Print Page | Close Window

will dems self-destruct?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: DEMILITARIZED ZONE
Forum Name: The Minefield
Forum Description: Controversial topics. Moderators: WH Modetators - URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=129790
Printed Date: 21 Apr 2019 at 13:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: will dems self-destruct?
Posted By: franciscosan
Subject: will dems self-destruct?
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2019 at 00:36
So far the democrats are racing to the left.  (no pun originally intended).  They can't embrace socialism fast enough, a naive fringe.  Consequently, they have abandoned traditional liberalism (not classical liberalism), a former CEO of Starbucks, (Howard Shultz), is appealing to the middle running on an Independent ticket, to the horror of radical pundits.
In American politics of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer, third parties tend to split the vote.  A liberal independent would siphon away voters from the increasingly radical democrats.  Ross Perot was possibly a spoiler for George H. W. Bush, (getting Clinton elected), the democrats blamed Nader for the defeat of Al Gore.  One can guess which looser took it gracefully and which did not.
It is within the democrat's power to pick a moderate, but the energy of the party is now on the left.  They are determined to commit political suicide (and blame it on anyone else besides themselves).  Donald Trump may not be that appetizing, but socialist big government hardly seems like a viable alternative.  Of course, the rule for politics is that if your opponent is going to commit suicide, don't get in their way.



Replies:
Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2019 at 16:38
Too bad mainstream media didn't make much noise about pathological abortionist Kermit Gosnell. He is surprisingly unknown and thus wouldn't have the name recognition or late night tv bookings that democrats have cherished since Obama. At least Clinton was a musician sort of.

Kermit G. walks the walk for current democratic platform- fighting for what all american women want according to leftist loons. http://https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31347-effort-to-allow-full-term-abortion-defeated-in-virginia" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31347-effort-to-allow-full-term-abortion-defeated-in-virginia  Democrat Delegate Kathy Tran, under questioning, admitted that her legislation would permit abortions at 40 weeks. Forty weeks is a full-term abortion. Tran argued that full-term abortion would be allowed if it were considered necessary to protect a woman’s mental or physical health. (This, despite that there is no evidence that such late third-trimester abortions are ever necessary for a woman’s physical health. Mental health, of course, is like the proverbial loophole big enough to drive a truck through.)

It seems "we the people" want to eliminate full term babies over tea. And your not getting that immoral WALL Mr President!



https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dr-kermit-gosnell-trial/


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2019 at 20:11
In Japanese baseball a tie game is a good game.
In American baseball a shutout is a good game.

The Japanese like for everybody to save face.
Americans like to have morality plays where someone wears the white hat, and some wears the black hat (figuratively speaking of course).  "Evil-doers beware!" (the Tick).

In one comic book, the Tick and Arthur (Mothman), are training a new superhero team, the Mite, and Butterfly man.  The Mite says, "we have got to stop evil!"  At which point the Tick says, "no."  The Mite says, "no?", the Tick says, "no, if we stop evil then what are we going to fight?"  Identity politicians remind me of that, they're more concerned with the morality play, then making things better (for everybody).  "Good versus evil."

Some on the left sound like women "want" abortions, as if they in themselves are a "good" thing, instead of possibly the least bad of some bad options.  Having abortions available gives women the excuse for having gone home with the looser they went home with last week.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2019 at 04:28
Thomas Sowell researched teen pregnancy rates and found that they increased after sex education became mandatory, teehee

http://https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/01/14/fact-free-liberals-part-iii" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/01/14/fact-free-liberals-part-iii

Massive "sex education" programs were put into schools, claiming that this was urgently needed to reduce a "crisis" of teenage pregnancies and venereal diseases. But teenage pregnancies and venereal diseases had both been going down for years.

The rate of infection for gonorrhea, for example, declined every year from 1950 through 1959, and the rate of syphilis infection was, by 1960, less than half of what it had been in 1950. Both trends reversed and skyrocketed after "sex education" became pervasive.



-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2019 at 05:17
I think of the wall as a bit of a boondoggle, but it is not unlike democrats to be in love with their own boondoggles.  Johnson's War on Poverty as part of his Great Society.  In the New Deal, at least the purpose was to give people who wanted to work, a chance to work.  The War on Poverty supported people who didn't want to work, creating a pauper class.  When it didn't work, LBJ's administration changed the goal post and declared victory.  The democrats are good at changing the stated goals and declaring victory, I am sure it was done with sex education too.  Can't criticize the alphabet soup of LGBTQ, might hurt their feelings, I am sure it hurt their feelings in the 80s too, when they resisted infectious disease control measures in the United States.  Other countries such as Cuba and Great Britain had a more sensical approach, and less of a death toll, I understand.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2019 at 16:04
Quote sensical
???

But to asnwer your question, I wouldn't think so.

Having spent some time in the political wilderness which is Opposition, I would think that the Dems will attack Trump on every front, while at the same time pushing their own political policy agenda.

The ground is fertile for new seed to be sowed, IMHO, as many Americans are heartily disappointed in the man that they elected and his modus operandi.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2019 at 16:14
Quote The ground is fertile for new seed to be sowed, IMHO, as many Americans are heartily disappointed in the man that they elected and his modus operandi.
The American public is currently discouraged by the nonsense in Washington no doubt. Are you kidding? More people are disgusted with the democrats in Virginia right now by a HUGE margin, but you would not know that if you watch Democrat sponsored TV.
http://https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/us/politics/governor-ralph-northam.html" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/us/politics/governor-ralph-northam.html


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2019 at 20:19
People looking at the Democrats might decide that the evil they know is better than the evil you don't know.  Or that the bloodsuckers in office are sated and therefore don't need to gorge themselves on the body politic, while the bloodsuckers out of office are hungry to feed.
Or maybe, Baba O'Reilly

meet the new boss, same as the old boss,
just like yesterday, get on our knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2019 at 23:48
There is no one on the democrat side who could beat Trump if the election were held tomorrow. Trump wins in 2020 and now it doesn't feel like new boss/old boss situation. Trump is nothing like the old boss and some people are encouraged by the economic growth. Some of us are also glad that the border emergency will be dealt with finally. 

