problems with Republicans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Obviously the American Revolution turned out to be a big snafu. The solution is to return to the warm embrace of British monarchy, and a few decades with Boris Johnson as Viceroy of America should set you straight what good governance means for unruly colonists.
The U.K. prime minister Liz Truss steps down after 6 weeks and the rumour is that she'll join Johnson as Assistant Viceroy of America, just in case Americans find British monarchy a little staid and uneventful.

A link not behind a pay-wall about Truss stepping down. The rumoured Assistant Viceroy of America position is not yet public, though.

 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Regardless of what party the mayor is of these cities and the major cities are Democratically run, too many of them are in the eyes of law enforcement run by 'catch & release' DA's. The closest major city to me(Phila) is but one example. Our chief of Police said at a recent conference of the Nations Big City Police Chiefs that she is sick in tired of having criminals being brought in one day and back on the streets the next.

Philly is out of control, the Mayor has all but given up. This crap would never have happened under Frank Rizzo's watch ! ;)
State legislatures set many of the rules WRT how criminals are dealt with and I will agree that in some situations, they do nothing when they should make changes. WI is a great example- local courts used those guidelines and many people have died because of it- the Waukesha Christmas Parade deaths are included because that turd was released on $500 bail after trying to run over the mother of his child and I want his mother to be prosecuted for not doing a GD thing when she knew he was a violent person. She bailed him out and let him use her Jeep Cherokee on both occasions. 6 dead, 63 injured, all because the WI state legislature had members who didn't want to bother with making changes in MKE that would have prevented deaths. Another case involves a guy who killed a 19 year old girl who was looking for a HS graduation party- he saw the car driving past the place where he was living, grabbed his brother's rifle, went outside and shot her. First, he was on house arrest with an ankle monitor, second, he wasn't supposed to be in a place where firearms were present and the reason he was on house arrest is because they released him 11 months after being jailed for another shooting death, but they couldn't find the main witness, so they let him go "because they couldn't hold a speedy trial". When the second murder was committed, he was 17, making him 15 when the first occurred.

If the Philly Mayor has said he gives up, his career should be over, but I wouldn't assume that- useless Mayors have stayed in office long after they should have been voted out and MKE is one city that has had a death grip on them for decades- no other US city has only had four elected Mayors in 74 years. The fifth was elected in April, 2022 so his time really doesn't count, although it seems that he'll be as ineffective as the others if his performance so far is to be considered. The MKE DA has finally said that what's being done isn't working. He has far outlived his usefulness, too.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
State law enforcement doesn't do much in cities unless asked, they're chasing someone for what they did on a state highway or it's an agency similar to Wisconsin's Department of Criminal Investigation- they aren't involved in day to day law enforcement. They aren't involved in much of the planning and implementation of the local PDs- you're making it sound like the Republican-led state governments are hands-on with the PDs in the cities when they really aren't.

Second, you posted about Republican-led states, now you're posting about cities. Let's keep them separate.

Do you really expect Salon to be unbiased?

The murder rates show one thing, I'm referring to the gross numbers- the highest rate increases have been in rural, Republican-led states where the actually numbers are usually low, partly because of lower population density. In rural states, people often do whatever they want because they know the police aren't generally close, although the stench from making Meth and other drugs is hard to ignore. Murders were at a low point in 2019, now it's an epidemic and the murder rate is OK, but it hardly shows the problem.

I'll use WI as an example- the link shows 175 murders in 2019 for the state, but MKE accounted for almost 100 of them. Last year, MKE had almost 200 and the city is on track to beat that in 2022 (the link shows 191 so far in 2022) The rest of the state has seen increasing crime rates, but the actual numbers are very small. The link shows this, but not all of the info is accurate- aside from MKE, ALL of the murder totals are in single digits or low double digits.


I would recommend using data from official agencies, rather than grabbing something that you want to use to reinforce your point.
I did indeed initially post about states. Then, you responded to complain about Democrat-run cities. So, I just followed you when you changed lanes. So, by all means, if you'd like to keep them separate, I'm good with that.

One can quibble as to how the law enforcement cake is divided between city and state governments, but that doesn't change the statistics.

Salon may be a left-leaning website, but they are quoting "data compiled by the centrist think tank Third Way".

The Red State Murder Problem – Third Way

>>>We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) We pulled the data from yearly crime reports released by state governments, specifically the Departments of Justice and Safety. For states that didn’t issue state crime reports, we pulled data from reputable local news sources. To allow for comparison, we calculated the state’s per capita murder rate, the number of murders per 100,000 residents, and categorized states by their presidential vote in the 2020 election, resulting in an even 25-25 split. <<<

Referring to gross numbers instead of rates is some convenient sleight of hand, since the Democrat-run jurisdictions with the high numbers happen to have large populations.

