The Incredible Shrinking Republican Party

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/21/2020 at 11:45 AM, Tomasz said:

Personally, I am not surprised by it.

Just as I generally support Trump not starting any war, I wonder if the US has really compromised itself more over Hurricane Katrina and New Orlean case or the coronavirus.

Perhaps Trump's supporters are not aware of the light in which the past six months has been putting the US, but there are more and more voices around the world that we are witnessing the end of US domination, the US's desperate fight for hegemony by imposing sanctions on half the world, the country's enormous internal problems and the birth the new hegemon China.

 

A lot of people are just shocked at what is happening in the USA. As I read, the state of Florida has 10,000 new infections a day with about 20 million people. So such a Poland would meet the norm for just 2 days.

The US is of course testing more, but the scale of the pandemic and its denial is shocking

You have been misled by liberal propaganda. Ignore the testing completely. Look at the deaths relative to the population of ANY country. Keep in mind that some countries LIE. This was a pandemic hysteria managed with histrionics as the weapon of choice. We do not even know how many Americans died of COVID because of some misinformation. I called this from the beginning. Far fewer would have died if Hydroxychloroquine plus zinc and antibiotic would have been used EARLY to treat NEW patients. The countries that did this had the BEST results. Our results are comparable to Germany, which has one of the best records. 

Here is all the information

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MXY8T0j7k0oUBsHW4BfjJM__DRIyzqrDf_FSlV4hHpw/edit

Edited July 24, 2020 by ronwagn
error

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/21/2020 at 3:31 PM, Ward Smith said:

Here's how Demoncrats fire people who don't toe the line. Public school teacher stating a simple fact, Trump is the President. Fireable offense? Only in demoncrat land. So now ask yourself when someone calls you on your phone and maybe only pretends to be a pollster, would you be stupid enough to tell them what you really believe? In this toxic environment? 

Is the Republican Party really shrinking, or is the silent majority keeping silent for their own good? Because Demoncrats put the devil in politics. 

Anyone in any professional field or governmental field needs to be very careful, especially if they are licensed. One physician in Wisconsin may lose his license because he rightly compared Covid 19 to a bad flu season. True that more died, but not that many more especially considering the fact that much of our population gets annual flu shots. I got two last fall to cover more strains. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/21/2020 at 1:19 PM, John Foote said:

I suspect Marshall, general of the generals, had the largest say.

As a warrior I have no idea if Marshall was worth a cold plate of beans, but as a strategic architect of policy and understanding who he top people were he had few peers.  

My favorite was Patton who was reportedly assassinated by the Communists. He would have rid the world of communism if allowed to. Of course there were plenty of communists in our government then as now. Usually they were called Marxists, socialists, or progressives. Sound familiar?

Edited July 23, 2020 by ronwagn
spelling

[BradleyPNW + 282]

On 7/19/2020 at 12:48 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

No, you’re failing to recognize that they make up 7% of the population. A fraction of the 7% making up 24% of drug arrests. That’s a problem. 

"Federal incarcerations and convictions reveal little here because they represent less than 8 percent of all incarcerations and, worse still, are not representative of nation-wide crime trends." - CATO

Basically, the Heritage article Dan posted was garbage. That was the whole point. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

On 7/19/2020 at 3:16 PM, 0R0 said:

I think you will find that the polls are strongly tilted to urban centers that have been cleaned out of high and middle income Republicans who are dispersing out of the urban cores and Dem states. Though the stats you quote are also reflected in the swing states that make the elections, it is not severe there as it is in the national statistics. The only reason the national statistics matter is that the weights of congressional and electoral college have not yet shifted "blue" states' total representation down by 10% as they would at the next census and move the Red states up in equivalent numbers.

Part of the reason for the rabid response on the Left and total attack atmosphere is that had the elections been conducted post a census, Dems could only win the presidency in a fluke and would likely lose the House more often than not. On top of that they would lose the little left over of their ability to obtain a liberal majority in supreme court decisions, which is already nominally 5:4 conservative.

What we're seeing in Gallup's party preference poll is American political identity trends. Today, cities vote like cities; suburbs vote like suburbs; rural votes like rural. It doesn't matter if they are in red or blue states. 

