Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[sandman]

you didn't ask me WHY they make decisions - that is a completely different question. you asked me who benefits from their decisions. there are many that benefit, but family was the first thing that came to mind.

True. Because I don't agree with you. I'm convinced that these kinds of decisions benefit someone else. Not just the person making the decision.

a true liberal would hate Obama's health care plan and would view it as a corporate friendly deal.

A liberal?

You mean a communist....

I don't think what used to be considered liberals were against capitalism and a free market. It's just because the other party went so far to the right that what used to be center is now labeled socialism... Which is just silly.

people go into politics for the power.

I don't disagree. But I don't think everyone does.

Some people want to become some kind of person in power for the some reason. Doesn't matter if it's a police officer, politician, journalist etc etc.



Trump sacks national security adviser John Bolton
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49655279


/jarmo

you responded to my post by saying "so Trump makes a tax cut to benefit his wife and children."  But I want to make it clear I did not say that. nor did I imply that.

if you disagree, just say that and state your opinion. it seems like you are beating around the bush and making assumptions and asking me questions, rather than just stating your opinion.

as for liberals views on capitalism, more than half of Democrats/leaning Dem have a negative view of capitalism. this is a significant shift in democrats' view. 

you have stated several times that republicans moved to the far right. you are wrong. Democrats are moving left. and they are proud of it. they are making it clear. after Hillary's loss they no longer believe in "center" politics. they want to be as far left of Trump as they possibly can be.

[jarmo]

I stated my opinion multiple times.

I don't agree with you that all politicians only serve themselves or their immediate family.

I agree that some do, I agree that some get into politics for power. Not all though.

as for liberals views on capitalism, more than half of Democrats/leaning Dem have a negative view of capitalism. this is a significant shift in democrats' view. 

What makes them liberals then?

you have stated several times that republicans moved to the far right. you are wrong.

I don't agree. The president himself has done and said things that I would consider more far right than what previous Republican presidents did.

Right wing populism works that way....






/jarmo

[pilferk]

I don't agree. The president himself has done and said things that I would consider more far right than what previous Republican presidents did.

Right wing populism works that way....

/jarmo

Just FYI, you are correct in your assumption. At least according to the recent research studies.

Objective research studies by a few different outlets (including pew research in 2014 and 2018, a Brookings Study using the Poole/Rosenthal score, and others) show the Republicans (and specifically Republicans in Congress/the Executive branch) have moved further right, since 1975...with an increased trend line starting in 2001....than Dems have moved left, compared to the center.

Dems spent most of the 70's, 80's and 90's moving right.  They drifted left throughout the early 2000s.  Yes, in the last 8 years, their trend line has increased, but it is not nearly as steep, or as far, as the Republican line.

This topic was discussed earlier in this threads, with graphs and charts even!

http://www.ashford.zone/images/2015/06/repdrift.jpg

[pilferk]

No.  It's more about how it is almost impossible to have an actual discussion on real topics of substance concerning policies with those of you who have the mindset that everything President Trump says, does, does not say, does not do, etc., is wrong.

So, to be clear: You opinion is that it is impossible to have a productive political discussion with anyone that pushes back and disagrees (and provides evidence as to why)?  And for conserviatives to ENGAGE in discussion, those with an opposing viewpoint must adopt the position that Trump is infailable, never lies, is never wrong, and EVERYTHING he does is right? And because those who dislike Trump won't do that, conservatives have disappeared from this thread?

I'm guessing you were so blinded by your outrage as to my view that the anti-Trumpers don't bother listening to (or reading) what conservatives actually are saying/trying to discuss with their views that you missed the part that I said "almost impossible" in my post. So, to be clear, I made it bigger n' bolder for you. 

I wasn't blinded at all.  The "almost" has zero semantic impact given the response, especially in light of tim's initial post about NO conservatives posting for awhile.  And, rather than actually attempt to respond to my point, you tried to make a non-sensical semantic argument.

That answers my question. Thanks!

Also, as an aside...Pot. Kettle. Black.  I mean...Gypsy...have you ever dissented and called the President out on doing ANYTHING wrong?

This made me LOL.  All that keeps going through my mind reading this is when people DEMANDED Jarmo say something bad/negative about Axl. 

I'm glad you're getting a good laugh at your own expense.

Because it was you who suggested that litmus test in your first post....suggesting that people with an opposing viewpoint had to acknowledge Trump "being right" (aka the opposite of being wrong) to be taken seriously...or, if you like, to make it "less than almost impossible to discuss things".

