American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Sliver]

I bet Tom Cruise is so stoked not to be the 'couch guy' anymore.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yeah, I love a good dunk on Trump and JD as much as anyone, but this just appears to be a few early birds who arrived before the event started. Are there any pictures of the crowd size when JD is actually on the stage speaking?

A few in here https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...n/74771249007/

Small venue, not at capacity by any means

[dino7c]

I like how they pay some black guys to stand behind Trump/Vance now since being racist didn't go so well (who would have guessed lol)

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Here's some stats for those fluffing Trump and trying to dream up narratives that Democratic run states do things worse than Republican run states.

Spoiler!

The best number to look at is who turns over the most money to the feds to support the budget versus who gets the most. This is determined in the net difference between tax revenues collected by states versus money the states received from the feds.

Top contributing states (those who gave more money, collected for the feds for every dollar received from the feds)

1. Minnesota - $6.88 (Blue) - This would be Gov. Tim Walz's state if any Trumpty Dumptys are reading
2. New Jersey - $6.28 (Blue)
3. Delaware - $6.09 (Blue)
4. Illinois - $5.88 (Blue)
5. Florida - $5.78 (Purple)
6. Washington - $5.68 (Blue)
7. South Dakota - $5.66 (Red)
8. Massachusetts - $5.23 (Blue)
9. Nebraska - $5.16 (Red)
10. California - $5.03 (Blue)
11. Missouri - $4.84 (Red)
12. Colorado - $4.76 (Blue)
13. Tennessee - $4.75 (Red)
14. Connecticut - $4.72 (Blue)
15. Maryland - $4.59 (Blue)

For those keeping score, that's 10 Blue, 4 Red, 1 Purple

ON the other end of the spectrum here are the states that collect less revenue and get more from the feds.

1. New Mexico - $.85 (Blue)
2. West Virginia - $1.04 (Red)
3. Alaska - $1.09 (Red)
4. Mississippi - $1.19 (Red)
5. Montana - $1.19 (Red)
6. Hawaii - $1.53 (Blue)
7. Vermont - $1.86 (Blue)
8. Louisiana - $1.88 (Red)
9. Alabama - $1.92 (Red)
10. Wyoming - $1.96 (Red)
11. Maine - $2.00 (Blue)
12. North Dakota - $2.02 (Red)
13. Kentucky - $2.03 (Red)
14. Arizona - $2.26 (Purple)
15. South Carolina - $2.39 (Red)

For those keeping score, that's 10 Red, 4 Blue, 1 Purple

That's just the inverse. The blue states contribute most to the good of the nation and the red states take the most. Yeah, those pesky Republicans sure know how to run gub'mint and economies! Tough numbers to swallow, I know.

Just to reiterate your data, here's a neat little chart that shows it visually. Blue states very clearly tend to have a higher GDP per capita and lower dependency on federal funding as compared to red states.

https://infogram.com/2024-update-gdp...h984wvjov3wz2p

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

It may not matter much but apparently Tim Walz has a net worth of 250k. They are saying he has no money or investments. He’s relying on his pension.

TBF, he has three pensions to rely on so he's not in dire straits.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FireItUp

That was at the RNC, not his rally. You wouldn't know the difference though.

Ummm, shouldn't the actual convention be MORE serious than a rally?

Plus Kid Rock plays at rallies. And A listers like ... Logan Paul attend.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

@Itse

You could have just pointed out that these are local or county politics issues and political parties really don’t play in those spaces.

Sure, but I think that's overly simplified. You could after all kind of make the same argument about book banning for example. Most of it happens on the school district level after all, yet that one is an extremely partisan issue wherr the Republicans are very active.

Which I think is a reminder that IF Democrats were super passionate about putting some sense into school districts for example, they very likely could do something about it.

I also specifically wanted to talk about the misleading way the video builds its arguments, and that requires gettting into the details.

Plus, as a leftist, I'm kind of on board with sh**ting on liberals for being hypocrites, because I think that's true. That just doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for Democrats., since 1. Liberals aren't all there is to the Democratic party and 2. Liberals are still better than conservatives. 3. I actually do have a pretty positive view of the Democrats overall, I think as a party they are much better in many ways than most Americans are willing to give them credit for. Especially post-Obama, they have a strong tendency to put up genuinely competent people who clearly have a real passion for public service, and any party that can do that is
doing something very right.

In contrast, the GOP these days attracts scam artists, extremists and corrupt opportunistic weirdoes.

These things aren't black and white of course. Democrats can be bad in some ways and still be better than the Republicans, and Republicans can be good in some ways while still being an absolute sh**show of a party and a real threat to the stability of not just the US but the whole world.

