What Has Republican Policy Actually Done For You?

Intlwaters

Help Support Intlwaters:

Don Ferrette

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Vendor
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
15,587
1. The boarders aren’t open, neither party wants to open the boarders.
Really? We have record numbers of illegals flooding the southern border and being "relocated" across the U.S. by the current administration. And Mark's number of 2 million is actually about a million low of the current estimated number of ILLEGALS who've flooded across our borders since Biden took office.
2. Transgender? WTF do you even mean by this? The existence of transgender people has nothing to do with a political party. They have existed well before the United States or it’s political parties. Acknowledging that and letting people live their own lives in a way they want to live them SHOULD fit with what republicans claim to be about, freedom, liberty, small government, but the truth is they aren’t really about that at all, they are only about freedoms for people who look, act, think, and feel the exact same way they do and punishing anyone who doesn’t.
Big difference between "letting people live their own lives in a way they want to live" and shoving it down people's throats with gender neutral bathrooms, allowing transgenders to compete as women etc. If sewing a pair of boobs on your chest and saying your female makes you happy then go for it but don't force your beliefs on others and expect 100% acceptance.
3. Gun control… Do you know what “well regulated” means?
When written well regulated had ZERO to do with what you were allowed to own and contrary to what the current resident of the WH said, you actually were allowed to own a cannon back then if you could afford one. Our forefathers created the 2nd to allow citizens to be well armed and create “well regulated” militias if needed to protect themselves from tyrannical governing, it wasn't created in case the deer rise up.
 

Blair Warren

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
215
Funny you mention Social Security since it was Lyndon B Johnson "Democrat" that started the tradition of borrowing from social Security and just never paying back. I know almost every administration since LBJ has used it as a slush fund.
It was wrong then, it's still wrong. Should never have happened period.
 

FloridaScaleBoater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
6,866
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

2nd amendment says arms not guns. In the late 1700's arms could mean an ax or sword. Very vague at best. So what is a state militia for security. (proud boys?) In my right to bear arms can I keep an Abrahms tank in my garage or a 50 cal machine gun, or do I have to join a militia to qualify.
Mic
Since there is a amendment banning automatic weapons, unless you possess the proper permit. No you can't own a 50 cal """machine gun""""
As far as the tank,,, I'm sure you can own the tank, but you wouldn't be able to possess the munitions for it,,, unless you had the permit for EXPLOSIVES.
Come on Mic, don't be ridiculous!
But I guess that's one of the traits of a Democrat.
 

Blair Warren

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
215
So if your a dem on here trying to make good by talking about the past just stop.
Sure it's ancient history.......but it still affects you today.

I would guess at 65 you may be on Medicare? Might be drawing Social Security?

What would you do if those programs were sunsetted like Republican Rick Scott wants to do to ALL federal legislation after 5 years?

Here is the language from page 19 of Rick Scott's Plan: “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”

The programs would have to be renewed every 5 years.

In this political climate it would be near impossible to get the pols to agree to anything. So if it wasn't renewed, it would die.

Where would you be then?

I know I wouldn't be happy....
 
Last edited:

Don Ferrette

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Vendor
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
15,587
Sure it's ancient history.......but it still affects you today.

I would guess at 65 you may be on Medicare? Might be drawing Social Security?

What would you do if those programs were sunsetted like Republican Rick Scott wants to do to all federal legislation after 5 years?

The programs would have to be renewed every 5 years.

In this political climate it would be near impossible to get the pols to agree to anything. So if it wasn't renewed, it would die.

Where would you be then?

I know I wouldn't be happy....
Social Security is a government Ponzi scheme and you only get a portion of what you put in over your lifetime of working. A system protected from government hands is where to start. Money is removed by requirement from your check each week and put into an account under your name. Your employer(s) has to match the amount. When you retire it's all yours...... all of it. There is already a system like this in place elsewhere that works. Medicare I have no problem with, I'm even ok with Medicaid as it was intended to serve low-income people of every age if it would be better enforced (unfortunately it's currently overrun with fraud).
 

Blair Warren

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
215
Social Security is a government Ponzi scheme and you only get a portion of what you put in over your lifetime of working. A system protected from government hands is where to start. Money is removed by requirement from you check each week and put into an account under your name. Your employer(s) has to match the amount. When you retire it's all yours...... all of it.
I agree, there should be a better way. What you suggest would be fine. Are you suggesting privatizing? I don't really think that would be beneficial to all the participants of the program. Some people can manage money/investments well, others not so much. It would be important to not let "fees" diminish your returns. IMO it would need to be fairly isolated from the financial markets, so that your principal would be maintained as much as possible.

Short term, SS is what it is... The average person pays SS tax on their income for the entire year, $147,000 is now where the tax stops. If they removed the cap, it wouldn't solve the funding problem but it wouldn't hurt it either. I paid SS tax on all of my income, most people do.

Why shouldn't Bezos, Musk, Gates and others do the same?
 
Last edited:

Don Ferrette

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Vendor
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
15,587
I agree, there should be a better way. What you suggest would be fine. Are you suggesting privatizing? I don't really think that would be beneficial to all the participants of the program. Some people can manage money/investments well, others not so much. It would be important to not let "fees" diminish your returns. IMO it would need to be fairly isolated from the financial markets, so that your principal would be maintained as much as possible.

Short term, SS is what it is... The average person pays SS tax on their income for the entire year, $147,000 is now where the tax stops. If they removed the cap, it wouldn't solve the funding problem but it wouldn't hurt it either. I paid SS tax on all of my income, most people do.

