Study suggests there is one Democratic Party and three Republican parties.
Trump is connecting with the winning coalition-Socially conservative but economically middle of the road or even left of center.
There's the economic and social conservatives like Cruz.
The "marginal third" Republican group is the Libertarians-socially liberal but economically conservative.
Article doesn't really consider the "establishment" a group, but simply leaders who view everything only on a economic axis and are conservative economically.
What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.
Abortion almost certainly saves money because fewer people are on welfare.
Hard to see any significant financial impact of gay marriage. Spousal benefits, I suppose, but those basically cover things that somebody has to pay for anyway.
Maybe drugs in the sense of treatment costs. But places that have decriminalized spend less on law enforcement and have found that treatment costs go down.
Study suggests there is one Democratic Party and three Republican parties.
Trump is connecting with the winning coalition-Socially conservative but economically middle of the road or even left of center.
There's the economic and social conservatives like Cruz.
The "marginal third" Republican group is the Libertarians-socially liberal but economically conservative.
Article doesn't really consider the "establishment" a group, but simply leaders who view everything only on a economic axis and are conservative economically.
Me and many former democrats before far left idiot losers took over the party
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2017 01:16 PM by shere khan.)
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.
Abortion almost certainly saves money because fewer people are on welfare.
Hard to see any significant financial impact of gay marriage. Spousal benefits, I suppose, but those basically cover things that somebody has to pay for anyway.
Maybe drugs in the sense of treatment costs. But places that have decriminalized spend less on law enforcement and have found that treatment costs go down.
Agree with your list. My guess is that he's referring to tolerance of homosexuality costing taxpayers money thru treatment for AIDS and HIV. Only example I can think of.
(06-30-2017 01:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: The dems are in the process of splintering off as they are overran by SJWs, BLM, antifa, ISIS, etc., so there is at least 5.
Edit: Unless like in shere's case, they all just become Republicans.
I agree, I hate SJWs and their heavy handed tactics to thwart freedom of speech and Antifa is ironically the most openly fascist group around. BLM had some legit grievances but their lack of leadership and messaging led to behaviour that is indefensible. Overran by ISIS though? Lol republicans almost make good points sometimes before the talk radio stupidity slips out.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
Such as?
Are you kidding me? Let's start with open borders. We are such kind social liberals so we not only tolerate illegals, but we give them driver's licences so they can drive (often with no insurance) and vote, we educate them, we put them on the dole, we add more police protection, we hike security, we stress our first responders, and we rebuild buildings they fly planes into and clean up cities where pressure cooker bombs go off. Do we need to go further? What about all those feel good educational programs to fight things like bullying, mental health, diversity, or school lunch menus that do nothing but employ an army of fat arsed, paper pushing ugly women that are overpaid to follow flow charts and fill out checklists? Seriously, dude, wake up. Libertarianism that creates more freedom is fine, but social liberalism is a phucking cancer and a very expensive one.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
Such as?
Are you kidding me? Let's start with open borders. We are such kind social liberals so we not only tolerate illegals, but we give them driver's licences so they can drive (often with no insurance) and vote, we educate them, we put them on the dole, we add more police protection, we hike security, we stress our first responders, and we rebuild buildings they fly planes into and clean up cities where pressure cooker bombs go off. Do we need to go further? What about all those feel good educational programs to fight things like bullying, mental health, diversity, or school lunch menus that do nothing but employ an army of fat arsed, paper pushing ugly women that are overpaid to follow flow charts and fill out checklists? Seriously, dude, wake up. Libertarianism that creates more freedom is fine, but social liberalism is a phucking cancer and a very expensive one.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Your single biggest issue in this paragraph was open borders - more specifically illegal immigration. For the longest time, this was a BIPARTISAN desire where the GOP saw them as a cheap source of labor while the Dems saw them as a political block to exploit. BOTH PARTIES were in favor of this until the Dems started extracting more value from them thru votes than the GOP supporters got thru cheap labor.
The problem is putting the genie back into the bottle. It was not a true case of social liberalism. It was a bipartisan effort to exploit downtrodden people who could not efficiently immigrate legally.
(06-30-2017 01:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: The dems are in the process of splintering off as they are overran by SJWs, BLM, antifa, ISIS, etc., so there is at least 5.
Edit: Unless like in shere's case, they all just become Republicans.
