Democrats

[steve863]

11 minutes ago, Splitear_Leland said:

You are really upset about this flag thing Rattler, I'm sorry this has hurt you so badly.

They could have walked in draped in flags and whistling yankee-doodle-dandy, it still wouldn't have changed his mind about any one of them.  Then he'd probably be pointing out how disrespectful they were to the flag. 

 

[squirrelwhisperer]

How it should be!

Wage Inequality: You get paid what you're worth, not everybody makes the same. The guy who takes care of my pool is obviously valuable, but not as much as the doctor that addresses our health concerns 

Healthcare: It sucks!! Obama ruined the healthcare. Drop Obamacare and go back to the way it was. You want healthcare, go work for it!

Foreign Policy: This one is simple. Screw everyone else, America first!! Leave us alone or we make your country one big parking lot. 

 

As far as the leftists are concerned, just because someone claims the ocean isn't salty, no matter how much he convinces the gullible, it doesn't change the facts. 

[Deleted Account]

31 minutes ago, squirrelwhisperer said:

How it should be!

Wage Inequality: You get paid what you're worth, not everybody makes the same. The guy who takes care of my pool is obviously valuable, but not as much as the doctor that addresses our health concerns 

Healthcare: It sucks!! Obama ruined the healthcare. Drop Obamacare and go back to the way it was. You want healthcare, go work for it!

Foreign Policy: This one is simple. Screw everyone else, America first!! Leave us alone or we make your country one big parking lot. 

 

As far as the leftists are concerned, just because someone claims the ocean isn't salty, no matter how much he convinces the gullible, it doesn't change the facts. 

Yes, but the big question is, how do you feel about having/not having flags on the debate stage

I assume we both know we don't agree on your points, so no need for the ole go-around  

[squirrelwhisperer]

It's obvious from their rhetoric, the dem candidates hate America, so why would they want a flag on stage with them? In that light, the lack of a flag makes sense to me!

I know what you are gonna say, but personally, I would only attempt to destroy/ruin something I hated, hence the basis for my assumption. 

[Buckmaster7600]

You are really upset about this flag thing Rattler, I'm sorry this has hurt you so badly. I mean, I would wager a bet that the candidates don't arrive early and set up the stage, but I could be wrong. I'm also not sure that the lack of a flag on the stage is the most pressing issue facing someone wanting to become President. I mean, it is obviously a very big deal, but probably not enough to get above the questions of Wage Inequality, Healthcare, Foreign Policy, etc.
To your point about Donald Trump acting like a clown but loving America, I'm sure he would say that he loves our country if asked, but I'm sure all of the Democratic candidates would say the same. Whether you believe them or not is your prerogative. 

Bullshit, without that flag none of that means anything. That flag should be the first thing on any of their minds. The fact that it’s not is the exact reason why I refuse to vote for or support in anyway any of the candidates from my party.

Side note wage inequality is a farce, prove me wrong!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

Dbl post, “damn kindle”

[Deleted Account]

10 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Bullshit, without that flag none of that means anything. That flag should be the first thing on any of their minds. The fact that it’s not is the exact reason why I refuse to vote for or support in anyway any of the candidates from my party.

Side note wage inequality is a farce, prove me wrong!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're certainly entitled to your own passionate opinion. I agree, the flag is a great representative of our country, and do respect it as a symbol of those who have fought and died for what it stands for. However, I didn't watch the debate, and the fact that there was no flag on a stage that was decorated with a patriotic theme, really doesn't bother me too much. I might be wrong in your eyes, but that's your issue, not mine. 

On Wage Inequality, there's plenty of research out there to support this. You can argue the validity of the  causes of it, which I'm assuming is where your argument lies, but it doesn't change the fact that on average women and people of color earn less than their white male counterparts. 

[Buckmaster7600]

You're certainly entitled to your own passionate opinion. I agree, the flag is a great representative of our country, and do respect it as a symbol of those who have fought and died for what it stands for. However, I didn't watch the debate, and the fact that there was no flag on a stage that was decorated with a patriotic theme, really doesn't bother me too much. I might be wrong in your eyes, but that's your issue, not mine. 
On Wage Inequality, there's plenty of research out there to support this. You can argue the validity of the  causes of it, which I'm assuming is where your argument lies, but it doesn't change the fact that on average women and people of color earn less than their white male counterparts. 

