https://i.imgur.com/PuLPWn5.jpg
Conservatives and Liberals
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Pretty good interview of Rick Scott, on the issue of sunsetting Social Security and other "entitlements" in the safety net:
https://youtu.be/NNxDBae7NaU
https://youtu.be/NNxDBae7NaU
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/p ... crats.html
"President Biden will submit his latest budget request to Congress on Thursday, offering what his administration says will be $2 trillion in plans to reduce deficits and future growth of the national debt.
Republicans, who are demanding deep spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing cap, will almost certainly greet that proposal with a familiar refrain: Mr. Biden and his party are to blame for ballooning the debt.
But an analysis of House and Senate voting records, and of fiscal estimates of legislation prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that Republicans bear at least equal blame as Democrats for the biggest drivers of federal debt growth that passed Congress over the last two presidential administrations.
The national debt has grown to $31.4 trillion from just under $6 trillion in 2000, bumping against the statutory limit on federal borrowing. That increase, which spanned the presidential administrations of two Republicans and two Democrats, has been fueled by tax cuts, wars, economic stimulus and the growing costs of retirement and health programs. Since 2017, when Donald J. Trump took the White House, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have joined together to pass a series of spending increases and tax cuts that the budget office projects will add trillions to the debt.
The analysis is based on the forecasts that the C.B.O. regularly issues for the federal budget. They include descriptions of newly passed legislation that affects spending, revenues and deficits, tallying the costs of those new laws over the course of a decade. Going back to the start of Mr. Trump’s tenure, those reports highlight 13 new laws that, by the C.B.O.’s projections, will combine to add more than $11.5 trillion to the debt.
Nearly three-quarters of that new debt was approved in bills that gained the support of a majority of Republicans in at least one chamber of Congress. Three-fifths of it was signed into law by Mr. Trump.
Some of those bills were in response to emergencies, like the early rounds of stimulus payments to people and businesses during the pandemic. Others were routine appropriations bills, which increased spending on the military and on domestic issues like research and education.
What is the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling, also called the debt limit, is a cap on the total amount of money that the federal government is authorized to borrow via U.S. Treasury securities, such as bills and savings bonds, to fulfill its financial obligations. Because the United States runs budget deficits, it must borrow huge sums of money to pay its bills.
The limit has been hit. What now? America hit its technical debt limit on Jan. 19. The Treasury Department will now begin using “extraordinary measures” to continue paying the government’s obligations. These measures are essentially fiscal accounting tools that curb certain government investments so that the bills continue to be paid. Those options could be exhausted by June.
What is at stake? Once the government exhausts its extraordinary measures and runs out of cash, it would be unable to issue new debt and pay its bills. The government could wind up defaulting on its debt if it is unable to make required payments to its bondholders. Such a scenario would be economically devastating and could plunge the globe into a financial crisis.
Can the government do anything to forestall disaster? There is no official playbook for what Washington can do. But options do exist. The Treasury could try to prioritize payments, such as paying bondholders first. If the United States does default on its debt, which would rattle the markets, the Federal Reserve could theoretically step in to buy some of those Treasury bonds.
Why is there a limit on U.S. borrowing? According to the Constitution, Congress must authorize borrowing. The debt limit was instituted in the early 20th century so that the Treasury would not need to ask for permission each time it had to issue debt to pay bills.
Many of the votes were roundly bipartisan: More than 85 percent of the projected debt added over the last six years passed with a majority of Democratic votes in both chambers. Almost an identical amount of debt passed with at least a third of Republican votes in the House or Senate. Chief among them were a series of Covid-19 relief measures totaling more than $3 trillion and passing with landslide majorities in 2020.
Some of the laws passed entirely along party lines. In those cases, on net, Republicans added slightly more to the debt than Democrats.
That’s because of the sweeping corporate and individual tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law at the end of 2017, which cost $2 trillion. Despite Republican claims that the tax cuts paid for themselves, the C.B.O. estimated last month that Mr. Trump’s corporate tax cuts alone would cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue in the years to come. Earlier C.B.O. analyses suggest that the full slate of tax cuts have already cost the government $1.2 trillion through the 2022 fiscal year.
The tax cuts’ price tag outweighed the net cost of the two most fiscally consequential bills that Mr. Biden and Democrats passed along party lines: a $1.9 trillion economic aid bill in 2021 and a climate, health and tax bill approved late last summer, which is projected to reduce future deficits by nearly $300 billion.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California and many other prominent Republicans who are now leading the resistance to raising the borrowing limit did vote against large spending bills that other Republicans backed under Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden. But they also voted for trillions of dollars in pandemic aid under Mr. Trump and roundly backed his tax cuts.
House Republicans have pushed to extend the 2017 tax cuts, which would add trillions to the debt. They also support rolling back tax increases and enhanced tax enforcement measures approved by Mr. Biden, which would have the effect of adding hundreds of billions of dollars to deficits if they were to succeed.
Top congressional Republicans rarely acknowledge the role that their party has played in adding to deficits and debt in recent years, instead laying the blame on Mr. Biden and Democrats.
“Biden’s numerous bailouts and massive government expansion disguised as Covid relief has blown out spending and exacerbated our debt disaster,” Representative Jodey C. Arrington of Texas, the chair of the House Budget Committee, said last month.
Beyond Congress, Republican candidates have long tweaked their party for not taking a harder line on spending and debt. “The last two Republican presidents added more than $10 trillion to the national debt,” Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador who is now running for president, told the conservative Club for Growth on Saturday, as reported by Politico. “Think about that. A third of our debt happened under just two Republicans.”