My point is not that Republican jurisdictions have worse violent crime, but to counter the fallacy that Democrat jurisdictions do and that they are "soft on crime".

You still didn't answer my question about "open borders" being Democrat policy.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I did indeed initially post about states. Then, you responded to complain about Democrat-run cities. So, I just followed you when you changed lanes. So, by all means, if you'd like to keep them separate, I'm good with that.

One can quibble as to how the law enforcement cake is divided between city and state governments, but that doesn't change the statistics.

Salon may be a left-leaning website, but they are quoting "data compiled by the centrist think tank Third Way".

The Red State Murder Problem – Third Way

>>>We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) We pulled the data from yearly crime reports released by state governments, specifically the Departments of Justice and Safety. For states that didn’t issue state crime reports, we pulled data from reputable local news sources. To allow for comparison, we calculated the state’s per capita murder rate, the number of murders per 100,000 residents, and categorized states by their presidential vote in the 2020 election, resulting in an even 25-25 split. <<<

Referring to gross numbers instead of rates is some convenient sleight of hand, since the Democrat-run jurisdictions with the high numbers happen to have large populations.

My point is not that Republican jurisdictions have worse violent crime, but to counter the fallacy that Democrat jurisdictions do and that they are "soft on crime".

You still didn't answer my question about "open borders" being Democrat policy.
Funny thing about us switching between state vs cities- most of the articles I have read recently did the same thing, so I thought I would comment about separating them.

If you checked the link I posted, you'll see that some cities had large increase in rate, but they only have 6 murders in the most recent year and while no increase in that stat is good or OK, it's insignificant when compared to MKE, where it seems that murder is taught in schools, given the lower ages of the killers.

OK, who is doing more to allow people to enter illegally? Obama didn't allow as many as Biden and during Trump, it was lower, too.

Which cities have claimed that they're 'Sanctuary Cities'? Isn't it a bit ironic that they're now complaining about the illegals entering their cities in small numbers when they think it's OK to force border cities to accept thousands?

They're arguing about it when they should be doing something.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
OK, who is doing more to allow people to enter illegally? Obama didn't allow as many as Biden and during Trump, it was lower, too.
I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Are you suggesting that the US government is encouraging illegal migration?
Kamala Harris tells Guatemala migrants: 'Do not come to US' - BBC News

>>> In a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei, she warned against illegal migration to the US, saying: "Do not come. Do not come. The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders."

She added: "If you come to our border, you will be turned back."<<<

This is rhetoric, of course, but it certainly isn't "please come, all are welcome".

>>>More than 178,000 migrants arrived at the border this April, the highest one-month total in more than two decades, according to US border officials. <<<

The recent surge in numbers of migrants entering the US is likely a result of the sheer numbers trying to get in, rather than a lack of enforcement or welcoming signals from the administration.

Which cities have claimed that they're 'Sanctuary Cities'? Isn't it a bit ironic that they're now complaining about the illegals entering their cities in small numbers when they think it's OK to force border cities to accept thousands?
I'm not sure what that has to do with actual border policy.

They're arguing about it when they should be doing something.
No question. If there was some magic solution, I'm sure it would have been tried by now.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Are you suggesting that the US government is encouraging illegal migration?
Kamala Harris tells Guatemala migrants: 'Do not come to US' - BBC News

>>> In a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei, she warned against illegal migration to the US, saying: "Do not come. Do not come. The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders."

She added: "If you come to our border, you will be turned back."<<<

This is rhetoric, of course, but it certainly isn't "please come, all are welcome".

>>>More than 178,000 migrants arrived at the border this April, the highest one-month total in more than two decades, according to US border officials. <<<

The recent surge in numbers of migrants entering the US is likely a result of the sheer numbers trying to get in, rather than a lack of enforcement or welcoming signals from the administration.


I'm not sure what that has to do with actual border policy.


No question. If there was some magic solution, I'm sure it would have been tried by now.
And what has she said about it since those comments?

Listen to Mayorkas on this, too.

I'm not sure the US actually has a well-defined border policy.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
And what has she said about it since those comments?

Listen to Mayorkas on this, too.