There isn’t argument. When women and people of color make less by choice or by life choices that has nothing to do with the government.

Yes women make less than men. They also on average put more emphasis on family life than career. Again not a government issue.

Once again prove me wrong?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deleted Account]

Okay, let's look at a single industry, Veterinary Medicine, then, one that is personal for me since my wife is Veterinarian.

According to the AVMA, male veterinary starting salaries are 3% higher than females. They continue to say that the gap continues to grow as they progress through their careers. This doesn't quite make sense, since females make up a majority of the veterinarians in the country. However, nearly 70% of practice owners are male, and these are generally the folks making job offers. I have experienced this personally when I attended an Capital Region AVMA event with her once, for the free beer and food :), and had half a dozen male practice owners approach me to inquire about where I was working, and what my background was. When I would introduce my wife as the Doctor, the conversation was essentially over. She has since moved to a woman owned practice, and has been treated much better than her previous practice. Regardless, the data is there to support a gender wage gap in this industry. You are trying to argue that she should just negotiate a better salary, or turn down jobs that show disparity, but there is no way to estimate disparity in a singular level, and bargaining power for a new vet is virtually non existent in a fairly saturated career field. So, if a male practice owners values a new male vet more than a female, with a basis specifically on gender preference, there's where the problem lies. 

To your point of the government not being involved, I can't argue that one, I don't have enough information and am not smart enough to offer a reasonable solution, so I can't really go into the weeds. 

https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2018-12-15/mind-pay-gaps

Edited February 27, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[Deleted Account]

35 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

There isn’t argument. When women and people of color make less by choice or by life choices that has nothing to do with the government.

Yes women make less than men. They also on average put more emphasis on family life than career. Again not a government issue.

Once again prove me wrong?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, your generalzation that women make less because they are more family focused is false, at least on the singular level. My wife has always and continues to work as many hours as her male counterparts, and is a damn good vet. We share responsibilities at home, but she still wipes the floor with me when it comes to responsibility. However, the husband of her current practice owner suggested they pay a male new hire more than her because "they needed a male doctor in the practice." They did end up hiring him, not for more money, but he was out the door in 6 months when he caved to pressure in an emergency situation and blew up at the staff.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[Buckmaster7600]

Okay, let's look at a single industry, Veterinary Medicine, then, one that is personal for me since my wife is Veterinarian.
According to the AVMA, male veterinary starting salaries are 3% higher than females. They continue to say that the gap continues to grow as they progress through their careers. This doesn't quite make sense, since females make up a majority of the veterinarians in the country. However, nearly 70% of practice owners are male, and these are generally the folks making job offers. I have experienced this personally when I attended an Capital Region AVMA event with her once, for the free beer and food , and had half a dozen male practice owners approach me to inquire about where I was working, and what my background was. When I would introduce my wife as the Doctor, the conversation was essentially over. She has since moved to a woman owned practice, and has been treated much better than her previous practice. Regardless, the data is there to support a gender wage gap in this industry. You are trying to argue that she should just negotiate a better salary, or turn down jobs that show disparity, but there is no way to estimate disparity in a singular level, and bargaining power for a new vet is virtually non existent in a fairly saturated career field. So, if a male practice owners values a new male vet more than a female, with a basis specifically on gender preference, there's where the problem lies. 
To your point of the government not being involved, I can't argue that one, I don't have enough information and am not smart enough to offer a reasonable solution, so I can't really go into the weeds. 
https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2018-12-15/mind-pay-gaps

For future reference when attempting to prove someone wrong using a singular personal experience is very ineffective.

Until then carry on spreading your BS . And I’ll keep using facts to gather my opinion, have a good night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deleted Account]

49 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

For future reference when attempting to prove someone wrong using a singular personal experience is very ineffective.

Until then carry on spreading your BS . And I’ll keep using facts to gather my opinion, have a good night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't see many facts with your argument, just a blanket comment and a " prove me wrong".  However, I appreciate the feedback, I'll take it to heart

Take care!

