All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
As I've been telling peeps for over a year and a half, the man, the myth, the legend is now going to be our President...and America will be great again.
The last time the GOP had the Presidency, Congress, and the Senate was 1928. What followed was the Great Depression of '29, the rise of Hitler, and this little skirmish called WW2. Fun times.
Trump is the kid who shouted "Teachers are bad!" and promised pizza parties every day to win the middle school election. How is he going to get me my pizza?
Hillary is the kid who's friends with the principal, and even though you'd like to think she's going to be on your side, you have this sneaking suspicion that she's going to shorten recess by 10 seconds every day until you only get a 5 minute lunch to eat your mandatory vegan hamburger in a teacher sanctioned "safe space".
This election just proves how uninformed voters have become, and I'm sorry to say, how many haters there are in this country.
And to all you principled Gary Johnson and Jill Stein supporters, congratulations. You helped elect Donald Trump through his victories in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, among others. Enjoy the next 4-8 years.
I disagree with this. I know a LOT of people who voted for Johnson and none of them would've voted for HRC if Johnson was not an option.
Are you saying they would have voted for Trump or simply not voted?
I also know people who voted for Johnson, and today they deeply regret not voting for Hillary.
It's all hindsight, but I can't believe that the Johnson voters are happy with a Trump result, and even Johnson's own running mate, William Weld, said in the closing weeks of the campaign that he was focusing his efforts on trying to prevent a Trump presidency.
I think they all think Trump is a despicable person, but HRC is dangerously corrupt. None of the people I know that voted for Johnson regret it. Their hope was to get libertarians 5% so this two party system would end.
Their hope was to get libertarians 5% so this two party system would end.
In 1968, George Wallace had 13.5% as a third party candidate, and in 1992, Ross Perot had 19% as a third party candidate; neither had any effect on the two party system.
The people of this country have wanted Reagan back since 1988. There have been two revolutionary developments in American politics this century: FDR's New Deal, and the Reagan return to smaller government and traditional values.
Trump is no Reagan. He has no real core belief, though he does seem to share with Reagan a vital pro-Americanism. And his message managed to appeal to the core Reagan voter in a way that has not been done since 1988. That's why Michigan, Penn, Ohio, Wisconsin all flipped.
It wasn't about bigotry. It was a complete rejection of progressive preaching. Most people want all races and creeds to have a fair shot. No one supports injustice. But we live in a complicated world, and these things can't all be fixed by government decree. When blacks get shot by police, it's complicated. The root causes of Islamic terrorism are complex, and though political correctness makes for an easy and comfortable ideology, it doesn't honestly approach the problem. And though most people believe immigration is essential to America, opening borders so we can bring a flood of new voters looking for benefits, or a flood of cheap labor, isn't helping those communities. So that too is complicated.
People like Obama the man. But the country has rejected Obamaism at every chance: 2010, 2012, and now 2016. 2014 reflected his personal popularity, but Republicans have swept the state houses of this country and both houses of Congress since 2010. That's a rejection of the Obama policies.
And finally, this is a rejection of a massively corrupt poltical machine. People can passify themselves with thoughts like "they all lie" or "they all sell influence", but that's the kool aid at work. The Clinton Machine is one of the most corrupt since Tammany. It has tentacles all through the vast bureaucracy, all of those tentacles getting extremely wealthy off their government connection. People have had enough of that. The Democrat Party needs to take a long, hard look at what it has become. Bernie's policies are naive, but at least he was an honest man. The Democrats need an infusion of more of that.
Regardless, I think if HRC had won, Trump supporters would've blamed Johnson for that too.
I heard Trump and his supporters talk a lot about how "rigged" the election was against him, and never heard Johnson's name come up among all the reasons they thought the odds were against him.
I suppose my biggest gripe with the Johnson vote is that he was no Bernie Sanders or Michael Bloomberg, both independents that could have credibly run as a third party candidate. Johnson blanked at what he would do about Aleppo, Syria ("What's Aleppo?"), and blanked again when he was asked what current foreign leader he respected ("Uh, the former president of Mexico." - who he couldn't remember by name!).
I get the argument that neither Trump or Hillary were attractive candidates, but I've held my nose in every election I've ever voted, knowing that whoever I voted for had a chance to be elected. Johnson had no chance to be elected, a vote for him had no effect on the two party system, and as far as I can tell, he left no political or social platform theme that will ever be remembered - other than "What's Aleppo?"
And finally, this is a rejection of a massively corrupt poltical machine. People can passify themselves with thoughts like "they all lie" or "they all sell influence", but that's the kool aid at work. The Clinton Machine is one of the most corrupt since Tammany. It has tentacles all through the vast bureaucracy, all of those tentacles getting extremely wealthy off their government connection. People have had enough of that. The Democrat Party needs to take a long, hard look at what it has become. Bernie's policies are naive, but at least he was an honest man. The Democrats need an infusion of more of that.
Hey, you want to reject The Man and replace the system - go right ahead... but you better have a good fucking system to replace it with... not some wildcard ticking time-bomb who has no previous political experience, no concept of foreign policy, and is just flat out - out of his depth. This is a man with the full support of every racist white group in America, a building history of sex scandals, and arguably the greediest fucking human being on the planet.
You can talk about Clinton's corruption all you want, just wait until the man who never said no to a deal he didn't like has 4 years of political white house corruption behind him. are you kidding me right now? Every special interest group on the planet is drooling right now to buy out the man who would sell out his own grandma if it lined his pockets.
Well done, America. You just handed the key to America's 1500 or whatever nuclear weapons to a man who got baited into a blathering meltdown on Twitter by Rosie Fucking O'Donnell. The Valdimir Putin's and Kim Jongs of the world are going to eat him alive.
Trump is going to continue to do exactly what he's done the last 18+ months
Belittle anyone who disagrees with him, compliment Putin, demean women and the disabled, insult Mexicans and Muslims, and threaten to imprison a political opponent? I hope not.
Belittle anyone who disagrees with him, compliment Putin, demean women and the disabled, insult Mexicans and Muslims, and threaten to imprison a political opponent? I hope not.
Misquoting...just like everyone has been doing for 18+ months and the man still prevails.
Say what you all will...Trump is going to continue to do exactly what he's done the last 18+ months - prove everyone wrong.
He can do it. We can do it. It's time for a change and The Don will make that happen.
I'm not really fussed who is the prez at any time but I do listen to talkback radio here in Oz and over the last year plenty of Aussies have been talking about it, so my take:
Trump will be great for the US economy as he is a good businessman. He is the one to get your farming and manufacturing back from the shit - both industries are shit over here as well - and he will have the economic brain to do it IMO. clinton would'vew just taken things steady steady and nothing would've changed from Obama(personally I'm glad he is gone - nothing against him as a bloke, he seems ok but the novelty of him wore off very quickly and he spouted the same nothingness. And using your wholesome wife and kids was annoying too lol).
Trump's weirdness and shit? Showmanship and advertising in my book. Do you really think the CIA or whoever secretly runs the govt will allow trump to start WW3 as the idiot media reckon? GTFO!! I have been embarassed to see the crap about him yesty by some of my friends on Facebook - its the end of the world, blah blah.
He will change the US for the better hopefully and that will have a good knock on effect for other countries economy.
And no matter how much of 'freak' people might think he is, just Google Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard to see the recent freaks that us Aussies have had as prime Minister lately!!!
Misquoting the Donald when he's on video and audio? Sorry, I don't live in rural Alabama, so that won't work on me.
Call it what you will, but things are taken out of context.
Things are shown that don't tell the whole story.
Get over it, peeps. Trump is cool because he's a normal person who doesn't act like a fucking robot. He says what he wants to say,m when he wants to. When he's upset, it shows.
Just give the guy a chance, and you'll most likely be very surprised how well things start going.
Call it what you will, but things are taken out of context.
Things are shown that don't tell the whole story.
Get over it, peeps. Trump is cool because he's a normal person who doesn't act like a fucking robot. He says what he wants to say,m when he wants to. When he's upset, it shows.
Just give the guy a chance, and you'll most likely be very surprised how well things start going.
I will absolutely give him a chance because I have no choice. He's the President-elect, and it is what it is. But there's nothing normal or common about Trump. I agree that when he's upset it shows - a quality that's best demonstrated in private, not public IMO. Anyway, at least the late night TV will be more entertaining. So there's that.
Hey, you want to reject The Man and replace the system - go right ahead... but you better have a good fucking system to replace it with... not some wildcard ticking time-bomb who has no previous political experience, no concept of foreign policy, and is just flat out - out of his depth. This is a man with the full support of every racist white group in America, a building history of sex scandals, and arguably the greediest fucking human being on the planet.
No one said anything about replacing the system. We're talking about replacing the party that has utterly corrupted the system, and in particular the mega machine called the Clintons. Did you see the Bushes sell the White House and political influence like the Clintons? Did they build an empire based on political influence?
I am no defender of Trump. He's an idiot.
But Trump is a wave, a phenomena. The Clintons and the corrupt cadre around them have been in power for over a generation. It has to be stopped.
People are tired of elitist progressives telling them what they're supposed to think, how they're supposed to live. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania...blue states that have had enough. Working people, with experience in the REAL FREAKING WORLD, are not tolerating this stuff anymore.
This election result has made me worried about my friends who are minorities, and those who are female, but most of all my LGBT friends, because if Trump is impeached, which I see as quite likely, Pence becomes president, and he is extremely anti-LGBT, and with a Republican Senate, he can get away with a lot. I am extremely worried as to what will happen over the next 4 years.
Trump has 75 pending lawsuits against him, including sexual assault against a minor (due to be heard in December) and fraud. I have no idea if a President Elect is immune from prosecution, can anyone enlighten me on this? Will he have to get impeached first or something?
Regardless, he also has a history of broken businesses behind him and no experience of politics. No-one in their right-mind would allow such a person to date their daughter, never mind elect him into the highest political position on the planet.
However, he represents a force of change. Just like in the UK with Brexit, we cut off our nose to spite our own face and went with the devil. We did so, simply because we (when I say we, I mean we as a nation, I voted to remain) were fed up of political corruption, political lies and political incompetence.
The average people in the western world are suffering because of big businesses screwing them over, in particular the banks cocking it all up in 2008 and causing the recession. Governments used our tax money to bail them out and none of the mega-rich who caused the crises were prosecuted.
Since then austerity measures have cut government spending (unless they borrow heavily, something which Trump will have to do if he's going to deliver on his promises of huge growth - and who do they borrow from...yup, that's right...China) so the average person suffers while the rich have got off free.
But who has the media and the right-wing politicians blamed for all our problems? Immigrants, the European Union, single parents, disabled, homosexuals etc. And the people have lapped it all up. As usual the middle class and the poor start blaming each other, it's a trick the rich have used for centuries.
Trump is indeed a force for change. I don't know how an elite billionaire who was handed his first fortune qualifies himself as a man of the people but people believe he is. Whether he will be a force for good change for America and the rest of the world or bad, time will tell. However, with him in charge and the Senate now predominately Republican, he has no-one to blame if things go wrong.
He will try though, trust me. Watch out for this, watch out for him trying to lay blame on terrorists, immigrants etc. Once the debt ceiling crashes through the roof or he's hit with a major crises, watch him lash out and then attempt to lay blame when there's no-one left to blame. He can't just declare America bankrupt and use charities to get rid of bad debt like he did with his own businesses. He's in charge now, the buck stops with him and he should be made accountable.
Trump has been claiming for weeks the election is rigged. I wonder if he still believes that? It's interesting to note Clinton won the popular vote. So more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. The idea of the Electoral College seems simply insane to me and goes against the very idea of 'every vote counts' when clearly it doesn't.
Good luck everyone, the next few years are going to be intense. As the old Chinese curse goes, we live in interesting times.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
I have no idea if a President Elect is immune from prosecution, can anyone enlighten me on this? Will he have to get impeached first or something?
It's a civil suit. Not contributing to the debate, but the sexual assault case is a civil suit and doesn't necessarily (I think?) involve an impeachment.
For the record I'm insanely left-wing and Donald Trump is abhorrent as a form of life, let alone a head of state
Hey, as a foreigner I won't link to your deep political debates about the happenings.
I only describe you the one point when I personally, from the outside, was profoundly convinced that he's going to be elected.
After the very first TV debate, on the podium, he stood a bit behind her, close beside her. Then he tapped her back, quite soft, three or four times. It was a little picture, if intentionally or unintentionally produced of him, which showed the psychological situation between them and his personal conviction. I was afraid the media didn't focus on all this body language and impression and let her dream she's dominating him on all areas. The parts when they didn't speak, he completely took her apart, shoveling coal and all that while she had her nose up and that problematic smile.
It was just a trivial thing I noticed quite clearly.
I know a majority reduces everything to his inacceptable statements, rightfully they do so. Still, during the debates, imo, it would've been smarter of those in power to face and respect areas where he was undeniable strong and build up a strategy against it.
It's remarkable to see him win the election. A guy who brags about his right to grab women by the p**** whenever he likes is now going to be the most powerful man on the planet. God help us...
I'd like to add something else: I watched on CNN as they interviewed voters in Pennsylvania yesterday who voted for Trump. These were regular people. None of them said anything racist. What they mentioned most was exploding healthcare costs.
Look, I'm not going to trash Obamacare. It achieves some things. I'll be neutral here whether it's a good system.
But it was built on lies, and outside of Fox News, the media refused to challenge those lies.
It was called "Affordable" healthcare. It was said people could keep their plans.
None of this true...or even logical. The plan was to provide coverage to tens of millions of people who don't have it. That's good...but the idea that this would LOWER health costs is ridiculous. Obama said it would lower costs by 2500 per household.
Yes, I underatand the thinking was that by forcing young people to buy insurance, the pool would increase, thereby bringing costs down. But did this really seem likely? Especially given that the health insurance mandated was extremely expensive.
Yet the media refused to challenge any of this. The average person coming home from work after a long day and turning on the network news didn't have time to dig into it on their own. They have to trust the news! And the news didn't question any of this. It didn't tell the working man what might happen if the President's words turned out to be false.
Meanwhile, conservatives were saying that once the plan was fully implemented, which would take several years, health costs would skyrocket and the whole system would crash, which is what we're seeing now. That's what many workers in these states are realizing too.
And they feel they've been hustled.
Again.
And while they work long hours, they DO know what party hustled them.
And not just the party. But the entire culture on which that party floats, the elites which include the news media. All of these people betrayed the working classes. As usual.
Trump may not have a solution. Just as he may not with the jobs bleeding out of the country. Meanwhile the elite get wealthy on a stock market floated by free government money. Eight out of ten of the richest counties in the United States are Democrat strongholds. These are the elites. They are liberal. They are doing quite well under Obama.
