Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here's what's really wrong with the Democrat Party

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    That is why the DNC lost in 2016: the elitist 'I don't produce anything, but I am superior because I am helpless' attitude.

    The sneer that ignores the fact that they are begging water and electricity from other states...
    It is more like the Obama sneer "You didn't produce that!" only you need to add, "If you did produce it I'm going to either regulate or tax the crap out of it for doing so!"

    That's the Democrat problem today. The party ignores average people and rational economics in favor of special interests and Leftist economic dogma.
    Democrat energy policy puts the dogma of saving the planet ahead of people and economics. Doesn't matter to them that "green" energy is costly and that many people won't be able to afford it. Their solution will be to subsidize its cost through taxing "The Rich."
    Cheap energy sources? Those don't meet Leftist dogma so they're out. Dogma trumps logic and reality and Trump beat the snot out of the Democrats... pun intended.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
      I see we live in a post-truth world where whatever far right conservatives think is true even if it really is not.

      What states are most dependent on federal handouts?
      https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/

      http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-a...oorest-states/
      Lookie here, the poorest states are those states where G David Bock claims all the "makers" live. Ironically enough the states populated by Bock's supposed "takers" are all least dependent on Federal handouts and have higher levels of wealth. The biggest welfare moochers are the farmers in "Flyover country" with their endless farm subsidies. The folks in solid red states are the biggest takers of all. But of course, it's ok because they are White and vote Republican.
      Take a look at the first map in post #8 here and that's the first clue of where your links are wrong. You'd need to do this by county, not state. By county and rural area my state is mostly Red, but high population concentrations in urban areas make most of them Blue, and make us a blue state (barely).

      You don't find urban ghettos in wheatfields. Aside from above average crime stats what do urban ghettos produce? Even within those blue urban areas not every one is liberal and voting Democrat, usually it's only a slight majority, and likewise you find some liberal voters in those rural/red counties.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Take a look at the first map in post #8 here and that's the first clue of where your links are wrong. You'd need to do this by county, not state. By county and rural area my state is mostly Red, but high population concentrations in urban areas make most of them Blue, and make us a blue state (barely).
        Citizens vote, not acres.

        You don't find urban ghettos in wheatfields. Aside from above average crime stats what do urban ghettos produce? Even within those blue urban areas not every one is liberal and voting Democrat, usually it's only a slight majority, and likewise you find some liberal voters in those rural/red counties.
        You don't find rural poverty in urban areas.

        The map is meaningless.

        Comment


        • #19
          TAG,

          The much admired Teddy Roosevelt was a GOP member turned progressive. Progressives pose no risk at all to the USA, same with Democrats and GOP members. Its one thing to be critical of each other, but IMO The tyranny is when one party wants to shut down another. Do you at least agree progressives should have their voices heard or if it was up to you would you ban and or jail progressives just for being progressive?

          Commie party bosses from North Korea would be very very happy that today there are democrats who want to shut down the GOP, GOP members who want to prevent Progressives from holding office, etc. The progressive party platform of 1912 under Teddy Roosevelt was an outstanding platform, its something we can learn from today,


          THE RULE OF THE PEOPLE

          The National Progressive party, committed to the principles of government by a self-controlled democracy expressing its will through representatives of the people, pledges itself to secure such alterations in the fundamental law of the several States and of the United States as shall insure the representative character of the government.

          In particular, the party declares for direct primaries for the nomination of State and National officers, for nation-wide preferential primaries for candidates for the presidency; for the direct election of United States Senators by the people; and we urge on the States the policy of the short ballot, with responsibility to the people secured by the initiative, referendum and recall.


          See there^^^^ TAG the Progressive party platform of 1912 is inline with you and other beliefs of conservatives who want less Government.


          EQUAL SUFFRAGE

          The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies political rights on account of sex, pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to men and women alike.

          CORRUPT PRACTICES

          We pledge our party to legislation that will compel strict limitation of all campaign contributions and expenditures, and detailed publicity of both before as well as after primaries and elections.



          SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE

          The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for:

          Effective legislation looking to the prevention of industrial accidents, occupational diseases, overwork, involuntary unemployment, and other injurous effects incident to modern industry;

          The fixing of minimum safety and health standards for the various occupations, and the exercise of the public authority of State and Nation, including the Federal Control over interstate commerce, and the taxing power, to maintain such standards;

          The prohibition of child labor;

          Minimum wage standards for working women, to provide a “living wage” in all industrial occupations;

          The general prohibition of night work for women and the establishment of an eight hour day for women and young persons;

          One day’s rest in seven for all wage workers;

          The eight hour day in continuous twenty-four hour industries;

          The abolition of the convict contract labor system; substituting a system of prison production for governmental consumption only; and the application of prisoners’ earnings to the support of their dependent families;

          Publicity as to wages, hours and conditions of labor; full reports upon industrial accidents and diseases, and the opening to public inspection of all tallies, weights, measures and check systems on labor products;



          PANAMA CANAL


          The Panama Canal, built and paid for by the American people, must be used primarily for their benefit.

          We demand that the canal shall be so operated as to break the transportation monopoly now held and misused by the transcontinental railroads by maintaining sea competition with them; that ships directly or indirectly owned or controlled by American railroad corporations shall not be permitted to use the canal, and that American ships engaged in coastwise trade shall pay no tolls.

          The Progressive party will favor legislation having for its aim the development of friendship and commerce between the United States and
          Latin-American nations.


          ^Progressives stand up not only for America, but want other countries to be successful as well which would increase the prosperity of the USA. Prosperous allies of the USA= a more prosperous USA.

          http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...tform-of-1912/
          Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
          Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

          George S Patton

          Comment


          • #20
            When the great TR was shot at by John Flammang Schrank...Roosevelt, a Bull moose progressive at the time, reacted as a gentlemen would. Roosevelt called upon all Americans to repudiate those who speak with a foul mouth or those who want to attack members of opposing political parties.


            I am going to ask you to be as quiet as possible for I am not able to give to challenge of the bull moose quite as loudly. Now, I do not know who he was or what he represented. He was a coward. He stood in the darkness in the crowd around the automobile and when they cheered me, and I got up to bow, he stepped forward and shot me in the darkness.

            Now, friends, of course, I do not know, as I say, anything about him; but it is a very natural thing that weak and vicious minds should be inflamed to acts of violence by the kind of awful mendacity and abuse that have been heaped upon me for the last three months by the papers in the interest of not only Mr. Debs but of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Taft.

            Friends, I will disown and repudiate any man of my party who attacks with such foul slander and abuse any opponent of any other party; and now I wish to say seriously to all the daily newspapers, to the Republicans, the Democrat, and Socialist parties, that they cannot, month in month out and year in and year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault that they have made and not expect that brutal, violent natures, or brutal and violent characters, especially when the brutality is accompanied by a not very strong mind; they cannot expect that such natures will be unaffected by it.


            Thats a Progressive right there^ Even when a Assassin tried to instill fear into Roosevelt, Roosevelt stood up like a true American would.

            http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/sit..._The_Cause.htm
            Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
            Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

            George S Patton

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              Take a look at the first map in post #8 here and that's the first clue of where your links are wrong. You'd need to do this by county, not state. By county and rural area my state is mostly Red, but high population concentrations in urban areas make most of them Blue, and make us a blue state (barely).

              You don't find urban ghettos in wheatfields. Aside from above average crime stats what do urban ghettos produce? Even within those blue urban areas not every one is liberal and voting Democrat, usually it's only a slight majority, and likewise you find some liberal voters in those rural/red counties.
              I think our state would be typical given size and amount of federal land.

              but what going on in those southern states.

              Lousiana I get still in recovery mode but the other ones .

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
                TAG,

                The much admired Teddy Roosevelt was a GOP member turned progressive. Progressives pose no risk at all to the USA, same with Democrats and GOP members. Its one thing to be critical of each other, but IMO The tyranny is when one party wants to shut down another. Do you at least agree progressives should have their voices heard or if it was up to you would you ban and or jail progressives just for being progressive?

                Commie party bosses from North Korea would be very very happy that today there are democrats who want to shut down the GOP, GOP members who want to prevent Progressives from holding office, etc. The progressive party platform of 1912 under Teddy Roosevelt was an outstanding platform, its something we can learn from today,


                THE RULE OF THE PEOPLE

                The National Progressive party, committed to the principles of government by a self-controlled democracy expressing its will through representatives of the people, pledges itself to secure such alterations in the fundamental law of the several States and of the United States as shall insure the representative character of the government.

                In particular, the party declares for direct primaries for the nomination of State and National officers, for nation-wide preferential primaries for candidates for the presidency; for the direct election of United States Senators by the people; and we urge on the States the policy of the short ballot, with responsibility to the people secured by the initiative, referendum and recall.


