What if we gave them the carrot?

Random idea... I don't necessarily support this, but I think it opens up some interesting conversation.

For more than a decade or two republicans have been leading their fevered brained supporters around with the carrot of banning abortion. Talking about murdering babies and such, driving drooling idiots to vote for policies that hurt them and help rich people by tapping on emotional centers of their brain, with potentially no intention of even really doing anything about abortion in the long run since it is and always has been the carrot to get people to vote for them (really, the proper answer is to get everyone and anyone that wants birth control on it for free, but we're not here to talk about abortion.)

So what if democrats said "fuck it. Ban abortion except for in the first month or whatever and in cases of rape incest and what not." Give them the carrot. What happens then? Democrats could pursue policies outside of that to make abortion not even necessary, like universal birth control, universal healthcare, and other such things that are actually good for people but they have a hard time pushing for because they are caught in a corner fighting for this one issue. Beyond that they could focus on important things like environmental protection, reasonable gun control, intelligent foreign policy etc etc without backlash from half the country who is irrationally voting on an issue that most likely hasn't impacted them directly.

So anyway, I don't know, it was just a random thought that I figured I'd throw out there. They're never gonna do it. But, would it help? Would nutjob evangelical types actually consider the other side if you ignored the abortion issue? Logically they would, as Jesus is sort of known for his support of the poor and all that. But, and this is how I think an idea like this would go, more likely republicans would just find another carrot to lead people along while they actually focus on nothing but getting more money for rich people.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Random idea... I don't necessarily support this, but I think it opens up some interesting conversation.

For more than a decade or two republicans have been leading their fevered brained supporters around with the carrot of banning abortion. Talking about murdering babies and such, driving drooling idiots to vote for policies that hurt them and help rich people by tapping on emotional centers of their brain, with potentially no intention of even really doing anything about abortion in the long run since it is and always has been the carrot to get people to vote for them (really, the proper answer is to get everyone and anyone that wants birth control on it for free, but we're not here to talk about abortion.)

So what if democrats said "fuck it. Ban abortion except for in the first month or whatever and in cases of rape incest and what not." Give them the carrot. What happens then? Democrats could pursue policies outside of that to make abortion not even necessary, like universal birth control, universal healthcare, and other such things that are actually good for people but they have a hard time pushing for because they are caught in a corner fighting for this one issue. Beyond that they could focus on important things like environmental protection, reasonable gun control, intelligent foreign policy etc etc without backlash from half the country who is irrationally voting on an issue that most likely hasn't impacted them directly.

So anyway, I don't know, it was just a random thought that I figured I'd throw out there. They're never gonna do it. But, would it help? Would nutjob evangelical types actually consider the other side if you ignored the abortion issue? Logically they would, as Jesus is sort of known for his support of the poor and all that. But, and this is how I think an idea like this would go, more likely republicans would just find another carrot to lead people along while they actually focus on nothing but getting more money for rich people.

Most conservatives don't want people fucking at all Travis! Whether heterosexual or gay. My guess is because most conservatives I know can't get their share of it. So they're against any kind of recreational fucking which eliminates all birth control

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Random idea... I don't necessarily support this, but I think it opens up some interesting conversation.

For more than a decade or two republicans have been leading their fevered brained supporters around with the carrot of banning abortion. Talking about murdering babies and such, driving drooling idiots to vote for policies that hurt them and help rich people by tapping on emotional centers of their brain, with potentially no intention of even really doing anything about abortion in the long run since it is and always has been the carrot to get people to vote for them (really, the proper answer is to get everyone and anyone that wants birth control on it for free, but we're not here to talk about abortion.)

So what if democrats said "fuck it. Ban abortion except for in the first month or whatever and in cases of rape incest and what not." Give them the carrot. What happens then? Democrats could pursue policies outside of that to make abortion not even necessary, like universal birth control, universal healthcare, and other such things that are actually good for people but they have a hard time pushing for because they are caught in a corner fighting for this one issue. Beyond that they could focus on important things like environmental protection, reasonable gun control, intelligent foreign policy etc etc without backlash from half the country who is irrationally voting on an issue that most likely hasn't impacted them directly.

So anyway, I don't know, it was just a random thought that I figured I'd throw out there. They're never gonna do it. But, would it help? Would nutjob evangelical types actually consider the other side if you ignored the abortion issue? Logically they would, as Jesus is sort of known for his support of the poor and all that. But, and this is how I think an idea like this would go, more likely republicans would just find another carrot to lead people along while they actually focus on nothing but getting more money for rich people.

Most conservatives don't want people fucking at all Travis! Whether heterosexual or gay. My guess is because most conservatives I know can't get their share of it. So they're against any kind of recreational fucking which eliminates all birth control

Well yeah, which might just become their new carrot to get people to keep voting for them if that were to happen (which it won't let me be clear.) I guess what I'm saying is, does Mitch McConnell really give a fuck about abortion? I don't think he does. Does Paul Ryan? Nah. They're just using that to get people riled up so they can cut taxes for billionaires. So, maybe say fuck it and let them have the issue that they don't even really care about themselves.

Again, I don't actually think that's a good idea mostly because I think it would backfire since republicans are super good at lying to their base by saying things like "democrats want to take all yer guns" and they believe them. So, they'd just find a new issue to rile them up about.

I'm pretty conservative and support people fucking

I also think abortion should be legal but strongly discouraged. And in cases where it's just a convenience thing, 100% morally wrong. But it's the woman's choice. Choose life.

I'm sure as fuck not a republican though. For the record. Any party that sells their soul to elect a game show host asshole is not one that I want to be a part of.

Tim Wakefield wrote:I'm pretty conservative and support people fucking

I also think abortion should be legal but strongly discouraged. And in cases where it's just a convenience thing, 100% morally wrong. But it's the woman's choice. Choose life.