Democrat pundits have resorted to the lowest kind of speech and inclination, denying the sickening reality of third term abortion. 

Democrats make Trump seem genteel and are so unappealing with sour faces while we have seen positive progress on some major issues. 

They also understand that Mueller has nothing in his "investigation" to hang Trump on, Bill Barr's nomination was advanced and he will be the new AG. Mueller is toast and the way they talk about Barr, it's safe to say it's over for democrats -just some perfunctory kicking and screaming.


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 00:07
I don't know that Mueller has "nothing."  He is going after smaller fish so far, maybe he has nothing _as you say_, and maybe not.  But, I do think that thinking Trump is "innocent" is like thinking whatshername is a virgin.  Of course, "guilt" is not in his vocabulary.  He probably _could_ shoot someone on the street and not care.

But, if you are saying that Donald Trump is the lesser of evils, you may be right considering who the democrats are flirting with.  In 2016 it was Hillary's game to loose, and she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  The democrats (again) think they have it in the bag.

You know what a yellow dog democrat is?  If the democrats put up a yellow dog for mayor and the Republicans put up Jesus Christ, a yellow dog democrat would vote for the yellow dog, because he is a democrat.  The democrats seem to think they can put up anyone against Trump and "win."  I think that they will discover that a lot of people would prefer the yellow dog, to the reds they seem to be putting up for election.

I don't know if I would consider Trump an old boss or a new boss, but I would consider him like a Mafia boss who thinks he should get utter loyalty while throwing others under the boss.  But in one way at least he is not like a Mafia Don, in that he cannot stomach to pull the trigger, but counts on underlings to fire those that fall out of favor.  The image of him on the Apprentice firing people is largely a sham.  As far as the economy is concerned, I feel that anyone after Obama haranguing businessmen would have an improvement.  Obama 'cooked the books' to make it appear that the economy was doing better, I doubt Trump has done anything to fix those (distortive) economic statistics that Obama created, like people a long while out of work being dropped from the unemployment category. 


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 03:21
Mueller has a lot to hide about his own hand picked team of assassins already showing incredible bias before being selected for the Russia Probe. Many on his team were involved with the dossier, James Clapper admitted this about himself and Comey not to mention the Clinton campaign and some DOJ officials. 

Bill Barr, soon to be new AG, is a serious man. He is friends with Mueller but squeaky clean unlike Mueller. His deceptive "narrative indictments" convinced the likes of General Flynn that evidence had been collected and proved collusion by Trump campaign. Not being a lawyer you understand, Flynn like some people, just didn't understand the legal two-stepping. Under pressure to spare his son from threats made by Mueller he confesses to lying when his interrogators admit that he did not lie. False confessions are not uncommon and well documented especially in Mueller's FBI. Also very common for the FBI FISA court applications to leave out essential details such as requesting subpoenas but declining to say that the targets were already paid FBI informants. Paul Manafort's charges were not related to Trump's campaign. See a full list at Vox 
http://https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

It’s a sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians, and various other crimes by American Trump advisers.

However, Mueller hasn’t yet alleged any crimes directly connecting the two — that is, alleging that Trump advisers conspired with Russian officials to impact the election. He is continuing to investigate that.

Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as potential  https://www.vox.com/2018/1/25/16868268/trump-obstruction-of-justice-mueller" rel="nofollow - obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — have also not resulted in any indictments yet.



-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 03:54
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't know that Mueller has "nothing."  He is going after smaller fish so far, maybe he has nothing _as you say_, and maybe not.  But, I do think that thinking Trump is "innocent" is like thinking whatshername is a virgin.  Of course, "guilt" is not in his vocabulary.  He probably _could_ shoot someone on the street and not care.
"But, I do think that thinking Trump is "innocent" Really?
Right bc all I've said is how INNOCENT Trump is, pppft
That comment is grasping and beneath you. 

YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT! NOR AM I! NOR IS OUR FRIEND IN AU!
Why would Trump be innocent?
False charges against a son of bitch, are STILL FALSE ! 
And when it's the DNC, DOJ, CIA and FBI creating a false narrative, that bothers me a lot, glad you can ignore it in favor of hating Trump for fashion's sake
It's like Jordan Peterson asked- when the hell do you say this is the limit and I can't move any further away from what I know to be right?


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 07:47
Quote NOR IS OUR FRIEND IN AU!

I hope you're not talking about me!!!


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 12:21
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Quote NOR IS OUR FRIEND IN AU!

I hope you're not talking about me!!!
I'm not talking about Olivia Newton John!!!

When were you innocent? 
Not Guilty is more like it.


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 13:55
Quote I'm not talking about Olivia Newton John!!!

Hugh Jackman?
Eric Bana?
Ah, Paul Hogan, right?

Quote When were you innocent? 
Not Guilty is more like it.

That would depend of what crime or offence that you intend to level at me.

Dislike Donald Trump-fair cop guv, you've got me.

Robbing banks-innocent and not guilty.

If you're going to level accusations against me, make them clear, don't muck about girl, speak up.Thumbs Down

Quote "But, I do think that thinking Trump is "innocent" Really?
Right bc all I've said is how INNOCENT Trump is, pppft

And you're wrong again, face up to it.

Quote Why would Trump be innocent?
He's not. CNN said so.Wink

Quote False charges against a son of bitch, are STILL FALSE !
 

Many a son-of -bitch has been convicted because he's a son-of-a-bitch and needs to convicted for the public good.

