Question from a non-American. Do you guys really hate each other?

[Andylusion]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

To some extent yes.

What you generally see world wide, is that homogeneous societies, tend to have real care between citizens, because everyone sees everyone as being part of the same society.

In countries where multiculturalism is adopted, the reverse tends to be true.

Without having a unifying set of cultural values, tends to break society apart.

So it does not surprise me that a homogeneous society like Australia has more social fabric than the US does.

 

[Andylusion]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

 

[Papageorgio]

Can't answer my question? Thanks, I wasn't expecting you to.

You know I can, wingertard: shame on you. Violence begets violence. A Senator is shot. Then it escalates. The people you support encourage more of this behavior. I think they're all fucking traitors and they should all fucking hang. Clear enough?

Who do I support, you want to come kill me? You are nothing but a lowlife ignorant hate filled bigot. Go ahead start your killing, moron, just proving how right I am and how wrong you are.

I don't know who you support, and no, I don't want to kill you. You're a little too far, bud. Stay off the drink a little, eh?

Dummy, you claimed to know who I support, were you lying? Are you a liar as well as a hateful bigot? Do you even remember what you posted?

If you didn't vote for Hillary and Democrats in 2016 you are a Republican as far as I'm concerned.

The more correct statement is if you voted for Hillary or Trump you voted for a corrupt government. Congrats you got your wish.

 

[80zephyr]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

 

[progressive hunter]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

well since democrats want the people poor, complacent and dependent it makes sense

where as most republicans want people independent and prosperous and not a burden to humanity

 

[sealybobo]

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

 

[progressive hunter]

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

its mind boggling how well kool-aid works

 

[22lcidw]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

Just anti corruption and doing things that cost bookoo dollars more. I will go back three decades into the 1980's. I worked on a job where a one hundred foot bridge on a street over railroad tracks had to be rebuilt. It took three years to complete it. You would not see workers for weeks and months and they put up a netting on both sides. People in the neighborhood driving ran into the nets it and were hurt and even deaths. We called the nets the WEB. When workers showed up they would proudly spout....Its Miller time. Three years as compared to three months or much less to do a bridge. The costs of things are massively expensive. Just redoing what was already built by the real men of foundation in the past is painfully out of context. Other nations have taken the lead in advancing building and construction and rebuilding technology at a cheaper price. So we pay near 2 billion dollars for an Arleigh Burke destroyer when an advanced Zumwalt design should be built for less.

 

[sealybobo]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

well since democrats want the people poor and complacent it makes sense

where as most republicans want people independent and prosperous and not a burden to humanity

All I can tell you is what Michigan was like when unions ruled. The Big 3 made record profits and so did their employees. The UAW created a middle class the world has never seen before. But you Republicans didn't like sharing profits with the workers so you sent all their jobs overseas but first you spent a decade badmouthing the unions.

The American people don't realize the only reason they make as much as they do today is because of unions.

Democrats want a huge fat big middle class. Republican policies create a small rich class, small middle/merchant class and the masses are poor. Basically what we have right now is the Republicans wet dream. MAGA my ass.

 

[sealybobo]

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

its mind boggling how well kool-aid works

On you maybe

 

[progressive hunter]

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

well since democrats want the people poor and complacent it makes sense

where as most republicans want people independent and prosperous and not a burden to humanity

All I can tell you is what Michigan was like when unions ruled. The Big 3 made record profits and so did their employees. The UAW created a middle class the world has never seen before. But you Republicans didn't like sharing profits with the workers so you sent all their jobs overseas but first you spent a decade badmouthing the unions.

The American people don't realize the only reason they make as much as they do today is because of unions.

Democrats want a huge fat big middle class. Republican policies create a small rich class, small middle/merchant class and the masses are poor. Basically what we have right now is the Republicans wet dream. MAGA my ass.

OH yeah detroit is in great shape now,,,thanks to the unions

 

[progressive hunter]

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

its mind boggling how well kool-aid works

On you maybe

I dont drink koolaid I read the constitution

 

[Papageorgio]

I am not American but I do find American politics to be quite interesting in a sort of soap opera sort of way but one thing I really don't get is in America, unlike my own country (Australia) there seems to be a genuine hatred between the left and right, as in both would love to completely destroy the other and pretty much hate everything that the other side stands for.

I know my country the left wing party (Labor) and the right wing party (Liberals) are not too far away from each other politically, and while there is a lot of animosity there is not really any hatred. In America though I get the impression that the Republicans would have welcomed a recession when Obama was in charge as that way he would have been blamed, and Democrats would welcome a market crash now because he would be blamed, it seemingly not mattering that your country would be falling down a toilet, as long as the other side gets the blame for it.

Admittedly I don't know the politics of every fully Democratic nation, that would be impossible, but as far as I know America is quite unique in just how much both sides hate each other.

My question is do both sides genuinely hate each other, would each side be happy to see America burn if they could blame the other side, and if this is the case?

