General Question

Dig_Dug's avatar

What would happen if the United States was run only by the GOP?

Asked by Dig_Dug (4048points) 3 weeks ago
83 responses
“Great Question” (6points)

Strictly republican control and only their ideologies no democrats or their policy’s at all. Could the country survive?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0


Acrylic's avatar

Probably the same if was run only by the Democrat party; collapse of the country. Both sides are needed to keep the other from gaining too much power resulting in turning the US into a one-party state, which never turns out too well.

kritiper's avatar

It would be an autocracy, not a democracy. It might survive, but not as The United States of America, as it is now and has been.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
jca2's avatar

If the country were run by GOP and without any input from Democrats, there would be no social programs, which means no Medicaid, which means if you’re poor and have no medical insurance, tough shit, life is tough. Very limited social services, so if you’re physically or mentally disabled, severely disabled, you’d get services, otherwise, tough shit, figure it out or go live with a relative or a friend or stand on the street corner and beg or try to do odd jobs for a little cash or something like that.

Abortion? No way. If your life is at risk because the pregnancy is not viable, too bad, the mother and therefore the baby are dying. If you’re 15 and get pregnant, tough shit. You shouldn’t have opened your legs. Now you’ll pay the price.

Funding for the poor for housing? Don’t count on it. Section 8? Housing projects? Tough shit.

Drug programs? No part of anybody’s taxes are going to pay for drug addicts to get treatment. Too bad.

Guns? Everybody should have them. Unlimited semi-automatics for all! If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! No background checks either. It’s not constitutional to have any limitations on gun sales.

Drilling in National parks? Yes yes yes! Drill baby drill. Forget laws that protect wildlife, parks, rivers, streams, nature. If it benefits large corporations, that’s what counts. Why put limitations on wealth? Trees grow back! Animals will replenish. Drill, mine, pollute, don’t worry about it.

jca2 (15000points)“Great Answer” (12points)
RocketGuy's avatar

@jca2 – looks like what happened in the movie Elysium.

gondwanalon's avatar

Lower taxes, smaller more efficient government, secure boarders, energy independence, powerful military, more personal freedom.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@gondwanalon I’ll admit that may look good on paper, but in reality that would work for about 5% of the population. After the obvious Armageddon and there is nobody left to support the remaining 5% then what?

JLeslie's avatar

Poor houses like the old days.


K-12 education would have more and more fund shifted to religious schools.

Christianity in public schools.

Patty_Melt's avatar

@gondwanalon, while I agree that many Republicans steer in those directions, giving them free reign would be too great a temptation. Things would go bad.

gorillapaws's avatar


What do you think will happen to the long-term stock price of a company that slashes R&D to zero, slashes employee benefits to zero, bonuses out the executives and engages in extreme levels of stock buybacks?

As for the US having two parties, I only see one pro-establishment party that’s split on wedge social issues.

JLeslie's avatar

Oh, medical research would be compromised. Forgot that one.

Dig_Dug's avatar

Science would be out the window. Bare foot and pregnant, segregated schools and all the advancements we made in the last 150 years backed-up to about 1873.

NoMore's avatar

It would be a nightmare. Like Nazi Germany. Take that to the bank.

Jeruba's avatar

When I first became old enough to vote, common wisdom had it that there was really no difference between the parties: both had their right wing, their left wing, and almost indistinguishable centers. I heard people say it didn’t matter whom you voted for because the politicians were all the same.

People didn’t vote for Barry Goldwater, though. Not enough to elect him president over LBJ. (I was not a voter yet, but I followed the election.)

The differences were more north-south than red-blue, a labeling system that didn’t exist then.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

The GOP would turn on itself and splinter into two or more factions. Maybe even split into two or more parties.

flutherother's avatar

It would be the end of the American experiment in running a country according to the ideas of the enlightenment where science and reason prevail to give the possibility of happiness and fulfilment to the greatest number of its citizens. Tolerance would be replaced by suspicion, liberty by dogma and truth by propaganda. We can see it happening already, before our very eyes.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jeruba Interesting to read your answer. My progression was different. I didn’t switch to thinking North South until the 2000’s.

I was 12 years old when Reagan was elected, and I think that was the first time the media used red and blue on the electoral map as a visual, and back then Republican was blue. I was only just beginning to understand politics back then, and wasn’t very interested.

My dad was a Republican and my mom a Democrat, but they discussed politics by the issues and crossed political sides sometimes.

I was always a Democrat, and the issue that stood out most to me was abortion. I actually had Republican friends who were pro-choice, but for some reason they didn’t pay attention to the Party being anti-choice, they didn’t believe there was a real threat to abortion rights.

I remember Phil Donahue once saying it doesn’t really matter who wins regarding the Republicans and Democrats, maybe it was when Nader ran for President, I don’t remember. His wife, Marlo Thomas, came out after the Phil interview saying don’t listen to my husband of course it makes a difference.

As a young adult, discussing politics more, it seemed to me most people, both Republican and Democrat, were socially towards the left and fiscally towards the right, and then I moved to the South and it all changed for me. I lived in North Carolina and Tennessee.

It was in the South that I realized it’s more North and South. Actually, I think it’s also big city vs. the rest. I first moved to the Deep South in 1999 and then again in 2005. In the South the race issue in politics is glaring in the political parties, I hadn’t experienced that before. As a white person in the South there was an assumption I was a Republican. That never happened to me in NY, MI, MD, or FL, which were other states I had lived in.

