A Statement From Dave Ramsey

[RiverDog]

I saw this post on my Facebook feed that was shared by a friend of mine that is a hard core Trump supporter. It's from Dave Ramsey, a conservative talk show host. I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with any of the statements he's making, but I think it provides an insight as to how many conservatives feel about the state of the country and I think it's worth a read:

“This morning, I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what I say, lives are never going to be the same.
I have been confused by the hostility of family and friends. I look at people I have known all my life so hate-filled that they agree with opinions they would never express as their own. I think that I may as well have entered the Twilight Zone.

You can't justify this insanity. We have become a nation that has lost its collective mind.

We see other countries going Socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan to us.

Somehow it’s un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America.

People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female President.

Universities that advocate equality, discriminate against Asian-Americans in favor of African-Americans.

Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.

Criminals are caught-and-released to hurt more people, but stopping them is bad because it's a violation of THEIR rights.

People who have never owned slaves should pay slavery reparations to people who have never been slaves.

After legislating gender, if a dude pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him.

It was cool for Joe Biden to "blackmail" the President of Ukraine, but it’s an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquires about it.

People who have never been to college should pay the debts of college students who took out huge loans for their degrees.

Immigrants with tuberculosis and polio are welcome, but you’d better be able to prove your dog is vaccinated.

Irish doctors and German engineers who want to immigrate to the US must go through a rigorous vetting process, but any illiterate gang-banger who jumps the southern fence is welcomed.

$5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not.

If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.

And, pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us "racists!"

Nothing makes sense anymore, no values, no morals, no civility and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it is racist to refer to it as Chinese even though it began in China.

We are clearly living in an upside-down world where right is wrong and wrong is right, where moral is immoral and immoral is moral, where good is evil and evil is good, where killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right.

Wake up America. The great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg, is taking on water and sinking fast.”

[curmudgeon]

Dave is correct.

[Hawktawk]

I saw this post on my Facebook feed that was shared by a friend of mine that is a hard core Trump supporter. It's from Dave Ramsey, a conservative talk show host. I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with any of the statements he's making, but I think it provides an insight as to how many conservatives feel about the state of the country and I think it's worth a read:

“This morning, I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what I say, lives are never going to be the same.
I have been confused by the hostility of family and friends. I look at people I have known all my life so hate-filled that they agree with opinions they would never express as their own. I think that I may as well have entered the Twilight Zone.

You can't justify this insanity. We have become a nation that has lost its collective mind.

We see other countries going Socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan to us.

Somehow it’s un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America.

People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female President.

Universities that advocate equality, discriminate against Asian-Americans in favor of African-Americans.

Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.

Criminals are caught-and-released to hurt more people, but stopping them is bad because it's a violation of THEIR rights.

People who have never owned slaves should pay slavery reparations to people who have never been slaves.

After legislating gender, if a dude pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him.

It was cool for Joe Biden to "blackmail" the President of Ukraine, but it’s an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquires about it.

People who have never been to college should pay the debts of college students who took out huge loans for their degrees.

Immigrants with tuberculosis and polio are welcome, but you’d better be able to prove your dog is vaccinated.

Irish doctors and German engineers who want to immigrate to the US must go through a rigorous vetting process, but any illiterate gang-banger who jumps the southern fence is welcomed.

$5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not.

If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.

And, pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us "racists!"

Nothing makes sense anymore, no values, no morals, no civility and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it is racist to refer to it as Chinese even though it began in China.

We are clearly living in an upside-down world where right is wrong and wrong is right, where moral is immoral and immoral is moral, where good is evil and evil is good, where killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right.

Wake up America. The great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg, is taking on water and sinking fast.”

The truths in the middle but this guy isnt in the middle. Same old crap. Trump whose wife immigrated illegally and who used illegal northern triangle immigrants to build his golf course for 10 cents on the dollar now thinks building a wall is a good idea, that ripping the kids out of the hands of the guys your buddy calls "illiterate gang bangers" is cool. Even though over 600 may never find their parents. Its as racist a statement as you can make, a takeoff on his dear leaders "murderers and rapists bringing drugs and i'm sure some are very fine people". Kind of like his messiah Trump saying Judge Curiel from Indiana who ruled on his phony trump university leading to a 25 million judgement against him "couldn't be fair because he's a mexican".Kind of like "china'virus" totally racist.The guys a racist if he's ok with this kind of language.

