(08-11-2020 09:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 08:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Are they not? Is that your point?

This board doesn't make it easy to understand inflection/tone. It wasn't clear if you were just pointing out that these scientists were experts, so we should listen to them. Or their findings were bunk and you were being sarcastic by calling them experts.

That's why I was asking you what your point was - you left a rather cryptic comment.

I thought I did a good job explaining my comment in full - their research confirms some initial thoughts on buffs that I have heard, and I think they do a good job communicating the conclusions of their study.

I share Lad's confusion re: OO's comment about "experts". His subsequent comments haven't shed additional light on it for me.

Welcome back, 93. I hope your absence has been to a heavy work load and not anything more dire.

So much suspicion. Is this normal for leftists? I quote the experts and y'all begin to doubt. It's like I said "Good Day" and your immediate response is "What did he mean by that?" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A famous expert doctor said that, I believe. Or maybe a President. I'm not sure.

Of course, scientists and doctors are experts. Every single one of them. Would it have made it better had I not said they were experts?

Cool - just seemed like you were alluding to some grander meaning than just pointing out that the people conducting the study were experts.

And given that plenty of posts on this board have derided experts and scientific studies, it really wasn't clear if you were implying anything with the statement. I was looking for clarification, and you've let me know there was no implication. Thanks

I thought I had done that with my statement on wearing masks.

Yes, there has been much said here and in the news about who is an expert and who isn't.

If all that is needed to be an expert is a medical degree and/or a science degree, then we have way too many experts. I thought, privately, that ten trials was way too few to be scientifically valid, but then I am not a scientist nor a doctor.

But I was met with derison a few months back when I suggested we had our own experts right here. A doctor, a couple of lawyers,and a former intelligence analyst/military officer. People with tax expertise. The gist I got from the left on this board was that we could not be experts,because we held the wrong views. So I guess whether or not one is an expert depends somewhat on what conclusions they reach. We see this a lot in the climate debate.

I think the word "scientist" is used wrongly in this debate. I think the word of a geologist or a physicist is relatively meaningless in the virus debate, yet they are undeniably "Scientists".

I tend to take the words of experts with a grain of salt. Experts are often wrong or biased. But the wearing of masks is, to me, just common sense. Which mask is best, I will take the word of this tiny little study until I see something I trust more. Of course, to my common sense, any mask is better than no mask, which is not the finding of this tiny study. So off I head to the grocery store, wearing my black cloth mask with the valve.

So you and 93 can go back to work feeling better about my mental progress, and I will go get some groceries before the store gets crowded.

(08-11-2020 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  FWIW, I think Lad and 93 come down on the expertise side, and OO and Tanq and Hambone and I come down on the common sense side of that divide.

Mostly, I come down on the idea that 'whom some people believe' has more to do with what some people think before the 'experts' speak... confirmation bias.

I see it with the right... some of whom are all up in arms about the slippery slope of mask regulations, putting out 'expert opinions' about how cloth masks don't stop viruses and the like, which is all 100% true, but misses/ignores the point of 'reducing pandemic spread through water droplets'.

I see it with the left... similarly picking and choosing which experts to believe and when and under what context... and then acting like their choice was the only possible logical one at the time in the face of such uncertainty.... and therefore the only logical response to it is to ignore every other electoral factor and vote now for people whose primary qualifications in this regard are, they didn't have to do ANYTHING.

I see fundamental differences in left/right attitudes, and maybe this is WHY people go left/right.

The left I see as being more subservient/obedient to authority. I see their reliance on experts as making them the targets of "four out five doctors recommend" type advertising. So they are the "science is in" gang. all they need is a man in a white coat to tell them what to believe. Tell a group of leftists that the police are trying to kill them, and they will believe.

The right I see more as what I have called here before "independent cusses". Less accepting of meekly doing as told, for example, wearing of masks. In a lot of us, this translates to not being ready to believe what we are told without more evidence.

