What exactly are MAGA proposals that are destroying our country?

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
The right is full of nutcases who would get away with violence if they could. The rest of the country trying to check right wing violence and economic disaster.
There are some nutcase on both sides but the overwhelming percent of violence is committed by liberals.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,016
1,524
1
As long as all you hold is hatred toward the right, you add nothing to healing of the country. If you believe the right is wrong about everything you do what Biden did: countermand every action Trump did. That strategy created crises in energy, immigration, foreign affairs…the list goes on. Opposite George Costanza Except it worked the opposite of good.

The dialogue has always involved trying to find some middle ground. That is no longer true and your attitude is the norm. That is the country’s biggest problem. I’m always right; you are always wrong.
Didn't Trump ask for a scrapping of Republican Party Platform? Like, there is none? So it might be fairly asked what are the policies the Republican Party now advances? I fear MAGA and the Republican Party would be at odds on many policy prescriptions, and therein lies the problem.

There is much to debate and dislike about the Dems platform, but at least we know what to address.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,016
1,524
1
Nancy only had a few hundred police present on 1/6 to control 100,000 protestors because Trump supporters had zero history of violence. If you dispute that, then the only explanation is that Nancy wanted violence to occur. Can’t argue it both ways.
Sure, who wouldn't want to invite thugs into their House at the risk of life and limb? Sounds like a plan.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
Didn't Trump ask for a scrapping of Republican Party Platform? Like, there is none? So it might be fairly asked what are the policies the Republican Party now advances? I fear MAGA and the Republican Party would be at odds on many policy prescriptions, and therein lies the problem.

There is much to debate and dislike about the Dems platform, but at least we know what to address.
You continue to come up empty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,317
2,326
1
Sure, who wouldn't want to invite thugs into their House at the risk of life and limb? Sounds like a plan.
Nancy only cares about Nancy and winning. If she thought enduring a violent demonstration could be propagandized, she most certainly roll with it. She spent hundreds of millions of dollars post 1/6 to protect from nonexistent threats just for the siege optics. Rumor was she inquired about installing machine gun nests.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,733
7,424
1
Didn't Trump ask for a scrapping of Republican Party Platform? Like, there is none? So it might be fairly asked what are the policies the Republican Party now advances? I fear MAGA and the Republican Party would be at odds on many policy prescriptions, and therein lies the problem.

There is much to debate and dislike about the Dems platform, but at least we know what to address.
I don
Didn't Trump ask for a scrapping of Republican Party Platform? Like, there is none? So it might be fairly asked what are the policies the Republican Party now advances? I fear MAGA and the Republican Party would be at odds on many policy prescriptions, and therein lies the problem.

There is much to debate and dislike about the Dems platform, but at least we know what to address.
i don't know about your statements above. What I see in ads and read in news articles makes the republican's positions pretty clear....border security, get tougher on crime, strong defense, attack inflation, voting rights, parental rights in schools, and others.
I don't see much if any daylight between what we refer to as MAGAs and republicans on these issues.

Now, there are some outliers in the republican party (as well as in the democrat party) but for the most part those I've listed above are pretty consistent among republican candidates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
There are some nutcase on both sides but the overwhelming percent of violence is committed by liberals.
Inner city violence doesn't affect me. Jan 6 violence and threats to election workers affects me. Threats to Dem politicians affects me.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
Nancy only had a few hundred police present on 1/6 to control 100,000 protestors because Trump supporters had zero history of violence. If you dispute that, then the only explanation is that Nancy wanted violence to occur. Can’t argue it both ways.
Wrong. Oath keepers and/or Proud Boys had looked for fights in DC on previous occasions. Pelosi does not control the National guard.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,317
2,326
1
Wrong. Oath keepers and/or Proud Boys had looked for fights in DC on previous occasions. Pelosi does not control the National guard.
Yes she did. Trump had approved them. Nancy said not to deploy them due to optics. Of course, Nancy has not been required to testify on this decision. (My understanding is Nancy and Schumer shared that decision)
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
How much more do you expect us to "invest"? We're alry spending 50% more than we collect in taxes.

Also, you have zero evidence to support your suggestion that people are homeless because we haven't invested in infrastructure.
$400 billion over our pre covid budget. That is 1/11 of the pre covid budget. Welfare related spending comes down. Much of the $400 billion comes back as revenue.

