Is MAGA really a possibility?
- Thread starter GBRhuskers
- Start date
- Status
The war on drugs leans left. Same sex marriage leans left. Death penalty leans left.
Entitlements are a tough deal, almost all involved want more "fiscal sanity" but almost no one wants to abolish them. Hard to call that solidly left or right, although the existence of trillions of dollars in govt payouts is probably better classified as leftist, even if responsibly done within a given budget.
Pro life about evenly split. More govt in school funding, swings left. Corporate taxes swings left. Climate change (green economy, energy, fracking) swings left with an exception over some EPA regulations. Sure, there are probably one or two issues where we unilaterally swing right (guns, income taxes?), but there's a large number of issues that go left.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Well that makes too much sense. This is way more fun when it was just blindly ok to label people racists, etc etc... just because where they are from, and didn't pay a University $200,0000 to tell them they should feel guilty about a past that they have nothing to do with.
Here would be my question.
What happens to the support we're seeing for white, rural folk in Wisconsin and Michigan, when they eventually resume their normal voting pattern?
Will they be heroes then? Or libtards?
What happens to the support we're seeing for white, rural folk in Wisconsin and Michigan, when they eventually resume their normal voting pattern?
Will they be heroes then? Or libtards?
Obama got 10 million more votes in 2008 than Hillary got today. Her numbers dropped across the board significantly.
I'll be interested to see how far these messages are carried. Trump is not the head of any sort of named alternative opposition group (like say the Tea Party). He is quite significantly, his own unicorn.
He has a bully pulpit now, but he can't make the establishment do anything if they don't want to. They *could* make him a lame duck President Day 1 if they chose to do so, although they won't. The people's retribution is that they fire Ryan and all his friends, but there aren't 535 more Donald Trumps out their either. Remember, he's a party of 1.
They will hammer out some common ground I'm sure. Legislative advances forthcoming.
And it has been stated by multiple sources that it was because of Rural America... Here is one for you
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/20...ica-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221
Here is a little snippet to prove my point
Michigan: According to the 2012 exit polls, Mitt Romney won rural Michigan and small towns by 53%-46%. Trump has won them 57%-38%.
Pennsylvania: According to the 2012 exit polls, Mitt Romney won rural Pennsylvania and small towns by a 59%-40% margin. Trump has won them 71%-25%.
Wisconsin: In 2012, Romney won rural Wisconsin and small towns, 53%-46%. Trump has won them 63%-34%.
I'm sure there are some racists, etc in the 50-odd million people who voted for Trump. The vast majority of Trump voters are normal, decent people with whom I happen to disagree. Claims to the contrary (on either side) are political histrionics that hopefully die down for awhile now that the election is over.
Can't go after the coal industry and expect them to vote for you.
I would suspect they will be happy with better jobs, economy, and quality of life. So don't be so sure they go back to "normal voting patterns".
You are talking about margins of victory, not turnout.
Winning 53% of a million votes is entirely different than winning 53% of 100,000 votes.
Here's another article from your same news source saying total turnout of African-Americans was down nearly 9% in North Carolina.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/20...orth-carolina-after-cuts-early-voting-n679051
Well, you look at history, when no party controls the White House, generally for more than 8 years (independent of qualify of life), and get back to me.
In recent history, this has hurt the GOP once (the Reagan/Bush to Clinton transition) and the helped once (the Clinton to Dubya transition).
Optimistic. I see a lot of parallels between "MAGA" and "Hope and Change".
Hopefully it works out and we're all better off for it.
This is such a silly quote by Sister Chittister. I can't image anybody who is pro-life or pro-abortion who would want to see a child not fed, a child not educated or a child without shelter. The disagreement is how do we feed, educate and provide shelter for these children who may be born in an ideal home situation.
Just because I don't agree with how my tax dollars are going to the poor children doesn't mean that I don't want them taken care of. It doesn't mean that I'm not pro-life, but rather labeled pro-birth, that's such a backwards way of thinking. Personally I am pro-life, but I'm also a realist in that 1) you can't help everybody (but that doesn't mean we can't try) and 2) you can't tax your way out of poverty. It just doesn't work.
I've always hated the argument, "some pro-lifers don't want their tax dollars going to help the poor children therefore they are not really pro-life." Okay, then do you personally spend every single dollar you make on helping these poor children? Obviously the answer and no and it would be silly for me to say that you don't care about helping poor children when you don't donate everything you have to them.
