One thing I've noticed in this sub forum... it has a decidedly awkward direction. Right-leaning people trash Democrats for the crazy things they do... talk about the Dem failed policies ... or failed whatever it is they're doing and how we should be doing "X" instead. The Democrats defend the actions of Biden, and talk about how horrible Trump is.
The one thing I've never, EVER seen though, is an actual discussion on what Democrat policies are.
It's made me realize, what exactly do Democrats stand for? Ray might tell you they stand for the "little guy," which is a term they came up with... same with Blue Collar (that's a socialist-derived term). We know that's NOT true at all because their policies have resulted in loss of manufacturing and are generally anti-middle class. They're actually even anti-lower income now too because they seem to be 100% for illegal immigrants (don't even know how that happened, but it did).
If I think about the Democrat platform, it's basically this:
- Eliminate Fossil Fuels - Support Trans rights and men in women's sports - Open Borders - Tax the rich... maybe?
None of these seem like actual policies, or at least well-thought out ones. We know the Democrats aren't really for the environment... since nothing they've ever done has actually improved the environment. Their failed forest management leads to massive wildfires, they're the ones that allowed massive dumping of pesticides and chemicals into rivers (and using them on farms, etc.), where as it's been Republicans who are curbing these things. Their focus is on eliminating fossil fuels... saving the environment is the feigned point, but it has more to do with their partnership with China.
Can anyone actually tell me what the Democrat platform actually is... I mean, REALLY... not a fake list. Because to be quite honest with you, I don't think for the last 4 years anyone had any idea what Democrats stood for. I at least had some general idea what Obama wanted, even if I didn't agree with it. But under Biden, no one knew... and I still don't know what you people stand for.
It would not be much of a stretch to lump R & D into one party, the Uniparty.
Everything else is secondary.
Trump ran as an R, IMHO not by choice, but running as an Independent was not do-able.
He has pretty much created a third party with the MAGA movement.
I do believe that this Administration is trying to do what they say, I e., reduce debt, rebalance trade, restore manufacturing and investment in the US, and enforce the law as written.
AND more likely to see a common good result OVER PARTY GAIN ONLY
BASED ON THE PARTY ROLE SWAP EVIL THAT WAS NIXON SUCKED IN THE CONNED SCUM FROM THE OLD SOUTH'S DEMO'S SEMI-PURGING SOME OF THE WORST OVER RACE THEN THE CON'S RE-PURGED ANY LIBERALS AND MODERATES ALSO FROM THE Gop WHILE MANY BECAME INDIE'S SOME BECAME MODERN DEMO'S AND AGAIN THE Gop TILTED EXTRA FAR RIGHT MORE RIDGED AND LESS CARING THEN EVER
REMEMBER I WAS IN THE Gop 60 TO 66 AND WATCHED THE RACIST JOIN THE Gop FROM IN SIDE AND QUIT AS A DIRECT RESULT OF RACIST'S JOINING BUT NEVER JOINED THE DEMO'S
SO BASED ON THE WHO JOINED WHEN THE GOOD vs EVIL FLOW FOLLOWS THE RACISTS
BTW YES THE RUMP IS RACIST LOOK WHO FLYS THE SOUTHERN BATTLE FLAG IT AIN'T THE DEMO'S WHO ATTACKED THE CAPITAL
And once again... all that Ray can contribute is that "Republicans suck", or "Trump Sucks", or "Elon Sucks", or "(insert Republican du Jour) sucks". Nixon. Racist. RWNJ, bla-bla-bla...
It's why Trump won. He had a platform. He had a plan. I looked, repeatedly, to see what Kamala stood for. She never said. Never. The closest she ever came to having a plan was, "I wouldn't change a thing." Well, we saw how Brandon's "policies" worked. Where do I sign up for more of that?
I can't answer "what even is a Democrat?" Because I don't know, anymore. And the media won't let us see. But it's not the frothing at the mouth, Tesla burning, morons that are running around. Like any cross-section of society, the morons are the smallest minority, but are getting all the press coverage, because that's how the press operates. If it's not driven by an agenda (which is most likely) it's driven by the desire for views/clicks.
And once again... all that Ray can contribute is that "Republicans suck", or "Trump Sucks", or "Elon Sucks", or "(insert Republican du Jour) sucks". Nixon. Racist. RWNJ, bla-bla-bla...
It's why Trump won. He had a platform. He had a plan. I looked, repeatedly, to see what Kamala stood for. She never said. Never. The closest she ever came to having a plan was, "I wouldn't change a thing." Well, we saw how Brandon's "policies" worked. Where do I sign up for more of that?
I can't answer "what even is a Democrat?" Because I don't know, anymore. And the media won't let us see. But it's not the frothing at the mouth, Tesla burning, morons that are running around. Like any cross-section of society, the morons are the smallest minority, but are getting all the press coverage, because that's how the press operates. If it's not driven by an agenda (which is most likely) it's driven by the desire for views/clicks.