In the South, there were a lot of people who were conservative on social issues and liberal on fiscal issue. I had never experienced that before either.

ragingloli's avatar


Blackwater_Park's avatar

Two main factions will split out. The more pragmatic center-leaning people who identify as republicans because the current left is so nutty. Then the evangelical and conspiracy type of republican who are too nutty for the center leaning republicans. You now have a new left and right. Nothing really changes that much except things will stagnate a bit because that left-wing drive is missing and the right-wing restraint that kept it on track is stronger. If this country could shave off the fringes from both sides, it would be a nice place to live again.

Forever_Free's avatar

I would move out of the Country.

Entropy's avatar

A single party state is never desirable no matter who the single party is. Political competition is as crucial to good government as competition is to a functioning marketplace.

mazingerz88's avatar

All sorts of deplorable power hungry and money hungry entertainers and billionaires will be elected as President. Like Tucker Carlson and Musk.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Blackwater_Park ”...the current left is so nutty.”

How so? Progressive taxation? Living wages for people working full-time? Fighting for workers’ rights and supporting labor unions? Universal healthcare? Tuition-free state colleges/universities? Women having autonomy over their bodies and the right to make medical decisions without the government interfering? Restrictions on firearms? Investing in clean energy? Treating people with respect/dignity no matter what their race/religion/gender/sexual orientation is? What pray tell is so “nutty” about these ideas? Nearly all of them are the norm in just about every other developed economy.

Dig_Dug's avatar

Oh poppycock! @gorillapaws How dare you talk sense! Why live in a country that is fair to it’s citizens? Don’t you love inequality and the upper 5% living like kings and shitting on the rest?! Darn, next you’ll be talking about holding politicians accountable for their actions or something “nutty” like that…

NoMore's avatar

Lol @Dig_Dug Truth!! But I take issue with your contention about them setting us back to 1873. Too progressive an era for them. I say 1673 is more thier speed. And now the All Male Elders Court hath given yon Dig_Dug wench a fair hearing by her male betters, and hath fined her 75 pence for daring to voice an opinion unseemly for women. She shall be tied to a rock and tossed in the pond, if she doth not drown she is innocent and shall only be confined to hearth for two years. So sayeth the Church Elders. Court dismissed.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@NoMore Damn! Not the Rock?! Again?! (gotta find that eye of newt and bat wing)

NoMore's avatar

She be a witch!! Seize her and take her to the gallows! ; )

Dig_Dug's avatar

Well D’uh, how do ya think I got out of the last rock torture (sinister laughter)

NoMore's avatar

And fetch my 68 muskets and barrel of gunpowder. Might kill me a turkey in route to the hanging

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@gorillapaws yes, the fringe element in the left bleeding over into more mainstream. Examples: Defund the police and reckless, lax crime policies, this strange cult-like fixation on gender, the push to implement energy solutions we don’t have yet immediately, leaving borders completely open, wanting to pay reparations…

Note: I am not defending the nutty republicans you will reference. They’re the other side of the same coin.

Zaku's avatar

@Acrylic No country needs the current US Republican Party. There should be multiple parties (or no parties), yes, but the current parties (both the US ones, but especially the current Republican Party) don’t need to be the only ones, and I’d say it’d be better if both were abolished, because they both serve their own agendas, and the agendas of people and organizations who over-fund them, more than they serve actual causes popular with non-billionaires and non-corporations.

Zaku's avatar

@Blackwater_Park But:

* “Defund the Police” is more a call to not over-fund urban police, and to shift their development away from military equipment and other high-tech oppressive technologies. The Democratic Party is not advocating actually spending no money on police.

* Similarly, the Democrats have not left borders “completely open” at all.

* Gender equality is a popular movement, particularly in urban areas, not a “cult-like fixation” of Democratic Party politicians. The Democrats have generally supported it because it’s popular and generally makes sense from equality and human rights perspectives.

The gender politics, the gun regulation issue, and reparations, (as well as fear of crime, immigrants, and people who aren’t “traditional” American straight white people) are certainly trigger issues for many other people, though.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@Zaku I’m well aware of what is being said about Defund the police, but that’s not what’s happening. They’re literally seeing funding cut, morale destroyed, waves of retirement, resignation and low recruitment numbers. Crime rates in areas hit hard by this are spiking. Way to go dem leaders.

jca2's avatar

@Blackwater_Park: Perhaps the “waves of retirement” that police departments are experiencing are from police having done the majority of their careers free from scrutiny, and now, with videos and pissed off citizens in a post-George Floyd country, the police are saying “screw this” and leaving the job. Just my theory.

It just takes a few videos, like George Floyd and Memphis, to make people say we need to reform the police, because whatever has been is not working.

RocketGuy's avatar

In our area, police get trained then head to a city that pays better. Our city can’t afford more police because of budget constraints. The citizens don’t want to pay more taxes for them, either. So the police have priced themselves out. No defunding has actually occurred.

Zaku's avatar

@Blackwater_Park Ok, well that’s news to me. What I’ve heard is that crime is not spiking, though right-wing news/politicians are saying so.

The West Coast urban communities I know about seem to have abundant police in evidence. They also have more poverty and homeless issues than is usual, which I don’t relate to police policy. The rural communities I know about have underfunded police – because their mostly-Republican constituents don’t vote for police funding, despite having plenty of “I black the Blue”, “thin blue line”, and “all lives matter” stickers on display.

Police policy reform seems clearly in order to me, and not liable to increase crime.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’d be killed fighting the Nazi, I mean Republican Gestapo.

