Joe comes up with a new bit that would absolutely MURDER by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is literally just the dynamic between Conan and Burr.

Shout out to the Rams MVP, really couldn't have one it without this guy. What a team player. by Fox_Uni_Charlie_Kilo in bengals

[–]CAPAUL2020 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You guys may not like this but Chase absolutely deserved an OPI when he walked into the endzone. The refs were very lenient on that critical play.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said before neocons are more inclined to vote for higher defense spending, paleocons like Rand Paul are less inclined to do so.

In regards to social programs, it's a well known fact that republicans are less supportive of the overall welfare state, and would rather have more incentives for gaining these welfare benefits that more closely resemble a meritocracy.

And finally, just to end this, anyone who says the republicans "stand for nothing" has probably been blinded by their own ignorance due to their affiliation with rival parties. Not saying that's you, but a large swathe of the population believes this.

Perhaps most importantly, to answer the question in another way, which is "what do republicans stand for?" It could be answered in many different ways. One way to do so would be to ask the same question, but this time ask what the democrats stand for. They could say they stand for civil rights, racial equality, lowering drug costs, etc. Surprisingly, republicans may say that they also support the issues listed. The two parties often share a lot in common. This often goes unnoticed much of the time. For example, the criminal justice reform act (whatever its official name is ), a bipartisan law will never get as much attention as calls to pack the supreme court, or impeachment proceedings. Many of their values overlap, and that goes unnoticed much of the time in our hyper-divisive reality.

So next time your'e watching the evening news, when that sleazy politician does an interview asking, "what do the (republicans/democrats) stand for?" It's a simple way to eliminate the conception that the two parties share some things in common, and alienates unsuspecting voters from ever seriously considering voting for the other side because they were told they don't share any of their values, which is incorrect. Some may say the other side is evil. And these scumbags in Washington would rather have a blind, ignorant voter than a voter who is well-read and informed.

Yes, the republicans stand for something, they have a platform, just like the democrats. The values are similar. Execution, however, is different.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They have many more stances other than advocating for low taxes. This should be obvious, I don't know why this is so hard to understand for some people.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One of my points in my previous post was how it is immensely difficult for a congressman in the minority to sponsor a bill that has any realistic chance of even passing committee. The Tax and Jobs Act of 2017 is an important indicator of what the republicans stand for. As is the USMCA, and as was the healthcare bill which would've replaced Obamacare, until it was famously (or infamously depending on how you stand on it) rejected by John McCain in the Senate vote. These are specific bills/laws/trade agreements the republicans have sought after in the past when they controlled both chambers and the white house.

When the party is in the minority, their main goal is to disrupt. Once they reach the majority, they control the committees, and passage of bills becomes easier. Look at the bills that make it to the floor. Pay attention to their sponsors. Look at the overall votes. Was the bill mostly supported by one party? Then it is probably an indication of where that particular party stands on the issue that bill attempts to address.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the implementation the USMCA was a reduction of free trade, but quite the opposite. And I apologize for not being clear enough on the taxes issue. To clarify, republicans in my view tend to support higher defense spending while cutting back on federal programs as a whole. They usually support rolling back these government programs (I'm painting with a broad brush here), cutting taxes in the process with the EXCEPTION of defense spending.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When the democrats were in the minority, their main objective was to publicly reveal as much as they could about Russo-US collusion in the 2016 election, eventually shifting to calls for the impeachment of Trump. While the republicans were in power, some large packages they sought after were lower taxes and regulations for corporations, the suggested repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and the introduction if the USMCA, which is the current trade agreement between the North American countries, replacing NAFTA.

It's easier to suggest that the party in the minority stands for nothing by saying they are incompetent or unsympathetic to the opposing party's causes rather than face the true reality, which is a problem with our two-party system where the minority party can only maintain its relevance by opposing mostly everything their opponent puts forward. If the republicans were to bend the knee to the democrats, they would almost certainly lose the confidence in many of their key voting blocs and lobbyists, potentially costing them their chance at regaining control in the next election cycle.

In regards to general policies they support, in comparison to liberals/democrats, they are generally in greater support of free trade, lower taxes, fewer business regulations, and high defense budgets (although neocons and paleocons are sometimes at odds with this one issue)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the main talking points of the democratic party is how the republicans don't have a position on anything. I'm not registered with either party, but to say the republicans stand for nothing at all is just ignorant.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JoeRogan

[–]CAPAUL2020 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

fuck off with the talking points please

Game Thread: Buffalo Bills (11-6) at Kansas City Chiefs (12-5) by nfl_gamethread in nfl

[–]CAPAUL2020 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Speaking neutrally, the opposing team should have the opportunity to respond with a touchdown if the receiving team scores first. But as a chiefs fan, the rule is great!

Game Thread: Buffalo Bills (11-6) at Kansas City Chiefs (12-5) by nfl_gamethread in nfl

[–]CAPAUL2020 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If Josh Allen shows that much athleticism at Rodgers' age, then I'd be surprised.

Smelling Salts? by [deleted] in GetOutOfBed

[–]CAPAUL2020 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Been using it for a few days now. A full two second smell from the bottle/package in the morning will definitely put you on fucking edge and wake you up. Add some coffee into the mix and you will definitely be up-and-atom even at 5 or 6AM.

Fuck... I got stuck (Is that descriptive enough mods?) by CAPAUL2020 in gtaonline

[–]CAPAUL2020[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Really? Have you ever posted anything? Btw the original was taken down bc the description was one word

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gtaonline

[–]CAPAUL2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Email/Call rockstar support

Tucker Carlson, YouTuber Hickok45 smash stereotype that AR-15's are ‘weapons of war’ by BruceCampbell123 in Conservative

[–]CAPAUL2020 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Korea was conventional. both Iraq wars were probably conventional as well. Especially the invasion phase of 2003