What do you prefer? A broken health insurance system which could be fixed or a racist as president who wants to deport latinos and black people, build a wall around mexico, questions NATO, and makes scaring statements about nuclear weapon usage?
What do you prefer? A broken health insurance system which could be fixed or a racist as president who wants to deport latinos and black people, build a wall around mexico, questions NATO, and makes scaring statements about nuclear weapon usage?
I'll take the latter, gladly.
Trump just says things like normal peeps do...except everything he says and has said, is recorded.
He's not a bad guy or a bad person. He knows what needs to be done and he's going to see to it that it happens.
Stop all the madness and worry. Trump will be good for the entire world.
This is the problem with generic liberalism. It's all one porridge of the same stuff. This ism or that ism. This is what the country is rejecting.
I didn't support Trump. I think much of what he says is stupid.
A voted for him though. Lesser of two repulsive "evils",
The Clinton Machine is dangerous. And that machine can no longer be separated from the mainstream media culture. Wkileaks shows they're all on the same team, not that one should need those leaks to understand it.
Much of the country is suffering. The media won't report it. It's flyover country to them. Stupid white people. The elites reserve their racism for the white working class, which they describe in a way that they would find offensive it was applied to people of color.
This election was not about embracing Trump. It's a rejection of the elite liberal class lording it over everyone else while their stock portfolios grow.
I've spent my adult life in the Group Health Insurance World.
There are many, many things flat out wrong with ObamaCare, but most peeps don't really get it, and never will.
Trump will pull this as soon as he legally can, and whatever he pouts in place, will be better.
Everyone bad talks the Insurance Companies and blames all our Medical issues on them...but they're actually not to blame. Sure, the Big Boys, CEO's, and the like make alot of coin, but don't think Insurance Companies, MGU's, TPA's, and the like are all swimming in cash....because they're not, and many are struggling and down right tanking.
If you work for a company, blame your company for whatever your Medical costs are, as they make the decision what to offer you.
If you're unhappy with a charge for Medical care or a prescription drug, don't blame your Insurance Carrier, blame the lawyers who are constantly suing Dr.s, hospitals, medical centers, and drug manufactures. And understand the insanely high cost of medical research and medical manufacturing.
Finally, understand what insurance really is, where it came from, and why it works.
Trump just says things like normal peeps do...except everything he says and has said, is recorded.
The same could be said of Archie Bunker, but I wouldn't want him as my President. I hold the President to a higher standard than "normal".
And by the way, the garbage he's spewed about women, Mexicans, the disabled, John McCain's service record, and the purple heart medal may at some level be normal for a 15-year-old, but it's not normal among adults where I come from or where I've been.
Bogey most people that voted for Trump are also offended by things he says. But they considered the alternative to be worse. Obama's policies have made life worse for people, and Clinton is the modern poster girl for corruption.
Bogey most people that voted for Trump are also offended by things he says. But they considered the alternative to be worse. Obama's policies have made life worse for people, and Clinton is the modern poster girl for corruption.
Agreed!
I personally, have not been "offended" by any of his remarks, but i do find many of them to be very foolish, immature, or downright stupid.
I'm not naive with respect to Hillary. She's no virgin when it comes to the straight and narrow. But Trump's record of fraud, bankruptcies, hidden and blind trusts, secret business deals, undisclosed tax returns, phony charities, and tax dodging all dwarf Hillary's record of "corruption". Personally, I think the GOP overstates that part of her public record, but she does open the door for them to do it.
How's this: I agree with both Jeff and Bogey on this.
And I'm not drinking!
Yes, Jeff, I had more of a problem with his ignorance than his offensiveness. I really don't think Trump is racist, except in the most oversensitive definition of the word. And not only does he not wish to "oppress" women, he sees himself as someone progressive on that, as he never held women back in his companies. Is he insensitive when it comes to attractive women he has a non-professional interest in? No doubt. But no worse than Bill Clinton or JFK or RFK.
I agree with Bogey that Trump is likely corrupt as well.
But there's a rather BIG difference: Trump has never held office. Has never worked for the government. He's BUYING influence, not SELLING it.
Hillary didn't just make a few convenient bucks. She and Bill made over 250 million...all built on selling influence! Think about those numbers. And the Clinton Foundation, which took in over 2 billion, is a slush fund for the Clinton Machine, though of course it does do some charity. Hey, Capone ran soup kitchens.
And they didn't just make ungodly amounts of money selling her political influence. They made it off shady foreign countries and businessmen. They made it off deals that jeopardized national security. This is a pattern that went all the way back the Clinton White House when the Chinese were bundling them money through monks and technology was being transferred. These people are traitors and had to be stopped.
Most of the Presidents, whatever side, have been essentially good men. Obama, the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Ford...these were decent men who loved their country.
The Clintons are in it for themselves, always have been, and there is nothing they won't sell, whether pardons, goldmines in Haiti, or national security.
Personally I wouldn't get on a plane with a pilot who had never flown a plane, or even been to flying school but everyone enjoy you flight, the Trumphoon is coming!
Oh and keep an eye on the national debt and number of jobs.
Make sure you note down the figures just before Trump takes over, then monitor them over the next four years and see how things pan out.
Just to give you some figures to play with, Bush spent 5.1 trillion between 2001 and 2009. Obama has spent 983 billion between 2009 and 2017, has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
If you like those figures, during Bill Clinton's presidency 23 million jobs were added. George Bush only managed 1.3 million, but to be fair to the guy he was plagued by recessions.
Trump has promised to spend big to get the country moving so it will be interesting to see how big and what effect it has. Spending a lot didn't guarantee prosperity and jobs for Bush, will Trump fare any better?
I agree with Bogey that Trump is likely corrupt as well.
But there's a rather BIG difference: Trump has never held office. Has never worked for the government. He's BUYING influence, not SELLING it.
I hear what you're saying, but being in the private sector doesn't give you a pass to screw people. I believe the trail of woe left by Trump in his business practices far exceeds those injured by the Clintons.
As for the Clinton Foundation, lets not overlook the millions of people whose lives were saved or made better by their work. It can't be disputed that the Clintons are whores for money. so I won't try. But at least the Clintons put their money to use to do some good in this world. Trump has not, we have no idea where his investments lie around the world, and I think the American people deserved to know who he owes and how much.
From the other side of the pond i think i can fairly say we are both scared, and curious.
personally, I'm not sure a leader who offends most basic laws/principles of modern human decency should be voted in, but i dont understand all your complications, and we only get the 'bad' snippets - mind you they are bad.
i suppose the question is, if your leader can't uphold standards, who does? what does the next candidate think is fine to do and say? What line does he mind crossing?
Mind you we didn't think brexit would happen either - i've had a bad year on the predictions.
2016 is one effing weird year
One last thought as we reach armistice day. I recently visited the cemeteries of the Somme. Very moving. And just enormous in its depth of hell. Peace can't always be talked into birth, we saw what that did in the second world war, we do need strong leaders to defend the free worlds rights (forgive the phrase). Lets hope we haven't got a rash one that plays into the hands of a clever Soviet friend.
I hope for the best.
ps - whilst i wouldn't have voted for Trump, i don't agree with the protests - its democracy, and thats the way it goes IMO
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
ps - whilst i wouldn't have voted for Trump, i don't agree with the protests - its democracy, and thats the way it goes IMO
I agreed with you up until that.
Peaceful protests are the essence of democracy, and it's a Constitutional right. If Trump follows through on half of what he promised, I hope those protests continue until November 2020.
Let's not forget, Hillary received more votes than Trump.
Peaceful protests are the essence of democracy, and it's a Constitutional right. If Trump follows through on half of what he promised, I hope those protests continue until November 2020.
Let's not forget, Hillary received more votes than Trump.
some fair words - but we must also accept the will of the people. if that proves wrong then that's the chance for the next candiate
don't tell me someone in the democrat party is now very happy and excited about the next time???
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Had to smile today when I watched the news and read the Vatican statement about Trump's election: 'We pray god may enlighten him'. Sounds like a tough job, if you ask me. Didn't work for Hitler either. Let's hope there are reasonable people in the background of the administration who will stop him if necessary.
All I can say is Europe is shocked by that result. Not just politicians or celebrities - I mean people at the supermarket checkout counter speaking to each other about the probability of World War 3. Witnessed that exact discussion of an old woman with the cashier this morning. While that might be somewhat over the top, I think what is shocking most people here is how this could happen in the USA. The leading democracy in the world.
After Trump's video, I thought the election would be boring, because no sane person could vote this man into office any more. I guess my picture of America was kind of wrong...
ps - whilst i wouldn't have voted for Trump, i don't agree with the protests - its democracy, and thats the way it goes IMO
I'm also from the other side of the pond but I also was with you until that last line.
More people voted for Clinton than Trump, to me a true democracy and the will of the people is if a candidate wins by a majority. Trump didn't, he won by the outdated and flawed Electoral College system. BTW - This was the same system that got Bush in last time.
Interestingly enough, Trump has very recently deleted a tweet he made on November 7, 2012 - "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The Loser one!" Luckily it can still be found in archives.
Also, what the protesters are doing is exercising their first amendment rights:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Of course if they do not protest peacefully, I do not agree with that!
What is very telling is how Trump will react to such protests once he's President. If you go to his Twitter account and expect him to be responding in a presidential way, you are in for a disappointment. This morning he tweeted, "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair."
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Re the right to protest after a vote, well that shows it's a free country, so of course could happen. I suppose, whilst I don't support trump, I feel the voting system resulted in his election and to a degree that should be honoured and respected.
Over in the U.K. We can also have the situation where more vote for a party but get less seats. There are arguments for and against the voting system, but that's a different matter.
I also seem to have upset some folk with reference to previous wars. I certainty didn't mean to offend, I was merely reflecting on the pro's and con's of supposed strong leaders. The debate I was having within myself was that strong leadership can both be positive in terms of facing threats, but can also lead to confrontation when none was required. I wonder what Trump will be?
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Recessions are a part of the economy. They are rarely caused by short term policy, but are a result of cyclical forces. I believe the average now is every 7 years. So a recession is likely in the next couple years, certainly in the next four, and would have happened whoever was President. When it does, satisfied liberals will go on about "Trump recession".
We had a recession at the end of 1992, and it was ending just as Clinton took office. He was fortunate that the next recession did not occur until 2000, just as he was leaving office. This skews his numbers. He also benefited from the dotcom boom. And the faulty accounting scandal that erupted, which was not Clinton's fault but happened on his watch, delayed a likely recession, moving it from 1998 to 2000.
Bush had the market collapse of 2008. While actions by Clinton and then Bush may have contributed to that collapse, as well as actions or inactions by the Democrat Congress, the reality is that these things are the result of larger forces that are difficult to predict or manage. But that recession skews the numbers.
Same with the Obama "jobs added". Even amateur economists understand that the jobs he added were simply a recovery from the collapse. This recovery was the weakest in the post-WWII era. The jobs added were largely part time.
Using stats without context is about as useful as saying the world is cooling because December is colder than November.
There are plenty of reasons to think Trump will screw this up. There are also plenty of reasons to think the existing Bush/Obama order screwed things up, or at least was ineffective. For example, I think even Obama understands that it would help the US to lower the business tax rate but get rid of loopholes, thereby encouraging businesses to bring their cash back to the US. But Obama could never pull that off politically, his base would never have forgiven him. And Bush had a Democrat Congress for the most part. Trump might actually have the strength to get this done.
If the economy soars at 4% growth and avoids the almost inevtiable recession, Trump will have pulled off a miracle and will deserve credit.
If the economy soars at 4% growth and avoids the almost inevtiable recession, Trump will have pulled off a miracle and will deserve credit.
And if pigs could fly...
We will likely never see 4% growth again in our lifetime. The rest of the world has advanced and will continue to advance in a way that they're no longer dependent on US goods and services to the extent they were in the past.
Trump promised 4% growth, and recited China's 9% growth as a benchmark - another myth. They're building high rises en mass in China that go 100% unoccupied. And if he starts a trade war with them, good night. We'll have a recession on steroids.
Trump wouldn't bother me as much if I thought he'd surround himself with competent, reasonable experts. But his inner circle of the White House has firmly crystallized - Trump, Rudy Guliani, Newt Gingrich, and Jeff Sessions. Four of the most angry old caucasion men you'll ever find.
But I am 50 years old. I remember the late 70s and early 80s. Economists also said then that this kind of growth was no longer possible. The economy was in a unique doldrums that was worse than a mere recession, where we had low growth and high inflation(stagflation).
But Reagan did indeed turn it around, and record growth resulted.
And Clinton kept most of Reaganomics in place, which worked.
Can Trump achieve this? Well, if he does, by your own words here, you will have to call that a success won't you?
I suspect you won't. I've seen the movie before. Reagan did the impossible, but even now liberals like my friends Rick and Andrew still refuse to admit it.
Can Trump achieve this? Well, if he does, by your own words here, you will have to call that a success won't you?
I suspect you won't. I've seen the movie before. Reagan did the impossible, but even now liberals like my friends Rick and Andrew still refuse to admit it.
I will 100% call it a success if he achieves 4% growth, provided that growth is materially manifested in the growth of the middle class, not just the upper 5%. I know I'll never be a Trump supporter because of his positions related to a woman's right to choose, climate change, and marriage equality, but if he turns the economy in a better direction, I will happily give him credit.
Would you say that Obama's 2% growth has benefited all classes? Or mostly the wealthy?
As far as I can see, mostly the wealthy. The stock market has done great, but only the wealthy generally benefit from that in a big way. Middle class investors see some steady returns for their nest eggs, but lets face it, only the wealthy insiders really kill it in the stock market.
I do think Obama has been hamstrung by Congress in some of his economic initiatives. He's had an infrastructure growth bill for years that the GOP has refused to pass, but now that Trump is President, it's all of a sudden a good idea to them.
He passed a trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to create "shovel ready jobs". That turned out to be, well let's be frank, a lie. Few constructions jobs were created. Why would anyone then give him a second chance?
He passed a trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to create "shovel ready jobs". That turned out to be, well let's be frank, a lie. Few constructions jobs were created. Why would anyone then give him a second chance?
Yeah, I recall the "shovel ready" bill, but I also recall the money being tied up in Congress and red tape. Easy to qualify for, tough to receive.
As far as the second chance at an infrastructure bill, you have a valid point, but what makes you think an infrastructure bill will be better administered under Trump than Obama? It will likely be the same bureaucrats overseeing the money.
Anyway, I'm not going to defend Obama's economic policies, because I think his real worth as a President was bringing calm and reassurance to a world thrown into chaos by W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. The world really did appreciate him for that. People blame him for withdrawing troops from Iraq and opening the territory for ISIS, but the timing of those troop withdrawal measures were set by W, not Obama - he just followed what the previous administration ordered a year earlier.