Or I’d be one of the hundreds of thousands of dead people on the streets, who died from treatable medical conditions…

Or… Maybe we would all be dead. Republicans are often Warmongers…

MrGrimm888's avatar

As far as crime rates. C.R.E.A.M.

The leadership of the right leads to more poor, unhealthy, uneducated, desperate, hopeless people. Those are the people who commit serious crimes…

Dig_Dug's avatar


MrGrimm888's avatar

Dolla, dolla bill yo

seawulf575's avatar

No one to challenge the ruling party ends in tyranny.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^The current ruling party just pulled the country from the rat claws, of a wannabe tyrant…

Change. Solely for the sake of change, isn’t necessarily an upgrade. That’s how Trump ended up as POTUS, in the first place.

It would seem that the GOP would prefer an authoritarian leader, controlling an oligarchy. Even if that is desired, it is an unsustainable way of ruling…

Strauss's avatar

Access to sites like this would definitely be curtailed. The Bill of Rights would be abolished or eviscerated The political center would shift so far to the right that any moderately progressive idea would be considered treasonous.

Dig_Dug's avatar

^^ The Bill of Rights is under attack or at least being stretched to say the least.

RocketGuy's avatar

@Dig_Dug – they are already ignoring the 1st Amendment in regards to separation of church and state. DeSantis is ignoring freedom of speech now.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@RocketGuy Oh yeah ever since 1954 with the money.

ragingloli's avatar

They are also already busy rolling back laws against child labour.
It is pretty clear that their intent is to undo any and all positive societal changes that were achieved in the past century and beyond.
I mean, allowing corporations to employ children in meat packing plants, and simulaneously shielding them from any liability if the kids die in their factories?
These people are ghouls, and all their “think of the children” talk when trying to justify their anti-LGBT agenda is all just smoke and mirrors.

Dig_Dug's avatar

I just wish someone would show me something that repukeblicans republicans back that makes sense?

seawulf575's avatar

^Define “makes sense”

Dig_Dug's avatar

@seawulf575 Are you ready for this? You gonna flag or can you handle it?

Make sense: well the republican agenda seems to stem from. Limiting, Stopping or Taking away something. Don’t have an abortion. Limit voting. Limit voting places.  Limit who can vote. Don’t teach all of history. Only teach approved parts of history. Don’t be gay. Gays should not be able to marry, Gays should not be able to have children, Only christian values will be recognized. Don’t read these books. Take away unions for workers, why give them any say. Privatize everything, medical care, social security, even the police and fire dept. oh yeah that will go over just fine. No gun control whatsoever, Global warming is a hoax, Creationism should be taught in schools (with no scientific proof at all) Illegal immigrants should all be forcefully deported, Poverty must solve itself or rely on charity. Odd for a party that stresses “freedom”

So in the republican world you’re simply thrown out to the wolves to fend for yourself and hope you survive. Thank god you’re not a woman, LGBTQIA+, atheist or any religion other than christian, illegal immigrant, poor, pregnant with no support, a certain race, a worker that may want a fair wage, someone that would expect help when he calls 911. You know I could go on but I’m getting tired.

NoMore's avatar

Not enough GAs for that one. Fireworks display and @Dig_Dug for Congress!

seawulf575's avatar

@Dig_Dug Nope, not flagging. It was exactly the answer I expected. One that didn’t actually answer the question. It was a lot of statements about what you don’t like about what you see as the Republican agenda. But You said you wished someone would show you something the Republicans back that “makes sense”. This answer of yours does not define “make sense” as I asked. It just rants. Wanna try again?

Dig_Dug's avatar

@seawulf575 The point is the your republicans DON’T make sense! You wanna pick this apart and tell me why all these things are wrong? Go ahead and try, but you know that I’m right.

jca2's avatar

Here’s a beautiful real life example, Thursday 3/9, cut and pasted from today’s New York Times:

Referring to Biden:

“His spending plan will aim to reduce the federal budget deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade at a moment when Republicans are demanding steep cuts to federal spending in order to reduce the shortfall between what America spends and what it earns through tax receipts and other revenue.

Mr. Biden will propose a series of new tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. That includes a 25 percent tax aimed at billionaires (Mr. Biden proposed a similar tax last year but at a lower rate, 20 percent.) He will also propose quadrupling a tax on stock buybacks and renew his call to roll back former President Donald J. Trump’s tax cuts for high earners and to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent.

The budget is expected to propose an increase in military spending at a moment when the United States is aiding Ukraine against Russia’s aggression and is concerned about emerging threats from China.

Mr. Biden will propose raising and expanding a tax on Americans earning more than $400,000 as part of a series of efforts to extend the solvency of Medicare by a quarter-century. Mr. Biden is also proposing new savings for the government based on more aggressive negotiation over prescription drug prices.

Those plans are almost certain to be rejected by Republicans.”

Democrats: Tax the rich.

Republicans: No way! Cut programs like Medicare and Medicaid instead (programs that their rich cronies don’t care about)

Dig_Dug's avatar

Thank you for your vote and support @NoMore! @Dig_Dug for Congress. Roevember is coming!

Forever_Free's avatar

^^ Awwww your not in my district! Go get-em!