Biden administration officials blame Mr. Trump and former President George W. Bush for running up debt, particularly with tax cuts. They claim credit for a decline in the budget deficit under Mr. Biden, even though that mostly occurred because the federal government stopped passing emergency aid bills as the pandemic eased its grip on the economy.
“I’m not going to sit and be lectured by MAGA Republicans in Congress about fiscal responsibility,” Mr. Biden wrote on Twitter on Sunday.
The budget office’s math is unsparing: It shows both parties acting, often together, to increase deficits and debt in recent years.
Mr. Biden has signed laws that are set to add just under $5 trillion to the debt over the next decade, by the C.B.O.’s estimation. The actual amount could be far less because of a quirk in how the C.B.O. accounts for two bills: the infrastructure bill Mr. Biden signed in 2021 and legislation enacted last year to expand health care for military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits. That quirk, which requires the budget office to assume certain spending will continue indefinitely even though Congress has not authorized it to do so, could be inflating the cost of the bills by nearly $1.3 trillion.
The estimate of the burn pits legislation could be counting nearly $400 billion in spending twice. The bill essentially shifts a large amount of spending on veterans from a budget category called discretionary spending to one called mandatory spending. The budget office recognizes the new mandatory spending but assumes Congress will not cut discretionary veterans’ spending commensurately. Similarly, the infrastructure law calls for spending on projects like roads and broadband to increase in the near term and then taper off. The C.B.O. estimates that tapering will never actually happen, and that spending will keep rising at the rate of inflation in later years.
But Mr. Biden has added to the debt not just by signing laws. He has also taken unilateral action that independent experts say could cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars. That includes the president’s plan to forgive student loan debts for a wide swath of borrowers who earn less than $125,000 a year. The plan, which is on hold as it faces a challenge before the Supreme Court, would add $400 billion to deficits over the next 30 years if carried out, according to budget office estimates.
Mr. Trump, by comparison, signed laws adding nearly $7 trillion to the debt in his four-year term, by the budget office’s estimation. That number does not include the cost of making permanent the individual tax cuts passed in 2017 that are set to expire after 2025; the C.B.O. assumes those cuts will expire as scheduled.
Mr. McCarthy has acknowledged the degree of debt that Mr. Trump signed into law with the help of Republicans and Democrats in Congress. But he has blamed Mr. Biden for continued spending after the president entered the White House, and has made clear that House Republicans will demand steep cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
Asked by Margaret Brennan of CBS News in January about the amount of debt incurred under Mr. Trump, Mr. McCarthy replied: “You had a pandemic. And, as that pandemic comes down, those programs leave. I have watched the president say he cut it. No, it is spending $500 billion more than what was projected. They have spent more. And we’ve got to stop the waste.”
"President Biden will submit his latest budget request to Congress on Thursday, offering what his administration says will be $2 trillion in plans to reduce deficits and future growth of the national debt.
Republicans, who are demanding deep spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing cap, will almost certainly greet that proposal with a familiar refrain: Mr. Biden and his party are to blame for ballooning the debt.
But an analysis of House and Senate voting records, and of fiscal estimates of legislation prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that Republicans bear at least equal blame as Democrats for the biggest drivers of federal debt growth that passed Congress over the last two presidential administrations.
The national debt has grown to $31.4 trillion from just under $6 trillion in 2000, bumping against the statutory limit on federal borrowing. That increase, which spanned the presidential administrations of two Republicans and two Democrats, has been fueled by tax cuts, wars, economic stimulus and the growing costs of retirement and health programs. Since 2017, when Donald J. Trump took the White House, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have joined together to pass a series of spending increases and tax cuts that the budget office projects will add trillions to the debt.
The analysis is based on the forecasts that the C.B.O. regularly issues for the federal budget. They include descriptions of newly passed legislation that affects spending, revenues and deficits, tallying the costs of those new laws over the course of a decade. Going back to the start of Mr. Trump’s tenure, those reports highlight 13 new laws that, by the C.B.O.’s projections, will combine to add more than $11.5 trillion to the debt.
Nearly three-quarters of that new debt was approved in bills that gained the support of a majority of Republicans in at least one chamber of Congress. Three-fifths of it was signed into law by Mr. Trump.
Some of those bills were in response to emergencies, like the early rounds of stimulus payments to people and businesses during the pandemic. Others were routine appropriations bills, which increased spending on the military and on domestic issues like research and education.
What is the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling, also called the debt limit, is a cap on the total amount of money that the federal government is authorized to borrow via U.S. Treasury securities, such as bills and savings bonds, to fulfill its financial obligations. Because the United States runs budget deficits, it must borrow huge sums of money to pay its bills.
The limit has been hit. What now? America hit its technical debt limit on Jan. 19. The Treasury Department will now begin using “extraordinary measures” to continue paying the government’s obligations. These measures are essentially fiscal accounting tools that curb certain government investments so that the bills continue to be paid. Those options could be exhausted by June.
What is at stake? Once the government exhausts its extraordinary measures and runs out of cash, it would be unable to issue new debt and pay its bills. The government could wind up defaulting on its debt if it is unable to make required payments to its bondholders. Such a scenario would be economically devastating and could plunge the globe into a financial crisis.
Can the government do anything to forestall disaster? There is no official playbook for what Washington can do. But options do exist. The Treasury could try to prioritize payments, such as paying bondholders first. If the United States does default on its debt, which would rattle the markets, the Federal Reserve could theoretically step in to buy some of those Treasury bonds.
Why is there a limit on U.S. borrowing? According to the Constitution, Congress must authorize borrowing. The debt limit was instituted in the early 20th century so that the Treasury would not need to ask for permission each time it had to issue debt to pay bills.