Quote And when it's the DNC, DOJ, CIA and FBI creating a false narrative, that bothers me a lot, glad you can ignore it in favor of hating Trump for fashion's sake
It's like Jordan Peterson asked- when the hell do you say this is the limit and I can't move any further away from what I know to be right?

And now you turn on some of the worlds leading Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies-just like Trump. When will you ever learn?

Hating Trump gives purpose to my day and makes me feel good. Why should I stop?



-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2019 at 15:09
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Quote I'm not talking about Olivia Newton John!!!

Hugh Jackman?
Eric Bana?
Ah, Paul Hogan, right?

Quote When were you innocent? 
Not Guilty is more like it.

That would depend of what crime or offence that you intend to level at me.

Dislike Donald Trump-fair cop guv, you've got me.

Robbing banks-innocent and not guilty.

If you're going to level accusations against me, make them clear, don't muck about girl, speak up.Thumbs Down

Quote "But, I do think that thinking Trump is "innocent" Really?
Right bc all I've said is how INNOCENT Trump is, pppft

And you're wrong again, face up to it.

Quote Why would Trump be innocent?
He's not. CNN said so.Wink

Quote False charges against a son of bitch, are STILL FALSE !
 

Many a son-of -bitch has been convicted because he's a son-of-a-bitch and needs to convicted for the public good.

Quote And when it's the DNC, DOJ, CIA and FBI creating a false narrative, that bothers me a lot, glad you can ignore it in favor of hating Trump for fashion's sake
It's like Jordan Peterson asked- when the hell do you say this is the limit and I can't move any further away from what I know to be right?

And now you turn on some of the worlds leading Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies-just like Trump. When will you ever learn?

Hating Trump gives purpose to my day and makes me feel good. Why should I stop?

Hate him all you want it's the lying to yourself that should bother you.

You are not innocent in any sense of the word.That's the reason defendants are found NOT GUILTY instead of INNOCENT.

You would convict on false charges bc you hate Trump? 
OK glad I know where you stand and wonder if you didn't employ the "bc I don't like you" rational when you were on the job. 

I didn't accuse you of a crime I said you are not innocent. And have not been since you pushed off mother's teat.

I never said Trump was INNOCENT! I said the liberal media, ANTIFA, democrats and leftists were behaving much worse than racist Trump, who by the way doesn't appear in black face or in a KKK costume like the Dixiecrat posers in Virginia. 

Lastly save the "girl" for your children, you step all over my posts for "name calling."


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2019 at 00:23
LOL

-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2019 at 23:49
Are the charges against Manafort false?  Flynn?  Cohen?  Stone?  Papadopoulos?  Are they innocents?martyrs? or did they get caught fair and square?

Did Cohen pay off two bimbos?  Why shouldn't that be considered a campaign contribution?  Did the editor of National Enquirer work to suppress the news of one of those bimbo eruptions?  Is that just an act of friendship or is that a campaign contribution?  I believe the sentencing agreement looked upon it as an example of the later.  Did he try to blackmail Bezos, or was he just trying to get the news 'accurately portrayed' regarding the supposed uninvolvement of the Saudis.  Whatever it was, was it violation of his plea agreement?  Was Stone courting wikileaks and what was his role in getting them to release the Clinton emails?

When I say Trump is not innocent, I think in terms of Scottish (?) law, where there are 3 possible verdicts, guilty, innocent, and not guilty.  Not guilty means that the person under trial was not guilty of that particular charge, but they could be brought up on another charge and tried on the basically the same or a similar matter.  Trump is not guilty at best, but Mueller has not brought him up on charges, presumably not yet.  We don't know what he has, and neither does Trump, although not knowing has never kept Trump from acting.  Mueller is not vocal in the press, nor disparaging President Trump, he is acting in a legal capacity not a media capacity.  Trump blasts Mueller and Mueller takes it.  The media blasts Trump, and Trump blasts back.  Mueller does not leak to the media.  I think you can fault the media (and the media can fault Trump, but they are not exactly an impartial actor).  But, as far as public appearance is concerned, Mueller really doesn't say anything.

I am sure you will find some trivial detail wrong with what I say, and dismiss the whole.  I believe that the jury has a right to be activist if they find an extreme necessity for it.  Lawyers and judges hate it, but if they want to rule someone obviously guilty as innocent, or obviously innocent guilty (and points in between), they can.  That includes where what happened is murky, and the jury chooses to interpret in a definite manner.  Now it may be thrown out on appeal, but that is another story.  So, yes if you are a rotten excuse for a human being, that counts for something.  But, I am talking about extreme hypothetical cases.  In a way, if the media convicts him in the court of public opinion, then how do you get a jury pool?  Of course, cross that bridge if or when we get to it. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2019 at 00:17
When the media launches a campaign against an individual or a corporation, there often comes a time when getting a completely impartial decision on guilt or innocence is virtually impossible. Under these circumstances, it's been argued in the past that as a fair trial cannot be held, proceedings should be halted.

Take, for example, the case of El Chapo. The reporting on his activities has been so extensive and, allegedly impartial, that he was always going to be found guilty. And I'm not suggesting that he's innocent.

In the case of Donald Trump, he's created so much adverse media publicity that he possibly could never get a fair trial either.

As for the Democrats, I wouldn't have thought that they'll self destruct, not for a while anyway, but should they remain in power, especial with a Dem president after 2020, the road will be rough for a while.



-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2019 at 01:19
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Are the charges against Manafort false?  Flynn?  Cohen?  Stone?  Papadopoulos?  Are they innocents?martyrs? or did they get caught fair and square?
Nope, US won't accuse on no evidence. The "collusion" was a story there was no evidence for investigating Cohen or Manafort for collusion. Don't worry though investigating Hillary's deal giving Russians uranium might replace the national pastime.
Quote
Mueller does not leak to the media. 
No reason to believe that, he recently corrected a leak bc of AG Barr. 