NoMore's avatar

Start a grass roots movement for her. : )

NoMore's avatar

@Dig_Dug Just bear it in mind that pyou will need a good platform. You’ll be running against the Repub mantra of “A baby in every womb, a homeless family on every corner”.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@ragingloli Well it is WV and republican as they come, that explains it.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@NoMore I think if I ran against a republican, I’d tear them up (but honestly, they’d do most of the work themselves) because of their ridiculous unrealistic policy’s.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dig_Dug But you still can’t actually define what makes sense. You can say that what Republicans supposedly want doesn’t make sense. But you can’t actually point to the defining point they are being held against. I guess “Makes Sense” is whatever someone identifies as making sense. Sort of like a woman. Anyone can claim to make sense and it is hateful if you disagree.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@seawulf575 Taking care of OTHERS makes sense. Not only if they’re in your party but because it’s the right thing to do. Respect those that are DIFFERENT than you are. Treat ALL people as you would want to be treated. Don’t make people conform to YOUR ideals. Let people have a choice in their HEALTH care. Quit threatening to cut programs that help the sick poor and elderly people that have PAID into the system all their lives. Just to name a few of these sensible things that seem to elude you right-wing types.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dig_Dug So when Trump was in office he got his tax cuts. That helped businesses grow. Black and Latino unemployment were lower than they had been in a long time. Inflation was low. Imagine how much more could have been done if the Dems worked with him instead of against him?

But let’s look at what your list contains and throw it into some context. Taking care of others: Churches are among the biggest contributors of charity in this world. They take care of others. Many Republicans are religious and take part in this. Yet the left does nothing but demonize them. So is it the right thing to do to demonize the ones that are trying to Take Care of Others?

Respecting those different than you and we could also throw in Treat ALL people as you would want to be treated: When you create jobs that allow people to work and support their family, when you push family values that have been shown over and over again to lead to healthier societies, you are doing these things. When you tax the crap out of people you kill jobs and keep people enslaved to the government. When you incentivize broken families, you are destroying society.

Treat all people as you would want to be treated is really at the crux of your problem. Republicans ARE treating people as they want to be treated. They want less massive government that intrudes on them and costs a ton of money to maintain. They want fiscal responsibility. They want people to have opportunities, but not hand-outs. They view hand-outs as something that should be temporary and not a lifestyle. They want security. These are all things that they want and that the Dems, through their words and actions, don’t.

Your entire list is nothing but rhetoric and fear-mongering the left spews out. The real problem is that you seem to not want a responsible, healthy society but only want someone telling you what to do and taking care of you.

Dig_Dug's avatar

Trumps “tax cuts” were for the wealthy and since he got them the “dems” must have worked with him.

Your churches take care of their own. How many atheist, Jews and gays have they helped? Not to mention those giant Mega-churches that rake in millions but pay no taxes.

This is rich, respecting families by doing away with child labor laws, doing away with unions so workers have no rights. Respecting people different than you by ostracizing LGBTQ+ in more ways I’m not even going into. By making women’s health issues illegal so they need to go to another state or find alternative dangerous ways. Letting the poor ”fend for themselves” lots of respecting going on there. When you don’t help broken families, you are destroying society!

Your entire party is designed around telling people what to do and what they can’t do! FEAR mongering? HA! The GOP holds the market on that and you should know it. Republicans want to treat people like slaves, especially if they don’t fit the perfect mold of the party.
Your GOP motto should be: _“I HAVE MINE, SCREW YOU!”

jca2's avatar

Trump admin seeks to make drilling easier in National forests: “Drill baby drill!”

RocketGuy's avatar

@jca2 – drilling is more of the “I have mine, screw you!”

jca2's avatar

@RocketGuy: Yeah, fuck the wild animals and the streams and rivers and trees!

NoMore's avatar

The Repubs don’t give a rats ass about anything, other than making the wealthy wealthier. All of their rhetoric and policies are the proof in the pudding. And many of their supporters who don’t have a pot to pee in or a window to toss it out of still vote for them in droves.

Dig_Dug's avatar

“War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”

RocketGuy's avatar

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

― George Orwell, 1984

Dig_Dug's avatar

^^ I’m sure that’s in the GOP’s manifesto somewhere.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dig_Dug Your view of life is so skewed I’m surprised you can walk a straight line. You really believe that “Churches” don’t help all that need it, you believe it is all just rich people trying to game the system. Sad. As for the rest, you are merely spewing left-wing propaganda. You really need to learn to think for yourself instead of just repeating what someone tells you.

Think of it this way: I’m a conservative. I’m not a Republican but there are far more conservatives in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. I suspect I have a much better handle on what the Republian party actually values than what someone from the opposing party SAYS they value.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@seawulf575 You’re fun to toy with! You know you are JUST like my brother, that is why I know exactly what you are going to say and I see where you are going with your (thought process) only difference between the two of you is that he is hell bent into pro-life. Abortion is his Achilles heel. What you accuse me of, could be turned right around and pointed at you.

MrGrimm888's avatar


Organized religious groups almost always participate in charitable things, to spread their religion. NOT to simply help those in need.
Second to being born into a religion, and subsequently indoctrinated and brainwashed, pretending to be altruistic is how religions really fill their ranks.
It’s pretty pathetic too. An ancient tactic. Find the most desperate people, and offer them help in exchange for their conversion. No. It’s rarely that clear. But it’s obvious.
Religions are designed to gain/hold power for a few, by controlling the many. The more people a religion has fooled into their fold, the more powerful they are.
So. They go after the people who are the easiest targets. The young/ignorant, and/or the hopeless.
More followers means more political power. More political power means more ability to bend laws to their favor…

SCOTUS/conservative judges.

Education, women’s rights, immigration, and other policies to help the population as a whole which were NEVER intended, by the creators of the US constitution, to be intertwined with religion are.
The constitution is being raped, by Christianity. Our nation’s daughters are being raped by conservative thinking. Creationism, is no different than mythology. When historically relevant to be mentioned, it should be in that context.
Most importantly, history, and social studies should be transparent. Not varnished, or disguised. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Economic/global stability.