I don't know why some conservatives think the supreme court is a win. Democrats could easily stack the court. 

https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-should-they-pack-the-supreme-court/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

40 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

"Federal incarcerations and convictions reveal little here because they represent less than 8 percent of all incarcerations and, worse still, are not representative of nation-wide crime trends." - CATO

Basically, the Heritage article Dan posted was garbage. That was the whole point. 

Shouldn't affect the ratio. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Shouldn't affect the ratio. 

There is no ratio. The information is insufficient and Hans screwed the pooch. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

There is no ratio. The information is insufficient and Hans screwed the pooch. 

There is a ratio. 24:76

Unless the sample size is incredibly small, you're not correct in saying that the ratio isn't accurately produced. You say "8% of incarcerations". Great. What's the actual number? 

Edited July 23, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@BradleyPNW

Gotta ask. When you say "8% of incarcerations" are you still referring to drug incarcerations specifically? IF you're not, then you screwed up, since the ratio is derived from the drug cases.

[surrept33 + 609]

The Republicans will be back. They will just have to reinvent themselves, as parties have done many times before. I lived in Texas for about 5 years (granted in Dallas and Austin) until recently, and I almost all the Republicans I knew were old(er) folks and white. Targeting those demographics made sense for the Republicans short term, but are disastrous long term, given the diversity of the next future largest group: the millennials, some of who are heading towards 40 (like me). Many of those people see the Republicans as out of touch, even in Texas.

I have libertarian tendencies in a lot of things, but what I find absolutely detestable is the xenophobic nativist turn (I say this is a minority myself and the son of immigrants) the Republicans have seemly run towards ever since 2016 (instead of the 2012 plan to revamp the party to make it a bigger tent). The Republicans can't run as the "white people party" forever. That is what a lot of people, for better or worse think about Republicans.

They will to change and elect a new generation of leaders who make inclusivity one of their main campaign focuses.

American politics desperately needs to get out of a death spiral of polarism. We need more RINOs and DINOs in office.

Edited July 23, 2020 by surrept33

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@BradleyPNW

Gotta ask. When you say "8% of incarcerations" are you still referring to drug incarcerations specifically? IF you're not, then you screwed up, since the ratio is derived from the drug cases.

Why did Dan post the Heritage article? To counter the very embarrassing fact illegals contribute to the USA to the tune of $ billions in SS/Medicare contributions (plus state income/property taxes, etc.) Dan's attempt to deflect was, "yeah but illegals are criminals." 

However, Hans screwed up -- or cherry picked -- data. CATO wrote their article (March 4, 2019) before Hans (September 3, 2019.) Therefore, Hans was obviously privy to the same information CATO discussed. As CATO said in their March 2019 article, "Federal incarcerations and convictions reveal little here because they represent less than 8 percent of ALL incarcerations and, worse still, are not representative of nation-wide crime trends." 

Illegals pump $ billions into Social Security and Medicare. SS/M are pay as you go. American olds who paid into SS/M for years were not paying into a savings account. Trump is screwing over Americans who collect Social Security and Medicare because he is driven by racism rather than helping American olds with real dollars. Donald is such a prick that he can't see beyond his racism to let illegals help themselves and their families in less wealthy countries while also helping less wealthy American olds.

 Why is the Republican Party shrinking? Because Donald's Party is all about incompetence and self-destruction. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 hour ago, surrept33 said:

The Republicans will be back. They will just have to reinvent themselves, as parties have done many times before.

They won't be back as Republicans. They'll have a new brand name and platform.

Ex-Republicans are motivated to destroy the GOP brand because 1) they want revenge for getting kicked out, and 2) they want to fill the power vacuum with their own brand. That process will take a few election cycles and result in a new portfolio of alliances. The ultimate result will be a two party system (Democrats plus a new party) where both parties are nearly indistinguishable. Then instead of complaining about political polarization people will complain that both parties are the same. 
 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

Why did Dan post the Heritage article? To counter the very embarrassing fact illegals contribute to the USA to the tune of $ billions in SS/Medicare contributions (plus state income/property taxes, etc.) Dan's attempt to deflect was, "yeah but illegals are criminals." 

