?  
 

Would you also walk me through the realistic way Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/Treasury, etc….all go bye bye.  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Here's something shorter and simpler. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4171756-2024-republicans-want-to-eliminate-the-education-department-what-would-that-look-like/
Click to expand...


“There’ll be considerable savings, both in terms of salaries as well as other expenditures for programs that may not even be effective,” Butcher said.

In a report from The Heritage Foundationback in 2020, the group estimated billions would be saved if DOE was abolished. The report says eliminating the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services would save $4 billion over time, while taking away the Office of Postsecondary Education would cut $2.1 billion

Those against getting rid of DOE have said the difficulty with closing the department and delegating tasks elsewhere would be a bureaucratic nightmare and actually raise costs on taxpayers.”

This seems to be the fork in the road for that DOE argument.   I would be on the side saying there is probably redundancy in the DOE that could be shifted elsewhere.  As far as getting rid of that particular entity, one would have to prove to me that there is a backstop ensuring every kid in every state has an equal chance at a quality (I know, hard to define) education of their choosing.  How much does the federal government need to be involved in that?   It’s actually a good question.  But just saying dissolve the DOE without defining everything it does and planning out where those responsibilities move to or dissolve cause they are unnecessary would be irresponsible.  

Guy Chamberlin said:
Jesus. After I went to the trouble of flagging your predictable use of the word "abolished" and linking you to a short article with simple words and colorful pictures that directly address this. 
Click to expand...
Jesus, I was taking your long post piece by piece.   Have a little patience! 

 
Crusader Husker said:
My 2 cents

I would rather see the DOE go away and let the states decide how to do education.  

I would rather see the states handle all of the welfare and government "handouts"

Too much waste from Washington down.  

My 2 cents
Click to expand...
The federal govt is responsible for a decent chunk of education funds.  Especially for special education and other programs like Perkins funds for Career and Tech Ed.  Losing that funding would be a lot for states and local districts to pick up.  It can’t happen in reality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top