Are Americans getting fed up with govt tilting the playing field toward special interest groups?

[Rotagilla]

The rubes have been fooled into thinking all their tax problems are the fault of minorities. "Obamaphones". "Food stamp President". Blah, blah, blah.

Social welfare programs add up to only HALF of what tax expenditures add up to.

Half.

The perfect con. Point the finger at the darkie while slipping a hand into your wallet.

"It's that negro's fault. He's buying liquor with his EBT card!"

From what I've heard, you're a conservative, are you the only rational one on this board?

who?

You don't know how to figure out if someone's being quoted?

I must have overlooked a post.I still don't know who you were addressing but, ok.....forgive my error.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Governments have been investing in infrastructure, science and exploration like since the dawn of civilization. Some of these interest are good for our country...Some aren't.

Not everything is black and white.

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

You sound bitter.
But than failures often blame the successful.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Governments have been investing in infrastructure, science and exploration like since the dawn of civilization. Some of these interest are good for our country...Some aren't.

Not everything is black and white.

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

Government assistance...

 

[Rotagilla]

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

Government assistance...

broad category, there.

 

[imawhosure]

Might Donald Trump's emergence, reflect the voters' dissatisfaction with recent trends in American government?

Voters realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another.

With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality under law demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), is inevitable. Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial government that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Could Trump's in-your-face insistence on doing things the way HE wants them done (many of them matching what a lot of dissatisfied people want done), be a result of so many people being unhappy with the tilt-the-playing-field-toward-that-group function that government has taken on in the last dacade or two?

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

People that make the most money have rigged the rules in their favor and they're doing better than ever yet they're who you're worried about?

You sir/ma'am, are an idiot! If what you say is true, how could they do this? I will tell you how; everyone fell asleep at the proverbial wheel of freedom, and nobody is willing to throw their political benefactors under the bus. We like our benefactors, but yours are crooks, lol.

Here is a clue for you, take it if you like, ignore it at your own peril.................CONSTITUTIONALISTS have an idea, but we refuse to put it through without following the constitution. In this manner, you have a say as does everyone else. It is our job to convince enough people to bring pressure upon our elected officials, to make it happen; not ramrod it through to leave you irritated, agitated, and wanting to throw the whole country under the bus because you have been disenfranchised. Why do you think congress and Obama are in the tank? Because what they do, or say they will do then don't, have Americans pissed. THEY ALL LIED TO US to get elected!

Rinos should make both parties laugh like hell. They whine about Trump, try everything they can to get rid of Trump, and yet...........THEY CREATED TRUMP! Were it not for all of them breaking most promises they made to the American people, Trump would have no traction at all.

Democrats believe falsely, that this phenom only resides on the right. They are wrong! Democrats are smoking too, and they are NOT happy either. When every republican said that Obama was full of baloney, macaroni, and cheese on Obamacare, he got up there and lied like a dog; and he didn't lie to the republicans because all of them knew better, he lied to DEMOCRATS to convince them. It worked, and now they are really pissed, especially blue collar democrats.

Yep, and everything rinos and lefties do is for their masters who give them money. And yet, the millionaires, and BILLionaires only have 1 vote, just like you and me. So how do they get their way? Because they have us at each others throats, that is how. God forbid if Americans decide to throw the rinos and lefties out, OMG, they would lose power.

We are supposed to control the government, not vice-versa. Until we all understand that electing a rino or leftie is more palatable to them then electing a constitutionalist, libertarian, or a blue dog democrat, we are going to get Bush V Clinton, or Kasich V Biden, or maybe even Warren V Christie.

In any of those cases, do you know who actually wins? Why, they do! They keep the status quo, nothing changes, and those people just rotate who controls what, and all of us here in the heartland are screwed! And that is really what all of them want, to hold power. What do you think people want, more or less money? More or less power? You see, these politicians would rather be in the minority and hold SOME power, then have something happen and have them and all of their friends thrown out of power, even if they are from the other side of the aisle. Washington is the home of cronyism.

Let me say this in finality..............there are good republicans, and good democrats who will FIGHT for America. Unfortunately, you have tricky Mitch, bullsh** Baihnor, ridiculous Reid, and prickly Pelosi who aren't going to allow our reps to vote what we the people want. We need to throw 3 of those 4 out, and the person who will take the 4th persons place needs to be thrown out to, which is Chucky Shummer. Then we can go from there, and with a constitutional President, we might get something done for all of us.

 

[Rotagilla]

Congressional Reform Act of 2016




1. Term Limits

12 years max, some possible options are below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms






2. No Tenure / No Pension

Members of Congress receive a salary while in office, that salary ends when they leave office.

3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.

All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with all Americans.


4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.


5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.


6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.


8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/16.

The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy, Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn

Ronald Reagan.
You deserve to be robbed.