I actually argued against it, and simply pointed out, in addition, your position was hypocritical.

I'm glad you see how ridiculous (and hypocritical) your assertion is, given your own stances/posts!!

[PermissionToLand]

It is like you are cheering for a recession that may or may not happen.

I'm dizzy from all the spin in your post. 

The last few years Ive saved money on my taxes and seen an increase in business income. That is what I see.

I love how conservatives project their own immorality onto the left in order to justify their own behavior.

I don't want the economy to crash at all. That's why I didn't vote for Trump! I gave no personal opinion whatsoever on those statistics. I'm sorry the facts about the economy upset you but facts don't care about your feelings.

And you will pay MORE in taxes once the cuts for the average Americans expire and we have to pay for the extension of the cuts for corporations. You also leave out that it explodes the debt, something rightists claimed to care about, but coincidentally only when a black man was president...

And it's funny how you never saw the economic growth under Obama. Again, this selective blindness is worrisome. You should see an optometrist about that.

unfortunately, we can't all be as virtuous as you, cupcake. 

HAHA, wow, that's all you've got? Won't even attempt to refute me logically? I accept your concession. No need to be a sore cupcake about it! 

[PermissionToLand]

it's always worth a try to end war through diplomacy and understanding the other side.

Funny how that wasn't the case when Obama did it... there's that selective amnesia again!

Republicans were apoplectic when Obama talked with Raul Castro, and are now defending Trump literally saying he "fell in love" with Kim Jong Un. You cannot even write a more absurd parody of GOP hypocrisy. They have become an absolute joke of a party with zero pretense of credibility.

https://time.com/4265768/president-obama-cuba-trip-republicans/

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/marco-rubio-who-blasted-obamas-castro-meeting-praises-trumps-kim-summit-10434438

you have stated several times that republicans moved to the far right. you are wrong.

You are wrong. The truth hurts, cupcake. 

[tim_m]

I agree with Jarmo, i don't think they all get into politics for power. I honestly believe most when they get in genuinely want to help the people they serve. Then as they work their way up the money starts pouring in from pacs, lobbyists and special interest groups and it's hard to say no. I'm wondering if we pay them a bit more in Congress if they might be less inclined to take the money. It might sound crazy but maybe not. The salary for Congress and the Senate isn't something that will make your rich. These days it's barely middle class. They have to maintain two residences, one in bet expensive DC and another in their home state which could be very pricey, depending on where it is. I know this depends on the each member job they had prior plus wherever their spouses do for work, if they have one. Having said that he absolutely still need to overturn citizens united and get these damn pacs etc out.

[tim_m]

I guess nobody wants to go near addressing the Taliban meeting. How about the days breaking news of John Bolton being fired or resigning.

[pilferk]

I agree with Jarmo, i don't think they all get into politics for power. I honestly believe most when they get in genuinely want to help the people they serve. Then as they work their way up the money starts pouring in from pacs, lobbyists and special interest groups and it's hard to say no. I'm wondering if we pay them a bit more in Congress if they might be less inclined to take the money. It might sound crazy but maybe not. The salary for Congress and the Senate isn't something that will make your rich. These days it's barely middle class. They have to maintain two residences, one in bet expensive DC and another in their home state which could be very pricey, depending on where it is. I know this depends on the each member job they had prior plus wherever their spouses do for work, if they have one. Having said that he absolutely still need to overturn citizens united and get these damn pacs etc out.

Overturn citizens united...and term limits.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I guess nobody wants to go near addressing the Taliban meeting. How about the days breaking news of John Bolton being fired or resigning.

Don't know what the right answer is on Afghanistan, its a tough region where empires have failed time and time again. Its no different for us.  But I think it was a good move cancelling the Taliban meeting. They were not a serious partner to negotiate with and I cant fathom why we would not include the current Afghan government in things. Any agreement under the conditions set would have been doomed for failure.  I support getting out of Afghanistan, we got Bin Laden in 2012, so mission accomplished at this point.  We do not need to be their police force for another 18 years. The country is pretty much ungovernable as they are a collection of tribes.