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

A few in here https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...n/74771249007/

Small venue, not at capacity by any means

Yeah, all those seats were filled, images 12, 16, 17.

Then later images show a bunch of police snipers on rooftops. Sigh. I guess that's the news "shoes off in the airport" bs for public political events...

Then the last photo is of the guy who was quoted wearing a shirt that says "I'm voting for Felon".

He looks exactly like you think he does.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Itse

...Republicans can be good in some ways ...

I am genuinely curious about this point. Leaving partisanship aside what is the current R party good for? Obviously, very good for the ultra rich. Past that?

Like, if we were to build a platform on the best ideas from both parties, how many would have an R beside them. I literally can't think of one.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yeah, I love a good dunk on Trump and JD as much as anyone, but this just appears to be a few early birds who arrived before the event started. Are there any pictures of the crowd size when JD is actually on the stage speaking?

I think the initial tweet said that it was at 10 am for an 1130 start, but I could be wrong. And I think the point of the original tweet was people are lining up for hours to see Kamala and Tim Waltz.


For JD, not so much.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I am genuinely curious about this point. Leaving partisanship aside what is the current R party good for? Obviously, very good for the ultra rich. Past that?

Like, if we were to build a platform on the best ideas from both parties, how many would have an R beside them. I literally can't think of one.

I can't really answer on the specific policy level, and some things are obviously also a matter of priorities/preferences, but Republican states do rank better in fiscal stability for example.

This is somewhat paradoxical since the GOP is such an absolute trainwreck when it comes to federal budgeting, but on the state level they do tend to keep the books balanced.

(EDIT: for the record, I don't personally value this that much. A balanced budget is a tool, not a means in itself, and the things Red states sacrifice for the sake of fiscal stability is IMO not at all worth it. But this of course is somewhat a matter of opinion.)

[Cappy]

What identity politics always forgets:

In general, you are rich first, then whatever next.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Yeah, all those seats were filled, images 12, 16, 17.

Image 16 makes it look about 60% full. Image 17 confirms it.

[Bonded]

https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2025-10514-001.html

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I am genuinely curious about this point. Leaving partisanship aside what is the current R party good for? Obviously, very good for the ultra rich. Past that?

Like, if we were to build a platform on the best ideas from both parties, how many would have an R beside them. I literally can't think of one.

Here are some. Obviously up for debate.

1. They provide a voice to a large segment of society that is afraid of the change away from a traditional way of life, and thinks it's happening too fast. This isn't an irrational position, many things are lumped together as "change" and not all of them are positive. Even those that are net positive involve losing other values and confusion in the short term, and so Republicans' interests in opposing them is legitimate. A lot of Democrats don't even take these interests seriously. They think change is inevitable and if you're not on the train, you're stupid.


2. They also represent people who've won under the present and recently past systems, and are afraid they may have to disgorge their wins. You can argue whether or not their wins were fair, but it's theirs now. It's only reasonable that they'll try to protect it.

3. Republicans are well organized politically, and do a better job advancing their agenda. They also do a better job promoting from within their own ranks. They have a good ground game and get the vote out. See how progressive Democrats are pissed about their party's direction, ie Israel. Less Republicans are upset about the Republican party because they're more aligned. The Democratic party is too 'big tent'.

4. Republicans don't instinctively think that every systematic problem is solvable by government in simple, straightforward ways. So it helps restrain Democrats and bureaucrats who are more inclined to think so.

5. They also don't instinctively distrust all forms of authority other than governments. That's necessary in order for there to be a balanced civil society, where the govt is not the only power or even the predominant power. There are great CEOs who run companies. They don't believe every rich guy is evil. For example, when Kamala responded to the Trump-Musk interview, she had to call them 'two rich guys', which was the least relevant to the crazyness of that interview.

And I haven't even mentioned their 4 main pillars, taxes, immigration, guns and religion

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Here are some. Obviously up for debate.

1. They provide a voice to a large segment of society that is afraid of the change away from a traditional way of life, and thinks it's happening too fast. This isn't an irrational position, many things are lumped together as "change" and not all of them are positive. Even those that are net positive involve losing other values and confusion in the short term, and so Republicans' interests in opposing them is legitimate. A lot of Democrats don't even take these interests seriously. They think change is inevitable and if you're not on the train, you're stupid.


2. They also represent people who've won under the present and recently past systems, and are afraid they may have to disgorge their wins. You can argue whether or not their wins were fair, but it's theirs now. It's only reasonable that they'll try to protect it.

3. Republicans are well organized politically, and do a better job advancing their agenda. They also do a better job promoting from within their own ranks. They have a good ground game and get the vote out. See how progressive Democrats are pissed about their party's direction, ie Israel. Less Republicans are upset about the Republican party because they're more aligned. The Democratic party is too 'big tent'.

