Politics: Delay- Republican’ts and their Best Friend

There has been a lot of this happening throughout the whole history of the Republican’t Party. They always seem to want things to happen later so it will benefit them. The Democrats are the ones considered lazy but Republican’ts are bigger procrastinators than most procrastinators are or could ever hope to be. And yet, there is a reason for this.

I’m not entirely sure when this idea of delaying things started for Republican’ts. I want to say that it was around the time of the Nixon administration and the end of the Lyndon Johnson one that we first encountered problems like this. Nixon wanted to make sure that the Vietnam War was still going on at the start of his administration to further ensure unrest among those that would have otherwise voted for Democrats. Plus, due to a delay of a possible seat change on the Supreme Court to be filled under him administration was important as well.

Why the needless delays? Well, they aren’t needless to this party. If stuff isn’t done right away, they get to do it later on their terms. And, suddenly, the very idea of delaying things further is beyond ridiculous. This is what makes this hypocritical. They insisted that a Supreme Court seat be filled before the midterm elections after keeping a different seat open for more than a year. But one shouldn’t be surprised that their delay paid off and then they suddenly want to do the work that should have been done earlier.

After the 1980 presidential election, a conspiracy theory emerged called the October Surprise conspiracy theory. The idea behind this one is that Ronald Reagan intentionally caused the delay of the freedom of the Iran hostages in order to win the presidency. I feel that this is not the case of what happened. Sure, Reagan gets all the credit for their freedom when he didn’t lift a finger to help them. But he didn’t cause the delay. The hostage people waited until the exact moment his term started until the rest of them were free. It was the final blow to Jimmy Carter. But the delay of their freedom, even after Carter had lost the election, was very helpful to the opposing party.

Merrick Garland wasn’t the only judge who was borked towards the end of Obama’s time in office. But when these judicial vacancies were ultimately filled, Republican’ts acted like it was such a huge accomplishment that they were finally doing their job now that they were doing completely different people, potentially ruining our court system in the process. The main problem with it nowadays is bias based on whoever has the majority and has it since the 1970s. And this wouldn’t have happened if delays didn’t happen.

Everyone seems to think that it is possible that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. I am actually all for this, if only if it will get people to stop bitching about why there can’t be liberal judges. Everyone knows that different laws have only recently been formed that could get rid of the infamous decision, since there will just now only be court cases that people will file that will be certain to get to a court that could get rid of it forever or until the next legal challenge.

Another example of delays being a benefit to one party is the most recent government shutdown that happened during a lame duck session. With an incoming group of Democrats taking control of the House, they would then be the ones to blame for the shutdown instead of the previous Republican’t house that had helped cause it. Ultimately, this was more of a temper tantrum than it was anything else. Millions worked without pay and some never got pay for their work. All I hope is that these people remember that Trump caused this when he’s up for reelection.

This party will continue to cause delays as long as it continues to benefit them. Then, like when Elizabeth Warren released a DNA test, they’ll do a complete 180 when they can get their way and demand that things be done immediately. We don’t need these people in office. Not now or ever. Otherwise, their most terrible yet best tactic will keep working.

Politics: Dangerous Myths about the Poor

You might be confused as to why I am updating this blog now. Well, a certain cheat of mine caused me to update my TV blog. Then one day, it wouldn't have worked so I moved it to this blog. Once it didn't work for this blog again, I moved it back to my TV blog. After this, I moved it back to this blog again starting with this post. You see, I had rolled a movie length Survivor special on a Tuesday. I had decided that Tuesdays were unfilled so I could then make Tuesdays a weekly update of my TV blog. Thus, with today being a Tuesday and the cheat to update on Tuesdays not applying to a blog that's already updated on that day, I would thus have to update this blog instead of my TV blog. Now that I've said this, I might as well get to saying what the rest of this post is about.

