quote: just as Democrats have already discussed policy other than Trump.
For example?
To interject, some kind of health care reform or different options really need offered by either party. The Republicans have had 2+ years now and can't come up with anything and don't seem likely to do so anytime soon. The Democrats have their ideas. No matter if you or I agree with them all, but that issue or policy would be the most glaring from my view that would have good appeal across party lines.
And really to be fair, with that illustration, I do not know how seriously the Republicans can be taken on infrastructure being part of their platform. Their proposal from the 2018 budget was not a serious effort. If the meeting between Trump and Democrat leaders this week means anything, I'd say the issue could certainly be put in both party platforms, and not solely the Republican side. If one party were to actually be more likely to move the issue forward in a real way I would say that would be the Democrats. Maybe something bipartisan can happen (doubt it)...otherwise we will have to wait until the Democrats control atleast 2 of the 3 branches before something happens.
How is it any different than your own rationalizations re:your own hatred of the left? That trumps all else for you, no?
No different at all, you hate Trump and I despise almost everything the Left stands for. That being said, I will sleep just great this evening.
Hey, at least you acknowledge it. We all gotta be who we gotta be.
Seems to be the Liberal/Leftist/Democratic mantra, no matter what the hatred of the President "trumps" all else.
Pretty sad and if the left hopes to gain the WH in 2020 there better be more to your platform than embarrassment.
Considering the literal mantra for the 2016 Republican Convention was "anyone but her", and it actually worked, you either have a short memory or are being pretty hypocritical.
Actually in 2016 Trump campaigned on a number of things that had nothing to do with Hillary, withdrawing from NAFTA, Tariffs on China, Illegal immigration and the return of manufacturing jobs to the USA. You can't blame the other side because your Candidate took Victory for granted.
What is on the Democratic Platform now beside hatred for the President?
Well, if you put it in that context, it looks similar to the governance of the Boehner-Ryan-McConnell Congress for eight years.
And really to be fair, with that illustration, I do not know how seriously the Republicans can be taken on infrastructure being part of their platform. Their proposal from the 2018 budget was not a serious effort. If the meeting between Trump and Democrat leaders this week means anything, I'd say the issue could certainly be put in both party platforms, and not solely the Republican side. If one party were to actually be more likely to move the issue forward in a real way I would say that would be the Democrats. Maybe something bipartisan can happen (doubt it)...otherwise we will have to wait until the Democrats control atleast 2 of the 3 branches before something happens.
The refusal to address the infrastructure baffles me. The business and job growth potential is insane, and the safety of the public is strengthened. Baffling.
Whether it is a higher gas tax, or user fees, or whatever, I do think there needs to be some real payback in the investment for some of it. And the other gets paid back in other ways, not measurable like we might like, but with increased productivity and boost to the overall economy.
It needs to get done.
I incorrectly said if Democrats get 2 of 3 branches, obviously I meant 2 of 3 houses. I do think that if Trump could get a spine and do something that is unpopular with his party in Congress, if the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and if Trump somehow were to still be in the White House at that point I think he would sign a Democrat written and mostly party-line passed infrastructure bill even at the protest of his own party.
Infrastructure is in the Democrats wheelhouse. Trump says he wants to do it (and I think he probably does), Republicans might say they want to do it (they actually don't unless it is all or pretty much all private projects), but the Democrats both want to do it and are ready willing and waiting to do it. Definitely would have to be part of their platform.
Regarding the WPA, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. They certainly did some amazing things and it hard to argue that our country wasn't better off for it.
The fact that socialism is a dirty word
Indeed
No different at all, you hate Trump and I despise almost everything the Left stands for.
One directs his ire at a belligerent bully for his unprofessional and dirty behavior. The other admits to “despising” half the country’s entire set of values (after claiming hate was a strong word earlier in the day).
Character has spoken. It’s obvious which one is the better and stronger person. Enjoy the gutter.
socialistic aspects
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
just as Democrats have already discussed policy other than Trump.
For example?
Do you choose to not look these things up? There's a big world out there if you choose to be curious rather than obtuse.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-pete-buttigieg-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-7-issues
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kamala-harris-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kirsten-gillibrand-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-11-issues
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
Certainly not "Socialism," as a political system - no argument there.
Try "Corporate Socialism." The USA fits that description.
No thanks, I'll stick with "Democracy"....
It's corpocracy really. In some ways that is good and has been beneficial to our country and in other ways it hasn't and has gone too far with corporate control of our government. If we were to debate democracy vs socialism, I think we would find there are redeeming qualities on both sides of those systems, but neither is especially good when taken too far unchecked. As it is with any political position or debate, how far should any ideal swing one way or the other and where is the balance?
If we get back to Barr and lying, there may be other instances (or in the minds of some, many instances) where he potentially has lied under oath - I think this is the one that strikes closest to me although I personally still think it falls short of perjury. I can see the argument though and admit that my opinion may not in fact be legally correct.
