Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Over recent centuries (since the end of the dark ages) progress has been the norm in the western world. Looking into the future for America, it looks like the next generation of voters will be more left-leaning than right-leaning. So, your prediction looks valid.
Well, leftism is certainly not progress. More like Dilbert-meets-Kafka fantastical thinking.
That was the Dems first mistake; putting culture war/identity politics over economics.
But is it really a mistake? Think about it..they barely lost the election using that strategy, and won two elections based on it by significant margins. As deplorable as it is, the strategy seems to be pretty damn effective, and could have worked with a candidate that was not as disliked as Hillary...
Also, IMO, both parties are using identity politics. It's just that Democrats are identified with this political strategy because society, for some reason, think of appealing to ethnic minorities, LGBT, women as "identity politics" when in reality, appealing to whites, Christians, etc. is a form of identity politics in itself. (Yes, being white and religious is part of one's identity, and yes, Republicans try to appeal to these segments of the population).
Ultimately, I believe that "identity politics" will naturally exist in a democratic government with a diverse population, and that it's just smart politics to exploit it to your maximum benefit, politically speaking. Just because the Democrats failed to win this election doesn't mean that identity politics is not a politically sound strategy in the general sense, nor does it mean that Republicans should not include it in their repertoire of political strategies.
But is it really a mistake? Think about it..they barely lost the election using that strategy, and won two elections based on it by significant margins. As deplorable as it is, the strategy seems to be pretty damn effective, and could have worked with a candidate that was not as disliked as Hillary...
Also, IMO, both parties are using identity politics. It's just that Democrats are identified with this political strategy because society, for some reason, think of appealing to ethnic minorities, LGBT, women as "identity politics" when in reality, appealing to whites, Christians, etc. is a form of identity politics in itself. (Yes, being white and religious is part of one's identity, and yes, Republicans try to appeal to these segments of the population).
Ultimately, I believe that "identity politics" will naturally exist in a democratic government with a diverse population, and that it's just smart politics to exploit it to your maximum benefit, politically speaking. Just because the Democrats failed to win this election doesn't mean that identity politics is not a politically sound strategy in the general sense, nor does it mean that Republicans should not include it in their repertoire of political strategies.
Come on, they lost to a guy who didn't even have the backing of his own party. If Trump actually had the full might of the GOP supporting him instead of sabotaging him at every turn it would have been a total wipeout.
You were asked your opinion of what would likely happen.
Here's where your comprehension fails... You're asking me to comment on what someone else does, while I've asked you to explain your own admitted racism.
Until you understand that, we can't have an honest discussion.
Agreed, they just need to remove all the loopholes and hocus pocus, and put in solid realistic tiered rates.
Also, never let anyone get through this discussion of flat tax without bringing up that tax rates are GRADUATED...for hypothetical example, in a system with the under $200K bracket paying 10% and the 200K to $400K bracket paying 20%, the person making 400K pays the same percentage on the first $200K of income that someone who makes $200K does.it's that next 200K where the rate goes up. For some reason right wingers never seem to get this.
How do you justify charging one person many multiple times the amount for access to the exact same government services and benefits than someone else pays?
That's like charging one person $500 for a gallon of milk, and charging someone else only $5 for that same gallon of milk.
"Hear anyone calling black people n1ggers in public lately?"
Have you been in a black urban neighborhood lately?
Or listen to black rap music?
Jay-Z called them nlggers at a Hillary rally. Can't get any more public than that: a presidential campaign rally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