I also must admit that the differences between the US states is quite amazing. I go from one state in my own country to another, and basically they are the same, more or less anyway, but in America I get the feeling that New York and California are so different to Texas and Alabama that they may as well be in different countries in terms of beliefs and general ideology on almost every issue. I find it amazing that these states are in the same country as it almost feels as convoluted as the Austro-Hungarian empire, with dozens of different ethnic groups within the one country, all wanting very different things and none of them feeling that united.

So my general question is how divided is America, is it so divided that one side of politics would love to see America enter a deep depression just so the other political party could be blamed for it, and if so is that a healthy situation to be in?

Not that I am advocating for it, but with the massive differences between the red and the blue states America from an outsiders point of view seems like it is in a very unhappy marriage where both parties are staying together for the sake of the children, but end up fighting a lot in front of the children and making them cry so I wonder, if what I am saying is remotely accurate why isn't there more talk about an amicable divorce, where the blue states go their own way and the red states go another, where both sides can go the direction they want to go and seemingly not being held back by the other side.

I mean, do the people of Alabama really care that much about the people of New York, or vice-versa? Also is politics and America in general as divided as I have made out, or is America more like siblings who hate each other and will kick the crap out of each other but deep down love each other as well, even though they would never admit it?

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

The Dems failed to punish Wall St. in 2009, they sided with insurance companies when it came to healthcare, just your left wing spin. Democrats nor Republicans are for the working middle class, they haven't had a President for years, that is why many voted for Trump because they knew Hillary didn't care about them.

 

[Andylusion]

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

But that is why jobs were going over seas. You create a problem, and the problem leads to a counter actions, and then we told you why it was happening.

What part of that is hard to understand?

The unions broke themselves. They priced themselves above the market, and the market broke them.

You are arguing against the fundamentals of economics, like a crazy person would argue against gravity.

Right-winger "When you step off the edge, you will fall and hurt yourself"

Left-winger "You guys are just telling us we're going to fall, instead of fixing this!"

Consumers are naturally going to migrate towards cheaper alternatives. That's how free markets work. When the Unions made themselves expensive relative to non-union alternatives, then this is what happens.

Don't blame us for the fact that Toyota and Honda did not declare bankruptcy and close a bunch of plants, and even opened new plants, while GM and Chrysler both did.

Don't blame us when Hostess closes down, lays everyone off, and then reopens as a completely profitable, but non-union shop.

Unions destroyed themselves. Not us.

There is no one to blame but the man in the mirror for what has happened to the Unions.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

But that is why jobs were going over seas. You create a problem, and the problem leads to a counter actions, and then we told you why it was happening.

What part of that is hard to understand?

The unions broke themselves. They priced themselves above the market, and the market broke them.

You are arguing against the fundamentals of economics, like a crazy person would argue against gravity.

Right-winger "When you step off the edge, you will fall and hurt yourself"

Left-winger "You guys are just telling us we're going to fall, instead of fixing this!"

Consumers are naturally going to migrate towards cheaper alternatives. That's how free markets work. When the Unions made themselves expensive relative to non-union alternatives, then this is what happens.

Don't blame us for the fact that Toyota and Honda did not declare bankruptcy and close a bunch of plants, and even opened new plants, while GM and Chrysler both did.

Don't blame us when Hostess closes down, lays everyone off, and then reopens as a completely profitable, but non-union shop.

Unions destroyed themselves. Not us.

There is no one to blame but the man in the mirror for what has happened to the Unions.

America caught on to the strong arm tactics of the unions and the greed of the unions. The UAW and the US manufacturers produced low quality, over priced cars. The people saw the flaws and went to Japanese brands because they produced a higher quality product. Detroit was way behind the curve and at times seem to be the same today.

 

[80zephyr]

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

No one sent those jobs anywhere. I have a brother who worked in a paper mill. He was in a union. They got PTO, 6 weeks of vacation, holidays, excellent benefits, birthdays, off, work boots etc. That paper mill had been employing people for over 100 years.

Then, because of foreign competition, the company asked for concessions because they couldn't compete. The union voted no. The company immediately shut the mill down, and bulldozed it.

No one sent these jobs away.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Republican economics only serve the haves not the have nots. So how do the rich get so many have nots to vote for them? By using wedge issues that divide us.

God, gays, guns and racism.

Are the people in your country fighting ove4 these things?

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

well since democrats want the people poor and complacent it makes sense

where as most republicans want people independent and prosperous and not a burden to humanity

All I can tell you is what Michigan was like when unions ruled. The Big 3 made record profits and so did their employees. The UAW created a middle class the world has never seen before. But you Republicans didn't like sharing profits with the workers so you sent all their jobs overseas but first you spent a decade badmouthing the unions.

The American people don't realize the only reason they make as much as they do today is because of unions.

Democrats want a huge fat big middle class. Republican policies create a small rich class, small middle/merchant class and the masses are poor. Basically what we have right now is the Republicans wet dream. MAGA my ass.

My God, I can see history is not your strong point.

Mark

 

[sealybobo]

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

well since democrats want the people poor and complacent it makes sense

where as most republicans want people independent and prosperous and not a burden to humanity

All I can tell you is what Michigan was like when unions ruled. The Big 3 made record profits and so did their employees. The UAW created a middle class the world has never seen before. But you Republicans didn't like sharing profits with the workers so you sent all their jobs overseas but first you spent a decade badmouthing the unions.

