American Politics

[PVMonger]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Repub president gets elected. Dems spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Repubs propose. The Dems point to the "fact" that Repubs haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Dems were the ones blocking everything). Dems gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Dems spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Repubs want to build a wall and-or want fewer government handouts and-or want to put all the young black men in jail and-or a bunch of other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Dem gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Dems have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Dems pass another bunch of voodoo spending bills, largely welfare for corporations and the upper middle class and spend money like drunken sailors. Just look at the 5 trillion in new spending authorized during the first two years of the Biden Administration. Dems are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and Repub is elected president and Repubs have control of the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass legislation to cut regulation and taxes that result in the working man actually making some gains instead of falling further and further behind (e.g. 2019). Dems are now pushing harder than ever to spend money like drunken sailors.

Go to Part 1.

If you believe this, you'd actually have proof. But you don't. As usual.

[Spidy]

I listen to Thom Hartmann on Sirius XM while driving from time to time, as he's the must articulate of the Progressive Democratic Party hack pundits. Actually I listen to him a lot more than all the right of center radio talk show hosts combined. Hartmann's an apologist for Venezuela. Venez fucking uela!

"Deficit Trends" about 2/3rds of the way down the following is a much more balanced breakdown.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

The writer, an economist, lambasts the George W. Bush administration for the Iraq war and the effect on the national debt, as he well should.

Otherwise, both parties spend like drunken sailors, and the Democrats are somewhat worse.

Typical response to try and normalize and "bothsider" the corrupt and dysfunctional party that is now basically/predominately a QAnon/Repub/Bothersider looney-tunes conspiracy party, hell bent on subverting democracy, the rule of law and The US Constitution.

The "Two Santa Clause" theory clearly has the Repubs, spending like drunken sailors to enrich themselves and their billionaire cronies and the other party (the Dems) clearly spending money to benefit and stimulate a stagnant and recessive economy, typically decimated and left-for-dead by Repubs, with their ill-fated trickle-down economics.

Yep, your article is just more bothersidesism. But I did like the following quote:

... What's more, presidents do not control the business cycle, even if the business cycle plays a part in the outcomes of presidential elections. ...

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

And yet numbskull Rebubs were all over Biden for the price of gasoline. (...kkkk!)

[EihTooms]

You've got it backwards. Presidents who inherit weak economies go onto see better performance during their term, and vice versa. See the table in Riedl's paper, "Inherited Economy and Presidential Performance On Jobs", linked below. The party the president belongs to has little or nothing to do with performance of the economy during his term, except via coincidence.

It's called the business cycle.

But I'll play along with your game. My graph of employment and recessions just goes back to about 1948. During that time Truman, Carter and Clinton all left Republicans with recessions that started during the final fiscal year of government that was budgeted and began during the Democrat Presidents' terms. Johnson missed doing the same by about three months. But of course you're going to poo poo that. Given Tooms' rules, the Republicans end up with the blame for the recessions, that purportedly resulted from the policies and budgets set by the Democrats. Meanwhile the Democrats receive the credit for the better times that preceded them.

I say purportedly because, again, I believe the party of the President has little to do with economic performance.

You already wrote or read every one of the links. There's no need to read them. Just be aware we've about beat this horse to death. And you're still wrong.

Truman, Carter and Clinton didn't leave anyone a recession. Stop making up stuff.

In the past century, Hoover, Eisenhower, Bush1, Bush2 and Trump did.

List of recessions in the United States

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States

Interesting highly partisan "business cycle" you've got stuck in your mind. The crap cycles, especially the spectacularly bad crap cycles, only occur at the end of Repub presidential terms when they come at the end and never at the end of Dem presidential terms whether the end of those terms come after 4 years, 8 years or in party sequential terms, 12 years or 20 years.

Which begs the question, how do those highly partisan "business cycles" know?!

Look, if it rankles you and your "economists" that the historical economic record favors Dems and punishes Repubs because those lucky Dems get to take over right when the outgoing Repub's economy is crashing down around our ears, millions of jobs are being wiped out and, goodness gracious, all the beautifully well-timed incoming POTUS of any party but always seems to be Dems needs to do is flip a magic light switch, go ride ponies or play golf and, as sure as night follows day, that miraculous "business cycle" will do all the work to recover the economy, instill confidence in brave free market Capitalists and business owners, create millions of jobs to recover the millions lost and all within just 2-3 months, here is the fix for what ails you:

Tell your beloved Repubs to stop promoting and enacting classic Repub policies and stewardship that produces those crap results that greet the incoming Dems over and over and over again in the first place.