The money was not tied up in Congress at all. Once a bill passes, the money is there for him to spend.
But they spent it by giving money to states so they could avoid laying off public employees, like teachers. That might be a worthwhile thing, but it had nothing to do with shovel ready jobs.
I suspect there's no such thing as shovel ready jobs. Let's say you decide to rebuild a bridge. That takes years to plan and get through local red tape.
Would it be better under Trump? Look, Trump was far from my first choice. I doubt he can pull these things off too. But maybe he can get around the unions and bureaucratic red tape, who knows.
The problem comes down to institutional corruption. Same applies to education. W Bush passed the biggest spending bill in history for schools. But once that money gets through the unions and the bureaucracy, there's little left for students.
That's what I fear happens with infrastructure spending. 90% of it would get wasted.
Same thing happened with levy building in New Orleans. The fed govt was giving them billions for decades. By the corrupt bureaucracy wasted the money, so when the inevitable storm came, they weren't ready.
Dems always cry "greed!" when schools or projects run out of money. But the fact is...and I mean fact...that most of the money gets wasted by their corrupt cronies. They know they can always cry for more..."it's for the children!"
As for bringing calm and reassurance to the world...it's a mess! ISIS ran wild, Russia is invading countries and on the brink of nuclear war, China is building islands off the Philippines and seizing international ocean lanes, not to mention Brexit...my God, it's a mess. Not all of it is Obama's fault, but much of it is. Oh, and we lost Libya and Afghanistan too.
The funny thing is you two are making sense, talking in a calm and constructive manner and seem to know what you are talking about. I doubt Trump will ever get close to this level of discourse in his Presidency!
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
As for bringing calm and reassurance to the world...it's a mess! ISIS ran wild, Russia is invading countries and on the brink of nuclear war, China is building islands off the Philippines and seizing international ocean lanes, not to mention Brexit...my God, it's a mess. Not all of it is Obama's fault, but much of it is. Oh, and we lost Libya and Afghanistan too.
If you think it's a mess now, just wait. Trump didn't even know that Russia invaded the Ukraine.
The world is always a mess. That's nothing new. But the current mess was created by the Republicans, and made infinitely worse by Assad, who's slaughtering his own people and creating the massive immigrant problem that sometimes shields a terrorist among the immigrants. At least Obama was able to slow it down the mess early on in his first term. You don't get the Nobel Peace Prize for nuthin' (or for grabbing p***y).
I doubt Trump will ever get close to this level of discourse in his Presidency!
I read today about Trump mentioning parts of Obamacare -- good parts -- that he thinks are worthy of retaining! Pre-existing conditions. Extended coverage for young adults.
I'll be double-damned if he isn't listening to a bit of reason -- "common sense," as he so often put it -- while Republicans must be foaming at the mouth.
I will latch onto any small ray of sunshine these days, but I find this very encouraging. I wonder how much of what he said on the stump was just BS to get elected?
I read today about Trump mentioning parts of Obamacare -- good parts -- that he thinks are worthy of retaining! Pre-existing conditions. Extended coverage for young adults.
I'll be double-damned if he isn't listening to a bit of reason -- "common sense," as he so often put it -- while Republicans must be foaming at the mouth.
I will latch onto any small ray of sunshine these days, but I find this very encouraging. I wonder how much of what he said on the stump was just BS to get elected?
Those 2 pieces of any insurance plan are no brainers, and have nothing to do with all that's wrong with ObamaCare.
I read today about Trump mentioning parts of Obamacare -- good parts -- that he thinks are worthy of retaining! Pre-existing conditions. Extended coverage for young adults.
I'll be double-damned if he isn't listening to a bit of reason -- "common sense," as he so often put it -- while Republicans must be foaming at the mouth.
I will latch onto any small ray of sunshine these days, but I find this very encouraging. I wonder how much of what he said on the stump was just BS to get elected?
I also heard that and had the same reaction as you (hearing anything from him that's not insane is good - that's the bar), but then minutes later the media reported that he wants Steve Bannon to serve as his Chief of Staff. If that's true, we're in for a rough ride.
Those 2 pieces of any insurance plan are no brainers, and have nothing to do with all that's wrong with ObamaCare.
But they haven't always been law.
I am no huge defender of the act -- do not get me wrong -- what I am getting at is how incredible it is to hear him LISTENING to others and acting on his best non-partisan instincts.
To listen to him changing his mind -- even a bit -- after getting some facts.
That is what gives me hope. Don't rob me of my hope, you doofus! Not while I am trying to convince myself that the end of the world is not at hand.
You can talk about Clinton's corruption all you want, just wait until the man who never said no to a deal he didn't like has 4 years of political white house corruption behind him.
His 3 adult children, all of whom actively run his businesses, are serving on his transition team. So much for separating his business interests from the country's interests. It's just beginning.
That is what gives me hope. Don't rob me of my hope, you doofus! Not while I am trying to convince myself that the end of the world is not at hand.
I'm no fan of the man, you know that, but how about this...we know he HATES to lose. He refers to himself as a winner. He's not a republican at heart. So, what if now that he's won, he's not going to push through some hard line republican ideas. That is not his agenda. What if his agenda is to make himself go down in history as a great president? I bet you that's more important to him than get some conservative legislation pushed through. Crazy?
I'm no fan of the man, you know that, but how about this...we know he HATES to lose. He refers to himself as a winner. He's not a republican at heart. So, what if now that he's won, he's not going to push through some hard line republican ideas. That is not his agenda. What if his agenda is to make himself go down in history as a great president? I bet you that's more important to him than get some conservative legislation pushed through. Crazy?
He has a Republican Congress. Sufficient votes to pass Democratic Party leaning legislation aren't there.
Hey Bogey. I experienced the attitude to look up to China in Europe as well.
You must be clear there's also a China where people in the North live without electricity in the 21st century and fear winter every year. I'm more convinced you mean the other side of China that builds golden temples.
They both exist. In the docus I watch about China, I see so many sheds that I don't think the press built a studio of Chinese slums to fool us.
I just hope he changes the health care system because I'm tired of being fined for not having insurance that supports the people with no job while I cannot use it because my deductible is outrageous. So I'm basically paying 'for' obamacare. It's just another hidden tax. I voted for T because he is not the establishment. I wanted something new. I know he's got his issues but I felt out of the choices...he was the only choice. I do believe that he's not as conservative as he seemed to most voters. So maybe he will be a little like Johnson(views/outlook) but keep us a little safer. Who knows. He could be the biggest disaster this country has seen but he could be the best since Reagan. No way to tell yet. *crossing fingers* and hoping I do not get fined this year for canceling my no-good health insurance.
I must admit I don't understand Obamacare. I thought in principle it was a good thing, in that it helps more people (especially lower income families) get affordable health care. Is that not the case?
Here in the UK, part of everyone's taxes pay to fund the National Health Service, so every citizen is entitled to full health care. I have no problems with part of my earnings going into funding such a venture, as it protects my family as well as everyone else. However, with so many government cuts in spending, a lot of people fear the NHS may be privatized, if so we may see insurance schemes similar to the US. That will be a concern if it happens.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
I agree that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of economic status and no one should have to go bankrupt because of illness. However, the illusion that the US should be more like Canada or Sweden for example with a national healthcare system scares me too. Why? Because I grew up with it and anyone who thinks you'll still have cutting edge and world class healthcare with it is delusional. Think of it like your only choice is the VA. I had to wait two years for a freakin knee surgery in Sweden when I was a teenager because it wasn't an emergency. My knee kept dislocating all the time, but yeah it wasn't going to kill me... In the US I can google the best orthopedic surgens in my area, call them up and get an appointment and schedule surgery within a week. I agree something needs to be done here, but we have to find some middle ground where the quality doesn't suffer in the process.
Hey Bogey. I experienced the attitude to look up to China in Europe as well.
You must be clear there's also a China where people in the North live without electricity in the 21st century and fear winter every year. I'm more convinced you mean the other side of China that builds golden temples.
They both exist. In the docus I watch about China, I see so many sheds that I don't think the press built a studio of Chinese slums to fool us.
Living standard vs stock markets.
Good point.
So while I'm still obsessing, I ran the numbers comparing the 2012 votes to the 2016 votes. Very revealing.
Trump actually received FEWER votes than Romney (about 672,000 fewer votes).
Hillary received about 5 million FEWER votes than Obama.
So did Trump really have this "movement" that excited Republicans? No more than Romney it appears.
The biggest contrast was Third Party. 5 million more Third Party votes in in 2016 than in 2012. So nobody can convince me that most of the 2016 Third Party votes didn't come from Democrats. The numbers are just too stark to ignore.
My conclusion: Trump was nothing special on election day. Fewer votes than Romney, and about the same as McCain in 2008. Hillary blew it, because it was there for the taking.
Bogey, stats also show that Trump would have won 2012 with these numbers. You have to look at state by state, not total numbers.
Some other notes:
Millions of people who voted for Obama voted for Trump. Hardly seems race was their motivation.
Trump won the white female vote by 10%. So hardly a gender election.
Michael Moore actually said it best: the people in rust belt states like Michigan, Ohio, Penn, Wisconsin...threw a molotov cocktail at the establishment. They want jobs, not handouts from the elite. They don't want to be serfs living on the plantations of the liberal elite. Right or wrong, they saw Trump as the only candidate who might shake things up.
Trump made a fortune promoting himself.
But the Clintons made not only them, but everyone around them, wealthy through the buying and selling of government influence. That's the ruling class. They live in mansions and their spoiled kids march in rallies and block traffic.
Michael Moore says the people who voted for Trump will be disappointed. Maybe he's right.
But they didn't vote for him because they are racist or misogynist or homonphobic.
They see the system not working for them...they want to throw out the people who run the system and drive hybrid cars and advocate for higher energy costs and who mandate expensive health coverage.
Michael Moore says the people who voted for Trump will be disappointed. Maybe he's right.
But they didn't vote for him because they are racist or misogynist or homonphobic. .
I think quite a few voted for him for exactly that reason. When you get the support of the KKK and David Duke, it's because you're sending out a not so subtle message that you agree with their bigotry. Probably why the polls were so inaccurate. People with bigoted tendencies didn't want to admit it to a pollster, which in many ways is what a vote for Trump represented.
As for the stats, I agree with you. Just pointing out that about 6 million more people voted for someone not named Trump than voted for Trump. That's hardly a mandate of support in this election for Trump.
I think quite a few voted for him for exactly that reason.
Yes, to remove racism from the question completely is both naive and disingenuous.
I've been reading and thinking a lot on this. About identity politics. About Democratic hubris.
There are a host of things that contributed to a Trump victory -- totally true -- but you cannot examine it fully without considering the racial component.
Anybody who denies that is wearing the same type of blinders the dems wore.
There are people who voted for Trump for racist reasons. It's not why he won.
Millions voted for Obama based on his skin color.
Millions voted for Hillary because of her gender. Her campaign was largely based on that argument. Not that she wasn't qualified, but most of her messaging was centered on "I'm with her", it was clearly designed to focus on her being the first female President.
Trump won primarily because working people are desperate for a change.
And you know what? Trump is largely liberal. He's not really much of a racist. He's no more misogynist than JFK or Bill Clinton. He wants a huge infrastructure bill. He's a trade protectionist.
I just hope he changes the health care system because I'm tired of being fined for not having insurance that supports the people with no job while I cannot use it because my deductible is outrageous.
And this is exactly the problem the vast majority of peeps have with ObamaCare in a nutshell.
First of all, the cost of the insurance is above and beyond what peeps with no insurance can afford.
Secondly, and more importantly, the cost to actually use the insurance is way above and beyond what these peeps can afford.
Even peeps who make a decent living cannot afford a $5,000 or $10,000 Out of Pocket, meaning the insurance is useless, but still costing them money they don't have..
Big difference between voting "for" something than "against" something.
People tend to vote "for their own", and that's just human nature. If you look at Trump's rallies, and some of the signs his supporters carried and the tee shirts they wore, it was conspicuously a campaign of "against". Against Muslims, against the inner cities, and against Mexicans among others.
Only one person at work voted for Trump and he's a black guy from Jamaica. He's not racist, not a bigot, not a homophobe nor a misogynist. He is religious though and I think that's something a lot of people on the left forget about. Most latinos are catholics. Things like abortion doesn't work for them. When people think about religious "idiots", they seem to only think it's white people mainly in the south, but forget about people from central and south America.
Only a tiny percentage of voters go to rallies. Only handfuls bring signs. And the media focuses on signs that fit their narrative.
I remember Janet telling me the tea parties were all about the religious right and abortion. I told her to google photos of tea party rallies. There was nothing about abortion. The tea parties were all about bailouts and deficit spending. But the leftist media wants you to think they were an evangelical movement. They absolutely were not...though many evangelicals also believed in those things.
Trump is not a racist. Was there a component of that in the campaign? Yes. I don't approve of it. I didn't suport Trump in the primaries.
But let's not exaggerate it. He's not racist, homophobic, or misogynist. He's been a Democrat most of his life. And he doesn't hate Muslims.
But he was questions many regular people have. Common sense tells us there is a connection between Islam and terror. But liberals let ideology blind them to it. It's not about persecuting Muslims, but we should be able to ask these questios when there are now several attacks within the US a year.
People also have the right to worry about huge illegal populations in crime-ridden inner cities. We're not allowed to even ask those questions without being branded bigot? People are tied of that.
There's an lunatic side to the Trump supporters. Look at the comments at Breitbart. Insane. And Trump used them. I don't approve of it.
But Obama used people who insisted Bush was behind 9/11.
Hillary scared women saying Trump will take away all womens rights.
It's politics. I'm not a politician, I don't like it...I preferred Kasich, who is more honorable. But Trump is not the first to use these things.
He just plays one on TV, and used it to fire up all the haters to get their votes. Sickening.
Since it's now all the rage to toss political correctness, let me follow suit. Trump is a vile con artist that took advantage of gullible Americans that felt they had nowhere to turn but him. He's a Fifth Avenue TV Preacher that lied to America about his ideas (he has none) and what he'll do in office (that will change 10 times by next week). He couldn't save a f***ng casino in Jersey, and he's going to make America great again? Dream on. As for giving him an open mind and a chance, half of America will NEVER forget the shit that came out of his mouth for the last 15 months, nor should they. The example he set has already manifested itself in the streets in the form of abuse and hate crimes against minorities. My wife is a teacher, and she's seeing in her classroom. 4th graders!
They're celebrating in Russia. ISIS is sending out victory posts on social media. The KKK has announced a victory parade in NC.
He may be our next President, but the words "President Trump" will never come out of my mouth.
Here in oz we have Medicare which covers your basic visits to a doctor. If you need some sort of operation in a hospital and have no private cover then you are put on a waiting list unless of course it is an emergency.
We are in a private health fund called Medibank. We pay $102 a fortnight for Basic Hospital and Extra - the latter includes dental bills and optical stuff. I wear contact lenses and only pay $50 for a 3 month supply of them. And we get i think $250 free each calendar year to buy running shoes or sunglasses or whatever.
I imagine the dental bills in the US would be huge? Our friends kids both need braces and she is looking at $10 k each for them! Its ridiculous in this day and age that prices for braces are so high! Even with private health cover she wouldn't be paying much less.
Anyway just throwing in my two bobs worth about it lol
Our dental system is a rort and a disgrace, Stevie. It should always have been a part of Medicare. I remember watching some DA rep who said it was a shame it just got left out when they were setting it up. Dental problems can effect the heart and it's obviously the poor and disadvantaged who once again miss out on proper care cause it costs.
No wonder people go O/S to places like Malaysia, Thailand, India for cosmetic dentistry/surgery and implants/braces. Up to 70% off prices in Oz! They have built entire hospitals for Australian/NZers etc. not backyard practitioners either, highly qualified, put you up in a hotel for after care. It's called dental tourism cause you recuperate and a holiday is thrown into the package.
You may not be racist or a misogynist, but if you choose or endorse a side that does include, supports and encourage racists and misogyny, you are part of the problem. You can twist words and attempt to justify it anyway you want, this does not change anything.
Looks like Trump may already be changing is stance on key campaign Issues. I think Michael Moore may be right, supporters of Trump may end up very disappointed. Time will tell, always does.
Working people just don't put the same priority on PC language as liberals. Trump has proposed no policies that are racist or misogynist. His misogyny is in the way he treats women in his personal life, but it's not at the policy level. Same as Bill Clinton. His comments on illegals were delivered in a way that sounds racist, but they were really just about behavior with some communities of illegals. I'm not defending those remarks, but let's not make them more than they are. Someone here said he plans to deport blacks. That's the kind of crazy liberal exaggeration I'm talking about. And the connection between Islam and terror is...in reality...a complicated issue. It's fair to ask questions about the problem of that community integrating into western society. Problems with that integration are raging all over Europe. We don't want to discriminate, but allowing ideology to blind us to reality is a kind of suicide. The average Trump voter wants to have no beef with Islam, but they also recognize there are real questions to be asked. Liberals are afraid to ask them.
I think Michael Moore is correct on this. It's also nornal. Obama ran on hard left positions. He governed much closer to the center. He was the ant-war candidate who toppled Kaddafi for no imperative reason(other than Clinton was pushing for it because she thought it would bolster her Presidential bid).
Working people just don't put the same priority on PC language as liberals
Nobody should have a problem with a straight-talking candidate. I'd like to see more of that. But Trump isn't a straight-talker. He's shown us that he's an uninformed blowhard that has no idea what he's talking about on the most basic world topics. He's a guy on a bar stool talking shit after five drinks, except he's sober, and he's saying it to the world on camera. That's not anti-PC, it's stupid and reckless.
In the interest of full disclosure... I voted Remain and would have voted for Stein had I have been a US voter
But a country gets the leader they elect based on the way their electoral system works, at least they do in democracies like the US, Canada, Australia and the UK.
You might not like the outcome, but unfortunately, that's irrelevant, the outcome has been democratically decided upon by your friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens.
So even though I voted to remain, I will defend the decision to exit and hope they get it sorted quickly so we can move along and get on with it. If I were a US citizen I would defend the election and hope he does a decent job in the next 4 years, and be removed after a term if he doesn't.
If people have jobs, they are generally happy. People with no jobs or jobs that pay minimum wage only make people angry. At work, our biggest customer group is young males. Guys in their 20s. I can see why so many people are angry when you have a 28 year old guy still living at home ordering stuff from us and has to ask his mother to come to the phone and give us her credit card number. Something's wrong there.
I'm no Trump fan at all, but for the sake of all of us, let's hope he does a good job.
In the interest of full disclosure... I voted Remain and would have voted for Stein had I have been a US voter
But a country gets the leader they elect based on the way their electoral system works, at least they do in democracies like the US, Canada, Australia and the UK.
You might not like the outcome, but unfortunately, that's irrelevant, the outcome has been democratically decided upon by your friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens.
So even though I voted to remain, I will defend the decision to exit and hope they get it sorted quickly so we can move along and get on with it. If I were a US citizen I would defend the election and hope he does a decent job in the next 4 years, and be removed after a term if he doesn't.
Just my humble opinion.
I voted for Remain and although I respect that Brexit won by a slight majority, I am of the opinion the people didn't really understand exactly that they were voting for and a lot were protest voting. I hope that Article 50 does go through parliament and we end up with an exit strategy from the EU which is the best possible strategy for the UK and not one that Theresa May and her cohorts bash together unopposed behind closed doors.
If I'd have been in the US I would have voted for Clinton, simply because voting for Stein would have been as effectual as not voting, or voting for the TNA Wrestler 'Broken' Matt Hardy, which thousands of voters did btw.
2.2 million more people voted for Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump. Unfortunately, despite what the American people are told about every vote counting, they do not get to vote for a President or Vice President directly. It's a Republic with an Electoral Collage who selects these positions for them - a system first put in place in 1787. I'm not sure they envisioned this system lasting forever without review, but it is what it is.
In the UK, the Leave referendum won with a small majority, less than one percent of voters. Yet the government and Brexit supporters keep on claiming it is therefore the 'will of the people'. Based on that logic, clearly the will of the American people did not want Trump as President.
If a flawed system allows something or someone 'wrong' or corrupt into a position of power, I do not believe everyone should sit idly by and just accept the outcome. A true democracy is one that always challenges it's government and holds it accountable, that's why we have an opposition, to keep the government in check and to make sure they run the country in the best possible way.
With Trump holding the highest position in the land, his party controlling congress and his own children being appointed into key positions, this is looking less and less like a democracy at all. I fully support any efforts in the UK and the US to democratically and legally challenge such results. After all, as Dave Mustane says in the song Peace Sells, 'It's still "We the people!" right?'"
As
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
2.2 million more people voted for Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump.
Isn't it like 600.000 votes?
I'm not from the US nor do I really care who won this election but I find it funny that in a country like the USA, the biggest force in the world, with a population of 325 million there was a chance where the country could have ended up in a situation where it had husband and wife, a couple, both having turns leading the nation, for possibly a period of 16 years.
And, on the other side, Jeb Bush who was favored to win the Republican nomination at the end of 2015 could have won. So you would have ended up in a position where a father and two of his sons could have all been president and lead the country for 20 years.
Which just goes to show how corrupt the system is and why I voting neither Republican or Demorcat is a waste. It should be done to try and inspire change in a broken system. Not that it would realistically lead to much, but it's a matter of principle if you don't like either candidate.
And, I also think the electoral college isn't a bad idea for a federal republic like the US. In a federal republic it makes more sense than the popular vote. Doesn't California have something like 40 million people and an ever growing population? You have to have a president that will try to address issues that concern the whole territory of the US, in every state, on a federal level. Not one that could have no interest in the problems of smaller states because they have no significance if he gets elected or not.
Plus, let's be real. This isn't about popular vote/college. If Clinton lost the popular vote and won the electoral college none of these people would be complaining. So it's not a matter of principle but one of personal interest. Seeing as if they cared so much about the popular vote, they should have done something about it prior to these or previous elections. It only becomes such a hot topic when there are personal stakes. Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote in 2000. That was 16 years ago, if most of the country was against it, there would have been a bigger push for it. Now the elections don't go their way, they see it as a straw of hope and cling onto it.
This was the system in place. The elections were fair. The people voted. The guy won based on the rules that were set out. It is what it is. Accept it and hope for the best. Realistically, he'll become president come Jan 20th.
If people have jobs, they are generally happy. People with no jobs or jobs that pay minimum wage only make people angry. At work, our biggest customer group is young males. Guys in their 20s. I can see why so many people are angry when you have a 28 year old guy still living at home ordering stuff from us and has to ask his mother to come to the phone and give us her credit card number. Something's wrong there.
I'm no Trump fan at all, but for the sake of all of us, let's hope he does a good job.
if most of the country was against it, there would have been a bigger push for it. Now the elections don't go their way, they see it as a straw of hope and cling onto it.
There's been a movement to eliminate the electoral college for over 10 years. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Bill has been enacted in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and it needs to be enacted by states with 105 additional electoral votes to be effective Essentially the Bill says that the participants agree to vote their electoral college votes in favor of whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. It may never happen, but people have been trying.
A proponent of eliminating the electoral college - Donald Trump. He called it a "disaster for democracy" in 2012. In an interview that aired tonight, he was asked if he changed his mind on that, and he said, "No. I'm not going to change my mind just because I won."
There's been a movement to eliminate the electoral college for over 10 years. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Bill has been enacted in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and it needs to be enacted by states with 105 additional electoral votes to be effective Essentially the Bill says that the participants agree to vote their electoral college votes in favor of whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. It may never happen, but people have been trying.
A proponent of eliminating the electoral college - Donald Trump. He called it a "disaster for democracy" in 2012. In an interview that aired tonight, he was asked if he changed his mind on that, and he said, "No. I'm not going to change my mind just because I won."
I know. I was alluding to the majority of people protesting it and being outraged now. I have many American friends on FB and didn't see anyone raising concern about the electoral college or it being an issue or major concern prior to the election. Nor did I encounter this online. Now that the results didn't come in as they expected, they're making it out as it's some sort of travesty that she won the popular vote by a narrow margin yet lost the election. When everyone knew this could happen and it has happened before. Because that's how the system works. I got the impression that a large majority of the younger voters didn't really understand how their own system works. But, in reality, if she had won the college but lost the popular vote, they'd be fine with it because their candidate won. And the other side would be complaining about the electoral college. It's hypocritical. It's not a matter of principle.
That was the system. A candidate won fairly according to the rules of the system. You can't argue after the fact that the rules weren't correct. It is what it is. If let's say she gets into power somehow magically due to winning the popular vote. Then the other side has a clear argument that they based their campaign according to the way the electoral college works in order to win that way because those were the rules and the election should be void.
It is what it is. No use crying over spilled milk. He'll take over, it would be a major world-wide scandal if he doesn't come into power Jan 20th. People need to accept it, hope for the best and move on with their lives.
I think he will come into office in January and I too doubt the complaining about the popular vote will have any impact. After all, it didn't when the same complaints were made when Gore got more popular votes than Bush.
What will be interesting is how long he will stay in power. Will he last the full 4 years or will his party move to replace him with someone more controllable, if they can of course? I found out, thanks to the BBC website, that any court action submitted before he goes into office is viable and he is not immune from prosecution under such circumstances. He has 75 pending cases already, I imagine more will lodge complaints before the 20th of January. Although they are all civil, some could, in theory, turn into legal action if you look into what he's got lined up.
I approve of the electoral college. Always have. Actually, what I approve of is the breakdown by state. Otherwise, candidates would only campaign in the big states.
Not that they went anywhere. But whenever we have a Democrat President, stories about the homeless disappear. As soon as a Republican returns, like magic, the homeless are everywhere. Or at least stories of them are.
2) the rediscovery of lies:
The last seven years we've seen an administration that can lie in every press conference and not really worry about. Even when the press corp calls them on the lies, they just wink and repeat the lie, knowing it will never be a story that gets purchase.
Trump will not(and should not) have that luxury. Already we see that every word is parsed for truthhood.
3) an obstructionist Congress will be portrayed as valiant and noble
Republicans control both houses. But Democrats can hold up legislation in the senate through filibuster. This obstructionism will be presented to us as heroic. Unlike the Republican Congress that stymied Obama.
4) bombing by drones in random theaters of war will be covered
5) scandals will be covered by more than just Fox News now
6) imploding Obamacare will be finally covered...so Trump can be blamed.
Everything about the way the news is given to us switches with a Republican President. It's like going from black and white TV to color...it's instant. Investigative journalism will even make a come back!
I think he will come into office in January and I too doubt the complaining about the popular vote will have any impact. After all, it didn't when the same complaints were made when Gore got more popular votes than Bush.
What will be interesting is how long he will stay in power. Will he last the full 4 years or will his party move to replace him with someone more controllable, if they can of course? I found out, thanks to the BBC website, that any court action submitted before he goes into office is viable and he is not immune from prosecution under such circumstances. He has 75 pending cases already, I imagine more will lodge complaints before the 20th of January. Although they are all civil, some could, in theory, turn into legal action if you look into what he's got lined up.
I actually think the only people who are going to benefit in the US from Trump's presidency is his lawyers.
Over the weekend his lawyers filed a motion to delay the Trump University class action fraud trial, currently scheduled for two weeks from today, until after his inauguration. Their motion argues that he's too busy now getting ready to take office. Laughable when you consider that they're implying he'll have more free time after he takes office. Anyway, it stinks of fear that the trial could expose something terrible prior to the electoral college convening on December 19th. I don't think the train will be derailed prior to him taking office, but it could be wobbling heading into the station.
Trump, Pence, Bannon, Pryor..... Conversion camps, KKK sympathizers, race registries, oh boy. I think we just set our clocks back about 50 years. Racists and homophobes galore...
Penoyer, you should consider whether these exaggerations of yours are healthy.
And in case you are wondering, yes, I have said the same things to my conservative friends when they say, for example, that Obama is Muslim and wants to secretly bring sharia to the US.
It's utter madness to succumb to these wild exaggerations and accusations.
How about Ted Cruz for possible AG? Maybe it's just me, but that man creeps me out.
Back in March, Cruz suggested that the U.S. government should "patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods". That sounded Nazi-like then, and even worse now given the post-election fear in the streets.
I do think we have to not over weigh things that are said in a campaign. Bernie and Hillary were not going to give free college tuition to everyone. Trump is not going deport 15 million people.
I'm not defending outrageous statements, just saying we can relax a little.
Back in 2008, Obama's future energy czar called for policies that would raise gas to $10 a gallon. Obama seconded it, though he said the change should be gradual. None of that happened.
I do think we have to not over weigh things that are said in a campaign. Bernie and Hillary were not going to give free college tuition to everyone. Trump is not going deport 15 million people.
Big diff between Democratic rhetoric about free stuff vs. GOP rhetoric about how we should treat non-white people in America.
Trump created the current widespread fear, and whether or not he did it to get elected, it will likely never go away. Those Tweets and his speeches are forever in black ink.
I just got back from a 15 day cruise through Panama (riddled with flu by the way - finally recovering). So, I got the election results while in Nicaragua. Guess my feelings could have been summed up as bewildered.