For example, I, a self-proclaimed independent cuss, do not swallow the systemic racism myth. The evidence suggests otherwise. I also do not swallow the Russian collusion myth. Logic and evidence suggest other wise. OTOH, I do agree the Earth is warming - evidence suggests that. But I don't accept the myth that it is all due to recent human activity and also the myth that it is reversible through changing the laws in a tiny percentage of the world - or even the whole world.

But the left have been told these things, and so they meekly accept them as true, just as medieval peasantry accepted that kings ruled by divine right.

BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.

Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).

To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.

We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.

Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).

To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.

We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

Thank you.

(08-12-2020 09:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see fundamental differences in left/right attitudes, and maybe this is WHY people go left/right.

The left I see as being more subservient/obedient to authority. I see their reliance on experts as making them the targets of "four out five doctors recommend" type advertising. So they are the "science is in" gang. all they need is a man in a white coat to tell them what to believe. Tell a group of leftists that the police are trying to kill them, and they will believe.

The right I see more as what I have called here before "independent cusses". Less accepting of meekly doing as told, for example, wearing of masks. In a lot of us, this translates to not being ready to believe what we are told without more evidence.

For example, I, a self-proclaimed independent cuss, do not swallow the systemic racism myth. The evidence suggests otherwise. I also do not swallow the Russian collusion myth. Logic and evidence suggest other wise. OTOH, I do agree the Earth is warming - evidence suggests that. But I don't accept the myth that it is all due to recent human activity and also the myth that it is reversible through changing the laws in a tiny percentage of the world - or even the whole world.

But the left have been told these things, and so they meekly accept them as true, just as medieval peasantry accepted that kings ruled by divine right.

As to the bolded above, I see the left as far more prone to exercise such authority, many times just for the sake of power.

I think the left over the last twenty years has firmly established themselves as far more prone to be authoritarian, and at the same time far more prone to leave the ideals classical liberalism wallowing in a pit.

(08-12-2020 09:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see fundamental differences in left/right attitudes, and maybe this is WHY people go left/right.

The left I see as being more subservient/obedient to authority. I see their reliance on experts as making them the targets of "four out five doctors recommend" type advertising. So they are the "science is in" gang. all they need is a man in a white coat to tell them what to believe. Tell a group of leftists that the police are trying to kill them, and they will believe.

The right I see more as what I have called here before "independent cusses". Less accepting of meekly doing as told, for example, wearing of masks. In a lot of us, this translates to not being ready to believe what we are told without more evidence.

For example, I, a self-proclaimed independent cuss, do not swallow the systemic racism myth. The evidence suggests otherwise. I also do not swallow the Russian collusion myth. Logic and evidence suggest other wise. OTOH, I do agree the Earth is warming - evidence suggests that. But I don't accept the myth that it is all due to recent human activity and also the myth that it is reversible through changing the laws in a tiny percentage of the world - or even the whole world.

But the left have been told these things, and so they meekly accept them as true, just as medieval peasantry accepted that kings ruled by divine right.

As to the bolded above, I see the left as far more prone to exercise such authority, many times just for the sake of power.

I think the left over the last twenty years has firmly established themselves as far more prone to be authoritarian, and at the same time far more prone to leave the ideals classical liberalism wallowing in a pit.

The queen ants exercise it, the soldier ants follow it. Without the soldiers, the queens are nothing.

(08-12-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.
Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).
To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.
We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

Thank you.

And as I said above, I think you, Tanq, Hambone, and I are distrustful of “experts” and fall more on the side of common sense.

(08-12-2020 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.
Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).
To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.
We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

Thank you.

And as I said above, I think you, Tanq, Hambone, and I are distrustful of “experts” and fall more on the side of common sense.

I will examine the evidence and/or arguments and decide for myself, as usual.

(08-12-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.
Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).
To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.
We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

Thank you.

And as I said above, I think you, Tanq, Hambone, and I are distrustful of “experts” and fall more on the side of common sense.

I will examine the evidence and/or arguments and decide for myself, as usual.

I'm pretty sure that's what the leftists on this board do as well.

(08-12-2020 03:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.
Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).
To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.
We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

Thank you.

And as I said above, I think you, Tanq, Hambone, and I are distrustful of “experts” and fall more on the side of common sense.