I'm not sure the US actually has a well-defined border policy.
Dunno. Maybe they should put her comments on a continuous loop on all of the social media websites.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I have posted several times about asking a friend if he listened to Rush Limbaugh- he said "Only when I'm on a long road trip- it's hard to fall asleep with my eyes bouncing off of the windshield". For me, it wasn't even about what he said (which I ignored)- it was the sound of his voice that I hated. It's the same for the other Fox, Blaze, etc- if someone wants to torture me, strap me into a chair, tape my eyes open and show videos of Carlson, Gutfield, Glenn Beck and the others- Jesse Watters is particularly irritating, but he doesn't have much of an edge on the other three. I think I would be able to find a way to swallow my own head, so I didn't have to listen or see that crap anymore.
Tucker takes the cake on tv. Followed by Hannity and Ingraham. I never listened to Rush because his ego was too big for me. Hannity was worse than Rush on radio because he's a bully. Glenn Beck was doing quite a bit of conspiracies. Plus I think Fox TV is better during the non-primetime slots.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Another funny one is when Republicans use RINO, what they really are aiming for is silencing dissent against Trump or anyone really. To be a RINO you would have to vote liberally, but it's frankly a good strategy for them.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Dunno. Maybe they should put her comments on a continuous loop on all of the social media websites.
They're on a loop on YouTube already. They usually call her comments "Just another word salad form Harris".
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Tucker takes the cake on tv. Followed by Hannity and Ingraham. I never listened to Rush because his ego was too big for me. Hannity was worse than Rush on radio because he's a bully. Glenn Beck was doing quite a bit of conspiracies. Plus I think Fox TV is better during the non-primetime slots.
Hannity was born in NYC, but he sounds a bit like he's from Pennsylvania.

Other than Limbaugh, most of them sound like little kids who think they know something the others don't, especially Beck and Watters. I can't stand the way they speak- as much as I hate the computer generated narration on WiKi-Vids, I would rather hear that. Just irritating.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I get it. You don't like her. *Shrugs*
She sounded fairly reasonable when she was running for POTUS, at first. As usual, they sound good until they don't. I can't think of any candidate who is what they portrayed.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
She sounded fairly reasonable when she was running for POTUS, at first. As usual, they sound good until they don't. I can't think of any candidate who is what they portrayed.
She sounded very competent in the Senate hearings, as I recall. I think @GO-NAD! post was spot on.

What do you think of Elizabeth Warren?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
She sounded very competent in the Senate hearings, as I recall. I think @GO-NAD! post was spot on.

What do you think of Elizabeth Warren?
Not a fan. I have a problem with anyone talking about taxing the rich when they actually fit the description, but they act like the rich are all money-grubbing a-holes. While many are, she and Pelosi need to stop pretending that they don't make a lot of money, themselves. They also say they want to raise income tax for the rich (don't usually use 'wealthy') but people with that much money often receive high pay from a job since that's by design- income tax costs more than capital gains, qualified dividends and several other methods of gaining wealth. Why pay 37% if 20% can be paid, instead?

Many wealthy people have bought fine artwork and rather than sell it, they trade it to avoid being taxed- the parties agree to a value and do the deal. If they make enough, sure- sell it and make a ton in capital gains, but it's still less than regular income tax.

The highest US income tax bracket ($578,126 or more of income) is $174,238.25 plus 37% of the amount over $578,125- if someone makes $1 Million, the tax is $330,331.63, minus deductions. According to the link, more than 414K people make $1M or more/year but again, that's regular income, not from investments. As the income increases, the rate decreases quickly. This is the reason some want a flat tax rate.

They really should be able to live on what they make in this bracket, even if the rate is raised but again, many who are in this bracket receive their pay in forms other than regular income.

Congress writes the tax code, POTUS signs it, anyone who can, games it.

 
Last edited:
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Not a fan. I have a problem with anyone talking about taxing the rich when they actually fit the description, but they act like the rich are all money-grubbing a-holes. While many are, she and Pelosi need to stop pretending that they don't make a lot of money, themselves. They also say they want to raise income tax for the rich (don't usually use 'wealthy') but people with that much money often receive high pay from a job since that's by design- income tax costs more than capital gains, qualified dividends and several other methods of gaining wealth. Why pay 37% if 20% can be paid, instead?

Many wealthy people have bought fine artwork and rather than sell it, they trade it to avoid being taxed- the parties agree to a value and do the deal. If they make enough, sure- sell it and make a ton in capital gains, but it's still less than regular income tax.
Sorry, I could not resist an impulse! :D

1666365279894.png
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Not a fan. I have a problem with anyone talking about taxing the rich when they actually fit the description, but they act like the rich are all money-grubbing a-holes. While many are, she and Pelosi need to stop pretending that they don't make a lot of money, themselves. They also say they want to raise income tax for the rich (don't usually use 'wealthy') but people with that much money often receive high pay from a job since that's by design- income tax costs more than capital gains, qualified dividends and several other methods of gaining wealth. Why pay 37% if 20% can be paid, instead?

Many wealthy people have bought fine artwork and rather than sell it, they trade it to avoid being taxed- the parties agree to a value and do the deal. If they make enough, sure- sell it and make a ton in capital gains, but it's still less than regular income tax.
Are there any politicians - Democrat or Republican - that you do like?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top