My personal feelings have been that Trump is insane and psychologically damaged with no impulse control. All dangerous characteristics for a President. I sincerely hope I am dead wrong. I hope he turns out to be great.
I think he got elected because folks believe that traditional politicians have abandoned them in favor of lobbyist and bankers and merely have an interest in getting elected rather than in serving those they represent. I believe that as well and could have voted for any sane person that represented that position. Good God, I hope I am wrong about Trump. I am going to try to keep an open mind.
Not 1 day in office yet and Ford will stay in Kentucky to make big suv's (the cars people want to drive) Apple will make iphones in the US, and gone soon will be a president that travelled the world for 8yrs apologizing for his country which he is supposed to love. Illegals (that means the law which a civilized society agrees to follow) will realize now that they are free to return to lawful citizenship of their countries, whereby they have been most certainly missed.
Not 1 day in office yet and Ford will stay in Kentucky to make big suv's (the cars people want to drive) Apple will make iphones in the US
Ford was never leaving. This is just Trump propaganda that for some reason people believe. The reality: "Asked if the company had any prior plans to shutter the plant, the Ford spokesman said it did not. 'No plans to close plants.'"
Apple is "considering" making phones in the US. Don't hold your breath. The position has basically been an ongoing Apple mantra for ten years.
And look, I've always supported free trade, so I didn't back Trump on this.
But I keep an open mind. Let things play out, and let's cover them honestly. I've seen this before in my lifetime. In 1980, things were so bleak it was said the economy was not in recession, it was at the beginning of a permanent decline. Then Reagan completely turned it around. Did this result in the liberal media saying, wow, we were wrong! And this is really benefiting millions of people! Nope. They started calling success "greed". And to this day liberals rewrite that history. Ask Andrew!
That's how it will be now. The media and liberals say Trump won't bring jobs back. If he succeeds, they'll say, yeah, but all this work means less time for leisure. And all this success is just greed. What about the poor guy who doesn't want to work?
Throughout his campaign Trump bragged, "I never settle lawsuits."
Today, 10 days after the election, he settled the California class action fraud lawsuit against his Trump University for $25 million. Speaks for itself.
I think this election jolted or even shocked most people. It had an effect on me too even though I'm not a citizen. It made me rethink that part. I have lived here for a long time, but never felt I needed to become a citizen. I have assimilated and my family and kids are all 100% Americans. I just never felt like an American myself. I always felt like a Swede living in the US. After this election, I took a hard look at myself and I realized that if I still lived in Sweden, the US is still the country I would dream to move to. Therefore, this election convinced me that it's time for me to become an American.
I'm just wondering, Bogey, if you nitpick every statement by Obama or Hillary.
If you're referring to my pointing out the Trump racist comments, his years of stating that a sitting U.S. President was a foreign born operative and a terrorist supporter, his dangerous comments that lauded the leadership qualities of anti-American dictators like Putin and Assad, his unconstitutional stance on stop and frisk, and his campaign banana Republic rhetoric of jailing a current political opponent, then no, I haven't "nitpicked" Obama or Clinton for the obvious reason that they've never said anything approaching those things.
I tell you what, Trump may be a bit more intelligent then some people think. He's just settled a fraud lawsuit for $25 million, a case he said he'd never settle, and what is everyone talking about? The Tweet he posted complaining about the cast of Hamilton 'harassing' Pence and demanding they apologies. Notice he doesn't mention the audience booing him.
He's successfully distracted everyone from something extremely serious and damming towards something petty. Clever stuff!
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Pia, your post from yesterday about becoming an American citizen made me very happy and proud.
Cathy, this election made me realize that I'm more American than I thought. I love this country and there's no other country I would want to move to. Although, a house in St. Thomas would be nice in the winter.
Does this country have problems? Of course. Show me a country that doesn't.
Bogey, nitpicking the lawsuit settlement is what I was talking about.
Fair enough, but here's why I believe it's significant news and not a nitpick: Trump doesn't strike me as someone who parts with $25 million unless he stands to lose much more by not paying it. He likely believed he was going to lose that lawsuit, and was told as much by his lawyers.
Would the election have turned out differently had he settled it two weeks earlier? I don't know. Maybe not. But when a President-elect pays that kind of money to avoid a trial, the timing deserves scrutiny. It tells me that Trump himself thought the event would hurt him with voters, so he waited until after the election. And why, should anyone ask, did Trump care about a trial if he was already elected? Because the trial was scheduled for November 28th, and the electoral college meets on December 19th.
Now we'll never know what that trial would have revealed about Trump or whether it would have affected anything, which is exactly as he would have it.
From what I read, the Trump U thing is a true blot on his record. I don't mind it being reported on.
As for settling, that's just common sense. 25 million is nothing to him. Get it out of the way, move on, even if they think it was all BS.
Now, I will make a promise to you: as this administration proceeds, I will NOT do what liberals did with Obama. I promise it. I will not ignore lies, failures, and scandals. When the administration is caught in a lie, I will admit it and call them on it. The number of liberals in the country who did that with Obama can be squeezed into a family size SUV. And the lies were a constant feature for the whole 7 years. I hope I need not list any, I can rattle off a dozen whoppers off the top of my head.
Another example is the economy. If there is a recession in the first year or two, I will not blame Trump, we're overdue. But if it takes us two years to come out of it, and if we only have 1 or 2 percent growth after we do, yes, I will say his economic policy failed.
If our strategic situation in the world continues to deteriorate, and we remain on the brink of nuclear war as we now are, I will criticize that too.
If real employment remains a sham, as it is now, I will call Trump on it.
I am skeptical about most things Trump. But I'm certainly hoping for the best. And I will be honest about the results.
Nitpicking - to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.
As George Takei just Tweeted - A fraud case of this magnitude would disqualify any normal candidate. Fraud means deception. It means injury. Our president elect is a CROOK.
This isn't nitpicking, this is extremely serious. People can call Trump out till they are blue in the face but he's in power now despite being a crook, he can and will do whatever he wants.
It's nice of people to allow Trump to have a recession for the first couple of years though, I bet he's glad he won't be accountable for that as the US is, apparently, due one. I never realised economic policy was so easy. Most leaders get blamed for whatever happens to whatever it is they are leading, be in their fault or not because they are in charge. The buck stops with them. They take credit and blame for everything that happens while they are running the show, it is part of the job.
I just feel like I've woken up in a TV show and the Fonz is jumping over a shark.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because he wouldn't release his tax returns (which show bank account deposit balances and interest earned on those balances) because he's under a "routine audit". I've heard of IRS audits, but never a "routine audit". I thought one is audited because of something irregular, not routine. Does he have the cash on hand, or will he be borrowing it, and if so, from whom? Those are fair questions of a President-elect that just settled a class action fraud claim against him. He'll likely never provide answers, but the questions should be asked.
From what I read, the Trump U thing is a true blot on his record. I don't mind it being reported on.
As for settling, that's just common sense. 25 million is nothing to him. Get it out of the way, move on, even if they think it was all BS.
Now, I will make a promise to you: as this administration proceeds, I will NOT do what liberals did with Obama. I promise it. I will not ignore lies, failures, and scandals. When the administration is caught in a lie, I will admit it and call them on it. The number of liberals in the country who did that with Obama can be squeezed into a family size SUV. And the lies were a constant feature for the whole 7 years. I hope I need not list any, I can rattle off a dozen whoppers off the top of my head.
Another example is the economy. If there is a recession in the first year or two, I will not blame Trump, we're overdue. But if it takes us two years to come out of it, and if we only have 1 or 2 percent growth after we do, yes, I will say his economic policy failed.
If our strategic situation in the world continues to deteriorate, and we remain on the brink of nuclear war as we now are, I will criticize that too.
If real employment remains a sham, as it is now, I will call Trump on it.
I am skeptical about most things Trump. But I'm certainly hoping for the best. And I will be honest about the results.
I know you are attempting high ground - but that is undermined when you include generalizations of "what liberals do." Much like conservatives, we come in all shapes and sizes. Liberals as a whole did not tolerate lies anymore than conservatives did as a whole under the Bush administration (and there was a cornucopia of lies there).
I do not disagree with Trump merely because he wears a conservative hat. I disagree with him because I have fundamental differences on policies. I think most people are like that. We didn't love Obama because he lied. When liked him because we supported marriage equality, the dream act, women's right to choose, etc. etc. I believe that intelligent well meaning people can hold opposite views and I would cast no aspersions on their character for having them.
Sounds to me like you're still asleep. At least part of you is.
Being sued for fraud is the same as being guilty of it? Good grief.
No but to quote a lawyer I know, "I have been representing victims in civil cases for 30 years. A $25 million settlement only happens when there is powerful evidence of guilt."
And this is just the very tip of the Trump iceberg.
Listen, if Trump turns out to do good and be a good force in the world then I'll gladly tip my hat and admit I'm wrong, but I think he's going to be a horror and a lot of innocent people will suffer terribly.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
The mainstream news is not a legitimate source of news. The networks have tainted it from the very top brass on down. Evident by decades of drive-by manipulation and internal campaigning. And, of course, every day that lead up to election 2016 and the utter mega-failings of analysis and polling data manipulations.
Or are there some who still fail to recognize this even after the last few weeks?
Wake up, stop shoveling failed liberal hypocrisy to the malleable youth, stop trying to bring down the greatest country on the face of the Earth that champions liberty, freedom and rule of law. Stop insisting that Government can solve all our problems (it can't) and stop listening to socialist, communist, billionaire hacks who now use their fortunes for globalist/nationalist self destruction and national suicide all in the name of power and money grabbing.
In all corners of the world you can find a shit hole tyrannical nation to live and suffer in. Have fun under some other human being's rule of law. I'm sure you'll prosper really well there. Let me know how you do.
In all corners of the world you can find a shit hole tyrannical nation to live and suffer in. Have fun under some other human being's rule of law. I'm sure you'll prosper really well there. Let me know how you do.
I don't think so. I come from a military family where my father and brother both served in overseas battlefields during wartime conflicts. I honor them, and my right to speak freely when I see injustice. As for the "love it or leave it" mentality, that didn't work during the Vietnam years, and it doesn't work now.
Perhaps Obama can dismantle the entire apparatus of illegal domestic surveillance, foreign military strikes, and torture programs that he's inherited, expanded, and made such merry use of. Presumably not. Instead it'll go to the guy most often trending.
The U.S. rolled the dice, and I suppose we're all in suspense.
If things start to go as badly for women, immigrants, and minorities as it seems they may, I hope y'all in the U.S. will be forceful in opposition.
If things start to go as bad for women? What? What policies has Trump advocated that will harm women? What policies has he proposed that are bad for immigrants(legal) or minorities?
This type of exaggeration is, I guess, the inevitable outcome to demonizing those who don't agree with you, which the Left has done ever since it's been known as the Left.
Trump has generally supported gay marriage. Clinton and Obama opposed it until a Biden gaff forced their hand in 2012. That was 4 years ago!
I remember conservatives saying Obama wanted to install sharia in the United States. Anyone I knew who said this I came right out and told them they were crazy.
What I am seeing from the Left is just as crazy. And unlike the Right, this craziness is not limited to a fringe. Rather it seems to be the prevailing affliction.
Trump us not a racist, nor a misogynist(except in the JFK sense), nor is he anti-semite. I mean this liberal playlist is getting old, and that's why people are rejecting it. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you racist.
If I link the FBI crime rates as broken down by race, am I a racist? Or am I trying to understand the real problems in those communities? It really depends on my intent, but in the liberal mind, even to point this data out makes me automatically racist.
It's part of the liberal religion. Instead of the rosaries, it's call 10 people racist before lunch and your sins shall be healed.
Which(sshh, here's the dirt secret) is REALLY what it's all about.
What policies has he proposed that are bad for immigrants(legal) or minorities?
Seriously?
Women: Supports reversing Supreme Court precedent of Roe Vs. Wade (at one point even stating that women who have an abortion should be "punished" by law - he later retracted it, but we know what he'd like to do); supports GOP stance on not passing the federal Paycheck Fairness Act (equal pay for women).
Immigrants: Proposes a religious test for legal immigration to the U.S. (unconstitutional); singled out only Mexicans for deportation for cause.
Minorities: Proposes stop and frisk in the inner cities (unconstitutional), which disproportionately targets and incarcerates people of color.
If you're hanging your hat on his support of gay marriage, you need to honestly portray his position. He neither supports it or opposes it. He has no position other than saying the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court, so that's that. That's not a position.
You say that Trump is not a racist. Maybe. But the racists sure celebrate his policies. That says something.
I don't think so. I come from a military family where my father and brother both served in overseas battlefields during wartime conflicts. I honor them, and my right to speak freely when I see injustice. As for the "love it or leave it" mentality, that didn't work during the Vietnam years, and it doesn't work now.
With all seriousness, go to these theocratic, tyrannical regions of the world, take notes about all the great things you see there and report back your findings. You can do it!
No one said giving up your US citizenship was necessary (oh wait, yeah, the Hollywood knuckle-headed libs promised to leave if Trump won.) That's right, I recall them saying it. Some of them were heading to Canada, right? Oh darn, the Canadian immigration website instantly and conveniently crashed hours later. Too bad they couldn't leave. But they did mean to leave. Why don't they just walk across Canada's border and set up shop in a Canadian sanctuary city? Didn't just actually manage to do it. Liberal hypocrisy on full display. Sick. Twisted. Emo lies.
As far as your family's service, thank you. You should be honored. Doesn't mean that honor extends to you. You just remain under the blanket of security and spread your vitriol of lies to any fool who will listen.
With all seriousness, go to these theocratic, tyrannical regions of the world, take notes about all the great things you see there and report back your findings. You can do it!
No one said giving up your US citizenship was necessary (oh wait, yeah, the Hollywood knuckle-headed libs promised to leave if Trump won.) That's right, I recall them saying it. Some of them were heading to Canada, right? Oh darn, the Canadian immigration website instantly and conveniently crashed hours later. Too bad they couldn't leave. But they did mean to leave. Why don't they just walk across Canada's border and set up shop in a Canadian sanctuary city? Didn't just actually manage to do it. Liberal hypocrisy on full display. Sick. Twisted. Emo lies.
As far as your family's service, thank you. You should be honored. Doesn't mean that honor extends to you. You just remain under the blanket of security and spread your vitriol of lies to any fool who will listen.
I've traveled throughout Europe, Asia, South America and India, so I thank you for the lecture re other parts of the world, but been there done that. As for your comment that I spread a "vitriol of lies to any fool who will listen", I'm not sure how to react to that, so I'll just say, "Thank you for listening."
Trump us not a racist, nor a misogynist(except in the JFK sense), nor is he anti-semite. I mean this liberal playlist is getting old, and that's why people are rejecting it. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you racist.
