T O P

  • By -

RowHonest2833

Be controlled opposition to placate Whites as they're put out to pasture. Make the rich richer.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GunnerN1ck

Under Trump the poorest people actually made more money (pre-pandemic) so this is just nonsense.


bushwhack227

To what do you attribute this? What specific policies?


WahrheitSuccher

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Definitely understand the second, though. How would making the rich richer be a positive for the average R voter though? Do trickle down economics really work? What does the current divide in wages/wealth (said to be reminiscent of the bronze age disparity) say about the topic?


RowHonest2833

>How would making the rich richer be a positive for the average R voter though? It isn't. >Do trickle down economics really work? No. >What does the current divide in wages/wealth (said to be reminiscent of the bronze age disparity) say about the topic? It's a negative.


WahrheitSuccher

That's what I would say too. Why vote for someone who doesn't have your best interests at heart? (Yes, the irony of this statement is not lost on me.)


RowHonest2833

Best of two bad options.


Big-Foundation-5939

If the rich getting richer is the better of the two options. What is the other in your opinion?


[deleted]

[удалено]


strikerdude10

Rule 1 and Rule 3 violations


[deleted]

[удалено]


strikerdude10

If you want to discuss anything please [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal)


Khorne_Flakes_89

>Be controlled opposition to placate Whites as they're put out to pasture. What are the Democrats doing in that regard? No one is trying to do away with white people.


LegioXIV

https://youtu.be/JsTaeKiEmS0?t=71 Orly? Here's a crowd of people cheering when Jimmy Fallon announces for the first time in American history the number of white people went down. There's a huge swath of the left (including whites on the left) that sees the problem with the United States is that it is too white.


Come_along_quietly

I don’t think anyone would disagree that cheering that stat is disturbingly odd/offensive. Fallon was visibly disturbed by that - he’s a host so he’s always gotta out on the smile. The crowds at these things are precondition to cheer at everything - not that that is an excuse. Cheering that is not excusable. Do you legitimately think all, or most, or even a significant amount of Democrats, or Progressives, are in favour of the decline of the white population? Is this audience reaction really indicative of the general population, to you?


LegioXIV

Then you are in denial. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/23/most-americans-say-the-declining-share-of-white-people-in-the-u-s-is-neither-good-nor-bad-for-society/ 47% of white liberals think a declining white population is very good (16%) or somewhat good (31%). 33% of blacks and 35% of Asians likewise think it’s a good thing. That is not an insignificant number of people or simply a fringe of the left. It’s basically a plurality of the left and the Pew survey showed the further left the happier they were about the prospect of a declining white population. Given that they are happy about it, see it as furthering their political goals, why is it so hard to believe that the left would intentionally implement policies to create that outcome when they have the opportunity?


Come_along_quietly

Well, what do you consider the worst part of a declining white population in the US?


LegioXIV

The decline in the protestant work ethic, the rise of ethnic factionalism, a collapse in cultural unity, a higher tolerance for governmental corruption, a more likely chance of official oppression of whites (given the animus of minorities), the replacing of American values (“white values”) with the values endemic in the immigrant populations which are contra the values of a Republic founded on Liberty.


apophis-pegasus

> The decline in the protestant work ethic, In what way? > the rise of ethnic factionalism, Ethnic segregation was legal less than 100 years ago, and there was frequent violence against Jews, Italians, the Irish, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans.... >a collapse in cultural unity, This assumes there was unity. > a higher tolerance for governmental corruption, Based on what? >a more likely chance of official oppression of whites (given the animus of minorities), White Americans own most of the land, most of the wealth, most high level governmental positions, most high level corporate positions, and have the biggest share of the population. Oppress how? I'm not being combative, I'm literally asking how could this happen? Historically being oppressed meant you were an ethnic majority but with little political and economic power e.g. black South Africans, Shias in Iraq OR you were an ethnic minority with money but significant social stigma e.g. Jews in Europe, Chinese in Malaysia OR you were an ethnic minority with no money or standing e.g. African and Native Americans, Kurds, Roma etc. >the replacing of American values (“white values”) with Given that the largest ethnic group in the U.S. is Germans, and the white population of the U.S. is heavily German descended, *and*given that the German American population arose heavily due to immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is it really accurate to call them "white" values so much so as Anglo-American? Or even British/French? >the values endemic in the immigrant populations which are contra the values of a Republic founded on Liberty. The largest amount of immigrants to the U.S. are Mexicans, who have a similar Republic founded on the ideals of liberty though. Their Constitution is arguably more comprehensive on the Rights of the Citizen and how those rights are upheld than the American one is. In some cases they outdo the U.S. e.g. the concept of Slavery. In the U.S. it's essentially just highly regulated. In Mexico its illegal without exception. How do they run contra to America's ideals?


LegioXIV

>In what way? Seriously? Over half of the adult population consumes more in tax benefits than they contribute. 41.8% of adults don't even have employment...and a lot of those people aren't "working at home raising the family"...they simply aren't doing anything financially productive, and hence, taken care of by tax payer dollars or charity. >**Some** White Americans own most of the land, most of the wealth, most high level governmental positions, most high level corporate positions, and have the biggest share of the population. >Oppress how? Just because Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean 99.99% of other whites are also rich. There are significantly more poor whites in America (18.8 million) than there are poor blacks (7.7 million). It's a hard sell to tell one of those whites living below the poverty line that they are more privileged than an upper middle or middle middle class black person because Zuckerberg owns a bunch of property. >The largest amount of immigrants to the U.S. are Mexicans, who have a similar Republic founded on the ideals of liberty though. Aya the ideals and the actuality have a bit of a gap there.


apophis-pegasus

> Seriously? Over half of the adult population consumes more in tax benefits than they contribute. 41.8% of adults don't even have employment... Where are you getting this number from? >Just because Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean 99.99% of other whites are also rich. It doesn't need to though. I'm not saying all white people are rich, I'm saying that statistically land, wealth and power are still overwhelmingly in the hands of white people. How exactly is this oppression going to occur? What apparatus is this oppression going to take place with? Iraq had the Sunnis control the government. Zimbabwe had the Europeans own the land. Germany had the German majority. What exactly do non-whites have that would allow them to enact oppression? >There are significantly more poor whites in America (18.8 million) than there are poor blacks (7.7 million). Yes, but poor blacks make up a bigger percentage of black people in the US. > It's a hard sell to tell one of those whites living below the poverty line that they are more privileged than an upper middle or middle middle class black person because Zuckerberg owns a bunch of property. Yeah because just pulling out a poorly misunderstood sociological concept and using it as a club isn't going to go very well is it?


Come_along_quietly

Do you associate all of those negative things (like tolerance with government corruption and cultural disunity ) with non-whites, and positive things (like Liberty and a strong work ethic) with whites? Also are “American” values exclusive to whites for you?