And then follows up with a lie.

Ronald Reagan did not ban all tax expenditures.

Back to the subject:
Spending tax money on Special Interests has been illegal ever since the Constitution was ratified. The so-called "Welfare Clause" (better called the Uniformity Clause) was written to make it exactly that way. And liberals (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating it ever since.

Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods | Page 21 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conservatives didn't mind welfare back before black people started using it. Before that they said it was the Christian thing to do.

I agree we are losing our religion.

Conservatives still don't mind welfare provided it is used the way it was designed: for temporary assistance.

Now we have generational welfare and more benefits than ever before. Welfare in the past was just enough to get by. Today, welfare programs add up to a better living than many working people have.

Today, people use welfare as a supplement to their low paying jobs. Years ago, when somebody had a lower paying job and couldn't make it, they worked more hours or got another part-time job to make up the difference. Who works seven days a week today?

 

[sakinago]

Yes, but more so tilting toward themselves is even more frustrating

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would love to level the playing field as libertarians and Republicans see fit for one year and when middle class Republicans realize what they think is fair is not fair and doesn't work make them live with their decision.

No social security. Anyone who wants the libertarian way would be completely on their own. They'd come crawling back so fast.

Or would they just accept being losers like Kentuckians do under Mitch McConnell.

Social Security is robbery. That's why it's going broke.

Yes, let's get rid of SS. For younger people today, we still make the deductions from their paychecks, but their money would go into an investment account and grow. By the time they reach retirement age, they will surpass anybody foolish enough to stay on the government program that doesn't payout enough to buy medication.

 

[Agit8r]

Herr Drumpf's "emergence" doesn't reflect anything about the mainstream of American society, because a majority of American's view him unfavorably.

The only thing it show is how unprincipled many "conservatives" are, that they can be distracted by a demagogic poser.

 

[sealybobo]

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't expect Trump to do anything on that score. He's in favor of eminent domain being used to help business. That's what right wimgers were screaming holy hell about a few years ago, when Souter was the swing vote on a USSC ED decision.

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain | RedState

Souter Gets Taste Of His Own Eminent Domain Medicine

I think Trump is more of a Democrat in some ways. I don't care for him or Hillary. Both are in love with Wall St.

 

[Agit8r]

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

The rich were jealous of the political power wielded by the middle class. They are still hard at trying to make sure it never resurfaces.

 

[Papageorgio]

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

I hate Congress that writes the laws in favor of the rich. Both parties have done it for years. That is where the change has to be, in Congress.

 

[konradv]

I hate Congress that writes the laws in favor of the rich. Both parties have done it for years. That is where the change has to be, in Congress.

They listen to the people who pay the bills. We need to change the way campaigns are financed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Might Donald Trump's emergence, reflect the voters' dissatisfaction with recent trends in America ...? ...

Trumps emergence and unqualified acceptance is a sign of a stored rage, the magnitude of which is immeasurable.

I'm not a supporter of Trump, because I fear that were he elected, the worst traits of myself and other Americans would blow past the gasket of our traditional tolerance and we would likely find ourselves indulging in a vengeful cruelty not seen since the early 1860s.

I understand it and a growing part of the emotional side of me beckon's for it... but the intellectual, which rests upon the principles of God's law, hopes for a measured man... a Ben Carson would be my choice, followed by Ted Cruz.

But hey... if it is to be Trump... Fine. I honestly don't think that in real terms there is any way to avoid the mayhem and God knows, the Left RICHLY deserves every BIT OF IT!

 

[Rotagilla]

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

you've come completely unhinged.

 

[Papageorgio]

I hate Congress that writes the laws in favor of the rich. Both parties have done it for years. That is where the change has to be, in Congress.

They listen to the people who pay the bills. We need to change the way campaigns are financed.

We need to do something different, voting for Democrats and Republicans hasn't worked. This is why I dislike McCain so much. He and Feingold screwed this country over.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

And if we had it your way things would get a lot harder for you and yours because unregulated free market capitalism only works for the guys who already got theirs.

Life sure sucked when healthcare and gas was cheaper and companies paid workers more.

Fdr and liberal policies created a big middle class and the rich hated it. They've always hated high wages. I don't blame them. I blame workers who think they are Republicans.

you've come completely unhinged.

She has absolutely no kinship with reality.

But hey... what Leftist does?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I hate Congress that writes the laws in favor of the rich. Both parties have done it for years. That is where the change has to be, in Congress.

They listen to the people who pay the bills. We need to change the way campaigns are financed.

We need to do something different, voting for Democrats and Republicans hasn't worked. This is why I dislike McCain so much. He and Feingold screwed this country over.

Prog Democrats (Democrats) and Prog Republicans (Democrats in the GOP) are identical. So, on what basis would voting for the same thing, in any way, effect an alternative?