And we can STFU about abortion OK? This administration, especially this president has a blatant disregard for human life with the handling of this pandemic from day one and the continuing inaction nation as 4 K people die. Beyond that every industrialized country on the planet has it. It sucks, its awful. I paid for one in 1978 which haunts me to this day but I assure you if this court outlaws abortion the rich republicans will still have access when they knock up their mistresses. They get busted all the time so STFU about regard for human life. Kind of like Old senator Larry Craig, the most anti gay man around caught playing footsie with a undercover police officer in a bathroom at the minneapolis airport. Then I swerve into "free" health care which shows that while Republicans want to be sure no woman including raped or incest should decide whether to bear a child but they dont give a good god damn about the kid after its born.

But when it comes to DJT it really isn't about ideology. Its about fitness for office.

Dude your president committed sedition. That's when the ship hit the iceberg. YOUR GUY COMMITTED INSURRECTION. Worst president in history

Save me the socialism bad lecture Trumpanzee.

[RiverDog]

The truths in the middle but this guy isnt in the middle. Same old crap.

The reason I started this thread was to show what/why many conservatives are thinking and why they might have voted for Trump. There's a lot of single issue voters out there. We can't just write off 74 million people by saying You're guy is a crook, you lost the election, now sit down and STFU. We're running the country now, so get used to it!

A number of those issues Ramsey raised I agree with, especially the part where he says "pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us "racists!" That is definitely a sentiment that the left harbors about the right as demonstrated when Hillary Clinton said that half of Trump supporters, or some 37 million people, are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it"

In any event, I thought that the quote from Ramsey might be a good starting off point.

[c_hawkbob]

I was going to, point by point, lay out the alternate view and the my opinion on where the truth may lay between the to viewpoints but I just honestly don't have the time or energy. Suffice it to say there is nothing eye opening or at all convincing in the OP from my vantage point.

[I-5]

We could post a diatribe from someone on the extreme left, and it would be just as legit...it doesn't move the needle in terms of finding common understanding

The truth is definitely somewhere in the middle as usual, but this ain't it.

[RiverDog]

We could post a diatribe from someone on the extreme left, and it would be just as legit...it doesn't move the needle in terms of finding common understanding

The truth is definitely somewhere in the middle as usual, but this ain't it.

I wasn't trying to justify it as legitimate or denounce it as folly. The reason I posted it was to show some of the issues the right has with the left and whether there are any opportunities for compromise, throw the conservatives a bone, and maybe take some of the edge off the differences between the two sides.

For example, take the census. Would it be such a bad thing if the liberals were to agree with conservatives that only citizens and legal permanent residents be included? It's a big rub with the right.

Now that Trump is gone, I think there's some real opportunity for immigration reform that can bring in some conservative ideas, like strengthening the ports of entry, back off on the abolition of ICE and sanctuary cities, back off on the de-criminalization of illegal border crossings, electronic monitoring of attempted border crossings vs. a wall, a better vetting of applicants, and so forth.

Same goes for abortion. They can do things like insure that adaption and the option of taking a pregnancy to term should be encouraged first before abortion is discussed with a client.

In any event, it's just a thought.

[I-5]

I think you lost me. What exactly is the compromise on immigration reform and abortion you're proposing? Those both sound like regular conservative positions, except now the republicans have lost their majority in both houses....which part is the middle?

I have a friend who actually worked for the census this year, and his perspective is completely different than what you said above.

[RiverDog]

I think you lost me. What exactly is the compromise on immigration reform and abortion you're proposing? Those both sound like regular conservative positions, except now the republicans have lost their majority in both houses....which part is the middle?

The 'middle' can be an expanded guest worker program, amnesty for illegals that have lived here a period of time, higher immigration limits, making DACA the law of the land, etc. That's just a sampling. My point is that there are a lot of aspects to immigration reform and border security. Cooperation and compromise in one area could lead to a similar outcome in other areas.

I have a friend who actually worked for the census this year, and his perspective is completely different than what you said above.

So please share. How do you expect me to respond?

[Aseahawkfan]

I hear this all the time from my friends. I have attempted to point out the various inaccuracies. I recall explaining about expired visas being the primary means by which an immigrant remains in the nation in an illegal state and that coming across the border illegally is not the primary means of entry, but they would rather believe the images they see of people coming across the border illegally. There's so many people that love to vilify some broad group as the problem because it is so easy to do.

You can't do much to educate people when they put so much faith in media talking heads, experts, and the like who prey upon their hopes and fears painting pictures that fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. I have heard so many people rely on talking heads using the argument, "They're on TV. They must know what they're talking about. People on TV wouldn't lie." Or some similar argument like they were in the military, thus their belief in UFOs must be correct. It's ridiculous.

Very few humans can engage in complex, multi-factoral analysis. It's much easier to sell simple ideas with supporting imagery, slogans, short articles, opinion, commentary, and the like that use emotion to influence. People are making millions and billions of dollars in this fashion.