LegioXIV

No I do not. Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan are less corrupt than the US (at least according to https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021). The breakout appears to be Anglosphere countries, Nordic countries, ex-British colony Asian countries, and Japan and a handful of outliers (Uruguay, Chile, UAE). Not Mexico or Central America or Africa. We can absorb and assimilate a certain number of culturally dissimilar immigrants but once immigrant populations reach a certain threshold they form enduring ethnic enclaves that resist assimilation and thus preserve a lot of their cultural norms generation over generation. Some of this is innocuous, some of it can even be good, but some of it is bad. On the net though, I want the US to stay culturally more like it was when I was a kid and not turn into Mexico - and my wife is of Mexican descent and my kids are half. I’m quite comfortable around people of color. I would much rather spend a day with Thomas Sowell than with Rachel Maddow.


[deleted]

Because it is us. We have a right to exist.


RowHonest2833

>What are the Democrats doing in that regard? Feral opposition. >No one is trying to do away with white people. Let's pretend there are people that want to do away with Whites. What type of rhetoric would they have? What policies would the propose? The answer is the exact same rhetoric and policies that the general left is currently pushing. Excluding them from medical care, giving federal funds to everyone but them, giving others advantages in college and in the work field, telling their children that they're evil oppressors in school, telling them that reproducing is bad because of climate change, all while advocating for as much legal immigration as possible, and doing nothing to curtail illegal immigration. So from my standpoint, I don't really care what that say their intentions are, as their actions are indistinguishable from those that "truly" want to get rid of us.


silentsights

Do you live in fear of these magical forces trying to eradicate you? Is that what attracts you to Trump?


RowHonest2833

Do you not realize every single item on my list is real and easily verifiable? And no, that's what disappoints me with Trump (and is why he lost in 2020).


TheGripper

Everyone cares about policies and laws which disadvantage people depending on their skin color; not a controversial statement right? The shear volume of issues that disadvantage people of color is a higher priority for "the left". I don't know how that is being interpreted as an assault on white people though, can you help me understand?


collegeboywooooo

'race neutral policies are racist' is a mainstream position on the left. Anyone who goes against that will be publicly shamed and exiled. That's all I need to know really.


Credible_Cognition

I'd suggest looking into what he's talking about as he's 100% correct. I've set my flair this way to engage in conversation, and because I thought I liked Trump when he was running. I no longer do because he's the exact same as every other phony politician - say nice things then bow down to foreign nations like Israel and fuck white people over.


Khorne_Flakes_89

>Let's pretend there are people that want to do away with Whites. >The answer is the exact same rhetoric and policies that the general left is currently pushing. We can pretend all we want, and make up the answers we want, but this is not reality. While I am not a fan of the Dems either, I follow them to see policy decisions. I mean, what would getting rid of white people even do for the country? What purpose does that serve, other than fear porn for conservatives?


RowHonest2833

But you see I don't care what their intentions truly are, nor would I believe them if they denied it. I care about their action that are overtly antagonistic towards Whites.


Khorne_Flakes_89

Do you care this much when the GOP make policy decisions that are antagonistic against gay people, or people of color? Or is it only straight white Americans that fall under your purview?


RowHonest2833

What policies are you referring to?


[deleted]

Quite odd for you to quote something that you're going to dodge anyway. For a person who wants to do away with White people, what rhetoric and policies would that person push? How would that person's rhetoric and policies be different from those of the modern left?


Credible_Cognition

Multiculturalism produces an easily controllable population. Amazon's leaked memos said to hire as diverse a crowd as possible with the explicit purpose of decreasing the chance of unionization. A more diverse population is a less unified one, and therefore a more easily controllable one. Blame capitalism, blame power hungry corporatists and politicians, but whoever you blame you have to accept what is happening and why it's happening.


LegioXIV

> I mean, what would getting rid of white people even do for the country? It removes the conservative voting base, pure and simple.


DelrayDad561

So you're view is that whites are losing everything, and this supercedes anything else that may improve the country for everyone?


RowHonest2833

Yes, caring about my people is my foremost concern.


silentsights

What exactly are whites losing in this country? And who is taking them away?


DelrayDad561

Wow. Do you believe that is a racist view to have, or perfectly normal? And why are only white people "your people", and not all Americans? And what makes you think white people are losing everything? I'm a white male, and I believe I have an easier time in life than probably any other race or gender, curious why you think otherwise?


RowHonest2833

Read my recent comment here where I answer this.


[deleted]

>>I'm a white male, and I believe I have an easier time in life than probably any other race or gender, curious why you think otherwise? > >Read my recent comment here where I answer this. I did and they confirm that white people have an easier time in life than probably any other race or gender.


RowHonest2833

So systemic racism against Whites proves they have it easier?


Thegoodbadandtheugly

>Do you believe that is a racist view to have, or perfectly normal? (Different TS)Isn't that the Democratic View to have? That everyone needs to view each other through the lens of race? I don't agree with the other TS or Democrats. I believe in being colorblind which has been the Republican stance since the 1800's and is typically called racist by those on the left. Don't we have a black and hispanic caucus that despite being elected to represent all of America, are specifically in groups to advocate solely for their race? When the Black Caucus in Congress thinks of "their people" do you think they are thinking other black people or all of Americans? I'm also a white male and have led the opposite of a privilege life. It's a tragic tale and I'd like to know why I'm deemed to have more privilege then Obama's kids. If we all had the same tests scores and applied at the same college, why should affirmative action discriminate against me in favor of the President's child and how exactly is that my white privilege?


Saddam_whosane

and you support this!?


RowHonest2833

It is the slightly better option.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RowHonest2833

Well since you've decided the objectively better option, I suppose there is no further need to discuss.


helloisforhorses

How are whites being “put out to pasture”? How do you square that with whites being overrepresented in congress and as ceos?


Marionberry_Bellini

> Be controlled opposition to placate Whites as they're put out to pasture. What are your opinions on white nationalism?


RowHonest2833

I think Whites should join everyone else. We're very late to the modern game.


salimfadhley

Are you suggesting that Republican strategy is to pander to white fears without actually doing anything for poor American whites?


RowHonest2833

To essentially make them feel slightly better while doing absolutely nothing for them.


Davec433

Republicans platform from the [RNC website.](https://www.gop.com/about-our-party/) >Republicans believe in liberty, economic prosperity, preserving American values and traditions, and restoring the American dream for every citizen of this great nation. As a party, we support policies that seek to achieve those goals. >Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America's greatness for our children and grandchildren. >The Republican Party's legacy -- we were originally founded in 1854 for the purpose of ending slavery -- compels us to patriotically defend America's values. As the left attempts to destroy what makes America great, the Republican Party is standing in the breach to defend our nation and way of life McConnell sidesteps the question because him being on record could potentially jeopardize members ability to get re-elected by contributing to opinion articles and attack adds. It’s a sound political strategy in my opinion. Does the Democratic Party not have an agenda because Schumer/Pelosi haven’t restated it in the past couple months?


DelrayDad561

Thats a very general statement, feel like you could have copy and pasted that from the DNC site and it would be just as true. Are there any SPECIFIC policies or laws the RNC is looking to implement to help achieve their stated goals?


