The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[JettaKnight]

If that’s 100% true, why does it always seem like it’s the Republican politicians that hide their sexuality, when they’re gay? We just had one come out of the closet the other day.

The "log cabin Republicans" has been a thing for forty years now...


I think morality matters about the same on both sides - it's just defined different.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The "log cabin Republicans" has been a thing for forty years now...


I think morality matters about the same on both sides - it's just defined different.

Or it could be that that the party, and many conservatives, in general, seem to have a negative viewpoint concerning homosexuality. Hence why they stay in the closet for so long.

 

[T.Lex]

Or it could be that that the party, and many conservatives, in general, seem to have a negative viewpoint concerning homosexuality. Hence why they stay in the closet for so long.

While that may have been historically true, and may be true of Boomer conservatives, the GenX Republicans are generally more libertarian about that kind of thing.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Or it could be that that the party, and many conservatives, in general, seem to have a negative viewpoint concerning homosexuality. Hence why they stay in the closet for so long.

I don’t know which republicans you communicate with, but the crazy baptist church doesn’t represent any of us. Most that Im around and work with don’t care if someone is gay. You’re stereotyping republicans

 

[Hatin Since 87]

While that may have been historically true, and may be true of Boomer conservatives, the GenX Republicans are generally more libertarian about that kind of thing.

It’s a lot more common now, and I think my generation grew up knowing gay people and have gay friends. Most people don’t care

 

[nonobaddog]

While that may have been historically true, and may be true of Boomer conservatives, the GenX Republicans are generally more libertarian about that kind of thing.

There is some truth to that but I don't think it is a political thing, it is more of an age thing. If some guy is gay and behaves like a human traditionally does nobody cares. But if they put on a bikini and parade down the streets waddling like a duck, older people are like - Oh jeeze, can't you keep that at home.
The political thing is pushed by the media and a lot of people still believe the media.

 

[JettaKnight]

Or it could be that that the party, and many conservatives, in general, seem to have a negative viewpoint concerning homosexuality. Hence why they stay in the closet for so long.

It's not 100% open and accepting, and I doubt it's ever going to be, but it's not closed either.

What is inclusive is the viewpoints. You can be a Republican and be have a pro-gay stance, or support a traditional marriage view. I don't see any Democrats with the latter.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well, I guess I'm simple-minded.

I thought that if everybody's income went up 10% we all better off.
I didn't realize that if some richer guy's income went up 10%, I was worse off because 10% of his income was more than 10% of mine.

I think the issue is more like "our" (I'm making some assumptions, lol) income went up 10%... the rich guys' went up 20%... and those at the bottom end are flat, struggling just to keep up with inflation.

Focusing on the gains of the rich ignores the real problem, those at the bottom... and IMO, progressive policy's have a lot to do with that problem.

It's also an easy class-warfare message... stuck in a burger-flipping job? It's Elon Musk or Bloomberg's fault because they aren't "sharing" their billions with "you".

 

[Kutnupe14]

While that may have been historically true, and may be true of Boomer conservatives, the GenX Republicans are generally more libertarian about that kind of thing.

Maybe, but their silence is deafening.
Traditional conservative stances concerning things like:
opposition to Gays in the military serving openly
opposition to Same sex marriage
support of conversion therapy

...seem problematic. Throw in a frequent gay joke about the sexuality of former presidential candidate, which obviously is meant to disparage the lifestyle, and it get even further problematic.

 

[printcraft]

........seem problematic. Throw in a frequent gay joke about the sexuality of former presidential candidate, which obviously is meant to disparage the lifestyle, and it get even further problematic.

Leave obama out of this.

 

[nonobaddog]

Maybe, but their silence is deafening.
Traditional conservative stances concerning things like:
opposition to Gays in the military serving openly
opposition to Same sex marriage
support of conversion therapy

...seem problematic. Throw in a frequent gay joke about the sexuality of former presidential candidate, which obviously is meant to disparage the lifestyle, and it get even further problematic.

So the problem is not everybody thinks the way you want them to think.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Maybe, but their silence is deafening.
Traditional conservative stances concerning things like:
opposition to Gays in the military serving openly
opposition to Same sex marriage
support of conversion therapy

...seem problematic. Throw in a frequent gay joke about the sexuality of former presidential candidate, which obviously is meant to disparage the lifestyle, and it get even further problematic.

Dave Rubin, an openly gay liberal, got a standing ovation at a Turning Point USA event, which are basically Trump rallies.

He’s also had shows cancelled because of threats of violence from extreme leftists.

See the difference?

 

[Ingomike]

I don't disagree with your number. It is in the ballpark.