The American people don't realize the only reason they make as much as they do today is because of unions.

Democrats want a huge fat big middle class. Republican policies create a small rich class, small middle/merchant class and the masses are poor. Basically what we have right now is the Republicans wet dream. MAGA my ass.

OH yeah detroit is in great shape now,,,thanks to the unions

Well you defended the corporations who sent all those high paying jobs overseas

And you defended illegal immigrants for doing jobs Americans won’t do

And cheap shit from China

Republicans are stupid. At least the lower middle class ones are

 

[sealybobo]

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

based on your list that would make them anti-communist

Unions aren't communism they are the only advocate workers have besides Democrats.

Please. Both unions and democrats, live off they confiscate from workers. Advocate my butt. Why is it Republicans have to pass a law, that "allows" workers to work without being forced to fund groups they don't support, if their only advocates are unions and democrats?

Pff..... you people.


That said, if you were actually right.... then I even now, wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Unions. But I routinely see Unions advocating bad socialistic economic policies. If Unions would stop doing stuff like that, and focus more exclusively on doing what is best for their members, instead of doing what is best for the Unions leadership... then I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't looking to get into an argument about if unions are corrupt greedy lazy and bloated. That's what Republicans like you told us when you were sending all their good paying jobs overseas. And you wonder why Americans are struggling and not doing as well as we did before they broke our unions. No coincidence as union membership declined, so did the middle class. Another way the rich have widened the gap between us and them.

But now you see how Republicans were able to get away with sending all those jobs overseas. They were all union jobs. So no shit the middle class isn't doing as well today as they were before all their jobs disappeared. No shit Detroit is hurting. You sent all our high paying jobs overseas. Not to Tennessee you passed TN and sent them to Mexico..

Of course unions survive off what they collect from workers. Any worker not paying dues should not be protected by the union but they are. That should stop.

But that is why jobs were going over seas. You create a problem, and the problem leads to a counter actions, and then we told you why it was happening.

What part of that is hard to understand?

The unions broke themselves. They priced themselves above the market, and the market broke them.

You are arguing against the fundamentals of economics, like a crazy person would argue against gravity.

Right-winger "When you step off the edge, you will fall and hurt yourself"

Left-winger "You guys are just telling us we're going to fall, instead of fixing this!"

Consumers are naturally going to migrate towards cheaper alternatives. That's how free markets work. When the Unions made themselves expensive relative to non-union alternatives, then this is what happens.

Don't blame us for the fact that Toyota and Honda did not declare bankruptcy and close a bunch of plants, and even opened new plants, while GM and Chrysler both did.

Don't blame us when Hostess closes down, lays everyone off, and then reopens as a completely profitable, but non-union shop.

Unions destroyed themselves. Not us.

There is no one to blame but the man in the mirror for what has happened to the Unions.

Bottom line is American workers made the most so with or without unions corporations were going to send jobs overseas IF YOU LET THEM and not only did you let them you defended them

 

[sealybobo]

Where do you get your opinions from? If you really believe the rich "Snow" the poor into voting for them, how do you explain the fact that it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats

Mark

You are misguided. Sure both parties have to serve the rich but we all know the GOP is the party of the really rich and powerful who are

anti union
anti sick days
anti minimum wage
anti labor laws

We all know who the real party of the rich is. It's republicans. Take for example all the Supreme Court justices. The conservative ones always side with business and the liberal ones who democrats appointed consider the people's needs and wishes too not just the corporations.

You do know that the entire system is corrupted right? You have to be a millionaire to be a politician. And you have to raise millions so of course both sides have to cater to the rich.

Do you want campaign finance reform?

One more thing to prove how wrong you are. Which party wants the poor to show up and vote? And which party does the poor mostly vote for? The Democrats you say? That's right. So don't give me that shit that it's the Dems who are the party of the rich. That's just right wing spin.

Are you lying or do you believe what you said? Be honest. One reply will make you look stupid. One answer will prove you know you are full of shit.

You want proof? If you really believe that the rich are in it for themselves, why would the richest districts in America vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Do you really believe that they are voting against their own self interests?

Be honest.

Mark

well since democrats want the people poor and complacent it makes sense

where as most republicans want people independent and prosperous and not a burden to humanity

All I can tell you is what Michigan was like when unions ruled. The Big 3 made record profits and so did their employees. The UAW created a middle class the world has never seen before. But you Republicans didn't like sharing profits with the workers so you sent all their jobs overseas but first you spent a decade badmouthing the unions.

The American people don't realize the only reason they make as much as they do today is because of unions.

Democrats want a huge fat big middle class. Republican policies create a small rich class, small middle/merchant class and the masses are poor. Basically what we have right now is the Republicans wet dream. MAGA my ass.

My God, I can see history is not your strong point.

Mark

Revisionist history is your specialty

You just parrot the con talking point and you have accepted their reality which isn’t real