[Tiny 12]

Name a Repub president of the past 100 years who didn't hand off seriously crap economic conditions to the incoming Dem, usually the country actually IN a verified Recession or Depression, elevated unemployment rates, having either wiped out millions of jobs or produced one of the worst jobs creation records in history.

Neither you nor any of your linked "economists" can. Not one.

Now name an outgoing Dem president of the past 100 years who did the same thing to an incoming Repub.

You've got it backwards. Presidents who inherit weak economies go onto see better performance during their term, and vice versa. See the table in Riedl's paper, "Inherited Economy and Presidential Performance On Jobs", linked below. The party the president belongs to has little or nothing to do with performance of the economy during his term, except via coincidence.

It's called the business cycle.

But I'll play along with your game. My graph of employment and recessions just goes back to about 1948. During that time Truman, Carter and Clinton all left Republicans with recessions that started during the final fiscal year of government that was budgeted and began during the Democrat Presidents' terms. Johnson missed doing the same by about three months. But of course you're going to poo poo that. Given Tooms' rules, the Republicans end up with the blame for the recessions, that purportedly resulted from the policies and budgets set by the Democrats. Meanwhile the Democrats receive the credit for the better times that preceded them.

I say purportedly because, again, I believe the party of the President has little to do with economic performance.

You know, like what you didn't do with that collection of URLs for entire pages of posts and entire articles, without even the titles of the articles and pdf files included, on the mistaken assumption that I or anyone else is going to plow through all of it to do all the work for you and make your case for you out of it.

You already wrote or read every one of the links. There's no need to read them. Just be aware we've about beat this horse to death. And you're still wrong.

[EihTooms]

Since 1988, two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have won elections with a majority of the popular vote. And since 1988, two Democrats, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden, won with a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% either time he ran and won. And George W. Bush didn't get 50% the first time he ran.

I'm not sure whether Donald Trump should be counted as a Republican or a Democrat. He's a Democrat infiltrator of the Republican Party, a former card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and the Democrat's best friend. The Republicans would have won the Senate in 2020 and 2022, and blown out the House in 2022, if not for Trump.

GHW Bush didn't win the vote "since" 1988. He won the vote "in" 1988.

By Majority or Plurality, either one is the winner of the actual vote.

LOL. When Reagan's classic Repub policies and stewardship produced a horrific Great Repub Recession, tripled the debt, skyrocketed the unemployment rate and the deficit, Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders tried to float that same bit and disavow him as the classic Repub icon he was.

Yeah, Reagan had been a Dem once upon a time just like Trump. And, just like Trump, the minute he decided to see if a shot at politics would boost his profile and repair his bank account, his lifelong observations of the two parties convinced him the Repub Party was the party where his celebrity and name recognition could excel and payoff; sleep til Noon, ride ponies, know nothing, do very little, his crap results would be applauded and spun into election winning advantage by Mainstream Media, etc while being a Dem meant he'd actually have to know something, do something, work hard, produce positive results and never expect accolades or positive spin for it in Mainstream Media.

There is no way those two "actors" could cut it as a Dem if they entered the world of politics and they knew it.

Then, as Repubs their policies and stewardship were classic Repub Supply-Side / Trickle-Down idiocy combined with classic disdain and reduction of regulations leading directly to classic Repub results; making the already wealthy even wealthier at the great expense of everyone else, crashing the economy, skyrocketing unemployment rates and deficits, middling private sector jobs creation at best or catastrophic job losses by the millions at worst.

Reagan and Trump are the classic Repub icons of icons.

[Tiny 12]

Your assessment is spot on. What you've described (for the uninitiated in US right-wing Repubs/Bothsider politics to subvert democracy and progress), is called the "Two Santa Clauses Theory".

Thom Hartmann: How the GOP Used a Two Santa Clauses Tactic to Con America for Nearly 40 Years: https://www.alternet.org/2018/02/two...early-40-years



Bravo, Excellent take!!!

I listen to Thom Hartmann on Sirius XM while driving from time to time, as he's the must articulate of the Progressive Democratic Party hack pundits. Actually I listen to him a lot more than all the right of center radio talk show hosts combined. Hartmann's an apologist for Venezuela. Venez fucking uela!