I'm offering these clarifications not because I want to argue about them, but because, what the shit? Did I say anything about racism, misogyny, or anti-Semitism? Here is some of the thinking that leads me to worry about those groups while Trump and Pence have power. I'm not saying it's the correct thinking...just hoping to remind you that I, like most people, am driven by more than ideology.
Leave the out-group caricaturing for...well, for your in-group, I guess.
***
Immigrants. Documented immigrants -- "extreme vetting" and suspended immigration from "terror-prone regions." Who could be in greater need of escape than people in "terror-prone regions"? Undocumented immigrants -- I imagine we disagree on this fundamentally, so we'll just have to recognize that the revocation of DACA, the lack of funding of sanctuary cities, and other such measures are things that I believe will hurt people unjustly.
Minorities. LGBTQ folks stand to suffer from the revocation of executive actions as well, in consideration of EO 13672. Chris Wallace asked if Trump would "try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage" and Trump said he would "strongly consider" it. Racial minorities are likely going to find that already disproportionate policing will be further exacerbated by a renewed focus on "law and order," much as it was under Clinton's 1994 bill. The "Restoring Community Safety Act" is predicated on the false claim of "surging crime, drugs, and violence" in a time when y'all are quite wonderfully (relatively) peaceful. Not a good sign.
Women. Decreasing and/or withdrawing safe, legal abortion access for women -- a front-and-centre aspect of the Trump/Pence campaign -- is bad for women.
It's part of the liberal religion. Instead of the rosaries, it's call 10 people racist before lunch and your sins shall be healed.
It is, of course, absurd to paint every Trump supporter as a racist. That's just stupid.
But it is also undeniable, Kev, that a racist component (of indeterminate size) HAS attached itself to this administration -- like a leech -- apparently emboldened by what they see in a Trump/Pence ticket.
Whether that is fair or unfair, I honestly do not know, but how this administration addresses these associations will speak volumes.
Their appointments are the opening gambit to reassure those who are not yet part of the choir -- but right now, their choices seem to reflect that they do not much care about speaking to those who would be reassured. I find that disheartening.
As for your comment that I spread a "vitriol of lies to any fool who will listen", I'm not sure how to react to that, so I'll just say, "Thank you for listening."
Try harder to come up with a logical reaction that doesn't involve emo-over reaction. Perhaps you can invent some scenario where you can neatly file away my comments into "racism" or some other category that people like you place other people into so you can prove your class-ism/fascism/communism whatever. Just leave North America alone. Go to China and tell their population (which is 4x more than the US) how to think/act/spend their money/populate their neighborhoods. See how far you get there.
AS a request, I prefer to be put into the class of capitalism -- while not perfect, certainly a thousand times better than the alternatives.
I'm offering these clarifications not because I want to argue about them, but because, what the shit? Did I say anything about racism, misogyny, or anti-Semitism?
"If things start to go as badly for women, immigrants, and minorities as it seems they may, I hope y'all in the U.S. will be forceful in opposition."
Here is a prime example of race-baiting/sex-baiting/division politics/hate mongering, etc. Meanwhile, the guy in office for the last 8yrs (the guy I assume you support) sent his carbon footprint of tens of thousands of people hurling around the planet apologizing for 350 million (US citizens) to every half-ass backward govt. that "we" are the problem. F-that.
But being pro-life does not make one misogynist. The majority of women in this country are pro-life(though those polls change). In any case, it's close to an even split. Being pro-life means you think abortion is murder.
Having questions about Muslim immigration is a common sense reaction to a problem which has been growing. The only thing that prevents one from asking the question whether all cultures can adjust to the western way of understanding human rights is ideology. When you listen to Trump discuss this issue, he sounds like most people...torn. On the one hand he wants to not discriminate on the basis of religion, and he feels empathy for refugees. But on the other hand there are hard...real...questions about integration. And when innocents are being slaughtered, those questions are more than academic.
Stop and frisk was used to great success to reduce murders within the black community. Again, these things are complicated, I'm sorry if liberals can't perceive that. Personally, I think it's horrible that people can be stopped and frisked merely for walking in their own neighborhood. I would hope there are other solutions. But this has been going on in those communities for more than a generation now, and midnight basketball didn't work. So far over 600 people have been murdered in Chicago alone this year, all within a few neighborhoods, many of them innocent children. What is your solution? Please don't say free college tuition, or $15 minimum wage. Those things may or may not be worthwhile, but they will not stop the murders. And like it or not, nationwide gun control is not going to happen. Law abiding citizens want their guns for their own defense, and that's the way it is.
Bert
Yes, there is a racist component, but let's not overstate it. More Hispanics and blacks voted for Trump than for Romney or McCain. Racists supported Trump, and Islamists supported Obama, not to mention communisists, socialists, and metrosexualists. Ok, I made up the last one.
The job of Trump is not to reassure liberals that he will maintain the Progressive agenda. I think Trump has made clear he will listen to all sides, and he should be commended for that. Sessions is probably the nomination that bugs you, but you might want to read both sides of that. The case for Sessions being a racist is weak and goes back 30 years. In the meantime, in the Senate he more than balanced that by supporting Civil Rights issues for his entire time there. Maybe you don't think that is sincere, but it's a long record, and if we're going to start holding people accountable for minor positions in their youth, man, we're not going to have another double standard on that are we?
I was very unhappy Trump was nominated. So far, though, I'm pleased. The Flynn pick seems shaky if he goes through with it for NSA, but overall Trump has demonstrated a seriousness and a care which is...Presidential. Maybe people do rise to the office.
Perhaps Obama can dismantle the entire apparatus of illegal domestic surveillance, foreign military strikes, and torture programs that he's inherited, expanded, and made such merry use of.
In other words, your assumption is incorrect.
I have mentioned above some of the specific policies that I think will be bad for particular groups. In the cases of women, immigrants, and LGBTQ people, the policies I've mentioned are specifically designed to deal with those groups. I don't know exactly what "sex-baiting" is -- sounds kinky -- but I doubt I am guilty of it.
Go to China and tell their population (which is 4x more than the US) how to think/act/spend their money/populate their neighborhoods. See how far you get there.
First off, I have no idea what your point is about China or why I should go there. I mean, I've been there (as well as Laos, also communist) but I wasn't inclined to tell their population anything or see where that would get me. That makes no sense.
But while you're telling us about the ills of China, maybe you should direct your lecture to Trump. He's borrowed hundreds of millions from banks in China, outsourced his clothing brand manufacturing there, and screwed over US steel workers when he built the Trump Int'l Tower in Chicago with imported steel from China. Just sayin'.
Great title, and exactly the sort of thing I seek out trying to make sense of all this.
But the article is just more blah-liberal-blah-racist-blah-policially-correct-blah-blah. There is nothing in there about the real policies that pulled her to Trump. Nothing of substance, anyway. Frankly, I doubt it was even written by a woman. It doesn't "sound" or "feel" like a woman to me. Is that a sexist thing to say? I hope not. I feel like I don't know anything anymore.
Sessions is probably the nomination that bugs you, but you might want to read both sides of that.
I have read a bit, and I have the same problem I always have these days. For every damning article I find, there is another article that is completely benign.
I have no idea yet how I will ever learn to navigate this post-truth word.
Bannon is a way bigger problem to me than Sessions, quite frankly. And I like Bannon even less as "Exhibit A" for my post-truth dilemma.
But being pro-life does not make one misogynist. The majority of women in this country are pro-life(though those polls change). In any case, it's close to an even split. Being pro-life means you think abortion is murder.
Having questions about Muslim immigration is a common sense reaction to a problem which has been growing. The only thing that prevents one from asking the question whether all cultures can adjust to the western way of understanding human rights is ideology. When you listen to Trump discuss this issue, he sounds like most people...torn. On the one hand he wants to not discriminate on the basis of religion, and he feels empathy for refugees. But on the other hand there are hard...real...questions about integration. And when innocents are being slaughtered, those questions are more than academic.
Stop and frisk was used to great success to reduce murders within the black community.
On the abortion issue, all I'm saying is that the Supreme Court ruled under Roe v. Wade that a woman's right to choose is an inherent right under the Constitution. One can advocate for pro life options, but under the law, pro choice rights are the law of the land, and to advocate that those rights be taken away from women would be a policy that undermines women's rights and would put the U.S. in a category with Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Immigration policies that directly single out the Muslim religion is not a common sense reaction to a problem, but rather a knee jerk reaction born of fear of the unknown. Of course we need to look at who is entering our country, where they are from, and all background information - whether from Syria, Ireland, or Cambodia. "Innocents are being slaughtered"? Over 13,000 people were killed by gun violence in the U.S. in 2015. An immigration policy that targets a religion won't even register with those numbers, especially since some of the terrorist shootings here were done by U.S. born citizens. The problem is more a mental health issue than a religious issue.
Finally, on "stop and frisk" - two points" 1) if the ends are going to justify the means, then the Constitution means nothing, and we're all subject to illegal searches and seizures, as well surveillance; and more important, 2) a 2015 study by the FBI and the Brennan Center for Justice showed no correlation between "stop and frisk" and violent crimes or the murder rate. It's an ineffective policy that's been labeled "unconstitutional" by the federal courts, and for Trump to say it's a good idea is akin to reverting to the pre-civil rights era.
I don't want to paint a picture that we are far apart on the issues. Roe is the law. I believe Trump thinks so too. I'm fairly certain Trump's position on that was as expedient as Obama's position on gay marriage In any case, it's not a matter of misogyny, and to describe it that way smears about half the women in this country, who happen to be against abortion. And when it comes to late term abortion, even more are against it.
Again, immigration is also difficult. Do we not have a right to decide who comes and from where? I don't think it''s a real issue in the US, the numbers are too small. But in Europe, you're talking about nations that will completely lose there western identity in a few decades. Huge swaths of Britain and France and other nations are now more alien than home culture. Maybe there will be integration, but would it be rational to just assume that? I mean the evidence of problems us pretty solid.
The Boston Marathon bombers were not mentally unstable. Neither was San Bernadino or Orlando, or Major Hassan at Fort Hood.
You can argue otherwise, I'm cool with that, but reasonable Americans have questions, and that seems to be Trump's position too.
And on stop and frisk, as I said, I am troubled...and no one is saying ends justify the means. But sometimes the length we go to stretch the means might be justified when whole neighborhoods are ransacked by crime. Whatever the case, it's not a matter of racism. No one is trying to oppress. People are trying to stop the killing, trying to let kids walk to school without getting shot. If that's racism, my god, we are in a weird place.
Bert
You seem to be taking a rational approach. I don't think anyone should expect a liberal to like or support Trump's policies. I'm torn on many of them too. All I think we should ask is that the crazier stuff be toned down. Trump is not Hitler or George Wallace. He's not racist or misogynist, he's struggling with some hard questions.
Oh, the Bannon stuff gets exaggerated too. I mean they call Breitbart antisemitic...it makes no sense, Andre Breitbart was Jewish! Several of their main editors are Jewish!
I don't want to paint a picture that we are far apart on the issues. Roe is the law. I believe Trump thinks so too. I'm fairly certain Trump's position on that was as expedient as Obama's position on gay marriage In any case, it's not a matter of misogyny, and to describe it that way smears about half the women in this country, who happen to be against abortion. And when it comes to late term abortion, even more are against it.
Again, immigration is also difficult. Do we not have a right to decide who comes and from where? I don't think it''s a real issue in the US, the numbers are too small. But in Europe, you're talking about nations that will completely lose there western identity in a few decades. Huge swaths of Britain and France and other nations are now more alien than home culture. Maybe there will be integration, but would it be rational to just assume that? I mean the evidence of problems us pretty solid.
The Boston Marathon bombers were not mentally unstable. Neither was San Bernadino or Orlando, or Major Hassan at Fort Hood.
You can argue otherwise, I'm cool with that, but reasonable Americans have questions, and that seems to be Trump's position too.
And on stop and frisk, as I said, I am troubled...and no one is saying ends justify the means. But sometimes the length we go to stretch the means might be justified when whole neighborhoods are ransacked by crime. Whatever the case, it's not a matter of racism. No one is trying to oppress. People are trying to stop the killing, trying to let kids walk to school without getting shot. If that's racism, my god, we are in a weird place.
Bert
You seem to be taking a rational approach. I don't think anyone should expect a liberal to like or support Trump's policies. I'm torn on many of them too. All I think we should ask is that the crazier stuff be toned down. Trump is not Hitler or George Wallace. He's not racist or misogynist, he's struggling with some hard questions.
Oh, the Bannon stuff gets exaggerated too. I mean they call Breitbart antisemitic...it makes no sense, Andre Breitbart was Jewish! Several of their main editors are Jewish!
I do disagree that Trump believes Roe is law. He said just a week or so ago that women may have to travel to states other than their own if his Supreme Court overturns Roe. That alone doesn't make him a misogynist, but he does make comments about women that I think fairly put him in that category (I'm too tired to repeat all his quotes).
On the rest, we're on different sides of the fence on most, but not too far apart to hear each other.
Finally...Bannon. I haven't mentioned him because I just don't know what to make of him. I doubt I'll ever be a fan, but I'll take my chances with him over Cheney. 6 months from now Bannon may sound like Socrates compared to the rest of them.
The "what the Left thinks" and what "the Liberals" don't understand about Trump voters article links and posts are maddening. There is no "monolithic" Left anymore than there is a monolithic right. That is just pundit crap meant to be create more diverseness then already exists. So, when someone writes an article about what the Left doesn't understand about Trump voters and in doing so paints all in the Left with the same mindset, they are committing the same sin they are railing against. Same with the "the Left thinks the replacement of Pelosi is an anti-feminist campaign. The Left does feel that - one dude did. Many in the Left think Pelosis should go because she is ineffective and out dated - period.
I am part of that wacko Left. But, like many in the Left, I think we need border security. I just think building a wall is a moronic way to accomplish that. I am in favor of the Dream Act, but have no interest in allowing criminals to stay in the Country. I believe in Abortion rights but also believe in parental notification. I (like many Sanders supporters) do not believe that are trade agreements have the best interests of Americans in mind. I am for marriage equality, but believe that the a photographer should have the right not to attend gay weddings. I thought the "Hamilton" protest against Pence was in bad taste and disrespectful (not as much as a Congressman yelling "You Lie" during the State of the Union - but disrespectful nonetheless). The point being, a broad brush to describe either the Left or the Right is counter productive. Our individual views and values are much more complicated and nuanced then the propagandists on both sides of the spectrum would have us believe.
So - to my friends on the right - an insight from one Lefty on our angst. It's not just policy and values. I did not have this bad feeling in the pit of my stomach, when Reagan, Bush, etc were elected as - even though they did not share my values and principles, I thought they were sane men of good intent and that their actions and policies - while not mine, would be reasonable.
