Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?

[Mina]

Your fallacies, dude. There is no data.

As you know, I linked to the data.

 

[Into the Night]

For a while, the way the GOP functioned is that they strictly served the upper class, and particularly those with older family money -- and they won elections by way of using some of that money to harness the passions of various factions. That could include inflaming the gun fetishists, or getting the evangelicals worked up about abortion or gay people, or triggering xenophobia and racism. But I think what has really change just in the last ten years or so is that where once those factions were basically just dumb beasts hitched to the GOP's wagon to pull it wherever the economic elite wanted to go, now the dumb beasts are increasingly in charge, pulling whichever way they like.

You can see that with Roe v. Wade, for example. The GOP had a Supreme Court majority for decade after decade after Roe passed -- at one point they even had an 8-to-1 majority! Yet in all that time, they never overturned Roe.... opting, instead, to nibble tantalizingly at the edges of the ruling, while leaving abortion generally legal nationwide. They'd carefully pair each new anti-choice nominee like Scalia, with another nominee who would defend Roe, like Souter, so that the issue would remain on the table (since it was valuable for keeping the evangelicals mobilized for them). But Trump didn't follow that pattern, and went for multiple anti-choice nominees, and now it looks like Roe will be gone. At this point, the mouth-breathers really are running the show, with plutocrats like Trump and DeSantis trying to figure out where the mob is heading so they can jump in front of the pitchforks-and-torches brigade and pretend to lead it.

The Supreme Court never had authority to change the Constitution. The federal government has no authority over abortion and never legally did.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep. The pattern is surprisingly consistent. It's extremely hard to find a Republican president who DIDN'T have a higher average unemployment rate than what his predecessor left him, or a Democratic president who DIDN'T have a lower one. It's hard to find any Republican president who didn't lead the nation into a recession.

I think what we see is a pattern whereby Democrats make people prosperous enough that they get complacent and start voting Republican (or not voting), because they think they'll never need the social net the Democrats defend, but that they may benefit from the upper-class tax cuts the Republicans are pursuing. Eventually, within eight years of a Democratic presidential era starting, prosperity is widespread enough that the Dems can no longer win an election, and a Republican becomes president. Then, within four to twelve years, everything has gone to shit and the American people decide they've had enough with chugging snake-oil, and they throw the bums out and put a Democrat in place to clean up the mess. Then the process repeats.

You are making up shit again. Hallucinations.

 

[Into the Night]

Trolling.

Buzzword fallacy.

If you can think of any substantive arguments, feel free to offer.

RQAA.

I'm well aware of that history. I did a thesis on it.

Lie.

However, that history was in the 1880s and 1890s, when the early electrical systems were being built mostly in the heavily settled parts of the Northeast, and communities elsewhere that were easy to electrify for various reasons (e.g., proximity to hydro power). The Rural Electrification Act was in 1936, by which point Westinghouse had been dead for twenty-some years. As of 1936, 90% of America's farms lacked electricity, because the private sector hadn't built grids out into those rural areas, in all the decades since the end of the war of the currents. Like I said, the up-front costs were too great and the returns too distant, so the private sector focused on investing elsewhere. Government stepped into that gap and it was the seed money that helped make rural electrification almost ubiquitous Within 14 years of that project starting, the large majority of rural areas, including about 80% of farms, had electricity. .

Fixation on government jobs. Pivot fallacy.

You misunderstood badly. I made no statement about current farmers.

Lie.

Current farmers tend, in fact, to be quite wealthy -- an average net worth for farm households of almost $2 million. Between the vast land holdings (generally inherited), the government handouts, and the wildly favorable tax treatment, they're effectively a kind of American aristocracy... our landed gentry. The reference to dirt poor farmers is to that earlier era, before rural electrification -- the "Grapes of Wrath" era farmers.

Bigotry.

Semantics fallacies.

No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

As you know, I linked to the data.

Random numbers are not data. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Mina]

The Supreme Court never had authority to change the Constitution. The federal government has no authority over abortion and never legally did.

In a similar sense, I can argue that the Supreme Court has no business telling states they can't outlaw guns, since the Constitution does not give the federal government that right. But, the Supreme Court reasoned that the 14th amendment effectively granted such rights implicitly, both when it came to abortion (and the various other rights rooted in the implicit right to privacy), and guns. Of course, where the abortion right is fairly deep seated, legally, having been around for half a century, the idea that the Constitution implicitly prevents states from making certain gun regulations is quite new, having been pulled out of the Supreme Court's collective ass in 2010.

 

[Mina]

Random numbers are not data. Argument from randU fallacy.

Trolling.

 

[Mina]

Buzzword fallacy.

RQAA.

Lie.

Fixation on government jobs. Pivot fallacy.

Lie.

Bigotry.

Semantics fallacies.

No argument presented.

Trolling. Try harder.

 

[Into the Night]

Absolutely, my friend. But at this time, it looks like it my work against them. Finally after decades of lying, misrepresenting, cheating and outright criminality, the Republicans finally have the SCOTUS they want, a plethora of right-wing, religious, thugs. They might be the ugly dog who caught the car. Their true goals have been realized, but now what? The countries a mess and Republicans solution is to just attack minorities, gays, and women.

You are describing Democrats. Inversion fallacy.

How long can this last? How long can people, who are true conservatives, women, for example that have always, until now voted Republican? Even conservative women don't like being told what they can and can't do.

Do you think murder is legal? Do you think there should be a law against murder?

 

[BidenPresident]

Trolling. Try harder.

That person is a troll. Waste of time.