4. Republicans don't instinctively think that every systematic problem is solvable by government in simple, straightforward ways. So it helps restrain Democrats and bureaucrats who are more inclined to think so.

5. They also don't instinctively distrust all forms of authority other than governments. That's necessary in order for there to be a balanced civil society, where the govt is not the only power or even the predominant power. There are great CEOs who run companies. They don't believe every rich guy is evil. For example, when Kamala responded to the Trump-Musk interview, she had to call them 'two rich guys', which was the least relevant to the crazyness of that interview.

And I haven't even mentioned their 4 main pillars, taxes, immigration, guns and religion

I like how you'd framed this. I would add one more based on personal experience

The right is doing really well appealing to people who have had a life that didn't turn out how they wanted.

The conservative agenda is kind of based on blaming others for pretty much everything.

For a certain type of person it's reassuring to find that it's not your fault your life turned out how it did. Your life would have been great if it wasn't for <insert group here>.

They have such a wide range of bogeymen (lgbtq, muslims, immigrants, socialists, women, government, teachers, trans, millennials, etc) because there is no one size fits all. Each person with a grievance needs to find a 'group' that they are ok to demonize.

The power and how this becomes a movement is the connection between people with grievances about how their lives turned out. It's not just that they share an anger at life. But they share a deep psychological bond.

Imagine the echo-chamber if every one of your friends shared the same grievance and it became the core of their personality.

And IMO that's how you get a cult.

[SutterBrother]

Love how you framed that. Very "Republican Classic".

The best description for small govt I ever heard (was from one of the Lincoln Project guys I think) was basically this:

"We don't want the people who work at the DMV to be running more aspects of our lives".

Personally I think the government mostly protects folks from moneyed interests (not as well as it used to), but I take their point. The DMV should be an easy spot for good customer service - repetitive tasks, been doing it for decades, something most people engage in... and yet it's a nightmare if you ever have to set foot in there.

At least that's been my experience in both Red and Blue states.

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

They have such a wide range of bogeymen (lgbtq, muslims, immigrants, socialists, women, government, teachers, trans, millennials, etc) because there is no one size fits all. Each person with a grievance needs to find a 'group' that they are ok to demonize.

You aren't wrong, but have missed two fairly major reasons, both of which I think are legitimate.

The opioid crisis devastated rural and depressed communities. It was allowed to happen, and IIRC there have been no consequences for the active pushing of highly addictive drugs which were claimed to be non-addictive.

If you lost a father or brother who was injured at work and wound up a junkie... yeah, pretty pissed.

The second is the active need to combat climate change. If your mill or mine shut down, and it was a one horse town, what are you supposed to do? Environmental regulations taking jobs that have been in your family for generations... again, lots of legitimate anger.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Here are some. Obviously up for debate.

1. They provide a voice to a large segment of society that is afraid of the change away from a traditional way of life, and thinks it's happening too fast. This isn't an irrational position, many things are lumped together as "change" and not all of them are positive. Even those that are net positive involve losing other values and confusion in the short term, and so Republicans' interests in opposing them is legitimate. A lot of Democrats don't even take these interests seriously. They think change is inevitable and if you're not on the train, you're stupid.


2. They also represent people who've won under the present and recently past systems, and are afraid they may have to disgorge their wins. You can argue whether or not their wins were fair, but it's theirs now. It's only reasonable that they'll try to protect it.

3. Republicans are well organized politically, and do a better job advancing their agenda. They also do a better job promoting from within their own ranks. They have a good ground game and get the vote out. See how progressive Democrats are pissed about their party's direction, ie Israel. Less Republicans are upset about the Republican party because they're more aligned. The Democratic party is too 'big tent'.

4. Republicans don't instinctively think that every systematic problem is solvable by government in simple, straightforward ways. So it helps restrain Democrats and bureaucrats who are more inclined to think so.

5. They also don't instinctively distrust all forms of authority other than governments. That's necessary in order for there to be a balanced civil society, where the govt is not the only power or even the predominant power. There are great CEOs who run companies. They don't believe every rich guy is evil. For example, when Kamala responded to the Trump-Musk interview, she had to call them 'two rich guys', which was the least relevant to the crazyness of that interview.

And I haven't even mentioned their 4 main pillars, taxes, immigration, guns and religion

I wonder if you realize that you're essentially saying that the GOP today is primarily just a populist party?

Republicans are "providing a voice" for the side in culture wars that has never been silent or silenced for one second. There's whole music scenes and media outlets almost completely dedicated to these worldviews. I don't really think it's the job of a political party to "provide a voice". That's why art and entertainment exists. A political party should have practical, doable ideas that make people's lives better in some way, but the current GOP policy platform is almost a joke.