Edited February 28, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[GreeneHunter]

[helmut in the bush]

Am I seeing a pattern?

[Moho81]

Dbl post, “damn kindle”

I just wanted to quote this for the shout out to growie. Loved it. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

Now I know many do not read long posts, but in order to respond to many of the above slights and misconceptions, it is necessary to definitively address them all at once. 

Many Democrats are leftists.  Not liberals, who believe in the Constitution and allow opposing opinions to flourish, but totalitarian leftists that will allow no opposition to their agenda.

Whenever leftists are charged with not loving or even hating America, they respond angrily, labeling the question absurd, mean-spirited, and an example of right-wing McCarthyism.

But there can be little doubt that the left has no love for America, just as there can be little doubt that liberals and conservatives love America. Love of America is one of the many dividing lines between liberalism and leftism. 

Here are six reasons to believe the left hates America:

1. No one denies that the international left—the left in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere—hates America. Therefore, in order to argue that American leftists do not hate America, one would have to argue that on one of the most fundamental principles of international leftism—hatred of America—American leftists differ with fellow leftists around the world: All the world’s left hates the U.S., but the American left loves it. This, of course, makes no sense. Leftists around the world agree on every important issue. Why, then, would they differ with regard to America? Has any leftist at The New York Times, for example, written one column critical of the international left’s anti-Americanism?

2. Leftists want to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Five days before the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama told a huge audience in Columbia, Missouri, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

More recently, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced that she plans to “fundamentally transform our government,” that America needs “big, structural change,” and that her proposed Accountable Capitalism Act would bring about “fundamental change.”

Likewise, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said earlier this year, “We’re going to try to transform the United States of America,” and also said, “This campaign is about fundamental change.”

Examples are legion.

So, here’s a question: How can one claim to love what one wishes to fundamentally transform?

The answer is obvious: It isn’t possible.

If a man were to confide to you that he wants to fundamentally transform his wife, would you assume he loves his wife? If a woman were to tell you she wants to fundamentally transform her husband, would you assume she loves him? Of course not.

3. Leftists have contempt for the American flag.

I am unaware of a single left-wing individual or organization that has condemned NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand for the flag during the playing or singing of the national anthem that precedes NFL games. To the contrary, on the left, he is universally regarded as a hero. Indeed, Nike anointed him as one, making him its brand model. 

Leftists might respond that Kaepernick’s public refusal to stand for the flag and national anthem says nothing about his love for America, as it is only a form of protest against racial injustice. But that is nonsense. Would leftists argue that anyone who publicly refuses to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day really loves Dr. King?

Many on the left defend a person's right to stomp on, or burn the American flag, calling it free speech. But a man was recently sent to prison for a long time for burning a Rainbow flag, with leftists asserting it was a hate crime.

4. Leftists routinely describe America as racist, sexist, xenophobic, imperialist, genocidal, homophobic, obsessed with money, and morally inferior to most Western European countries. No moral person could love such a place.  Claiming the moral high ground in opposition to your own country cannot mean you stand in unison with your country.

5. America is the most successful country in world history—while being the most committed to capitalism and remaining the most religious of all the industrialized democracies. To the extent that America is great, that means two of the institutions the left most loathes—Christianity and capitalism—are also great. 

Let's not forget the leftists who recently pontificated, "America was never great.", or leftists who attack peaceful people who have the nerve to wear a hat saying "Make America Great Again".

6. Love is, among other things, an emotion. So, here is a question about leftists’ emotions: Do any leftists get the chills when the national anthem is played or when they see the American flag waving as the anthem is played? Given their rhetoric, it is most unlikely. Yet, every person I know who loves America does get a chill at such moments. Do leftists, as opposed to some liberals and conservatives, display the flag on any national holiday? How many leftists even own a flag?

Finally, if leftists do not love America, what do they love?

According to their own rhetoric, they love the planet—Mother Earth, as they frequently refer to it. And they love animals.

They really love power, and they claim to love material equality.  They also love to persuade people they're victims.  America, being evil, has victimized them.  By race, religion, nationality, wage discrepancy and sex.