Facebook, Twitter, and social media in general show the power of short form messaging with memes, short posts, tweets, reels, pictures, and the like that show how easily such information can spread and influence opinion.

Most humans are incapable of reading, analyzing, and digesting longer form information like books, scientific studies, lengthy statistical analysis, and other longer form information that shows a clearly different idea of the many issues that are dealt with running a nation. I guess I should be happy that the majority of leadership isn't as gullible as regular people even though I find their policies against our interests as a nation. They at least show a complex understanding of a given issue which they legislate and manage in a multifarious way.

[RiverDog]

I hear this all the time from my friends. I have attempted to point out the various inaccuracies. I recall explaining about expired visas being the primary means by which an immigrant remains in the nation in an illegal state and that coming across the border illegally is not the primary means of entry, but they would rather believe the images they see of people coming across the border illegally. There's so many people that love to vilify some broad group as the problem because it is so easy to do.

You hit a raw nerve there, my friend. I once pointed out that fact to Idahawkman and his response was something like "Yea, we need to step up enforcement there, too, send ICE after them". What I tried to explain to him was that if they had at one time been legal, then they have already been vetted and determined not to be a security threat, so we are essentially dedicating law enforcement resources to go after people that by definition do not pose an eminent danger to anyone. To the contrary, many illegals, especially those that came here legally, are deathly afraid of any encounter with law enforcement because they are afraid of alerting them to the fact that they aren't here legally and would be deported so they are even less likely to commit a crime.

[Aseahawkfan]

You hit a raw nerve there, my friend. I once pointed out that fact to Idahawkman and his response was something like "Yea, we need to step up enforcement there, too, send ICE after them". What I tried to explain to him was that if they had at one time been legal, then they have already been vetted and determined not to be a security threat, so we are essentially dedicating law enforcement resources to go after people that by definition do not pose an eminent danger to anyone. To the contrary, many illegals, especially those that came here legally, are deathly afraid of any encounter with law enforcement because they are afraid of alerting them to the fact that they aren't here legally and would be deported so they are even less likely to commit a crime.

Just like when I hear them bring up some crime committed by an immigrant. I point out that the vast majority of crimes are committed by citizens, but nope, doesn't fit the narrative.

It's all kind of ridiculous.

This vaccine better work. We need to see the case counts dropping. People have to get out of their house. They're acting like a Sims character locked in a room with no door. They're getting straight up Stir Crazy. These lockdowns have basically put America in an almost prison-like environment and they're losing their minds.

[RiverDog]

Just like when I hear them bring up some crime committed by an immigrant. I point out that the vast majority of crimes are committed by citizens, but nope, doesn't fit the narrative.

It's all kind of ridiculous.

Kind of? I honestly wish people could see the things I've seen with regards to immigrants. Especially being an old white guy that represents to them the established American, all I have to do is smile and give them a thumbs up and they light up like a Roman candle, yet because people are paranoid when they talk in their native tongue or speak with an accent, they somehow think that they are a threat to their way of life. And here I sit as a conservative painted by liberals as being a racist.

This vaccine better work. We need to see the case counts dropping. People have to get out of their house. They're acting like a Sims character locked in a room with no door. They're getting straight up Stir Crazy. These lockdowns have basically put America in an almost prison-like environment and they're losing their minds.

The vaccine will work. The challenge is getting it into enough arms in a timely manner.

I've mentioned this a couple of times, but I really think that one of the things that is driving people crazy during this pandemic is the effect that the mask wearing is having on us. Wearing a mask obscures a smile or a frown. Someone says something to you and it's hard to tell if they're joking or serious. It has the tendency to de-humanize us, like we're a bunch of robots roaming around in the grocery store. I've experienced that sensation and have been conscious enough to realize what's happening to my perception, but I wonder how it could affect others that may not have the same ability to self appraise their state of mind and understand what's happening.

[Aseahawkfan]

Kind of? I honestly wish people could see the things I've seen with regards to immigrants. Especially being an old white guy that represents to them the established American, all I have to do is smile and give them a thumbs up and they light up like a Roman candle, yet because people are paranoid when they talk in their native tongue or speak with an accent, they somehow think that they are a threat to their way of life. And here I sit as a conservative painted by liberals as being a racist.

The race baiting by the left is exactly why a few of my buddies think the left hates white people. The left never misses an opportunity to let white people know that minorities think they're racist by virtue of the skin color and that they're privileged for being able walk around and live normally. And that only white people can be racist because they hold the power. And all the usual drivel. The right comes back with their usual drivel of blacks have bad culture, blacks commit more crimes, and the usual BS. Back and forth at each other getting us nowhere.

