Trump

[fiksal]

Utopia to me - are things like, - no need for money when everyone has everything they need or want.

Basically, you are saying that Utopia is a world in which there is no suffering. Such a world may exist, but I don't think it is for humans to see.

That's my understand of the word. I agree, this is not something we'd see anytime soon or at all.

[BugMeister]

- but, Observe, the 2016 election was a sham..
- there was considerable intervention, largely orchestrated out of Moscow and St Petersburg..

- please don't forget that, it's an important fact..

Was there ever an American election that wasn't a sham in the eyes of the losers?

I'm more concerned about the intervention from Republican States, then from Russia. Any influence Russia may have had, is vanishingly insignificant in comparison to red-blooded Americans making the wrong choice.

that's rapidly becoming the stock reply, but watch closely as Kavanaugh puts the President above the law via the Supreme Court
this is the sort of government that appeals to people like Putin, and the rest of the evil dictators out there
- by then it will be too late, freedom in the US will be lost..
those documents withheld from the Supreme Court selection process, contain proof of Kavanaugh's views on the matter
- he wants to shut down the Roe vs Wade ruling - he wants to completely remove medicare from the people of the US..
- his extremist views on immigration are also being hidden from view..

- it's not me who needs to get a grip, it's the US electorate that is at risk
- my opinion is of no consequence, I'm not trying to win points in a debate

- I'm issuing a WARNING....

[Observe]

- I'm issuing a WARNING....

Yes, I know you are BugMeister and I believe your intentions are nothing but good. Just remember the story of the little boy who called wolf, or you run the risk of being nothing but background noise.

[BugMeister]

- I'd sooner be "background noise" than do nothing at all, and accept fate..

[Morkonan]

Democrats need to act tougher.

I think Democrats need to stop being so militant about everything. Democrats need to act smarter. They need to refine their message. They need to be persistent while having patience for those who feel left behind.

Trump didn't rise to power by accident and if democrats don't learn why, their agenda will have a hard time maintaining consistent progress.

Part of the problem, is liberals are all over the map on issues. What's it going to be? Transgenders choosing which bathroom they feel like, or prison reform, or single-payer health care, or destroy Monsanto (now Bayer), or arrest every man who looks at a woman the way men have always looked at them, or the list goes on. It never ends.

Narrow the focus Democrats. Stand for things that matter the most and stop being constantly outraged about everything big and small that doesn't fit the utopian dream.

An excellent evaluation of the situation.

But, instead of "Democrats" what people are actually talking about is "The Not Trump Party" and the "This isn't the Trump Republican Party."

What else are opponents going to run on? What's their platform? What is going to be "the issue" that makes headlines and turns heads? The Economy? Nope. The Debt? Maybe, but people have a historic disregard for that four-letter word. Healthcare? Few people are "happy" with "Obamacare," anyway, so talking more about it is going to just get a slew of rebuttals that can't be answered to. Ethics? Lol... "Morality?' /snigger

What, exactly, will the opposition to the current trend be if it isn't just "Not Trump?"

IMO, at least until a bombshell hits, the next elections are the Republican's "to lose." It's going to take some serious screwups to lose the House or Senate and it's going to take some major issue to lose the Presidency. (IMO) That issue could come from Mueller's investigation or something else, like Trump doing something really stupid that people can't rush to fix.

[Hank001]

TWEEET! Time out.

Okay we get it.
So there are two countries now only with one boarder and both calling it "The United States of America" only that name is an outright lie because it's not united anymore by a long shot. It's as close to a 50/50 split as you can get. And one half is holding the reigns and trying to drag the wagon along when half the horses want to go in the opposite direction.

So which "America" are you talking to? Or talking at?

That's up to you.

So if you're happy with making America a country where old white men and big tycoons call the shots as long as they can get and stay rich, fine.

If you want to drag the wagon down the road right in to a socialist state organ where you bleed industry dry and tax everything and then still spend more than you can ever take in because you have to hand out bread and provide circuses just to keep your vote buying social programs fed...fine.

Who wins?
Vladimir Putin.

[Observe]

Hank001 elucidated: TWEET....Vladimir Putin

Your logic is impeccable.

[BugMeister]

So if you're happy with making America a country where old white men and big tycoons call the shots as long as they can get and stay rich, fine.

If you want to drag the wagon down the road right in to a socialist state organ where you bleed industry dry and tax everything and then still spend more than you can ever take in because you have to hand out bread and provide circuses just to keep your vote buying social programs fed...fine.

Who wins?
Vladimir Putin.

you've just portrayed two extremist views there..
not very helpful, when we all know that consensus is the real aim of all things political..

[Hank001]

BugMeister:

you've just portrayed two extremist views there..
not very helpful, when we all know that consensus is

Glad you got the point, but according to the government in power there can't be any consensus. It's there way or the highway and the other side is buying into it and putting their most extreme foot forward.

We stuck in the middle and a few that are working towards some moderation are getting called cowards and traitors. So if there's nothing left in the center (With any voice at all as far as this goes) what's left that's right?

Like that dark joke about war never determines whose right only who is left.

Okay I focused too much on Trump and the fact that he's toys in the attic. Now that anybody but the most deluded get the picture it turns out the leadership of the other side are jumping on the crazy train. Booker and Harris are starting to make Bernie Sanders look like the soul of moderation.

So I suppose I should ask who and what is left if neither is right since two wrongs don't make a right?

It's gone a bit past semantics.

[fiksal]

Who wins?
Vladimir Putin.

Let me see.... Yep, I can confirm that.

[Morkonan]

Who wins?
Vladimir Putin.

Let me see.... Yep, I can confirm that.

When I learned that anyone actually thinks Putin believes he's "competing" with anyone...

[fiksal]

Who wins?
Vladimir Putin.

Let me see.... Yep, I can confirm that.

When I learned that anyone actually thinks Putin believes he's "competing" with anyone...

you mean everyone?

after periodically watching news from Russia (when I really shouldnt), I can say with certainty Putin sees competition and opportunities (to screw) with everyone

[Hank001]

@ Morkonan
Like some meme's I've seem with Putin facepalming saying:"I give him one assingment and he makes a muck out of it."

[Mightysword]

I agree with you and I still can't quite believe they got away with denying Obama his perfectly legitimate right to fill the vacancy that came up while he was a sitting President. How the hell did that even happen?

The same way Obama got Obamacare through the system. I don't know how America was run before, but since I got here (2002) this has always been the dynamic. The Democrat simply spent all of their political capital early in the Obama years, and recovered not nearly enough toward the end.

American republican voters are generously cutting their wealth and social care to benefit the rich.

That's just a sentimental way to look at it.

- Republican got full power under Bush: in return they'll give us 2 wars, and a tanking economy.

- Voters didn't like it. So they generously turned over to Democrat. And what did they do with it? Muscle through the largest piece of legislation in decade (ever since social security) while more or less completely side line the other party.

- So of course voters didn't like it. And the pendulum started swinging the other way, accumulated in the current situation in which Republican have control of everything again. And we see all of these 'supposed' crazy things happening.

The point is: when a party is handed the power, it seems they has less interest in doing what best, but more concern about pushing through their agenda for as far as they can get away with before their time is up. And this applies to BOTH parties. It's worth to note that unlike other countries like Germany or UK where you see one large party staying in power for a long time. Sure they have their up and down and sometime have to share their power, but it's still one party in charge. The US politic is a lot more diabolical than that, so saying voters if favoring one over another is just crying wolf. Yours is simply not the current flavor of this election cycle.

I think Democrats need to stop being so militant about everything. ...

Trump didn't rise to power by accident and if democrats don't learn why, their agenda will have a hard time maintaining consistent progress...