Many of the votes were roundly bipartisan: More than 85 percent of the projected debt added over the last six years passed with a majority of Democratic votes in both chambers. Almost an identical amount of debt passed with at least a third of Republican votes in the House or Senate. Chief among them were a series of Covid-19 relief measures totaling more than $3 trillion and passing with landslide majorities in 2020.
Some of the laws passed entirely along party lines. In those cases, on net, Republicans added slightly more to the debt than Democrats.
That’s because of the sweeping corporate and individual tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law at the end of 2017, which cost $2 trillion. Despite Republican claims that the tax cuts paid for themselves, the C.B.O. estimated last month that Mr. Trump’s corporate tax cuts alone would cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue in the years to come. Earlier C.B.O. analyses suggest that the full slate of tax cuts have already cost the government $1.2 trillion through the 2022 fiscal year.
The tax cuts’ price tag outweighed the net cost of the two most fiscally consequential bills that Mr. Biden and Democrats passed along party lines: a $1.9 trillion economic aid bill in 2021 and a climate, health and tax bill approved late last summer, which is projected to reduce future deficits by nearly $300 billion.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California and many other prominent Republicans who are now leading the resistance to raising the borrowing limit did vote against large spending bills that other Republicans backed under Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden. But they also voted for trillions of dollars in pandemic aid under Mr. Trump and roundly backed his tax cuts.
House Republicans have pushed to extend the 2017 tax cuts, which would add trillions to the debt. They also support rolling back tax increases and enhanced tax enforcement measures approved by Mr. Biden, which would have the effect of adding hundreds of billions of dollars to deficits if they were to succeed.
Top congressional Republicans rarely acknowledge the role that their party has played in adding to deficits and debt in recent years, instead laying the blame on Mr. Biden and Democrats.
“Biden’s numerous bailouts and massive government expansion disguised as Covid relief has blown out spending and exacerbated our debt disaster,” Representative Jodey C. Arrington of Texas, the chair of the House Budget Committee, said last month.
Beyond Congress, Republican candidates have long tweaked their party for not taking a harder line on spending and debt. “The last two Republican presidents added more than $10 trillion to the national debt,” Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador who is now running for president, told the conservative Club for Growth on Saturday, as reported by Politico. “Think about that. A third of our debt happened under just two Republicans.”
Biden administration officials blame Mr. Trump and former President George W. Bush for running up debt, particularly with tax cuts. They claim credit for a decline in the budget deficit under Mr. Biden, even though that mostly occurred because the federal government stopped passing emergency aid bills as the pandemic eased its grip on the economy.
“I’m not going to sit and be lectured by MAGA Republicans in Congress about fiscal responsibility,” Mr. Biden wrote on Twitter on Sunday.
The budget office’s math is unsparing: It shows both parties acting, often together, to increase deficits and debt in recent years.
Mr. Biden has signed laws that are set to add just under $5 trillion to the debt over the next decade, by the C.B.O.’s estimation. The actual amount could be far less because of a quirk in how the C.B.O. accounts for two bills: the infrastructure bill Mr. Biden signed in 2021 and legislation enacted last year to expand health care for military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits. That quirk, which requires the budget office to assume certain spending will continue indefinitely even though Congress has not authorized it to do so, could be inflating the cost of the bills by nearly $1.3 trillion.
The estimate of the burn pits legislation could be counting nearly $400 billion in spending twice. The bill essentially shifts a large amount of spending on veterans from a budget category called discretionary spending to one called mandatory spending. The budget office recognizes the new mandatory spending but assumes Congress will not cut discretionary veterans’ spending commensurately. Similarly, the infrastructure law calls for spending on projects like roads and broadband to increase in the near term and then taper off. The C.B.O. estimates that tapering will never actually happen, and that spending will keep rising at the rate of inflation in later years.
But Mr. Biden has added to the debt not just by signing laws. He has also taken unilateral action that independent experts say could cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars. That includes the president’s plan to forgive student loan debts for a wide swath of borrowers who earn less than $125,000 a year. The plan, which is on hold as it faces a challenge before the Supreme Court, would add $400 billion to deficits over the next 30 years if carried out, according to budget office estimates.
Mr. Trump, by comparison, signed laws adding nearly $7 trillion to the debt in his four-year term, by the budget office’s estimation. That number does not include the cost of making permanent the individual tax cuts passed in 2017 that are set to expire after 2025; the C.B.O. assumes those cuts will expire as scheduled.
Mr. McCarthy has acknowledged the degree of debt that Mr. Trump signed into law with the help of Republicans and Democrats in Congress. But he has blamed Mr. Biden for continued spending after the president entered the White House, and has made clear that House Republicans will demand steep cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
Asked by Margaret Brennan of CBS News in January about the amount of debt incurred under Mr. Trump, Mr. McCarthy replied: “You had a pandemic. And, as that pandemic comes down, those programs leave. I have watched the president say he cut it. No, it is spending $500 billion more than what was projected. They have spent more. And we’ve got to stop the waste.”
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
... yup, real big deal. Suburban support for the republiCONs continues to erode. Trend goes back 20 years, it is not just abortion issue, but "conservative" position on abortion is driving the nails into the coffin.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:35 am Another victory for the patriots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeU7WqkjG00
Good guys win!
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Guess who is asking for Washington D.C. to pay for a 100% federal cost share for tornado clean up in her state?
Arkansas Gov Sanders. Who in January after entering office stated that as governor of Arkansas, the "meddling hand of big government creeping down from Washington D.C. will be stopped cold at the Mississippi River."
Arkansas Gov Sanders. Who in January after entering office stated that as governor of Arkansas, the "meddling hand of big government creeping down from Washington D.C. will be stopped cold at the Mississippi River."