I dare you to explain how thew deficit has hurt us. ??? I used to fear the deficit but we all should have learned a small increase in the debt does not hurt us. We should have learned that R's for all their B.S. don't reduce deficits..
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
Inner city violence doesn't affect me. Jan 6 violence and threats to election workers affects me. Threats to Dem politicians affects me.
But actual threats by senators to supreme court officials are OK?

15,000 gun murders aren't a problem but a guy with zip ties is a major threat?

Black Panthers wielding weapons at a polling place is OK?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
Yes she did. Trump had approved them. Nancy said not to deploy them due to optics. Of course, Nancy has not been required to testify on this decision. (My understanding is Nancy and Schumer shared that decision)
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
But actual threats by senators to supreme court officials are OK?

15,000 gun murders aren't a problem but a guy with zip ties is a major threat?

Black Panthers wielding weapons at a polling place is OK?
Don't be stupid. I never said those were ok.
You're the clown too cheap to pay for more law enforcement. I support more law enforcement funding and I support tough sentencing.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
$400 billion over our pre covid budget. That is 1/11 of the pre covid budget. Welfare related spending comes down. Much of the $400 billion comes back as revenue.

I dare you to explain how thew deficit has hurt us. ??? I used to fear the deficit but we all should have learned a small increase in the debt does not hurt us. We should have learned that R's for all their B.S. don't reduce deficits..
You live in a very strange bubble Catch.

Federal spending was $4.4 trillion. This year it's $5.9 trillion. I put that on a spreadsheet and discovered the increase is $1.5 trillion, not $409 billion. Furthermore the current administration has added $4 trillion in new programs over the next decade.

Then you say that higher deficits haven't hurt us? 9% inflation isn't a problem?

WTF?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
Don't be stupid. I never said those were ok.
You're the clown too cheap to pay for more law enforcement. I support more law enforcement funding and I support tough sentencing.
So now republicans defended police and reduced sentences? I was sure that democrats were doing this and even painting it on the streets. I was sure that democrats were the ones imposing light sentences.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
You live in a very strange bubble Catch.

Federal spending was $4.4 trillion. This year it's $5.9 trillion. I put that on a spreadsheet and discovered the increase is $1.5 trillion, not $409 billion. Furthermore the current administration has added $4 trillion in new programs over the next decade.

Then you say that higher deficits haven't hurt us? 9% inflation isn't a problem?

WTF?
I said pre covid. $400 billion is my proposal, not what was spent.

The inflation is due to higher energy costs, higher food costs because of Ukraine and other supply chain issues. Of which the Orange POS did nothing for. A proper infrastructure bill includes money for the ports and rail. I never said 9% inflation is not a problem but it was not caused by the increased spending. I have ALWAYS been concerned about inflation.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
So now republicans defended police and reduced sentences? I was sure that democrats were doing this and even painting it on the streets. I was sure that democrats were the ones imposing light sentences.
This Democrat is NOT for light sentences. Try to remember that. But I vote for Dems because overall the country is better off without Republicans.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
I never said 9% inflation is not a problem but it was not caused by the increased spending. I have ALWAYS been concerned about inflation.
Gee, I always thought inflation was due to more dollars chasing fewer goods.

I'm curious, where is the IRS going to get 87,000 more employees? My guess is that they'll be pulling them from financial people currently employed in the private sector. I assume private sector employers will have to increase wages to hold onto people. That seems like inflation to me. Of course I didn't think the IRS was going to just hire the homeless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,365
6,094
1
What I don't understand about all the election talk, it can be settled by an audit. Not a recount, but an audit. But, at every turn its the bureaucrats (both D and R) that thwart any actions on an audit. It could settle the question of being the most honest and fair election. Why is that?

Then there's the problems with voter rolls. I can't see why its a big deal to have people removed because they're dead. I'm pretty sure that one of the qualifications for voting is that you're supposed to be alive. Same goes for people that have moved or filed bogus voter registration. Cleaning up the roles shouldn't be a political issue. But, an illegal vote takes away the right of a legal voter.

Our election laws continue to cater to the political parties, and not to the individual voter. The Legislature is supposed to make the laws. If the a mail-in ballot doesn't have the proper signature, then it is deemed an illegal vote. That isn't a judicial or executive or bureaucratic decision. Its the law. If the govt is allowed to be lawless, why should we expect the same from the citizenry?
Recounts are a type of audit. All recounts and audits have come to the same conclusion - there was no voter fraud in 2020 sufficient to change the outcome of any state or overall.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,317
2,326
1
You state that Pelosi did not control the National Guard. However, the article states that she did have the ultimate authority but chose to leave the decision to the sergeant at arms or Capitol board.

