Anti abortion? Then support free universal birth control.

Most smart people can think to step 3 or 4. The GOP rarely makes it to step 2.

Well since most birth control works by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting to the true believers contraception and abortion are morally indistinguishable.

Democrats haven't been this mad since Lincoln took their slaves away.

The election broke a lot of brains.

By design. Most of them are intentionally deceptive, and not bumbling idiots.

I honestly can't tell the point of this joke.

1) It's wrong to get mad, no matter how bad things are going?

2) GOP's anti-minority policies don't exist, or are somehow rational?

3) Look at the stupid left being inconsistent by flip-flopping on slavery?

4) In a thread about horrendous Republican policies, it took 150 years of digging through history to find a worse example from Dems?

5) Not a lot of Republicans knew Lincoln was a Republican?

I've heard republican control of congress will be good for Online poker.

Nope. Gambling is 3/4 of a sin in Christianity.

Technically he was, but today he would be a Democrat, the parties at some point under some president had their entire bases switch. Hence the blue party being the left and the red one right, despite it being the opposite everywhere else

It's a reference. Didn't you see Trump's speech at a GOP event where he said "Great president. Most people don’t even know he was a Republican" after he apparently just learned it himself when reading the teleprompter?

Which is funny because churches love BINGO,50/50 raffles, and gambling themed events.

After the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act (ca 1964). That was the particular legislation that drove many democrats to become republicans and many republicans to become democrats.

They cast lots of lots in the bible.

As with most GOP policies, the sole point is trolling.

"The CBO has documented that alone wouldn't get Social Security into balance . . ."

I don't understand why Social Security is separate from everything else. It's a government expenditure, just like the Defense Department or the president's salary. But we don't have a separate tax for those things, why is there one for Social Security?

To make people feel like SSI isn't welfare.

Yeah I suppose. Maybe that made sense in 1933.

I've voted democrat in every presidential election, but I feel like the republicans are *closer* to correct on a bunch of different issues. Nuclear power was mentioned already in this thread...I'd also add just a few other examples off the top of my head:

- effect of raising minimum wage on low-skill workers
- Overregulation of certain industries creating barriers to entry that are too high
- greater state experimentation with school choice
- some tax policy stuff (simplifying tax code, etc.)

If you think the GOP is more incorrect than democrats on every single issue, you are most likely falling victim to some form of tribalistic bias.

It's not tribalism, you're 0/4 on those.

(#1--can't live in a city on min wage)

(okay there's an argument for #2, but that's not what republicans are doing, they're only removing the annoying ones that don't make them ****load of more money and dgaf, like when they were forced to not pollute rivers) They're 100% keeping those high barrier regs, so they don't have competition. Also many regs are put there because someone ****ed it the hell up--people forget that.
(#3--basically used to subsidize rich kids education while screwing poor kids)
(#4--it's just so rich get super richer, that's it)

I do question the effect of suddenly raising the minimum wage from 7.25 to 15 or even 12. But I do think it is clear the minimum wage needs to be raised, and should probably go up yearly with inflation.

Is this supposed to be a counterargument?

There's a gap between the GOPs rhetoric and the policies they actually propose. Like, if all they were doing is trying to simplify the tax code, that'd be one thing, but it's always simplify the tax code while cutting taxes on the wealthy. And there's tons of data out there on raising the minimum wage and what it does to low wage employment, and almost none of it shows that the econ 101 answer actually holds.

It's a good thing that literally no one is trying to accomplish that then. Like all the $15 min wage plans are really $15 min wage by 2022 or similar.

Thanks for the response. My understanding is that the empirical evidence (as described in the academic literature) suggests that the effect of slowly raising the minimum wage is somewhere between slightly negative and slightly positive. So the jury is still out. But small increases are don't seem to have a huge effect in either direction, at least according to the limited evidence we have now.

Here is link to a survey of top economists about whether a gradual increase to $15 federal wage by 2020 would *substantially* lower the low employment rate of low-wage workers.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage

I believe if you lump it in with everything else then people aren't as attached to it and it becomes easier to cut over time is the reason for this.

I think the issue is that pretty much all the big businesses can handle the increase, it's just the small businesses can't.

Creating another barrier to entry to compete.