Why do Republicans lobby on behalf of people who live like royalty?

This is what plutocratic socialists do..........

 

No U is fine. Since we’ve discussed both personal beliefs and “group think” I just wanted to be on the same page.

Since you’ve replied using the word “correct” I’m going to assume you believe in some form of facts or truth. It’s very common today for people to believe truth and even facts are subjective. To me that’s just asking for a dumpster fire not only in politics but in your personal life as well.

Short answer is I believe we better be qualified to make correct judgments on issues that come up on PF. If not we will keep repeating the mistakes of history. Your reference to wars past and future is a good example. Along with your valid point on ego, an honest seeking of truth is lacking today and results in tribalism and binary thinking.

The best way to mitigate negative consequences of wrong conclusions is to always refrain from imposing our views on others. I think that is key to a unified,strong, successful country regardless of whether you idolize Trump, Obama, Rush or Jim Carey.

I think we diverge on the degree to which ego is responsible for genuine disagreement politically but it’s likely due to personal experiences and those we’ve observed. For us it’s enough we both acknowledge the danger personally.

Any more than that is a waste of both our time. Simply because convincing someone with enough ego to seriously cloud judgment to let that ego go isn’t going to happen.

I’m going to steal that comfort away from you. I am an AI bot.

Seriously, I share your sentiment. It’s getting to the point I don’t care what our next president is like as long as he/she is a uniter not a divider. Unfortunately, I think the odds of that happening are very low.

 

So typical of right-wing socialists........
These Trump-loving Kentucky voters hate taxes — but can’t survive without government programs

In a deep dive into why a region that increasingly votes conservative, the New York Times discovered voters who loathe the federal government but have no problem receiving government largess in the form of federal assistance.

 

Thank you for pointing out my use of the word "correct". An astute one U R.
It was near the end of my day and exhaustion had set in. (Lame excuse I know)
I would have preferred to have said...Is it acceptable for me to say that neither of us has the ultimate wisdom required to make those judgements?
You said..."convincing someone with enough ego to seriously cloud judgment to let that ego go isn’t going to happen."
Sounds perhaps a bit inflexible. No?
Can that stance be attributed to your own "personal experiences"?

 

Once you said an oligarchy, all bets are off!

 

Exhaustion, fatigue, or sleep deprivation are not excuses in my book. They are reasons. They affect us all.

That said your use of the word correct really demonstrates my point of chaos resulting from inability to determine truth. We are cast into an ever deepening pit of ambiguity, confusion, and actions based solely on personal gratification.

I know my view is increasingly unpopular but I do believe open minded honest study of most any subject can lead to truth. Acceptance of the truth then is another matter entirely I suppose. A step certainly made difficult by the ego we have discussed.

Do we have ultimate wisdom? That’s a high bar. Too high for me to answer in the affirmative. Yet, I believe the seeker may aquire adequate wisdom on most any subject frequently discussed on this forum to arrive at the “correct” conclusion. Again, the desire or ability to accept the conclusion and admit to oneself and others the errors of the past is the heart of your theory on ego. And in a round about way I guess I have to admit I see where you are coming from when you say it’s the heart of the matter.

Yes, it’s been my experience convincing in the presence of ego is mostly ineffective. It usually takes a personal life experience to cut through emotional attachment to an idea. Perhaps an imperfect but certainly demonstrative example is the saying “there are no atheists in foxholes”.

Another as personal as it gets experience is the evolution of my stance on illegality of drugs. As a young man my position was one based on the idea drugs should be illegal because they have the potential to do great harm to individuals and society. The freedom aspect meant nothing to me because I wasn’t interested in partaking. As I got older and was subjected to more and more attempts to encroach on freedoms I valued, I saw the problem with my position.

No amount of “convincing” would have likely brought me around without my personal life experiences teaching me about freedom.

 

In light of recent events concerning Mr. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, would your ego allow you to reassess this argument?

 

Please elaborate on how these recent events have any bearing on my argument. It’s interesting to watch this circus but I fail to see how it would change anyone’s beliefs on border security or group think.