There is also plenty of evidence that turnout was up overall. However, overall numbers don't always tell the story.
If Clinton underperformed in youth and blacks, there is no way for her to win. However, that doesn't mean that counties that were flipped, will stay flipped.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/08/election-2016-turnout-records-trump-clinton/93498784/
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
He won't reply.
If they would have supported her like Barry, they very well could have. But it's easier for you to be an ignorant racist and blame it on white people.
Market just hit an all time high; 18,626.15 and it keeps climbing.
MAGA!
MAGA!
1. I am 98% Pro-Life and 2% Pro-Choice, which in turn makes me Pro-Choice.
2. I will not get into great detail here, but that 2% is "not" the I had sex with my high school sweet heart and got pregnant abortions, or whoops baby number 3 was an accident. The 2% is tied to drug addicts that have no support system, Woman carrying the baby will die if she has the child and other circumstances that the chance for a "Life" is minimal to non-existent
3. If you are the ones voting for it, then don't complain about tax increases for helping these children
4. No one is saying "Donate everything you have" we are saying quit bitching about your taxes going up $0.78 a week to help the cause.
That is the problem. Pro-Lifers are extremely shallow minded and never look at the big picture
Well that could be good news for me too. I had buy orders filed in case the market went up today, and maybe they'll fill now. Surprised it worked out that way, but what the heck...
I still think the market will be pretty bumpy over the next few months, not because of Trump necessarily, but because it's a bit overcooked. I'm still not inclined to dive back in too deeply.
I'm pro-choice, but I agree that calling pro-lifers "pro-birth" is unfair because it's conflating two issues that are related, but not the same.
You seem like a reasonable pro-lifer, so if you don't mind I have a couple of questions (I think about this a lot and like to hear others' perspectives):
1) Do you believe that life begins at conception? Earlier or later? How do you feel about birth control vs plan b vs abortion? In your mind, is a later-term abortion materially more wrong than one that happens early?
2) How do you reconcile differences you might have in your answers to the above with someone else? Where do you go if you say "it's a human at the moment of conception" and someone says "no, it's a human at 21 weeks" and a third says "it's not a human until it comes out"? I think the struggle to settle on that starting point makes it hard to meaningfully discuss policy.
3) How do you weigh the good of the mother against the good of the child, and does that change throughout the course of the pregnancy? Taken to an extreme, if we value the child over the mother, should we forbid the mother from doing things that might endanger the child?
I remain pro-choice because I can't answer the above with a degree of certainty that would make me comfortable dictating my feelings as policy to others. Also because, from a utilitarian point of view, I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that it's better not to bring kids into the world to parents that would rather go through an abortion procedure than have a kid.
Anyway, you don't have to answer. Have a good one.
Why wouldn't I be... Complaining about a Republican candidate on a Right wing message board is bound to ruffle a few feathers. What is funny is you guys keep thinking I am a huge Hillary supporter, that is where you guys fail. I have already stated my top choice was a Republican candidate Kasich.
It is a handful of you right wing extremest that think you are owning me in this discussion, but in all actuality your not. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Wait...so the market DIDN'T collapse today?? WHAT???
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
But you voted Killary. Not real sure how you can do that and still complain.
She was more suitable for the job in my eyes, Sorry I came to a different conclusion then you on who I thought was better.
Others have said it... We had a choice of Chuck Steak or Round Steak. I chose chuck, because I like it better.
The Bone in Ribeye and Filet weren't on the menu.
If you agree that it is in fact a baby and not a clump of cells and you don't know when life begins wouldn't you want to protect it from the first moment just in case? I've heard it stated like this: if you're out hunting and you see a bush rustling but can't see anything, do you shoot?
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Oh wait yes I do. Anyone that doesn't do what you do is an "uneducated" racist. Amirite? Uptop!!
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I am the one that needs to apologize for triggering you, by rejecting someone who has consistently sold out our country as the next commander in chief.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Sorry, I rambled a bit and maybe my question wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for a justification for when you believe life begins so much as for a way to find common ground to start from when someone else has a different point that they consider "human life."
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I'm just grateful I can read the words. Not that I understand them, as a rural White voter.
Also want to point out Cruz, Carson, Rubio ect... Any of them win I am not posting complaints. Trump is a different bird, and people like WHCSC who voted pretty must solely on Pro-Life and turn the other cheek when Trump laughs at Christian Morality
There is no common ground. Science says life begins at conception whether I agree with it or not.
- Status