They don’t love Western culture—and they now dismiss praise for it as a euphemism for white supremacy.

Interestingly, while they often claim to love humanity, many don’t seem to love people. They give less charity and volunteer less time to the downtrodden than conservatives, for example. They have much less interest in having children and making families. They are far more likely than conservatives to cut off relations with friends or relatives with whom they differ politically. And if they really loved people, they would love capitalism because only capitalism has lifted billions of people from poverty.

They love to convince the gullible they are the saviors of the world.  That only they love others.  But truth be told, they love … themselves.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Rattler

[Deleted Account]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

 

Rattler, you spent a lot of time and energy tearing down opposing viewpoints. I'm sure your points make a lot of sense in your head, and maybe even with like minded folks. 

However, as a leftist, I can tell you that your points, no matter how well thought through, are incorrect.

I am what you call a leftist, and I love my country, I love my countrymen, I appreciate the earth that I live on, I respect all living things. I believe that everyone should stand on their own merit, but I also recognize that not everyone starts from the same number in life, and like it or not, race and gender, and even physical location do affect your starting position. However, I still think everyone has a shot at overcoming these things, but I also think that we all benefit from their success, so I'm all for leveling the playing field.

Now, I don't claim to have any answers, and the answers I do have, even though I'm partial to them, probably suck. However, it doesn't change the fact that I want what is best for myself, my family, my country, my countrymen, and my planet. If you don't believe me in this, that is a chasm of your own making.

We obviously don't agree on a lot, but I'm okay with that, unless it's grammar I do enjoy reading your opinions, even if I don't agree with them, it makes me think more deeply about my own, and I appreciate you for that.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[Deleted Account]

Also, your memes are whack

[Rattler]

Yet, you begin your pronouncement by telling me that I'm incorrect.  I believe you have said we cannot judge the whole based on the actions of one, yet you wish to use yourself as an example to defend the group.  I never expect you to directly refute things I've posted by addressing those things with a direct rebuttal.  Is there anything in my last post you believe is factually incorrect?

I stand by my post and will defend my assertion that leftists do not love this country based on the facts provided.  You may not agree with what I have posted, but I think saying I am wrong is merely your denialist opinion.

What concerns me about your wanting the "best" for everyone, is how you define "best" and how you would go about implementing that.  Leveling the playing field?  Are you sure you're not advocating "equal outcomes" over equality at the starting line?

 "I also recognize that not everyone starts from the same number in life, and like it or not, race and gender, and even physical location do affect your starting position."

Tell me, when has this ever not been the case in the entire history of America?  Yet America became the greatest nation on earth with this truism in effect.  Did you ever consider forcing "leveling" on this land might do it more harm than good?  Why is it leftist policies must be forced on the populace, with the threat of prison or at the muzzle of a gun, if these ideas are so benevolent?  It is, by definition, totalitarianism.  It requires massive government interference and power and it becomes totally political, as opposed to free choice and liberty.  You are only free to do what the government lets you do.  It's played out in history before.  It was called Socialism.  It morphed into Communism.  Can anyone say they weren't evil?

Wealth redistribution is also something the left loves, unless it's their wealth that is being stolen from them.

I think you are more of a confused liberal than a leftist.  A leftist does not love this country, in any way, shape or form.  

I do not believe you do yourself a service by claiming to be a member of that genus.

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Rattler

[Deleted Account]

2 hours ago, Rattler said:

Yet, you begin your pronouncement by telling me that I'm incorrect.  I believe you have said we cannot judge the whole based on the actions of one, yet you wish to use yourself as an example to defend the group.  I never expect you to directly refute things I've posted by addressing those things with a direct rebuttal.  Is there anything in my last post you believe is factually incorrect?

I stand by my post and will defend my assertion that leftists do not love this country based on the facts provided.  You may not agree with what I have posted, but I think saying I am wrong is merely your denialist opinion.

What concerns me about your wanting the "best" for everyone, is how you define "best" and how you would go about implementing that.  Leveling the playing field?  Are you sure you're not advocating "equal outcomes" over equality at the starting line?