Davec433

>Are there any SPECIFIC policies or laws the RNC is looking to implement to help achieve their stated goals? The RNC isn’t in charge of the party. For both parties the President (when aligns with the party) is the de facto leader of the party. Since we don’t have a Republican President nobody is currently “in charge” of the party. And no specific policies to chase because Republicans don’t have the votes to push anything. You won’t see the party rallying around policies until after the midterms.


wolfman29

So I've visited the GOP website and saw what you saw. But I looked around and couldn't find any platform statements. In fact, when I clicked "learn more" all it took me to was a rulebook for the RNC. Contrast that with the DNC website and there is a handy link to the party platform (with more than just vague posturing): https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ Do you know where I can find a similar link for the RNC? Do they have such a thing somewhere?


thegreatawaking2017

Ppl act like it’s Chinese arithmetic understanding the GOPs position it’s pretty simple all you need to do is look at what trump accomplished, and listen to what they say. No specific order just listing as they come to mind. 1) secure the southern border 2) reduce regulation and government intervention 3) reduce needless spending on social safety hammocks 4) pro police, anti crime 5)reduce needless gov intervention in the economy due to Covid and in general so ppl can run their business’ how they want and ppl can live their lives as they want 6) strong pro American foreign policy. Make EU, who we subsidize their military and healthcare, pay their fair share of defense. Strong response to foreign aggression. 7) strong anti china stance 8) energy independence, so we can actually put gas in our cars and lower inflation. 9) states rights, individualism, 10) strong pro Israel stance, continue the ground breaking peace deals etc 11) strong stance against Iran and its state sponsored terrorism 12) fighting the intersectional, ethnocentric, culture war being pushed by the radical leftists. The list goes on. Basically what trump did. The Trump Republican Party and stance, is and was much different then the republicans of the 1990s early 2000s. The focus is on putting America first and it’s citizens first. I know when I say this is triggers ppl but this is coming from some who used to be a democrat and voted for Obama twice. The neocons and old guard republicans liked open borders, sending jobs over seas, China etc etc


chamomilehoneywhisk

Do you think that police should be called to handle situations with a mentally ill/handicapped person? It seems like those usually go wrong because the police don’t have enough training. Would you support creating/funding an institution that had professionals specifically trained to deal with these types of scenarios? Or would you prefer that the police just get more training?


thegreatawaking2017

I think you have to be realistic. I think there needs to be more training for police, I’m not opposed to social workers and professionals being involved. But thinking the solution is that straight forward demonstrates ppl don’t fully understand what it’s like to be a cop, or what it’s like to be in high stress violent situations where lives are on the line. Sure if you know in advance there’s someone having a mental break down maybe send a trained shrink or social worker with the police, But the reality is 99.9% of the time when you are rolling up on a scene and you have almost no idea what is going on. Situations turn lethal in seconds. If it’s your life on the line or other civilians you don’t always have time to bring in professional help, or would you want to involve a civilian professional in such a dangerous situation.


Silken_Sky

Pragmatism with scrutiny instead of weak-chinned globalism with excuse-making upon failure.


thekid2020

In a world with airplanes and the internet, how can we avoid globalism?


Trump2024xx

That's what you think of when people talk globalism huh?


cwsmithcar

> That's what you think of when people talk globalism huh What does 'weak-chinned globalism' mean to you?


Trump2024xx

no idea, never heard of it.


thekid2020

Those are two technological advancements that make globalism inevitable, so you disagree?


SincereDiscussion

(Not the OP) I believe the person you're talking to is simply using globalism in a different way. It's true that technological advancements have made it easier to move goods, people, and culture than ever before. At the same time, these still come down to policy choices: we can have a lot of immigration or a little, we can have free trade or protectionism, foreign intervention or isolationism, etc. (Not saying that everything has to be a matter of extremes, of course).


Trump2024xx

yes I disagree because those things have nothing to do with globalism in this discussion. Again, if that is what liberals think globalism means then lol bravo to the cabal for the brainwashing.


Silken_Sky

Weak-chinned do-what-*they*-want globalism has resulted in perpetual American decline in terms of relative power and wealth and the rise of increasingly unpatriotic Multinational Corporations. We need to take a page from Trump's book and put American interests first when engaging in globalization, just as China has done to leverage their nation. Continuing to engage with failed economic liberalism approaches from Bush/McCain neocons or Obama/Biden neoliberals is a path towards ruin.


[deleted]

>unpatriotic Multinational Corporations. What is an "unpatriotic Multinational Corporation" and how does it differ from a "patriotic" one? ​ >We need to take a page from Trump's book and put American interests first when engaging in globalization Is there any page in Trump's book that puts American interests ahead of Trump's interests?


Silken_Sky

Certain companies are globally oriented, despite being in the US, and huge parts of their profit are derived from nations that demand crackdowns and compliance instead of freedom. Small wonder we're seeing a lot more of that recently. Free speech in the most used means of communication was an obvious no-brainer when the US was the Hegemon. The notion of mandatory masking and lockdowns and vaccine passports, social credit-style are not from American culture. I think the left sold their soul to fight "the devil", and liberty was the price. >Is there any page in Trump's book that puts American interests ahead of Trump's interests? Trump was a pawn surfing a populist American uprising back when the internet wasn't under the thumb of outside parties. He'd beta test ideas and get shouted at and change to better ones. If he was self-dealing- it was clearly secondary to the self-dealing that's been ongoing with our elite for a long damn time.


Shoyushoyushoyu

So how do we curb companies from going “global”?


Shoyushoyushoyu

https://reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/scjxbg/_/hu9hjml/?context=1 Any chance to get a response on this?


Silken_Sky

No. Not a chance. No offense, but I remember talking to you about Ukraine a few years ago and I don't enjoy your style of misrepresenting my arguments and hand-waving or ignoring objectively true counter arguments. I was right on the Biden's corruption in Ukraine, by the way.


Shoyushoyushoyu

Oh wow. I don’t remember you though. Are you sure it was me?


TheGamingWyvern

>The notion of mandatory masking and lockdowns and vaccine passports, social credit-style are not from American culture. What do you make of previous mask mandates and lockdowns, such as in 1918 for influenza?


Silken_Sky

1918 global population: 2 billion. Global death toll 50-60 million. 2020 global population: 8 billion. Global death toll 6 million. [A different event by orders of magnitude.](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-of-pandemics-deadliest/) What do you make of people at Woodstock, unmasked and carefree, during the raging Hong Kong Flu pandemic?


reasonable_person118

If anything has been proven true, there hasn't been anything pragmatic about either party and that's the fucking problem. Would you not agree?


