|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point.
I think stimulus payments are still a positive to get people to vote for Trump. I think if he knew he would get another 1000 voters from stimulus payments, he would do it.
|
|
|
On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people.
The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it.
|
On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it.
Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months.
All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus!
|
United States24773 Posts
On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus!
So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country?
|
On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country?
That's how I read it. He's been on this for months (rightfully so) now.
|
On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country?
That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without."
|
On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without."
I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh
|
On October 11 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without." I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh
For reasons that continue to escape literally anyone, big corporate capitalists are convinced that if the lower/middle class gets money instead of them, they'll never see that money again, so they have to take it themselves.
After all, it's not like poor people have bills to pay and shit they need to buy.
|
On October 11 2020 03:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without." I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh For reasons that continue to escape literally anyone, big corporate capitalists are convinced that if the lower/middle class gets money instead of them, they'll never see that money again, so they have to take it themselves. After all, it's not like poor people have bills to pay and shit they need to buy.
Is it hard to understand why they want money? Every person and company wants as much money as possible.
Their main reason is continued growth and financial muscle to buy out competition and reward their investors.
The question isn't about the capitalists, but rather with the government and to which degree those capitalists should have their hands tied by regulations. Regulate too much, and they move the production abroad or go bankrupt. Regulate too little and they exploit their workers and the environment, and can even become more powerful than the government itself.
|
On October 11 2020 05:07 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 03:42 NewSunshine wrote:On October 11 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without." I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh For reasons that continue to escape literally anyone, big corporate capitalists are convinced that if the lower/middle class gets money instead of them, they'll never see that money again, so they have to take it themselves. After all, it's not like poor people have bills to pay and shit they need to buy. Is it hard to understand why they want money? Every person and company wants as much money as possible. Their main reason is continued growth and financial muscle to buy out competition and reward their investors. The question isn't about the capitalists, but rather with the government and to which degree those capitalists should have their hands tied by regulations. Regulate too much, and they move the production abroad or go bankrupt. Regulate too little and they exploit their workers and the environment, and can even become more powerful than the government itself.
I think his point is that even if you give Americans $2k each, they will spend that money, and that money will flow towards the capitalists. 99% of people will spend the money in a disposable way, such as rent
|
On October 11 2020 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 05:07 Slydie wrote:On October 11 2020 03:42 NewSunshine wrote:On October 11 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without." I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh For reasons that continue to escape literally anyone, big corporate capitalists are convinced that if the lower/middle class gets money instead of them, they'll never see that money again, so they have to take it themselves. After all, it's not like poor people have bills to pay and shit they need to buy. Is it hard to understand why they want money? Every person and company wants as much money as possible. Their main reason is continued growth and financial muscle to buy out competition and reward their investors. The question isn't about the capitalists, but rather with the government and to which degree those capitalists should have their hands tied by regulations. Regulate too much, and they move the production abroad or go bankrupt. Regulate too little and they exploit their workers and the environment, and can even become more powerful than the government itself. I think his point is that even if you give Americans $2k each, they will spend that money, and that money will flow towards the capitalists. 99% of people will spend the money in a disposable way, such as rent
Yes. When you decide whether to give money to every American, or whether to give it to the ultra-wealthy corporate leaders, it makes its way to the latter either way. The difference is whether it also passes through the hands of the people who need it along the way.
|
On October 11 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without." I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh
To pay for the moving van for the move to Canada?
|
What the actual fuck Lindsey Graham ? On a question about careers in SC, he said he believed his opponent would lose because he is a democrat, not because he is black, and he just said that african-americans in South Carolina can go/become where/what they want, they just have to be conservative, not liberal.
Seriously ??
“Do I believe our cops are systemically racist? No,” Graham said. “Do I believe South Carolina is a racist state? No. Let me tell you why. To young people out there, young people of color, young immigrants, this is a great state, but one thing I can say without any doubt, you can be an African American and go to the Senate but you just have to share our values.”
He went on to say: “If you’re a young, African American or an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative, not liberal”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/10/trump-coronavirus-live-white-house-event-debate-biden-latest-updates?page=with:block-5f821e478f088cf1f1a6489a#block-5f821e478f088cf1f1a6489a
|
On October 11 2020 05:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:49 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2020 01:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2020 00:29 LegalLord wrote:
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point. Stimulus isn't about the stock market. Its about all the businesses that are closing/about to close and all the unemployed people. The stock market has very little to do with the state of the actual economy and the people working in it. Stimulus is notionally about all those feel-good things like protecting the vulnerable, but it's actually a rookie mistake to think that that's what it's really about. The plans always have a reasonable-looking mix to make it seem like corporations, small businesses, and individuals all get a fair shake, but the corporate handouts always get magnified (the Fed can help!), "small" businesses that are closer to the money tap get all the small business aid and the actually vulnerable ones don't get anything before the funds all dry up, and individuals get enough help to spur a debt-funded consumption boom but not enough to really make a difference for more than a couple months. All that comes together to prop up the health of corporations and assets, i.e. the stock market in all but name. So since the stock market is doing well, no need for further stimulus! So when you said, "The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary" you were sarcastically paraphrasing the opinion of the powers that be, but not your own opinion about what is needed for the country? That, and "that's the only stimulus the government is capable of delivering, so we're better off without." I'm not better off without $1200. I want that cashhhhhhhhhhh To pay for the moving van for the move to Canada?