 "I also recognize that not everyone starts from the same number in life, and like it or not, race and gender, and even physical location do affect your starting position."

Tell me, when has this ever not been the case in the entire history of America?  Yet America became the greatest nation on earth with this truism in effect.  Did you ever consider forcing "leveling" on this land might do it more harm than good?  Why is it leftist policies must be forced on the populace, with the threat of prison or at the muzzle of a gun, if these ideas are so benevolent?  It is, by definition, totalitarianism.  It requires massive government interference and power and it becomes totally political, as opposed to free choice and liberty.  You are only free to do what the government lets you do.  It's played out in history before.  It was called Socialism.  It morphed into Communism.  Can anyone say they weren't evil?

Wealth redistribution is also something the left loves, unless it's their wealth that is being stolen from them.

I think you are more of a confused liberal than a leftist.  A leftist does not love this country, in any way, shape or form.  

I do not believe you do yourself a service by claiming to be a member of that genus.

 

Rattler, first off, I do owe you a couple of apologies. 1. I got lost on about Page 7 of your post  and didn't pay attention to your separation of "leftists" and "liberals". With this being the case, you were pretty close in calling me a "Confused Liberal" though I would say more of a Confused Center Left Democrat. 2. I need to be more careful in how I word my comments. I shouldn't tell you that you are wrong, because I am not the sole decider of what is right or wrong or correct or incorrect. I will try to be better about saying "I think you are wrong". 

So, with that being said, I do think you are wrong  I'll hit a couple of things, but I'll tell you right up front, I fully expect you to reply to this comment, but I won't be replying any further. I'm getting wrapped up in these debates, and I keep thinking that I'll find a step out point, but I keep pulling myself back in. 

1. You called me out for saying that "the whole should not be judged based on the actions of the individual" which is correct, I do believe that. I also believe that it is wrong to cast generalizations on groups of people, as it looses sight of the fact that the whole is made of individuals. These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive, the can coexist. 

2. You're mention of me saying that a level playing field is a good thing. No, I am not arguing for equal outcomes, I think that people should be able to succeed based on their own merit. However, it would be very unfair to say that every American starts from the same position in life. Look at it this way, if I was playing Monopoly and you started playing after I had already played 10 turns, would you be at a disadvantage? Would it be possible for you to win? Sure, but you would be at a severe disadvantage as I would own most of the property, and would control most of the board. It's important to note, I don't have any answers for how to address this, and I don't know if it's something that a government could fix, private industry could fix, or if it's something that can be fixed at all. However, I do recognize that I have been given a lot of opportunities, through no fault of my own, that other people have not been afforded. I guess I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, but I don't know how we get there. 

3. You claim that wanting to fundamentally transform the country is proof that a person does not love their country, but I think that history would argue against you on this. If you love something, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make it better. 

The beginning agricultural economy of this country, the economy that funded our successful fight for independence, was based on slave labor. The abolishment of slavery (initiated by a Republican) was such a fundamental change to our country that we fought a Civil War over it. People believed so fully that freeing slaves would ruin our country, that they decided to start their own, and hundreds of thousands of people died over this fundamental shift. I would say that most of us would agree that this was a good fundamental shift however, and the men who fought for it were patriots of every measure. 

In 1918, women were granted the right to vote. There was fierce opposition to this, by both men and women, who thought that this fundamental shift would damage the country. In the end, a majority of Democrats and Republicans  voted to allow women to vote, and now our wives, mothers sisters etc can vote for leaders, and even become leaders, and we are better because of this fundamental shift. 

Until 1968, almost 100 years after the 15th Amendment,  it was legal for individuals and businesses to discriminate and segregate based on race. Many argued that mixing blacks and whites was against the moral fabric of the country, and this change to this fabric would be our downfall.  Now, we can argue as to whether the Civil Rights Act of 1968 has fully done away with racial discrimination, but I think few would argue the the passage of this fundamental change was done in an effort to destroy the country. 

