What was Reagan? Pro free trade. Pro immigration. Pro military. Neocons hijacked nothing.
Is anyone for Micah Beckwith?
- Thread starter Cortez88
- Start date
Run for Governor in 8 years … there will be an opportunity to replace him in 4 years.
Maybe. However, Arizona has seen a major shift in their demographics and population recently. There population is up almost 20% the past 15 years. So, not sure how much is Lake and how much is from the shift in demographic/population.
I agree with all of those assessments, besides the last sentence, which is why I'm happy with how the state has been Governed.
Last edited:
You are kind of obsessed with the John Birch Society. I'm up there in age and only vaguely remember hearing about it and never really knew what it was, nor did it affect my thinking.
Are you kidding? Bernie wasn't 'defeated' - he personally may have been, but his ideas are main Democrat policies now.
It's a competitive state. But Doug Ducey was able to win a couple elections as governor. And Katie Hobbs was generally seen as a lightweight -- but was still able to beat Lake, because Lake was just that bad. And now she's about to lose again, using the same schtick that failed for her two years ago.
But many on the right adore her -- she's always fencing with the press and saying things that sound "edgy." She highlights the problem the GOP is beginning to have: primary voters are coming out to nominate candidates who are very appealing to them, but unappealing to the electorate in a general election.
Pro immigration? Hardly. He got snookered by Tip O'Neal, on the idea that forgiving those illegally in the country would mean we'd get tougher on the border.
Trump rebuilt the military and gave them everything they asked for. He's just not finding an excuse to use them.
All Republicans are for free trade, but Reagan and others are for fair trade. Trump is the only one willing to enforce the 'fair' part.
Last edited:
I can't disagree with this.
I discussed it in the thread about David Frum and his case for voting for Kamala Harris. One of the premises he had was that the left-wing has lost their influence within the Democratic Party.
No, the Dems neutralized the electoral threat Sanders posed by embracing a number of his priorities -- including moving the student debt burden over onto the shoulders of taxpayers, taxes on wealth/unrealized capital gains, packing the court, etc.
Some say "Well, Harris hasn't adopted these policies. She's moved away from them." Has she? She's had subordinates go out and disavow them...like Mark Cuban saying that she doesn't really intend to tax unrealized cap gains.
Kind of like how Joe was going to be a moderate.
I remember Bernie actually being interviewed on Fox when he wasn't given the time of day by MSNBC. Strange bedfellows.
If the American electorate plays Charlie Brown to Kamala's Lucy, they deserve anything they get, because it's clear, before she was the Democrat nominee, what her positions were.
Yeah, I don’t agree. The GOP use to be further to the right 30 years ago. This is the boring answer, but I think the explanation for why the GOP is the minority party nationally has more to do with changing demographics. The GOP does poorly with women and Hispanics. Simply stated I think they want a larger government on average. The GOP changing its stance would help some with single women, but not sure it would gain more votes overall. As for Hispanics, hopefully, 3rd and 4th generation become more conservatives.
Last edited:
And where did they come from?
That's what dumbass 'progressives' do. Elect politicians who screw up so badly that 'progressives' move out...then elect politicians who screw up their new state....
Brilliant!
Saying Trump "rebuilt" the Military is contradictory to the point about bashing Liz Cheney and other neocons as a war mongers' who just want to pad the Defense industries pocket, is it not?
Military Spending, per year, and as a % of GDP:
2022 $876.94B 3.45%
2021 $806.23B 3.46%
2020 $778.40B 3.70%
2019 $734.34B 3.43%
2018 $682.49B 3.32%
2017 $646.75B 3.32%
2016 $639.86B 3.42%
My point was, he's not against a strong military, but he's not chomping at the bit to use it.
I'm as liberal as they come but I voted for Lugar. I didn't agree with him politically but thought him to be an honest and principled man. He genuinely cared for and sought to better all Hoosiers. Not just ones that agreed with him.
True... but I'd argue he complicates that with his rhetoric. Just the other day he suggested he might have the military "handle" the enemies from within.
He seems eager to use them domestically.
So $240 billion increase in 6 years? All fvcking borrowed?
You left off the Ukraine and Israel adventures. Wonder why?
What could be wrong with that?
We're told SS is running out of money!
Yet we're chartering jets to fly unvetted illegals by the tens of thousands into 70 different locations in the US, handing them free iPhones and fat balance debit cards...and FEMA is broke.
I'm sure you're very happy with the situation.
Some of us aren't.
He was hoodwinked, look at the speech he delivered in July of 1981, well before that bill. It included this paragraph:
- Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
www.reaganlibrary.gov
Look at the rest of the speech. A far cry from Trump.
As to the military/intervention, Beirut, Granada, Libya bombings. We sent troops into Honduras in 87, and used naval against Iran in 88. Mas is who I was responding to, take that into account with this list.
He had to say that to justify his actions. And he wasn't faced with the number of illegals crossing the border today, nor the EO's that made many would-be illegals legal.He was hoodwinked, look at the speech he delivered in July of 1981, well before that bill. It included this paragraph:
- Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
Look at the rest of the speech. A far cry from Trump.
As to the military/intervention, Beirut, Granada, Libya bombings. We sent troops into Honduras in 87, and used naval against Iran in 88. Mas is who I was responding to, take that into account with this list.
Similar threads