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
No shocker here, snow flake classless loser MAGA refuses to concede after an 11 point loss in Wisconsin Supreme Court election contest yesterday.
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-j ... es-1792597
https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/sta ... es-1792597
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-j ... es-1792597
https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/sta ... es-1792597
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Well, this guy sure proved why he should never be within 1000 miles of a courthouse. Wow!CU88 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:29 am No shocker here, snow flake classless loser MAGA refuses to concede after an 11 point loss in Wisconsin Supreme Court election contest yesterday.
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-j ... es-1792597
https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/sta ... es-1792597
Since he wants to go down the sour grapes path, maybe he should hire Rhonda Burgundy who is an expert in that regard.
-
DocBarrister
- Posts: 6394
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm
More Republican Corruption
More Republican corruption:
CNN
—
The former head of Michigan’s medical marijuana licensing board and former state House speaker admitted to taking more than $110,000 in bribes to help businesses get medical marijuana licenses, according to a plea agreement filed in federal court.
Rick Johnson, 70, agreed to plead guilty to the felony charge of accepting a bribe, admitting he acted “corruptly,” according to the agreement.
CNN has reached out to Johnson’s attorney, Nick Dondzila, for comment.
Johnson, a Republican, served as the chair of the licensing board from 2017 to 2019 and previously served as the state House speaker from 2001 to 2004, according to state records.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics ... index.html
DocBarrister
CNN
—
The former head of Michigan’s medical marijuana licensing board and former state House speaker admitted to taking more than $110,000 in bribes to help businesses get medical marijuana licenses, according to a plea agreement filed in federal court.
Rick Johnson, 70, agreed to plead guilty to the felony charge of accepting a bribe, admitting he acted “corruptly,” according to the agreement.
CNN has reached out to Johnson’s attorney, Nick Dondzila, for comment.
Johnson, a Republican, served as the chair of the licensing board from 2017 to 2019 and previously served as the state House speaker from 2001 to 2004, according to state records.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics ... index.html
DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Interesting article from the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/opin ... itics.html
“The legal imbroglios of Donald Trump have lately dominated conversation about the 2024 election. As primary season grinds on, campaign activity will ebb and wane, and issues of the moment — like the first Trump indictment and potentially others to come — will blaze into focus and then disappear.
Yet certain fundamentals will shape the races as candidates strategize about how to win the White House. To do this, they will have to account for at least one major political realignment: educational attainment is the new fault line in American politics.
Educational attainment has not replaced race in that respect, but it is increasingly the best predictor of how Americans will vote, and for whom. It has shaped the political landscape and where the 2024 presidential election almost certainly will be decided. To understand American politics, candidates and voters alike will need to understand this new fundamental.
Americans have always viewed education as a key to opportunity, but few predicted the critical role it has come to play in our politics. What makes the “diploma divide,” as it is often called, so fundamental to our politics is how it has been sorting Americans into the Democratic and Republican Parties by educational attainment. College-educated voters are now more likely to identify as Democrats, while those without college degrees — especially white Americans, but increasingly others as well — are now more likely to support Republicans.
It’s both economics and culture
The impact of education on voting has an economic as well as a cultural component. The confluence of rising globalization, technological developments and the offshoring of many working-class jobs led to a sorting of economic fortunes, a widening gap in the average real wealth between households led by college graduates compared with the rest of the population, whose levels are near all-time lows.
According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, since 1989, families headed by college graduates have increased their wealth by 83 percent. For households headed by someone without a college degree, there was relatively little or no increase in wealth.
Culturally, a person’s educational attainment increasingly correlates with their views on a wide range of issues like abortion, attitudes about L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the relationship between government and organized religion. It also extends to cultural consumption (movies, TV, books), social media choices and the sources of information that shape voters’ understanding of facts.
This is not unique to the United States; the pattern has developed across nearly all Western democracies. Going back to the 2016 Brexit vote and the most recent national elections in Britain and France, education level was the best predictor of how people voted.
This new class-based politics oriented around the education divide could turn out to be just as toxic as race-based politics. It has facilitated a sorting of America into enclaves of like-minded people who look at members of the other enclave with increasing contempt.
The road to political realignment
The diploma divide really started to emerge in voting in the early 1990s, and Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 solidified this political realignment. Since then, the trends have deepened.
In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden defeated Mr. Trump by assembling a coalition different from the one that elected and re-elected Barack Obama. Of the 206 counties that Mr. Obama carried in 2008 and 2012 that were won by Mr. Trump in 2016, Mr. Biden won back only 25 of these areas, which generally had a higher percentage of non-college-educated voters. But overall Mr. Biden carried college-educated voters by 15 points.
In the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats carried white voters with a college degree by three points, while Republicans won white non-college voters by 34 points (a 10-point improvement from 2018).
This has helped establish a new political geography. There are now 42 states firmly controlled by one party or the other. And with 45 out of 50 states voting for the same party in the last two presidential elections, the only states that voted for the winning presidential candidates in both 2016 and 2020 rank roughly in the middle on educational levels — Pennsylvania (23rd in education attainment), Georgia (24th), Wisconsin (26th), Arizona (30th) and Michigan (32nd).
In 2020, Mr. Biden received 306 electoral votes, Mr. Trump, 232. In the reapportionment process — which readjusts the Electoral College counts based on the most current census data — the new presidential electoral map is more favorable to Republicans by a net six points.
In 2024, Democrats are likely to enter the general election with 222 electoral votes, compared with 219 for Republicans. That leaves only eight states, with 97 electoral votes — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — up for grabs. And for these states, education levels are near the national average — not proportionately highly educated nor toward the bottom of attainment.