4. Just because someone's idea of what is best for their country is different from yours doesn't mean that they don't love their country. Would you appreciate this assertation being cast at you by those you disagree with? I think your view of people who disagree with you is extreme, and maybe even bordering on dangerous. When we start viewing political opponents as enemies, it gets very touchy, and it's happening on both sides. 

I have no problem with an "extreme left" or an "extreme right", I may not agree with them, but they are necessary for there to be a middle. 

Again, Rattler, I respect your opinions, but I do not agree with them. As I said before, I am sure you will reply to this, and I will read it. However, I will not be continuing to debate this with you. It's been fun  

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[Rattler]

Politics, wrote Richard Henry Lee, is "the science of fraud." And politicians are the "professors of this science."

"That's all I have to say about that"  Forrest Gump

[GreeneHunter]

Is this Forum where the " Soapbox Derby " is being held ?

[ApexerER]

1 hour ago, Splitear_Leland said:

 

Again, Rattler, I respect your opinions, but I do not agree with them. As I said before, I am sure you will reply to this, and I will read it. However, I will not be continuing to debate this with you. It's been fun  

 

Leland, 

This is a personal question so you don't have to answer if you don't want too. But I am curious as to who of the Democratic candidates you think will be better for you and your family than Donald Trump?

After meeting you last night, you seem like a great, hardworking passionate guy with a family, a wife who is a vet etc. Basically you are an everyday American working middle class person, who obviously enjoys firearms and hunting.

Before 2008 I had no idea how many democrats I knew and they are all exactly like you. Middle of the road hard working Americans. After Obama, unless they are lying to me which I don't see any reason why they would, they all held their nose and voted for Trump like Buckmaster did. 

I say I am a Conservative Republican but that isn't exactly accurate. I would say I am a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. I am probably closer to a Libertarian. I want the government to not spend more than it takes in, believe it takes in plenty and other than that the less they affect my life the better. 

I run the Sunoco Station on the corner of Rt 9 and Rt 67 along with the carwash. I don't own it but the owner basically leaves me alone and I deal with everything as if I owned it. I get to see everyday how taxes and over regulation effect small business. Not to mention the huge checks I have to dish out for sales tax, regular taxes, payroll taxes, fuel tax, unemployment etc. It is mind boggling how much this store and car wash pay in taxes. Not to mention all the regulatory Red tape I have to follow to keep in DEC and EPA guidelines. 

I just don't see anyway, any of these candidates could better myself or my families lives and a million ways it can hurt me. The debate  seems like a bunch of people who are trying to out do each other on who is going to give away more free stuff, which will lead to higher taxes, who is going to be tougher on business, who is going to do more to ban firearms (obviously something near and dear to my heart). How is this all going to be paid for? I don't see any way other than on the backs of small business and the middle class. 

So I am really curious, how do you see any of these candidates affecting your life in a positive way. The only thing I see is having to pay more in taxes and having more of my freedoms and choices taken away. 

Here is a perfect example of a liberal policy I am dealing with right now. As of March 1st I can't give plastic bags out anymore. I can charge whatever I want for paper bags but I have to pay the State 5 cents for paper bags I sell. The law requires that I put single beers in a paper bag. The price of a single beer just went up 5 cents and I get nothing from it. What nobody can seem to answer either is, how am I required to track how many paper bags I have sold. Do I have to keep an inventory of paper bags like I do for tobacco products? How do I pay someone to do this or do I just add it to my plate? When do I make this payment, once a year, when I pay monthly sales tax? Nobody knows, they just made a law without any thought as to how it would affect the people that have to deal with it or what it would cost them. For no other reason than it makes the green people happy and they get to collect some money. If it wasn't a money grab they could easily make us bio degradable plastic bags like the ones I use to clean up after my dog. 

[Deleted Account]

25 minutes ago, ApexerER said:

Leland, 

This is a personal question so you don't have to answer if you don't want too. But I am curious as to who of the Democratic candidates you think will be better for you and your family than Donald Trump?

After meeting you last night, you seem like a great, hardworking passionate guy with a family, a wife who is a vet etc. Basically you are an everyday American working middle class person, who obviously enjoys firearms and hunting.