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner! That's the exact problem with Democrat, they have a wide spectrum. And I think at the end of they most of them don't even know exactly what's the message they're trying. In a way, Trump had the perfect counter for that in the last election. All of his messages all tie down to a single point: the economy. We were a nation that were still reeling from a great depression. And whether it about immigrant, or trade, or policies ...etc... it's all about he was telling voters "I gonna get your job back and I'm getting you a good pay!". So of course it resonated.

[fiksal]

The point is: when a party is handed the power, it seems they has less interest in doing what best, but more concern about pushing through their agenda for as far as they can get away with before their time is up.

Why is that sentimental? Wasnt it known for a long time that this is what Republicans want to do? They've been talking smack all over health care for awhile. As for taxes, well I guess it was more of a unspoken common knowledge. I dont recall their platform ever being - look, middle class pays way more taxes than they should compared to the rich. Instead it's more like - (rich) pay a lot of taxes, lets cut it down by a percent, and reduce the social programs to match.

So the voters have voted. Whether for this or for something else, they got the whole package. And luckily for them, this time Republicans are seizing the opportunity and doing what's promised.

I largely oversimplified it, sure, but sentimental?

The US politic is a lot more diabolical than that, so saying voters if favoring one over another is just crying wolf.

While the pendulum is more or less right and expected, you imply that voters dont vote on issues. If so, you could be right, but I really dont like that idea. Kinda hope someone votes on the issues.

In fact, that's my working assumption since I am not interested in asking for people's "feelings" towards candidates.

Yours is simply not the current flavor of this election cycle.

Not only the current swing is not my flavor, I got a distinct feeling I am not their flavor either.

it's all about he was telling voters "I gonna get your job back and I'm getting you a good pay!". So of course it resonated.

Not sure I believe yet the economy has been the main factor.

Sanders has been saying that middle (and low) income class needs to be brought up every day I see him in media. That did zero for him, if not the negative.

[Mightysword]

Why is that sentimental? Wasnt it known for a long time that this is what Republicans want to do? They've been talking smack all over health care for awhile. As for taxes, well I guess it was more of a unspoken common knowledge. I dont recall their platform ever being - look, middle class pays way more taxes that they should compared to the rich.

And Democrat is the forgone champion of the poor right?

If so, you could be right, but I really dont like that idea. Kinda hope someone votes on the issues.

They do. You simply have to accept they think different than you though. The problem could be because you are simplifying things, you didn't see it. I'll give you an example of people voting on issue, even in this election cycle: a big reason Trump got the win because he managed to penetrates the Democrat firewall. Specifically the Rust Bell, which was an area that had voted for Democrat for the last 30-40 years. Yet many of people in this area had been left behind by Democrat in pursuit of their progressive agenda, not sure if you remember but Obama himself more or less declared they can not be saved. So when Trump came in and promise their old life back, of course they would vote for him.

So yes, people do vote on issue. Trump simply gave people a promise that they can see right there in their eyes within their grasp, whether the Democrat message seems to be somewhere in the lala land of a paradise far away. And that's even before you get down to things that can be debated all century long like does trickle down economy work, who do you want as your boss ...etc...

Sanders has been saying that middle (and low) income class needs to be brought up every day I see him in media. That did zero for him.

Because believe it or not, most people are realist and not idealist. If you ask me "do I think communism is a good governing system" I'll say yes, I'll say it's the most ideal even. But if you ask "will I believe in it and vote for it" then a million time NO. Sander word was honey words, but anyone with a some reationality sit down and ask "ok how do we get there" then all we see is a dead end, which translating into Sanders is either an idealistic fool or and a disillusion old man. And if you think that's simply someone on the right laying it on him, the Democrat themselves actually said the samething. I remember one particular issue that Sanders and Clinton traded jabs about: free education. Clinton had some proposal too, but it wasn't free education, and she specifically attacked Sanders over that, asking "ok that sound nice, of course we want free education but how the hell we gonna pay for that!!"