Churches, and the like, don’t pay taxes. “Fiscally responsible” conservatives, don’t care.
Conservatives want tax and spend policies. Smaller government. Yet. They get upset when democrats have to raise taxes after Republicans ramp up the debt.
G. Bush and Cheney fabricated reasons to go to war, and enter multiple conflicts for profit. Yeah. All to hand out taxpayer dollars to military contractors and cronies. And once that stolen money funded American Army destroyed Iraq, and reeked havoc across the ME, they used companies like Haliburton (Cheney much…) to rebuild what was destroyed.
~The Bush family probably didn’t even think about their oil companies when forcing regime change in the resource rich Arabic world.~
They killed or ruined the lives of countless people. Including Americans. To go from crazy rich, to batshit crazy rich.
All the while undoing the work the Clinton administration did to put the US on a road to reducing the national debt, and attempt to secure world peace.
Trump ran the debt exponentially higher than ever, and yes, a LOT of that money went into the overflowing pockets of the most wealthy Americans. (Admittedly. Covid was an issue that whomever was POTUS at the time would have had to put money into.)
The work of just the four republican leaders I mentioned is a major reason why taxes will HAVE to go up. Inflation will HAVE to go up, as the democrats bring growth to the economy.
Oil prices, and trade will HAVE to see negative effects for reasons that can all be linked to conservative agendas.
Most glaringly, at the moment, is the effect of Trump, and his followers. The countries bigots were empowered, and practically encouraged. Dividing the nation. Great…THAT helps….
US military assets were pulled from Europe, AND Trump tried to basically dissolve NATO, ”coincidentally” right before Russia pushed the largest act of military aggression since WWII into Ukraine and onto the doorsteps of NATO nations.
The war also creates another catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Mass famine in Northern Africa.
Americans were made aware of the fact that the US was going to support (financially)stopping Russia, in the interest of global security. The American people were all told about some sacrifices we would have to endure, to help Ukraine/Europe, ourselves/everyone. And. For the most part, the US citizens were ok with that.


China has grown fat/and powerful, from outsourcing and other inevitable side effects of capitalism. Both taking jobs away from the US people, and reducing US importance in technology on the global scale. That prosperity, is a large reason that China can pursue expansionist agendas in Taiwan, and the “South China” Sea. If Taiwan falls completely into China’s grasp, world trade will rapidly change.


Must I even go there…


So. Here we are. As far as US citizens…
The cost of living is higher than ever.
The quality of most people’s lives are lower.
Most people have worse health problems than any other people in most other countries.
Our entire population is at the mercy of the selective distribution of our wealth (and we ARE a wealthy nation) by the wealthy, to the wealthy, not only to remain wealthy/powerful, but to further extend the massive inequality between the wealthy and middle-lower-poor classes.
So what? Why does that matter?

The rich, need the poor.
The poor, don’t need the rich.

It’s quite simple.

The rich people’s money/assets mean nothing, without the poor.
The poor construct/maintain the rich people’s homes, and our infrastructure.
They are the nation’s law enforcement, firefighters, nurses, teachers, manufacturers, dock workers, truckers, warehouse workers, food/beverage workers, hospitality workers, servants, nannies, etc.
They ARE the nation’s army/defense.
And. They are the main consumers, and taxpayers.

The poor, in such governance, are THE MAJORITY. Even if the conservatives can prevent the poor from having a voice, they WILL be heard…
If you don’t have a healthy majority of your population, you open the door for pandemics (Covid, Hello…) to spread. And such things don’t just target the poor. The rich who were sickened and/or killed by Covid, were victims of their own greed and treatment of the poor. (Not just in America, but the US, could actually afford to have a healthy population.)
What effects the poor, will eventually effect the rich…
Not to mention that historically, such top heavy wealth distribution, usually gives way to an uprising by the oppressed, and subsequent deterioration of the ruling party, if not additionally a toppling of the entire government.
Absolutely nothing the rich have, is possible without the poor…
With that knowledge, it would be wise to “spread the love.” Not just, the right thing to do.

Currently… Most (not all) conservatives are still in the panic mode, that their republican leaders have induced through lies, and fear mongering. White, Christians, and especially White ,Christian Men, are afraid. Afraid of the way things are.
They are afraid that their representation in the US government will be reduced. Afraid that their culture, their neighborhoods, and cities will be “replaced” by ones different than they prefer.
The simple fact is that America, like every other place in the world, or time, is changing.
White, Christians are a minority in the world. Eventually. They will be the minority in the US. And. So it follows, that the cultures, policies, regulations, and laws of the US will change.
Conservatives would be wise to be more aware of this, and either run WITH the rest of us, or get run over… If they don’t like that, that sounds like a personal problem…

NoMore's avatar

You forgot to mention the Televangelists and thier “Prosperity Gospel”. Prosperity for them, poverty for thier flock.

Dig_Dug's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You make me weak in my knees. <3

jca2's avatar

DeSantis, silencing critics by removing elected officials from office, cut and pasted from The New York Times:

When Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida announced last summer that he had taken the extraordinary step of removing a local prosecutor from his job, he cast his decision as a bold move to protect Floridians.