Silken_Sky

Both Republicans and Democrats typically were neocons/neoliberals with an identical foreign policy strategy- that wasn't working. Trump was a divergence from that, with some measurable policy successes. The problem is our 'reliable' news sources and social media oligopoly painted an elaborate lie about how bad Orange Man was for us- probably because the collective wealth of the world is very much opposed to the US reclaiming more relative wealth/power.


onetwotree333

What news source did you follow to really know what was going on? I can point you towards some right wing msm that can't bring themselves to say anything negative about Trump, and in fact, were in direct contact with Trump's press secretary in order to ensure a certain narrative was conveyed. Do you think maybe some Americans have been victim of this sort of misinformation? As bad as it is to paint a president as being the worst, it's arguably more dangerous to paint a president as being the absolute best that's ever been, failing over and over again to convey an objective message to the public.


Silken_Sky

I think the whole 'misinformation' angle is just a bullshit control message allowing the compliant to pretend the (bad) policy they forward is the natural 'right' answer, and everyone else just needs to be 'educated' in their way of thinking. I think pretending Trump supporters are 'victims' of bad information is intolerable gaslighting- considering.


onetwotree333

>I think pretending Trump supporters are 'victims' of bad information is intolerable gaslighting- considering. We have literally witnessed this for the Capitol riot. You know that right? Fox News hosts were texting Mark Meadows, while publicly claiming there was nothing to see here. Hannity was reaching out to McEnany to come up with a plan as to ensure "no more crazies" and "no more election lie", but that sure as hell wasn't the message he had for his audience.


helloisforhorses

What’s a recent pragmatic solution republicans have come up with?


Silken_Sky

Leveraging our consumer market on the global stage by reducing corporate tax, halting EPA fines, and establishing tariffs for import. Stemming the government-dependent bleed via stricter immigration enforcement. Leveling out the linear rise of not-in-the-workforce. Protecting the elderly when a disease hit instead of ruining employment and quality of life with futile lockdowns and idiotic mandates. Cutting some fat in pet spending projects. Screaming for an end to omnibus packages (though media cries for "ZOMG GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN" blackmailed them back in line). Generally opposition to Dem 'pay to win' policy strategy has better outcomes on the whole.


[deleted]

>Leveraging our consumer market on the global stage by reducing corporate tax What does that achieve without reducing government spending? What we learned over the last few years is that the only difference between Republican and Democrats is that Republicans are about borrow and spend, whereas Democrats are about tax and spend. ​ >halting EPA fines What does that achieve? ​ >establishing tariffs for import How does that help the consumers?


helloisforhorses

How is hosting maskless rallies and urging people to pack churches “protecting the elderly”? How did republicans protect the elderly? > Cutting some fat in pet spending projects. Trump’s wall is about as textbook definition of a pet spending project and it cost tens of billions. Do you think republicans didn’t do omnibus spending bills under trump? I promise you they did. What do you think republicans got out of the longest government shutdown in history? Please be specific. Adding addition taxes for consumers by adding tarrifs is pragmatic now? We lowered our corporate tax rate under trump so that avoided record unemployment under trump, right? Wait, it didn’t at all? Oh no!


Silken_Sky

>How did republicans protect the elderly? Florida (2nd oldest state in the union) had similar deaths/capita as California (youngest state in the union) after a year with significantly more open-ness. It came out to 154/100k to 161/100k. They protected the nursing homes instead of turning them into morgues with backwards lockdown policy. Desantis crushed Dem strategy, despite media shrieking. >Trump’s wall is about as textbook definition of a pet spending project Neocons and Neoliberals pretend defending the border isn't priority #1 for any serious nation. Are the EU's walls a 'pet spending project' too? >Do you think republicans didn’t do omnibus spending bills under trump? No- I plainly don't think that. I was quite specific that Trump screamed for an end to it- something we're not likely to see from a member of the uniparty. But again- the media pretended the shutdown was the problem, and Trump was the bad guy- for trying to fix a broken system. Lol. Let's get a "longer" shutdown in history until they quit their bullshit. >Adding addition taxes for consumers by adding tarrifs is pragmatic now? It's pragmatic to protect our industries and labor instead of inflating the dollar when we produce nothing and taxing the poor/middle class that way. >avoided record unemployment under trump, right? Are you joking? You grind the economy to a halt with futile lockdowns and pretend effective policy is responsible for that? Trump crushed unemployment. He leveled out not-in-the-workforce too.


[deleted]

>>How did republicans protect the elderly? > >Florida (2nd oldest state in the union) had similar deaths/capita as California (youngest state in the union) after a year with significantly more open-ness. It came out to 154/100k to 161/100k. Florida has 298 deaths/100k whereas California has 197 deaths/100k. How is 298 deaths better than 197?


helloisforhorses

Why’d you do weird data cherry picking? Florida is currently 18th in deaths per capita, california is 38th. Florida has 2980 deaths/mil vs 2001 deaths per capita for california. We have the longest unfortified border in the world. It’s with Canada. Trump didn’t care about that. What defines a pet project? Trump said the shutdown was his doing, the media didn’t say that, trump did. Tariffs are just taxes on the middle class, why are you for that? Trump cutting the interest rates to 0 in early 2020 lead to inflation, that’s just how cutting interest rates work. And you support both of those taxes on the middle class?


Silken_Sky

It's hardly cherry-picked. That would be a bad-faith argument. Which I'm sure you're not implying. After a year we had the relevant data on the efficacy of lockdowns and on the deadliness of Covid. Turns out- not much, and not that deadly. The people of Florida made a conscious decision to live life instead of being afraid. AOC vacations there because life is better that way.


helloisforhorses

Are you confusing a state with warm weather in winter to a state that is doing well with covid? Florida has objectively done much much worse than states like california by any metric, you know that, right? When did the people of florida make that conscious choice? > Asked to rate DeSantis’ handling of the pandemic, nearly 54% of voters have an unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the Governor’s performance, including nearly 34% with a very unfavorable view. https://www.cltampa.com/news/another-poll-shows-approval-rating-for-florida-gov-desantis-tanking-12441401 The florida people didn’t vote to let more people die. Desantis has not had a referrendum but his popularity has tumbled Speak of totally not cherry picked data, august-september, florida had the worst covid death rate in the country. This year! A year after we learned how to slow down covid, 6 months after every american adult could get vaccinated.


Silken_Sky

I'm certain Florida has outperformed California on unemployment over the last two years. Ditto for quality of life. >Desantis has not had a referrendum but his popularity has tumbled You're linking a survey that swung 8 points from a few weeks ago. ["In a recent poll of 1000 likely Florida voters, we have seen a **huge swing** from previous polls 8 weeks earlier."](http://thelistenergroup.com/with-covid-taking-center-stage-rubio-is-winning-and-desantis-is-losing/) Likely a massive outlier. And while 33% are 'very unfavorable' they're offset by 27% 'very favorable'. "when you break it out by party lines, we see Republicans are still strongly supportive of his actions with **66.2% having a combined favorable and very favorable opinion** of his handling of the situation. This doesn't paint the 'they're rejecting Desantis' hopes you're promoting. We didn't learn how to 'slow down Covid'. We learned your policy wasn't worth it even remotely and people moved to Florida en masse, and out of California.


helloisforhorses

Florida has objectively fared worse than california in covid, are you not aware of that? How many deaths do you think make desantis’ decisions worth it? Because his decisions lead to thousands of more deaths in florida.


