Hopefully for right-leaning homos

[nanana]

11 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

If I had written "the 45" your misunderstanding might make sense.  But that isn't what I wrote at all...  

I wrote "And yet 45 decided....".  Trump is the 45th and 47th POTUS (President of the United States).  And back in October my utterly stupid fellow US citizens hadn't elected that traitor.  

I think the real traitors are presidents and people of the senate and congress who vote to steal billions from the American people and give it away to corrupt crackheads that should be ashamed to beg in front of CVS let alone YetZelCuck Congress. Three cheers for Oval Office truths and the revelations that Ukrainian emperors have no clothes. 

[PozBearWI]

Obviously power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  We see that old saw playing out again, but it is hardly new.  Still from my POV no cheers for the ugly fuck in the WH now.  

[Rillion]

I work in the financial industry and we are completely baffled by Trump's actions which seems to be intentionally trying to tank the economy. The economic data that is coming in since he took office is showing the economy slowing down drastically (headed towards negative gdp growth) and inflation picking back up. If these trends continue, we are going to be in a Jimmy Carter stagflation situation where we have a shrinking economy, high inflation, and high interest rates. 

Basically what is happening is Trump is front loading the anti-business growth slowing policies (tariffs, immigration crackdown, laying off government employees) while all his pro-growth policies (tax cuts and deregulation) have yet to be moved forward.

[BlueSaphir]

9 hours ago, Rillion said:

I work in the financial industry and we are completely baffled by Trump's actions which seems to be intentionally trying to tank the economy. The economic data that is coming in since he took office is showing the economy slowing down drastically (headed towards negative gdp growth) and inflation picking back up. If these trends continue, we are going to be in a Jimmy Carter stagflation situation where we have a shrinking economy, high inflation, and high interest rates. 

Basically what is happening is Trump is front loading the anti-business growth slowing policies (tariffs, immigration crackdown, laying off government employees) while all his pro-growth policies (tax cuts and deregulation) have yet to be moved forward.

We’ve been warned before. We shall reap our destiny with this Buffoon. 

Edited March 29 by BlueSaphir

[TT2025]

Voted centre right for a long time, but won't anymore (probably ever).

I have one big personal reason, but in general terms 'right' is more ideological than practical in my opinion. (Lefties tend to poke in everything and regulate everything, so they can score some positive points in the process.)

Rights hands off approach is problematic (at least in some areas) and the state money is then used to make things work when cracks begin to appear:
If you don't regulate industry in a way of environmental protection you end up using state money to clear up the mess.
If you don't set reasonable minimum wage you spend shitload of money to social programs AND collect less taxes (really good combination).

In both cases you really can't leave things by their own devices, cause results would be catastrophic (environmental damage would be huge and the people without their basic needs covered would probably turn violent.) So the right tends to run hybrid systems as a result:
You have low minimum wage and can't stop social spending. So people work for a low wage and get food stamps. But there is conundrum: Who is actually benefiting form the food stamp programme? The poor sod on the receiving end or the company which can pay him meagre wage knowing he can work for that because of handouts from the state?

On the other hand I think that if one can, one should work and earn a living for himself and state shouldn't poke to things that work well.

Edited Friday at 01:09 AM by TT2025

[nanana]

Nice analysis TT2025. My main principles that drive my interest in both right- and left-wing politics are voluntarism and non-aggression. I think of taxation as theft (though potentially “necessary” in small doses) but would be content to see the government moving ever more toward consensus activities and reducing activities that don’t share broad support.  I like the broadly compassionate aspects of leftism but leftists rely too much on involuntary means to express their compassion. As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is wonderful until you run out of other people’s money. I am also not fond of the government as purchaser and lender of last resort, breeds too much corruption (war-as-money-maker for MICIMATT both right and left).  It seems like a much better use of humans’ collective energy to produce things that improve quality of life rather than having psychopathic leaders foment race-and-nation hatred just to make money off of blood flow.  
Not exactly responsive to your points made above TT2025 but I take away from your writing that nothing is as simple as our political brains might try to make them, and even solid principles bring unintended complex consequences. 

[TT2025]

But voluntarism can get you only so far.. Some things have to be compulsory and enforced, I'm afraid. Can't get the criminals to be docile just by asking them nicely (partly a joke, but it illustrates the problem).

And without strict regulations, we wouldn't be happy either (eg. safety standards) - Yea, safety protocols in some industries is pain in the ass, but they are there for a reason). In Victorian England there was heated debate about the building standards - makes housing expensive. One particular problem was the requirement for new-builds to have bathroom, imagine that! Eventually Lords were explained that it is also for their own good (overall hygiene will increase and so long the diseases and foul stench.)

The more complex problem, or the more complicated endeavour, the top-down approach is really needed (eg. road construction).

Edited Friday at 08:44 PM by TT2025

[SomewhereonNeptune]

On 4/17/2025 at 9:06 PM, TT2025 said:

You have low minimum wage and can't stop social spending. So people work for a low wage and get food stamps. But there is conundrum: Who is actually benefiting form the food stamp programme? The poor sod on the receiving end or the company which can pay him meagre wage knowing he can work for that because of handouts from the state?

On the other hand I think that if one can, one should work and earn a living for himself and state shouldn't poke to things that work well.

We all are familiar with a certain retail giant who is one of the world's largest companies. There was a decent documentary done some time back ("Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price - Link) that showed how the normal costs of doing business -- benefits, reasonable wages, healthcare -- was effectively transferred to taxpayers (food stamps, medicaid) in order to support profit growth and thereby benefitting shareholders. You can rent it from Amazon for about $2 to watch it, it's enlightening. At the same time, Main Streets were gutted, small businesses were killed, and people who wanted work in certain regions had few choices other than Walmart.  The economy that revolved around small businesses and decent wages was destroyed for larger corporate interests. Ask yourself where you go for hardware: a local ACE Hardware, or a big-box store?

In actuality, no one truly 'benefits' from having to get SNAP (food stamps) because it means they aren't getting a meaningful wage that can let a family afford food. Wait...no, let me correct that, Walmart benefits again because they're most likely the one also getting the food stamp redemption against their low-priced food, so they are effectively double-dipping. And that's how many things have worked ever so gradually over time to benefit business while screwing over middle-and-lower-class Americans. So send a big thank you card to the lobbyists for that.

And it doesn't matter if you put a D or an R in front of the actions since most of the mega-corporate donors actually donate large sums to both parties. The transparency I had in working for one of those corporations showed exactly how much was being donated to each to 'cover the bases'.

So here is a side question to this: Given all of the soft money campaign contributions, PAC donations, and lobbying money, does it make sense to be anti-Trump/Musk/DOGE (especially since Pelosi, Schumer, Biden and Obama were all once for gutting wasteful spending -- source: just check out the various videos of this from 1996 to 2012 on Youtube and C-SPAN), or are they (in the guise of USAID) just a symptom of a much deeper issue? Asking for a friend. 😉

[SomewhereonNeptune]

55 minutes ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

"Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price

[think before following links] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473107/