DOES THE CULT GET THAT THEY ONLY SEE THE MOST EXTREME EXAMPLES
THE CONCENTRATION ON THE FEW IS VERY DISTORTED
THE NORMAL; MIDDLE IS NOT NEWS WORTHY
AND YES MEDIA IS CAPITALIST IF THE MEDIA LOST MONEY IT DON'T LAST LONG
BTW THE RUMP HAS CONTRACTED THE GDP BY 0.3% AS IN NO GROWTH 0.3 LESS THEN JOE DID SO FAR
BTW WHILE THE CULT ONLY TALKS ABOUT THE DEMO = MORONS WHILE THE DUMBEST ARE THE MAGA FANS IN MASS BY MANY OBJECTIVE MEASURES LIKE INCOME NET WORTH IQ SCHOOL RESULTS OR THE JUDGEMENT OF THEIR COMMUNITY
DOES THE CULT GET THAT THEY ONLY SEE THE MOST EXTREME EXAMPLES
THE CONCENTRATION ON THE FEW IS VERY DISTORTED
THE NORMAL; MIDDLE IS NOT NEWS WORTHY
AND YES MEDIA IS CAPITALIST IF THE MEDIA LOST MONEY IT DON'T LAST LONG
BTW THE RUMP HAS CONTRACTED THE GDP BY 0.3% AS IN NO GROWTH 0.3 LESS THEN JOE DID SO FAR
BTW WHILE THE CULT ONLY TALKS ABOUT THE DEMO = MORONS WHILE THE DUMBEST ARE THE MAGA FANS IN MASS BY MANY OBJECTIVE MEASURES LIKE INCOME NET WORTH IQ SCHOOL RESULTS OR THE JUDGEMENT OF THEIR COMMUNITY
Respectfully, I don't even really know what you're saying.
Again I ask... what exactly is the Democrat party's platform?
As someone who considers myself a democrat(more or less) I will do my best to list out what I believe to be the polices that the party supports.
A main tenant of the democratic party is the idea of increasing taxes on the ultra-rich, and then using that money to improve the lives of the average American. This could be accomplished through increasing funding for public healthcare, public education, environmental protection regulations/research, food safety/quality regulations/research, investment in infrastructure...just to name a few I can think of right now.
A key aspect of the ideology of the party is that of equal rights for everyone, including/especially marginalized groups. This includes trans people, gay people, immigrants(legal or otherwise), as well as low and middle class working people. Part of that equal rights belief is that the rights of someone living in the United States should not depend of which state they currently reside in. This is where the strong push for national legalization of gay marriage came from. That is where the push for abortion access comes from, as well as trans rights. The party supports the notion that no matter who you are, or where within the country you are, you should have the exact same rights as everybody else, like marriage and bodily autonomy.
To touch on some of your coments, anit-deforestation policies do not and have not led to more wildfires, that is just straight up false. Policies like Trump's that opens up nationally protected land for logging do nothing but decrease the natural beauty of our incredible country, while leaving it worse for future generations, with the only upside being a temporary increase in money/materials. Democrats are staunchly more pro-regulation than republicans. I don't know where you got the notion that democrats directly led to chemical dumps in rivers, but the conservative supreme court recently ruled in favor of coorperations directly challenging the EPA. Trump has also signicantly reduced staffing and funding for numerous government agencies meant to conduct research and uphold regulations regarding food/water safety. I will agree that democrats are anti-fossil fuels, although I have not found any credible sources linking that policy to Chinese relations within the party. I personally believe that the push for electric cars is too much too soon, as battery technology is not very recyclable and the current power grid is still majority powered by fossil fuels, so EVs will likely only worsen the environment until major changes in those fields are made. I'd love to see more nuclear power but thats another topic...
Anyways I hope this answers most of your questions. I would recommend looking at Pete Buttigieg and his appearances on various conservative podcasts/news/talkshows. He seems to do a very good job at communicating democratic policies in a way that republicans understand well and resonate with.
As someone who considers myself a democrat(more or less) I will do my best to list out what I believe to be the polices that the party supports.
A main tenant of the democratic party is the idea of increasing taxes on the ultra-rich, and then using that money to improve the lives of the average American. This could be accomplished through increasing funding for public healthcare, public education, environmental protection regulations/research, food safety/quality regulations/research, investment in infrastructure...just to name a few I can think of right now.
A key aspect of the ideology of the party is that of equal rights for everyone, including/especially marginalized groups. This includes trans people, gay people, immigrants(legal or otherwise), as well as low and middle class working people. Part of that equal rights belief is that the rights of someone living in the United States should not depend of which state they currently reside in. This is where the strong push for national legalization of gay marriage came from. That is where the push for abortion access comes from, as well as trans rights. The party supports the notion that no matter who you are, or where within the country you are, you should have the exact same rights as everybody else, like marriage and bodily autonomy.