I am happy that  John Bolton to be fired / resign. Whatever the case is, he is out and we'll all be better for it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I agree with Jarmo, i don't think they all get into politics for power. I honestly believe most when they get in genuinely want to help the people they serve. Then as they work their way up the money starts pouring in from pacs, lobbyists and special interest groups and it's hard to say no. I'm wondering if we pay them a bit more in Congress if they might be less inclined to take the money. It might sound crazy but maybe not. The salary for Congress and the Senate isn't something that will make your rich. These days it's barely middle class. They have to maintain two residences, one in bet expensive DC and another in their home state which could be very pricey, depending on where it is. I know this depends on the each member job they had prior plus wherever their spouses do for work, if they have one. Having said that he absolutely still need to overturn citizens united and get these damn pacs etc out.

Overturn citizens united...and term limits.

We desperately need term limits for congress.

I also agree we need to get rid of citizens united.

Its an interesting morning, I agree with you on something 

[pilferk]

It is like you are cheering for a recession that may or may not happen.

The fact that THIS is the talking point (and common response) from conservatives when faced with FACTS AND DATA speaks volumes.

Nobody is rooting for a recession. Nobody.

People are talking about leading indicators and data showing a slowing economy...and, fairly, linking that data to Trump and his policies.

Also:

"It's Trumps economy" in the first 6-12 months of his presidency...when we were still riding the Obama policies.

"It's not Trumps fault" in the last 12 months, as we've watched the economy growth slow, when we are largely in a Trump economy.

Talk about being dizzy from the spin??

I'm dizzy from all the spin in your post. 

The last few years Ive saved money on my taxes and seen an increase in business income. That is what I see.

OK. But....

The average tax cut for the middle class is $20 a week (a bit less, actually) and that will shrink every year going forward.  For the working class, the average tax cut was about $12 a week...and it, too, will shrink every year going forward.  The bulk of the tax cuts went to the upper income brackets and corporations.

There is a construction boom in central Florida that's not related to Trump policies.  It's a regional blip that is not remotely national.  In fact, residential construction starts have been pretty flat, non-residential construction took a dive in 2018 and has flattened out in 2019, and overall construction spending is down since the tax cuts.

It's good that you are doing well.  

But, to be clear, are you actually saying that narcissism, racism, Nationalism and xenophobia....and I'll add federal crimes (campaign finance and potential obstruction of justice) and national indicators of a slowing economy, are all OK...as long as your personal pocket is being padded? Really?

I mean....I applaud the honesty here if that's the case, and...fair enough....but are you sure that's where you want to set yourself up? Given the post you're responding to...I suspect you might want to clarify/elaborate (or not...).

Also:

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-tax-cut-effects-20190529-story.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/here-s-how-u-s-businesses-actually-used-their-tax-cuts

[tim_m]

I agree with Jarmo, i don't think they all get into politics for power. I honestly believe most when they get in genuinely want to help the people they serve. Then as they work their way up the money starts pouring in from pacs, lobbyists and special interest groups and it's hard to say no. I'm wondering if we pay them a bit more in Congress if they might be less inclined to take the money. It might sound crazy but maybe not. The salary for Congress and the Senate isn't something that will make your rich. These days it's barely middle class. They have to maintain two residences, one in bet expensive DC and another in their home state which could be very pricey, depending on where it is. I know this depends on the each member job they had prior plus wherever their spouses do for work, if they have one. Having said that he absolutely still need to overturn citizens united and get these damn pacs etc out.

Overturn citizens united...and term limits.

That too.. unfortunately the latter will require a constitutional amendment.

[tim_m]

I guess nobody wants to go near addressing the Taliban meeting. How about the days breaking news of John Bolton being fired or resigning.

Don't know what the right answer is on Afghanistan, its a tough region where empires have failed time and time again. Its no different for us.  But I think it was a good move cancelling the Taliban meeting. They were not a serious partner to negotiate with and I cant fathom why we would not include the current Afghan government in things. Any agreement under the conditions set would have been doomed for failure.  I support getting out of Afghanistan, we got Bin Laden in 2012, so mission accomplished at this point.  We do not need to be their police force for another 18 years. The country is pretty much ungovernable as they are a collection of tribes.


I am happy that  John Bolton to be fired / resign. Whatever the case is, he is out and we'll all be better for it.

I agree, it was an all around bad idea and just days before the 9/11 anniversary the optics were just awful. If it were Obama trying to negotiate this on US soil at Camp David congress would've had articles of impeachment within hours of the info coming out.