I've tried to explain that a handful of voices on the left making claims of systemic racism and all white people are racist doesn't represent everyone. And that you can't look at people as all the same as that leads to unnecessary conflict based on false suppositions. But the media is very good at putting the extreme viewpoint front and center to sell the fear. People say sex sells, but so does fear. What doesn't sell? Good news and balanced debate and viewpoints.

The vaccine will work. The challenge is getting it into enough arms in a timely manner.

I've mentioned this a couple of times, but I really think that one of the things that is driving people crazy during this pandemic is the effect that the mask wearing is having on us. Wearing a mask obscures a smile or a frown. Someone says something to you and it's hard to tell if they're joking or serious. It has the tendency to de-humanize us, like we're a bunch of robots roaming around in the grocery store. I've experienced that sensation and have been conscious enough to realize what's happening to my perception, but I wonder how it could affect others that may not have the same ability to self appraise their state of mind and understand what's happening.

Wouldn't surprise me if that was part of it. This has been a toxic mix of circumstances with a toxic leader at the top of it all.

[I-5]

The 'middle' can be an expanded guest worker program, amnesty for illegals that have lived here a period of time, higher immigration limits, making DACA the law of the land, etc. That's just a sampling. My point is that there are a lot of aspects to immigration reform and border security. Cooperation and compromise in one area could lead to a similar outcome in other areas.

Didn't mean to leave you hanging...ran to do a couple of meetings after the last comment. Regarding your 'middle' ground on immigration, yes I would be in favor of those measures you propose. Wouldn't those measures make sense even 4 years ago, though. or is so far off what other conservatives would agree with? By the way, contrary to the conservative narrative, not all democrats are for 'open boarders' (I misspelled 'border' on purpose, because that's how I usually see the word spelled by anti-immigration types, who knows why).

Regarding the census, what my friend says is the purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of actual people living in a given area, and has never been about immigration status, and it shouldn't be now. The SCOTUS, which leans conservative as you know, agrees with this view, and found the idea of adding of a question about immigration status by Wilbur Ross to be 'arbitrary'.

[Aseahawkfan]

Didn't mean to leave you hanging...ran to do a couple of meetings after the last comment. Regarding your 'middle' ground on immigration, yes I would be in favor of those measures you propose. Wouldn't those measures make sense even 4 years ago, though. or is so far off what other conservatives would agree with? By the way, contrary to the conservative narrative, not all democrats are for 'open boarders' (I misspelled 'border' on purpose, because that's how I usually see the word spelled by anti-immigration types, who knows why).

Regarding the census, what my friend says is the purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of actual people living in a given area, and has never been about immigration status, and it shouldn't be now. The SCOTUS, which leans conservative as you know, agrees with this view, and found the idea of adding of a question about immigration status by Wilbur Ross to be 'arbitrary'.

Your friend is right. The census is done once every 10 years. It's not about immigration, law enforcement or any of that. They are there to do a count, not collect information for ICE or any other government organization. It was stupid to use them to try to track citizenship status. We have plenty of other organizations to do that.

[RiverDog]

The 'middle' can be an expanded guest worker program, amnesty for illegals that have lived here a period of time, higher immigration limits, making DACA the law of the land, etc. That's just a sampling. My point is that there are a lot of aspects to immigration reform and border security. Cooperation and compromise in one area could lead to a similar outcome in other areas.

Didn't mean to leave you hanging...ran to do a couple of meetings after the last comment. Regarding your 'middle' ground on immigration, yes I would be in favor of those measures you propose. Wouldn't those measures make sense even 4 years ago, though. or is so far off what other conservatives would agree with? By the way, contrary to the conservative narrative, not all democrats are for 'open boarders' (I misspelled 'border' on purpose, because that's how I usually see the word spelled by anti-immigration types, who knows why).

No one is going to use the term "open borders" to describe their position just like most Dem pols won't use the term "defund the police". The terms are incendiary and not completely accurate. My opinion, examples of "open borders" policies are calls from the far left to de-criminalize illegal border crossing and eliminate ICE. In any event, immigration reform is a large enough subject that it would appear to me to be an area where compromise could result in a more sane policy instead of these extreme proposals from both sides. It might be something that would give conservatives the sense that their opinions are being taken into account instead of the left shoving stuff down their throats like Trump did with the application of his policies.

Regarding the census, what my friend says is the purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of actual people living in a given area, and has never been about immigration status, and it shouldn't be now. The SCOTUS, which leans conservative as you know, agrees with this view, and found the idea of adding of a question about immigration status by Wilbur Ross to be 'arbitrary'.

Here's what SCOTUS said last month regarding the census:

"As the plaintiffs concede, any chilling effect from the memorandum dissipated upon the conclusion of the census response period. The plaintiffs now seek to substitute an alternative theory of a 'legally cognizable injury' premised on the threatened impact of an unlawful apportionment on congressional representation and federal funding...As the case comes to us, however, we conclude that it does not—at this time—present a dispute 'appropriately resolved through the judicial process,'” the opinion continues.

That indicates to me that the question of who should be counted in a census could be resolved by Congress passing a resolution signed by the President that defines a "person in each state" to include only citizens and legal permanent residents and that persons here illegally be considered not present for the purpose of apportionment.

Obviously the resolution would likely end up back with SCOTUS as it's defining a clause in the Constitution. But the court seems to indicate that it's up to Congress to define who it is they want counted to determine the apportionment of funding and representation.

[c_hawkbob]

One of the original intents and most important functions of the census is to appropriately apportion vital public services, from fire and police department staffing to number of available hospital beds to utility and transportation infrastructure capabilities. Disincluding any human occupants of a given area is in my view a Republican tool for allocating fewer resources to that area.

[NorthHawk]

That indicates to me that the question of who should be counted in a census could be resolved by Congress passing a resolution signed by the President that defines a "person in each state" to include only citizens and legal permanent residents and that persons here illegally be considered not present for the purpose of apportionment.

I don't hear that at all from your quote.
I sounds like they are pushing that decision back to the legislative/Executive branches and that's all.
But maybe I'm just a little addled this morning.

[RiverDog]

One of the original intents and most important functions of the census is to appropriately apportion vital public services, from fire and police department staffing to number of available hospital beds to utility and transportation infrastructure capabilities. Disincluding any human occupants of a given area is in my view a Republican tool for allocating fewer resources to that area.

Agreed. The problem is that the census also determines representation in Congress, and conservatives will make the argument that those legally residing in the country are being disenfranchised by those that are not legal residents.

[RiverDog]

That indicates to me that the question of who should be counted in a census could be resolved by Congress passing a resolution signed by the President that defines a "person in each state" to include only citizens and legal permanent residents and that persons here illegally be considered not present for the purpose of apportionment.

I don't hear that at all from your quote. I sounds like they are pushing that decision back to the legislative/Executive branches and that's all. But maybe I'm just a little addled this morning.

Perhaps. The ruling is vague. The only way it can be tested is by Congress passing a resolution and tossing it back in SCOTUS's lap to either declare it unconstitutional or let it stand.

[I-5]

No one is going to use the term "open borders" to describe their position just like most Dem pols won't use the term "defund the police". The terms are incendiary and not completely accurate. My opinion, examples of "open borders" policies are calls from the far left to de-criminalize illegal border crossing and eliminate ICE. In any event, immigration reform is a large enough subject that it would appear to me to be an area where compromise could result in a more sane policy instead of these extreme proposals from both sides. It might be something that would give conservatives the sense that their opinions are being taken into account instead of the left shoving stuff down their throats like Trump did with the application of his policies.

My question is why would this be a compromise to you personally? I think your proposal sounds reasonable as a package, whether you are conservative or liberal. In fact, that's the kind of immigration reform I've always believed in. If you yourself were a congressman, would you support this deal in a republican controlled congress?

By the way, both 'open borders' and 'defund the police' (you are correct to call them incendiary terms) are figures of speech used by the far right to describe reform of any kind - and it usually renders any thoughtful conversation moot. They are not used by anyone else, and I certainly would never use them.

[I-5]

That indicates to me that the question of who should be counted in a census could be resolved by Congress passing a resolution signed by the President that defines a "person in each state" to include only citizens and legal permanent residents and that persons here illegally be considered not present for the purpose of apportionment.


NorthHawk wrote:
I don't hear that at all from your quote. I sounds like they are pushing that decision back to the legislative/Executive branches and that's all. But maybe I'm just a little addled this morning.


Perhaps. The ruling is vague. The only way it can be tested is by Congress passing a resolution and tossing it back in SCOTUS's lap to either declare it unconstitutional or let it stand.

The point my friend made about the census (you asked me to share it) is that historically, immigration status has never been a part of the census. Why start now? What's the motive?

[RiverDog]

The point my friend made about the census (you asked me to share it) is that historically, immigration status has never been a part of the census. Why start now? What's the motive?

That would be difficult to answer unless I knew how many illegal aliens existed back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. My guess is that there weren't nearly as many illegal aliens in the 19th century as there is in the 21st so it was never an issue back then.

The motive is to find something relatively benign for liberals to compromise on that's going to have the effect of tossing the conservatives a bone. The census is conducted just once every 10 years and the ratio of illegals to the total population means that it has a relatively minimal overall effect on both funds appropriations and political representation. It's more symbolic than it is practical.

[I-5]

The census is conducted just once every 10 years and has a relatively minimal overall effect on both funds appropriations and political representation. It's more symbolic than it is practical.

That's a great argument for not introducing new language for it. Symbolic as you say, and yet Trump and Wilbur Ross tried anyway.

[RiverDog]

The census is conducted just once every 10 years and has a relatively minimal overall effect on both funds appropriations and political representation. It's more symbolic than it is practical.

That's a great argument for not introducing new language for it. Symbolic as you say, and yet Trump and Wilbur Ross tried anyway.

The issue was created by Trump as a way to fire up his base, but I do think that it has merit. We don't count a person on a temporary visa but we do count someone that overstays their visa and apportion political representation accordingly?

My point is that it would have such a minimal impact that the issue is worth sacrificing if it helps narrow the divide.

[I-5]

I think you lost me again. If Trump hadn't tried to fire up his base as you say and left the census alone....no one would even be talking about it, just like certifying an electoral vote count in Congress. These mundane events don't require controversy, but Trump keeps putting his foot in it...why?

Going back to my question about your compromise proposal, I think it sounds like a sane and reasonable package, something that both liberals and conservatives could agree on. Why do you think it would or wouldn't fly in a republican controlled congress?

[RiverDog]

I think you lost me again. If Trump hadn't tried to fire up his base as you say and left the census alone....no one would even be talking about it, just like certifying an electoral vote count in Congress. These mundane events don't require controversy, but Trump keeps putting his foot in it...why?

I'm done trying to explain it to you. I'm at the point now where all I am doing is repeating myself.

Going back to my question about your compromise proposal, I think it sounds like a sane and reasonable package, something that both liberals and conservatives could agree on. Why do you think it would or wouldn't fly in a republican controlled congress?

The Republicans don't control Congress.

The proposals I suggested, while leaving out things like de-criminalization of illegal border crossings and amnesty to illegals already here, ala AOC and the Squad, it would give conservatives something that they can feel included in policy making. If the Dems simply try to ram through every bit of the liberal agenda in the same manner that Trump tried to ram through his policies, it's not going to help heal the divide as so many of us have said is a priority.

[Hawktawk]

The reason I started this thread was to show what/why many conservatives are thinking and why they might have voted for Trump. There's a lot of single issue voters out there. We can't just write off 74 million people by saying You're guy is a crook, you lost the election, now sit down and STFU. We're running the country now, so get used to it!

A number of those issues Ramsey raised I agree with, especially the part where he says "pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us "racists!" That is definitely a sentiment that the left harbors about the right as demonstrated when Hillary Clinton said that half of Trump supporters, or some 37 million people, are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it"

In any event, I thought that the quote from Ramsey might be a good starting off point.

I get it RD. I agree with a lot of what’s said there . What I don’t agree with is the messenger. Dave Ramsey wants to talk about criminals and support a president who is corrupt and unfit .

Wrong message at the wrong time . For one Biden is no socialist . For another the fringe ideas of the far left will not become law in this senate . Nothing is worth allowing a psycho insurrectionist to be president a single moment longer

[RiverDog]

The reason I started this thread was to show what/why many conservatives are thinking and why they might have voted for Trump. There's a lot of single issue voters out there. We can't just write off 74 million people by saying You're guy is a crook, you lost the election, now sit down and STFU. We're running the country now, so get used to it!

A number of those issues Ramsey raised I agree with, especially the part where he says "pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us "racists!" That is definitely a sentiment that the left harbors about the right as demonstrated when Hillary Clinton said that half of Trump supporters, or some 37 million people, are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it"

In any event, I thought that the quote from Ramsey might be a good starting off point.

I get it RD. I agree with a lot of what’s said there . What I don’t agree with is the messenger. Dave Ramsey wants to talk about criminals and support a president who is corrupt and unfit.

Forget about the messenger. That wasn't my point. The object of the discussion is how conservatives view the country and if there are any opportunities for a compromise that would heal the divide.

Wrong message at the wrong time. For one Biden is no socialist. For another the fringe ideas of the far left will not become law in this senate.

Biden may not be, but there are a lot of socialists in Congress. In any event, the point of the discussion was finding areas of compromise.

[Hawktawk]

Dave Ramsay said we can’t afford 5 billion for a wall but we can afford “ free”Heath care . Let’s revisit the Obama proposal in 2013 of 25 billion for border security . It would have built over 700 miles of fence and doubled the number of border patrol . The carrot was a path to citizenship for the daca kids . 73 senators indicated they would support it . But Paul Ryan wanted to use the lives of desperate brown skinned people as a political football so he refused to bring the bill for a vote . It worked as Obama lost the congress in the midterm . The dirty secret is socialist illegal immigrant lover Obama deported more illegals in his first term than Trump . Last November we had more border incursions than any month of Obama’s term . It’s because Trump pulled the foreign aid from the northern triangle where most of these illegals come from . These people have a crime rate 6 times America , corrupt police and widespread rape of women . Biden regularly visited the region to coordinate reform and as I say Trump has had more problems on the border . His adminstration raided the
Pentagon and built 250 miles of fence and in every other respect his policy is a disaster like most everything else . I wish he had built a pandemic wall .