"Deficit Trends" about 2/3rds of the way down the following is a much more balanced breakdown.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

The writer, an economist, lambasts the George W. Bush administration for the Iraq war and the effect on the national debt, as he well should.

Otherwise, both parties spend like drunken sailors, and the Democrats are somewhat worse.

[Spidy]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Dem president gets elected. Repubs spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Dems propose. The Repubs point to the "fact" that Dems haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Repubs were the ones blocking everything). Repubs gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Repubs spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Dems want "open borders" and-or are communist and-or are socialist and-or want to take away your guns and-or a bunch of
other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Repub gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Repubs have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass another voodoo economics tax cut for the rich and spend money like drunken sailors. The economy goes into a tailspin. Repubs are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and a Dem is elected president and Dems have control of the House and-or Senate. Dems pass legislation that spends money to assist the economy to pull out of the tailspin. Repubs are now suddenly against spending any money at all even though Repubs just spend 4-to-8 years spending money like drunken sailors.

Go to Part 1.

Your assessment is spot on. What you've described (for the uninitiated in US right-wing Repubs/Bothsider politics to subvert democracy and progress), is called the "Two Santa Clauses Theory".

Thom Hartmann: How the GOP Used a Two Santa Clauses Tactic to Con America for Nearly 40 Years: https://www.alternet.org/2018/02/two...early-40-years

... And, hopefully, some of our media will begin to call the GOP out on the Two Santa Clauses program. Its about time that Americans realized the details of the scam that's been killing wages and enriching billionaires for nearly four decades. --- Thom Hartmann

Bravo, Excellent take!!!

[Tiny 12]

The only reason the shit Repub Party's candidate has gotten into the White House since 1988 is because the winger-rigged SCOTUS or winger-rigged Electoral College system awarded it to them, not because the American voters wanted them anywhere near the place...

Since 1988, two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have won elections with a majority of the popular vote. And since 1988, two Democrats, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden, won with a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% either time he ran and won. And George W. Bush didn't get 50% the first time he ran.

I'm not sure whether Donald Trump should be counted as a Republican or a Democrat. He's a Democrat infiltrator of the Republican Party, a former card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and the Democrat's best friend. The Republicans would have won the Senate in 2020 and 2022, and blown out the House in 2022, if not for Trump.

[EihTooms]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Repub president gets elected. Dems spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Repubs propose. The Dems point to the "fact" that Repubs haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Dems were the ones blocking everything). Dems gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Dems spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Repubs want to build a wall and-or want fewer government handouts and-or want to put all the young black men in jail and-or a bunch of other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Dem gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Dems have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Dems pass another bunch of voodoo spending bills, largely welfare for corporations and the upper middle class and spend money like drunken sailors. Just look at the 5 trillion in new spending authorized during the first two years of the Biden Administration. Dems are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and Repub is elected president and Repubs have control of the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass legislation to cut regulation and taxes that result in the working man actually making some gains instead of falling further and further behind (e.g. 2019). Dems are now pushing harder than ever to spend money like drunken sailors..

Dems didn't block Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 or even Bush2 from getting much of their agenda passed. I wish they had. But Dems believe in democracy, know elections matter and are often willing to help the Repub who won the election give the American electorate what they asked for when they elected them; crap economic policies and results.

In the case of Trump, crafty Moscow Mitch refused to give Trump anything to sign and pass until the last working day of December in his first year in office because he knew the Repub Trump "economic" record could only be improved by letting him blather on and Do Nothing for as long as possible while he merely coasted on the superior economic conditions he inherited from Obama-Biden and would only suffer by any crap Repub economic legislation crappy enough for him to sign and pass and any other decisions he made.

LOL. Man, did he call that one right!

[EihTooms]

OK, this should work. These are just my repeated posts trying to show you the error of your thinking. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink from the river of knowledge and truth.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2743466

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2744566

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2747584.

Sorry. 100 years of data and blatantly obvious results can not be argued away by nit picking irrelevant nonsense;.

Repub Presidents' favorite economic policies produce crap results while the Dem Presidents' favorite economic policies produce far superior results. Presidents are elected on their stated economic proposals. Once in office, they propose those policies to Congress and expect them to be included in budgets and other legislation. Or they find the veto pen.