Tune in in a month to find out! My house would sell well right now and my research indicates Ottawa is a great place to live. We found jobs, I'm a citizen, we've got money in the bank, so all that's left is to list the house. I don't want to, but I am totally gonna capitalize on the privilege I have if I need to.
|
On October 11 2020 06:25 Nouar wrote:What the actual fuck Lindsey Graham ? On a question about careers in SC, he said he believed his opponent would lose because he is a democrat, not because he is black, and he just said that african-americans in South Carolina can go/become where/what they want, they just have to be conservative, not liberal. Seriously ?? Show nested quote +“Do I believe our cops are systemically racist? No,” Graham said. “Do I believe South Carolina is a racist state? No. Let me tell you why. To young people out there, young people of color, young immigrants, this is a great state, but one thing I can say without any doubt, you can be an African American and go to the Senate but you just have to share our values.”
He went on to say: “If you’re a young, African American or an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative, not liberal”. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/10/trump-coronavirus-live-white-house-event-debate-biden-latest-updates?page=with:block-5f821e478f088cf1f1a6489a#block-5f821e478f088cf1f1a6489ahttps://twitter.com/SikhProf/status/1314972356381638656
It's a pretty inarticulate statement, but follows along with mainstream conservative thought. If you're taught all your life from a liberal perspective, you can come away thinking that the country is too systemically racist for any minority to achieve anything of consequence. The only way to rise up is to campaign for anti-racist programs in companies, reparations, affirmative action for universities, racial quotas in management positions, and all the rest. Maybe that's a biased oversimplification of the ideology, but it's a debate and you'll hear the usual smears about Republicans and the poor and elderly or whatnot.
Contrast that with the conservative view that America is the land of opportunity, and the most important value to inculcate in the young is that you can rise with hard work and determination. You can be president one day like Barack Obama, or on the Supreme Court like Clarence Thomas, or chair your own congressional committee like Elijah Cummings. Don't make mountains out of molehills in obstacles, and take personal ownership of your track in life.
The more obvious point is that voters identify with the ideas and platform of candidates, so if you're proposing dumb ideas and backwards stances, then that should be what stops you. Not the color of your skin, but the quality of your directives. The lefties on this forum should be well aware at how often they criticize the bulk of the Republican platform, so should understand Republicans thinking the same same thing about the left-wing platform (IE give a true/false to "It shouldn't matter if you're a minority representing the Republican party in an election, because their platform and leadership is too extreme for consideration" and compare/contrast)
|
On October 11 2020 07:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2020 06:25 Nouar wrote:What the actual fuck Lindsey Graham ? On a question about careers in SC, he said he believed his opponent would lose because he is a democrat, not because he is black, and he just said that african-americans in South Carolina can go/become where/what they want, they just have to be conservative, not liberal. Seriously ?? “Do I believe our cops are systemically racist? No,” Graham said. “Do I believe South Carolina is a racist state? No. Let me tell you why. To young people out there, young people of color, young immigrants, this is a great state, but one thing I can say without any doubt, you can be an African American and go to the Senate but you just have to share our values.”
He went on to say: “If you’re a young, African American or an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative, not liberal”. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/10/trump-coronavirus-live-white-house-event-debate-biden-latest-updates?page=with:block-5f821e478f088cf1f1a6489a#block-5f821e478f088cf1f1a6489ahttps://twitter.com/SikhProf/status/1314972356381638656 It's a pretty inarticulate statement, but follows along with mainstream conservative thought. If you're taught all your life from a liberal perspective, you can come away thinking that the country is too systemically racist for any minority to achieve anything of consequence. The only way to rise up is to campaign for anti-racist programs in companies, reparations, affirmative action for universities, racial quotas in management positions, and all the rest. Maybe that's a biased oversimplification of the ideology, but it's a debate and you'll hear the usual smears about Republicans and the poor and elderly or whatnot. Contrast that with the conservative view that America is the land of opportunity, and the most important value to inculcate in the young is that you can rise with hard work and determination. You can be president one day like Barack Obama, or on the Supreme Court like Clarence Thomas, or chair your own congressional committee like Elijah Cummings. Don't make mountains out of molehills in obstacles, and take personal ownership of your track in life. The more obvious point is that voters identify with the ideas and platform of candidates, so if you're proposing dumb ideas and backwards stances, then that should be what stops you. Not the color of your skin, but the quality of your directives. The lefties on this forum should be well aware at how often they criticize the bulk of the Republican platform, so should understand Republicans thinking the same same thing about the left-wing platform (IE give a true/false to "It shouldn't matter if you're a minority representing the Republican party in an election, because their platform and leadership is too extreme for consideration" and compare/contrast)
I assume his point is that anyone can win office in SC. Tim Scott is, after all, the other senator from South Carolina. I think that's part of the point he's making. South Carolinians are willing to vote for anyone who espouses their values.
edit: of course it is funny because for a state like SC Graham isnt really that conservative, but he acts that way in election years
|
This is the same South Carolina with Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church?
|
It's a backhanded way of saying you're only allowed to succeed if you support us politically. Doesn't mean you're not saying it. And that is very mainstream conservative right now, it's true. Trump says the same thing. If you're conservative and you agree with them, then you can enjoy your basic freedoms. If not, well, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