To touch on some of your coments, anit-deforestation policies do not and have not led to more wildfires, that is just straight up false. Policies like Trump's that opens up nationally protected land for logging do nothing but decrease the natural beauty of our incredible country, while leaving it worse for future generations, with the only upside being a temporary increase in money/materials. Democrats are staunchly more pro-regulation than republicans. I don't know where you got the notion that democrats directly led to chemical dumps in rivers, but the conservative supreme court recently ruled in favor of coorperations directly challenging the EPA. Trump has also signicantly reduced staffing and funding for numerous government agencies meant to conduct research and uphold regulations regarding food/water safety. I will agree that democrats are anti-fossil fuels, although I have not found any credible sources linking that policy to Chinese relations within the party. I personally believe that the push for electric cars is too much too soon, as battery technology is not very recyclable and the current power grid is still majority powered by fossil fuels, so EVs will likely only worsen the environment until major changes in those fields are made. I'd love to see more nuclear power but thats another topic...
Anyways I hope this answers most of your questions. I would recommend looking at Pete Buttigieg and his appearances on various conservative podcasts/news/talkshows. He seems to do a very good job at communicating democratic policies in a way that republicans understand well and resonate with.
On the forest thing, which makes me think this is Fredtoast... it is WELL ESTABLISHED that lack of forest management has resulted in severe and uncontrolled wildfires. Please stop spreading misinformation.
On chemicals in the river, etc. Florida is a perfect case study, same with Mississippi, and other states that exist along a river. Up until about the year 2000... the entire south was SOLID blue. In 1996, when I moved to South Florida, it was far more a bastion of Democrat politics than California is today. It shows how quickly things can change. Florida had almost unanimously Democrats across the board in every state level office. Governor on down. We had 1 Republican senator, and 1 democrat senator in the Federal government, but the local legislature was Democrat. They'd authorized massive chemical use in pesticides, etc., and routinely dumped them into the everglades, despite repeated warnings. It wasn't until the Republicans eventually swept the state house, that they started restricting the use of chemicals and the dumping of them into the waterways. Remember that the EPA, the National Park Service, the division of Forestry, etc., are all constructs of the Republican party. It wasn't even until Florida had a massive super majority in the local house and senate that they actually made big changes to wetland protection and mitigation. Matter of fact, wetland mitigation policies weren't even implemented in Florida until the Republican party swept the house in the 2004 local election. Nearly every southern state has a near-identical history like this.... an entire history of Democrat rule since before the civil war, all eventually becoming Republican over the next 10-15 years from 2000-2015... even Kentucky is still a primarily Democrat state, with a Democrat governor. As you know Fred, I was a Democrat and voted Democrat back in the late 90s as well... and continued to vote a mixed ballot with Democrats on it until around 2012, at which point I realized the party had left me behind.
On everything else... you've managed to more or less identify two "policies," but dragged them out into huge paragraphs to make it seem like it's a lot:
- Equal rights for marginalized groups - High taxes for the wealthy for social programs
I question whether either of these are legitimate policies... at least they weren't addressed as such. I'd also question if there's any real belief that Democrats actually support marginalized groups, rather... they just want to exploit them. Convincing 10 million illegals to cross the border, knowing that many of them will be raped, killed, maimed, and trafficked... that is not really supporting marginalized groups... but knowingly using them to support a larger agenda that will keep them in power. I've always known the Democrat party to be wildly anti-Jewish. My wife is Jewish, and most of my friends were Democrat and they all used to make comments about Jews until I started dating my wife. The Jewish thing really didn't mean anything to me at the time... for me it was the large boobs and the blond hair. I'll also remind you that more anti-gay legislation was passed than at any time in our nations history, as it was under the election of Barack Obama... even California passed Proposition 8. It wasn't until the conservative Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal. So... I offer that this is really a ruse, and not really a policy... just a strategy for power.
As for high taxes... this comes from marxist / socialist ideologies... because honestly, to a great extent, Kennedy, Bill Clinton, etc... they all cut taxes. Bill Clinton also saw the greatest reformation of the public sector in modern history... which is exactly what Trump is trying to do... and the Democrats are losing their minds. Bill Clinton did the exact same thing, and no one said anything.
So again... if these TWO things you defined are policies... they aren't real...
"No one can give me an answer... what even is a Democrat?"
I can, friend...
What is a "Democrat"?
A snake. That is what they call each other.
Take that as you wish, however you want to.
"yeah, xxxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx, and xxxxx..... they are all snakes...but they're OUR snakes..."
Overheard that last week at a meeting with a bunch of VERY "well known" Dems. I'm sure the Republicans have their 'winners'... that disgusting George Santos guy. blech...
But Democratic Politicians as a whole? Residents at the Reptile house at the local zoo.