If they fail at getting any of it done and the economy goes to shit then I guess they weren't up for the job. I don't know of any POTUS who didn't get any of the economic agenda he ran his campaign on done. And, sure enough, when the Repub gets his way the economy tanks and jobs creation suffers, often badly, but when the Dem gets his way the economy expands and historic numbers of jobs are created.

Name a Repub president of the past 100 years who didn't hand off seriously crap economic conditions to the incoming Dem, usually the country actually IN a verified Recession or Depression, elevated unemployment rates, having either wiped out millions of jobs or produced one of the worst jobs creation records in history.

Neither you nor any of your linked "economists" can. Not one.

Now name an outgoing Dem president of the past 100 years who did the same thing to an incoming Repub.

Nope. You can't.

No amount of tortured math or blind faith in voodoo economics can change the data and rewrite history for you.

BTW, what can I say about the NYT links that are sometimes blocked by Subscription Request pop ups and sometimes not? As I understand it, clearing your Google / Chrome cache allows you to get a certain amount of free views. Maybe that's what I had done recently when I posted those links. And I'll bet the vast majority of the time my NYT link was just one additional one reporting the same real news of other links I provided in order to prove my point, not just one. So those with cleared cache or subscriptions could read those too.

Now, generally when I provide a link to a source, even those NYT links, I will quote a meaningful amount of the text that applies to the point I am making. Hell, even the highlighted in bold titles and headlines I almost always take the trouble to include provide a wealth of information.

You know, like what you didn't do with that collection of URLs for entire pages of posts and entire articles, without even the titles of the articles and pdf files included, on the mistaken assumption that I or anyone else is going to plow through all of it to do all the work for you and make your case for you out of it.

[Tiny 12]

Voting for the Dems is the most effective bothsiderism policy. If you support a shlt party, you gaurantee that the other shlt party will get in straight afterwards.

You should kneel down every day and thank whatever pro Repub Bothsider gawd you worship that there is a Democratic Party capable of defeating all the winger-rigging and your MSM's pro Repub Bothsiderism as often as possible. Your mythical Third Party fantasy sure won't do it.

There's your answer JustTK. Your hard core Democrats and Trump Republicans are like true believers of a fundamentalist religion. Good luck convincing them they may be wrong about anything.

[Tiny 12]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Dem president gets elected. Repubs spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Dems propose. The Repubs point to the "fact" that Dems haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Repubs were the ones blocking everything). Repubs gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Repubs spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Dems want "open borders" and-or are communist and-or are socialist and-or want to take away your guns and-or a bunch of other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Repub gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Repubs have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass another voodoo economics tax cut for the rich and spend money like drunken sailors. The economy goes into a tailspin. Repubs are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and a Dem is elected president and Dems have control of the House and-or Senate. Dems pass legislation that spends money to assist the economy to pull out of the tailspin. Repubs are now suddenly against spending any money at all even though Repubs just spend 4-to-8 years spending money like drunken sailors.

Go to Part 1.

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Repub president gets elected. Dems spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Repubs propose. The Dems point to the "fact" that Repubs haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Dems were the ones blocking everything). Dems gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Dems spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Repubs want to build a wall and-or want fewer government handouts and-or want to put all the young black men in jail and-or a bunch of other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Dem gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Dems have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Dems pass another bunch of voodoo spending bills, largely welfare for corporations and the upper middle class and spend money like drunken sailors. Just look at the 5 trillion in new spending authorized during the first two years of the Biden Administration. Dems are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and Repub is elected president and Repubs have control of the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass legislation to cut regulation and taxes that result in the working man actually making some gains instead of falling further and further behind (e.g. 2019). Dems are now pushing harder than ever to spend money like drunken sailors.

Go to Part 1.

[Tiny 12]

Yes, I am using a smartphone and my thumb for this. I rarely boot up my laptop anymore. And when I moved left, right, zoomed in, zoomed out there was only the Repub count.

Throwing out invalid ballots? I have no objection to any qualified official doing that. But Repubs want to appoint avowed Election Denying / Lying QAnon Repub loons to make those decisions.

Your NYT link was quickly obscured by a Subscription Required pop up so I did not read much of it. But it appeared to be about the Dems' noble efforts to abandon the decidedly undemocratic Electoral College system. Good. I hope they succeed someday.

Otherwise, I will count this as another "I can't" response, this time to my challenge to show us where Dems mount a party-wide effort to disenfranchise likely Repub voters and not count their votes.

