Haley 2024?

[Ingomike]

It's interesting at this point in the race that so much of republican leadership is not listening to their base. Another thing that reminds me of the 70s. The gulf between any other candidate and Trump is so large that I would have figured somebody would be running as a copy, or at least " Trump Lite", but I don't see much.

There are a lot of unhappy Americans out there.

Not surprising to me, that is who they are. Many of us saw this in G W Bush and Trump fully exposed it.

 

[Ark]

It's interesting at this point in the race that so much of republican leadership is not listening to their base. Another thing that reminds me of the 70s. The gulf between any other candidate and Trump is so large that I would have figured somebody would be running as a copy, or at least " Trump Lite", but I don't see much.

There are a lot of unhappy Americans out there.

We're no different than Ireland today. Ruled by people who hate their country, hate its people, conspire against it constantly, and use their federal law enforcement agencies, tech companies, and media lapdogs to keep a lid on the people.

Haley loathes her own base and has no intention of delivering on a damn thing they want, and that's why the media loves her.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not surprising to me, that is who they are. Many of us saw this in G W Bush and Trump fully exposed it.

Yep. The Republican Party has not really changed. They're just sitting in their bunkers, consuming MREs and trying to out-wait Trump. The second he disappears from the political stage, for any reason, there will be a loud, spring-loaded "SNAP," and the policy message of the GOP will revert back to being indecipherable from that emanating from the WSJ Editorial Board.

In the Venn diagram of American politics, the circle labeled "Not Socialist" only overlaps the "Conservative" circle by a quarter-moon, at the most. The Republican Party wants to be economically libertarian and socially liberal, because that's what their Big Donors are. Those people have very little in common with Conservatives. They actually despise them, and the measure of a good candidate in their eyes is one who can be relied on to stiff the commoners.

 

[BugI02]

Nikki Haley rakes in cash — from Democrats looking to stop Trump

“If we’re going to lose, let’s lose to her, not Trump,” one source said of Democratic donors’ thinking.

nypost.com

To all the INGOers who insist Trump can't win - the Dems don't believe you either

 

[Tombs]

Nikki Haley rakes in cash — from Democrats looking to stop Trump

“If we’re going to lose, let’s lose to her, not Trump,” one source said of Democratic donors’ thinking.

nypost.com

To all the INGOers who insist Trump can't win - the Dems don't believe you either

It's always funny to me how my perception of people is almost always vindicated long long before those people expose themselves.

It's not even that hard, just look at who the media is shilling for. They're always the worst slime to walk the earth.

 

[KLB]

Yep. The Republican Party has not really changed. They're just sitting in their bunkers, consuming MREs and trying to out-wait Trump. The second he disappears from the political stage, for any reason, there will be a loud, spring-loaded "SNAP," and the policy message of the GOP will revert back to being indecipherable from that emanating from the WSJ Editorial Board.

In the Venn diagram of American politics, the circle labeled "Not Socialist" only overlaps the "Conservative" circle by a quarter-moon, at the most. The Republican Party wants to be economically libertarian and socially liberal, because that's what their Big Donors are. Those people have very little in common with Conservatives. They actually despise them, and the measure of a good candidate in their eyes is one who can be relied on to stiff the commoners.

I wouldn't characterize them as economically libertarian. They show little interest in reining in spending over government. In fact they like to spend just as much or more than the other guys. They just want to spend on slightly different things.

 

[Twangbanger]

I wouldn't characterize them as economically libertarian. They show little interest in reining in spending over government. In fact they like to spend just as much or more than the other guys. They just want to spend on slightly different things.

"Economically libertarian" doesn't mean "low government spending" to the GOP. That's what it means to old white conservative men in Indiana. Libertarian is a "menu." What the GOP chooses from that menu, is "Low Regulation," because that's what their donors want.

You've no doubt heard the phrase "Give unto Caesar..." The GOP are "Give unto Caesar" Libertarians. The government can spend all it wants, as long as it doesn't regulate too much. The taxing and spending part is paid for by you and me. Corporations don't care about that part, because they don't pay for it. We do. That's the "Give unto Caesar" part. They just don't want to be regulated.

The government can tax and spend all they want (the part you and I pay for), as long as they don't regulate too much. That's the economic libertarianism of the GOP. "Libertarianism for me; Give unto Caesar for thee."

Corporations don't care about the tax-and-spend part, because they don't pay taxes. The cost of government is paid by us, not them. That's why they have no interest in reducing it.

 

[KLB]

Corporations don't care about the tax-and-spend part, because they don't pay taxes. The cost of government is paid by us, not them. That's why they have no interest in reducing it.

That is something the Ds always leave out of the conversation when they talk about raising corporate taxes.

 

[Twangbanger]

That is something the Ds always leave out of the conversation when they talk about raising corporate taxes.

But it's also the part the Rs always leave out. They talk about lower government spending. But they know they have no intention of delivering it. Because their "real" constituents - which is the Donors - aren't asking for it.