Disgusting hypocrites. Finish THIS sentence ---> The only "good" Democrat is a...
i told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil I think I have come close to defining it a lack of empathy evil is the total absence of caring for or sharing with others
or the Gop meme cruelty and shamelessness without limits
'' I GOT MY STUFF SO SCREW YOU ''
so one is forced to define the demo's as more likely to give a chit on most subjects most of the time
I know where we are now is not sustainable. When all of the manufacturing jobs left the states I was lucky and had the money to go to night school and move into IT. In the 90s it was hard to find a good paying job welding that didn't have you working in deplorable unsafe conditions and paid enough to live on. (china didn't care) The work all went overseas. The paper mills couldn't afford to stay open, welding shops closed and went overseas. Buisnesses lost their assess because China outright stole everything once they moved. They had no protection.
Now here we are looking like the same thing is going to happen with IT. We don't make things here, we assemble the parts shipped in from some other country at best. Arguing gets us nowhere, the government is in such a shambles and something needs to be done. How can a bartender with no experience spend such a short time in office and now be worth millions, all of them are a bunch of crooks.
Got in a heated argument with someone who constantly defends paying high taxes. Guess who out of the 2 of us pays taxes?
When was the last time you bought something and it was solid and well made? How long have you had your appliances? Your car? Hell how long has the battery in your car lasted? In the 70s-80s I remember my car battery lasting 5 + years, now I'm lucky to get 2 out of a new one.
Worried about the next generations? Better start worrying about yourself.
I think he's a noodle, but RFK hit this on the head: Donald Trump dictates all meaningful policy for both parties right now.
The Democrats are so reactionary to everything he does, all he has to do to get them to do a thing is say he wants the opposite.
All he has to do to make a historically liberal policy "conservative" is say he supports it, and the Republicans will act like they've always supported...say...restrictive trade barriers, decreases in free speech, increased taxes, or swelling executive power. I'd say the best phrase to describe either party at this point is "Tump's useful idiots."
Either way, the only honest way to describe any US policy right now is in relation to Donald Trump.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 05-07-2025).]
I think he's a noodle, but RFK hit this on the head: Donald Trump dictates all meaningful policy for both parties right now.
The Democrats are so reactionary to everything he does, all he has to do to get them to do a thing is say he wants the opposite.
All he has to do to make a historically liberal policy "conservative" is say he supports it, and the Republicans will act like they've always supported...say...restrictive trade barriers, decreases in free speech, increased taxes, or swelling executive power. I'd say the best phrase to describe either party at this point is "Tump's useful idiots."
Either way, the only honest way to describe any US policy right now is in relation to Donald Trump.
Common-sense policies are good, regardless of who comes up with them. Trump is the most liberal Republican we've ever had... and he won because his polices were literally things the majority of us were concerned about, that both parties failed to address. This man is actually addressing them. There's no cult following where we agree with everything he does... he does things that are actually important to the majority.
quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: In the 70s-80s I remember my car battery lasting 5 + years, now I'm lucky to get 2 out of a new one.
The original battery in my 2002 Crown Victoria LX was 12 years old (the original Motorcraft) when I replaced it... and it didn't fail, I just eliminated it because it was starting to fail.
The original battery in my 2002 Crown Victoria LX was 12 years old (the original Motorcraft) when I replaced it... and it didn't fail, I just eliminated it because it was starting to fail.
In 1983 (holy **** that was a long time ago) I purchased an 11 year old car with the original battery. Drove it for another 4 years then sold it. The only issue I had was putting some water in it and cleaning the posts.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Common-sense policies are good, regardless of who comes up with them. Trump is the most liberal Republican we've ever had... and he won because his polices were literally things the majority of us were concerned about, that both parties failed to address. This man is actually addressing them. There's no cult following where we agree with everything he does... he does things that are actually important to the majority.
I agree with a lot of that. His economic policies have more protectionism and centralized control than any conservative would be comfortable with, and his views of government power/oversight are definitely more aligned with "big" government. I don't think it was policy folks were concerned with, as much as representation, though, and I'd balk at both the characterization of most of these policies as "common sense" and the idea that because something is "common sense" it is necessarily good policy. I know we're poll-adverse around here, but I'd also question how much the "majority" feels he is addressing what is important to them right now.
I agree with a lot of that. His economic policies have more protectionism and centralized control than any conservative would be comfortable with, and his views of government power/oversight are definitely more aligned with "big" government. I don't think it was policy folks were concerned with, as much as representation, though, and I'd balk at both the characterization of most of these policies as "common sense" and the idea that because something is "common sense" it is necessarily good policy. I know we're poll-adverse around here, but I'd also question how much the "majority" feels he is addressing what is important to them right now.
I'm not an idiot, I see what you're doing here. But you're totally wrong. How can you say that Trump is being "big government," when literally he's dismantling almost anything that enacts control over states through Federal departments... like the Department of Education? He's just laid off close to half a million Federal employees, and is calling for 20% cuts across the board in every Federal agency.