April 9th Charlie Crist full Q & A (5-1/2 minutes):
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4795192/charlie-crist-questions-ag-barr-april-9-2019
Barr's assertion is that he did not know the objections or concerns of Mueller's "team". This is all in light of Mueller's letter, which Barr had received and he had spoken to Bob Mueller personally prior to April 9th hearing before the House...so one could say that Barr was aware of the objections. Barr says this week, he knows of Mueller's objections, but not that of his "team". Technically that wouldn't be a lie. But, well isn't Mueller a member of his own team? And then Barr says he thinks that a staffer wrote the letter (probably incorrect). Would that staffer not be a member of the "team" too? As I already did say though, definitely Barr was not as forthcoming and truthful as he should've been. Did he lie? Maybe I should just defer judgement.
Weighing in on other related opinions, I think Barr should have to appear before committees he is requested to testify for. If that has to take the form of a subpoena so be it. If he can be held in contempt for not appearing, so be it. As head of a government agency he has a responsibility to Congress to make himself available. As for Don Mcgahn, I think executive privilege could be used and would be valid, although it is a bad look. I personally would like to see Mcgahn testify, but also think the President can exercise privilege in that case. Did Mcgahn lie to Mueller or was the truthful? Were his words and the situation misrepresented by Mueller, or did the President in fact tell him to fire Mueller or what were the exact details of that situation? Really, I still feel the same way, getting Barr or getting Mcgahn doesn't mean much - Mueller's testimony is the be all end all. The sooner it can happen the better.
I can’t be the only liberal who thinks that chicken stunt was about the one dumbest way they could have dealt with this. High school kids do that for pep rallies. It’s starting to get into the “can this get any dang worse” territory.
just as Democrats have already discussed policy other than Trump.
For example?
Do you choose to not look these things up? There's a big world out there if you choose to be curious rather than obtuse.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-pete-buttigieg-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-7-issues
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kamala-harris-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kirsten-gillibrand-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-11-issues
Forgive me for not being more clear in my request. I was curious as to what was in the Democratic Platform that made YOU think "Hey, that appeals to me"...Not, what individual Candidates think.
Have a great day
Forgive me for not being more clear in my request. I was curious as to what was in the Democratic Platform that made YOU think "Hey, that appeals to me"...Not, what individual Candidates think.
Ha, ok, yeah that's not what you said at all, but you're forgiven for your ret-con if you like.
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
Certainly not "Socialism," as a political system - no argument there.
Try "Corporate Socialism." The USA fits that description.
No thanks, I'll stick with "Democracy"....
You say that here, but if we had Democracy Hillary would be president right now.
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
Certainly not "Socialism," as a political system - no argument there.
Try "Corporate Socialism." The USA fits that description.
No thanks, I'll stick with "Democracy"....
You say that here, but if we had Democracy Hillary would be president right now.
True dat, but what's wrong with a dictatorship where a president dismisses the Constitution and leaders within the gov't are protectors of the dictator out of fear of the dictator primarying them via tweet?
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
Certainly not "Socialism," as a political system - no argument there.
Try "Corporate Socialism." The USA fits that description.
No thanks, I'll stick with "Democracy"....
You say that here, but if we had Democracy Hillary would be president right now.
OMG. More whining? lol. For only the 5th time in the History of this Republic the EC performed its function as defined by our Forefathers....
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
Certainly not "Socialism," as a political system - no argument there.
Try "Corporate Socialism." The USA fits that description.
No thanks, I'll stick with "Democracy"....
You say that here, but if we had Democracy Hillary would be president right now.
OMG. More whining? lol. For only the 5th time in the History of this Republic the EC performed its function as defined by our Forefathers....
What you really meant to say is you'll stick with Democracy, as long as we can we can minimize the votes from populous states who don't vote the way I like.
Call it what you will; far from Socialism
Certainly not "Socialism," as a political system - no argument there.
Try "Corporate Socialism." The USA fits that description.
No thanks, I'll stick with "Democracy"....
You say that here, but if we had Democracy Hillary would be president right now.
OMG. More whining? lol. For only the 5th time in the History of this Republic the EC performed its function as defined by our Forefathers....
What you really meant to say is you'll stick with Democracy, as long as we can we can minimize the votes from populous states who don't vote the way I like.
See it, say it anyway you please. I think the system works just the way it was intended to function.....
The Forefathers totally would have been down with a foreign country interfering with a Presidential election. Like, duh.
Interference in foreign elections? No country even comes close to the USA in that regard and nobody ever seemed concerned. We patented the process, and had Clinton won they still wouldn't be concerned...
NOW everybody is supposed to care. Why now all of the sudden?
Perhaps the Russians made yet another miscalculation. They're pretty good at that. A weaker USA under Trump? Guess again, Yortug. There's some really nice prizes in the consolation round though, and thanks for playing!