 

[Into the Night]

In a similar sense, I can argue that the Supreme Court has no business telling states they can't outlaw guns, since the Constitution does not give the federal government that right.

Not a right. An authority. Yes. The federal government has that authority. They are expected to enforce it. The States all agreed to that authority when they joined the Union.

But, the Supreme Court reasoned that the 14th amendment effectively granted such rights implicitly,

The 2nd amendment is not the 14th amendment. It is not implicit. It is direct. The States have NO authority to limit or ban any weapon. Neither does the federal government. You are discarding the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various States.

both when it came to abortion

The federal government has no authority over abortion. The States do. See the 10th amendment of the document you despise.

(and the various other rights rooted in the implicit right to privacy),

Abortion is not privacy or related to privacy. It is the killing of your offspring. The federal has no authority here. The States do.

and guns.

The federal has authority here. They are expected to require that no State can ban or limit any weapon. The 2nd amendment applies to the federal AND the States. The right of self defense is inherent.

Of course, where the abortion right is fairly deep seated, legally, having been around for half a century,

Abortion is not a right.

the idea that the Constitution implicitly prevents states from making certain gun regulations is quite new,

No. The 2nd amendment was passed as part of the Bill of Rights.

having been pulled out of the Supreme Court's collective ass in 2010.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution. See Article III.

You are discarding the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various States.
Just like other Democrats.

You support The Oligarchy.

 

[gfm7175]

In a similar sense, I can argue that the Supreme Court has no business telling states they can't outlaw guns, since the Constitution does not give the federal government that right.

Read the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment applies to the States as well as the Federal Government.

But, the Supreme Court reasoned that the 14th amendment effectively granted such rights implicitly, both when it came to abortion (and the various other rights rooted in the implicit right to privacy), and guns. Of course, where the abortion right is fairly deep seated, legally, having been around for half a century,

There is no right to murder.

the idea that the Constitution implicitly prevents states from making certain gun regulations is quite new, having been pulled out of the Supreme Court's collective ass in 2010.

Read the 2nd Amendment sometime... It is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No state government nor federal government has the power to infringe upon that right (via gun regulations or whatever else).

 

[Into the Night]

Read the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment applies to the States as well as the Federal Government.


There is no right to murder.


Read the 2nd Amendment sometime... It is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No state government nor federal government has the power to infringe upon that right (via gun regulations or whatever else).

The right of self defense is listed in many State constitutions as well.

He is just discarding them all.

I asked him earlier what part of the constitution gives the federal government authority to regulate abortion, he has yet to answer.
Just the usual pivot and name calling. Part of his pivot wound up here on the 2nd amendment.

It's pretty obvious he never read the document, nor understands even what a constitution is or what it does.

 

[Mina]

That person is a troll. Waste of time.

Yes. I do enjoy, though, when I put her in that mode -- when she knows she's out of her depth, so rather than even trying to respond to the facts, figures, and analysis I'm presenting, she just starts vomiting up random fallacy labels she's heard, and hoping that distracts from her defeat. I take it as a kind of white flag, and enjoy watching it wave.

 

[gfm7175]

You are making up shit again. Hallucinations.

I've noticed that Mina has a particular proclivity for this... and tends to do so in a very long-winded manner as if more words somehow add intelligence into what she's saying...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes. I do enjoy, though, when I put her in that mode -- when she knows she's out of her depth, so rather than even trying to respond to the facts, figures, and analysis I'm presenting, she just starts vomiting up random fallacy labels she's heard, and hoping that distracts from her defeat. I take it as a kind of white flag, and enjoy watching it wave.

Sybil is a wackadoodle...but not as entertaining as the three faces of Eve.

 

[Mina]

Read the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment applies to the States as well as the Federal Government.

At the time of the Constitution, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. That only changed with the 14th amendment, after which point courts started applying some of those rights to the states, by reasoning that the 14th amendment had implicitly done so. However, they applied those gradually, rather than a single case ruling the whole bill of rights applied to the states. It wasn't until 2010 that the conservative-dominated court ruled the second amendment applied to the states. Before that, no state gun control law had ever been struck down on 2nd amendment grounds, for the simple reason that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states before 2010.

Read the 2nd Amendment sometime... It is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, does that mean that there's nothing you can do, legally, to stop me from carrying a gun into your home? After all, that would be infringing on my right to bear arms, and the Constitution says that shall not be infringed. No, of course not. At the time of the Constitution, in that poorly drafted amendment the passive voice was understood to apply against the Federal government only and since 2010 it's been understood to apply against the federal government and state and local governments. It's not understood to apply to private individuals, just as it previously was not understood to apply to states.

 

[LurchAddams]

You are describing Democrats. Inversion fallacy.


Do you think murder is legal? Do you think there should be a law against murder?

Oh, suck my fallacy and Malarkey.

 

[Into the Night]

I've noticed that Mina has a particular proclivity for this... and tends to do so in a very long-winded manner as if more words somehow add intelligence into what she's saying...

Kinda reminds you of seal over in a way, though less prolific.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes. I do enjoy, though, when I put her in that mode -- when she knows she's out of her depth, so rather than even trying to respond to the facts, figures, and analysis I'm presenting, she just starts vomiting up random fallacy labels she's heard, and hoping that distracts from her defeat. I take it as a kind of white flag, and enjoy watching it wave.

I've noticed that Mina has a particular proclivity for this... and tends to do so in a very long-winded manner as if more words somehow add intelligence into what she's saying...

Kinda reminds you of seal over in a way, though less prolific.

I love it when Sybil talks to himself. It confirms he's a schizo.