Quote
I am sure you will find some trivial detail wrong with what I say, and dismiss the whole.  I believe that the jury has a right to be activist if they find an extreme necessity for it.

what jury? This was a prosecutor's allegations, there was no jury. 
 
Quote Lawyers and judges hate it, but if they want to rule someone obviously guilty as innocent, or obviously innocent guilty (and points in between), they can.  That includes where what happened is murky, and the jury chooses to interpret in a definite manner.  Now it may be thrown out on appeal, but that is another story.  So, yes if you are a rotten excuse for a human being, that counts for something.  But, I am talking about extreme hypothetical cases.  In a way, if the media convicts him in the court of public opinion, then how do you get a jury pool?  Of course, cross that bridge if or when we get to it. 
What's going to be thrown out on appeal? What the hell are you referring to?


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2019 at 15:28
The fact that someone may have gotten away with something, doesn't have anything to do with whether the next schmuck gets away with something.  So what?  Because the Clintons were not prosecuted or persecuted, Manafort, Flynt, Cohen smell like roses?  Clintons are corrupt, and they have fallen out of favor, shown especially by her loosing the national election, and she _lost_ it by not playing the electoral college, and getting arrogant.

 I am talking about an activist jury, and the theory that a jury can do what it wants.  Are you saying that Manafort, Flynt and Cohen do not have a right to a jury of their peers?  Just because they do a plea agreement, and settle out of court, does not mean that they have a right to a jury of their peers??  Are they allowed a defense attorney??  Isn't part of the purpose of the defense attorney to call bull on the prosecution if the prosecution warrants that (if it gets that far).

But, maybe you are right, Cohen might not be guilty of conspiracy with Russia, but I think that looking at payoffs of bimbos is a form of campaign violations.  But, maybe you only get upset with Clinton's bimbo eruptions, not Trump's.  When everything stinks to high heaven, it is little difficult to tell what smell comes from which steaming pile.

Mueller has been rather closed mouth in general concerning the press.  The "President" on the other hand feels rather free to lambast the Justice department and the Judiciary when the whim suits him, which it often does.  Donald Trump, a man that never lets ignorance hold him back.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2019 at 17:36
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Are the charges against Manafort false?  Flynn?  Cohen?  Stone?  Papadopoulos?  Are they innocents?martyrs? or did they get caught fair and square?
Since the FBI knew all about Manafort before the election, I assume they raided his house and documents to prevent him from hiding/destroying any evidence. 

Yet a search warrant MUST indicate the flavor of the evidence that is to be preserved. A judge determines whether the warrant is legit. We don't know why the warrant was authorized. When Trump was elected the FBI showed him the dossier and said "we don't have anything to prove it, there is no open investigation on you." So if there were no counterintelligence documents recovered from Manafort's home than it was an illegal search and seizure.

Gen Flynn was harassed by the intelligence community in order to find information to use against Trump, bc they had NONE.
Ditto Cohen, FBI is subject to the law no matter how inconvenient it is for liberals.  

Papadpoulos did nothing illegal- see Hillary's dossier compiled by Russian ex KGB and Peter Steele her liberal cheerleader or Hill's Uranium 1 deal- that is counterintelligence fraud.


I have no idea what Roger Stone is being accused of, I guess he is an arms or drug dealer since they brought SWAT in to take him down as if he's El Chapo.


Quote Did Cohen pay off two bimbos?  Why shouldn't that be considered a campaign contribution?  Did the editor of National Enquirer work to suppress the news of one of those bimbo eruptions?  Is that just an act of friendship or is that a campaign contribution?  I believe the sentencing agreement looked upon it as an example of the later.  Did he try to blackmail Bezos, or was he just trying to get the news 'accurately portrayed' regarding the supposed uninvolvement of the Saudis.  Whatever it was, was it violation of his plea agreement?  Was Stone courting wikileaks and what was his role in getting them to release the Clinton emails?
Horrifying! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children! 
When you have a few more straw men come back I'm building a house of sticks.

Quote When I say Trump is not innocent, I think in terms of Scottish (?) law, where there are 3 possible verdicts, guilty, innocent, and not guilty.  Not guilty means that the person under trial was not guilty of that particular charge, but they could be brought up on another charge and tried on the basically the same or a similar matter.  Trump is not guilty at best, but Mueller has not brought him up on charges, presumably not yet.  We don't know what he has, and neither does Trump, although not knowing has never kept Trump from acting.
Do you buy your colored glasses from the same manufacturer as toyomotor? Wink

Quote Mueller is not vocal in the press, nor disparaging President Trump, he is acting in a legal capacity not a media capacity.  Trump blasts Mueller and Mueller takes it.  The media blasts Trump, and Trump blasts back.  Mueller does not leak to the media.  I think you can fault the media (and the media can fault Trump, but they are not exactly an impartial actor).  But, as far as public appearance is concerned, Mueller really doesn't say anything.
Mueller doesn't say that doesn't mean he won't direct others to leak, leak and leak some more. Everyone of his subordinates has contradicted their direct superiors. 
Mueller actually did speak up and deny media poop after Barr was clear to be the next AG.

Quote I am sure you will find some trivial detail wrong with what I say, and dismiss the whole.
You are trafficking in trivialities and "What if's?" Please highlight your most devastating FACT.

Quote I believe that the jury has a right to be activist if they find an extreme necessity for it.
Absolutely sickening
 


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2019 at 00:30
Quote Do you buy your colored glasses from the same manufacturer as toyomotor? Wink

That's a bit unfair!

I've formed opinions on Trump after reading many different American on-line newspapers and watching him on TV news broadcasts - the man has been proven to be an unmitigated liar and a buffoon.