I will examine the evidence and/or arguments and decide for myself, as usual.

I'm pretty sure that's what the leftists on this board to as well.

I see no evidence of that. They all seem pretty united in defending the positions du jour. what are the differences between you and lad and Big and the party platform?

(08-12-2020 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 03:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Thank you.

And as I said above, I think you, Tanq, Hambone, and I are distrustful of “experts” and fall more on the side of common sense.

I will examine the evidence and/or arguments and decide for myself, as usual.

I'm pretty sure that's what the leftists on this board to as well.

I see no evidence of that. They all seem pretty united in defending the positions du jour. what are the differences between you and lad and Big and the party platform?

Are you implying that you, #s, and Tanq show significant disparity in the positions that you take on this forum?

(08-12-2020 07:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 03:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And as I said above, I think you, Tanq, Hambone, and I are distrustful of “experts” and fall more on the side of common sense.

I will examine the evidence and/or arguments and decide for myself, as usual.

I'm pretty sure that's what the leftists on this board to as well.

I see no evidence of that. They all seem pretty united in defending the positions du jour. what are the differences between you and lad and Big and the party platform?

Are you implying that you, #s, and Tanq show significant disparity in the positions that you take on this forum?

More than you guys, and we all have differences not only with each other, but with the Republican party lines. Heck, numbers calls them the stupid party.

Do you guys show ANY disparity? Am I just not noticing you guys debating with each other?

What do y'all disagree on? Is one of you pro-life or pro-gun, or pro-Trump? Do any of you think Trump reacted well to the virus? What are your differences?

The party line is more controls on guns, higher taxes, more regulations on oil, more abortion rights, more LGBTQ rights, less enforcement of border laws, and so forth. Does anybody differ with those?

(08-12-2020 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 07:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 03:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I will examine the evidence and/or arguments and decide for myself, as usual.

I'm pretty sure that's what the leftists on this board to as well.

I see no evidence of that. They all seem pretty united in defending the positions du jour. what are the differences between you and lad and Big and the party platform?

Are you implying that you, #s, and Tanq show significant disparity in the positions that you take on this forum?

More than you guys, and we all have differences not only with each other, but with the Republican party lines. Heck, numbers calls them the stupid party.

Do you guys show ANY disparity? Am I just not noticing you guys debating with each other?

What do y'all disagree on? Is one of you pro-life or pro-gun, or pro-Trump? Do any of you think Trump reacted well to the virus? What are your differences?

The party line is more controls on guns, higher taxes, more regulations on oil, more abortion rights, more LGBTQ rights, less enforcement of border laws, and so forth. Does anybody differ with those?

Let’s see, in the broadest of strokes, because that is where it started:
Pro-choice, not anti-gun, anti-Trump, Trump has absolutely **** the bed when it has come to COVID-19.

I am supportive of some increases in firearm restrictions, but firmly believe that there is a place for them in the country when it comes to self defense and sport. I support a more robust tax structure that remains somewhat progressive and am more than open to a complete overhaul of the system - I’m much more anti-cut taxes as a panacea. I support legislation that is protective of the environment by regulating emissions of all kinds and encouraging alternative energy development. I like laws that leverage the free market and realize the negative or positive externalities of energy production to help account for those. **** yeah I support more abortion rights - it’s not my place to get between a woman and her decision, and I would prefer that our government do the same. **** yeah I support more LQGBTQ rights - that discrimination exists and we should provide legal means to protect those individuals as best we can. I don’t support less border enforcement, I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.

I fall squarely out of line with the current iteration of the Republican Party, because I just have very middle of the road responses to a number of policy positions, and the Republican Party seems to be vehemently opposed to even those middle of the road policies.

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has absolutely **** the bed when it has come to COVID-19.

As I said you would. No surprise here, and no differentiation from your friends or the party.

I am supportive of some increases in firearm restrictions,

Yup, like I said. Once again, no differentiation from the party or your friends.

I support a more robust tax structure

. yup, as expected. As do your friends and the party. You seem to have missed my reasons for wanting lower taxes - like your friends and your party.

I support legislation that is protective of the environment by regulating emissions of all kinds .

