political odds and ends

[advantage playe]

and JESUS IS LORD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! amen amen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Carcounter]

Unfortunately, morality and being a good Predident don’t go hand in hand. Don’t look to our founding fathers for any morality lessons. While I personallyI enjoyed the 18 percent CDs when Jimmy Carter was President, the Country was headed for bankruptcy. I’m not a huge fan of the Trump Tweets and shooting from the hip, but I thing he is getting the job done just fine. On the economic front, we are walking a tightrope right now. We will have to see what happens. Hopefully, the Libs haven’t sucked away too much of his energy so we can keep things going as they have

When Clinton was president, his moral faults were overlooked. Why? Trump is no different than Clinton, they like good looking women. Also, think about all the European leaders who had affairs that were "just business". Imagine if we had cell phones and videos when John Kennedy was alive.

[billryan]

If republicans are so certain they have a better system, why are they so afraid to let people in to chose?
I'm sure the republicans in the 1860s thought they were buying the loyalty of an entire race of newly eligible voters. What did they win last election? Five percent of the black vote?
How empty a philosophy must one party have that 95% of the minority races rejects it outright.
What does it say about a political party whose only hope is to disenfranchise and suppress minorities from voting in order to win?
Lastly, I'd point out the outright hypocrisy of proclaiming about Jesus or God while rejecting the basic tenants of his beliefs.
Jesus, the illegal alien, who was raised with two fathers, taught to love they neighbor, and to do to them what you would have done to you. Sadly, you folks believe more in the king of Israel than the King of Peace.
Be afraid, be very afraid. It's your nature.

[billryan]

Trump is so respected by his counterparts that they actually invited the Iranian Foreign Minister to come to the meetings without telling him or his people.
Such a stabile genius.

[advantage playe]

I say JESUS IS LORD ! no one can say JESUS IS LORD EXCEPY IN THE HOLY GHOST ! This is in the new testament !!!

[notes1]

that 95% voting block the dems have bought have really benefited. out of 13 high schools in city of baltimore, not a single student was proficient in math.

loyalty to dems has really paid off.

[billryan]

Once again, there is nothing like posting statistics that put minorities in a bad light to prove one isn't a white supremacist.
I guess there no white kids in any of those schools.

[notes1]

who said anything about race. oh yeah, it was you. projection.

race has nothing to do with the FACT that not a single student in 13 baltimore city schools, was proficient in math. it shows how poorly run the schools are, and those schools are all run by dem administrations.

you can try and find racism in anything, if you keep making things up. maybe, you are feeling guilty about your own racism.

[New2vp]

here is a question for you and everyone else. one political party leadership, including most potus candidates, have been endorsing the notion of allowing an endless stream of poor, uneducated aliens to enter the country, legally or illegally. for those who are more open minded than me:

-do you believe their sole concern is for the benefit of the needy?
-do you think they do not understand the enormous financial cost of taking care of millions of needy folks, who will pay little, in the way of taxes, toward those costs? these immigrants will also put downward pressure on lower wage earners, of legal americans ?
-do you thing their motives are more sinister, that they see millions of needy folks as future voters, who will vote to keep them in power ?

Hey notes, sorry I did not see this in time to respond before the path of this thread went in a different direction (or two ... or three). Below is my guess at an answer to your question.

One theory is that politicians, however well meaning, must become elected to enact any of their policies. To that end, their goals would theoretically be more short term than long term. Whether or not they wish to gain future voters, the current voters' opinions and actions count more. Thus, politicians, Democrats and Republicans, would say things that would help to get them elected, even if they are a bit different from what they would expect reality to look like during their terms of office. Under that theory, primary vote harvesting is different than November general election day harvesting. During the primaries, candidates need to be more attractive to their own parties. During November election day votes, they need to be more attractive to swing voters. This accounts for the tactic of "tacking toward the center" for a general election by both parties.

Once we get to the voters themselves, the theory becomes more difficult because, of course, voters are individuals with differing decision-making processes. Economic theory might suggest a model in which voters would make selections in their own self-interest. However, there is plenty of evidence that people might vote based on other considerations (such as what is in the best interest of their country, state, region, profession; what feels more ethical or empathetic to a particular segment of the population; what is less expensive) or they may have adopted positions on issues based on what information is most easily available to them. This becomes even trickier because people have very different ideas of what is good and what is bad.

It is hard to imagine that most voters would perform a calculus-like optimization based on expected costs and benefits. For gosh sake, a sampling of this forum suggests that such is not the case even on video poker, where it is relatively straightforward to get such answers.

Again the be-all and end-all for politicians is to get enough votes to get in office. Demonization of the other side will no doubt continue. Why? Because it often works to get votes. It is also relatively easy. Since there are almost always tradeoffs, one can always highlight one side of the equation without mentioning the other. Emphasize the costs and you have one side's commercials or promotional positions. Emphasize the benefits, and you have the other side's talking points.

Of course, those very expressions give each side additional ammunition to use on the other. Republicans don't care enough. Democrats don't think enough about the costs. That is, they don't think about the costs on the positions they favor. Change the issues around and it is easy to find some positions that Democrats don't care enough about. And that Republicans haven't given enough consideration about the costs. Each side believes they are correct. And generally cannot understand why the other side gets it wrong. The conclusion: often it is because the other side is either evil or stupid.

Best of luck in continued sparring.

Here is an article some, especially those who do not like political debate on social media, might find interesting:

https://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/ ... ial-media/

[notes1]

new2vp, again, well thought out post. i recently read that approx 80% of tweets come from 20% of users (i am not one), and those who post the most are largely liberal, college educated and young. in other words, for those who use twitter, it is the same crowd doing most of the posts and their age indicates a lack of life experiences and responsibility.

i am a little disappointed that with all you wrote, you failed to answer a single question. do you believe that those party leaders who propose/endorse unlimited legal/illegal immigration are really most concerned about the plight of these illegals or are their motives more sinister, for votes and power? and, are they considering the costs, which will be borne by the 50% of legal tax filers, who actually pay federal tax?

interested in your opinion.