Elections have consequences.(If Republicans win them, if its the democrats all bets are off.
I fixed that for you, since when Obama said the same after his landslide highturnout election in 08 they GOP said "Lol no".
Or does it only count in narrow low turnout election years like 2010?
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
You're not religious, yet you're anti-gay marriage? Do you think it's gonna hurt the economy or..
But yeah, I'm not 100% opposed to having ID for voting as long as it's free and they do everything they can to get you one, including going to where you live and physically handing you one. I also think we should have a national (state?) holiday for voting with free public transportation to and from voting centers.
I can never remember which ones around here are purely fiscal conservatives merely exploiting the religious.
I probably fall into that category. I'm not at all religious.
I seriously can't even decide if this makes it worse or not.
The non-religious argument goes something along the lines of "Marriage is an institution intended to offset the hardship of raising children... infertility adpotion *COGNITIVE DISSONANCE* FUCK THE GAYS"
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Well, I think gay marriage is fine no matter what but I can kind of understand where they're coming from in case of religion. I mean, I think it's still bullshit, but I get the general idea of what they're doing.
If you remove that, however, I can't fathom why anyone would care. Then again, I also have no trouble with plural marriage, but I guess that bothers people for.. some.. reason.
It seems that with the exception of MM, everybody else feels that making the requirements to vote stricter is not in fact a step to prevent vote fraud (because nobody has proven that there is actual organized vote fraud happening), but rather an attempt to reduce the number of people voting for Democrats. That is the essence of this thread, right?
It seems that with the exception of MM, everybody else feels that making the requirements to vote stricter is not in fact a step to prevent vote fraud (because nobody has proven that there is actual organized vote fraud happening), but rather an attempt to reduce the number of people voting for Democrats. That is the essence of this thread, right?
I'm willing to buy that there is some aspect of them pandering to their base, who can easily be spooked by the specter of voter fraud and then sold on a "solution" to it.
It's a lot easier to be a problem solver when the problems don't exist and your base doesn't care about facts.
Garthor on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
As I said, they really need to make a voting holiday that all jobs must adhere to. A paid holiday would be even better.
It seems that with the exception of MM, everybody else feels that making the requirements to vote stricter is not in fact a step to prevent vote fraud (because nobody has proven that there is actual organized vote fraud happening), but rather an attempt to reduce the number of people voting for Democrats. That is the essence of this thread, right?
Yeah, pretty much. The problem is voter suppression through a variety of means.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
I think you guys are looking for some form of logic where there isn't likely to be any. When you hear someone is against gay marriage(and isn't religous) you can easily just throw them in the same pile as birthers, 9-11 conspiracies, or any other such irrational nonsense.
You're not religious, yet you're anti-gay marriage? Do you think it's gonna hurt the economy or..
People will get married for the tax breaks!
Edit: Gay marriages to beat immigration!
But if they pay less tax, they'll have more money to spend in the economy.
What good republican could disagree with trickle-down Reagonomics?.
The Reaganomics of love!
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
How is trickle down even supposed to work? Like, I get the general idea but I must be missing some step between rich guy spending money and poor person getting part of that money.
Restrictions on voting disproportionately affect demographics less likely to vote, which are also more likely to vote Democratic. Many states with Republican control are doing this as much as possible. Discuss.
How is trickle down even supposed to work? Like, I get the general idea but I must be missing some step between rich guy spending money and poor person getting part of that money.
Simplified, big guys at the top of the pyramid with their piles of money spend it on cars, tvs, houses, and hookers. Buying more of the first three means the suppliers need to up production, which means the car and electronic factories hire more people to make more stuff. Since they're making more stuff, they need to order more base components, so business and employment goes up for the lower tiers too, the money 'trickling' down to the bottom of the pyramid.
Unfortunately, in the real world, trickle down theory works a little worse than communist theory, since those guys who are supposed to be pouring buckets of money down the side don't actually spend all that much, instead reinvesting their money in things like the stock market - places where it doesn't trickle anywhere.
It's probably easier to understand if you look at it in terms of the opposite effect. Say that you're a wealthy CEO, and the tax rate for your wages has just gone up. As a result, if you want to maintain the same standard of living, you'll need to come up with another source of payment for your taxes, which is obviously the wages of your employees. As a result, increases on the taxes of the wealthy primarily serve to harm workers.
Likewise, cutting taxes on the wealthy allows them to stop spending so much of what would otherwise be the wages of their employees on themselves, which raises the standard of living of workers.
It's probably easier to understand if you look at it in terms of the opposite effect. Say that you're a wealthy CEO, and the tax rate for your wages has just gone up. As a result, if you want to maintain the same standard of living, you'll need to come up with another source of payment for your taxes, which is obviously the wages of your employees. As a result, increases on the taxes of the wealthy primarily serve to harm workers.
Likewise, cutting taxes on the wealthy allows them to stop spending so much of what would otherwise be the wages of their employees on themselves, which raises the standard of living of workers.
Neither one of those is actually true, though. An increase in the income tax just means that executive compensation comes in the form of stocks or whatever that barely get taxed at all. And when taxes get cut on the wealthy, they just pocket the extra cash.
Posts
Quite frankly I am shocked by this statement.
Who'd have thought right?
Didn't we know this?
SHOCKED.
I can never remember which ones around here are purely fiscal conservatives merely exploiting the religious.
Rigorous Scholarship
I fixed that for you, since when Obama said the same after his landslide highturnout election in 08 they GOP said "Lol no".
Or does it only count in narrow low turnout election years like 2010?
But yeah, I'm not 100% opposed to having ID for voting as long as it's free and they do everything they can to get you one, including going to where you live and physically handing you one. I also think we should have a national (state?) holiday for voting with free public transportation to and from voting centers.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Fuck you, got mine
People will get married for the tax breaks!
Edit: Gay marriages to beat immigration!
I seriously can't even decide if this makes it worse or not.
The non-religious argument goes something along the lines of "Marriage is an institution intended to offset the hardship of raising children... infertility adpotion *COGNITIVE DISSONANCE* FUCK THE GAYS"
If you remove that, however, I can't fathom why anyone would care. Then again, I also have no trouble with plural marriage, but I guess that bothers people for.. some.. reason.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Fuck you, got mine
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
MM's opinions have a tendency to do this to threads and most of us are probably better of just ignoring him
I'm willing to buy that there is some aspect of them pandering to their base, who can easily be spooked by the specter of voter fraud and then sold on a "solution" to it.
It's a lot easier to be a problem solver when the problems don't exist and your base doesn't care about facts.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Yeah, pretty much. The problem is voter suppression through a variety of means.
But if they pay less tax, they'll have more money to spend in the economy.
What good republican could disagree with trickle-down Reagonomics?.
So it's just out and out bigotry or...?
Or he's a gay man who's afraid of commitment.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The Reaganomics of love!
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Free capital investment will indirectly benefit the lowerclass by the creation of jobs.
I think I see a flaw in this logic.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
or that Demand Equals Supply?
Surprisingly, they are not the same.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Modern Man's philosophy: if republicans do it it isn't wrong
Unfortunately, in the real world, trickle down theory works a little worse than communist theory, since those guys who are supposed to be pouring buckets of money down the side don't actually spend all that much, instead reinvesting their money in things like the stock market - places where it doesn't trickle anywhere.
Likewise, cutting taxes on the wealthy allows them to stop spending so much of what would otherwise be the wages of their employees on themselves, which raises the standard of living of workers.
Pay people enough and they'll have enough money to buy expensive shit.
Conservative economic thought:
Make things cheap enough and everyone can afford them.