                See there^^^^ TAG the Progressive party platform of 1912 is inline with you and other beliefs of conservatives who want less Government.
                To the contrary, they do an this post of yours shows it clearly. Progressives then want what Progressives now want... more or less.

                "Direct election of Senators." Now it's direct election of a President. It's always a demand to reduce the Republic to a direct democracy... Or, more aptly... Mob rule.

                EQUAL SUFFRAGE

                The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies political rights on account of sex, pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to men and women alike.
                Now that that has occurred, it's voting for everybody. Eliminate all voter registration requirements, eligibility requirements, and just let anyone who shows up have a vote.

                Rewritten for today:

                "The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies political rights on account of past crimes or felonies, and pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to all immigrants and citizens alike."

                Sound familiar...?

                CORRUPT PRACTICES

                We pledge our party to legislation that will compel strict limitation of all campaign contributions and expenditures, and detailed publicity of both before as well as after primaries and elections.
                This hasn't changed either. But, the cry is selective. Those entities that would donate mostly to non-Progressive causes need regulation, but those that do donate to mostly Progressive causes are fine:

                Good donations = Unions, rich Progressives (eg., George Soros), bundled small donations, etc.
                Bad donations = Corporations (aka "Big Business"), rich Conservatives (eg., The Koch brothers).

                Progressives are also in favor of using taxpayer money to finance campaigns. That is using a public good for private gain.

                SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE

                The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for:

                Effective legislation looking to the prevention of industrial accidents, occupational diseases, overwork, involuntary unemployment, and other injurious effects incident to modern industry;


                The fixing of minimum safety and health standards for the various occupations, and the exercise of the public authority of State and Nation, including the Federal Control over interstate commerce, and the taxing power, to maintain such standards;
                How safe is safe enough? Today OSHA is crushing many industries through onerous safety rules that go beyond reasonable standards.

                The prohibition of child labor;
                Over done. Sure, prohibiting true child labor is reasonable but telling a company that a 16 year old can't do anything even slightly hazardous is unreasonable. It eliminates job training for teenagers in a myriad of fields they used to be able to work in.

                Minimum wage standards for working women, to provide a “living wage” in all industrial occupations;
                They're still demanding that today, only the value of that "living wage" keeps going up. It's a fool's errand.

                The general prohibition of night work for women and the establishment of an eight hour day for women and young persons;
                Why not everybody? Today the call isn't for an 8 hour day, its for all sorts of time off. There's one movement wanting to give women one or two days off a month for their period.

                http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016...n_9373100.html

                One day’s rest in seven for all wage workers;
                Now it's calls for a 4 day work week...

                http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/09/...kweek-proposed

                The eight hour day in continuous twenty-four hour industries;
                Now it's shift differential, etc. They get an inch and want another foot.

                The abolition of the convict contract labor system; substituting a system of prison production for governmental consumption only; and the application of prisoners’ earnings to the support of their dependent families;
                Yea, like that's worked out so well...

                https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news...ing-factories/

                https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news...y-with-unicor/

                Publicity as to wages, hours and conditions of labor; full reports upon industrial accidents and diseases, and the opening to public inspection of all tallies, weights, measures and check systems on labor products;
                That's in place now. The problem again is how much of that is enough?

                Nothing much has changed. Progressives demand ever more government, ever more wealth redistribution, and clamor for "social justice" when it can never be achieved particularly through the use of government.

                SSDD.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The Progressive Regression

                  The Progressive Regression
                  It’s curtains for an empty conceit.

                  The transformation of “progressive” from a proudly worn badge of honor to a pejorative comes as a sign of progress.

                  Eight years of Barack Obama has that effect on a word.

                  “I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” candidate Obama said on the campaign trail in 2008. The use of an anachronistic term to describe a forward-leaning outlook struck as an oxymoron. Whereas Bill Clinton called himself a “New Democrat” and Michael Dukakis embraced “liberal,” Obama borrowed a word dramatically spiking in usage a century earlier and on a precipitous decline for 35 years prior to his election.

                  If you purchased stock in the word a decade ago and sold today, your portfolio would have enjoyed substantial progress.

                  “Progressive” did not sound so 1908 eight years ago, if only for the lack of sentient centenarians to recognize the déjà vu. After its Tourette’s-like use on MSNBC and its function as an open-sesame password among Democrat candidates trolling for votes, “progressive” surely sounds so eight years ago now. Had the Obama presidency ended with an electoral affirmation this might not be so.
                  ...
                  “Progressive” soon goes away. The belief behind it? Never able to rethink principles, liberals radicals progressives instead reset labels — new bottles, old Mad Dog 20/20. Drunk on ideology, firebrands dump the buzzword. They never kick the habit.