I agree, I hate SJWs and their heavy handed tactics to thwart freedom of speech and Antifa is ironically the most openly fascist group around. BLM had some legit grievances but their lack of leadership and messaging led to behaviour that is indefensible. Overran by ISIS though? Lol republicans almost make good points sometimes before the talk radio stupidity slips out.
I'm against SJWs as a whole because their association with you is based only on your allegiance to them.
As soon as they see that I'm black and not a dem, they won't want anything to do with me. If Muslims went Republican (which really isn't that farfetched), they'd want nothing to do with them.
BLM had a good cause, but as you said: No leadership. While you have the people who try to improve relations with police officers in the movement, nobody's there to stop the revenge bent people. It's why I could never get with the movement.
(06-30-2017 01:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: The dems are in the process of splintering off as they are overran by SJWs, BLM, antifa, ISIS, etc., so there is at least 5.
Edit: Unless like in shere's case, they all just become Republicans.
I agree, I hate SJWs and their heavy handed tactics to thwart freedom of speech and Antifa is ironically the most openly fascist group around. BLM had some legit grievances but their lack of leadership and messaging led to behaviour that is indefensible. Overran by ISIS though? Lol republicans almost make good points sometimes before the talk radio stupidity slips out.
Yes, ISIS. Linda Sarsour (sharia law advocate and ISIS sympathizer) and Rasmea Odeh (convicted terrorist) are the faces of left-wing feminism. Leftist women are being taught that wearing a hajib is what it means to be a feminist.
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.
'they' (ME) are talking about giving away money to those that have the incentive to pump out more puppies for no reason other than to pump out puppies....
#refreshercourse
there's a reason owl is a libertarian....I'm a centrist.....does the label really matter....
there should NEVER be incentive to have pups unless the economics demand such (see china's latest move)
I don't give two shites about the stupid stuffin's.....
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2017 04:11 PM by stinkfist.)
(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote: What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.
Such as?
Marijuana legalization. That is most definitely a social-lib policy that has a very high fiscal cost.
(06-30-2017 01:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: The dems are in the process of splintering off as they are overran by SJWs, BLM, antifa, ISIS, etc., so there is at least 5.
Edit: Unless like in shere's case, they all just become Republicans.
I agree, I hate SJWs and their heavy handed tactics to thwart freedom of speech and Antifa is ironically the most openly fascist group around. BLM had some legit grievances but their lack of leadership and messaging led to behaviour that is indefensible. Overran by ISIS though? Lol republicans almost make good points sometimes before the talk radio stupidity slips out.
Yes, ISIS. Linda Sarsour (sharia law advocate and ISIS sympathizer) and Rasmea Odeh (convicted terrorist) are the faces of left-wing feminism. Leftist women are being taught that wearing a hajib is what it means to be a feminist.
Who? These people speak for liberals like David Duke speaks for republicans. Idiots can be cherry picked from both sides... Also a feminist Muslim is an oxymoron.
Democrats are the party of separation of church and state, republicans... not so much.
ISIS members are hardline conservatives, stop projecting your ideological extremes on us.
(06-30-2017 04:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: These people speak for liberals like David Duke speaks for republicans.
David Duke is fringe. Sarsour and Odeh aren't fringe, they are propped up as thought leaders and rising stars of your party. They were the founders of the Women's March and "A Day Without Women". Sarsour was invited to give the commencement speech at SUNY.
(06-30-2017 04:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: Also a feminist Muslim is an oxymoron.
I agree. Your party does not.
(06-30-2017 04:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: Democrats are the party of separation of church and state
The Christian church and state, yes, but they are teaming up with radical islam because they share a common goal.
(06-30-2017 04:29 PM)Godzilla Wrote: ISIS members are hardline conservatives
Technically correct, but just because it is a contradiction doesn't mean that the alliance doesn't exist.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2017 05:21 PM by Kronke.)
Study suggests there is one Democratic Party and three Republican parties.
Trump is connecting with the winning coalition-Socially conservative but economically middle of the road or even left of center.
There's the economic and social conservatives like Cruz.
The "marginal third" Republican group is the Libertarians-socially liberal but economically conservative.
Article doesn't really consider the "establishment" a group, but simply leaders who view everything only on a economic axis and are conservative economically.
Me and many former democrats before far left idiot losers took over the party
I'm one of y'all. Still registered as a D and everything....I just think the party is a bunch of mentally ill azzclowns now.