As I said. Like your friends and party. This is getting repetitive.


**** yeah I support more abortion rights - it’s not my place to get between a woman and her decision, and I would prefer that our government do the same.

nothing new here - as I predicted. Same as your friends and your party. I will say that the government gets in between a lot of people and a lot of their decisions anyway, so why is this one different? Try selling a kidney.
Personally, I neither support nor oppose abortion rights, and that is one way I am different from others. I do think the reasons you and your friends and your party give do not hold water.

**** yeah I support more LQGBTQ rights - that discrimination exists and we should provide legal means to protect those individuals as best we can.

I am largely in agreement, but the point was this support is not only expected, but the same as your brethren.

I don’t support less border enforcement, You don't support more border enforcement, either, right? Same as your buddies

I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.
If people want to come in using legal procedures and live here and work here legally like the rest of us, fine. That is not what is happening when people swim the river or overstay their visas. You want to send them back? Yes or no? That really would be different from the others. Your party wants to give them incentives to stay.
.

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let’s see, in the broadest of strokes, because that is where it started:
Pro-choice, not anti-gun, anti-Trump, Trump has absolutely **** the bed when it has come to COVID-19.
I am supportive of some increases in firearm restrictions, but firmly believe that there is a place for them in the country when it comes to self defense and sport. I support a more robust tax structure that remains somewhat progressive and am more than open to a complete overhaul of the system - I’m much more anti-cut taxes as a panacea. I support legislation that is protective of the environment by regulating emissions of all kinds and encouraging alternative energy development. I like laws that leverage the free market and realize the negative or positive externalities of energy production to help account for those. **** yeah I support more abortion rights - it’s not my place to get between a woman and her decision, and I would prefer that our government do the same. **** yeah I support more LQGBTQ rights - that discrimination exists and we should provide legal means to protect those individuals as best we can. I don’t support less border enforcement, I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.
I fall squarely out of line with the current iteration of the Republican Party, because I just have very middle of the road responses to a number of policy positions, and the Republican Party seems to be vehemently opposed to even those middle of the road policies.

So basically a bunch of vapid platitudes. Responding from the top:

I don't think our handling of CV-19 has been sterling, by any means, but I'm not sure how to blame it on Trump. If you have some basis for doing so, please share. We just aren't set up as a nation to respond to emergencies, and the "experts" in this case were a bunch of public health bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response.

Exactly what increases in firearm restrictions do you favor? I favor regulating shooters, not guns. Have a license that is required to purchase or possess firearms or ammo. You have to take a safety course, pass written and demo tests, and it is linked to the criminal database. The restrictions being pushed by the left are generally things that have never had a material impact on gun violence.

I favor the income tax approach recommended by Bowles-Simpson and Domenicu-Rivlin--lower and flatter tax rates over a broader tax base (fewer or no exclusions and deductions). And I favor Bismarck universal private health care/insurance and a subsistence-level universal basic income (UBI), based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT) or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, which is basically the NIT in a consumption tax paradigm, and pay for it with a national consumption tax, which also has trade protection implications.

As far as the environment, we have gotten past environmental protection to massive power grabs by EPA. I would tell them to get back to protecting the environment. Like you claim to be, I'm a supporter of free market solutions wherever possible. Create a private right to a clean environment and let people sue. Do some sort of carbon tax or cap and trade. But draconian mandates to get off fossil fuels by arbitrary deadlines ignore the fact that before we can get OFF anything, we have to have something to get onto to replace it. And we don't have that yet

What more abortion rights do you support? I mean, what's left?

Same for LGBTQ rights. What's left?

I support a rational, merit-based immigration policy, like the rest of the world. I support guest worker status with no path to citizenship other than military service for illegals.

Neither R's nor D's fit me.