                  Stubborn ideologues blame the messenger or the marketing, never the ideas. This stands in contrast to how Donald Trump recalibrated the Republican Party. He condemned past Republican adventurism abroad, championed the working man at home, and de-emphasized social issues in response to the waning influence of religion. He reoriented the position on borders 180 degrees from the last Republican president. His law-and-order rhetoric and promise to repeal and replace Obamacare came from a familiar playbook. But this was not George W. Bush’s Republican Party or George W. Bush’s father’s Republican Party. It adapted to overcome.

                  The hard Left fantasizes over soft ideals. People who pine for social brotherhood, the perfectibility of man, and complete equality make politics the art of the impossible. Concrete reality can’t wake them from this dream. Ideas faltering in the world does not rebut them in the imagination. The failure to attain the unattainable inspires rather than dissuades. So enamored with the dream and divorced from the reality, idealists never let go of the beautiful idea.
                  ...
                  “The first essential in the Progressive programme is the right of the people to rule,” Theodore Roosevelt told the Progressive Party convention 104 years ago. This was not true then, and it is not true now. The infidelity to this ideal helps explain why progressivism’s sell-by date expires sooner than other programs.

                  More than a century ago, progressives sought to empower experts in the bureaucracy, Federal Reserve, and judiciary to take decisions away from the electorate and their representatives. They pushed eugenics, prohibition, and federal safety measures to protect the people from themselves. The current incarnation of progressivism suffers from this elitist mindset. But this manifests itself mostly in making noise over issues that few care about (transgender bathroom access) and far removed from the average voter’s concerns (global warming). Trump connected to people at rallies, on Twitter, and through a simple slogan. Progressivism increasingly disconnects itself from regular people.

                  Progressivism wiped out populism in the late 19th century. One hundred twenty-five years later, populism has returned the favor.
                  ...
                  https://spectator.org/the-progressiv...1499-104298097

                  In getting back to the theme of the OP.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    To the contrary, they do an this post of yours shows it clearly. Progressives then want what Progressives now want... more or less.

                    "Direct election of Senators." Now it's direct election of a President. It's always a demand to reduce the Republic to a direct democracy... Or, more aptly... Mob rule.



                    Now that that has occurred, it's voting for everybody. Eliminate all voter registration requirements, eligibility requirements, and just let anyone who shows up have a vote.

                    Rewritten for today:

                    "The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies political rights on account of past crimes or felonies, and pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to all immigrants and citizens alike."

                    Sound familiar...?



                    This hasn't changed either. But, the cry is selective. Those entities that would donate mostly to non-Progressive causes need regulation, but those that do donate to mostly Progressive causes are fine:

                    Good donations = Unions, rich Progressives (eg., George Soros), bundled small donations, etc.
                    Bad donations = Corporations (aka "Big Business"), rich Conservatives (eg., The Koch brothers).

                    Progressives are also in favor of using taxpayer money to finance campaigns. That is using a public good for private gain.



                    How safe is safe enough? Today OSHA is crushing many industries through onerous safety rules that go beyond reasonable standards.



                    Over done. Sure, prohibiting true child labor is reasonable but telling a company that a 16 year old can't do anything even slightly hazardous is unreasonable. It eliminates job training for teenagers in a myriad of fields they used to be able to work in.



                    They're still demanding that today, only the value of that "living wage" keeps going up. It's a fool's errand.



                    Why not everybody? Today the call isn't for an 8 hour day, its for all sorts of time off. There's one movement wanting to give women one or two days off a month for their period.

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016...n_9373100.html



                    Now it's calls for a 4 day work week...

                    http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/09/...kweek-proposed



                    Now it's shift differential, etc. They get an inch and want another foot.



                    Yea, like that's worked out so well...

                    https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news...ing-factories/

                    https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news...y-with-unicor/



                    That's in place now. The problem again is how much of that is enough?

                    Nothing much has changed. Progressives demand ever more government, ever more wealth redistribution, and clamor for "social justice" when it can never be achieved particularly through the use of government.

                    SSDD.
                    Boy where can I start. Are you saying Teddy Roosevelt was a monster?

                    No, the progressive party platform of 1912 DID NOT argue for a direct election of the POTUS.

                    Progressives demand nothing, they are and have been bringing forth an argument. Dont mix up what the Progressive Party Platform actually said in 1912 with what perhaps you might think the platform implies or with what "Progressives" of 2016 have to say.

                    Child labor is a disgrace, no argument there...anyone who approves of young kids working in sweatshops should be jailed. We are talking about 8-12 year olds working in a sweatshop, Americans should fight agaisnt that type of child labor. TAG a 16 year old can get a job in plenty of places, Progressive politics has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing a 16 year old from getting a job, only a dumba## would prevent a 16 year old from working.

                    The Progressive platform of 1912 is arguing for fair and balanced campaign contributions. What are you talking about wrt George Soros. Going by the Progressive party platform of 1912...ALL politicians would be limited in accepting campaign donations.

                    Are you for abolishing the minimum wage and paying workers perhaps 50cents per hour? A M/w is beneficial in the sense that it stops dictators from taking over the lives of Americans...nobody is arguing that the mw should for example be 50$ an hour.


                    We want an 8 hour work day tag...5 days a week. Not arguing here for a 4 day work week.

                    And yes, all companies should practice safe work. Thats just common sense, people dying on the job due to poor working conditions is totally unacceptable. There is no grand conspiracy going on here, just common sense.
                    Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                    George S Patton

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
                      I see we live in a post-truth world where whatever far right conservatives think is true even if it really is not.

                      What states are most dependent on federal handouts?
                      https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/

                      http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-a...oorest-states/
                      Lookie here, the poorest states are those states where G David Bock claims all the "makers" live. Ironically enough the states populated by Bock's supposed "takers" are all least dependent on Federal handouts and have higher levels of wealth. The biggest welfare moochers are the farmers in "Flyover country" with their endless farm subsidies. The folks in solid red states are the biggest takers of all. But of course, it's ok because they are White and vote Republican.
                      Maybe it's because some of those states with the big population centers have the big corporations which feed the Feds a lot of tax dollars.

                      Here are the states with the largest % of population on public assistance (2009)-

                      1. California...........3.30%
                      2. Maine................2.37
                      3. Tennessee..........2.15
                      4. Massachusetts.....2.09
                      5. Vermont.............2.02
                      6. DC.....................1.99
                      7. New York............1.92
                      8. Minnesota...........1.88
                      9. Washington.........1.86
                      10. New Mexico.......1.83
                      11. Indiana.............1.83
                      12. Rhode Island.....1.79
                      13. Michigan...........1.65
                      14. Pennsylvania.....1.60
                      15. Oregon.............1.55

                      http://www.cnbc.com/2009/07/21/The-B...s.html?slide=2
                      {}

                      "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
                        Boy where can I start. Are you saying Teddy Roosevelt was a monster?
                        Not even close. I'm saying he was an ideologue who's ideas were as dead then as they are today. That's why he got nowhere as a candidate after his one term in office.

                        No, the progressive party platform of 1912 DID NOT argue for a direct election of the POTUS.
                        It was working on direct election of Senators. That stands in contrast to the intent of the Founders who had senators selected by state legislatures and governors to give the states themselves say in Washington.
                        By directly electing them, the senate became nothing but another House, just with fewer members. That, today, is one of the bigger problems with the Senate. It also weakened greatly the ability of states to have a say in the federal government.

                        Today, Progressives want the direct vote of the President to further take away power from the states and hand it... concentrate it?... in Washington at the federal level. The Left loves to concentrate power in government.

                        Progressives demand nothing, they are and have been bringing forth an argument. Dont mix up what the Progressive Party Platform actually said in 1912 with what perhaps you might think the platform implies or with what "Progressives" of 2016 have to say.
                        Sure they do. They make demands all the time... It often isn't something outright, pounding their shoe on the table sort of demand, but it's demands...

                        Trump getting elected has resulted in all sorts of Leftist demands over the election. Demands for recounts favoring Hillary. Demands that electors not vote the way they promised. Riots and demonstrations abound in Progressive parts of the US over his election. That's just one example.
                        Obama made demands of Congress all the time. Congress ignored his silly @$$. So, he acted like a dictator to the extent he could be a dictator. After all, the Left LOVES dictators. They create them all the time!