[Edited on 5/6/2019 by alloak41]
Interference in foreign elections? No country even comes close to the USA in that regard and nobody ever seemed concerned. We patented the process, and had Clinton won they still wouldn't be concerned...
NOW everybody is supposed to care. Why now all of the sudden?
Perhaps the Russians made yet another miscalculation. They're pretty good at that. A weaker USA under Trump? Guess again, Yortug. There's some really nice prizes in the consolation round though, and thanks for playing!
[Edited on 5/6/2019 by alloak41]
You are right, the USA has been guilty of meddling in other countries elections. The funny thing is that in most of those cases, the people of those countries were pissed when they found out.
And the USA is weak now that a wedge has been placed between the USA and our European allies. That is exactly what Putin wanted. NATO has been weakened as a direct result of Trump, and that is Putin's wet dream. Not sure how much Putin spent to meddle in the election, but it has paid off beyond his wildest dreams.
And the USA is weak now that a wedge has been placed between the USA and our European allies.
Any "wedge" is there because some of these countries are not used to the USA standing up saying "Enough is enough" you will contribute equally just like everyone else.....
You are right, the USA has been guilty of meddling in other countries elections
I agree, this is a solid point - gotta say "meddlng" is a huge understatement. Corporate strongarming, CIA backing military coups, engaging in dark ops, assassinations, all out invasions, undeclared warfare . . . there has to be a more appropriate term than "meddling."
[Edited on 5/6/2019 by BrerRabbit]
And the USA is weak now that a wedge has been placed between the USA and our European allies.
Any "wedge" is there because some of these countries are not used to the USA standing up saying "Enough is enough" you will contribute equally just like everyone else.....
Yeah, that's it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with being rude to our allies at every opportunity and never criticising Putin no matter what he does. Reagan must be rolling in his grave seeing an American president worshiping a Russian dictator like Putin. I never thought I would see the day that Republicans especially would be ok with this.
Not sure how much Putin spent to meddle in the election, but it has paid off beyond his wildest dreams.
What have they done to capitalize on it? Paid off...in the sense they are getting something out of it so now they can do something or act in some way that they haven't before. What has that been, or are they just bidding their time? Where is their ROI?
I never thought I would see the day that Republicans especially would be ok with this.
You are right, the USA has been guilty of meddling in other countries elections.
Not sure how much Putin spent to meddle in the election, but it has paid off beyond his wildest dreams.
What have they done to capitalize on it? Paid off...in the sense they are getting something out of it so now they can do something or act in some way that they haven't before. What has that been, or are they just bidding their time? Where is their ROI?
Valid questions, Neb.
I have never seen so much angst directed at one individual. He sure brings it on himself, but anything Trump elicits a reaction that far eclipses anything directed at Bush 43 or even Obama.
Again I ask - just how was this election thrown in the favor of Trump? I have voted predominately Republican since I was 18, and I didn't vote for this clown.
quote:I never thought I would see the day that Republicans especially would be ok with this.
quote:You are right, the USA has been guilty of meddling in other countries elections.
quote:
quote: Not sure how much Putin spent to meddle in the election, but it has paid off beyond his wildest dreams.
What have they done to capitalize on it? Paid off...in the sense they are getting something out of it so now they can do something or act in some way that they haven't before. What has that been, or are they just bidding their time? Where is their ROI?
Valid questions, Neb.
I have never seen so much angst directed at one individual. He sure brings it on himself, but anything Trump elicits a reaction that far eclipses anything directed at Bush 43 or even Obama.
Again I ask - just how was this election thrown in the favor of Trump? I have voted predominately Republican since I was 18, and I didn't vote for this clown.
The biggest thing is the fact that Bernie supporters were so turned off by the information that was leaked about the DNC is that they didn't support Clinton. I do not think anyone has tried to equate that to a number of votes that were potentially lost, but that is the angle...people that might've otherwise supported the Democrat nominee were influenced by the Russian campaign into not doing so.
It very well could've played some role in the outcome, but I think that most fair thinking people would acknowledge there are and were a host of issues that contributed to the results of 2016. Russian interference gets all the attentions, because, well, it is rather a big deal, but that does lose focus on the other causes of why we are where we are.
The questions about what actually Russia is getting, I mean I hear and believe people when they say "Russians have weakened US-NATO alliances", "Russians have further driven a wedge in our society's political differences" (as if it wasn't bad enough already) - those things are true, I just wonder ultimately from their point of view what does that lead to? Flexing more muscle abroad in other geo-political matters? And so what if they do really? More invasions of former Soviet countries? Must an engaged US be the only deterrent to their bad behavior, what role must the rest of the world play in corralling them? Trump has 2 more years in office (if he goes full term), so just when are they going to get their great "pay off" and what does it really mean for them when we will have another President in 2021?