Maybe that challenge is too broad, allowing for every itty-bitty insignificant ballot gathering or counting glitch by a Dem somewhere being given falsely equal weight to what Repubs have been doing for a long time to suppress Dem votes.

So, to add a bit more focus to it, how about this one; please name and cite a case where a recognized leader of the Democtatic Party, say, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, for example, led a violent, cop-killing insurrection to storm the Capitol Building on the day the votes AND the Electoral College awards were to be confirmed on the basis of a Big And Very Well Established And Proven Lie and that the Vice President of their Party should disenfranchise 81,000,000+ voters, throw out ALL of their ballots, dsregard ALL of their votes for POTUS and give it to the Dem candidate regardless.

Got anything for that?

And to really drive home your "BOTH Parties do that" assertion, please link the highly regarded polls showing a decisive majority of Dems being four square behind such a proven Big Lie and, by logical deduction, the unconstitutional measures taken by the Party to throw out those millions of votes.

Since "BOTH Parties" do this sort of thing it ought to be easy to provide links for that.

I think Trump Republicans are about as kooky as Progressive Democrats. And yes, it worries me when Trumpsters run for positions like Secretary of State. I don't believe many won though. Like me, many Americans refused to vote for them.

Useful tip: If you can't see the entire width of a web page with your hand phone, rotate it 90 degrees, so that you're looking at it sideways.

And irony of ironies. The reason I subscribed to the New York Times, at the teaser rate of $4 a month, was to read your and Xpartan's links, like this one.

Here is Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's recommendation for how to deal with the Repub's inevitable attempt to blackmail Dems into helping them gut those programs and once again plunge the World into another Great Repub Crash by refusing to pay deadbeat Repubs' bills:

Preparing for Republican Debt Blackmail

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/o...al-budget.html

Why would refusing to raise the debt limit blow up the economy? In the modern world, U.S. debt plays a crucial role: It is the ultimate safe asset, easily converted into cash, and there are no good alternatives. If investors lose confidence that the U.S. government will honor its obligations, the resulting financial storm will make the recent chaos in Britain look like a passing shower.

So what should be done to avert this threat? If Republicans do gain control of one or both houses in November, Democrats should use the lame-duck session to enact a very large rise in the debt limit, enough to put the issue on ice for years. Republicans and pundits who dont understand the stakes would furiously attack this move, but it would be far better than enabling extortion - and would probably be forgotten by the time of the 2024 election.

If for some reason Democrats dont take this obvious step, the Biden administration should be prepared to turn to legal strategies for bypassing the debt limit. There appear to be several loopholes the administration could exploit minting trillion-dollar platinum coins is the most famous, but there are others, like issuing bonds with no maturity date and hence no face value.

And this one.

In Extraordinary Statement, Trump Stands With Saudis Despite Khashoggi Killing

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/w...khashoggi.html

And this one.

Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen faster under Democrats for nearly the past century.
Feb. 2, 2021


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/o...s-economy.html

And this one.

WHAT CAUSED THE RECESSION
November 24, 1981

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/24/b...recession.html

And I could go on. New York Times links appear in 35 of your posts, although a few are quotes of Xpartan.

[PVMonger]

No doubt. But you skipped the part about why the Reps can secure enough seats to block the Dems. Go to my previous comment.

I simply didn't want to repeat a point but I will spell it our for you. Repubs in Congress get elected because (before now) because they convinced voters that they knew about the economy. Now and for the past dozen years or so, Repubs get elected to Congress because they pander to their base with code-word dog-whistles. For instance, "law and order" means keep the POC down. Other examples are as follows:

Personal Responsibility.

"It's not your conditions but rather your actions which are responsible for where you are. This is said despite Republicans passing legislation which gave away 270 million acres of land, for free, which jolted the USA Economy, created personal opportunity, and wealth that could be passed down, creating, well, better conditions for white people. "

Big Government.

Code for federal assistance — such as grants, SNAP benefits, unemployment, health insurance. It is also used to describe federal protections — such as regulation and civil rights. It claims government being too big and too involved in the lives of "individuals. "

Job Creators.

Means people who own businesses that employ other people. For conservatives, this really means rich people. When 10% of the population controls 76% of the wealth, the last thing the Republicans and their rich donors need is even the slightest, burdensome tax increase.

School Choice.