Yo, I support putting birth control in the water supply and giving people a pill if they actually want a baby. That's my official stance. But this isn't really an abortion thread. (I'm not picking on you, I just want to make it clear that an abortion debate isn't my goal here- but more one about democrat strategy.)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Tim Wakefield wrote:I'm pretty conservative and support people fucking

I also think abortion should be legal but strongly discouraged. And in cases where it's just a convenience thing, 100% morally wrong. But it's the woman's choice. Choose life.

Yo, I support putting birth control in the water supply and giving people a pill if they actually want a baby. That's my official stance. But this isn't really an abortion thread. (I'm not picking on you, I just want to make it clear that an abortion debate isn't my goal here- but more one about democrat strategy.)

I just saw "conservatives are against anyone fucking" and strongly disagreed

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Tim Wakefield wrote:I'm pretty conservative and support people fucking

I also think abortion should be legal but strongly discouraged. And in cases where it's just a convenience thing, 100% morally wrong. But it's the woman's choice. Choose life.

Yo, I support putting birth control in the water supply and giving people a pill if they actually want a baby. That's my official stance. But this isn't really an abortion thread. (I'm not picking on you, I just want to make it clear that an abortion debate isn't my goal here- but more one about democrat strategy.)

I think the dems have to do something about the tax percentage idea. It is a tough sell to say if you make more you should pay a higher percentage. Why? A flat rate still gets more from the wealthy. I never understood the need to also raise the percentage. But I'm not an economist so I'm just spit balling here.

Tim Wakefield wrote:Any party that sells their soul to elect a game show host asshole is not one that I want to be a part of.

This reminds, I recently noticed on Twitter that Chuck Woolery is a huge Trump supporter and all around idiot. It looks like he he would be an all around idiot regardless of his politics.

I also like carrot cake. I like carrots and hummus quite a bit as well.

Turtleneck wrote:

Tim Wakefield wrote:Any party that sells their soul to elect a game show host asshole is not one that I want to be a part of.

This reminds, I recently noticed on Twitter that Chuck Woolery is a huge Trump supporter and all around idiot. It looks like he he would be an all around idiot regardless of his politics.

Woolery (R) for president 2024

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yo, I support putting birth control in the water supply and giving people a pill if they actually want a baby. That's my official stance. But this isn't really an abortion thread. (I'm not picking on you, I just want to make it clear that an abortion debate isn't my goal here- but more one about democrat strategy.)

I think the dems have to do something about the tax percentage idea. It is a tough sell to say if you make more you should pay a higher percentage. Why? A flat rate still gets more from the wealthy. I never understood the need to also raise the percentage. But I'm not an economist so I'm just spit balling here.

If a rich guy and a poor guy each pay $1000 in your flat tax scenario, the poor guy is going to feel the hit much, much harder than the rich guy.

tGreenWay wrote:

DWags wrote:

I think the dems have to do something about the tax percentage idea. It is a tough sell to say if you make more you should pay a higher percentage. Why? A flat rate still gets more from the wealthy. I never understood the need to also raise the percentage. But I'm not an economist so I'm just spit balling here.

If a rich guy and a poor guy each pay $1000 in your flat tax scenario, the poor guy is going to feel the hit much, much harder than the rich guy.

All Flat tax plans exclude a certain basic income from taxes. Most I've seen use $35-$50K. Then you pay the flat rate on all income above that amount.

LooseGoose wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

If a rich guy and a poor guy each pay $1000 in your flat tax scenario, the poor guy is going to feel the hit much, much harder than the rich guy.

All Flat tax plans exclude a certain basic income from taxes. Most I've seen use $35-$50K. Then you pay the flat rate on all income above that amount.

Other questions:
•At $35-50k, is that for one individual or a family of, say, 4?
•Do flat tax plans also then tax for food, prescriptions, diapers, etc.?

tGreenWay wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

All Flat tax plans exclude a certain basic income from taxes. Most I've seen use $35-$50K. Then you pay the flat rate on all income above that amount.

Other questions:
•At $35-50k, is that for one individual or a family of, say, 4?
•Do flat tax plans also then tax for food, prescriptions, diapers, etc.?

Yes. but your income tax would be lest say 20% for every income bracket. So, a person making 100 K would pay 20 K in taxes, and 200 K would pay 40 K in taxes. I've never understood penalizing an individual for making more money. If someone can tell me why we need to tax higher income at 33% and lower income at 17% I'd like to hear it. But don't tell me that "it's a higher portion of income tax on their income" what really fucks poorer people is the state sales tax. They're paying 6% on a dollar as well as rich people. That's the one that fucks them because that is precisely where they pay a larger portion of their income to taxes. Not on a flat rate.

Anyway, why not take the lead on that issue?

DWags wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

Other questions:
•At $35-50k, is that for one individual or a family of, say, 4?
•Do flat tax plans also then tax for food, prescriptions, diapers, etc.?

Yes. but your income tax would be lest say 20% for every income bracket. So, a person making 100 K would pay 20 K in taxes, and 200 K would pay 40 K in taxes. I've never understood penalizing an individual for making more money. If someone can tell me why we need to tax higher income at 33% and lower income at 17% I'd like to hear it. But don't tell me that "it's a higher portion of income tax on their income" what really fucks poorer people is the state sales tax. They're paying 6% on a dollar as well as rich people. That's the one that fucks them because that is precisely where they pay a larger portion of their income to taxes. Not on a flat rate.

Anyway, why not take the lead on that issue?

Sales taxes, payroll taxes and sin taxes (tabacco, alocohol) are all highly regressive but the easiest to pass.

To double down on how regressive the payroll taxes are capped, Social Security is capped at $118,500. So someone making that figure pays the same TOTAL SS tax as the highest earning people.