It's when you say things like this that I wonder if you're either really oblivious to what you say, or you think the rest of us are and you think you're being cute.
Protectionism on our economy, sure... "big government" he most certainly is not.
"...his views of government power/oversight are definitely more aligned with "big" government."
I'm not an idiot, I see what you're doing here. But you're totally wrong. How can you say that Trump is being "big government," when literally he's dismantling almost anything that enacts control over states through Federal departments... like the Department of Education? He's just laid off close to half a million Federal employees, and is calling for 20% cuts across the board in every Federal agency.
It's when you say things like this that I wonder if you're either really oblivious to what you say, or you think the rest of us are and you think you're being cute.
Protectionism on our economy, sure... "big government" he most certainly is not.
"...his views of government power/oversight are definitely more aligned with "big" government."
How can you even say that with a straight face?
I'm honestly confused...are you arguing that increased government power doesn't count as such if it's centralized in the executive branch? If not -and I'm not trying to be cute- I have no idea what your point is. If so -and again not trying to be cute- I have no idea upon which reality your opinion has been formed.
I'm honestly confused...are you arguing that increased government power doesn't count as such if it's centralized in the executive branch? If not -and I'm not trying to be cute- I have no idea what your point is. If so -and again not trying to be cute- I have no idea upon which reality your opinion has been formed.
You're trying to play with words to be cute with their meaning.
"Big Government" and Trump's administration... are diametrically opposed. He has cut almost 500k Federal employees as of today. They aren't even 1/4th of the way through evaluating the other Federal agencies, and he's demanding a 20% cut from all executive agencies, which he is asking be reflected in the next funding bill.
Nearly every policy that HE has enacted, has been to return power to the states that has not been traditionally a Federal requirement... such as the Department of Education. He's reducing regulation, reducing administrative back-log, and re-focusing the Federal government on it's Constitutionally intended role... international trade, foreign relations, and border / defense.
There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all that he is doing that would be even remotely consistent for the term "big government." Absolutely none of this is "increased [Federal] government power." He's limiting Federal overreach and returning the Federal government's priorities back to it's Constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Your idea that any of this is "big government" is an incredibly ridiculous stretch.
"Big Government" and Trump's administration... are diametrically opposed. He has cut almost 500k Federal employees as of today. They aren't even 1/4th of the way through evaluating the other Federal agencies, and he's demanding a 20% cut from all executive agencies, which he is asking be reflected in the next funding bill.
Nearly every policy that HE has enacted, has been to return power to the states that has not been traditionally a Federal requirement... such as the Department of Education. He's reducing regulation, reducing administrative back-log, and re-focusing the Federal government on it's Constitutionally intended role... international trade, foreign relations, and border / defense.
There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all that he is doing that would be even remotely consistent for the term "big government." Absolutely none of this is "increased [Federal] government power." He's limiting Federal overreach and returning the Federal government's priorities back to it's Constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Your idea that any of this is "big government" is an incredibly ridiculous stretch.
"Big government" isn’t just workforce size, it’s also about scope, authority, and centralization of power. Yes, Trump has reduced the federal workforce, but he’s also consolidated more power in the executive branch than any president in recent memory.
In just the first 100 days of 2025, he issued 147 executive orders, many of which assert control over matters traditionally left to Congress, independent agencies, or the states. Federal spending has exploded in spite of the workforce reduction, with over $200 billion more spent this year compared to last — and that’s before the defense increases kick in. He signed an order giving the presidency expanded authority over independent regulatory agencies, eroding checks that were designed to prevent Executive overreach.
Cutting jobs while massively expanding the power of one branch of government is not small government, it’s big government concentrated in a single office.
So no, it’s not a “ridiculous stretch” to call this big government. What’s ridiculous is pretending that authoritarian centralization is somehow consistent with limited government.
"Big government" isn’t just workforce size, it’s also about scope, authority, and centralization of power. Yes, Trump has reduced the federal workforce, but he’s also consolidated more power in the executive branch than any president in recent memory.
In just the first 100 days of 2025, he issued 147 executive orders, many of which assert control over matters traditionally left to Congress, independent agencies, or the states. Federal spending has exploded in spite of the workforce reduction, with over $200 billion more spent this year compared to last — and that’s before the defense increases kick in. He signed an order giving the presidency expanded authority over independent regulatory agencies, eroding checks that were designed to prevent Executive overreach.
Cutting jobs while massively expanding the power of one branch of government is not small government, it’s big government concentrated in a single office.
So no, it’s not a “ridiculous stretch” to call this big government. What’s ridiculous is pretending that authoritarian centralization is somehow consistent with limited government.