The 2024 map
A presidential candidate will need a three-track strategy to carry these states in 2024. The first goal is to further exploit the trend of education levels driving how people vote. Democrats have been making significant inroads with disaffected Republicans, given much of the party base’s continued embrace of Mr. Trump and his backward-looking grievances, as well as a shift to the hard right on social issues — foremost on abortion. This is particularly true with college-educated Republican women.
In this era of straight-party voting, it is notable that Democrats racked up double-digit percentages from Republicans in the 2022 Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania governors’ races. They also made significant inroads with these voters in the Senate races in Arizona (13 percent), Pennsylvania (8 percent), Nevada (7 percent) and Georgia (6 percent).
This represents a large and growing pool of voters. In a recent NBC poll, over 30 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they were not supporters of MAGA.
At the same time, Republicans have continued to increase their support with non-college-educated voters of color. Between 2012 and 2020, support for Democrats from nonwhite-working-class voters dropped 18 points. The 2022 Associated Press VoteCast exit polls indicated that support for Democrats dropped an additional 14 points compared with the 2020 results.
However, since these battleground states largely fall in the middle of education levels in our country, they haven’t followed the same trends as the other 42 states. So there are limits to relying on the education profile of voters to carry these states.
This is where the second group of voters comes in: political independents, who were carried by the winning party in the last four election cycles. Following Mr. Trump’s narrow victory with independent voters in 2016, Mr. Biden carried them by nine points in 2020. In 2018, when Democrats took back the House, they carried them by 15 points, and their narrow two-point margin in 2022 enabled them to hold the Senate.
The importance of the independent voting bloc continues to rise. This is particularly significant since the margin of victory in these battleground states has been very narrow in recent elections. The 2022 exit polls showed that over 30 percent of voters were independents, the highest percentage since 1980. In Arizona, 40 percent of voters in 2022 considered themselves political independents.
These independent voters tend to live disproportionately in suburbs, which are now the most diverse socioeconomic areas in our country. These suburban voters are the third component of a winning strategy. With cities increasingly controlled by Democrats — because of the high level of educated voters there — and Republicans maintaining their dominance in rural areas with large numbers of non-college voters, the suburbs are the last battleground in American politics.
Voting in the suburbs has been decisive in determining the outcome of the last two presidential elections: Voters in the suburbs of Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Phoenix determined the winner in the last two presidential elections and are likely to play the same pivotal role in 2024.
These voters moved to the suburbs for a higher quality of life: affordable housing, safe streets and good schools. These are the issues that animate these voters, who have a negative view of both parties. They do not embrace a MAGA-driven Republican Party, but they also do not trust Mr. Biden and Democrats, and consider them to be culturally extreme big spenders who aren’t focused enough on issues like immigration and crime.
So in addition to education levels, these other factors will have a big impact on the election. The party that can capture the pivotal group of voters in the suburbs of battleground states is likely to prevail. Democrats’ success in the suburbs in recent elections suggests an advantage, but it is not necessarily enduring. Based on post-midterm exit polls from these areas, voters have often voted against a party or candidate — especially Mr. Trump — rather than for one.
But in part because of the emergence of the diploma divide, there is an opening for both political parties in 2024 if they are willing to gear their agenda and policies beyond their political base. The party that does that is likely to win the White House.“
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/opin ... itics.html
“The legal imbroglios of Donald Trump have lately dominated conversation about the 2024 election. As primary season grinds on, campaign activity will ebb and wane, and issues of the moment — like the first Trump indictment and potentially others to come — will blaze into focus and then disappear.
Yet certain fundamentals will shape the races as candidates strategize about how to win the White House. To do this, they will have to account for at least one major political realignment: educational attainment is the new fault line in American politics.
Educational attainment has not replaced race in that respect, but it is increasingly the best predictor of how Americans will vote, and for whom. It has shaped the political landscape and where the 2024 presidential election almost certainly will be decided. To understand American politics, candidates and voters alike will need to understand this new fundamental.
Americans have always viewed education as a key to opportunity, but few predicted the critical role it has come to play in our politics. What makes the “diploma divide,” as it is often called, so fundamental to our politics is how it has been sorting Americans into the Democratic and Republican Parties by educational attainment. College-educated voters are now more likely to identify as Democrats, while those without college degrees — especially white Americans, but increasingly others as well — are now more likely to support Republicans.
It’s both economics and culture
The impact of education on voting has an economic as well as a cultural component. The confluence of rising globalization, technological developments and the offshoring of many working-class jobs led to a sorting of economic fortunes, a widening gap in the average real wealth between households led by college graduates compared with the rest of the population, whose levels are near all-time lows.
According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, since 1989, families headed by college graduates have increased their wealth by 83 percent. For households headed by someone without a college degree, there was relatively little or no increase in wealth.
Culturally, a person’s educational attainment increasingly correlates with their views on a wide range of issues like abortion, attitudes about L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the relationship between government and organized religion. It also extends to cultural consumption (movies, TV, books), social media choices and the sources of information that shape voters’ understanding of facts.
This is not unique to the United States; the pattern has developed across nearly all Western democracies. Going back to the 2016 Brexit vote and the most recent national elections in Britain and France, education level was the best predictor of how people voted.
This new class-based politics oriented around the education divide could turn out to be just as toxic as race-based politics. It has facilitated a sorting of America into enclaves of like-minded people who look at members of the other enclave with increasing contempt.
The road to political realignment
The diploma divide really started to emerge in voting in the early 1990s, and Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 solidified this political realignment. Since then, the trends have deepened.