However, Hans screwed up -- or cherry picked -- data. CATO wrote their article (March 4, 2019) before Hans (September 3, 2019.) Therefore, Hans was obviously privy to the same information CATO discussed. As CATO said in their March 2019 article, "Federal incarcerations and convictions reveal little here because they represent less than 8 percent of ALL incarcerations and, worse still, are not representative of nation-wide crime trends." 

Illegals pump $ billions into Social Security and Medicare. SS/M are pay as you go. American olds who paid into SS/M for years were not paying into a savings account. Trump is screwing over Americans who collect Social Security and Medicare because he is driven by racism rather than helping American olds with real dollars. Donald is such a prick that he can't see beyond his racism to let illegals help themselves and their families in less wealthy countries while also helping less wealthy American olds.

 Why is the Republican Party shrinking? Because Donald's Party is all about incompetence and self-destruction. 

No, he posted the article to demonstrate why we need border security. I don't care if they contribute billions if they're bringing in destructive substances and crime. Besides, billions isn't much on a grand scale. 

Secondly, it looks like you simply quoted CATO again. I asked you what the sample size was. I really could care less if Fed incarcerations are only 8% of all. If the sample size is large, you're not going to see a screwed up ratio. Focus on this, because that's what we care about. I made it clear that drugs and crime outweigh "billions into SS/Medicare". (btw it's 7 billion. So uhh.. 7/900 for reference) 

[0R0 + 6,251]

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

On 7/21/2020 at 4:31 PM, Ward Smith said:

Here's how Demoncrats fire people who don't toe the line. Public school teacher stating a simple fact, Trump is the President. Fireable offense? Only in demoncrat land. So now ask yourself when someone calls you on your phone and maybe only pretends to be a pollster, would you be stupid enough to tell them what you really believe? In this toxic environment? 

Is the Republican Party really shrinking, or is the silent majority keeping silent for their own good? Because Demoncrats put the devil in politics. 

Anyone in any professional field or governmental field needs to be very careful, especially if they are licensed. One physician in Wisconsin may lose his license because he rightly compared Covid 19 to a bad flu season. True that more died, but not that many more especially considering the fact that much of our population gets annual flu shots. I got two last fall to cover more strains. 

I tell polsters what they want to hear (liberal positions) or more often just cut them off.

I don't think there is any chance at all that conservatives are answering polls to identify themselves as such with any frequency. How they actually vote will be a shock to the poll followers.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@BradleyPNW

You shouldn't be opposed to border security. You should be asking for a better system for immigrants to become Americans. If we do it that way, we get the benefits you're speaking about without the crime, except for regular crime levels that occur in any population.

[EDIT] Wanted to add this too. Apparently it costs approx $30 billion to educate undocumented children in the U.S. There went the 7 billion they contribute to SS. Then we have a margin of 23 billion more to eliminate their so called inputs. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

They won't be back as Republicans. They'll have a new brand name and platform.

Ex-Republicans are motivated to destroy the GOP brand because 1) they want revenge for getting kicked out, and 2) they want to fill the power vacuum with their own brand. That process will take a few election cycles and result in a new portfolio of alliances. The ultimate result will be a two party system (Democrats plus a new party) where both parties are nearly indistinguishable. Then instead of complaining about political polarization people will complain that both parties are the same. 
 

 

You obviously don't understand how the party re-allocation process works with the various groups.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

You obviously don't understand how the party re-allocation process works with the various groups.

Obviously. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

7 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@BradleyPNW

You shouldn't be opposed to border security. You should be asking for a better system for immigrants to become Americans. If we do it that way, we get the benefits you're speaking about without the crime, except for regular crime levels that occur in any population.

[EDIT] Wanted to add this too. Apparently it costs approx $30 billion to educate undocumented children in the U.S. There went the 7 billion they contribute to SS. Then we have a margin of 23 billion more to eliminate their so called inputs. 

