The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Danoff]

You pretty much hit it on the head.
Had a friend move down from NY due to CoL and taxes, first thing he did was complainn about the traffic and roads I told him about a nice suburb. He moved there for a while and then moved back, guess why. CoL and taxes...
He also wanted to vote for Stacy Abrams...guess what she wanted to do and even campaigned on it? Raise taxes, the same thing he wanted to get away from.
Some people are that stupid IMO...

I could not follow this. Your friend moved back to NY because of taxes? How is that possible given that your friend moved away because of taxes? Did the relative tax rate change so much between the two states that suddenly NY had lower taxes now?

And you're certain that taxes were the motivation? And you're certain that your friend was voting to raise taxes specifically on their particular demographic?

I think you're still projecting here.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Is that all you have to add? The facts don't care about your feelings, Chrunch.

What 'facts'? Not this crap.

 

[ryzno]

I could not follow this. Your friend moved back to NY because of taxes? How is that possible given that your friend moved away because of taxes? Did the relative tax rate change so much between the two states that suddenly NY had lower taxes now?

And you're certain that taxes were the motivation? And you're certain that your friend was voting to raise taxes specifically on their particular demographic?

I think you're still projecting here.

No after they moved back to metro Atlanta.

 

[Danoff]

No after they moved back to metro Atlanta.

So taxes were higher in the 'burbs and they fled higher taxes to the metro area?

 

[McLaren]

It's more along the lines of and I've said it here before.
Don't come to my state and start voting for the crap that screwed up your state and then start complaining...

That doesn't really work with Austin, though.

If someone's moving to Austin from California for political reasons, they're likely picking Austin b/c it's still progressive without all the things Texans project about the west coast. They're certainly not moving to Austin to end up voting red, that's for sure.

 

[Joey D]

It's more along the lines of and I've said it here before.
Don't come to my state and start voting for the crap that screwed up your state and then start complaining...

I'm pretty happy that Utah is drawing people from other states since it's pushing the Mormon majority down and making the state less of theocracy. Salt Lake City is well on its way to being a little Denver and that's not a bad thing. We've had a huge influx of tech companies, which brings in young people who are keen to make money and spend it. Since Utah has five National Parks and some fantastic ski resorts, many of those people who move here are choosing to vacation here as well, meaning the money they make ultimately goes back into the state.

Californias have also drawn attention to our horrendous air pollution problem too. Things are starting to change and that's a very good thing since it's one of the biggest roadblocks to making Salt Lake City truly a great city. People are using public transit more, more people are buying electric vehicles, and solar panels on homes are the hot new thing.

The only real drawback that the influx of people brings is skyrocketing home prices. Rent isn't much better either. If you own a home, it's fantastic, if you don't you're kind of SOL. I couldn't afford a house even if I wanted too.

I don't want Utah to become California, and really it won't, but adopting some California way of thinking isn't the worst thing for a state run by people who think alcohol and caffeine are literally Satan.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So much to unpack here...

People move for lots of reasons. Tons. Sometimes they move to a state they like less politically for reasons that are not political at all. For example, I moved to California, a state which I did not like politically, from Texas, mostly based on work. And the work was not there because of the way people were voting in CA compared to TX either.

Yet I did move there. And I did not adopt the prevailing political culture there. So should I have? According to @Chrunch Houston I suppose I should have.

Second, this is a bit of a confirmation bias test. You might think that it's obvious what "screwed up" some state for someone, but that's because you have your own preconceived notions about what "screwed up" looks like, and why people are moving, and what policies caused the thing that you think is "screwed up".

For example, suppose one of the things that you think "screwed up" California is tax rates. But someone moving from California is leaving because of how expensive real estate is. They move to, let's say Texas, and start voting for higher taxes. You think "that's what screwed up your state, don't vote for that here, you had to flee your state" (edit: pretend you're in Texas for this part). But of course they fled their state because of real-estate prices, not taxes. And let's further suppose that the real reason California is "screwed up" is because it's super popular because of the weather. And neither taxes nor anything to do with government treatment of real-estate are the actual "problem".

You're doing a ton of projecting of your own opinion in this circumstance. As a result, people behave in a way that you can't seemingly explain. If people are voting in a particular way, and they get what they want, and it turns out that it's obvious to everyone that it's causing tons of problems, and leaving. Why would they vote the same way again? You might handwave some sort of dehumanizing trait here, but you don't have a solid explanation for it. The reality is that something in that chain is broken. Either it's not obvious that it's causing the problem, or it's not actually a problem, or they're not leaving because of that problem, or they're not voting in the same way (but you think they are).