In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden defeated Mr. Trump by assembling a coalition different from the one that elected and re-elected Barack Obama. Of the 206 counties that Mr. Obama carried in 2008 and 2012 that were won by Mr. Trump in 2016, Mr. Biden won back only 25 of these areas, which generally had a higher percentage of non-college-educated voters. But overall Mr. Biden carried college-educated voters by 15 points.
In the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats carried white voters with a college degree by three points, while Republicans won white non-college voters by 34 points (a 10-point improvement from 2018).
This has helped establish a new political geography. There are now 42 states firmly controlled by one party or the other. And with 45 out of 50 states voting for the same party in the last two presidential elections, the only states that voted for the winning presidential candidates in both 2016 and 2020 rank roughly in the middle on educational levels — Pennsylvania (23rd in education attainment), Georgia (24th), Wisconsin (26th), Arizona (30th) and Michigan (32nd).
In 2020, Mr. Biden received 306 electoral votes, Mr. Trump, 232. In the reapportionment process — which readjusts the Electoral College counts based on the most current census data — the new presidential electoral map is more favorable to Republicans by a net six points.
In 2024, Democrats are likely to enter the general election with 222 electoral votes, compared with 219 for Republicans. That leaves only eight states, with 97 electoral votes — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — up for grabs. And for these states, education levels are near the national average — not proportionately highly educated nor toward the bottom of attainment.
The 2024 map
A presidential candidate will need a three-track strategy to carry these states in 2024. The first goal is to further exploit the trend of education levels driving how people vote. Democrats have been making significant inroads with disaffected Republicans, given much of the party base’s continued embrace of Mr. Trump and his backward-looking grievances, as well as a shift to the hard right on social issues — foremost on abortion. This is particularly true with college-educated Republican women.
In this era of straight-party voting, it is notable that Democrats racked up double-digit percentages from Republicans in the 2022 Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania governors’ races. They also made significant inroads with these voters in the Senate races in Arizona (13 percent), Pennsylvania (8 percent), Nevada (7 percent) and Georgia (6 percent).
This represents a large and growing pool of voters. In a recent NBC poll, over 30 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they were not supporters of MAGA.
At the same time, Republicans have continued to increase their support with non-college-educated voters of color. Between 2012 and 2020, support for Democrats from nonwhite-working-class voters dropped 18 points. The 2022 Associated Press VoteCast exit polls indicated that support for Democrats dropped an additional 14 points compared with the 2020 results.
However, since these battleground states largely fall in the middle of education levels in our country, they haven’t followed the same trends as the other 42 states. So there are limits to relying on the education profile of voters to carry these states.
This is where the second group of voters comes in: political independents, who were carried by the winning party in the last four election cycles. Following Mr. Trump’s narrow victory with independent voters in 2016, Mr. Biden carried them by nine points in 2020. In 2018, when Democrats took back the House, they carried them by 15 points, and their narrow two-point margin in 2022 enabled them to hold the Senate.
The importance of the independent voting bloc continues to rise. This is particularly significant since the margin of victory in these battleground states has been very narrow in recent elections. The 2022 exit polls showed that over 30 percent of voters were independents, the highest percentage since 1980. In Arizona, 40 percent of voters in 2022 considered themselves political independents.
These independent voters tend to live disproportionately in suburbs, which are now the most diverse socioeconomic areas in our country. These suburban voters are the third component of a winning strategy. With cities increasingly controlled by Democrats — because of the high level of educated voters there — and Republicans maintaining their dominance in rural areas with large numbers of non-college voters, the suburbs are the last battleground in American politics.
Voting in the suburbs has been decisive in determining the outcome of the last two presidential elections: Voters in the suburbs of Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Phoenix determined the winner in the last two presidential elections and are likely to play the same pivotal role in 2024.
These voters moved to the suburbs for a higher quality of life: affordable housing, safe streets and good schools. These are the issues that animate these voters, who have a negative view of both parties. They do not embrace a MAGA-driven Republican Party, but they also do not trust Mr. Biden and Democrats, and consider them to be culturally extreme big spenders who aren’t focused enough on issues like immigration and crime.
So in addition to education levels, these other factors will have a big impact on the election. The party that can capture the pivotal group of voters in the suburbs of battleground states is likely to prevail. Democrats’ success in the suburbs in recent elections suggests an advantage, but it is not necessarily enduring. Based on post-midterm exit polls from these areas, voters have often voted against a party or candidate — especially Mr. Trump — rather than for one.
But in part because of the emergence of the diploma divide, there is an opening for both political parties in 2024 if they are willing to gear their agenda and policies beyond their political base. The party that does that is likely to win the White House.“
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
... not impressed by the article. No real mention of what is going on with the abortion issue makes the article seem irrelevant to me. I am guessing most republiCON office holders are starting to feel like me. 
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Didn't want anyone to miss this:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1651 ... 46/photo/1
Eleven years later, he is still in the Senate.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1651 ... 46/photo/1
Eleven years later, he is still in the Senate.
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
another fine example of RepubliCON Congressional decorum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU9SpjJZZFw
So uncivilized!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU9SpjJZZFw
So uncivilized!
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Medicaid work requirements, proposed by the GOP, evaluated:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ncdm6dBsvg
"Unlike most things in the House Republicans’ debt-limit bill — such as those across-the-board spending cuts — there is one measure that might secure widespread support: adding work requirements to Medicaid. In past surveys, even a significant share of Democratic voters appeared amenable to the idea.
But Medicaid work requirements are a solution in search of a problem. Worse than that, they will create significant new problems, particularly among the vulnerable population the policy is supposed to help.