He's single handedly created a situation where the western world can no longer rely on common sense and stability coming from the White House, nor can others with whom the USA must deal with in relation to trade, finances, military and climate control.

I don't wear rose coloured glasses, I just wish Trump would wake up and smell the grass.

If I alone had these views, I'd be concerned, but I don't and I'm not. Many far more informed and more intelligent than me have the same views.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2019 at 00:48
I am a little confused by your triple negative, "Mueller doesn't say that doesn't mean he won't direct others to leak, leak and leak some more."

In a trial, I believe the jury is supreme in a court case.  I had a friend that was in a criminal trial and my dad and I went to the trial in support.  At the beginning of the trial, when they were selecting the jury, the prosecution said, 'if you thought that a law was silly, but the person was guilty of the law, would you convict? for example if it was illegal to eat ice cream on the sidewalk and the person was guilty, would you convict?'  I would have said, 'if the law said someone had to wear a star, and then wouldn't wear a star, would you convict?'
So, yes the jury has a right to acquit the guilty (and hence also convict the "innocent"), now the jury also has responsibilities, and the responsibilities are more important than their 'rights.'  But their responsibilities do not necessarily include making the judge's, the prosecutor's and the defense's day go smoothly.
btw
The friend was found guilty for a lesser offense, the jury split the difference.  But, the judge threw the book at him, rightfully so, because my friend was a very bad liar and the judge surely knew when the defendant was asked if he had ever done anything similar, and the defendant lied.  If he had properly talked to his own lawyer, his own lawyer would not have asked that precise question.  Of course, the fact that he lied, badly, does imply that generally he is the honest sort.  Which he was.  But, he got 3 months in jail, rather than a couple of weeks home detention.

I do hope that Mueller's report is publicly released, if not though, I am not sure I am quite comfortable with it and Mueller being subpoenaed.  Of course, Donald Trump goes to extremes and likes to fight (whether it is necessary or not), and so maybe Mueller being subpoenaed is what it takes.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2019 at 03:09
btw, my lens are not colored, they are photo-sensitive.

Oh, I also believe that voters have a right to write in candidates, although I wonder what would actually happen if Mickey Mouse got elected.  Poll staffers hate write in candidates, because they have to count them by hand.  Same thing, jury activism is frowned upon by the establishment, but is well within the purview of the juror (or elector as the case may be.

But, surely Vanuatu, you don't think Donald Trump would have been elected if a large portion of the American people weren't giving the establishment a big F U?  Or maybe you are also one of those types that believes Trump would have gotten the popular vote if Hillary hadn't "cheated."

Jordan Peterson has some interesting observations about Trump promoting the wall.  He points out that conservatives are into borders, personal, political, moral.  Whereas liberals are more into openness, more what I would call 'loose-goosy' on the moral boundaries, political boundaries etc.  So what Trump says about a wall strikes a real cord with the conservatives.  The liberals (and more precisely, the radicals) go apesh*t about this and can't stand it, disparaging anyone who doesn't see it their way.

Personally, I think the conservatives are more tolerant, believing in borders they believe that someone else can legitimately have an opinion that is different than theirs.  The liberals/radicals being so open can't accept that there might be another opinion, as valid or even more valid than their own.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2019 at 03:32
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I am a little confused by your triple negative, "Mueller doesn't say that doesn't mean he won't direct others to leak, leak and leak some more."
Mueller doesn't say -to follow your "Mueller isn't talking" but do give yourself big points for noticing missing comma. 

Quote In a trial, I believe the jury is supreme in a court case.  I had a friend that was in a criminal trial and my dad and I went to the trial in support.  At the beginning of the trial, when they were selecting the jury, the prosecution said, 'if you thought that a law was silly, but the person was guilty of the law, would you convict? for example if it was illegal to eat ice cream on the sidewalk and the person was guilty, would you convict?'  I would have said, 'if the law said someone had to wear a star, and then wouldn't wear a star, would you convict?'
So, yes the jury has a right to acquit the guilty (and hence also convict the "innocent"), now the jury also has responsibilities, and the responsibilities are more important than their 'rights.'  But their responsibilities do not necessarily include making the judge's, the prosecutor's and the defense's day go smoothly.
btw
The friend was found guilty for a lesser offense, the jury split the difference.  But, the judge threw the book at him, rightfully so, because my friend was a very bad liar and the judge surely knew when the defendant was asked if he had ever done anything similar, and the defendant lied.  If he had properly talked to his own lawyer, his own lawyer would not have asked that precise question.  Of course, the fact that he lied, badly, does imply that generally he is the honest sort.  Which he was.  But, he got 3 months in jail, rather than a couple of weeks home detention.
 
I love a judge with ESP it's totally constitutional. A jury isn't relevant until a law official has done their work correctly. The evidence found after the election would never have seen daylight if Hillaroid had won as was expected. Mueller's warrant for Manafort may never see daylight but things have a way of leeeeeking. 




-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2019 at 03:42
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

btw, my lens are not colored, they are photo-sensitive.


But, surely Vanuatu, you don't think Donald Trump would have been elected if a large portion of the American people weren't giving the establishment a big F U?  Or maybe you are also one of those types that believes Trump would have gotten the popular vote if Hillary hadn't "cheated."
Of course the country was giving an extremely vulgar F U to the establishment, it was overdue and it's been my view since 2016.

Quote Jordan Peterson has some interesting observations about Trump promoting the wall.  He points out that conservatives are into borders, personal, political, moral.  Whereas liberals are more into openness, more what I would call 'loose-goosy' on the moral boundaries, political boundaries etc.  So what Trump says about a wall strikes a real cord with the conservatives.  The liberals (and more precisely, the radicals) go apesh*t about this and can't stand it, disparaging anyone who doesn't see it their way.
loosy goosy liberals live behind walls and they don't want the drug trade to dry up or the supply of children for Kevin Spacey and his ilk. 