In short, moving to Texas from California does not mean voting for Trump. That's a false dichotomy, black and white fallacy if ever I heard one. Similarly, when I moved from Texas to California, it did not mean that I should start voting for democrats.

So much this. I might leave California because I can't really afford it...but it has little to do with taxes (and my comparatively higher income here vs Texas negates that anyways) - it's because there are 25 million people fighting over an area barely larger than the state of Maryland (talking about the coastal metros, the rest of the state is cheap) and construction/development is very hard due to geologic/environmental issues and the lingering effects of the states conservative/suburban past - it's a simple economic problem of supply & demand. Lets also not forget something: High taxes in CA are a decision made by the electorate of CA...they were not forced upon the state by some liberal higher being. Those taxes do thing like give us fairly good infrastructure maintenance and functioning (if not the best) public transportation and well equipped fire fighting forces. I voted for a higher tax in a recent election to maintain funding for a train service. I didn't vote for higher taxes just for the **** of it. CA is still a representative democracy - whatever is happening here is happening because a majority of the people here want it to happen.

Economic realities notwithstanding, CA is awesome - less so when it's on fire.

If I do leave, it won't be because I want to. I also think it's incredible to present a dichotomy where my dislike of Trump (enormous, true) must be equaled my complete devotion and endorsement of liberal ideals - I'm pretty much a libertarian moderate, it's just the republican party has made such a complete ass of themselves in the last 12 years that I can't seriously consider voting for them, especially with ass-king Trump as their bannerhead.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

What are the candidates' positions on balancing the budget? I haven't heard anything.

 

[Danoff]

What are the candidates' positions on balancing the budget? I haven't heard anything.

I'm pretty sure they're against it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What are the candidates' positions on balancing the budget? I haven't heard anything.

I think this is the official position for both parties:

 

[GranTurNismo]

What are the candidates' positions on balancing the budget? I haven't heard anything.

Whoever the Republican candidate is. You know, they're the party of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Keef]

I'm having an argument with a few buddies currently and I don't think they're getting my point.

I watched most of the DNC and last night's RNC and I'm well aware of political propaganda and all that good stuff. Obviously everybody uses to it their advantage and targets the demographics they want. The only real difference I noticed between the two conventions so far is that the RNC has relied on aggression pretty heavily. Don Jr. and his girlfriend - the campaign manager - were quite aggressive, and I expect that theme to continue. This seems like the only true difference in tactics between the two conferences.

So I asked why the RNC would do that, and the obvious answer is that, well, apparently they think that aggression resonates with the people they're aiming for. Fair enough, that's totally logical that a campaign would use tactics that resonate. But that doesn't explain why aggression is the thing that resonates.

This is where I delved in my own opinions and noted a connection between these RNC tactics and the personality traits of the people I personally know who are agreeing with these tactics. Virtually all of them are relatively aggressive people by nature, and the vast majority are men. These people I know are soaking it up because aggressive behavior like that excites them and encourages their participation, and also results in escalation. Loud, boisterous, teasing, making-fun, macho, locker room types.

Assholes, in other words.

What do you guys think?

Not liking California means supporting Trump? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Populist nationalism is a helluva drug.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm having an argument with a few buddies currently and I don't think they're getting my point.

I watched most of the DNC and last night's RNC and I'm well aware of political propaganda and all that good stuff. Obviously everybody uses to it their advantage and targets the demographics they want. The only real difference I noticed between the two conventions so far is that the RNC has relied on aggression pretty heavily. Don Jr. and his girlfriend - the campaign manager - were quite aggressive, and I expect that theme to continue. This seems like the only true difference in tactics between the two conferences.

So I asked why the RNC would do that, and the obvious answer is that, well, apparently they think that aggression resonates with the people they're aiming for. Fair enough, that's totally logical that a campaign would use tactics that resonate. But that doesn't explain why aggression is the thing that resonates.

This is where I delved in my own opinions and noted a connection between these RNC tactics and the personality traits of the people I personally know who are agreeing with these tactics. Virtually all of them are relatively aggressive people by nature, and the vast majority are men. These people I know are soaking it up because aggressive behavior like that excites them and encourages their participation, and also results in escalation. Loud, boisterous, teasing, making-fun, macho, locker room types.

Assholes, in other words.

What do you guys think?


Populist nationalism is a helluva drug.