The question is begged: why has Nancy not testified as to her actions on 1/6 with regard to security decisions? She needs to go on the record personally. Did she order the sergeant at arms not to deploy the National Guard or did she simply abdicate her responsibilities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,365
6,094
1
Power matters. That is now all that matters to the left. Trump was the only thing that unified the left for the last six years so you and your brethren must keep him in the political conversation.

The left has one of the most unworkable coalitions I have seen. How does Raskin caucus with Ilan Omar? To be blunt, there are anti semites and anti zionists under the same tent as devout Jews. Nancy hates the Squad needs to play nice to keep power, ideology be damned.

All in all, AOC changed the politics of our country more than Trump moving it further progressive left than I can stomach. If you are a radical leftist, then I guess it is all good.
Trump loves to be kept in the news - he thrives on it. He has already hinted he is going to run again in 2024. He also is on the road constantly endorsing candidates.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,365
6,094
1
You state that Pelosi did not control the National Guard. However, the article states that she did have the ultimate authority but chose to leave the decision to the sergeant at arms or Capitol board.

The question is begged: why has Nancy not testified as to her actions on 1/6 with regard to security decisions? She needs to go on the record personally. Did she order the sergeant at arms not to deploy the National Guard or did she simply abdicate her responsibilities?
Only the CIC has control of the DC National Guard because DC is not a State. The Speaker of the House also has no control over the DC or other National Guard units. The National Guard is the 'Well Regulated Militia' set forth in the 2nd Amendment and further defined in the Militia Statutes passed in 1792 and 1793. The POTUS has the ultimate control of the National Guard.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,468
28,725
1
You live in a very strange bubble Catch.

Federal spending was $4.4 trillion. This year it's $5.9 trillion. I put that on a spreadsheet and discovered the increase is $1.5 trillion, not $409 billion. Furthermore the current administration has added $4 trillion in new programs over the next decade.

Then you say that higher deficits haven't hurt us? 9% inflation isn't a problem?

WTF?
There’s a reason for the phrase catch level stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
You state that Pelosi did not control the National Guard. However, the article states that she did have the ultimate authority but chose to leave the decision to the sergeant at arms or Capitol board.

The question is begged: why has Nancy not testified as to her actions on 1/6 with regard to security decisions? She needs to go on the record personally. Did she order the sergeant at arms not to deploy the National Guard or did she simply abdicate her responsibilities?
As best as I can guess, maybe she did not think they would go to the Capitol since the previous troubles had been north of the WH. She did not authority to call in the National Guard. Trump did. No matter. From now on, the National guard will be on alert when electorate votes are counted.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,285
2,314
1
Gee, I always thought inflation was due to more dollars chasing fewer goods.

I'm curious, where is the IRS going to get 87,000 more employees? My guess is that they'll be pulling them from financial people currently employed in the private sector. I assume private sector employers will have to increase wages to hold onto people. That seems like inflation to me. Of course I didn't think the IRS was going to just hire the homeless.
I hope they can get some of the financial people working at NASA, fusion research, fireworks, tobacco, alcohol companies.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,317
2,326
1
As best as I can guess, maybe she did not think they would go to the Capitol since the previous troubles had been north of the WH. She did not authority to call in the National Guard. Trump did. No matter. From now on, the National guard will be on alert when electorate votes are counted.
She did have authority because Trump had authorized it. However he can’t send the Guard unless it is requested. DC is different than states, but Trump wanted to send the Guard to Portland and Seattle, but local authorities would not allow or request it. I am guessing it is the same in DC or at least the same protocols are followed.

1) Trump authorized the Guard to be available
2) Trump did not have authority to unilaterally post them
3) Nancy (along with Schumer and maybe McConnell) had the ultimate authority to request the Guard
4) The Capitol police did not request the Guard
5) The sergeant at arms resigned
6) Nancy has not and will not testify why the Guard was not requested
7) Therefore we will probably never know if she explicitly said no to the Guard
8) Nancy did take charge of security after 1/6 spending several hundred million dollars
9) While 1/6 committee spends all its time trying to blame Trump, it has not even considered why the Guard was not called up when the size of the crowd was going to be large and emotions were known to be running high
10) The committee is trying to prove a sedition conspiracy while ignoring bad security decisions
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,468
28,725
1
More than a hundred responses to the original post which asked what MAGA proposals are destroying our country. So far all we got was Trump sucks.
Trump sucks but his actual job performance seems to surpass the Potato's. It seems very sports ball like, similar to Brady sucks !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,303
9,892
1
In answer to the OP the MAGA proposal that they feel will bring our democracy down is the idea that this Democratic Party should be removed from power.