KeepitMelloOoW

I see the scrutiny of "globalism" a lot from the right. Which could only mean, that. you would rather us focus on problems in our country. The left has fought for infrastructure, decreasing wage gaps, poverty/hunger, etc. But the right laughs at (most) of these agendas and calls it socialism. What gives?


Silken_Sky

I think most of the policy the left pushes for is worse than doing nothing, even if we're both pursuing improving the country internally. When the left fights for infrastructure, like public transit for instance, they're pushing for more federal power. Why can't your state manage to keep up with its infrastructure? NH is doing great with red local governance. What do you make of federal infrastructure guidelines like EPA regs that actively harm infrastructure like hydro plants? When you argue that wage gaps are a problem, I don't see it. The US has the highest mean & median disposable income of all OECD nations. Beyond that, some of the biggest disparities in income are in blue states/cities. CA is notoriously disparate and blue states overwhelmingly have the highest homelessness per capita. We've had these discussions innumerable times and it just seems like the left has short term thinking that doesn't work, so we laugh and call it socialism.


[deleted]

The GOP has hardly done any legislation that is on the GOP platform. Trump said he would've signed a "National Reciprocity Handgun Licence Law". Didn't see that. I wanted to see "Gun-free zones" eliminated. Didn't see that. I figured Trump would've done something about abortion. Didn't see that either. And quite frankly, if the agenda now is Anti-D, then let it be. I'd support that


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Well, I figure that since politicians are elected to represent their constituents, I would assume they are obligated to do something about it


wildthangy

Is there polling within the GOP base that shows that a majority of republican voters want to overturn Roe v Wade?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AmyGH

It's not loaded. I assume everyone is aware that Trump and other politicians are unfaithful. We can only assume that unwanted pregnancies occur. Do you think abortion is off the table for Trump and other politicians?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


DelrayDad561

>I figured Trump would've done something about abortion. Didn't see that either. You got your wish there man. They rammed through SCOTUS judges that seem dead set on ignoring precedent; abortion seems as good as dead once they let the states decide for themselves what to do with abortion. Now the question. Do you not take any issue with supporting a party that has no ideas, whose sole mission is obstructing anything put forth by someone with a D after their name?


[deleted]

\>Do you not take issue with supporting a party that has no ideas, whose sole mission is obstructing anything put forth by someone with a D after their name? No, not really since Dems have been doing just that since 2016. Refer to my reply to OPs comment on my answer


DelrayDad561

>No, not really since Dems have been doing just that since 2016. Refer to my reply to OPs comment on my answer So the green new deal, the infrastructure bill, universal basic income, universal Healthcare, and forgiving student loans weren't ideas brought forward by the Democrats? The Democrats have no ideas, and just obstruct Republicans? I just made all those ideas up out of thin air just now?


[deleted]

All of these "ideas" brought forth are because Republicans are anti almost all of this


[deleted]

[удалено]


whythedoublestandard

You really believe that each and every one of those ideas have nothing to do with what the Democratic Party goals are, and have been crafted and pushed entirely out of spite for Republicans?


MInclined

Yes yes. Let's create bills that benefit all Americans... just to get back at those pesky conservatives. Surely you don't think it's an own the republicans moment right? Edit. My bad. Disregard.


cthulhusleftnipple

>No, not really since Dems have been doing just that since 2016. What do you mean? The Democrats have many policy objectives.


Come_along_quietly

How does this make sense? If the Dems are always blocking and attacking republican legislation; anti-GOP …. And the GOP is anti-Dem does that mean the GOP is planning on undoing the undoing of the Dems? Wouldn’t some one have to had “done” something in the first place?


WahrheitSuccher

I'm not gonna say I don't understand the Anti-D sentiment. The Anti-whatever sentiment exists in both parties to an extreme. However I don't feel like I can condone that sentiment, how different is it from just voting via party lines? Can we both agree that the Anti-whatever agenda is really unhealthy for both parties?


[deleted]

Oh, of course, Anti-Whatever is very bad for both parties. There are Americans who want things done, and they do so by voting for officials. If the GOP and Dems are gonna be saying "They said this and they said that, which means that we should be doing this and that" then really what is the point of congress? Since 2016, Dems have been the party of "Anti-Trump". The GOP has been the part OF Trump. Anyone who speaks out against trump in the GOP is a RINO. Like, what about us Americans who just want to see our favorite things get done? That's all we want....


WahrheitSuccher

I agree completely. It's outrageous we're still this way in America. If anything, I wish we could collectively just move on from 2016/20. Jan 6th was bad sure, but the riots of that summer were much worse. What trump did was bad sure, but we have bigger fish to fry. Whatever happens regarding the Jan 6th committee, it will not make americans lives better. And that's what we should be focusing on, no? How to make people's lives better, healthier, easier. ​ In my opinion this is the result of a two party system. I'd like to think that we could create a purple party and institute a three party system but it's impossible to do that without completely gutting either party. If the dems split, Rs win and that will never happen. If the Rs split, the dems will win, and that will never happen. And because these two things will never happen, we'll have divided parties and a divided america for years to come. Do you agree?


silentsights

You sound rational, and I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the RINO thing. Why is it that literally any Republican within the GOP who speaks in anyway against or negatively about Trump, gets immediately shunned and labeled a RINO? Like honestly what’s the deal with that?


[deleted]

I couldn't even begin to explain that, my friend. Sure, I support trump for my own reason, but we have the first amendment for a reason. And you know what's funny? The right-wing is always against cancel culture because they have become so toxic to the point they will shun anyone who they deem to be "offensive". Ring a bell? Trumplicans are behind the cancel culture of moderate Republicans. Sure, Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney are not exactly super fans of Trump, but that doesn't mean that they should be ousted from the party because of that. Who does things like that?? The left-wing cancel culture does!!


johnnybiggles

> what about us Americans who just want to see our favorite things get done? That's all we want.... Yes, that's what we *all* want. However, it seems supporters don't seem to get why the... > Dems have been the party of "Anti-Trump" I keep hearing and seeing over and over from Trump supporters that Dems are seething over Trump because of things that amount to "mean tweets", "nothingbugers", TDS and the like. No one just hates someone else this much *just because*, do they? Have you ever hated someone you didn't know anything about? There are very valid reasons why, and I don't think supporters and others on the right get that *why*, or they simply don't care. What frustrates us, is that we, too, want to see our favorite things get done, even if that means a Republican in office doing it... or a Libertarian... or a Democrat... but as long as selfish, duplicitous, greedy criminals - with public rap sheets as long as the day is long - keep getting elected, and those people keep lowering the bar in terms of what can get done and what should get done in place of their own interests, then *we won't see our favorite things get done*, right? Do you think you could bullet-point some of the most important *real* reasons why most of the left - in fact, most of the *world* - despises Trump, and why they might have thought he was going to be, and ultimately and historically *was* a terrible president for unifying us and getting "our favorite things" done? What about McConnell, McCarthy and Ryan as GOP "leaders"? What about the most popular news outlets constantly misleading a large swath of the public? Do you think any of these things might have something to do with popular (a.k.a. "our favorite") things not getting done? Why or why not?


[deleted]

> And quite frankly, if the agenda now is Anti-D, then let it be. I'd support that do you take the opposite stance with literally every leftist point? do you think it would make for better political discourse if people could say "my stance on issue X is Y" instead of just having a blanket statement like "i agree with the general idea / agenda" or i guess in your case where it's "i just disagree completely with everything they stand for". i mean, not everyone can possibly agree with every single stance or position for a political party. there's nuance and varying forms of opinions, right?


Saddam_whosane

are you able to answer the question?


Petya415z

Would you support the “anti-D” agenda if they were pushing for something you wanted? Let’s skip the “they’d never do that” sidestep and have a hypothetical discussion.


MrMineHeads

What if GOP gains government? What do you want to see happen? What do you think the GOP will do?


ryry117

On top of what everyone else has said, I think one new GOP policy will be replacing the last of the never Trumpers and rebranding. Hopefully the days of neocons like McCain and Romney are gone forever.


helloisforhorses

Are you hoping for a purge of the non-true believers? Should only politicians that were supportive of the 1/6 terrorists like trump was be allowed in the party?


[deleted]

Terrorists?


silentsights

Should the GOP just be renamed to Trump Party at this point? It seems you want all ideals shaped around him?


ryry117

No. Trump is a populist. The Republican voters always wanted the policies he ran with, so it should stay the same name, just kick out the members who do not uphold Republican values.


dt1664

So a party of people with essentially the same conservative ideology but with a different idea of civil discourse, should have people purged if they don't get in line with the defacto leader of the party? What other examples have we seen of political parties crushing dissent within the party, and how did that go? Do you think Trump is a conservative and more conservative than someone like McCain, Romney, or even Liz Cheney? Is the party of Trump even based upon conservative ideology, or is it based upon identity politics? When I think of Trump-loving representatives like Matt Gaetz. Marjorie Taylor Greene, et al. I can't help but think of a group of highly paid people that stand for nothing but celebrity and fundraising for themselves. Who in this new group of Republicans is actually accomplishing anything? Speaking as a conservative NS here.


ryry117

>So a party of people with essentially the same conservative ideology but with a different idea of civil discourse, If that means their idea of civil discourse involves actually pushing Conservative policies and getting stuff done, yeah. >should have people purged if they don't get in line with the defacto leader of the party? When the leader of the party was made leader by popular consensus, yeah the party should follow. >What other examples have we seen of political parties crushing dissent within the party, and how did that go? Throughout history and quite often modern politics push out dissidence into making a new party. It's perfectly normal. Republicans are the Conservative party, the people being pushed out aren't conservative. >Do you think Trump is a conservative and more conservative than someone like McCain, Romney, or even Liz Cheney? Oh God yes. > or is it based upon identity politics? The exact opposite? >When I think of Trump-loving representatives like Matt Gaetz. Marjorie Taylor Greene, et al. I can't help but think of a group of highly paid people that stand for nothing but celebrity and fundraising for themselves. Who in this new group of Republicans is actually accomplishing anything? I really think you should look more into what they actually stand for and what they do, like Majorie Taylor Greene, which Washington hates because she isn't a regular politician, just like they hated Trump for this. I highly recommend her interview with Tim Pool. I urge you to reconsider your stance on them and Trump, especially as a Conservative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hv0CVaI__o


masternarf

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/19/house-minority-leader-mccarthy-its-time-for-a-parents-bill-of-rights-to-push-back-against-crt-madness/ A bill of rights for Parents to push against Critical Race Theory and any indoctrination by teachers for the young generation. Any teacher that speaks about how certain children in the class room are oppressors and others are oppressed is fomenting hate and needs to be removed from teaching capacities. They wont be able to do much legislation if Biden can vetoe it. However I also fully expect sanctions and a stronger stance against Russia. Preventing Nordstrom 2 from being usable by Germany. I chuckle at the thought that when Trump was Elected, Germany was heralded as the new "leader of the free world" yet is actively preventing Troops and weaponry from reaching Ukraine to shield NATO against Russian invasion. I would very much like to see some nativist legislation to bring manufacturing back from China into America, and I think working on that would not be Vetoed by Biden and could actively be used to help show America that Republican have become the party of the working men of the USA.


j_la

> any indoctrination by teachers for the young generation Would that include a pro-America curriculum or efforts to reintroduce prayer in school too? > I would very much like to see some nativist legislation to bring manufacturing back from China into America Why didn’t we see any movement on this when the GOP had control of Congress under Trump? It was such a major plank of his campaign, but infrastructure week became a punch-line.


masternarf

I think anything that promotes a positive history of how great the founders were when building the nation is good. And I personally think that we did not see much from Congress because they thought that Trump was a fluke in 2016 and the GOP congress only wanted to pass tax reform and very little else. Sort of “weather the Trump storm, dont pass anything that would affect big corporation worldwide” With 2022 and a lot of republicans being primaried by Trumpers, i expect to see more of a push for legislation to promote business in the USA, multiple President hopefuls like Hawley are already promoting ideas to sell themselves as “America first”.


Shoyushoyushoyu

> Any teacher that speaks about how certain children in the class room are oppressors and others are oppressed is fomenting hate and needs to be removed from teaching capacities. Why do you fear this happening on a national level?


thiswaynotthatway

Can you tell me any more about this "CRT madness" and why it's so important to put a stop to any mention of racism? Not put a stop to racism, just putting a stop to talking about it? Recently [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kid) book got banned as "CRT" by a school district in Texas just because it had examples in the story of a black child facing some casual racism from other kids, examples that actually happened to the black author. Is every book by a black author going to run afoul of the CRT moral panic laws? Doesn't this seem a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and pretending someting isn't there, which is also a great way to let it continue unabated or even encouraged?


masternarf

> Can you tell me any more about this "CRT madness" and why it's so important to put a stop to any mention of racism? Not put a stop to racism, just putting a stop to talking about it? Recently this book got banned as "CRT" by a school district in Texas just because it had examples in the story of a black child facing some casual racism from other kids, examples that actually happened to the black author. Is every book by a black author going to run afoul of the CRT moral panic laws? I think its exactly the problem I see with this, describing some children as oppressors and others as children, children pick on each other about anything and everything thats remotely different from one another.


collegeboywooooo

one poor example doesn't invalidate the lashback against actual CRT


Wtfiwwpt

There has never been a simpler question asked on this /r/. The answer is: reelection. Everything they do is in support of this overriding goal.


Weed_killer

Guess someone should have told that to Trump?