After Obama got elected, the Republican party has existed merely to oppose the Democratic party. Their platform is simply not-democrat. That's not really a framework for civil discourse, so civil discourse is discarded and only shouting and grunts remain. Not a super long time ago, I identified far more to the right than I do now, and I was always struck by how Republican talking points were just grasping at straws...even if I didn't refute them at the time - every. single. argument. is. in. bad. faith. There are no ideas in the Republican party (in contrast to many, many bad ideas in the Democratic, with some occasional good ones thrown in for fun), just a nihilistic pursuit of power and a scorched earth campaign against the opposition. What would the Republican party even be without the Democratic party as a boogeyman?

The best example I can think of is opposition to wind energy. Democrats are like....cool! This can produce some electricity, and although there are costs and tradeoffs, it seems like a good idea to implement as part of a system of renewable energy that doesn't fill the atmosphere with unnecessary carbon emissions. Building them and installing them and maintaining them will also create jobs. Yay.

Republicans are like: IT CAUSES CANCER! PROPERTY VALUES WILL GO TO ZERO!!!!!! THEY ARE REALLY UGLY! WHAT ABOUT THE BALD EAGLES!!!!!!! THE WIND STOPS SOMETIMES!!! LIBERALS ARE COMMIE SCUM!

^There is no meaningful dialogue there. It's just pure bad faith opposition for opposition sake.

 

[UKMikey]

What 'facts'? Not this crap.

You're just saying it's crap, because you don't agree. Unless you have proof that you've been hiding all this time that Biden and Harris are somehow radical far leftists.

I think Republicans want to have it both ways. Either Joe and Kamala are really right wingers and Dems are foolish or hypocritical to vote for them or they’re the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky and everyone will be eating dog for breakfast.

Unfortunately, nobody is buying either of these two contradictory positions except their voter base. They have no arguments to support their own president so they are desperate to fling whatever crap at the other side they think will stick.

This is where I delved in my own opinions and noted a connection between these RNC tactics and the personality traits of the people I personally know who are agreeing with these tactics. Virtually all of them are relatively aggressive people by nature, and the vast majority are men. These people I know are soaking it up because aggressive behavior like that excites them and encourages their participation, and also results in escalation. Loud, boisterous, teasing, making-fun, macho, locker room types.

Assholes, in other words.

What do you guys think?

That it couldn't possibly apply to this forum.

 

[Danoff]

After Obama got elected, the Republican party has existed merely to oppose the Democratic party. Their platform is simply not-democrat. That's not really a framework for civil discourse, so civil discourse is discarded and only shouting and grunts remain. Not a super long time ago, I identified far more to the right than I do now, and I was always struck by how Republican talking points were just grasping at straws...even if I didn't refute them at the time - every. single. argument. is. in. bad. faith. There are no ideas in the Republican party (in contrast to many, many bad ideas in the Democratic, with some occasional good ones thrown in for fun), just a nihilistic pursuit of power and a scorched earth campaign against the opposition. What would the Republican party even be without the Democratic party as a boogeyman?

The best example I can think of is opposition to wind energy. Democrats are like....cool! This can produce some electricity, and although there are costs and tradeoffs, it seems like a good idea to implement as part of a system of renewable energy that doesn't fill the atmosphere with unnecessary carbon emissions. Building them and installing them and maintaining them will also create jobs. Yay.

Republicans are like: IT CAUSES CANCER! PROPERTY VALUES WILL GO TO ZERO!!!!!! THEY ARE REALLY UGLY! WHAT ABOUT THE BALD EAGLES!!!!!!! THE WIND STOPS SOMETIMES!!! LIBERALS ARE COMMIE SCUM!

^There is no meaningful dialogue there. It's just pure bad faith opposition for opposition sake.

That is how the republicans strike me post-Obama. Prior to that they had at least a platform. It may not always have made sense, and sometimes they didn't stick to it, but it was an identifiable platform. Now it's just Trump. Whatever he says (today, which is different from yesterday).

 

[Liquid]

In an interesting turn of events, the former Attorney General of Flordia has accused Joe Biden of nepotism.

At an RNC where Don Trump, Ivanka Trump and Tiffany Trump all get headline speeches and in a Presidency where Jared Kushner is a top adviser just because.

The USA is ludicrous.

 

[Tornado]

You're just saying it's crap, because you don't agree. Unless you have proof that you've been hiding all this time that Biden and Harris are somehow radical far leftists.

This is a post by someone who doesn't think there's any political nuance between "not supporting Trump" and "leftist jackasses," so...

 

[Keef]

Prior to that they had at least a platform.

If I'm not mistaken (I was way too young to get any of this at the time) GWB actually campaigned on a pretty agreeable platform with some libertarian aspects. The biggest complaint was that he's an idiot. Of course he quickly had the rug pulled out from under him and became a bit of a warmonger but hey, what can you do.