The perception that Medicaid is saturated with lazy shirkers is false. About 60 percent of nonelderly adults on Medicaid are already working, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Most of those not working either have a disability or serious medical condition or caregiving responsibilities, or they are enrolled in school — all of which happen to be among the specific exemptions laid out in the GOP bill.
If most Medicaid recipients are working anyway, or are exempt from the requirements, you might ask what’s the harm in asking them to provide evidence of their compliance? Perhaps in the process, you might also nudge some of those not working into gainful employment.
In theory, this sounds reasonable. In practice, implementation can be a Kafkaesque nightmare. We know this because it was tried in Arkansas in 2018, with backing from the Trump administration.
By the time a federal judge paused Arkansas’ experiment less than a year after it launched, 18,000 lower-income people had already been purged from the state Medicaid rolls — and not necessarily because they were failing to work 80 hours a month, as the state required (and as the new House GOP bill would mandate, too). Many were working but found it challenging to prove to the state that they met the “community engagement” requirements or allowable exemptions. That’s because the reporting process was confusing and onerous.
In fact, at least one person I interviewed at the time had been working, but was forced out of his work as a result of the reporting requirements.
Adrian McGonigal, a full-time employee at a poultry plant, had difficulty accessing the state website required to log his hours. He was abruptly disenrolled from Medicaid and was unable to afford the medications he needed to manage his severe COPD, a chronic lung disease that makes it difficult to breathe. McGonigal landed in the emergency room multiple times, missed too much work and ultimately lost his job.
In other words, for people such as McGonigal, access to health insurance and care should be seen as a work support, rather than a work disincentive.
A subsequent analysis of the Arkansas program, published in Health Affairs, found that it did not increase employment levels. But it did have long-term, adverse consequences for those who lost coverage. Of those purged, 50 percent reported serious problems paying off medical debt, 56 percent delayed care due to cost, and 64 percent delayed taking medications because of cost.
How much can we generalize from Arkansas’ experience? Its program did seem to be particularly poorly executed, after all. The state’s Medicaid enrollees were required to use a glitchy web portal, which perplexingly shut down every night from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. (for “scheduled maintenance,” I was told). The site also didn’t work well on smartphones. Many lower-income Arkansans, McGonigal included, don’t otherwise have reliable access to the internet.
Theoretically, maybe Congress could design a version of this policy that would be less likely to harm “deserving” Medicaid enrollees. This would require a much bigger, more robust and more expensive bureaucracy, so that the state correctly identifies and penalizes only the tiny minority of Medicaid recipients not already working or with valid exemptions from work.
The cost of such a system might not outweigh whatever savings are achieved by purging those few “undeserving” loafers.
And again: to what end?
Helping more people find work, and move up the income ladder, is a worthy goal. But there’s little evidence that this particular policy would achieve that. It didn’t in Arkansas, and the Congressional Budget Office expects that the version included in the House bill wouldn’t, either. In a letter on Wednesday, the CBO concluded the measure “would have a negligible effect on employment status or hours worked by people who would be subject to the work requirements.”
On the other hand, the policy would result in roughly 1.5 million Americans nationwide losing federal funding for their Medicaid coverage, the CBO estimated. States would then have to decide whether to cut these enrollees loose or find and fund alternative means of coverage.
By all means, let’s help more Americans find jobs. Having bountiful job openings helps. Education, training and other government programs specifically designed to encourage work are all important, too.
So is keeping the populace healthy enough to work."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ncdm6dBsvg
"Unlike most things in the House Republicans’ debt-limit bill — such as those across-the-board spending cuts — there is one measure that might secure widespread support: adding work requirements to Medicaid. In past surveys, even a significant share of Democratic voters appeared amenable to the idea.
But Medicaid work requirements are a solution in search of a problem. Worse than that, they will create significant new problems, particularly among the vulnerable population the policy is supposed to help.
The perception that Medicaid is saturated with lazy shirkers is false. About 60 percent of nonelderly adults on Medicaid are already working, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Most of those not working either have a disability or serious medical condition or caregiving responsibilities, or they are enrolled in school — all of which happen to be among the specific exemptions laid out in the GOP bill.
If most Medicaid recipients are working anyway, or are exempt from the requirements, you might ask what’s the harm in asking them to provide evidence of their compliance? Perhaps in the process, you might also nudge some of those not working into gainful employment.
In theory, this sounds reasonable. In practice, implementation can be a Kafkaesque nightmare. We know this because it was tried in Arkansas in 2018, with backing from the Trump administration.
By the time a federal judge paused Arkansas’ experiment less than a year after it launched, 18,000 lower-income people had already been purged from the state Medicaid rolls — and not necessarily because they were failing to work 80 hours a month, as the state required (and as the new House GOP bill would mandate, too). Many were working but found it challenging to prove to the state that they met the “community engagement” requirements or allowable exemptions. That’s because the reporting process was confusing and onerous.
In fact, at least one person I interviewed at the time had been working, but was forced out of his work as a result of the reporting requirements.
Adrian McGonigal, a full-time employee at a poultry plant, had difficulty accessing the state website required to log his hours. He was abruptly disenrolled from Medicaid and was unable to afford the medications he needed to manage his severe COPD, a chronic lung disease that makes it difficult to breathe. McGonigal landed in the emergency room multiple times, missed too much work and ultimately lost his job.
In other words, for people such as McGonigal, access to health insurance and care should be seen as a work support, rather than a work disincentive.
A subsequent analysis of the Arkansas program, published in Health Affairs, found that it did not increase employment levels. But it did have long-term, adverse consequences for those who lost coverage. Of those purged, 50 percent reported serious problems paying off medical debt, 56 percent delayed care due to cost, and 64 percent delayed taking medications because of cost.
How much can we generalize from Arkansas’ experience? Its program did seem to be particularly poorly executed, after all. The state’s Medicaid enrollees were required to use a glitchy web portal, which perplexingly shut down every night from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. (for “scheduled maintenance,” I was told). The site also didn’t work well on smartphones. Many lower-income Arkansans, McGonigal included, don’t otherwise have reliable access to the internet.
Theoretically, maybe Congress could design a version of this policy that would be less likely to harm “deserving” Medicaid enrollees. This would require a much bigger, more robust and more expensive bureaucracy, so that the state correctly identifies and penalizes only the tiny minority of Medicaid recipients not already working or with valid exemptions from work.
The cost of such a system might not outweigh whatever savings are achieved by purging those few “undeserving” loafers.
And again: to what end?
Helping more people find work, and move up the income ladder, is a worthy goal. But there’s little evidence that this particular policy would achieve that. It didn’t in Arkansas, and the Congressional Budget Office expects that the version included in the House bill wouldn’t, either. In a letter on Wednesday, the CBO concluded the measure “would have a negligible effect on employment status or hours worked by people who would be subject to the work requirements.”
On the other hand, the policy would result in roughly 1.5 million Americans nationwide losing federal funding for their Medicaid coverage, the CBO estimated. States would then have to decide whether to cut these enrollees loose or find and fund alternative means of coverage.
By all means, let’s help more Americans find jobs. Having bountiful job openings helps. Education, training and other government programs specifically designed to encourage work are all important, too.
So is keeping the populace healthy enough to work."
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Interesting thread:
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/statu ... 2098381827
Why does anyone support the GOP?
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/statu ... 2098381827
Why does anyone support the GOP?
-
NattyBohChamps04
- Posts: 2292
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
While people were pining for the great times of the 50's and 60's in the other thread, Republicans are actually doing something about it!
The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce
“No, this was not my choice,” Crowder told his online audience last week. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”
The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce
“No, this was not my choice,” Crowder told his online audience last week. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 14763
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Paywall got me.
Women initiate ~75% of all divorces, while also retaining children 90% of the time. I suppose the message is that men are just big pieces of sh!t.
And woman want a free ride.
Women initiate ~75% of all divorces, while also retaining children 90% of the time. I suppose the message is that men are just big pieces of sh!t.
And woman want a free ride. A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4462
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
Wow.youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:14 pm Paywall got me.
Women initiate ~75% of all divorces, while also retaining children 90% of the time. I suppose the message is that men are just big pieces of sh!t.
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 14763
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
What do that stats tell you?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:21 pmWow.youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:14 pm Paywall got me.
Women initiate ~75% of all divorces, while also retaining children 90% of the time. I suppose the message is that men are just big pieces of sh!t.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 26038
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Conservatives and Liberals
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:33 pmWhat do that stats tell you?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:21 pmWow.youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:14 pm Paywall got me.
Women initiate ~75% of all divorces, while also retaining children 90% of the time. I suppose the message is that men are just big pieces of sh!t.
STEVEN CROWDER, THE right-wing podcaster, is getting a divorce. “No, this was not my choice,” Crowder told his online audience last week. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”
Crowder’s emphasis on “the state of Texas” makes it sound like the Lone Star State is an outlier, but all 50 states and the District of Columbia have no-fault divorce laws on the books — laws that allow either party to walk away from an unhappy marriage without having to prove abuse, infidelity, or other misconduct in court.
It was a hard-fought journey to get there. It took more than four decades to end fault-based divorce in America: California was the first state to eliminate it, in 1969; New York didn’t come around until 2010. (And there are caveats: Mississippi and South Dakota still only allow no-fault divorce if both parties agree to dissolve the marriage, for example.)
Researchers who tracked the emergence of no-fault divorce laws state by state over that period found that reform led to dramatic drops in the rates of female suicide and domestic violence, as well as decreases in spousal homicide of women. The decreases, one researcher explained, were “not just because abused women (and men) could more easily divorce their abusers, but also because potential abusers knew that they were more likely to be left.”
Today, more than two-thirds of all heterosexual divorces in the U.S. are initiated by women.
Republicans across the country are now reconsidering no-fault divorce. There isn’t a huge mystery behind the campaign: Like the crusades against abortion and contraception, making it more difficult to leave an unhappy marriage is about control. Crowder’s home state could be the first to eliminate it, if the Texas GOP gets its way. Last year, the Republican Party of Texas added language to its platform calling for an end to no-fault divorce: “We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.”
The Texas GOP retains an iron grip on both chambers of the state Legislature, and Republicans hold every single elected office statewide — from governor and lieutenant governor to the railroad commissioners and judges. Should they decide to prioritize ending no-fault divorce this legislative session, they would likely have the votes they need to turn their platform into law.
It’s not just Texas: A similar proposal is presently being workshopped by the Republican Party of Louisiana. The Nebraska GOP has affirmed its belief that no-fault divorce should only be accessible to couples without children. At the Republican National Convention in 2016 — the last time the party platform was overhauled — delegates considered adding language declaring, “Children are made to be loved by both natural parents united in marriage. Legal structures such as No Fault Divorce, which divides families and empowers the state, should be replaced by a Fault-based Divorce.” (It’s unclear whether the party’s twice-divorced nominee for president weighed in on the debate at that time.)
Despite its deeply embarrassing premise — that the only way to retain a partner is to literally trap them in the relationship — right-wing blowhards like Crowder have been embracing arguments against no-fault divorce with increasing frequency. (Within the past year, conservative pundits Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Tim Pool have all criticized it.)
The bold red is what this tells me.