Quote Personally, I think the conservatives are more tolerant, believing in borders they believe that someone else can legitimately have an opinion that is different than theirs.  The liberals/radicals being so open can't accept that there might be another opinion, as valid or even more valid than their own.
Of course conservatives are more tolerant, they just want some distance from whatever they choose to avoid, like horrible evil doers and actors. 
Loonie Leftists are emotionally and intellectually impaired, lacking perspective not potential.


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2019 at 03:50
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Quote Do you buy your colored glasses from the same manufacturer as toyomotor? Wink

That's a bit unfair!

I've formed opinions on Trump after reading many different American on-line newspapers and watching him on TV news broadcasts - the man has been proven to be an unmitigated liar and a buffoon.

He's single handedly created a situation where the western world can no longer rely on common sense and stability coming from the White House, nor can others with whom the USA must deal with in relation to trade, finances, military and climate control.

I don't wear rose coloured glasses, I just wish Trump would wake up and smell the grass.

If I alone had these views, I'd be concerned, but I don't and I'm not. Many far more informed and more intelligent than me have the same views.
I'd list Trump's economic progress and tell you about the great job numbers, justice reform, highest number of minorities employed ever, lowest unemployment since the 1950's but it's wasted on you. That's bc of the glasses.
Smart people are susceptible to emotional decisions that are misguided and stubborn and rooted in ego and many of those people are far more informed and intelligent than you. Finally we agree!LOL


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2019 at 00:33
Considering how hostile President Obama was to the business community, I think that Scooby Do would have improved the economy if he had been elected.  Now President Trump probably did better than Scooby Do would.  But so would have your favorite person, Hillary Clinton.
Considering how President Obama cooked the statics for unemployment, I am not sure that when you say lowest unemployment since the 1950s, that that is a meaningful statistic under President Trump.  Obama did not count people who had been unemployed a long time, and had basically stopped looking, he did not count them as unemployed, thus cooking the statistics that had been developed by Herbert Hoover.

So, whose statistics are you and Trump using, Herbert Hoover's or President Obama's?


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2019 at 00:04
Part of the significance of the democrats having their convention in Millwaukie is that Wisconsin has historically had a strong streak of socialism, they had a governor or two that was a socialist.  Also, the democrats have to do something about the loss of the mid-West in the last election.


Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2019 at 19:08
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Part of the significance of the democrats having their convention in Millwaukie is that Wisconsin has historically had a strong streak of socialism, they had a governor or two that was a socialist.  Also, the democrats have to do something about the loss of the mid-West in the last election.

Also, Wisconsin is a swing-vote state. Right from the get-go, most states are either clearly red (conservative Republican) or clearly blue (liberal Democratic). Thus it may pay off more to campaign in a swing-vote state, which can go either way. I think that Florida and Ohio are also swing-vote states.

In the electoral college, for most states, it's winner-take-all. Whoever gets the most popular votes gets all of that state's electoral votes. I n the election, it's almost a predestined fact which candidate will get the red states' electoral votes, and which candidate   will get the blue states' electoral votes. In the swing states, even if the popular vote is very close, it doesn't matter, all of the electoral votes will go to the winner. 

This also puts 3rd party candidates at a serious disadvantage in the electoral college. The electoral system  favors the 2 mainstream political parties. There's no need for the winner to have an absolute majority (51% or more) of votes. If one candidate gets 34% of the popular vote, another gets 33%, and a third also gets 33%, the first candidate will get 100% of that states' electoral votes.   


-------------
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2019 at 14:10
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Considering how hostile President Obama was to the business community, I think that Scooby Do would have improved the economy if he had been elected.  Now President Trump probably did better than Scooby Do would.  But so would have your favorite person, Hillary Clinton.
Considering how President Obama cooked the statics for unemployment, I am not sure that when you say lowest unemployment since the 1950s, that that is a meaningful statistic under President Trump.  Obama did not count people who had been unemployed a long time, and had basically stopped looking, he did not count them as unemployed, thus cooking the statistics that had been developed by Herbert Hoover.

So, whose statistics are you and Trump using, Herbert Hoover's or President Obama's?
Now, now certainly your friends at CNN would have discredited the employment data if they COULD.
The fact that liberal media won't talk about the economy should be a BIG TIP, much like the elephant's circumcision. 


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2019 at 14:18
Quote
This also puts 3rd party candidates at a serious disadvantage in the electoral college. The electoral system  favors the 2 mainstream political parties. There's no need for the winner to have an absolute majority (51% or more) of votes. If one candidate gets 34% of the popular vote, another gets 33%, and a third also gets 33%, the first candidate will get 100% of that states' electoral votes.   
Hi Windemere

What are your thoughts on the front runners DNC who have announced their candidacy?

Can you see Gillibrand or Booker or Harris winning a Primary?

Jill Stein was a much better candidate than any of these democrats, says I. Yet as you suggest quality does not matter where the mainstream parties or media is concerned.


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2019 at 01:31
Colorado liberal governor has pushed forth a bill saying that Colorado's electoral college delegates will be given to those who win the [national] popular majority, even if the state goes the other way.

Jared Polis is a gay Boulderite (people's republic of Boulder), who is rich and buys his elections, his first election was for school board and he spent a million on the campaign.  Liberals only mind the buying of campaigns if they are not the one's doing it.

Co Governor Hickenlooper is a nice guy (moderate), but I can't see him making it on the national stage, Senator Bennett is a bit of a carpet bagger.  Someone who came to Colorado to make it politically, because he couldn't do it where he came from.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2019 at 14:28
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Colorado liberal governor has pushed forth a bill saying that Colorado's electoral college delegates will be given to those who win the [national] popular majority, even if the state goes the other way.
Jeez, Is this an idea whose time has come? It sure don't feel right. Certainly can see why the DNC hates the electoral college but I think its fair :)

Quote Jared Polis is a gay Boulderite (people's republic of Boulder), who is rich and buys his elections, his first election was for school board and he spent a million on the campaign.  Liberals only mind the buying of campaigns if they are not the one's doing it.