But it doesn't speak to wealth concentration very well. As, Paul Harvey would say: The rest of the story.

View attachment 84834

The massive problem with this is your snide comments are based on an assumption that individuals are locked into the divisions your chart. IRS data show different, it is typical that throughout the lifetime of an American citizens they will be in most of the categories in the chart. Graduate, get married, go to work, don't get arrested, don't get divorced you will most likely be a millionaire before you die...

 

[printcraft]

So the problem is not everybody thinks the way you want them to think.

Kuts views on this seem problematic.

 

[Ingomike]

The term would become meaningless under Prager's definition. He's a charlatan.

So if you know it all as you seem to imply and Prager is a charlatan, please show us the videos he has posted that were wrong. The left hates him because he spreads the truth to video hungry young people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So the problem is not everybody thinks the way you want them to think.

I'd have much less fun if people thought the way I wanted them to think. So no. Now, if you don't mind, how about we try and avoid making this conversation about me.

 

[Alpo]

Well, I guess I'm simple-minded.

I thought that if everybody's income went up 10% we all better off.
I didn't realize that if some richer guy's income went up 10%, I was worse off because 10% of his income was more than 10% of mine.

A simple example that will surely draw "yeah, but....'s":

Setting aside for the moment that income increases without productivity gains will likely result in inflation, there are cost components in the economy rising faster than the rate of real wage growth. Health care, for example. One significant health incident or birth of a child with significant medical needs can reduce the wealth of the laborer far easier than it would the rich investor.

 

[BugI02]

Progressives demands are also problematic and their estimation of the problem with income inequality is overstated. It’s overstated because they use it as a tool to sway public opinion in favor of their policies. It’s a lot like the Republicans do with many of their hot button issues to scare people into supporting their policies.

Again, that’s not to say wealth inequality doesn’t cause societal problems. It does. I don’t see it that wealth inequality in the US is oppressive, per se. If we adopted the kind of system that would end income inequality, it would not look like a utopia. It would be a revolution. People grabbing metaphoric pitchforks and stabbing the Kulaks for daring to own property and employing people for wages.

As long as people are free to reap the benefits of their own labor, there will be income inequality because some people are bigly better than others. Sometimes you’re the crack ho selling her body for the next hit. Sometimes you’re the Alpo with above average intellect, who managed to make a comfortable living and enjoy a comfortable retirement. Rarely you’re the Elon Musk who is just many orders of magnitude better at ideas worth fortunes.

Income inequality just seems to be the same old class warfare done up in a pretty new wrapper. "New and improved"

Many people, but not everyone, can fix income inequality for themselves within reason. The problems arise when they want it fixed for them with no additional effort on their part. That is when government is truly allowed to run amok

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Maybe, but their silence is deafening.
Traditional conservative stances concerning things like:
opposition to Gays in the military serving openly
opposition to Same sex marriage
support of conversion therapy

...seem problematic. Throw in a frequent gay joke about the sexuality of former presidential candidate, which obviously is meant to disparage the lifestyle, and it get even further problematic.

Making a gay joke doesn’t mean you’re against gays. The owner of the last company had 3 gay sons out of 4. The one that wasn’t gay would always joke about it, saying stuff like “I told dad not to give them baths together when we were kids”. Out of everyone that worked there I was closest with the gay one. We would go to machine shows together in Ohio and Illinois every time they had them, he came to the hospital when my son was born, he still calls occasionally just to chat (I no longer work there so don’t see him much anymore). He was republican, and says pretty much the same as indygal said. Democrats are accepting, until you come out as not being one of their own. Then they call you names and bully you.

Personally, I think what you’re doing is a bit more insulting. You’re basically saying blacks, gays, Latinos, etc should be democrats, because republicans are against their ideals. That’s why the walkaway movement gained so much momentum. People are tired of being put into a group and told this is how they should think based on the group they’re in. How about we realize individuals have individual thoughts and desires, and they can align however they want politically, without their group identity being a factor?

 

[Doug]

I think the issue is more like "our" (I'm making some assumptions, lol) income went up 10%... the rich guys' went up 20%... and those at the bottom end are flat, struggling just to keep up with inflation.

Focusing on the gains of the rich ignores the real problem, those at the bottom... and IMO, progressive policy's have a lot to do with that problem.

It's also an easy class-warfare message... stuck in a burger-flipping job? It's Elon Musk or Bloomberg's fault because they aren't "sharing" their billions with "you".

Yeah, maybe so.
I was talking with some guys last night.
One said about 1 in 5 of new hires wants to work and get ahead. The rest just don't seem to care one way or another.
Another said his boss is just trying to hire people who will come to work.

Those might be reasons why people are "at the bottom."