Why shouldn't Bezos, Musk, Gates and others do the same?
No not privatizing it as you're right most people are poor at managing finances especially these days. Still be required by law to be deducted (and matched as well) but HANDS OFF to government accessing and/or withdrawing from it. I also agree 100% there should be no cap, everyone earning an income should be required to put in a fixed percentage no matter if you make 30k a year or 30 mil.

And on another note- this comparing old democratic party vs. current one is a night and day difference. The current Dem platform is a mere shadow of it's former self............. and NOT in a good way.
 

Al Hobbs

Legend of the NW
Vendor
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
I grew up in the Rocky Mountain states. Almost every family hunted and we had freezers to fill with elk, deer, antelope and pheasants.

In the highschool student parking lot, many of the vehicles had a shotgun in the rear window rack. We'd go pheasant hunting after school.

We had semi automatic rifles with large capacity magazines, because shooting a coyote with a bolt action rifle is almost impossible. Coyotes won't stand still or run in a straight line. We had semi atomatic shotguns because often more than one pheasant will fly up at the same time.

I learned to shoot in the grade school basement target range. I shot targets to improve my hunting skills. I earned a Boy Scout merit badge for shooting targets. I took a class put on by the NRA so I could legally go hunting.

The firearms have not changed much other than appearance, black plastic instead of real wood is a major change.

Murderers using firearms is not new. There is a history of murderers in the USA. Billy the Kid is one.

There are currently several federal laws on the books limiting firearm ownership. You can't legally own a fully automatic weapon without a special license. But, there are still peole on the streets with fully automatic firearms.

If you are a convicted felon, you can't legally buy a firearm in the USA. But, felons still get them.

If you were dihsonorably discharged from the military, you can't legally buy a firearm in the USA. But, those folks still seem to get all the firearms they want.

If you are mentally dangerous to others, you are not allowed to buy a weapon in the USA.

These rules only work when they are enforced. We continue to see examples of people legally buying guns who should have been denied. But, their names aren't on the red flag list. No one took the time to notify authorites that this person should not be allowed to legally buy a fiream. This is the case with many states, psychiatrists who are afraid to be sued by a patient, and even examples in the US Military.

In my opinion, we don't need more laws. We need to enforce the laws we have. What good is a law that is not enforced?

Almost every gun owner adheres to the laws. We obey the law because that is how we were raised. New laws will be obeyed by the people who aren't the problem. And, the people who are not allowed to buy guns in the first place will still buy the guns they want.
 

HTV Boats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
2,458
Back on the thread subject, here are some of the "gifts" from the Trumplicans
Thats just convictions and the beat goes on. Alex Jones
Wait on the positive side we have medal of freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh. EIB Dittoheads
 

Jarcaines

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
319
Really? We have record numbers of illegals flooding the southern border and being "relocated" across the U.S. by the current administration. And Mark's number of 2 million is actually about a million low of the current estimated number of ILLEGALS who've flooded across our borders since Biden took office.

Big difference between "letting people live their own lives in a way they want to live" and shoving it down people's throats with gender neutral bathrooms, allowing transgenders to compete as women etc. If sewing a pair of boobs on your chest and saying your female makes you happy then go for it but don't force your beliefs on others and expect 100% acceptance.

When written well regulated had ZERO to do with what you were allowed to own and contrary to what the current resident of the WH said, you actually were allowed to own a cannon back then if you could afford one. Our forefathers created the 2nd to allow citizens to be well armed and create “well regulated” militias if needed to protect themselves from tyrannical governing, it wasn't created in case the deer rise up.
 

Jarcaines

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
319
There is no point going through this addressing every Fox News talking point you presented here. Turn off that misinformation/fear building machine and look up legit news sources, please. It’s killing this country.
 

Don Ferrette

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Vendor
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
15,587
There is no point going through this addressing every Fox News talking point you presented here. Turn off that misinformation/fear building machine and look up legit news sources, please. It’s killing this country.
What I posted is NOT from Fox news. The estimated illegal numbers came from ICE published numbers prior to a WH forced redaction (nice way of saying coverup). The part about TGs is just common respect for others... ALL others. And you really need to brush up on understanding the Constitution. Cut and run, it's all the left knows how to do.....so be it.

On a non political note enjoy your day.
 

Hydro Junkie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
5,398
There is no point going through this addressing every Fox News talking point you presented here. Turn off that misinformation/fear building machine and look up legit news sources, please. It’s killing this country.
And what source is that? ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN? Did I miss any? All of them put out doctored stories or don't put out anything at all. Did you hear the one about Trump/Russian Collusion? That should have been titled Clinton & Biden/Russian Collusion since Hillary used a Russian to help set up Donald Trump, along with the FBI while Joe Biden was bought and paid for by the Russians and Chinese through his son Hunter.
 

Jarcaines

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
319
And what source is that? ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN? Did I miss any? All of them put out doctored stories or don't put out anything at all. Did you hear the one about Trump/Russian Collusion? That should have been titled Clinton & Biden/Russian Collusion since Hillary used a Russian to help set up Donald Trump, along with the FBI while Joe Biden was bought and paid for by the Russians and Chinese through his son Hunter.
4B47EB51-983A-467F-B152-901DE9E7C759.png
 

Blair Warren

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
215
And on another note- this comparing old democratic party vs. current one is a night and day difference. The current Dem platform is a mere shadow of it's former self............. and NOT in a good way.
Won't dispute this one. Things have changed, and I don't agree with all of their policy positions, but that's another topic.

The same can be said of the republican party. Nixon created the EPA.... That would never happen in todays GOP... LOL

One thing I have an issue with is it seems that the Republican's answer to everything is some sort of tax cut (Not for the little guy). Trickle down didn't work when Reagan was president and it doesn't work now. It's contributed to wage/income/wealth inequality.
 
Last edited:
Top