Massachusetts is full of democrats who always vote the party line. Maybe it's a Kennedy thing I don't get it at all. Ted Kennedy used to show up in town every couple years and people went nuts for it, just love those sons of bitches. Joe Kennedy was a treasonous criminal and all their empire built on bootlegging. Doesn't matter, democrats can't lose here. (R)Gov Bill Weld was a fluke, he might be running POTUS 2020.

Quote Co Governor Hickenlooper is a nice guy (moderate), but I can't see him making it on the national stage, Senator Bennett is a bit of a carpet bagger.  Someone who came to Colorado to make it politically, because he couldn't do it where he came from.
Sounds like Mitt Romney, that man has always seemed dishonest and disloyal. Even after licking Trump's boots to get his endorsement for the Senate and winning, he says Trump hasn't "risen to the mantle of the office." 
What office would that be, Mitt? The one you will never win?


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2019 at 16:29
Will dems self-destruct?  Probably.  The Democrats may have to give up on 2020, and will have to groom candidates for future elections.

With the stable of possible candidates for POTUS they may not be able to do otherwise.  It is difficult enough to defeat an incumbent at most any level of political office in the US.  With the GOP spinning the "end" of Russiagate, it could be that Mr. Trump has a leg up on re-election.  

Republicans appear to be oblivious to the degree of corruption in the highest offices these days.  One must assume they don't care as long as POTUS is anti-immigration.  The populist has his issue that resonates.  The Dems don't.  Of course that could all change in a year, but don't bet on it.

The traditional Democrats (Joe Biden, etc.) are mostly dead politicians.  Biden and Hilary Clinton can forget about 2020.  They are too old anyway.  The new Congress is populated by too many inexperienced and inconsequential personalities rather than serious potential candidates.  Amy Klobuchar; Warren; Gillibrand et. al., and crazy old guys like Bernie Sanders - and young guys like Beto O'Rourke - are not serious contenders (IMHO).

The president elected in 2020 will not be a woman - too many bad effects from Clinton.  It will not be a Black man - that experiment is too recent and unfortunately polarizing.  If the Repubs don't challenge Trump in primaries, it looks like a 2020 horse race he might win again.  The Electoral College is a minority party political asset.  

Comment above concerning Mitt Romney as a Repub candidate is probably best ignored.  He is a dead politician too.  Once you lose on the national level, your are no longer a serious figure in leadership.         


Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2019 at 17:07
That statement about no longer being a viable leadership candidate once you lose at the national level is probably true in most cases, but there are exceptions. Richard Nixon overcame his loss to John Kennedy to defeat Hubert Humphrey.
I wouldn't say Mitt Romney is quite dead. But I doubt he could mount an effective challenge to Trump. I think that Bernie Sanders did significantly better in 2016 than anyone expected him to. I think he'll actually improve this time around, too, but it still won't be enough to overcome Trump.  Trump's much-vaunted tax-cut didn't amount to a hill of beans for working-class people (It came to a tax savings of perhaps $150 per year for those who didn't itemize and took the standard-deduction) but they are still hoping that he'll come through for them in a second term. But Sanders' message of Medicare for All is resonating with more and more people,  and it will stay in the forefront.




-------------
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."


Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2019 at 17:15
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Quote
This also puts 3rd party candidates at a serious disadvantage in the electoral college. The electoral system  favors the 2 mainstream political parties. There's no need for the winner to have an absolute majority (51% or more) of votes. If one candidate gets 34% of the popular vote, another gets 33%, and a third also gets 33%, the first candidate will get 100% of that states' electoral votes.   
Hi Windemere

What are your thoughts on the front runners DNC who have announced their candidacy?

Can you see Gillibrand or Booker or Harris winning a Primary?

Jill Stein was a much better candidate than any of these democrats, says I. Yet as you suggest quality does not matter where the mainstream parties or media is concerned.

Thanks for your reply. There are so many Democratic candidates coming out of the woodwork now, that I can't keep them straight. I actually don't know anything about Gillibrand or Booker or Harris. I'll have to wait for the debates. Jill Stein has been running for stateoffices in Massachusetts for years. She represents the Green/Rainbow Party, and she has a small but loyal constituency. She knows she has no chance of being elected. I think her main goal is to keep the Green/Rainbow issues in the forefront of the public. She knows she won't have to fulfill any promises, so she has some freedom to be a bit more idealistic than otherwise. I think she's less practical than Bernie Sanders, but she strikes me as more down-to-earth than Elizabeth Warren. But the media loves drama, and Warren will appeal to them more than Stein.


-------------
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2019 at 18:59
Originally posted by Windemere Windemere wrote:

That statement about no longer being a viable leadership candidate once you lose at the national level is probably true in most cases, but there are exceptions. Richard Nixon overcame his loss to John Kennedy to defeat Hubert Humphrey.
I wouldn't say Mitt Romney is quite dead. But I doubt he could mount an effective challenge to Trump. I think that Bernie Sanders did significantly better in 2016 than anyone expected him to. I think he'll actually improve this time around, too, but it still won't be enough to overcome Trump.  Trump's much-vaunted tax-cut didn't amount to a hill of beans for working-class people (It came to a tax savings of perhaps $150 per year for those who didn't itemize and took the standard-deduction) but they are still hoping that he'll come through for them in a second term. But Sanders' message of Medicare for All is resonating with more and more people,  and it will stay in the forefront.