The prosecutor, Andrew H. Warren, a twice-elected state attorney for Hillsborough County and a Democrat, had signed a public pledge not to prosecute those who seek or provide abortions. Moreover, he was among a group of progressive prosecutors around the country who, in Mr. DeSantis’s words, think “they get to pick and choose which laws that they are enforcing,” the governor told reporters and handpicked supporters at a news conference.

Those left-leaning prosecutors, he said, had “undermined public safety” and been “devastating to the rule of law.”

Left unsaid, however, was that Mr. DeSantis and his advisers had failed to find a connection between Mr. Warren’s policies and public safety in his community.

In fact, just the day before, writing in blue pen on a draft of an executive order, the governor had personally removed any mention of crime statistics justifying Mr. Warren’s suspension, after Mr. DeSantis’s lawyers lamented that they could find nothing in them to support the idea that Mr. Warren’s policies had done harm, according to internal documents and testimony.

As he travels the country promoting a new book and his expected presidential campaign, Mr. DeSantis repeatedly points to his ouster of Mr. Warren as an example of the muscular and decisive way he has transformed Florida — and could transform the nation. He casts Mr. Warren as a rogue ideologue whose refusal to enforce the law demanded action.

But a close examination of the episode, including interviews, emails, text messages and thousands of pages of government records, trial testimony, depositions and other court records, reveals a sharply different picture: a governor’s office that seemed driven by a preconceived political narrative, bent on a predetermined outcome, content with a flimsy investigation and focused on maximizing media attention for Mr. DeSantis.

Andrew H. Warren, a Democrat who served as the state attorney for Hillsborough County, had signed a public pledge not to prosecute those who seek or provide abortions. Credit…Chasity Maynard/Tallahassee Democrat, via Associated Press

Two weeks after his removal, Mr. Warren sued the governor in federal court seeking his reinstatement. The lawsuit, which Mr. Warren appealed after it was dismissed in January, produced a significant quantity of discovery, which The New York Times reviewed in detail.

Months before suspending Mr. Warren, Mr. DeSantis had ordered his staff to find progressive prosecutors who were letting criminals walk free. Under oath, his aides later acknowledged that they had deliberately avoided investigating Mr. Warren too closely, so that they would not tip him off and prompt him to reverse his policies — thwarting the goal of making an example of him. When contrary information did materialize, Mr. DeSantis and his lawyers dismissed or ignored it, the records show.

Only after Mr. Warren was removed did the governor’s aides seek records from Mr. Warren’s office that might help justify Mr. DeSantis’s action.

If the investigation into Mr. Warren was cursory at best, the preparation to remove him while simultaneously publicizing that ouster involved greater planning. And those plans were executed with military precision. The governor’s aides gave special attention to news outlets they referred to as “friendly.” Immediately after the news conference, DeSantis aides exerted influence over communications at the state attorney’s office, an independent county agency, working to ensure that the takeover did not result in negative coverage.

And that night, the governor headlined Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to promote his move. Mr. Carlson opened with a 12-minute speech about prosecutors who disregard the law, then turned to an exclusive interview with the governor.

“Ron DeSantis is the man who put an end to it today in the state of Florida,” Mr. Carlson said.

Although Mr. DeSantis’s move was cheered in the conservative news media as a victory in his war on “wokeness,” a federal judge ruled in January that the governor had violated Mr. Warren’s First Amendment rights and the Florida Constitution in a rush to judgment. “The actual facts,” Judge Robert L. Hinkle wrote, “did not matter. All that was needed was a pretext.” Mr. DeSantis’s office, the judge said from the bench, had conducted a “one-sided inquiry” meant to target Mr. Warren. (The judge said he did not have the authority to reinstate Mr. Warren, who is appealing in state and federal court.)

Mr. Warren, in an interview, said he believed Mr. DeSantis had disregarded the will of the voters in his county for political gain.

“He’s willing to abuse his power to attack his political enemies,” Mr. Warren said.

Mr. DeSantis, who declined to be interviewed, insists in his new book, “The Courage to Be Free,” that his action was justified by Mr. Warren’s public statements. He argues that prosecutors who want “to ‘reform’ the criminal justice system” should quit and run for the Legislature.

In response to written questions, a spokesman for the governor referred to public statements and the trial record, adding, “Mr. Warren remains suspended from the office he failed to serve.”

In recent weeks, Mr. DeSantis has indicated that he intends to target other prosecutors with whom he disagrees, lashing out at another Democratic state attorney.

Gov. Ron DeSantis and His Administration

Earlier this month, he told donors at a private gathering in Palm Beach that because he’d won only 50 percent of the vote in his 2018 election, people had told him to tread lightly.

“But I won 100 percent of the executive power,” he said, “and I intended to use it to advance an agenda that I campaigned on.”

‘All roads led to Mr. Warren’
Midway through a meeting with his closest advisers in December 2021, Mr. DeSantis abruptly asked a pointed question: Did they know of any prosecutors in the state who weren’t enforcing the law?

The topic was not on the meeting’s agenda, but it hardly came out of the blue.

Right-wing pundits and podcasters had for years railed against local prosecutors elected on platforms promising alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent crimes or avoiding the death penalty. The critics painted those prosecutors as agents of George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor, and as giving rise to a scourge of crime. One such prosecutor at the time, Chesa Boudin, was facing a recall election in San Francisco.

A top DeSantis aide, Larry Keefe, set out to answer the governor’s question. A former United States attorney, Mr. Keefe’s title is public safety czar. But he has served in a broad role for the governor, executing high-profile projects including helping to coordinate the flight of scores of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in September.