You can be conservative and still have constructive ideas. That did happen with the pre-Teaparty GOP. People gave a lot of crap to Bush, but during his time their party was just much more capable of actually governing than the current version.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Here are some. Obviously up for debate.

1. They provide a voice to a large segment of society that is afraid of the change away from a traditional way of life, and thinks it's happening too fast. This isn't an irrational position, many things are lumped together as "change" and not all of them are positive. Even those that are net positive involve losing other values and confusion in the short term, and so Republicans' interests in opposing them is legitimate. A lot of Democrats don't even take these interests seriously. They think change is inevitable and if you're not on the train, you're stupid.


2. They also represent people who've won under the present and recently past systems, and are afraid they may have to disgorge their wins. You can argue whether or not their wins were fair, but it's theirs now. It's only reasonable that they'll try to protect it.

These are the same point and it is that they are afraid of change and yes it is not irrational, but it is not something to be preyed on and poked at but worked at moving along with the change. Interracial marriage was made legal when 60-70% of the population still thought it should be illegal. Those leaders dragged their constituents into the future.

3. Republicans are well organized politically, and do a better job advancing their agenda. They also do a better job promoting from within their own ranks. They have a good ground game and get the vote out. See how progressive Democrats are pissed about their party's direction, ie Israel. Less Republicans are upset about the Republican party because they're more aligned. The Democratic party is too 'big tent'.

This was true before Trump showed up. Since then they couldn't even get their own majority congress to agree on literally anything. Not their own speaker, not border control, not healthcare reform, nada.

There are extremes to "both sides" but doesn't what that extreme fight for matter? One "extreme" is fighting for universal healthcare, body autonomy and to stop the bombing of civilians. One extreme wants to ban books, take away rights of women and minorities and install a theological government. One marches in the streets to stop police brutality, one marches to help an orange man take over the government. It's not even close. The left extreme is the actual norm in almost all of it's allies.

4. Republicans don't instinctively think that every systematic problem is solvable by government in simple, straightforward ways. So it helps restrain Democrats and bureaucrats who are more inclined to think so.

To the effect of allowing an oligarchal takeover of their economy with neutered and ineffective forces of regulation. This is not an accidental by product. It's on purpose.

5. They also don't instinctively distrust all forms of authority other than governments. That's necessary in order for there to be a balanced civil society, where the govt is not the only power or even the predominant power. There are great CEOs who run companies. They don't believe every rich guy is evil. For example, when Kamala responded to the Trump-Musk interview, she had to call them 'two rich guys', which was the least relevant to the crazyness of that interview.

Companies do not care about anything but their profit. That is their function. We do not expect them to care for anything but their profit. The governments literal function is to do work for people. Whether or not that works properly is a function of the people who are there and what they are doing with the power bestowed upon them and, as per above, by and large the people fighting to make it work better for the people and NOT the companies and specifically the very few people at the top of those very few companies are the people at the "extreme" of the left, and those working harder to make it easier for the companies to screw over workers every which way possible to the tune of creating more profit and personal wealth, are not even the extreme right its people in the Democratic Party too that many GOP members would refer to as extreme leftists.

And I haven't even mentioned their 4 main pillars, taxes, immigration, guns and religion

Cool I will:

Tax: Their tax plan hasn't changed since Reagan and has done nothing but drive purchasing power away from the middle class to a hands of a few, creating a short term boom bust cycle based on borrowing at abnormally low interest rates sure to create booming inflation long term (whoops!) fraught with fraud and abuse of regulation to the tune of a completely underfunded infrastructure, education and a population that can't participate in basic economies like home ownership and food/clothing choice purchasing bringing everything to a halt. This was at one time just theory. Thankfully the US has now run a long enough social experiment with Trickle Down Economics spanning decades to have enough data to conclude it f***ing suuuuuuucks (to use a technical term).

Immigration: Build wall. Deport brown people.

Guns: LOL.

Religion: Should not exist in the government according to their constitution as written by infallible god-men never to be changed or re-interpreted so....not sure why it's the list at all....




These outcomes are not accidents. Its was GOP politicians want (not what GOP voters want). They know it creates these cycles they can use and abuse. They have whole doctrines of think tanks and universities where all these blow hards go to talk about it. So yeah.... that's their policy. It's not good for anyone but people who are already rich and powerful. So yeah they want hold onto it, that's understandable. Whats less understandable is why we keep handing it too them and then complaining it doesn't work. Well yeah, you're voting for the people whose OPEN POLICY is to screw you. Like, just read it.