It is absolutely a stretch... because you're misrepresenting all of that. Everything he did was to REDUCE the power of the Federal government and give-back power to the individual states. Why would you intentionally leave out all the things he's done to deregulate?
The mere signing of an executive order does not mean "big government," it just means he's enacting policy across the Executive Branch... which is entirely under his purview because the executive branch works for the President, not the people. The President works for the People... but the EXECUTIVE BRANCH works for the President, not Congress, not the Judicial Branch, not anyone else.
And where has he enacted power over independent regulatory authorities? Are you talking about where he fired someone from a commission... so that he could nominate her replacement, which the Senate confirmed? That's not enacting power over independent regulatory authority. The Supreme Court ruled that was within his authority.
What you're saying absolutely is a very narrowly focused view of reality. It's like if you were punching me in the face, and then I pinched you, you would then scream that I'm assaulting you. Yes... sure, that would be true, but you're also punching me in the face.
I think you're along on an island here... outside the media narrative of him being a dictator. I've never seen an actual dictator reduce the size of government (unless they're removing people from the group photos). This is a stretch, and you're obviously well-aware it's a stretch. We'll have to do the agree to disagree thing, but for the record... I view your opinion on this as really out there.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It is absolutely a stretch... because you're misrepresenting all of that. Everything he did was to REDUCE the power of the Federal government and give-back power to the individual states. Why would you intentionally leave out all the things he's done to deregulate?
You aren't deregulating by shifting responsibility from Executive agencies directly to the President, you are centralizing. That Trump is looking to return power to the States is a very bold claim when so many of his Executive Orders preempt State policy. He isn't giving power back to the States by enacting nation-wide bans on medical procedures or attacking blue state environmental protecitons.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The mere signing of an executive order does not mean "big government," it just means he's enacting policy across the Executive Branch... which is entirely under his purview because the executive branch works for the President, not the people. The President works for the People... but the EXECUTIVE BRANCH works for the President, not Congress, not the Judicial Branch, not anyone else.
And where has he enacted power over independent regulatory authorities? Are you talking about where he fired someone from a commission... so that he could nominate her replacement, which the Senate confirmed? That's not enacting power over independent regulatory authority. The Supreme Court ruled that was within his authority.
I'm not arguing his swelling of Executive power and pushes for bigger government are illegal, I'm just calling them what they are. Trump is exerting much more Executive influence than any President I can think of off the top of my head. That you don't see that as "big governmnet" is wild.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What you're saying absolutely is a very narrowly focused view of reality. It's like if you were punching me in the face, and then I pinched you, you would then scream that I'm assaulting you. Yes... sure, that would be true, but you're also punching me in the face.
I think you're along on an island here... outside the media narrative of him being a dictator. I've never seen an actual dictator reduce the size of government (unless they're removing people from the group photos). This is a stretch, and you're obviously well-aware it's a stretch. We'll have to do the agree to disagree thing, but for the record... I view your opinion on this as really out there.
You'll never see Trump shrink the size of the government either. That isn't accomplished through huge increases in spending, and swelling/centralizing governmnet power. You can view increasing and consolodating Executive power as a panacea for small government, but if you ask me that's even further "out there."
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 05-10-2025).]
You aren't deregulating by shifting responsibility from Executive agencies directly to the President, you are centralizing. That Trump is looking to return power to the States is a very bold claim when so many of his Executive Orders preempt State policy. He isn't giving power back to the States by enacting nation-wide bans on medical procedures or attacking blue state environmental protecitons.
Wait, what did you say there? "shifting responsibility from executive agencies directly to the president?" They belong to the executive branch. Surely you understand this means that they are supposed to do exactly what the president says, within the confines of the Constitution, correct? What even do you mean by this? Are you under the impression that these agencies should just be doing their own thing and making their own decisions without Presidential oversight?
Do you realize that all of the agencies that matter, meet with the president on a near-daily basis? Many of the people working at these agencies believe themselves to be a 4th branch of government... that the bureaucracies are there to insulate from Presidential turn-over. This mindset pervades all the way down to the branch level where (for example, in the DoD), the civilian leadership (usually deputy to the military leadership) will drag things out so that when the military leadership change out, they go right back to their old ways.
That you are conflating this with "growing executive power" is just totally wild to me. I have to assume you think you're being cute here...
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
I'm not arguing his swelling of Executive power and pushes for bigger government are illegal, I'm just calling them what they are. Trump is exerting much more Executive influence than any President I can think of off the top of my head. That you don't see that as "big governmnet" is wild.
Because this isn't big government. He's ELIMINATING the power of the individual agencies of HIS executive branch, reducing the size of them, and either completely eliminating what they did before, or consolidating it. There is no source that agrees with this view of that term that you do.
From Wikipedia (a generally liberal source):
"Big government refers to a government that is considered excessively large and heavily involved in various sectors of society, often taking significant powers into its own hands. It typically implies a government that exerts considerable influence over the daily lives of citizens and public policy. The term is often used in political discussions to critique the extent of government intervention in the economy and personal affairs."