[Hawktawk]

Rd there are 2 self described socialists in the congress . AOC and Bernie Sanders . AOC got exectky 1 minute at the dem convention which she used to nominate Sanders . As Biden told Trump during the debate “ I’m no socialist . You forgot who you’re running against Joe Biden . Bernie Sanders also said it well. Republicans believe in socialism just for the very rich . Since this pandemic began American billionaires collective weath has increased a cool 1 TRILLION. Meanwhile 3 in 10 Spokane residents are at least 2 month behind on utility bills . Half a million Resturant’s are bankrupt . Our handling of the pandemic is horrifying , a zombie apocalypse .

Buddy if this wonderful capitalism is the alternative to socialism then socialism looks better by the minute .

[RiverDog]

You're missing the point, my friend. I didn't start the thread to debate Dave Ramsey, Barak Obama, Paul Ryan, the merits of socialism, or the border wall. If you want to discuss those issues, please start a thread and I will be happy to participate.

The point of the thread was to outline some of the issues that are near and dear to conservatives and where there might be room for compromise.

[c_hawkbob]

Rd there are 2 self described socialists in the congress . AOC and Bernie Sanders . AOC got exectky 1 minute at the dem convention which she used to nominate Sanders . As Biden told Trump during the debate “ I’m no socialist . You forgot who you’re running against Joe Biden . Bernie Sanders also said it well. Republicans believe in socialism just for the very rich . Since this pandemic began American billionaires collective weath has increased a cool 1 TRILLION. Meanwhile 3 in 10 Spokane residents are at least 2 month behind on utility bills . Half a million Resturant’s are bankrupt . Our handling of the pandemic is horrifying , a zombie apocalypse .

Buddy if this wonderful capitalism is the alternative to socialism then socialism looks better by the minute .

Agree, with the stipulation that we're talking about democratic socialism, not the brand of totalitarian socialism the right is trying to scare their constituency into believing we're advocating.

[I-5]

The point of the thread was to outline some of the issues that are near and dear to conservatives and where there might be room for compromise.

My point is why are there aren't talks of compromise when the republicans are in control, like they have been in the Senate the last 6 years? I'm all in favor of compromise, because the best way to peace is when both sides feel like they are getting something. The nomination of Merrick Garland is a great example of a compromise pick by Obama, a centrist* that both republicans and democrats alike should have had no problem agreeing on, yet Mitch wouldn't even allow the process to begin?

*Senator Orrin Hatch, President pro tempore of the United States Senate and the most senior Republican Senator at the time, predicted that President Obama would "name someone the liberal Democratic base wants" even though he "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.

[Aseahawkfan]

My point is why are there aren't talks of compromise when the republicans are in control, like they have been in the Senate the last 6 years? I'm all in favor of compromise, because the best way to peace is when both sides feel like they are getting something. The nomination of Merrick Garland is a great example of a compromise pick by Obama, a centrist* that both republicans and democrats alike should have had no problem agreeing on, yet Mitch wouldn't even allow the process to begin?

*Senator Orrin Hatch, President pro tempore of the United States Senate and the most senior Republican Senator at the time, predicted that President Obama would "name someone the liberal Democratic base wants" even though he "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.

Because Fox News is better at making the Democrats look insane than CNN and MSNBC is at making Republicans look insane? Fortunately the gift of Trump has opened up the floodgates for making the Republicans look like total idiots. Trump tossed the left wing media a softball that I hope they can knock out of the park in a few years. It doesn't get much better than this. Next election if I were a Democrat election manager, I would be plastering the Capitol attack everywhere with Republican lawmaker faces highly visible. Watch the easy win.

Americans will forget. But at least in the next 2 year election cycle Democrats have a lot of easy ammunition to use courtesy of the narcissistic, uncontrollable loon whose ego and mind shattered at the same time when he lost the election.

[I-5]

ecause Fox News is better at making the Democrats look insane than CNN and MSNBC is at making Republicans look insane?

I think they're pretty dead even if you ask me.