I can’t even believe all of the crap that I’ve heard as reasons not to support the poor people. So many people seem to think that they are lazy people living off of government money and that is just one of many myths about them. I will hopefully get rid of all of them in this post.

Myth one: People want to be homeless. Why it’s not true: Being a beggar in life would be such a terrible thing to go through. Why would someone want something like this? When Steve Harvey looks back at his life, I doubt that he thinks: Man, I miss being homeless. People do not seek this out as a life goal. This isn’t something that anyone wants or desires in life.

Myth two: People on welfare are just gaming the system. Why it’s not true: Sure, there could be more work with making sure that the people on welfare actually need it. But most of the people on this just can’t work in any way, at least for the moment. They need the government’s help for the time and will then work once they are able to find work.

Myth three: Jesus wouldn’t help the poor. Why it’s not true: Read the bible and you will learn that this is not true. It is hard to believe that people actually think things like this. Jesus said a lot of bad about the rich while explaining that one has to help the poor.

Myth four: If we help the rich, this will help everyone else. Why it’s not true: This policy has been accurately described as voodoo economics. People push tax cuts for the rich as if they will all use this money to help everyone else out. Not all rich people are philanthropists or willing to share their money with others that are not already required by taxes.

Myth five: The poor need to be taxed more. Why it’s not true: These people aren’t going to get money to pay others and if you want to tax someone, tax people who can afford it and would still be rich after their taxes are paid.

You might wonder what any of this post has to do with politics. It seems like the Democrats are more willing to help the poor nowadays while Republicans take a fuck you attitude to them while calling them lazy and wondering why they just don’t get jobs easily. You could be part of the solution or you could be part of the problem. There will always be poor people if we do nothing to help get rid of the problem. If I’m to be convinced that Republicans are actually good people, they would care about helping the poor instead of spreading and believing dangerous myths like these. I’m sure that people don’t like to be poor.

Politics: Is a RINO just a Bipartisan Republican?

Maybe you’ve heard of this term before or maybe you have not. RINO is slang for a Republican in name only. Basically, a person labeled this is considered to not be a real Republican. Sure, they may call themselves that, but they are not a real Republican. Or are they?

We tend to hear a lot about moderates in some way. Moderates could just be what Republicans labeled as RINOs are in reality. I might have to do a post on why moderates tend to be hated on both sides. But bipartisanship is sparingly rare nowadays. Whether or not they are moderates in the end might be a different matter entirely.

John McCain normally sided with Republicans most of the time. By the end of his life, he had done a lot to help the Democratic side of the aisle. He was a key vote in the failure to repeal the Affordable Care act. He was labeled a RINO. But was that only because he worked with those in the other party?

The problem might actually be there being pro-choice (or anti-life, if pro-life is now called anti-choice) Republicans in the senate and elsewhere in office. These people are easily labeled as being RINOs as they go against one of the core pieces of being a Republican nowadays. Why we don’t see (as far as I know) Democrats who are pro-life being DINOs (the same slur applying to Democrats) is unknown to be.

Still, the slur comes up often enough that it seems kind of bad that any Republican that works with Democrats is seen as abandoning their party and are voted out of office. Mark Kirk was not a bad politician by any means (outside of being a known liar like many are), but he still lost by a lot when he came up for reelection. Many voted for every Republican but him. I saw more signs for Gary Johnson that election than I did for Mark Kirk. What was his problem? As far as I can tell, it wasn’t that he abandoned Republican ideas. He simply worked with the other party.

It makes you wonder, in a way. Was the only problem of RINOs, at least nowadays, the fact that they work with the other party? Lots of people still do work with the other party today, but it does not make the news and you can only learn about it through emails from them. These bills are just not as important as others. All I know is that bipartisanship needs to happen in order to get a good government that works. We need it. We don’t need any bipartisan person getting voted out in favor of more partisan people. We have far too many of them nowadays and we don’t need any of them at all. We still need people who will work with the other people from the other party. And we need them to stay around.