Trump is reducing the size of government, consolidating power within the multitude of agencies, and eliminating entirely much of what these agencies are doing, and basically no longer are those things regulated or actions performed.
Almost all examples... such as his elimination of the Department of Education. By eliminating the oversight that the Department of Education has, most of the issues now go back to the states for them to do whatever they want. A conservative like me thinks this is fantastic... while I'd have to assume that someone like you is horrified about such an action. For me... liberal states have the freedoms to now go totally overboard and metaphorically shoot themselves in the foot, while other states can swing the other way. This creates competition between the states... and allows one to succeed over the other.
Like in this liberal interpretation of how eliminating the Department of Education is a bad thing, as their doomsday scenario is actually a really positive thing: https://www.yahoo.com/news/...gives-100000174.html
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
You'll never see Trump shrink the size of the government either. That isn't accomplished through huge increases in spending, and swelling/centralizing governmnet power. You can view increasing and consolodating Executive power as a panacea for small government, but if you ask me that's even further "out there."
You keep saying that... but where are you getting this from? The budget is set in September, and we're in May. Trump's budget won't enact until September... they've already cut nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in government spending.
Your view here is not mainstream, it's wild radical leftist that goes along with the whole "Trump is a dictator" talk. There's no one out there except the radical left who is saying that Trump is growing the government. Again, either you think you're being clever / cute here, or you're really out there in your thinking.
You keep saying that... but where are you getting this from? The budget is set in September, and we're in May. Trump's budget won't enact until September... they've already cut nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in government spending.
Your view here is not mainstream, it's wild radical leftist that goes along with the whole "Trump is a dictator" talk. There's no one out there except the radical left who is saying that Trump is growing the government. Again, either you think you're being clever / cute here, or you're really out there in your thinking.
HE BROKE IT
SO HE OWNS IT
HAND WAVING THAT HARD WOULD MAKE Joseph Goebbels PROUD
HAND WAVING THAT HARD WOULD MAKE Joseph Goebbels PROUD
quote
Originally posted by ray b: YOU CAN'T SEA-LION IN THE RUMP SPEWS
LEOPARDS GET 10% TO START
BUT WANT MORE
I feel like an ******* for pointing this out, but is it me, or does everyone else really have no idea how to follow these responses? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, I feel bad saying this, but I don't really know what you're even saying. Joseph Goebbels? Isn't that the guy that worked for Hitler and made all the Eagles and swasticas and everything, and what is going on with the Leopards and Sea Lions... what are you even talking about with 10%? I'm so lost Ray... I really have no clue what you're going on about. I rarely read what you say because it nonsensicle most times... and when it isn't, it's because you copy / pasted from somewhere else.
And why is everything in all caps? I did that back in the mid 1990s when I was calling BBSes and posting on FidoNet, and even then it was wrong and people told me to stop posting messages in all caps.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I feel like an ******* for pointing this out, but is it me, or does everyone else really have no idea how to follow these responses? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, I feel bad saying this, but I don't really know what you're even saying. Joseph Goebbels? Isn't that the guy that worked for Hitler and made all the Eagles and swasticas and everything, and what is going on with the Leopards and Sea Lions... what are you even talking about with 10%? I'm so lost Ray... I really have no clue what you're going on about. I rarely read what you say because it nonsensicle most times... and when it isn't, it's because you copy / pasted from somewhere else.
And why is everything in all caps? I did that back in the mid 1990s when I was calling BBSes and posting on FidoNet, and even then it was wrong and people told me to stop posting messages in all caps.
i AM BORED
AND YOU ARE FAR TO HUNG UP MR JONES
YOU CAN'T SEE LYING OR THE 10% EATEN BY THE RUMP AS A TARIFF ON EVERYTHING LIKE YOU LIVE IN MAGA LAND WITH ONLY Gop IN OR OUT IS YOUR GOOGLE BROKEN OR DO YOU FEAR IT THAT MUCH ? PROPAGANDA NOT EAGLES OR BENT CROSSES HE LIED FOR THE STATE AND LEADER
CAPS BECAUSE IT AGGRAVATES THE RWNJ'S WHO ARE HARD OF READING COMPREHENSION [LIKE YOU]
SO YES I DO NOT SPOON FEED ONLY WHAT THE RWNJ WANTS TO HEAR LIKE FOX NEWS AND A BIT OF EFFORT IS NEEDED THAT YOU FAIL TO PUT IN TO PUZZLE INTO PLACE THE REFERENCES
YOU CAN'T SEE LYING OR THE 10% EATEN BY THE RUMP AS A TARIFF ON EVERYTHING LIKE YOU LIVE IN MAGA LAND WITH ONLY Gop IN OR OUT IS YOUR GOOGLE BROKEN OR DO YOU FEAR IT THAT MUCH ? PROPAGANDA NOT EAGLES OR BENT CROSSES HE LIED FOR THE STATE AND LEADER
CAPS BECAUSE IT AGGRAVATES THE RWNJ'S WHO ARE HARD OF READING COMPREHENSION [LIKE YOU]
SO YES I DO NOT SPOON FEED ONLY WHAT THE RWNJ WANTS TO HEAR LIKE FOX NEWS AND A BIT OF EFFORT IS NEEDED THAT YOU FAIL TO PUT IN TO PUZZLE INTO PLACE THE REFERENCES
REALLY CAN'T GET SEALION OR 10% EATEN BY LEOPARDS
Vikingsmith is right... these would be pretty awesome for a heavy metal song.