[Aseahawkfan]

Rd there are 2 self described socialists in the congress . AOC and Bernie Sanders . AOC got exectky 1 minute at the dem convention which she used to nominate Sanders . As Biden told Trump during the debate “ I’m no socialist . You forgot who you’re running against Joe Biden . Bernie Sanders also said it well. Republicans believe in socialism just for the very rich . Since this pandemic began American billionaires collective weath has increased a cool 1 TRILLION. Meanwhile 3 in 10 Spokane residents are at least 2 month behind on utility bills . Half a million Resturant’s are bankrupt . Our handling of the pandemic is horrifying , a zombie apocalypse .

Buddy if this wonderful capitalism is the alternative to socialism then socialism looks better by the minute .

What examples of socialism do you think look better by the minute? There are no major socialist nations save perhaps some podunks nations. There are only capitalist nations with socialized elements as the majority of nations. Having a national medical plan does not make you socialist save in the minds of right wingers who can't analyze very well. Socialism as a primary economic system has been tried and failed. What we have now is Socio-capitalism in every nation including America. It comes down to what you want to socialize. America has a socialized military, law enforcement, education system, bureaucratic system, parks in many places, pension plan for retirement, medicare, and the like.

Given our level of taxation, we have been Socio-Capitalist for a long time. Every nation has come to know the genius of this hybrid including China.

What people primarily want is the reforms found in the Scandinavian and European nations attributed to the Social Democrats. We do need heavy reform in medicine and education to strengthen our capitalist engine. Right now this corporate socialism equivalent isn't working great.

[NorthHawk]

Relative to the rest of the world, America is far right. Up here in Canada, AOC would be mainstream and maybe
a little to the right. Sweden is doing real well in Europe and have a huge entrepreneurial sector even though they
are a socialist democracy. Since the wealthy right wing have dismantled the New Deal originally created by FDR, things
have gone downhill for the average person and family.

[Aseahawkfan]

Relative to the rest of the world, America is far right. Up here in Canada, AOC would be mainstream and maybe
a little to the right. Sweden is doing real well in Europe and have a huge entrepreneurial sector even though they
are a socialist democracy. Since the wealthy right wing have dismantled the New Deal originally created by FDR, things
have gone downhill for the average person and family.

Sweden isn't socialist. Sweden does not own the means of production and is still highly privatized. Sweden has a lot of billionaires and entrepreneurs.

Thus one of the major problems is the misuse of words and ideas. Socialism as an economic system has a very specific definition as in social ownership of the means of production and no private property. That is not Sweden.

For some reason in America we hear socialized medicine and we think socialism. It's not. We have many social services.

Right and left is really just words along some spectrum within a nation. I wish we could get rid of such words as they are time wasting.

The basic reality is capitalism is the best economic system as your base system for a variety of reasons. But you need to socialize some of your systems to have equal delivery of those services which should be nationalized like law enforcement, military, and the like. It is likely that medicine has reached that point as well and I believe property, but some would disagree. I think a basic income is a bad idea as that discourages productivity, but assistance acquiring property at a reasonable price would be far more valuable than a continuous income. Once someone has an established home and medical care, they are far more able to take risks learning new skills and require a lower income to sustain themselves than if they have to pay out the majority of their income for shelter. Right now lower to middle income Americans pay the largest share of their income obtaining shelter and property. That's a bad situation when you have this large group of people having to work an enormous number of hours to maintain shelter, a basic necessity.

It should be common sense if your system is not creating an environment where people can prosper, then it won't work. Doesn't matter what system. Even Socialism and Communism in their pure forms failed because people could not prosper in their system. Equal shares of poverty is not prospering. But at the same time creating a capitalist system where people are increasingly unable to prosper because advancement has created a technocracy that is increasingly driving people with low value skills into impoverished circumstances because they can't keep up with fast changing economic circumstances that is concentrating wealth with technical workers with advanced educations and skills that are hard to obtain isn't a going to work either. Right now there is a middle and upper class of high paid tech workers, finance workers, and the like because those jobs are high value. But you have a good percentage of people lost in the weeds who have no idea how to work with technology or take advantage of this fast moving world.

And you can't look at them and say "get better" and hope to fix everything.

There are ways to fix all this if you just think about how humans function. What their basic necessities and greatest fears are on a large scale. Then adjust your economics to account for them de-risking some of these elements. Medicine is basically the fear of death or infirmity. Shelter it the fear of homelessness. Food is already in a pretty good place with only a slight need for improvement. Shelter and medicine are in a bad place right now. It is harming our overall economic system.

I should really focus on proving this. I know the math will bear out the shelter issue even though some think these 30 year mortgages are a good idea. The medicine problem is obvious to anyone who works and has lost their job having to find a new one almost immediately to obtain affordable medical.

Economics are fluid. The New Deal was good for that time period, but not necessarily for all time. Taxation was far too high at the upper levels. That level of taxation is unnecessary if you have smarter economics in other areas.