Mr. Keefe began by asking Florida sheriffs whether they knew of any progressive prosecutors. Several mentioned the state attorney from Hillsborough County. Communicating over encrypted text messages and personal email, Mr. Keefe assembled a dossier on Mr. Warren’s policies and charging decisions.

Mr. Warren was the only prosecutor he scrutinized, Mr. Keefe said later in a deposition: “All roads led to Mr. Warren.”

A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Warren, 46, was elected in 2016 promising to create a new unit to search for wrongful convictions, focus resources on prosecuting violent offenders, reduce prosecutions for first-time misdemeanors and curb the number of children charged as adults.

Mr. Warren, who had been a frequent critic of Mr. DeSantis, has sued the governor over his removal.

After Mr. DeSantis took office in 2019, Mr. Warren became a frequent critic. When the governor barred local governments from enacting their own Covid restrictions, Mr. Warren called the order “weak and spineless.” In 2021, he sought to organize opposition to a DeSantis-backed law that restricted political protests. In January 2022, Mr. Warren instituted a policy that made prosecutions of pedestrians and bicyclists for resisting arrest an exception rather than the rule, responding to studies that show the charge disproportionately affected Black people.

Florida’s Constitution allows governors to suspend local office holders for reasons including “malfeasance” or “neglect of duty” until the Legislature votes on whether to permanently remove or reinstate them. Mr. DeSantis was the first Florida governor in many decades known to have suspended an elected prosecutor over a policy difference.

By contrast, his predecessor, Rick Scott, publicly clashed with a prosecutor who refused to seek capital punishment and took death penalty cases away from her, but he did not force her from office.

For months, Mr. Keefe’s dossier on Mr. Warren failed to cross the threshold to take action against him, Mr. DeSantis’s lawyers later testified. Then, in June, after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion, an advocacy group released a statement signed by Mr. Warren and 91 other prosecutors around the country.

In it, they vowed to “exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide or support abortions.”

Whether the pledge would have any practical impact in Hillsborough County was unclear. Criminal cases of any kind involving abortion had been exceptionally rare in Florida. A new law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy was being appealed.

Florida legislators passed a law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but the measure has been held up in court.Credit…Cristobal Herrera-Ulashkevich/EPA, via Shutterstock

Mr. Warren told a TV reporter that the statement should not be read as a blanket policy: He would individually evaluate any cases that emerged. The governor’s aides saw the TV report and disregarded it, according to court records.

Ryan Newman, the governor’s general counsel, and Ray Treadwell, Mr. Newman’s deputy, testified that the pledge was the evidence they needed. Mr. Warren had said he would not enforce abortion laws, and could therefore be considered negligent and incompetent.

The lawyers discussed asking Mr. Warren to clarify whether his pledge would apply to existing abortion restrictions. But they decided not to, one later testified, because they worried that this would have “tipped him off” and given Mr. Warren a chance to walk it back, short-circuiting their effort to remove him.

Records obtained through litigation show that Mr. Keefe and the lawyers began drafting the executive order suspending Mr. Warren.

The tone of an early draft, written by Mr. Keefe in July, was highly partisan. The document named Mr. Soros six times, pointing to reports that Mr. Warren had received indirect support for his campaign from the billionaire Jewish philanthropist, a frequent target of conservatives and of antisemitic tropes.

(In a deposition, Mr. Keefe said he had not known that Mr. Soros was Jewish, but said he was “concerned” that “one of Florida’s state attorneys had been co-opted” by the philanthropist.)

In another draft, Mr. Treadwell highlighted a passage referring to Mr. Soros and wrote, “I would prefer to remove these allegations, but they may be valuable for the larger political narrative.”

The signed executive order included no references to Mr. Soros.

Editing out the data
On July 26, Mr. Newman, Mr. Keefe and James Uthmeier, the governor’s chief of staff, met with Mr. DeSantis to present their plan, according to sworn deposition testimony.

The governor was initially skeptical, transcripts show. He questioned whether Mr. Warren could be removed based on his signed pledge alone, lacking evidence that he had declined to prosecute an abortion-related crime.

Mr. Newman argued that Mr. DeSantis should act while Mr. Warren’s refusal to prosecute was still hypothetical: It could be both impractical and unwise to wait to challenge Mr. Warren over a specific decision, Mr. Newman explained under oath at trial.

Mr. DeSantis was persuaded. He asked for additional information about Mr. Warren’s record but gave a green light to charge ahead.

Still, the governor seemed reluctant to hang Mr. Warren’s removal narrowly on the abortion pledge.

In handwritten instructions on a draft of the executive order, he told his lawyers to list “non-abortion infractions first,” including language accusing the prosecutor of “acting as if he is a law unto himself.”

Mr. DeSantis also crossed out three paragraphs packed with statistics about prosecution rates in Hillsborough County. Aides had dug up the data in hopes of showing a declining rate of prosecution during Mr. Warren’s tenure, but the numbers weren’t clear.

“You can kind of tell we didn’t have any definitive proof of a correlation,” Mr. Treadwell later testified.

In December, during a three-day trial over Mr. Warren’s removal, Judge Hinkle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said the evidence suggested that the goal of the governor’s review of Mr. Warren’s record was really “to amass information that could help bring down Mr. Warren, not to find out how Mr. Warren actually runs the office.”

“A cynic would say, ‘I just needed one pelt — just needed to nail one pelt to the wall,’” the judge added.

Mixed signals in the messaging
The day before he was suspended, Mr. Warren and his staff were putting the finishing touches on a major announcement set for the next day: indictments in two decades-old rape and murder cases.