The sense of uneasiness on my part stems from the feeling that Trump might be dangerous. I do not think he possesses the temperament and self restraint needed to manage crisis and that his actions will always be rooted in self interest. I think he is border line insane.
I will be thrilled if I am wrong about Trump. But my feelings now will not be tempered by an array of articles or posts about how stupid Liberals are - it will be tempered by time and President Trump's actions. I am sincerely wishing him the best.
IMO this is in large part a result of the "everyone gets a medal" culture. It has no political affiliation - it's just how it's been been for the last 20 years. Everyone has to play nice. Plan activities after a Thanksgiving dinner? Trivial Pursuit? How about NFL games on TV until 11:00 PM, 3 cases of beer, and smack cousin Eddie across the face when he mentions the mileage he gets on his Toyota hybrid for the hundredth time. Check.
The everyone gets a medal culture is liberal. No conservative embraces that.
And that culture for, or some flavor of it, has dominated our academic, media and entertainment institutions for several generations now.
Young people have been brainwashed and they don't know that the world is vastly more complicated than the politically correct world which has been forcefed them. But once they mature and see the world how it is, they are not tolerating what they are seeing on the networks and CNN.
Liberals here, including my respected colleague Bert, have referred to this as a white election. It should be noted that the Left is as lily white as can be. Blacks may vote Democrat, but they do not embrace this hard left progressivism preferred by the snowflakes.
The everyone gets a medal culture is liberal. No conservative embraces that.
That's just wrong. It's not a liberal vs. conservative mindset, but a socioeconomic mindset that's primarily prevalent in better economic areas. You generally don't see it in poor inner city areas or in rural areas, but rather in upwardly mobile demographic areas, city and suburban, which are both liberal and conservative. I've had a front row seat to it for years, and I've seen plenty of proud GOP conservative parents that demand their kid get a 13th place medal or lobby the school not cut anyone who tries out for the team. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a self-importance thing.
The "what the Left thinks" and what "the Liberals" don't understand about Trump voters article links and posts are maddening. There is no "monolithic" Left anymore than there is a monolithic right. That is just pundit crap meant to be create more diverseness then already exists. So, when someone writes an article about what the Left doesn't understand about Trump voters and in doing so paints all in the Left with the same mindset, they are committing the same sin they are railing against. Same with the "the Left thinks the replacement of Pelosi is an anti-feminist campaign. The Left does feel that - one dude did. Many in the Left think Pelosis should go because she is ineffective and out dated - period.
I am part of that wacko Left. But, like many in the Left, I think we need border security. I just think building a wall is a moronic way to accomplish that. I am in favor of the Dream Act, but have no interest in allowing criminals to stay in the Country. I believe in Abortion rights but also believe in parental notification. I (like many Sanders supporters) do not believe that are trade agreements have the best interests of Americans in mind. I am for marriage equality, but believe that the a photographer should have the right not to attend gay weddings. I thought the "Hamilton" protest against Pence was in bad taste and disrespectful (not as much as a Congressman yelling "You Lie" during the State of the Union - but disrespectful nonetheless). The point being, a broad brush to describe either the Left or the Right is counter productive. Our individual views and values are much more complicated and nuanced then the propagandists on both sides of the spectrum would have us believe.
So - to my friends on the right - an insight from one Lefty on our angst. It's not just policy and values. I did not have this bad feeling in the pit of my stomach, when Reagan, Bush, etc were elected as - even though they did not share my values and principles, I thought they were sane men of good intent and that their actions and policies - while not mine, would be reasonable.
The sense of uneasiness on my part stems from the feeling that Trump might be dangerous. I do not think he possesses the temperament and self restraint needed to manage crisis and that his actions will always be rooted in self interest. I think he is border line insane.
I will be thrilled if I am wrong about Trump. But my feelings now will not be tempered by an array of articles or posts about how stupid Liberals are - it will be tempered by time and President Trump's actions. I am sincerely wishing him the best.
THIS!
It's a strange thing watching political debates, be it in America or in the UK. When people disagree, they attempt to place them into a nicely labelled box. They always have. There's always a 'typical liberal' comment or, 'you right-wing extremists' or 'that's the problem with left-wingers like you...'
And yet in life, you rarely come across anyone who thinks 100% towards a certain political spectrum and rarely do intelligent folk agree with every policy their candidate presents, quite often they even agree with policies and ideas from other sides.
Does labeling someone help dehumanize them or belittle their opinion? Does it make it easier to cast aside their point, as they are not seen as a person but an opposing side to crush?
Personally I do think this is part of an outdated human survival instinct about picking sides. Back in 'Ye Olde Days' you needed to be on the winning side to survive. If you picked the wrong side, you were dead, so when you picked a side, you did everything in your power to help make sure it won.
Fast forward a few thousand years and we still have that instinct. It forms part of everything we do. We pick sides over sport, music, politics, movies, TV Shows, family disputes, neighborhood arguments, country squabbles; everything. It happened in the UK with Brexit and is still going on. People are still defending their chosen side beyond all common sense and logic. 'My side has to win, it has to otherwise, I won't survive" screams their survival instinct.
And it's happened with the Trump, Clinton and Berni three way split.
Sorry, I've gone completely off on a tangent. I do apologize, I just find this picking side instinct theory of mine quite fascinating. It is quite interesting to see it in action...even if I do seem like a loony.
Carry on! Nothing to see here
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Mark, you are right. I'm always amazed when people fail to understand why we do what we do in everything. Human nature are our instincts. Some of those instincts are not popular nowadays and we are told we must think differently because, well, it's 2016!!!! We're modern people now! As if DNA changed in the last hundred years.
I think of it like circles. Our first circle is our immediate family. We can have arguments within the family, but we'll definitely stick together against any other family if it comes to that. The circles get wider the further we zoom out. Our city or town against others, as in sports for example. We unite against that other team regardless of our disagreements within our group. Zoom out further then it's your country against other countries Zoom out even further and it's our planet against whatever might be out there.
That's how I think of things.
As far as this election went, I think everyone voted for what they truly believe would be the best person for the country. We all stick together for the country we call ours. We all want, as you said, pick the winner because it's in our best interest.
" I did not have this bad feeling in the pit of my stomach, when Reagan, Bush, etc were elected as - even though they did not share my values and principles, I thought they were sane men of good intent and that their actions and policies - while not mine, would be reasonable.
The sense of uneasiness on my part stems from the feeling that Trump might be dangerous. I do not think he possesses the temperament and self restraint needed to manage crisis and that his actions will always be rooted in self interest. I think he is border line insane."
Yup. Most conservatives I know share the unease. Many voted third party. I have been an extremely harsh critic of Trump's. His answers to questions in debates and in interviews give the impression of a man who is grossly uninformed and who has not thought deeply about the issues.
My posts have all been focused on exaggerations. Trump may not be in command of all the facts...but he is not Hitler. He may not be politically correct, but he is not about to put non-whites in concentration camps. He's been a lout when it comes to women in his personal life, but so was Clinton, JFK, and many other heroes in politics.
I don't fault someone for voting Clinton. She was much more qualified.
I don't fault someone for asking hard questions about Trump's new administration. I just wish we asked those questions about the last administration too.
The KKK and white supremacists did not elect Trump. Regular people wanting a change did.
So far, the way he has conducted himself as President elect has been very conventional and measured. That doesn't mean liberals should love his picks...do they expect him to pick liberal Democrats? But the government will go on, there will be good things and bad, but not much will change. There will be no genocides or misogycides.
And if we're going to have standards, let's not make it of the double variety, which I am seeing a lot of. Every admin should be granted the same portion of rope with which they can hang themselves if they choose.
I think you have a rational view up to the point where you post something like this:
Quoted Text
This time they are calling a Democrat "sexist" because he has to audacity to challenge Pelosi.
Unfreaking believable.
This is what I'm talking about! The utter madness of the Left. At the drop of pin, anyone can be called sexist or racist.
All you need to do is get rid of the "They" and "utter madness of the left" and pin those allegations specifically to the pundit making the point and then wa-la - we are in agreement. e.g., It's time to look for a replacement for Pelosi and suggesting that doing so is sexist is inane. When you broad bush, you put one in position of defending an entire movement versus a specific issue making finding common ground more difficult.
And for me - I don't think Trump won because of racist, misogynistic things he said. He won for despite them because he was correct on two core issues: border security (again - not a wall per se - the concept) and trade agreements. Americans with suppressed wages voted with their eyes - they could see shuttered factories, stagnant wages, dilapidated cities and said fuck it - I don't care anymore about the nuances of globalization or immigration - I'm tired of this shit and want it fixed so I'm voting for the dude that promises to fix them regardless of how he feels about Muslims, blacks. women, etc. That is how he beat both the Republicans and the Democrats. He spoke frankly about two core issues. The other thing he had going for him was he was competing with a terrible campaigner in Hillary. I personally think that Bernie or Biden would have cleaned Trump's clock. But of course - just a wild guess.
Again - I am hoping for the best and will judge based on his actions rather than his tweets. Bill Clinton was the best President in my lifetime and I think he treated women worse than Trump - so that is not a litmus test for me. LBJ was a racist who did far more in terms of civil rights legislation then anyone in modern history. So, I will focus on Trump's actions. I am not optimistic - but I am willing to wait and see.
Not all Italians talk with their hands...but it's still valid and useful to say Italians talk with their hands.
Of course there is no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative" in a way that encompasses people all into one box. By generalizations are useful to the degree there is truth in them.
Conservatives mistrust large government(in the US anyway).
Liberals pine for bigger and more government.
These are not universal truths, but close enough.
There has been a range of behavior with this election that can fairly be applied to a broad group. College coddling their students, cutting classes, providing counseling, and playdo, and lowering flags...this is all symptomatic of a general characteristic that has LONG been associated with the Left. When I was in college in the 80s, they hated the American flag. When college kids worked for me in the 2000s, those that were liberal had parents that wouldn't allow the flag on their property.
Leftists are quick to scream racist, or misogynist, or whatever ist empowers their pointing finger. Am I painting broadly? Look at facebook, it's all over the place, and probably with those on your friendlist. It is mine. It's all over those demonstrations everywhere, it's all over the network news, it's in theaters where the VP attends. It's not some isolated incidents. It's part of a broad picture, and it's fair and useful to discuss it that way.
We agree on most of the points. I'm a social liberal, but a libertarian conservative. I was no Trump supporter. I'm sick of exaggerated claims and partisan network news. I'm ok with Fox's bias, but only because it provides much needed balance. Biden would have won, but not Bernie. The country would not have elected someone that radical, old, and naive. Nice guy, though.
Not all Italians talk with their hands...but it's still valid and useful to say Italians talk with their hands.
Of course there is no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative" in a way that encompasses people all into one box. By generalizations are useful to the degree there is truth in them.
Conservatives mistrust large government(in the US anyway).
Liberals pine for bigger and more government.
These are not universal truths, but close enough.
There has been a range of behavior with this election that can fairly be applied to a broad group. College coddling their students, cutting classes, providing counseling, and playdo, and lowering flags...this is all symptomatic of a general characteristic that has LONG been associated with the Left. When I was in college in the 80s, they hated the American flag. When college kids worked for me in the 2000s, those that were liberal had parents that wouldn't allow the flag on their property.
Leftists are quick to scream racist, or misogynist, or whatever ist empowers their pointing finger. Am I painting broadly? Look at facebook, it's all over the place, and probably with those on your friendlist. It is mine. It's all over those demonstrations everywhere, it's all over the network news, it's in theaters where the VP attends. It's not some isolated incidents. It's part of a broad picture, and it's fair and useful to discuss it that way.
We agree on most of the points. I'm a social liberal, but a libertarian conservative. I was no Trump supporter. I'm sick of exaggerated claims and partisan network news. I'm ok with Fox's bias, but only because it provides much needed balance. Biden would have won, but not Bernie. The country would not have elected someone that radical, old, and naive. Nice guy, though.
Yes, you are still painting too broadly.
Quoted Text
Conservatives mistrust large government(in the US anyway).
Except for the CIA, FBI, NSA, Defense Department, regulations against who you can marry, whether you can smoke pot, have an abortion, stop and frisk, etc. etc, etc. In those any many more cases big government whether it is the size of the budget or the reach of the law are just fine.
Quoted Text
Liberals pine for bigger and more government.
Just like conservatives, as a means to an end - not just for the sake of big government. We like bureaucracies, regulations and laws that support the values we hold dear.
Quoted Text
Leftists are quick to scream racist, or misogynist, or whatever ist empowers their pointing finger.
Righties are quick to scream socialists, communist, heathen, etc. etc, or whatever empowers their pointing fingers.
Quoted Text
There has been a range of behavior with this election that can fairly be applied to a broad group. College coddling their students, cutting classes, providing counseling, and playdo, and lowering flags...this is all symptomatic of a general characteristic that has LONG been associated with the Left. When I was in college in the 80s, they hated the American flag. When college kids worked for me in the 2000s, those that were liberal had parents that wouldn't allow the flag on their property.
More of the same. Should I associate the Right with the behavior or certain Trump supporters???? What about die fags at military funerals? The Birther movement? etc. etc.
The point being - for every piece of mud you can slow at the left, there is an equally large and ugly slab of mud that can be thrown at the Right. And at the end of the day when we engage in that practice we never move forward on the issues because we can't see shit from all the mud in our eyes.
There has been a range of behavior with this election that can fairly be applied to a broad group. College coddling their students, cutting classes, providing counseling, and playdo, and lowering flags...this is all symptomatic of a general characteristic that has LONG been associated with the Left.
Perhaps the increasing corporatization of colleges has led to a "customer is always right" approach to interaction with students, ie., coddling -- an analysis that, to me, wouldn't put the blame solely on the left. My own experience of university (in Canada, though I'm considering U.S. schools) has been that the influence of money is a lot more overt than that of ideology, in the institutional infrastructure. The culture of university, students and faculty, is pretty leftist, for sure. But not so much with the administration, which is the group that is most significantly (unfortunately) shaping education.
The Reagan era coincided with the hands-down peak of the Hollywood action film -- John Rambo, Robocop, John McClane, Riggs and Murtaugh, John Matrix, Harry Callahan, probably some more guys named John...
Is the Trump era gonna mean a whole new slew of all-American tough guy Hollywood heroes, or what?
Trump is apparently too smart to be bothered with Intel briefings. Putin's probably like "Don't worry. Donald. When something comes up I'll give you a call. Until then, just chill baby."
When W took a trip to his ranch, the media never failed to complain about Presidential vacations while there were important issues facing us.
Obama golfed and vacationed more than any President by far...yawn.