(08-12-2020 11:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let’s see, in the broadest of strokes, because that is where it started:
Pro-choice, not anti-gun, anti-Trump, Trump has absolutely **** the bed when it has come to COVID-19.
I am supportive of some increases in firearm restrictions, but firmly believe that there is a place for them in the country when it comes to self defense and sport. I support a more robust tax structure that remains somewhat progressive and am more than open to a complete overhaul of the system - I’m much more anti-cut taxes as a panacea. I support legislation that is protective of the environment by regulating emissions of all kinds and encouraging alternative energy development. I like laws that leverage the free market and realize the negative or positive externalities of energy production to help account for those. **** yeah I support more abortion rights - it’s not my place to get between a woman and her decision, and I would prefer that our government do the same. **** yeah I support more LQGBTQ rights - that discrimination exists and we should provide legal means to protect those individuals as best we can. I don’t support less border enforcement, I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.
I fall squarely out of line with the current iteration of the Republican Party, because I just have very middle of the road responses to a number of policy positions, and the Republican Party seems to be vehemently opposed to even those middle of the road policies.

So basically a bunch of vapid platitudes. Responding from the top:

I don't think our handling of CV-19 has been sterling, by any means, but I'm not sure how to blame it on Trump. If you have some basis for doing so, please share. We just aren't set up as a nation to respond to emergencies, and the "experts" in this case were a bunch of public health bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response.

Exactly what increases in firearm restrictions do you favor? I favor regulating shooters, not guns. Have a license that is required to purchase or possess firearms or ammo. You have to take a safety course, pass written and demo tests, and it is linked to the criminal database. The restrictions being pushed by the left are generally things that have never had a material impact on gun violence.

I favor the income tax approach recommended by Bowles-Simpson and Domenicu-Rivlin--lower and flatter tax rates over a broader tax base (fewer or no exclusions and deductions). And I favor Bismarck universal private health care/insurance and a subsistence-level universal basic income (UBI), based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT) or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, which is basically the NIT in a consumption tax paradigm, and pay for it with a national consumption tax, which also has trade protection implications.

As far as the environment, we have gotten past environmental protection to massive power grabs by EPA. I would tell them to get back to protecting the environment. Like you claim to be, I'm a supporter of free market solutions wherever possible. Create a private right to a clean environment and let people sue. Do some sort of carbon tax or cap and trade. But draconian mandates to get off fossil fuels by arbitrary deadlines ignore the fact that before we can get OFF anything, we have to have something to get onto to replace it. And we don't have that yet

What more abortion rights do you support? I mean, what's left?

Same for LGBTQ rights. What's left?

I support a rational, merit-based immigration policy, like the rest of the world. I support guest worker status with no path to citizenship other than military service for illegals.

Neither R's nor D's fit me.

Given that the list from OO was so extensive, I didn’t feel like trying to outline all the specific policy positions I support/oppose. It felt like a broader opinion on each issue was more appropriate, or the “vapid platitudes” as you so succinctly stated in a rather dickish manner.

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.

As seems to be normal for you, your friends, and your party, you are unable to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

I am fine with your statement for legals - people who come over filling out the correct paperwork and with the correct permits. I have people like this in my family - my cousin is married to one, and he has been here 40 years and works and supports his family and pays his taxes. I have the highest respect for Miguel. He is still a Mexican citizen.

But there are others, who will not or cannot do it right. The assumption you make that they want to work and pay taxes is not all always true, especially the pay taxes part.. Dodging taxes is widely accepted in mexico as normal, at all levels of society. Why do you think getting wet when they cross the river makes them change? Your plan and the plan of your party, is for somebody to meet them on the north bank with a towel, a driver's license, an EBT card, and a housing voucher, it seems.

Their education level and skills are the mean by which they can get jobs and support themselves. Would your company hire an illiterate worker with no skills or experience who cannot even speak English, just because he wants the work? If they do, does that mean some American does not get the job?

Finally, though, the path to citizenship. This is the Holy Grail for you, your friends, and your party. There already exists a path. It is called doing things legally. Miguel could avail himself of this, if he wanted - Miguel has done everything right.
What you guys - you, your friends, and your party - want is an easy path for those who cheat. More Democrats.

Finally, you bring up the old bromide - they just want a better life. Well, which criminal does not? Is the guy dealing drugs or holding up banks doing because he want a worse life? And BTW, anyone can have a better life if they don't pay their taxes. What a useless argument.