Sanders to me was simply the Trump version of the Democrat. The difference was Democrat managed to discipline the fringe candidate in order to favor their traditional one, whether Trump managed to make the Republican bent backward for him. He's simply Trump coming from the other side of the spectrum.

[Santi]

And the latest news in the World trade war that is ravaging world trade economies is [/sarcasm off]:

On the North American front, USA negotiating team has pwned the Canada negotiation team as they have turned the table and now have a bilateral agreement with Mexico. From a CAN & MEX Vs USA scenario to preserve the current NAFTA treaty, now Canada is facing a Mexico and the USA alliance calling for a change to NAFTA.

On the Asian front and after tariffs applied to 100 billion of Chinese exports, the USA is days away from taxing another 200 billion Chinese exports, and in the pipeline are tariffs for over 250 billion more.

While China has run out of USA goods to slaps tariffs on, suspiciously, the Yuan has been depreciating and making Chinese goods more competitive.

[Hank001]

Santi:

A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

I might be a bit rusty, be isn't that what Trump is saying about those troublesome people in the Whitehouse? There's only a few of the cowards so lets go after them?

[Masterbagger]

Based on the above description of a hypothetical conservative Trump supporter, what is the best approach for a liberal? Well, stop being an in-your-face militant who says if you are not outraged, you are part of the problem. Stop talking about conservatives as knuckle-dragging neanderthals. Stop criticizing their religion and their sense of morality. Don't try to take their guns away. Do those things and we progressives may have a more tolerant audience for important social changes.

I agree with this. I just think social changes should rightfully die out in the planning stages when trying to figure out who will pay for them.

[fiksal]

Why is that sentimental? Wasnt it known for a long time that this is what Republicans want to do? They've been talking smack all over health care for awhile. As for taxes, well I guess it was more of a unspoken common knowledge. I dont recall their platform ever being - look, middle class pays way more taxes that they should compared to the rich.

And Democrat is the forgone champion of the poor right?

I dont know. All depends on criteria.

If so, you could be right, but I really dont like that idea. Kinda hope someone votes on the issues.

They do. You simply have to accept they think different than you though. The problem could be because you are simplifying things, you didn't see it. I'll give you an example of people voting on issue, even in this election cycle: a big reason Trump got the win because he managed to penetrates the Democrat firewall. Specifically the Rust Bell, which was an area that had voted for Democrat for the last 30-40 years. Yet many of people in this area had been left behind by Democrat in pursuit of their progressive agenda, not sure if you remember but Obama himself more or less declared they can not be saved. So when Trump came in and promise their old life back, of course they would vote for him.

What did Trump promise them that neither Republicans or Democrats didnt? Did he deliver?

Sanders has been saying that middle (and low) income class needs to be brought up every day I see him in media. That did zero for him.

Because believe it or not, most people are realist and not idealist. If you ask me "do I think communism is a good governing system" I'll say yes, I'll say it's the most ideal even. But if you ask "will I believe in it and vote for it" then a million time NO. Sander word was honey words, but anyone with a some reationality sit down and ask "ok how do we get there" then all we see is a dead end, which translating into Sanders is either an idealistic fool or and a disillusion old man.

Obviously Sanders is not a communist. He's not even a full on socialist, sort of a socialist -light / fat free version.

So maybe idealistic, or maybe realistic, - I think I'd vote for him to find out. The government here is not set up to cut through bs and break down each policy and promise ahead of time; then hold politicians accountable.

But if the Trump voters see his ideas as unrealistic, that is an explanation why they dont care for any of his messages.

Sanders and Clinton traded jabs about: free education

Hm, actually dont recall that. Could be interesting to go back and look.

I am interested in any initiatives that reduce financial burden on students who cant afford.

Sanders to me was simply the Trump version of the Democrat.

Oh come on. Trump version of a Democrat needs to be someone who would call for imprisonment of Republicans when he gets into power - and print it on all the hats. That will be at least an honorable beginning, for me to even consider awarding that title.