GOP controlled both chambers of congress and the White House for two years. They spent all that time trying to repeal Obamacare only to make it so popular Okla-freaking-homa expanded the ACA by ballot initiative. But at least they got Donald's border wall funded, oh wait. 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

GOP controlled both chambers of congress and the White House for two years. They spent all that time trying to repeal Obamacare only to make it so popular Okla-freaking-homa expanded the ACA by ballot initiative. But at least they got Donald's border wall funded, oh wait. 

 

What does this have to do with supporting a better program for naturalization and border security? 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

They spent all that time trying to repeal Obamacare only to make it so popular Okla-freaking-homa expanded the ACA by ballot initiative. But at least they got Donald's border wall funded, oh wait. 

There's a little more to that story, as usual:

(Disclaimer: I have not had to participate in the ACA, so I don't have personal experience with it.)

Oklahoma Votes For Medicaid Expansion Over Objections Of Republican State Leaders

Voters in Oklahoma narrowly approved a ballot measure Tuesday night to expand Medicaid to eligible adults who need health insurance. Oklahoma is now the 37th state to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act; coverage will begin a year from now, on July 1, 2021.

Based on the final unofficial count, the measure passed with just over a 6,000-vote margin — less than one full percentage point.

Medicaid expansion was a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, but a Supreme Court ruling made it optional and left the decision up to each state. Medicaid is a public health insurance program for the poor, with states splitting the cost with the federal government.

Historically, Medicaid mostly covered low-income children and people with disabilities, but the Affordable Care Act allows states to expand access to Medicaid to uninsured adults who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level. As an inducement, the federal government shoulders 90% of the cost of those newly-covered adults.

In Oklahoma, Medicaid expansion will likely help drive down the state's 14% uninsured rate, the second highest in the nation after Texas. It's estimated that at least 200,000 Oklahomans will be newly eligible for Medicaid, with enrollment potentially climbing even higher as millions lose their jobs amid the pandemic.

 

Under 2020 poverty guidelines, expanded Medicaid coverage would provide health insurance to a single adult making less than $17,608 annually, or adults in a family of four making less than $36,156 annually.

The vote highlighted an apparent divide on the issue between urban and rural voters: Support for expansion largely stemmed from the state's two largest cities, Oklahoma City and Tulsa. John Tidwell, who opposed the ballot measure as chair of the Vote No on 802 Association, emphasized the geographic divide in a Facebook post:

"Results are clear: A plan that claims to 'save rural health care' was overwhelmingly rejected by rural communities across Oklahoma," wrote Tidwell, who is also state director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative PAC. "Voters in more than 90 percent of Oklahoma counties voted against SQ802."

The language used in the ballot measure ensures that Medicaid expansion is enshrined in the state's constitution, which would make it extremely difficult for Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt or the Republican-controlled legislature to dismantle the expansion in the future.

Now the question looming over the state is how the legislature will fund the state's 10% portion of the cost of the Medicaid expansion. The legislature's next session begins in February.

Senate Democratic Leader Kay Floyd, D-Oklahoma City, issued a statement, commending Oklahomans for voting to expand Medicaid. She affirmed her caucus is ready to begin work in ensuring its implementation.

"Our caucus has long supported and advocated for Medicaid expansion in Oklahoma," Floyd wrote. "We stand ready to work with our colleagues in the Legislature and Gov. Stitt to fund the state share, so we can fully implement Medicaid expansion as soon as possible."

Gov. Kevin Stitt had been a vocal opponent of the proposal, citing its potential costs even though the federal government will cover 90% of the costs for new enrollees.

Stitt has estimated the state might have to pay $160-200 million a year. According to The Oklahoman newspaper, Stitt says state legislators will have a tough time coming up with the required funding.

"You either pay for that by reducing roads and bridge funding, education funding, public safety funding, or you raise taxes," he said. "As your governor, I'm not raising taxes."

[BradleyPNW + 282]

4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

What does this have to do with supporting a better program for naturalization and border security? 

It has to do with Republican incompetence and => The Incredible Shrinking Republican Party. Republicans had control for two years and dropped the ball, entirely, on immigration reform. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

There's a little more to that story, as usual:

(Disclaimer: I have not had to participate in the ACA, so I don't have personal experience with it.)

Oklahoma Votes For Medicaid Expansion Over Objections Of Republican State Leaders

Voters in Oklahoma narrowly approved a ballot measure Tuesday night to expand Medicaid to eligible adults who need health insurance. Oklahoma is now the 37th state to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act; coverage will begin a year from now, on July 1, 2021.

Based on the final unofficial count, the measure passed with just over a 6,000-vote margin — less than one full percentage point.

Medicaid expansion was a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, but a Supreme Court ruling made it optional and left the decision up to each state. Medicaid is a public health insurance program for the poor, with states splitting the cost with the federal government.

Historically, Medicaid mostly covered low-income children and people with disabilities, but the Affordable Care Act allows states to expand access to Medicaid to uninsured adults who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level. As an inducement, the federal government shoulders 90% of the cost of those newly-covered adults.

In Oklahoma, Medicaid expansion will likely help drive down the state's 14% uninsured rate, the second highest in the nation after Texas. It's estimated that at least 200,000 Oklahomans will be newly eligible for Medicaid, with enrollment potentially climbing even higher as millions lose their jobs amid the pandemic.

 

Under 2020 poverty guidelines, expanded Medicaid coverage would provide health insurance to a single adult making less than $17,608 annually, or adults in a family of four making less than $36,156 annually.

The vote highlighted an apparent divide on the issue between urban and rural voters: Support for expansion largely stemmed from the state's two largest cities, Oklahoma City and Tulsa. John Tidwell, who opposed the ballot measure as chair of the Vote No on 802 Association, emphasized the geographic divide in a Facebook post:

"Results are clear: A plan that claims to 'save rural health care' was overwhelmingly rejected by rural communities across Oklahoma," wrote Tidwell, who is also state director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative PAC. "Voters in more than 90 percent of Oklahoma counties voted against SQ802."

The language used in the ballot measure ensures that Medicaid expansion is enshrined in the state's constitution, which would make it extremely difficult for Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt or the Republican-controlled legislature to dismantle the expansion in the future.

Now the question looming over the state is how the legislature will fund the state's 10% portion of the cost of the Medicaid expansion. The legislature's next session begins in February.

Senate Democratic Leader Kay Floyd, D-Oklahoma City, issued a statement, commending Oklahomans for voting to expand Medicaid. She affirmed her caucus is ready to begin work in ensuring its implementation.

"Our caucus has long supported and advocated for Medicaid expansion in Oklahoma," Floyd wrote. "We stand ready to work with our colleagues in the Legislature and Gov. Stitt to fund the state share, so we can fully implement Medicaid expansion as soon as possible."

Gov. Kevin Stitt had been a vocal opponent of the proposal, citing its potential costs even though the federal government will cover 90% of the costs for new enrollees.

Stitt has estimated the state might have to pay $160-200 million a year. According to The Oklahoman newspaper, Stitt says state legislators will have a tough time coming up with the required funding.

"You either pay for that by reducing roads and bridge funding, education funding, public safety funding, or you raise taxes," he said. "As your governor, I'm not raising taxes."

Oklahoma voters passed Obamacare expansion by a larger percentage than Donald won the electoral college in 2016. 

As a ballot measure, it was also decided by popular vote. Which Donald lost in 2016. 

 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

19 hours ago, 0R0 said:

I tell polsters what they want to hear (liberal positions) or more often just cut them off.

I don't think there is any chance at all that conservatives are answering polls to identify themselves as such with any frequency. How they actually vote will be a shock to the poll followers.

Except, we've had elections recently that tracked within the polling margins. I guess pollsters must have figured out how to game the gamers. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

It has to do with Republican incompetence and => The Incredible Shrinking Republican Party. Republicans had control for two years and dropped the ball, entirely, on immigration reform. 

Great so you’re not supporting your arguments about immigration. You’re sticking with the same mindset after failing to demonstrate its rationality. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

16 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Great so you’re not supporting your arguments about immigration. You’re sticking with the same mindset after failing to demonstrate its rationality. 

What are my arguments about immigration?