It's like this on every issue. If this intel briefing stuff involved a Democrat President, it would be not noticed, and if noticed it would be spun this way: "President seeks a diversity of opinion". We'd hear stories about how many times American intel got it wrong(WMDs, ISIS, Libya, Ukraine). We'd be reminded how the CIA got JFK into the Bay of Pigs.
I visit Politico every day. It's a good representation of the mainstream media. And it now feels like Breitbart over there, only from the other side. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN...all the same. Every issue related to Trump is given some dark spin.
Much of it is fake news spun with bits of truth.
Middle America is on to this. The regular media is
a) monolithically liberal. There's no balance. The liberal agenda is shoved down everyone's throats whether you agree with it or not. And if you don't agree, you must be one loathsome person. Let's not quibble over just what "liberal" means. There are degrees and shades, but the media is liberal on social and government related issues.
b) this monolithic media is not innocent. There is an element of echo chamber, yes, where people share the same assumptions and beliefs...but it's more than that. There are paid flacks all over the media planting stories. It's not some centralized conspiracy, but there are plenty of groups like those run by Soros that pay reporters to plant and spin. These exact same techniques were used by the Russians.
When W took a trip to his ranch, the media never failed to complain about Presidential vacations while there were important issues facing us. Obama golfed and vacationed more than any President by far...yawn.
Highly inaccurate. Bush has the record and by a long shot.
It's like this on every issue. If this intel briefing stuff involved a Democrat President, it would be not noticed, and if noticed it would be spun this way: "President seeks a diversity of opinion". We'd hear stories about how many times American intel got it wrong (WMDs, ISIS, Libya, Ukraine). We'd be reminded how the CIA got JFK into the Bay of Pigs.
I do not think they would be praising him/her. I do think their umbrage would be more tempered - tamer.
Quoted Text
I visit Politico every day. It's a good representation of the mainstream media. And it now feels like Breitbart over there, only from the other side. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN...all the same. Every issue related to Trump is given some dark spin.
No - Politico is not a good representation, IMO. I think you are over stating it. I watch all of these. My view:
CBS, ABC, NBC - lean left.
CNN - money whores who lean anyway that can get eyes on their set but certainly would prefer to have villains on the right. Probably - inadvertently as it may be - played a huge part in Trump getting elected. They liked the ratings. Long winded way of saying they are idiots regardless of the issue. I do agree that when they do have serious people, they tend to lean left. More so then the major networks.
MSNBC - Might as well be a part of the Dem party
FOX - runs the GOP
Radio - Right wing propaganda.
Quoted Text
Much of it is fake news spun with bits of truth.
I would say it is real news spun with opinion.
Quoted Text
Middle America is on to this.
Middle America isn't "on" to anything. They simply voted for the candidate that they thought would best address their needs.
So - I do agree that the mainstream media leans left and there is a degree of hyperbole in rump coverage. However, their are plenty of right leaning outlets for folks to get their information. I do not believe there is a left wing media conspiracy anymore than I believed Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy. I believe folks on both sides need to tap the brakes a bit and wait to see what actual programs and polices come from a Trump presidency.
Middle America is on to this. The regular media is
Yeah, the same Trailer Park Patriots that sought to elect what stephen king so properly referred to as "a motley crew of Plunder Monkeys" this side of The Great Fortune.
Exxon is essentially running foreign police and Goldman the economy.
on vacations: is the final word on this from a website called Liberals Unite?
"took 879 days of vacation, including 77 trips to his Texas ranch"
Is W moving WH business to his Texas ranch the equivalent of Obama bike riding on Martha's Vineyard? The Bush ranch became more like Camp David...a place where heads of state came to meet Bush.
None of that happened at Martha's Vineyard. Those were pure vacations.
Though his vacations don't bother me. Nor does his constant golfing. I believe the President should be making the big decisions, not slaving over detail.
I'm just talking about a media double standard.
As for the networks, they sometimes make an effort at balance. But you have to understand the effort is only at an appearance of balance. There is not one single non-Democrat in the room where the news is made. CNN would not insist on calling Breitbart "white nationalist" every chance they get if there was one conservative there to point out that Breitbart is not that. Breitbart has sued over that characterization, and if they were actually white nationalist, they would embrace that. I have my issues with Breitbart, and certainly some people will find some of their headlines offensive, but they are no more white nationalist than the average city cop on the beat.
As for $8 gas...come on, can we at least try to understand events? Obama's first energy secretary called for increasing gas to $10 a gallon! Obama said he approved, but it must be done gradually. The ENTIRE liberal establishment is committed to fighting climate change...and the most important strategy called for in that is lowering CO2 emissions. That can only be done through higher prices.
Gas prices came down for one reason: fracking(and similar shale recovery techniques). Those are things most of the Democrats, and all liberals, oppose. We had cheap energy under Obama only because fracking, which had been under development for years, finally came to fruition during his administration. It had nothing to do with him. Nada, zip, zero. If it would not have harmedd him and the Dems politically, he would have done more to stop fracking and increase carbon taxes, all with the goal of raising the price,
There are things Obama did well, and things he didn't. Same will be true for Trump. Let's at least keep our feet grounded in what is really true and isn't.
Indeed. But when every "reputable" news agency except Fox is telling you the exact same thing -- give me credit for the quotation marks -- and then Fox gleefully serves as the only safe-space for Trump to spout off unchallenged -- I think you need to call that what it is.
It is not "balance" -- it is propaganda.
And with all the uproarious discussions today -- and I will not address their real or imagined veracity -- what are the top stories on Fox?
The "look over here" tweet about the F-35, and the "irrational" Green Party recount.
Nary a peep on today's top news driver. I contend that Fox is not news. It is entertainment for the choir.
I would begin by asking you to imagine the state of affairs without Fox. The way things were before, when literally every single headline and story came through a liberal filter.
Now back to Fox: Fox is the necessary balance that tries to counter ABC, PBS, NBC, CNN, Wapo, NYT, and all of the local networks.
It would be unhealthy if all we had was Fox News and similar. But Fox plays an essential role in balancing what the other networks do more slyly, which is to push an agenda.
Everything on there right now is in the news. Russian hacking, the Taiwan phone call, the silly vote recount.
I mean no one questions that Fox has a conservative agenda. Have you ever met a conservative who questions that?
Have you ever met a liberal who accepts that the regular media has a progressive agenda? I have followed CNN closely since the election(I follow CNN anyway), and the anti-Trump agenda is stunning. I turned it on during lunch yesterday and 2 guests were calling for the election to be done over! The very same people who hammered Trump for weeks for questioning the election now want pointless recounts(an attempt to prevent those states from voting in the electoral college) and they are saying this election is illegit because of Putin. Man, I guess they say double standards are better than no standards(this remark is directed at CNN)
on vacations: is the final word on this from a website called Liberals Unite?
"took 879 days of vacation, including 77 trips to his Texas ranch"
Is W moving WH business to his Texas ranch the equivalent of Obama bike riding on Martha's Vineyard? The Bush ranch became more like Camp David...a place where heads of state came to meet Bush.
None of that happened at Martha's Vineyard. Those were pure vacations.
Though his vacations don't bother me. Nor does his constant golfing. I believe the President should be making the big decisions, not slaving over detail.
I'm just talking about a media double standard.
There are a zillion sites where you can find this info. Your assertion was factually incorrect and I was just pointing that. Like you - I don't care. Eisenhower golfed more rounds than any other president my a long shot - thought he was a good President regardless.
Quoted Text
As for the networks, they sometimes make an effort at balance. But you have to understand the effort is only at an appearance of balance. There is not one single non-Democrat in the room where the news is made. CNN would not insist on calling Breitbart "white nationalist" every chance they get if there was one conservative there to point out that Breitbart is not that. Breitbart has sued over that characterization, and if they were actually white nationalist, they would embrace that. I have my issues with Breitbart, and certainly some people will find some of their headlines offensive, but they are no more white nationalist than the average city cop on the beat.
The networks do lean left - not as egregiously as you think - but they do. They mostly lean ratings. With FOX and MSNBC being two exceptions - both are tragedies in terms of journalism.
And every time you start a sentence with - what is wrong with liberals - or "what liberals think." it makes me cringe. IT does not further discussion. It retards it.
No. I explained no. Bush going to Texas was not the equivalent of Obama going to Martha's Vineyard. When you take a vacation, do you go home?
The ranch in Crawford was set up like Camp David, to accommodate government functions. Quite a few world leaders met Bush there, including Putin. When Bush was in Crawford, the government was moved there. Yes, one can say that wherever the executive goes the government technically still goes on, but there is a difference between a vacation to the beaches and tourist attractions of Martha's Vineyard and Bush's ranch in Texas.
So it was not "factually incorrect"...except in the liberal fact check world.
I would begin by asking you to imagine the state of affairs without Fox.
For the majority of the country, they couldn't imagine it because they don't watch it, not even out of curiosity, and it's as if it doesn't even exist. The right likely feels the same way about the Huffpost. If it went away, it wouldn't change an issue or a vote, because alternatives will always exist via technology.
Anymore, I find myself watching the BBC World News more than CNN or the networks.
Unrelated, Trump just announced that his "news conference" scheduled for Thurs this week to disclose his business plan for avoiding conflicts of interest has been scratched. Instead, he'll let the country know his plan via an "announcement" in January (no date given). Guessing he'll let the country know his plan in a tweet...."My children will run the Trump business empire. I can't. Very unfair. Sad."
No. I explained no. Bush going to Texas was not the equivalent of Obama going to Martha's Vineyard. When you take a vacation, do you go home?
Yes, of course! If I work in a city that is not my home.
Quoted Text
The ranch in Crawford was set up like Camp David, to accommodate government functions. Quite a few world leaders met Bush there, including Putin. When Bush was in Crawford, the government was moved there. Yes, one can say that wherever the executive goes the government technically still goes on, but there is a difference between a vacation to the beaches and tourist attractions of Martha's Vineyard and Bush's ranch in Texas.
This is inane. Just Google Bush at Crawford Ranch and you'll find thousands of pictures of him doing things that have nothing do with his office. The fact that he spent a boatload of money to enable him to also conduct business there has nothing to do with whether or not he took a vacation. There is literally no difference between Obama's vacation to Martha's vineyard and Bush's to Crawford. Both men had the responsibility and the capability of doing the functions of there office while they were at those locations and both did and BOTH played when they were at those locations. You think that somehow Crawford Texas was somehow a strategic place for White-house functions??? If you want to argue that a vacation day doesn't count as long as the President has the ability to perform the functions of the office then no President has taken a vacation day. Finally - your assertion was this:
Quoted Text
Obama golfed and vacationed more than any President by far...yawn.
Of our recent Presidents, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, LBJ, Eisenhower all had more vacation days than Obama. In my view, so did Bush Jr. because I don't buy the Crawford is a Texas White house paradigm. So yeah, it was factually incorrect.
"There is literally no difference between Obama's vacation to Martha's vineyard and Bush's to Crawford."
I explained the difference. Did Obama entertain heads of state on Martha's Vineyard? It's actually ridiculous to compare the two. It's the media that calls his trips there vacation. Does Bush?
If Bush does not call it "vacation", but the media does, that makes it "fact"?
And of course Bush did recreational things while there...just as Obama golfs while living in Washington.
Absurd.
But my whole point remains untouched. The media employs a double standard on every issue. Including the commentary on vacations, gold, leisure time.
1) Your statement - Obama took more vacations than any other President is incorrect. Please address that or just admit it was inaccurate.
2. Yes - you explained the Bush vacations and my view, poorly. Do your really think it was cost effective, strategic or wise to have heads of state visit Crawford friggin Texas??? Really? Maybe we just went through all of that expense in his 77 trips there (at a cost of $124 million) because he wanted to be on vacation. I do not begrudge him that. But if Obama had done the same thing in Hawaii - or Chicago - do you really think you would be saying - oh, well he had heads of State there visit him on the beach so it was money well spent. No, you wouldn't. You would rail against him for wasting tax payer dollars on things that could be done in D.C. just so he could be on vacation.
Yes - NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC made more of the Bush vacations then the Obama ones. Of course, if you listened to FOX you would have thought that Obama was the only President who took vacation.
Again - my point is simply this. You make a good assessment and point about the reaction of certain media outlets view of identical events conducted by a Democrat versus a Republican. I think you are right there. However, you undermine your credibility when you turn around and do the exact thing you accuse them of. With bias, vilify the other side - e.g., "Obama spent more days on vacation.....". That's all.
For the majority of the country, they couldn't imagine it because they don't watch it, not even out of curiosity, and it's as if it doesn't even exist.
I think Fox has been #1 in cable news for years and years.
I went to BK today because I was in a big hurry and because they have veggie burgers. On their TV in the dining room was Fox news...
Just an observation. I have no interest in discussing this further.
You're simply wrong, Dave, and to call it a "fact" troubles me. Trump's wife and son are not going to DC because the son is in school. If Trump spends the week in New York, doing government business, is that vacation?
If Bush did not call those trips to Crawfard vacations, why does the liberal media get to call it that? Why do you?
I think Fox has been #1 in cable news for years and years.
#1 in "cable news" still makes it viewed by a minority of Americans. According to the Pew Research Center, 99% of Americans (about 300 million), never watch Fox News. 5 million viewers is a huge night for them.
If Bush did not call those trips to Crawfard vacations, why does the liberal media get to call it that? Why do you?
If one is to accept this bizarre argument, the obvious corollary is: why do you get to say that "Obama golfed and vacationed more than any President by far"? What is that based on?
Oh Lordy, I was hoping this thread would just go away!
I think Fox has been #1 in cable news for years and years.
I went to BK today because I was in a big hurry and because they have veggie burgers. On their TV in the dining room was Fox news...
Just an observation. I have no interest in discussing this further.
Been trying to avoid this thread myself, but this is easily one of the most outrageous comments I've read lately. Sorry, Pia. I'm roping you back into this one whether you like it or not.
You're simply wrong, Dave, and to call it a "fact" troubles me. Trump's wife and son are not going to DC because the son is in school. If Trump spends the week in New York, doing government business, is that vacation?
If Bush did not call those trips to Crawfard vacations, why does the liberal media get to call it that? Why do you?
I am not quite sure you are understanding my point. I will try one last time.
1. I concurred with you that certain media outlets - in particular the three major networks lean left and as a result put a more friendly spin on Democratic President's actions than Republicans one. I probably do not agree with you in terms of the degree and I have no evidence to back it up - but that is my perception while watching the news.
2. Your statement about Obama's vacations was factually incorrect - by a long shot. I am guessing that you heard it on some media outlet that puts a negative spin on all things left. By citing it as a fact and then defending it as true when it is clearly not - ironically undermines the valid point you are making in # 1 above.
Pages: 
Author
Trump!!!
Logged
Locked Board