They'll talk in circles, even cite things that they do in spades themselves, but that is essentially the gripe.

I wish they could be honest and just admit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
In answer to the OP the MAGA proposal that they feel will bring our democracy down is the idea that this Democratic Party should be removed from power.

They'll talk in circles, even cite things that they do in spades themselves, but that is essentially the gripe.

I wish they could be honest and just admit it.
They are being honest. Did you see Chuck Todd interviewing Kamala Harris about the border. She said it was secure then promoted amnesty. Then she said democrats are fixing what Trump broke. Todd never challenged her so she must have been honest.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,303
9,892
1
They are being honest. Did you see Chuck Todd interviewing Kamala Harris about the border. She said it was secure then promoted amnesty. Then she said democrats are fixing what Trump broke. Todd never challenged her so she must have been honest.

Facetious? You think she really believes the border is secure? That's like Nadler claiming the Portland riots were a myth as buildings were burning.

When Harris speaks there is no real content. It's just political babbling.

I now realize that her being on the ticket was more than about gender and skin color. It was about keeping a feeble Joe in place, and having a backup that is so incompetent that she will sign anything backed by The Party, just like Joe. Horrific situation.

If the country gets threatened and real leadership at the top is needed, we are in deep trouble. As it is, the economy is crumbling. Things could get worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,175
21,502
1
there's a better than even chance that if Trump doesn't get the nomination for 2024, all of sudden the same elements of TDS will transfer to whomever is the candidate...racist, semi fascist, xenophobe, etc.
If Cheeto does not win the Repugnicant presidential nomination in 2024, he can always try again in 2028. He'll likely be room temperature, but they can just shoot him full of formaldehyde and prop him up against the podium (or nearest wall), whereupon all of the Cultists will go wild. What's not to like?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,935
38,868
1
If Cheeto does not win the Repugnicant presidential nomination in 2024, he can always try again in 2028. He'll likely be room temperature, but they can just shoot him full of formaldehyde and prop him up against the podium (or nearest wall), whereupon all of the Cultists will go wild. What's not to like?
Just like I said. The OP asked "what proposals" and you respond bt taking shots at Trump. How shallow!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
20,242
13,874
1
i guess you didn't read that compendium of democrats in 2016 who wanted to change electors, who officially declared that Trump was an illegitimate president, who threatened electors, who revolted in the streets, and who denied that Trump was elected fairly.
Wouldn't those be considered attacks on the democratic process?

um, you might want to double check your to 2 bullets. According to treasury number, debt at 9/30/20 was 29.6trillion, 2 years later wer'e at 31 trillion with biden's budgets forcasting $1trillion deficits as far as the eye can see.
now going back a little further, the debt 9/30 2008 (Obama becoming president) debt was $10 trillion, in 2016 when trump was about to become president $19.5 trillion
So, it might appear as if MAGA has had little impact on debt. Both parties are bad....of course, pre Obama we were at a measly $10 trillion
As I guess you’re correct. There were a handful of fringe players who in the heat of the moment said some stupid things. The difference is that this time the “heat of the moment” never stopped. It morphed into calling Brad Raffensberger and asking him to find votes. Attempting to file false slates of electors. Two years later pushing a fraudulent election narrative. Inciting a riot on Jan 6. Watching on TV for three hours while Trump fans stormed the Capitol and threatened to hang the Vice President. Illegally stealing top secret documents, storing them in a country club and refusing to turn them over.
There are similarities, but Trump has taken it to dangerous extremes.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,303
9,892
1
As I guess you’re correct. There were a handful of fringe players who in the heat of the moment said some stupid things. The difference is that this time the “heat of the moment” never stopped. It morphed into calling Brad Raffensberger and asking him to find votes. Attempting to file false slates of electors. Two years later pushing a fraudulent election narrative. Inciting a riot on Jan 6. Watching on TV for three hours while Trump fans stormed the Capitol and threatened to hang the Vice President. Illegally stealing top secret documents, storing them in a country club and refusing to turn them over.
There are similarities, but Trump has taken it to dangerous extremes.

Uhm, (going forward) what exactly are MAGA proposals that are destroying our country?