Before 2008 I had no idea how many democrats I knew and they are all exactly like you. Middle of the road hard working Americans. After Obama, unless they are lying to me which I don't see any reason why they would, they all held their nose and voted for Trump like Buckmaster did. 

I say I am a Conservative Republican but that isn't exactly accurate. I would say I am a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. I am probably closer to a Libertarian. I want the government to not spend more than it takes in, believe it takes in plenty and other than that the less they affect my life the better. 

I run the Sunoco Station on the corner of Rt 9 and Rt 67 along with the carwash. I don't own it but the owner basically leaves me alone and I deal with everything as if I owned it. I get to see everyday how taxes and over regulation effect small business. Not to mention the huge checks I have to dish out for sales tax, regular taxes, payroll taxes, fuel tax, unemployment etc. It is mind boggling how much this store and car wash pay in taxes. Not to mention all the regulatory Red tape I have to follow to keep in DEC and EPA guidelines. 

I just don't see anyway, any of these candidates could better myself or my families lives and a million ways it can hurt me. The debate  seems like a bunch of people who are trying to out do each other on who is going to give away more free stuff, which will lead to higher taxes, who is going to be tougher on business, who is going to do more to ban firearms (obviously something near and dear to my heart). How is this all going to be paid for? I don't see any way other than on the backs of small business and the middle class. 

So I am really curious, how do you see any of these candidates affecting your life in a positive way. The only thing I see is having to pay more in taxes and having more of my freedoms and choices taken away. 

Here is a perfect example of a liberal policy I am dealing with right now. As of March 1st I can't give plastic bags out anymore. I can charge whatever I want for paper bags but I have to pay the State 5 cents for paper bags I sell. The law requires that I put single beers in a paper bag. The price of a single beer just went up 5 cents and I get nothing from it. What nobody can seem to answer either is, how am I required to track how many paper bags I have sold. Do I have to keep an inventory of paper bags like I do for tobacco products? How do I pay someone to do this or do I just add it to my plate? When do I make this payment, once a year, when I pay monthly sales tax? Nobody knows, they just made a law without any thought as to how it would affect the people that have to deal with it or what it would cost them. For no other reason than it makes the green people happy and they get to collect some money. If it wasn't a money grab they could easily make us bio degradable plastic bags like the ones I use to clean up after my dog. 

No problem Apexer, I'll reply, but I won't go too much into the weeds about policies that I like/don't like, because I think that just opens the door for people to jump in, and I don't have time for it. I will say that I don't support all Democratic Policies, and I don't oppose all Republican Policies. 

Also, I feel the same way about you, you seem like a regular guy doing a good job providing for your family, and supporting a meager air rifle collection  Really though, most Americans, Democrat or Republican are just regular folks like us.

I will probably be voting for Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg in the Primary. I consider myself pretty centrist, probably more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though those 2 things don't always go hand in hand. However, that's where compromise comes in. It's always been the case that primaries pull candidates farther to the extreme side of their party, and then they kind of come back to the center. An exception to that is Donald Trump, and I would imagine someone like Bernie would be that way as well. 

I would just really like someone who could work with folks from both parties, and to kind of get back to a decorum that has been lacking over the past few years. Donald Trump has had a big hand in a booming stock market, but I think we are seeing now that it may not be too resilient. The same thing happened with Bush, he removed a bunch of regulations, and as usually happens with Capitalism, greed came in and crashed an unprotected market. Not everyone experienced the benefits of a booming market, but everyone felt the recession.  I'm not advocating for governmental control of markets, but having regulations that keep things somewhat stable can't be a bad thing. I think the Obama administration was smart in developing some safeguards while enacting policies to help the free market pull itself out of the recession. Trump came in and gave that strong economy a shot of steroids through tax cuts (which expire for individuals in 2025) and I guess I worry that much like a roided up athlete, we're fixing to see a blowout at some point. This coronavirus scare is showing some vulnerability in the markets. I hope it doesn't happen, but it's a little troublesome.