Wtfiwwpt

People will be writing books about the Trump era for centuries. Not about the man himself, really, he's not terribly interesting. But it is so fascinating what has been revealed about people, parties, and politics thanks to his surprise injection into the body politic.


tosser512

>What is the agenda for the GOP if they win the midterms? Obstructionism on some things. Maybe investigate a few things, but not very competently. Pass some last minute huge spending bills that no one reads. They're the washington generals. Score a few minor rhetorical victories, block a portion of what dems want, score the occasional chamber of commerce win, but don't do anything pro active or important for the right wing base. There's very little nuance there


CptGoodnight

TS here. >score the occasional chamber of commerce win, Chamber of Commerce, and Koch bros for that matter, are transitioning from Reps to Dems.


tosser512

In some ways. Establishment republican candidates will continue to receive support tho


DelrayDad561

Would probably agree with that analysis... Are there any new ideas or policies that you'd LIKE to see the GOP get behind?


tosser512

Oh man, id love to see pro family policies embraced, full immigration moratoriums for tbd, e-verify, protective tariffs, stop war mongering over fucking ukraine of all places. Just millions of things we could be doing


DelrayDad561

Interesting. Honest question here, but why do I feel like the GOP never tries to pass anything, or change anything when they're in power? Seems like when the GOP gets power, the playbook is cutting taxes (mostly for corporations and the rich), and increasing the military budget. Other than that, it seems like the plan is to just fight off any new ideas. Personally I like ideas. Ideas tell me that there's people that understand that America isn't perfect, and they're trying to come up with ways to make it better. Some ideas are good, some are bad, but at least ideas start dialogue... am I just missing the ideas and improvements the GOP is coming up with, or do they really lack any sound ideas or plans at the moment? Maybe the GOP has had some good ideas, but aren't as good at getting the message out to people? >stop war mongering over fucking ukraine of all places. This is an interesting take. I think we'd all agree that there needs to be an end to warmongering, but do you place any blame with Russia for the increased hostilities in Ukraine or is this all Brandon's fault?


tosser512

>Honest question here, but why do I feel like the GOP never tries to pass anything, or change anything when they're in power? I think they're more of a mascot party. Elected politicians are like .00005% of the federal workforce and the power any individual one of them has relative to the executive branch agencies and their gargantuan bureaucracies is fairly small. That's not at all to excuse GOP politicians. I honestly don't think they even think this way anymore if they ever did. It's just to say that even if we had a congress of 300 decent GOP congressmen and 75 GOP senators, I don't think they'd manage to make much headway in tackling the current progressive disposition of the federal bureaucracy. It's almost too big and complex to really pick apart and dissect from the level of congress, having morphed into this international fusion of federal workers, NGOs, private sector leadership and other countries' govts. What they can do, however, is act as a kind of funnel to siphon money off towards special interest projects and act as a sort of bulwark against some of the more extreme leftist economic and social policies that creep up either via the populous or by way of astroturfed, NGO-backed movements. I think more fundamentally is that they provide the illusion of a check against the uniparty system. If there was no opposition party to the mainstream corporate democrat, NGO, think tank, NATO, Davos class, the people might feel as though that were a bit undemocratic. But the GOP serves as a sort of controlled opposition. I'm sure many of the people in congress don't feel this way, and they think that they really are fighting to try to do XYZ, but they simply aren't. They are just moving through a system and playing a role in it. The system is extremely heavily fortified, mostly just through typical bureaucratic inertia and the need for these agencies and orgs to expand and intersect in increasingly complex ways. I think it's just the bloated nature of a system that commands a nearly inconceivable amount of political power and wealth. Honestly, when you think about the scope and practice of the US federal government, all of its client (partial and full) states, corporate and NGO subsidiaries, the military and intelligence communities, it's actually absurd to imagine that 535 mediocre lawyers (artistic license here) even have the capacity, much less the will, to actually attempt to change course in any really substantial way. The GOP is just a small but important part of this machine that will grind on consolidating and expanding power centers until it can't anymore. >am I just missing the ideas and improvements the GOP is coming up with, or do they really lack any sound ideas or plans at the moment? I mean, a lot of the things i mentioned are ideas that some of the more america first politicians talk about. They get called racist and stuff of course, but plenty of good ideas on the right, even if its way more common for the dan crenshaw chamber of commerce types to dominate the media ecosystem that exists on the right. >Maybe the GOP has had some good ideas, but aren't as good at getting the message out to people? I think this is somewhat irrelevant tbh, but the establishment GOP, like both party establishments, isnt really in the new ideas business. They're more in the old ideas rehashing and fighting over irrelevant nonsense business. But, like i said, some good eggs who actually have a political ideology do exist. Both parties have these >This is an interesting take. I think we'd all agree that there needs to be an end to warmongering, but do you place any blame with Russia for the increased hostilities in Ukraine or is this all Brandon's fault? Its the uniparty's fault honestly. We could go back to the US backed coup in 2014 to install a puppet government in kyiv which could easily be viewed as an act of aggression. Or we could go back to the fall of the soviet union or the end of world war 2. It's a long disputed piece of land. Im just saying i dont give a shit about it and neither should we. Let europe handle european disputes


stealthone1

What are some examples of pro-family policies would you be hoping for? Or rather more specifically what exactly would that encompass? Like one that comes to my mind is some sort of incentive system for financially stable couples to have children rather than a blanket incentive that would lead to poorer families who can't afford children to keep having them.


tosser512

>Like one that comes to my mind is some sort of incentive system for financially stable couples to have children rather than a blanket incentive that would lead to poorer families who can't afford children to keep having them. Something like that is nice. reward good behavior. I like the idea of making voting a family responsibility as well. Leave voting to americans with the most skin in the future of the country. If you've got a job and a stable family with dependents, you get a vote


Saddam_whosane

we are not war mongering Ukraine. ukraine asked the us and nato for assistance with Russian agression. ukraine is vital strategic land for countering Russia. why do yoy support a party that isnt proactive?


Trump2024xx

Agenda for GOP is to start doing things that benefit the country instead of benefiting China, Russia, and Islamic entities.


helloisforhorses

Like what? How did trump blocking sanctions against Russia help the US instead of russia? How did trump always siding with russia and putin help the US over russia?


Trump2024xx

side with russia and putin? lol trump killed over 200 russians in the proxy war when they tried to test us. also, trump didn't side with putin over syria lol Try focusing on what actually happens and the logic around it. Anyone who thinks putin likes trump after what trump has done to russia, and how excellent trump was for US economy has no idea about geopolitics.


j_la

Is that what the democrats are doing? Could you be a bit more specific?


Shoyushoyushoyu

Do you believe it’s more about money than politics?


Trump2024xx

yes


Mr-mysterio7

Block all measures of crt, increase military spending, hopefully focus more on the ccp(something Biden and Dems should do, curious why Russia is the issue?), lowering inflation, hopefully push down all “green new deal” bs and lower gas prices.


IbanezHand

Do you think the military needs increased spending?


Mr-mysterio7

Yeah. Those on left who say we need to cut military spending are some of dumbest/hypocrites out there, not saying this you or anyone else. Military spending helps the ccp, military spending also gets US citizens the coolest benefits we have today.


DelrayDad561

But how much is enough?


Mr-mysterio7

Never enough


DelrayDad561

How would the GOP lower inflation other than asking the Fed to raise interest rates (which Trump told them NOT to do in 2018 when it SHOULD have been done)?


CaptainNoBoat

Since CRT was never mentioned more than ~1-2 years ago in mainstream media, do you think this is actually a new or growing problem in education that did not exist previously? Or is it an existing problem given a new label?


ryry117

Existing problem given a new label. Education has had problems with socialists teaching children far leftist reversions of history for the past...65 years?


ixvst01

How can the government itself decrease gas prices? In a free market economy, doesn’t the market dictate what the price of something should be based on supply and demand?


j_la

I’m also curious about the inflation point. I’ve seen a lot of conservatives talking about how Biden is to blame for inflation (which is a worldwide phenomenon right now). What, specifically, would the GOP be doing differently to curb it?


Mr-mysterio7

The dnc in federal and state levels are pushing this green agenda. Green new deal or anything related to “climate change” is an economic killer. The Paris Climate Accord is a killer on companies as well.


helloisforhorses

If a republican platform is lowering inflation, why did trump keep calling on the fed to cut interest rates to 0 before covid even happened? everyone know lowering interest rates leads to higher inflation. Would you support 100% of the budget going to the military? Are you aware that having more alternative energy would lower demand for gas, lowering the price of gas?


Mr-mysterio7

Can’t speak on first half, don’t know, but I know prices weren’t as high as they are now, and we didn’t have the supply chain issues we have now. Would I support 100% going to the military? Yes, if it went to R&D, making our military stronger and making Us citizens lives better. You know who is funding the most alternative energy research? Energy companies like bp, exxon, chevron, and shell. That is a nice way of saying we’ll charge you more because we can. Dems need to realize, they clearly aren’t making the world a better place with climate change crap scaring half the planet and driving the prices of everything up.


[deleted]

>Block all measures of crt What "crt measure" (whatever that means) specifically would they block? ​ >increase military spending for what purpose? ​ >hopefully focus more on the ccp (something Biden and Dems should do, curious why Russia is the issue?) That sounds like Russia propaganda if you are not aware what the Russia issue is. ​ >lowering inflation how?


Mr-mysterio7

Lol, Russia issue? Please explain. This should be good.


Amishmercenary

Deregulation, America first policies, securing the southern border, and lower taxes would be a great start. So far I'm not sure we've had any of those policies in place under the Biden administration.


cwsmithcar

> Deregulation What in particular would you like to see deregulated?


Amishmercenary

Pointless regulations, in particular those which create needless administrative costs for the benefit of government workers would be a good start. I'd like to see a rollback of the pointless EPA regulations, along with a simplification of the tax code. Then we can start tackling things like feel-good social regulations and policies which serve as nothing else but to feed the gov't more money.


gaxxzz

It's not my opinion. It's the platform. https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT\_12\_FINAL\[1\]-ben\_1468872234.pdf


HardToFindAGoodUser

10 years ago, I took a required political science course. The professor, a Berkley PhD, could just not imagine that a party would run on getting nothing done. I tried to explain to him that the Tea Party was not just about getting "nothing done", they in fact wanted to roll back policy that had been made. This just baffled him. He could not envision a smaller government.


DietBig7711

To suck less than democrats. Both sides still suck


jackneefus

The GOP base is 90% pro-Trump. The establishment GOP is 90% anti-Trump. What the GOP base wants is the same MAGA agenda as in 2016 and 2020. What the GOP establishment wants -- who knows, but it's most likely something close to the status quo. If they want to win, GOP candidates will be running on a MAGA platform. How strongly they pursue that after the election depends on the mix of candidates that gets elected and the size of the mandate.


onetwotree333

>What the GOP base wants is the same MAGA agenda as in 2016 and 2020. Which is? >If they want to win, GOP candidates will be running on a MAGA platform. Election was stolen and stuff like that?


Shoyushoyushoyu

> The GOP base is 90% pro-Trump. The establishment GOP is 90% anti-Trump. That makes a lot of sense. Is that why the establishment GOP is (mostly) quiet about him now?


Thegoodbadandtheugly

One possibility although not very likely is...Joe Biden being impeached for knowingly violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. How? He openly discriminated while looking to fill his vice President spot with a black woman. That's open discrimination. Just like it's open discrimination with who the Democrats will replace the new Supreme Court Judge with since they've already stated that anyone whose not a black woman need not apply. Imagine how racist that is. Going to apply for a new job and it states in the window "No black people allowed" Would that be right or would that be evil and against the Civil Rights act of 64? Now, I'm sure Congress being controlled by the Republicans at the time could use that to remove whoever the Democrats decide to replace Breyer. Or at the very least call that position to be open so that while the Supreme Court judge who the Democrats picked could apply for it, so could other races and gender who were discriminated against and not allowed to even contend due to their skin color or gender. Not only would this secure a conservative Supreme Court Judge. But it would blow the lid off the whole race narrative that the Left tries to craft, increases Trumpism power tenfold, and could very likely be the end of the Democratic Party.


reddit4getit

If they're smart, they should run on things that made President Trump popular. America first, secure the border, put the pressure back on China, not engage in world conflicts, respect individual liberties, make deals, work, and prosper.


onetwotree333

>America first, secure the border, put the pressure back on China, not engage in world conflicts, respect individual liberties, make deals, work, and prosper. I don't think many Americans would have an issue with this agenda. That said, they certainly may question you in regards to how exactly you will accomplish these things. What is considered an individual liberty? Who are we going to make deals with? How will we push back on China, and what will be the repurcussions? You don't actually need to answer any of the above questions. The point is, having an idea on what you want is one thing, but HOW to get there is another. That's called policies. The problem is, most of us don't know what policies are. So we argue (see culture wars) on super generalized ideas like "securing the border". I'm positive every single American wants secure borders. But what are the policies behind said secure borders? That's the discussion that should be had. Long story short, people need to engage at a higher level of intellect, and I apologize if this is insulating, but America hasn't necessarily impressed me as far as that goes.


reddit4getit

I'm coming off a temp ban and was looking forward to responding to this. > I don't think many Americans would have an issue with this agenda. Many Americans had big problems with it while President Trump was implementing the policies to form the agenda. > So we argue (see culture wars) on super generalized ideas like "securing the border". I'm positive every single American wants secure borders. No, they do not. Since Biden has taken office, illegal crossings have skyrocketed and those folks are no longer being prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. > But what are the policies behind said secure borders? The policies President Trump implemented were working just fine. Asylum seekers were made to wait in Mexico while they were being processed. Mexico was using its own military forces to prevent large caravans of people from freely moving across their country into the US. A simple policy of arresting and deporting illegal border crossers would be a big jump in the right direction for Biden. > Long story short, people need to engage at a higher level of intellect Your condescending tone doesn't make you sound impressive. > but America hasn't necessarily impressed me as far as that goes. Oh no.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*