Interesting comments.  The juggling act of tax cuts and benefits for all has a mutually exclusive quality that will always be difficult to reconcile.  In the US at least, no politician with a functioning brain is going to favor tax increases.  There is no upside to that (of course there is no upside to cutting spending either, but that is all another argument).

All the Repub/Trump noise about steel mills opening all over the country and coal mines opening and all the jobs  and so on is just background noise.  No one thinks that is happening.  A populist ex-Democrat and current convenient Republican, Mr. Trump has cast himself as a great white hope and that is about all there is to any popularity he has.  

Even Republican White evangelicals, who are supposed to be Christian in outlook and practice, support him by something like 87%.  What they approve of is that their president doesn't like swarthy foreigners.  There isn't much else involved.  Media conspiracy theorists stoke fear and resentment; they are ready to buy into the M.S.M. being "enemies of the people" because of ratings and the effect on their income.  Don't ask them about public policy because they really don't care.  These days he who can manipulate media and form supporters based on fear and hate has a great advantage.

Aside from all that, the Democrats don't have anything to counter Trump's celebrity status in the media age.  He is not really a politician.  He is a professional personality and a showman.  O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson showed how celebrities are Teflon-coated in many respects.  

All that stuff about POTUS's disengagement in office; his disinterest in policy and in national security concerns will be difficult to overcome by "Medicare for all" and free university.  Trump has shown he can get at what he wants by not paying a price for anything.  The "Wall" is just a finger to his opponents and its isn't costing him anything; it energizes his "base.".  

All his Mar-a-Lago buddies got actual tax cuts, but they vote too I guess. Big smile




Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2019 at 22:05
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

T

Comment above concerning Mitt Romney as a Repub candidate is probably best ignored.  He is a dead politician too.  Once you lose on the national level, your are no longer a serious figure in leadership.         
The comment on Romney wasn't about him running for POTUS. He just won a senate seat after gaining Trumps' support and now resumes back biting Trump.

-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2019 at 01:25
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

T

Comment above concerning Mitt Romney as a Repub candidate is probably best ignored.  He is a dead politician too.  Once you lose on the national level, your are no longer a serious figure in leadership.         
The comment on Romney wasn't about him running for POTUS. He just won a senate seat after gaining Trumps' support and now resumes back biting Trump.

That's politics.  It is highly unlikely that Romney will be a credible primary challenger, but who knows what will happen in the next 12 months.  There may be an "asset bubble" close to bursting, and when the inevitable recession follows, that may be in the middle of the election year.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2019 at 04:03
Romney seems to be considering a run against Trump.  He hasn't said that, but one can see it.  I am not sure that Trump is someone who deserves loyalty, because for him it is a something that he demands, but does not care to give.  Not saying he will, not saying he won't.

We are in la-la land now, folks, standard expectations are out the window, and they have been since the W. Bush administration (when Barack Obama became ascendant).

Of course, the democrats came into trouble when Hillary Clinton became the "obvious" choice because of how all the superdelegates owed the Clinton's power structure.  I wonder if Trump switched to Republicans because the superdelegate system was designed to prevent someone like him (an outsider) from running.  I thinK the democrats have fixed the problem, they're good at "fixing" things, like their new bid to get rid of the electoral college.  Why bother to play within the rules when you can change them in your favor.  Of course civilization is based on a bet that it is more profitable to play the game, than it is to beat your opponent profusely on the head and shoulders.  That is one thing that scares me, the democrats are playing up to the rabble, and the Republicans are playing up to a (different) rabble.  My concern is that in trying to win, both will loose.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2019 at 16:06
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


All the Repub/Trump noise about steel mills opening all over the country and coal mines opening and all the jobs  and so on is just background noise.  No one thinks that is happening.  A populist ex-Democrat and current convenient Republican, Mr. Trump has cast himself as a great white hope and that is about all there is to any popularity he has.
Our local economy is good. Numbers don't lie but fair enough just as Obama's administration skewed the numbers , so could Trump's. I'm not imagining the increase in jobs for people in the trades as we say. Our local economy is banging. 

Quote Even Republican White evangelicals, who are supposed to be Christian in outlook and practice, support him by something like 87%.  What they approve of is that their president doesn't like swarthy foreigners.  There isn't much else involved.
Quote
Legal swarthy is fine we'll take em. Especially if they are willing to work, and we know they are. I wish every person in central and south american could have a decent legal status that allowed them to eran and assimilate. Hell Yes! And bring some enchiladas for me!
[quote]  Media conspiracy theorists stoke fear and resentment; they are ready to buy into the M.S.M. being "enemies of the people" because of ratings and the effect on their income.  Don't ask them about public policy because they really don't care.  These days he who can manipulate media and form supporters based on fear and hate has a great advantage.

Not exactly news there pikeshot1600 Wink. No silent coup. 

All that stuff about POTUS's disengagement in office; his disinterest in policy and in national security concerns will be difficult to overcome by "Medicare for all" and free university.  Trump has shown he can get at what he wants by not paying a price for anything.  The "Wall" is just a finger to his opponents and its isn't costing him anything; it energizes his "base.".  

All his Mar-a-Lago buddies got actual tax cuts, but they vote too I guess. Big smile

Probably did get tax cuts, everyone did. It was less weekly deduction and you didn't get the return that you expected. 
I suspect the wiser action on the border is a physical barrier. The threats are manifold. Why not have a migrant facility on the Mexican side? We should be humanitarian, get the WHO to meet the basic needs ..but over there not in US. 
Why hasn't the US government established a better relationship with Central and South America? As far I can see it's been the absence of reliable government on their part. And now it's this horrendous kill fest in these countries. Not to mention our participation in the destruction of the lungs of the plant, destroying estuaries in South America?

Why can't the Democrats get behind a candidate who cares about the planet? Solyndra was $500 million dollar flop. All we have to do is look at Germany and how they are using solar but no one in mainstream parties will touch that rail.


-------------
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net