On top of all of this, I just don't like Donald Trump's conduct. Even his supporters admit he talks too much and acts like a clown. I just don't like it, maybe it's emotional, but it's enough for me to not support him. I believe there is a certain level of character that needs to be displayed as the leader of the United States, and though a lot of people support his aggressiveness and grandiosity, I'm not one of them. I think that Biden or Buttigieg would provide at least some quiet decorum to the office, and I would certainly respect their leadership, even if I don't always agree with it. 

Same thing on this post, I'm not going to get sucked into pointless shouting matches, so I won't be replying. I'll make an exception for you Apexer, I guess I feel bad for you losing that Walther last night

Edited February 28, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[ApexerER]

9 minutes ago, Splitear_Leland said:

No problem Apexer, I'll reply, but I won't go too much into the weeds about policies that I like/don't like, because I think that just opens the door for people to jump in, and I don't have time for it. I will say that I don't support all Democratic Policies, and I don't oppose all Republican Policies. 

I will probably be voting for Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg in the Primary. I consider myself pretty centrist, probably more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though those 2 things don't always go hand in hand. However, that's where compromise comes in. It's always been the case that primaries pull candidates farther to the extreme side of their party, and then they kind of come back to the center. An exception to that is Donald Trump, and I would imagine someone like Bernie would be that way as well. 

I would just really like someone who could work with folks from both parties, and to kind of get back to a decorum that has been lacking over the past few years. Donald Trump has had a big hand in a booming stock market, but I think we are seeing now that it may not be too resilient. The same thing happened with Bush, he removed a bunch of regulations, and as usually happens with Capitalism, greed came in and crashed an unprotected market. Not everyone experienced the benefits of a booming market, but everyone felt the recession.  I'm not advocating for governmental control of markets, but having regulations that keep things somewhat stable can't be a bad thing. I think the Obama administration was smart in developing some safeguards while enacting policies to help the free market pull itself out of the recession. Trump came in and gave that strong economy a shot of steroids through tax cuts (which expire for individuals in 2025) and I guess I worry that much like a roided up athlete, we're fixing to see a blowout at some point. This coronavirus scare is showing some vulnerability in the markets. I hope it doesn't happen, but it's a little troublesome.

On top of all of this, I just don't like Donald Trump's conduct. Even his supporters admit he talks too much and acts like a clown. I just don't like it, maybe it's emotional, but it's enough for me to not support him. I believe there is a certain level of character that needs to be displayed as the leader of the United States, and though a lot of people support his aggressiveness and grandiosity, I'm not one of them. I think that Biden or Buttigieg would provide at least some quiet decorum to the office, and I would certainly respect their leadership, even if I don't always agree with it. 

Same thing on this post, I'm not going to get sucked into pointless shouting matches, so I won't be replying. I'll make an exception for you Apexer, I guess I feel bad for you losing that Walther last night

I wasn't looking to get in a pointless shouting match. There isn't any point in that, I was generally curious as to your stance.

I can't disagree that our president could and probably should be more presidential. But I also can't blame him for not changing who he is because he is the president. There is an argument on the other side that it works for him. It keeps our enemies guessing cause they have no idea what he will do. Especially countries like China, that while they aren't an outright enemy, they sure aren't our friends either. 

Biden to me is just more of the same establishment that will be easily controlled which is why IMO the democrats want him to win. The stuff with his son Hunter and China doesn't look very good either. Buttigieg I have less of an opinion on, but from what I have read, South Bend is in much worse shape since he became the mayor there. I obviously can't vote in the primary because I am a registered Republican but there is a chance one of these people becomes our next president so I do pay attention. 

As far as the stock market goes, it is falling because of the systems in place right now. All the big players are always leveraged to the hilt and now have to hit their margin calls much sooner than in the past to make sure they can make them which is now a government regulation. With the Corona Virus, people have stopped travel and we are a world economy so that effects the market. So when the market falls a little bit now and margin calls come do, these guys have to sell to make the margin call which leads to larger sell offs so others can make their margin call and it just tumbles. It is a two edged sword. Nobody should need a bail out if they follow these regulations, but the market is tumbling directly because of these regulations. 

This country is great because we can all have different views. I am always curious as to other point of views to see if it changes my way of thinking. It usually doesn't but I respect other peoples opinions. Especially if those opinions are what they feel is best for them....