 

"Earlier this week, the White House appeared to be ready to accept a stopgap spending bill without wall funding to keep the government running until Feb. 8. But after pointed criticism from nationally syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh and conservative columnist Ann Coulter warning how such a capitulation would play among his supporters, the president changed course, announcing he would veto any bill without wall funding."

U believe Mr Rush Limbaugh to be..."More like a sportscaster color guy than a “player”."
Would your ego allow you to reevaluate that idea?

 

Obviously you’re very wealthy. But there are people who work very hard but by referring to people in need as lazy it justifies scapegoating them. If you’re not very wealthy it’s kind of sad that you would sacrifice your own needs because you value the rich more than you care about the needy

 

Oh thank goodness it’s illegal. LOL so is discrimination. Wonder why we needed the Ledbetter bill 50 years later?

 

Trump has dehumanized people, made them scapegoats ...where have i seen that before?

 

Trial lawyers, the plaintiff's bar, needed the Ledbetter Act to enrich themselves. Oh, you thought it originated in an actual social issue? How cute and naïve. Did you believe the "affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act too?

 

A Democrat, a Socialist. And a Republican all lived in the same house.

The house burned down and only the Republican survived.

The Republican was at work.

 

You bring up a good point but has your ego allowed you to consider the numerous other possibilities?

 

Oh of course the Ledbetter act was only to enrich people. There was never a problem with inequality in wages....lol (sarcasm alert)

 

This what right-wing socialists and fake Christians do..........

 

No, not enrich "people," but plaintiffs' lawyers, like the ones spamming ads on TV that comprise one of the most powerful divisions of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex. It harms millions of honest female and male employees due to driving up liability insurance costs and many other operational and administrative costs unnecessarily. Great for lawyers, great for bureaucrats and Complex denizens, great for the grievance industry, great for big crony companies with the economies of scale to pay the added costs who want to stifle competition, sucks for everyone else.

 

How does the Ledbetter act hurt women? I guess women that are getting paid fairly must really be suffering LOL

 

Did you miss the "due to driving up liability insurance costs and many operational and administrative costs unnecessarily" part?

"Well we were going to hire 10 new employees, but new regulatory costs are forcing us to lay off 10 instead and pay a bunch of lawyers and consultants to protect us from frivolous litigation by other lawyers." Note who really makes all the money in this scenario that repeats thousands of times a day.

Can't make it any more clear than that.

Statutes of limitation and repose are there for several big reasons, preventing unjust extortion via aged lawsuits is high on that list, and this protects not only businesses but individuals as well, individuals such as you, your family and friends. Suspending them for this or that ostensible social issue is always a bad idea other than with respect to the most serious violent crimes. I hope neither you nor anyone you care about has to ever find that out the hard way.

It's already illegal to pay women less and has been for decades. All LLA does is enrich lawyers and breed unjust outcomes.

 

Yes it’s illegal to pay women less and has been for decades but now the Ledbetter Bill allows women to take action. You don’t really believe that because of the law that women were discriminated against. What they would do is change the job title even though it was the same work so they could pay the woman less. One example was women were secretaries and men were administrative assistance doing the same work but getting paid more.So you think that it was OK that I was paid 60% less than a man and I should not have any recourse. Well too bad it was wrong and now it has to be stopped. Women weren’t allowed to know what other people were getting paid for the same work. Let me guess, you’re a man

 

The state of politics today.

Republicans work to increase business which puts people to work. Sometimes they can be short sighted.

Democrats work to gain power by any means to implement their socialist agenda which they cannot tell you how it be funded which will be worse for the working class in the long run.

 

Influence costs, where politicians work for the interest of rent-seeking big business, isn't a job creator. It skews the economy.

 

Like it does now with low unemployment, rising wages, and increasing manufacturing jobs? That’s all bad I take it.

 

Its easy to reduce unemployment through the creation of poor jobs. Tell me how precisely those wages have risen.