[tim_m]

I agree with Jarmo, i don't think they all get into politics for power. I honestly believe most when they get in genuinely want to help the people they serve. Then as they work their way up the money starts pouring in from pacs, lobbyists and special interest groups and it's hard to say no. I'm wondering if we pay them a bit more in Congress if they might be less inclined to take the money. It might sound crazy but maybe not. The salary for Congress and the Senate isn't something that will make your rich. These days it's barely middle class. They have to maintain two residences, one in bet expensive DC and another in their home state which could be very pricey, depending on where it is. I know this depends on the each member job they had prior plus wherever their spouses do for work, if they have one. Having said that he absolutely still need to overturn citizens united and get these damn pacs etc out.

Overturn citizens united...and term limits.

We desperately need term limits for congress.

I also agree we need to get rid of citizens united.

Its an interesting morning, I agree with you on something 

I'm all for term limits. I've been saying they're needed for many years now. Unfortunately its not easily done, as it would require a constitutional amendment. I still think in general most people who enter politics at first really do have good intentions. Power and money corrupts. Yes that needs to go to. The SCOTUS made a terrible decision on that one. I don't know what the hell they were thinking. Do all that. Get all big money out, give them a bit of a raise so maybe they won't be tempted for being bribed and maybe we can actually get a congress and senate that works!

[pilferk]

I agree, it was an all around bad idea and just days before the 9/11 anniversary the optics were just awful. If it were Obama trying to negotiate this on US soil at Camp David congress would've had articles of impeachment within hours of the info coming out.

Agree with ALL that!  The timing, the location, and the secrecy...as well as the unilateral meeting without any real groundwork being laid before hand...all terrible ideas.  Which is a hallmark of this administration.  Terrible ideas with terrible optics and, to date, no real results. 

[tim_m]

I agree, it was an all around bad idea and just days before the 9/11 anniversary the optics were just awful. If it were Obama trying to negotiate this on US soil at Camp David congress would've had articles of impeachment within hours of the info coming out.

Agree with ALL that!  The timing, the location, and the secrecy...as well as the unilateral meeting without any real groundwork being laid before hand...all terrible ideas.  Which is a hallmark of this administration.  Terrible ideas with terrible optics and, to date, no real results. 

At least he did the right thing canceling it. Also, firing Bolton another good decision.

[pilferk]

At least he did the right thing canceling it. Also, firing Bolton another good decision.

Yup, small victories, I guess!

I'm glad he got rid of Bolton (or that Bolton resigned, depending on who's story you believe).  Too hawkish by half, especially when it comes to Iran.  BUT.....I say that with some trepidation.  Because we don't know who is going to step into that role, next.  It could actually be worse.  McMasters coming back wouldn't be bad...but I also don't expect it would last that long.

This president does not like to be challenged.  That's why we have the revolving door.  It's "yes men" and bootlickers, who will stroke his ego, or bust.

[tim_m]

At least he did the right thing canceling it. Also, firing Bolton another good decision.

Yup, small victories, I guess!

I'm glad he got rid of Bolton (or that Bolton resigned, depending on who's story you believe).  Too hawkish by half, especially when it comes to Iran.  BUT.....I say that with some trepidation.  Because we don't know who is going to step into that role, next.  It could actually be worse.  McMasters coming back wouldn't be bad...but I also don't expect it would last that long.

This president does not like to be challenged.  That's why we have the revolving door.  It's "yes men" and bootlickers, who will stroke his ego, or bust.

True, on the upside it means Trump wants no part of a war with Iran, which is a good thing for us all. Bolton did want conflict.

[sandman]

I agree with Jarmo, i don't think they all get into politics for power. I honestly believe most when they get in genuinely want to help the people they serve. Then as they work their way up the money starts pouring in from pacs, lobbyists and special interest groups and it's hard to say no. I'm wondering if we pay them a bit more in Congress if they might be less inclined to take the money. It might sound crazy but maybe not. The salary for Congress and the Senate isn't something that will make your rich. These days it's barely middle class. They have to maintain two residences, one in bet expensive DC and another in their home state which could be very pricey, depending on where it is. I know this depends on the each member job they had prior plus wherever their spouses do for work, if they have one. Having said that he absolutely still need to overturn citizens united and get these damn pacs etc out.

if you genuinely want to help people, elected office is the last place you would go.

you go there for the control, the money, the power.

you're right about the salary. but there are connections and relationships and information that elected officials are privy to, that we are not. the higher the office, the higher the payoffs.