Means students shouldn't be bound to attending schools in their local neighborhoods, but rather should have the freedom to attend any school that fits their needs. School choice for Republicans is a code word for segregation and allowing discrimination. It is a code word for the privatization of public schools. Rather than federal dollars going to public schools for teaching improvements or community learning, Republicans believe those dollars are better spent in the form of a voucher, which can be used toward tuition at a private or charter school.

Activist Judges.

"These are judges, usually appointed by Democratic presidents, who uphold any law passed with a Democratic majority or rule against any law passed with a Republican majority. On the contrary, judges appointed by Republicans who uphold conservative laws or strike down liberal laws are referred to by conservatives as, "originalists," or, "defenders of the constitution. " It's cool if we do it. Just not you. "

States' Rights / Leave it up to the states.

"Means that states should be free to implement discriminatory, racist laws without the federal government intervening. Because it took executive orders, literal acts of Congress, and federal intervention to end racist laws, conservatives intellectualize their defense of these issues by invoking terms such as individual liberty, government overreach, or, unconstitutional. So in other words, "We don't think the government should tell you that you can't discriminate, so we'll leave it up to the states which will turn a blind eye to protect your individual liberties, such as the right to discriminate. "

Critical Race Theory.

Code to derail efforts to promote talks about racial diversity, equity and inclusion in the public schools there. Black students complained about being the victims of racism and microaggressions. By ignoring these complaints, the White parents attending school board meetings to blow the CRT dog whistle have proven to us that they believe their fears and resentments about a manufactured CRT controversy are more valid than Black students' actual grievances. - https://jehallen.com/2021/12/30/the-crt-dog-whistle/.

Illegal immigrants.

Republican code words for undocumented aliens referred mainly to Latinos and especially to Mexicans. - History Network.

Islamic terrorism.

Used to offends millions of Islamic people in America who view massacres with the same disgust as Christians, Jews, and others in the United States. 'Radical Islamic terrorist' associate decent individuals and families with people who engage in crimes against humanity. " - History Network.

America first.

Claims that America's legal immigration system should be curtailed to those that can contribute not only economically, but have demonstrated respect for this nation's culture and rule of law. It calls for infrastructure that "reflects the architectural, engineering and aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture. " It states that public infrastructure "must be utilitarian as well as stunningly, classically beautiful, befitting a world power and source of freedom," specifically citing the example of the ancient Romans. - MSN.

Real Americans.

Code for white right-wing Christians. Treating "evangelical White Christians" as a synonym for "right-wing conservatives" does no justice to the millions of evangelical white voters on the Christian Left or those who are not political. " - HandWiki.

Minimum Wage.

"We aren't going to pay you a living wage "because of socialism. " We are sending half the family to jail where they will work for even less. When we say "lazy minimum-wage workers," we aren't just talking about teenagers entering the workforce. " - FactMyth.

Tax Cuts.

"Tax Cuts. " Don't worry, we are going to cut welfare, but we'll also give you liberty and freedom from the welfare state. As you know, rich white people love creating jobs for poor black people. Just think about all the black people who have worked for white people in the past and how empowering it was. " - FactMyth.

Moochers & Takers.

Moochers and Takers. A moocher is someone on welfare. If welfare isn't enough of a clue, let's add in a word that sounds suspiciously like the and-Word. To this I say, "Yes, genius, poor black people took everything, that is why they have so much. It couldn't possibly be those whose wealth increases every year, who collect interest payments and profit off debt. Let's just keep blaming black people. " - FactMyth.

[Tiny 12]

Those links take me to entire pages of posts by many posters.

Here's the deal; if Repubs didn't consistently produce crap results they would run on those actual results in elections instead of on their traditional sucker social issues. They would not have to be continually drawn to nominate unqualified "celebrities" for the top job of economic steward in order to sell their crap policies and results as they did with Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump. Not that their actual experienced pols like Hoover, Nixon and the Bushes fared any better on results.

OK, this should work. These are just my repeated posts trying to show you the error of your thinking. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink from the river of knowledge and truth.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2743466

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2744566

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2747584.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2748196.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2748202.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2748598.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2748972.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2749483.

Here are a couple of weightier tomes for Tooms, written by economists. The first one from Brian Riedl is an easy read.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

Here's the classic paper on the subject. You have to download the. Pdf:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

Conclusions of both: The party of the President makes little or no difference in economic performance.