                        Child labor is a disgrace, no argument there...anyone who approves of young kids working in sweatshops should be jailed. We are talking about 8-12 year olds working in a sweatshop, Americans should fight agaisnt that type of child labor. TAG a 16 year old can get a job in plenty of places, Progressive politics has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing a 16 year old from getting a job, only a dumba## would prevent a 16 year old from working.
                        When I was 16 I got my first job at WT Grant and Co. It was like the Kmart of its day. I worked in the hardware department. Handled "hazardous" chemicals, made keys, sold guns even. Can't do any of that today when you're sixteen. Anything even slightly hazardous is out. OSHA has those rules in place. No sixteen year old construction workers. No sixteen year olds doing work in any industrial process.
                        That's come about mainly because of Left leaning policies wanting to "protect" children.

                        The Progressive platform of 1912 is arguing for fair and balanced campaign contributions. What are you talking about wrt George Soros. Going by the Progressive party platform of 1912...ALL politicians would be limited in accepting campaign donations.
                        And the 2016 Progressive POV is the same. "Fair and balanced, Fair and equal." It's been all Progressives that have fought tooth and nail against the Beck ruling. That was against unions who widely support them. They're all for public campaign finance.
                        As with the Beck ruling, public campaign finance doesn't clean up elections. It allows candidates to take money from taxpayers who object to their money being used to pay for political campaigns over those objections.
                        It is the worst sort of onerous tyranny that government would force anyone to pay for supporting political ideas and goals that they object to. That's what public finance of political campaigns amounts to.
                        When you limit politicians in some way to what they can accept as campaign contributions all you are doing is forcing those same politicians to collect those contributions as "in-kind." It stops nothing. It simply changes how the money exchanges hands, and usually for the worse.

                        Are you for abolishing the minimum wage and paying workers perhaps 50cents per hour? A M/w is beneficial in the sense that it stops dictators from taking over the lives of Americans...nobody is arguing that the mw should for example be 50$ an hour.
                        You are committing a logical fallacy here. This is a combination of begging the question and affirming the consequent.

                        Abolishing minimum wage does not mean that wages will fall and particularly will fall to ridiculous levels. The argument for minimum wage amounts to "Fair and Equal." It says that people should get a wage well above their worth as a worker simply because they need a "Living wage."
                        Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Most minimum wage workers don't stay at minimum for long, and certainly don't over their lifetime. If someone does, its usually because they simply can't produce more valuable work due to limits in intellect, education, and/or physical ability. That doesn't entitle them to more pay than they're worth either.
                        Minimum wage also limits entry into the job market. As minimum wage goes up, employers start demanding that their employees be already trained and skilled in the job they're applying for. This means that the future employee must spend money on training... A major cause in the rise of student debt and loans as the working poor are now more often forced to attend trade schools and colleges to get "degrees" in silliness like dog grooming or phlebology.

                        So, minimum wage doesn't lift all boats. Instead, it's more like a tsunami that temporarily gives a lift to some boats and sinks other ones.

                        We want an 8 hour work day tag...5 days a week. Not arguing here for a 4 day work week.
                        You might not be, but Progressives are:

                        Progessive Salon magazine:

                        http://www.salon.com/2014/07/24/5_re..._work_partner/

                        And here we get 5 logical fallacies arguing for it. I really like number 5. It's the Bandwagon fallacy.

                        http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-re...-day-work-week

                        And yes, all companies should practice safe work. Thats just common sense, people dying on the job due to poor working conditions is totally unacceptable. There is no grand conspiracy going on here, just common sense.
                        Common sense yes, major hassle of regulatory overkill for sure! Government regulations today pile on all sorts of marginal and useless requirements that don't increase worker safety but rather simply increase worker comfort.

                        The question I ask, is "How safe is safe enough?"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Getting back to the original subject...

                          It gets worse for the Democrats. Almost 50% of their house members come from just six (6) states (88 out of 188). These states are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. Almost 45% of those are from California (39 out of 88 and about 1 in 5 overall).
                          So, coastal California literally dominates the Democrat party in a way that California Republicans don't dominate their party. Their only other real stronghold is in the New England states.

                          Outside these two very narrowly defined areas of high population density the Democrats have really little traction except in pockets. They hold just 3 states delegations entirely (HI, MA, CN) while the Republicans have 6 (OK, UT, WV, ID, AK), not to include states where there is just one delegate to the House.

                          The Democrats need the nation to move from being a republic to an indirect democracy where all national offices are determined by popular vote. Without that, they're looking long term at becoming irrelevant. This is especially true if they continue to push Left and for Progressivism.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X