It is theoretically possible to have generous government services and make Corporations pay for it, "if" you eliminated the tax loopholes that allow Irish Double Espressos (or whatever) and stuff like that. The Left portion of the Ds would really do that, if they could. The thing that prevents them doing it, is the existence of the Republican Party. Corporations are well-organized and paying off both sides handsomely. That places limits on what the Ds can accomplish, and ensures the existence of a "business friendly" wing of the D party. The portions of both parties that are bought-off by Big Business have an intense interest in choosing the GOP candidate to be someone like Nikki Haley, because they understand this "dynamic tension" between the Ds and Rs keeps corporations in charge. They will compete against each other for that political patronage, and corporations are the winners in that arrangement.

That dynamic tension is a good thing, for the people in the "Not Socialist" circle of the Venn Diagram. But if you're a common citizen who - in addition to not wanting to live in a socialist hellhole - also doesn't want your public speech regulated by the Censorship Industrial Complex, who doesn't want to be an indentured servant of China, who wants to keep driving a gas vehicle, who doesn't want a sea of imported low-skill immigrants to keep successively washing over industry after industry, and who doesn't want "Chix with Dix" undressing with your daughter in the school sports locker room...this arrangement is not arranged for your benefit.

The existence of Trump is a big problem for both parties.

 

[Tombs]

It's always ironic to me when people are demanding a balanced budget and reduced taxes at the same time.

No, you can't do that, we have wildly out of control spending and we've had it for over a generation now. You need to cut spending AND increase taxes if you actually care about a balanced budget. And use the pain of that to remind yourself why you should be careful every time you want to advocate for that new military project, war, or social program. And if the increased taxes are painful to you, maybe you should rethink your support of various states that require our military to project force to defend. That costs a hell of a lot of money, and is not necessary for our domestic lives, regardless of how hard MSM tries to scare you into believing you must sacrifice your first born or something will happen here.

Kicking the can down the road only goes so far, and we're starting to see the results of this with a single cheeseburger at mcdonalds being $2.

 

[Ingomike]

But it's also the part the Rs always leave out. They talk about lower government spending. But they know they have no intention of delivering it. Because their "real" constituents - which is the Donors - aren't asking for it.

It is theoretically possible to have generous government services and make Corporations pay for it, "if" you eliminated the tax loopholes that allow Irish Double Espressos (or whatever) and stuff like that. The Left portion of the Ds would really do that, if they could. The thing that prevents them doing it, is the existence of the Republican Party. Corporations are well-organized and paying off both sides handsomely. That places limits on what the Ds can accomplish, and ensures the existence of a "business friendly" wing of the D party. The portions of both parties that are bought-off by Big Business have an intense interest in choosing the GOP candidate to be someone like Nikki Haley, because they understand this "dynamic tension" between the Ds and Rs keeps corporations in charge. They will compete against each other for that political patronage, and corporations are the winners in that arrangement.

That dynamic tension is a good thing, for the people in the "Not Socialist" circle of the Venn Diagram. But if you're a common citizen who - in addition to not wanting to live in a socialist hellhole - also doesn't want your public speech regulated by the Censorship Industrial Complex, who doesn't want to be an indentured servant of China, who wants to keep driving a gas vehicle, who doesn't want a sea of imported low-skill immigrants to keep successively washing over industry after industry, and who doesn't want "Chix with Dix" undressing with your daughter in the school sports locker room...this arrangement is not arranged for your benefit.

The existence of Trump is a big problem for both parties.

Corporations do not pay ANY taxes and it is impossible for them to pay ANY taxes, the taxes charged to corporations are a reduction in what goes to those people that own the corporations. Corporate taxes are double dipping as the shareholders pay the corporate tax by a reduction in their dividends and pay either income or capital gains taxes too…

 

[Tombs]

Corporations do not pay ANY taxes and it is impossible for them to pay ANY taxes, the taxes charged to corporations are a reduction in what goes to those people that own the corporations. Corporate taxes are double dipping as the shareholders pay the corporate tax by a reduction in their dividends and pay either income or capital gains taxes too…

Not to mention, they'll just headquarter themselves elsewhere to dodge taxes, like Lichtenstein, with effectively no real taxes.

There's no practical way to achieve a lot of our tax and economic objectives if we want to also have global trade.

 

[foszoe]

How should the federal gov't be funded?

 

[Ingomike]

How should the federal gov't be defunded?

FIFY

 

[Ingomike]

How should the federal gov't be funded?

First cut unconstitutional spending, then we can talk about how to fund the rest…

 

[foszoe]

First cut unconstitutional spending, then we can talk about how to fund the rest…

How would you fund constitutional spending?

 

[Ingomike]

How would you fund constitutional spending?

Tariffs are a constitutional mechanism…

 

[foszoe]

Tariffs are a constitutional mechanism…

I have read that before income taxes. tariffs and excise taxes were the primary means.

I don't know how a tax does not end up getting paid by the citizens though. Whether it's income, corporate, excise, tariff.

 

[BugI02]

How would you fund constitutional spending?

Bake sales

 

[KLB]

I have read that before income taxes. tariffs and excise taxes were the primary means.

I don't know how a tax does not end up getting paid by the citizens though. Whether it's income, corporate, excise, tariff.

Which is shy controlling spending is so important. Few in Congress have any desire to do that.