EDIT: ... I couldn't help myself... you guys will see in a minute...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-14-2025).]
'' 'The Qatari royal family bankrolls Hamas. This is Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, relative of the man who the US Defense Department has identified as the funder of the mastermind of the September 11 attacks and helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed evade capture for many years.
Now they just bought their way into Trump’s inner circle.
This is the same regime that:
• Finances Hamas • Was found guilty of bribing hundreds of European Union officials to sway policy in its favor • Financed 9/11 attacks
And it's not just Trump with his snout in the trough:
• Pam Bondi – Qatar’s registered lobbyist $115,000 per month • Kash Patel – Security consulting for Qatar • Eric Trump – Building Qatari-funded golf resorts • Jared Kushner – Took \$1.5B from Qatari and Emirati funds • Lee Zeldin – His firm was paid by a Qatari-linked company • Steve Witkoff – Business ties with Qatari interests • Barry Bennett & Doug Watts – Secretly lobbied for Qatar • Joey Allaham – Arranged Qatari meetings with Trump insiders
Qatar doesn’t spend billions for friendship. They don't give 'gifts'. They invest to control. They've been cited as one of the most corrupt countries on earth, specifically for bribing targets and people it deems necessary to cultivate.
Terror money is still terror. No matter how big the check.'
FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLLOW THE WORLD ONLY ''FREE 747''
BTW THE RWNJ HERE WILL HATE IT BUT THE ABOVE CHARGES ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ARE TRUE BUT NO ONE WANTS TO INVESTIGATE I CHECKED JUST FOR THOSE HERE WHO ARE IN THE CULT
AND RANDYE I TOLD YOU BLONDI IS A CROOK not debby harry who was cute but now is 79 AS IS RHONDA AND WIFE
'' 'The Qatari royal family bankrolls Hamas. This is Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, relative of the man who the US Defense Department has identified as the funder of the mastermind of the September 11 attacks and helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed evade capture for many years.
Now they just bought their way into Trump’s inner circle.
This is the same regime that:
• Finances Hamas • Was found guilty of bribing hundreds of European Union officials to sway policy in its favor • Financed 9/11 attacks
And it's not just Trump with his snout in the trough:
• Pam Bondi – Qatar’s registered lobbyist $115,000 per month • Kash Patel – Security consulting for Qatar • Eric Trump – Building Qatari-funded golf resorts • Jared Kushner – Took \$1.5B from Qatari and Emirati funds • Lee Zeldin – His firm was paid by a Qatari-linked company • Steve Witkoff – Business ties with Qatari interests • Barry Bennett & Doug Watts – Secretly lobbied for Qatar • Joey Allaham – Arranged Qatari meetings with Trump insiders
Qatar doesn’t spend billions for friendship. They don't give 'gifts'. They invest to control. They've been cited as one of the most corrupt countries on earth, specifically for bribing targets and people it deems necessary to cultivate.
Terror money is still terror. No matter how big the check.'
FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLLOW THE WORLD ONLY ''FREE 747''
BTW THE RWNJ HERE WILL HATE IT BUT THE ABOVE CHARGES ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ARE TRUE BUT NO ONE WANTS TO INVESTIGATE I CHECKED JUST FOR THOSE HERE WHO ARE IN THE CULT
AND RANDYE I TOLD YOU BLONDI IS A CROOK not debby harry who was cute but now is 79 AS IS RHONDA AND WIFE
For those who would rather listen to this, and in this format...
Ray's new hit... "Snout in the Trough"
Lyrics:
quote
They just bought their way into Trump’s inner circle The same regime that Finances Hamas
it's not just Trump with his snout in the trough
Qatar doesn’t spend billions for friendship. They don't give gifts.
They invest to control.
THE RWNJ HERE WILL HATE IT BUT THE ABOVE CHARGES ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ARE TRUE BUT NO ONE WANTS TO INVESTIGATE I CHECKED JUST FOR THOSE HERE WHO ARE IN THE CULT
AND RANDYE I TOLD YOU BLONDI IS A CROOK not debby harry who was cute but now is 79 AS IS RHONDA AND WIFE