Aides to Mr. DeSantis were planning a starkly different event, the legal records show.

Mr. Keefe was sending over talking points for Susan Lopez, a state judge who had agreed to replace Mr. Warren.

“Love it!” Ms. Lopez texted Mr. Keefe. “Sounds like me!”

Christina Pushaw, the governor’s spokeswoman at the time, teased the coming news on Twitter: “Major announcement tomorrow morning” from Mr. DeSantis, she wrote. “Prepare for liberal media meltdown of the year.” Her tweet alone generated headlines by Fox News and other conservative news outlets.

But Mr. DeSantis wanted to avoid the appearance that his ouster of Mr. Warren was an overtly partisan act.

He told Ms. Pushaw he was displeased with her tweet, she later testified, saying he wanted the public message to be about protecting Floridians from a dangerous prosecutor, adding that his decision “had nothing to do with the media.”

Ms. Pushaw, a combative force on social media, called this the only time the governor had ever “reprimanded” her over her tweets.

And Mr. Uthmeier, the governor’s chief of staff, warned another aide that Mr. DeSantis wanted them to tone down the “sensationalism.”

“Every comment impacts what will be contentious litigation,” Mr. Uthmeier wrote in a text message disclosed in litigation.

The heated language, however, was coming from the legal department, too. Mr. DeSantis’s general counsel, Mr. Newman, added language to the governor’s speech calling Mr. Warren “a woke ideologue masquerading as a prosecutor.”

Under oath, Mr. Newman later said he did not believe the statement to be true. He wrote it, he said, “to channel what I think the press shop wants.”

That press shop was in high gear as the governor’s office removed Mr. Warren. It discussed handing out copies of the executive order to friendly news outlets. Other aides, meanwhile, contacted Republican Party groups to to find DeSantis supporters to fill the room.

A few minutes before 10 a.m. on Aug. 4, Mr. Warren received an email notifying him that he had been suspended. He rushed to his office, but Mr. Keefe soon arrived with an armed sheriff’s deputy and ordered him to leave, according to testimony from Mr. Keefe. Mr. Keefe texted the governor’s staff: “Warren is out of the building.” And the news conference began.

‘We’ll put the nail in the coffin’
With Mr. Warren out, the governor’s office stepped in. Mr. Keefe and Taryn Fenske, the governor’s communications chief, had already discussed in text messages what Ms. Lopez’s first steps should be, planning for the new state attorney to issue a memo rescinding Mr. Warren’s prosecution policies.

A memo that Ms. Lopez sent out days later mirrored that plan, saying, “The legislature makes the law and we, as prosecutors, enforce it.” (She testified that she did not recall consulting with anyone other than her chief of staff.)

Two aides to the governor were dispatched to the state attorney’s office in Hillsborough to “help make sure there’s no funny business over there,” Savannah Kelly Jefferson, director of external affairs, wrote in a text message to her staff.

Mr. Keefe, who had stuck around at the state attorney’s office, told Melanie Snow-Waxler, the office’s chief communications officer, to cancel Mr. Warren’s news conference on the cold cases, she said in an interview. The office said its chief of staff had made the decision.

He listened in on a speaker phone as she called one murder victim’s aunt to tell her not to come.

“I was confused. I didn’t know what was going on,” Ms. Snow-Waxler, who was fired soon after for reasons that are in dispute, said in the interview. “This is not someone who has been your boss, but it’s not like I was given an option. It was an order.”

A former DeSantis spokesman, Fred Piccolo, was brought in as a communications consultant for the state attorney’s office. In an interview, Mr. Piccolo said his job included keeping the prosecutor’s office on the same page with the governor’s office in publicly discussing Mr. Warren’s suspension. In a text message to colleagues, Ms. Fenske said she would lean on Mr. Piccolo to push back on Mr. Warren’s contention that his suspension was invalid: “We’ll put the nail in the coffin.”

Six days later, as the controversy continued to generate headlines and Mr. Warren publicly blasted his dismissal, the Hillsborough County state attorney’s office received a curious piece of correspondence from the governor’s office, documents from a public records request show.

It was from Mr. Treadwell, the governor’s deputy general counsel, making his first request for information from the prosecutor’s office that might reveal whether Mr. Warren had done anything wrong.

Jonathan Swan and Frances Robles contributed reporting.

Dig_Dug's avatar

Is it legal for him to remove an elected official from office? Especially for doing nothing wrong? Fuhrer DeSantis needs to be stopped!

jca2's avatar

I know that if the elected person is deemed incompetent, they can be removed but it’s usually a lengthy process.

Dig_Dug's avatar

DeSantis and his rein of terror needs to be stopped.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^He will likely just go lower and lower, in his attempts to pull supporters from Trump.
And. The dems will give him lots of free airtime to try to draw more attention to the dumpster fire that the GOP has become. The righties enjoy anyone who triggers the left. No matter how bad the reasons are. So. It will swell his ranks…

I shouldn’t have even entered this thread. Our Wulf knows that I have grown tired of these threads. I guess I was just not “up above it,” when I penned my reactionary piece. Wulf is no dull man. He could have probably predicted most of my piece. He is one of the many conservatives that make me shake my head. Highly intelligent, and informed. But. Willing to sacrifice many values, for a few victories in policy…

We need more conservative jellies, to add some balance, and different perspectives to these tired debates.

I am not a Democrat, I just hate the defining characteristics of the current GOP. So. I add a slightly different perspective, but not enough to keep this thread from turning circular…...

Answer this question




to answer.

Mobile | Desktop

Send Feedback