 

[UKMikey]

This is a post by someone who doesn't think there's any political nuance between "not supporting Trump" and "leftist jackasses," so...

Today I learnt that Democrats are simultaneously Confederate slaveowners and Marxist extremists and can count right-wing libertarians amongst their number. Just so long as they're not "centrist".

 

[Danoff]

If I'm not mistaken (I was way too young to get any of this at the time) GWB actually campaigned on a pretty agreeable platform with some libertarian aspects. The biggest complaint was that he's an idiot. Of course he quickly had the rug pulled out from under him and became a bit of a warmonger but hey, what can you do.

I think you're too hard on Jr.

 

[Biggles]

This is where I delved in my own opinions and noted a connection between these RNC tactics and the personality traits of the people I personally know who are agreeing with these tactics. Virtually all of them are relatively aggressive people by nature, and the vast majority are men. These people I know are soaking it up because aggressive behavior like that excites them and encourages their participation, and also results in escalation. Loud, boisterous, teasing, making-fun, macho, locker room types.

Assholes, in other words.

What do you guys think?

This is just occurring to you?

A lot of people complain about the questions in the "political compass" test. Most of them are not designed to elicit responses based on deep philosophical or political musing - they are are intended to gauge more basic feelings that are largely based on environmental upbringing & background. It's pretty clear that the political leanings of most people are based predominantly on where & how they were brought up & their own life experiences. In that sense it is not that unlike religion. If you're born in Saudi Arabia the odds are you're going to be a Muslim, if you're born in the rural south, the odds are you going to be a Christian & most likely an Evangelical Christian.

As far as gender is concerned, I came across this article in the Atlantic that tries to explain the difference between male & female voting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/how-women-became-democratic-partisans/606274/

In 2016 only 41% of men voted for HRC & only 32% of white men. But gender clearly isn't the only important divide in US politics, as even more dramatically, in the 2012 Presidential election in Alabama, 98% of black women voted for Obama, while only 16% of white woman voted for him.

 

[UKMikey]

This is a lady from a British university so I'm sure some people will throw her findings out immediately but it looks like Trump may still have the evangelical Christian vote in the bag. She suggests around a quarter of US citizens consider themselves to be evangelicals and four-fifths of those supported Donnie in 2016.

If he wins again it could be bye-bye Johnson amendment, hello representation without taxation for right-wing churches. Although the IRS doesn't do much to penalise churches who violate it, anyway.

https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trump-still-appeals-to-so-many-evangelicals-143232

 

[Chrunch Houston]

My favorite speech from last night's convention.

 

[Joey D]

Ah Burgess Owens is talking, the guy that has absolutely no ties to Utah other than he's Mormon yet is attempting to run for Congress here. I'd give him a pass if he at least went to BYU.

He also, apparently, plagiarizes.

 

[Biggles]

That sneaky bugger Joe Biden. Turns out he's been a SOCIALIST all along!

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I just finished watching the c-span coverage of the convention, and the call in segment after. They have three phone lines, Democrat, Republican and other. Every single call, except for one, said they were voting Trump. Most sighted how far left the Democrat party had become, or law and order about the current unrest.
The one that didn't say he was voting Trump was a BLM supporter, but he didn't say he was voting for Biden.

 

[mustafur]

Soo left that Biden is the nominee, out of all the Democrats that competed for the Dem nomination Biden was probably the most toward the right(between him and Bloomberg for sure).

He doesn't even support Universal healthcare, legalising Drugs or pretty much anything. He is basically seen as someone to steady the ship.

But none of this is about policy, to most people it never was, it's a feelings game.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

But none of this is about policy, to most people it never was, it's a feelings game.

I would loooooove to talk policy here, but it is either orange man bad nazi, or communist brain dead Biden.


Let's talk about school choice.

 

[Groundfish]

My favorite speech from last night's convention.

Great share! I haven’t watched any of either sides dog and pony show so this was all I’ve seen
So sad how with modern technology it’s so easy to portray any event in the way that matches the presenters position...

Remember when the majority of folks here were locked in on the idea Trump would be jailed after the impeachment or removed?
Lol I hate to say I told them what was gonna happen!

School choice is a tough one. Transportation issues time...I dunno, I say bring public schools up to standards and they would be fine.

 

[eran0004]

I just finished watching the c-span coverage of the convention, and the call in segment after. They have three phone lines, Democrat, Republican and other. Every single call, except for one, said they were voting Trump. Most sighted how far left the Democrat party had become, or law and order about the current unrest.
The one that didn't say he was voting Trump was a BLM supporter, but he didn't say he was voting for Biden.

Really? I thought republican voters loved the Democratic Party.