Makes sense. Republicans constantly bash Democrats as being bad for the economy, so Democrats have an overly-zealous watchdog duringtheir terms. Meanwhile nobody holds Republicans feet to the fire when it comes to economic performance.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 5 2018 01:09am

I tried visiting a rural area for a while. I just realized people there have so little diversity in culture, sports, education, you name it... there that they settle down for something that's viewed as a lowly thing in cities. Like Duffman said, nothing inherently bad about it, but for someone who's lived most of his life in a major city, the personal feelings of frustration and boredom in rural areas is real. And while there could really be no component of arrogance, i understand why it's easily viewed as such by rural folk. The divide is enormous at best. I think that's kinda sad tbh, that there are people within a country who won't basically have anything in common, including interests, intellect, values and world-views.

Tcock is definitely one of the most intelligent posters in this section and would embarrass you shamelessly in any kind of comparison anyone could make outside of "Shameless racism and support for the gop" but if we go back 4 years he was even better than you at those, so he has you beat on every count.

oh comon now just look at that face, the jokes write themselves

What? Feinstein is a great senator and is on some extremely powerful committees (Judiciary and Intelligence). If she some how lost, de Leon would end up on the Livestock and Seapower committees lol. Why would you want that?

You shoudn't have "new blood" for the sake of it. I mean, I don't see you asking Ruth Bader Ginsberg to step down

that's actually a sensible reasoning for your vote choice.

about the "democrats are better at the economy"-thing: I'm not so sure it's as easy as just looking at the numbers. getting the causality wrong here is very easy if you ask me.

just a hypothesis, I'm not 100% convinced that the following is true:
republicans are standing for unrestricted markets, democrats stand for more state interventions, more redistribution via taxes, more regulations and so on. since the economy is a huge factor for voters, it could perhaps be the case that democrats get elected when the current economic model has run into a crisis, so voters want the state to fix it, which makes them inclined to vote for democrats when the economy is bad; and voters prefer the hands-off approach of the GOP when the economy is in safe waters.

in this scenario, the GOP tends to be in charge until an economic downturn occurs, which might be due to their own mistakes, but can also be caused by external events like war, natural disasters, globalization or an abrupt and disruptive technological change. the democrats can then reap the praise for the rebuilding efforts, the rising wages and stock markets. and by going out during times of economic crisis, the GOP tends to get too few of the praise for the boom times before the crisis.

another point is simply being lucky: after reagan and the GOP had brought the soviet union to its knees and forced an end of the cold war, the democrats got in charge in 92 and could reap the economic benefits of the "peave dividend", the optimistic mood of the 90s as well as the baby boomers entering their prime earning years all coinciding at the same time to create the longest and most profound boom period in modern history. the opposite might be true with the grand recession: it was caused by the deregulation of the banking sector that had been pursued by reagan, bush, clinton and bush junior. and during the 80s and 90s, most democratic presidential candidates other than clinton would probably have done the same. financial deregulation was just the zeitgeist. then, the financial crisis hit during the final year of a GOP president's term, where it could just as well have started at the beginning of obama's term instead - which would have given his political foes a huge opportunity to shit on him and all his ideas and ideals from the get-go.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 5 2018 01:56am

socialists are better for the economy

me on the left

the dems are not socialists though... well, historically, they havent been... I'm not so sure anymore about the dems in 4 or 10 years.

aaaaand the conflation between communism and the modern day interpretation of socialism continues

In recent history republicans have proven to be very irresponsible with government spending, as evidenced by the addition to the deficit from two years of Trump and 8 years of Bush. Obama was a big government democrat and even he managed to reduce the deficit considerably over his term. It's almost like tax cuts coupled with significantly increased military spending doesn't reduce government expenditure :thinkingface: