Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Not the kind of accomplishments Trump has, because values have diverged enough that things that conservatives see as Trump's accomplishments, liberals see as his sins that need to be rectified ASAP.

 

I've noted this before on this thread, though I would obviously forgive people for forgetting it, considering that it was around 350 pages ago:

 

 

Not much has changed in the past 2 years (though I could also now add a more impressive economic track record, a revised trade deal with our immediate neighbors, and a successful staredown with Iran), which is one reason I participate far less on this thread than I used to.

 

Yes, there are areas where Trump has not performed as hoped.  But his accomplishments, especially if you are a conservative, are considerably broader than just judges.  That being said, judicial appointments remain the elephant in the room and therefore will be mentioned first when listing his accomplishments as well as to the exclusion of others when simply identifying the highlights of his administration.  That is because it was primary judicial activism that was making it less and less safe to be a conservative, especially a religious one, in Obama's America.  And continuing the work of making the federal judiciary more protective of religious liberty is absolutely going to be central to Trump's 2020 campaign pitch as well, just as it was in 2016.

 

What exactly are Republican values?  They're against abortion, but not for taking care of children after birth.  They want the freedom to be able to say whatever they want under the 1st amendment, but want football players punished for kneeling in silent protest.  They demand respect for the office of president, but cheerlead a president who makes fun of the handicapped and uses social media to make grade school attacks on anyone who opposes him.  They claim to be for the people, but have virtually no policies that directly benefit them.  They say they're for fiscal responsibility, but then rack up record deficits in every modern presidency.  They say they're for free market capitalism, but then accept tariffs, corporate tax cuts, subsidies and threats to manipulate it.  So what the hell are your values?  Forget those on the left not liking the accomplishments... what "accomplishments" does Trump have that are consistent with the traditional Republican platform?  

 

And it's interesting that you really believe that there is no common ground to be had.  Most of the public, conservative or otherwise, want affordable healthcare, livable wages, strong employment opportunities, affordable higher education, etc.  Where are the Republican plans for any of this?  Simply inflating the stock market with low interest rates is not sustainable, and most people aren't directly invested in the stock market to begin with and therefore not getting any of the rewards of it.  The stock market isn't the economy, anyway.  So what do you have to offer the people, really?  What problems that affect everyday Americans has Trump really solved or even attempted to solve?

 

Not much has changed?  What you mean is that not much has changed for you personally, because I bet if you asked the many farmers hurt by his tariffs that things have changed, or the trans people banned from the military after serving honorably, or the LGBT being banned from adopting, or the refugees being kicked out, or the minorities seeing a rise in white nationalist violence, or the millions of people who have lost their health insurance they got under the Obama administration, etc.  Just because you're doing fine doesn't mean Trump's policies aren't hurting real people every single day.  But so glad for your self-righteous "win" over Iran.  What'd we get from that, exactly?  And you got some judges who want to force a new Puritan era because you can't get over we don't live in a theocracy yet, so all is good.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, freefourur said:

She took away Donnie's SOTU news cycle.  

 

Like I said...performative, not policy.  Trump is still approving 5 far right judges this week to lifetime appointments (which, admittedly, Nancy can't do much about).

 

Does Trump care about news cycles?  His approval ratings are up to near 3 year highs.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

What exactly are Republican values? 

 

There's only one Republican value:

 

1. Protect the hierarchy

 

Viewed through this lens, conservative behavior makes sense. It's why they are so willing to throw out other 'values' when they they conflict with #1, and none of their followers care in the slightest when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Like I said...performative, not policy.  Trump is still approving 5 far right judges this week to lifetime appointments (which, admittedly, Nancy can't do much about).

 

Does Trump care about news cycles?  His approval ratings are up to near 3 year highs.

I mean, I agree but allowing him to get SOTU coverage would probably boost his approval even more. Democrats need to stop with the high road stuff and start treating Trump like the toddler he is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's interesting to me that Trump allies view his judicial appointments as one of his primary accomplishments.  I understand why.  I mean the judiciary is a primary means to getting your agenda cemented into American culture for lack of a better description.  However, I am genuinely concerned that the rush to fill the vacancies may lead to unqualified and highly partisan judges being taking the bench.  Sure every judge has some partisan leanings as we all do, but it's pretty easy to separate the true jurists who play it by the book and the hacks that weave together opinions that fit their political leanings while ignoring precedent.  

 

If the American people lose faith in our justice system (which we are at an increasing pace) then we are in serious, serious trouble.  The judicial branch of our government might be the only thing holding us together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hootenany said:

It's interesting to me that Trump allies view his judicial appointments as one of his primary accomplishments.  I understand why.  I mean the judiciary is a primary means to getting your agenda cemented into American culture for lack of a better description.  However, I am genuinely concerned that the rush to fill the vacancies may lead to unqualified and highly partisan judges being taking the bench.  Sure every judge has some partisan leanings as we all do, but it's pretty easy to separate the true jurists who play it by the book and the hacks that weave together opinions that fit their political leanings while ignoring precedent.  

 

If the American people lose faith in our justice system (which we are at an increasing pace) then we are in serious, serious trouble.  The judicial branch of our government might be the only thing holding us together.

 

If you pay attention to these nominees, they are, like, 90% white men.  And just about every week the ABA is issuing at least one "unqualified" rating for someone but Republicans don't care.  I remember a clip from (insert year here) when Senator Kennedy (LA-R) was questioning a nominee and seemed uncomfortable to learn he had never tried any case and had never been involved in any case that went to trial, at any level.  He still voted him in lmao.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mu2010 said:

There's only one Republican value:

 

1. Protect the hierarchy

 

Viewed through this lens, conservative behavior makes sense. It's why they are so willing to throw out other 'values' when they they conflict with #1, and none of their followers care in the slightest when that happens.

 

Consolidate power through any means necessary.  You're right.  They don't have principles or values.  Many elected officials now no longer feel shame or care about how their constituents feels about anything.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Consolidate power through any means necessary.  You're right.  They don't have principles or values.  Many elected officials now no longer feel shame or care about how their constituents feels about anything.

 

This is essential for minority rule.   It's only going to get worse in the coming decade as their base shrinks along with the baby boomer generation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only heard the first few minutes of his speech today, but he's already called political opponents "evil" twice.  Not to mention "corrupt", "crooked", "bad", "very bad", etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, your President of the United States.   Leader of the free world.... (NSFW unless volume down) 

 

 

Edited by Cleburger
NSFW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, X said:

I only heard the first few minutes of his speech today, but he's already called political opponents "evil" twice.  Not to mention "corrupt", "crooked", "bad", "very bad", etc.

Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander said he would be chastened by this experience. If only there was some way to know that he wouldn't be. Oh well at least he's nominated "unqualified" judges to the courts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only listened briefly on the radio.  I turned it off after he questioned the faith of both Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi.  That kind of stuff just infuriates me and I don't know why anyone of faith would put up with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hootenany said:

I only listened briefly on the radio.  I turned it off after he questioned the faith of both Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi.  That kind of stuff just infuriates me and I don't know why anyone of faith would put up with it.

He did that at the prayer breakfast too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Another "Trump gets to break any law and do anything he wants without consequences, but everyone else has to be extra nice and play by the rules" hot take.  History actually shows that being nice to a fascist goes very badly in the long run. 

Also, I said nothing about Bernie, and despite some issues with him and his supporters, do not remotely believe he is a threat to democracy in America.  Keep your projections to yourself.

You apparently do not seem to get the point. If you want to play in the mud with Trump, he will always win. If you want to beat Trump, you have to play a different game. If Pelosi channels her inner Trump, she is the one who will come out looking like a fool. Trump has shown time and time again that in a mud fight, he will win. Pelosi getting in a mud fight with Trump puts the attention on him, which he wants and takes it off of the Dem contenders who are trying to get coverage and stay relevant. Win for trump.

 

You may not have said Bernie is going to destroy democracy, and you may even vote for him, but Bernie is a symptom of Trump and more dangerous. Both are problems If you are against Trump, but for Bernie, you are part of the problem. They are one in the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hootenany said:

 

It's interesting to me that Trump allies view his judicial appointments as one of his primary accomplishments.  I understand why.  I mean the judiciary is a primary means to getting your agenda cemented into American culture for lack of a better description.  However, I am genuinely concerned that the rush to fill the vacancies may lead to unqualified and highly partisan judges being taking the bench.  Sure every judge has some partisan leanings as we all do, but it's pretty easy to separate the true jurists who play it by the book and the hacks that weave together opinions that fit their political leanings while ignoring precedent.  

 

If the American people lose faith in our justice system (which we are at an increasing pace) then we are in serious, serious trouble.  The judicial branch of our government might be the only thing holding us together.

 

Both parties run the risk of partisan judicial appointments or elevations.  This is not a uniquely Republican phenomenon.  That said, there are checks and vetting institutions within the conservative legal establishment to push back on merely political patronage appointments, even by the "home team," so to speak.  The Federalist Society is the most prominent but not the only example.  Recall Bush's long-forgotten nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  It was roundly opposed even within conservative circles, and withdrawn relatively promptly.

 

That said, there are less than 200 positions all told in the federal appellate court system (including oddball courts that you seldom think about like the Federal Circuit).  There are less than 700 in the district courts.  The stable of genuine conservative legal talent is considerably broader than that.  And the bench grows, just as the liberal bench does, every year as judges feed ambitious clerks out into the legal ecosystem.

 

  

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

Well said.

 

If such a ridiculously open-ended question counts as such a gotcha, then what are Democratic values?

 

Republican values vary, just as Democratic ones do.  If I were to list off five or ten values that appear largely emblematic of the Republican Party to me, it wouldn't be hard to find dissent and heterodoxy somewhere or other within the party on any one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Recall Bush's long-forgotten nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  It was roundly opposed even within conservative circles, and withdrawn relatively promptly.

 

That was awful the way she was treated, by everyone. So elitist. Just because she wasn't Ivy League she was deemed unqualified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

That was awful the way she was treated, by everyone. So elitist. Just because she wasn't Ivy League she was deemed unqualified. 

 

It was one of those "swamp" nominations that only happened because of her connections to Bush.  She had never been a judge at any level and had no experience in constitutional law.  Opposition to her was bipartisan.

 

But yes, go off about "elitism."


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

It was one of those "swamp" nominations that only happened because of her connections to Bush.  She had never been a judge at any level and had no experience in constitutional law.  Opposition to her was bipartisan.

 

But yes, go off about "elitism."

 

I remember distinctly that was a criticism of her, that she didn't go to Harvard or Yale (and yes, it was bipartisan). Why does everyone on the Supreme Ct. have to have to be from those schools?? Yes, that is elitist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

I remember distinctly that was a criticism of her, that she didn't go to Harvard or Yale (and yes, it was bipartisan). Why does everyone on the Supreme Ct. have to have to be from those schools?? Yes, that is elitist. 

 

That is elitist, yes, but that was not what sank her nomination.  She even flubbed softball questions from Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You apparently do not seem to get the point. If you want to play in the mud with Trump, he will always win. If you want to beat Trump, you have to play a different game. If Pelosi channels her inner Trump, she is the one who will come out looking like a fool. Trump has shown time and time again that in a mud fight, he will win. Pelosi getting in a mud fight with Trump puts the attention on him, which he wants and takes it off of the Dem contenders who are trying to get coverage and stay relevant. Win for trump.

 

You may not have said Bernie is going to destroy democracy, and you may even vote for him, but Bernie is a symptom of Trump and more dangerous. Both are problems If you are against Trump, but for Bernie, you are part of the problem. They are one in the same.

 

I wouldn’t call tearing up a paper the equivalent of what Trump has done the past 4 years.  You’re the one desperate to make that equivalency, presumably to keep assuaging yourself that you’re still on the right team.  

 

I’m really not interested in entertaining the “Bernie is just as bad as Trump” narrative. You can’t support it whatsoever, so it’s a pointless exercise to engage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

If such a ridiculously open-ended question counts as such a gotcha, then what are Democratic values?

 

Republican values vary, just as Democratic ones do.  If I were to list off five or ten values that appear largely emblematic of the Republican Party to me, it wouldn't be hard to find dissent and heterodoxy somewhere or other within the party on any one of them.

 

This is such a cop out and non answer.  You play the “everyone has different views” card, but regularly rail against Democrats and progressives as being of a singular mind.  I asked YOU specifically what you think Republican values are.  I also asked how those obvious contradictions in policy support long-standing traditionally Republican values? If you can’t answer, just say so.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I wouldn’t call tearing up a paper the equivalent of what Trump has done the past 4 years.  You’re the one desperate to make that equivalency, presumably to keep assuaging yourself that you’re still on the right team.  

 

I’m really not interested in entertaining the “Bernie is just as bad as Trump” narrative. You can’t support it whatsoever, so it’s a pointless exercise to engage. 

And I never said tearing up the paper was morally equivalent to putting kids in cages, etc. How you get to that assumption, i have no idea.

 

My sole point about her tearing up the speech had nothing to do with Trump. It was solely that it took the spotlight off others in her party who were actually running for something and it made her the center of attention. By making her the center of attention, it gives more attention to Trump. As mentioned numerous times, she was wrong to tear it up not because it was immoral or wrong, or that Trump is a good president, she was wrong to tear it up because she removed the ability of others in her party to get the message out. Her actions stepped on the Dems narrative. That was the problem. That is a big difference than arguing a moral equivalent. 

 

And yes, Bernie is as bad as Trump. The fact that Bernie has risen with many of the same low information voters that Trump courted shows that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

And I never said tearing up the paper was morally equivalent to putting kids in cages, etc. How you get to that assumption, i have no idea.

 

My sole point about her tearing up the speech had nothing to do with Trump. It was solely that it took the spotlight off others in her party who were actually running for something and it made her the center of attention. By making her the center of attention, it gives more attention to Trump. As mentioned numerous times, she was wrong to tear it up not because it was immoral or wrong, or that Trump is a good president, she was wrong to tear it up because she removed the ability of others in her party to get the message out. Her actions stepped on the Dems narrative. That was the problem. That is a big difference than arguing a moral equivalent. 

 

And yes, Bernie is as bad as Trump. The fact that Bernie has risen with many of the same low information voters that Trump courted shows that fact.

 

If you’re not trying to make the equivalency, what even is the point of saying that Pelosi is getting in the mud with Trump?  You’re making a direct comparison and saying that Democrats shouldn’t go to his level, which means you think she did, in fact go to his level.  Basic logic. 

You say a lot of stuff about the consequences with zero support that it had any such outcome or influence.

Explain, in specific detail, how Bernie and Trump are the same, or that he’s even more dangerous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Explain, in specific detail, how Bernie and Trump are the same, or that he’s even more dangerous.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/sanders-bernie-bros.html

 

Bernie’s Angry Bros

The Sanders online army resembles President Trump’s most ardent supporters in more ways than either side might care to admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Both parties run the risk of partisan judicial appointments or elevations.  This is not a uniquely Republican phenomenon.  That said, there are checks and vetting institutions within the conservative legal establishment to push back on merely political patronage appointments, even by the "home team," so to speak.  The Federalist Society is the most prominent but not the only example.  Recall Bush's long-forgotten nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  It was roundly opposed even within conservative circles, and withdrawn relatively promptly.

 

That said, there are less than 200 positions all told in the federal appellate court system (including oddball courts that you seldom think about like the Federal Circuit).  There are less than 700 in the district courts.  The stable of genuine conservative legal talent is considerably broader than that.  And the bench grows, just as the liberal bench does, every year as judges feed ambitious clerks out into the legal ecosystem.

 

 

How did Sarah Pitlyk get on the bench?  Never tried a case, taken a deposition, or argued a motion, and had no significant trial experience.  Understandably the ABA said she was not qualified for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.  Have the Republican "checks and vetting institutions" run out of "genuine conservative legal talent" with courtroom experience?!?

 

No, she was a clerk for Kavanaugh.

 

"Both parties do it" doesn't make it ok.

 

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

What exactly are Republican values?  They're against abortion, but not for taking care of children after birth.  They want the freedom to be able to say whatever they want under the 1st amendment, but want football players punished for kneeling in silent protest.  They demand respect for the office of president, but cheerlead a president who makes fun of the handicapped and uses social media to make grade school attacks on anyone who opposes him.  They claim to be for the people, but have virtually no policies that directly benefit them.  They say they're for fiscal responsibility, but then rack up record deficits in every modern presidency.  They say they're for free market capitalism, but then accept tariffs, corporate tax cuts, subsidies and threats to manipulate it.  So what the hell are your values?  Forget those on the left not liking the accomplishments... what "accomplishments" does Trump have that are consistent with the traditional Republican platform?  

 

And it's interesting that you really believe that there is no common ground to be had.  Most of the public, conservative or otherwise, want affordable healthcare, livable wages, strong employment opportunities, affordable higher education, etc.  Where are the Republican plans for any of this?  Simply inflating the stock market with low interest rates is not sustainable, and most people aren't directly invested in the stock market to begin with and therefore not getting any of the rewards of it.  The stock market isn't the economy, anyway.  So what do you have to offer the people, really?  What problems that affect everyday Americans has Trump really solved or even attempted to solve?

 

Not much has changed?  What you mean is that not much has changed for you personally, because I bet if you asked the many farmers hurt by his tariffs that things have changed, or the trans people banned from the military after serving honorably, or the LGBT being banned from adopting, or the refugees being kicked out, or the minorities seeing a rise in white nationalist violence, or the millions of people who have lost their health insurance they got under the Obama administration, etc.  Just because you're doing fine doesn't mean Trump's policies aren't hurting real people every single day.  But so glad for your self-righteous "win" over Iran.  What'd we get from that, exactly?  And you got some judges who want to force a new Puritan era because you can't get over we don't live in a theocracy yet, so all is good. 

 

39 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

If such a ridiculously open-ended question counts as such a gotcha, then what are Democratic values?

 

Republican values vary, just as Democratic ones do.  If I were to list off five or ten values that appear largely emblematic of the Republican Party to me, it wouldn't be hard to find dissent and heterodoxy somewhere or other within the party on any one of them.

 

Democratic Party values:  Respect for diversity of opinions.  Regulated markets.  Government support for the less fortunate/poor.  Investment in people, not weapons. The Democratic Party values can be expressed a lot of different ways, but generally, the Democratic Party aims to help minorities, the poor, and disadvantaged first. To Democrats, the government is the people, and we the people need to look out for the less fortunate and less powerful in our community.

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

Are there people who call themselves Democrats who do not fully support the Party platform relevant to these issues?  Yes, but those are still the values of the party and the Democratic Party pushes legislation in favor of those values even when not every Democrat votes in favor of every Democratically-sponsored bill.

 

Republican Party values have traditionally centered on the individual -- individual rights and responsibilities -- the Republican Party aims to stand between the government (other) and the people and protect the people from the government.  Family values (faith, traditional family unit), fiscal responsibility, boundless military spending -- those are Republican values.

 

In saying that Republican values vary, are you saying that fiscal responsibility, for example, is not a Republican Party value but a personal one?  Sort of back to the focus on individual liberty?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

If you’re not trying to make the equivalency, what even is the point of saying that Pelosi is getting in the mud with Trump?  You’re making a direct comparison and saying that Democrats shouldn’t go to his level, which means you think she did, in fact go to his level.  Basic logic. 

You say a lot of stuff about the consequences with zero support that it had any such outcome or influence.

Explain, in specific detail, how Bernie and Trump are the same, or that he’s even more dangerous.  

Bernie is a radical socialist who does not believe in compromise is believes in ruling with a iron fist. He admires countries like Venezuela and will not denounce countries that commit human rights atrocities as long as the ascribe to his socialist vision. He has been like this for over 40 years. He has not changed. Look at his followers. They tend to be the left behinds, those who are anarchists. They are filled with hate and anger. He does not denounce these guys, he does not kick them out of his political team, instead he just tries to reframe the subject and divert attention from them. 

 

Bernie may speak of roses and rainbows and the like, but he is more dangerous than Trump and his potential to damage the Constitution is far worse than what Trump has done to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, freefourur said:
Paging Susan Collins. 

 

She and Portman told us Trump learned his lesson (despite, ya know, ignoring that he made the infamous Ukraine call THE DAY AFTER Mueller's testimony).  I'm sure the reporting is just incorrect.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the state of mind is batsh!t crazy 

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Democratic Party values:  Respect for diversity of opinions.  Regulated markets.  Government support for the less fortunate/poor.  Investment in people, not weapons. The Democratic Party values can be expressed a lot of different ways, but generally, the Democratic Party aims to help minorities, the poor, and disadvantaged first. To Democrats, the government is the people, and we the people need to look out for the less fortunate and less powerful in our community.

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

Are there people who call themselves Democrats who do not fully support the Party platform relevant to these issues?  Yes, but those are still the values of the party and the Democratic Party pushes legislation in favor of those values even when not every Democrat votes in favor of every Democratically-sponsored bill.

 

Republican Party values have traditionally centered on the individual -- individual rights and responsibilities -- the Republican Party aims to stand between the government (other) and the people and protect the people from the government.  Family values (faith, traditional family unit), fiscal responsibility, boundless military spending -- those are Republican values.

 

In saying that Republican values vary, are you saying that fiscal responsibility, for example, is not a Republican Party value but a personal one?  Sort of back to the focus on individual liberty?

 

 

Given where things have come in the past ten years, I'm not sure that I would call fiscal responsibility (at least at the federal level) a Republican Party value anymore, unfortunately.  That's not that I think it's a Democratic Party value, either, but I've unfortunately given up defending it as a Republican Party value, defending attacks from the left on that topic only in the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" sense.

 

Even with respect to your very familiar Republican values, I think that the Republican Party is in a sufficiently significant state of flux.  For example, nationalism is as opposed to individualism as it is to globalism, yet the Republican Party is in a state of barely-veiled civil war regarding nationalism and individualism, held together only by a tacit agreement to make common cause against globalism.  Fault lines have widened in many other orthodoxies, often paralleling that fundamental schism.  Nationalists are far, far more likely than individualists to be skeptical of free trade and a welcoming immigration policy, for example.  Individualists are much more likely to prioritize the traditional low taxes/light regulations creed of the Party.  The factions can agree on issues like abortion, but even that is starting to show signs of being a coincidental convergence (nationalists combine strong opposition to abortion with strong opposition to immigration because they are likely to see the decline in the native birth rate as a collective national failure and the return to positive population growth as a national goal; individualists are more likely to be moved by the simpler, micro-level argument that the life in the womb is an individual entitled to the same protections as a born individual).  So on and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Bernie is a radical socialist who does not believe in compromise is believes in ruling with a iron fist. He admires countries like Venezuela and will not denounce countries that commit human rights atrocities as long as the ascribe to his socialist vision. He has been like this for over 40 years. He has not changed. Look at his followers. They tend to be the left behinds, those who are anarchists. They are filled with hate and anger. He does not denounce these guys, he does not kick them out of his political team, instead he just tries to reframe the subject and divert attention from them. 

 

Bernie may speak of roses and rainbows and the like, but he is more dangerous than Trump and his potential to damage the Constitution is far worse than what Trump has done to date.

 

That's a lie.

Quote

"Let me be very clear: Anybody who does what Maduro does is a vicious tyrant,"

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-distances-himself-from-venezuela-president-nicolas-maduro-when-pressed-on-socialism-at-debate/

 

Bernie claims to follow the DEMOCRATIC socialist countries like Sweden and Norway (and to a lesser degree Germany and France).  Democratic socialism does not advocate for government ownership of private businesses or regulation of how many shoes the economy produces.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/sanders-bernie-bros.html

 

Bernie’s Angry Bros

The Sanders online army resembles President Trump’s most ardent supporters in more ways than either side might care to admit.

 

I asked how Bernie is as bad as Trump. If you'd like to get into a comparison of supporters, you're free to start that discussion.  I am asking about the candidates, their behavior and policies. I didn't realize basic reading comprehension would be this difficult.  

 

Also, I'm waiting for your personal list of what you think Trump's accomplishments are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Bernie is a radical socialist who does not believe in compromise is believes in ruling with a iron fist. He admires countries like Venezuela and will not denounce countries that commit human rights atrocities as long as the ascribe to his socialist vision. He has been like this for over 40 years. He has not changed. Look at his followers. They tend to be the left behinds, those who are anarchists. They are filled with hate and anger. He does not denounce these guys, he does not kick them out of his political team, instead he just tries to reframe the subject and divert attention from them. 

 

Bernie may speak of roses and rainbows and the like, but he is more dangerous than Trump and his potential to damage the Constitution is far worse than what Trump has done to date.

 

Yeah... I'm going to need some citations about exactly what his policy proposals are that you object to and why. I asked for specifics and you're giving me talking points.  Furthermore, you're going to have to explain how such policies would be a direct danger to American democracy, the Constitution or its cultural foundations in a similar way to Trump's.

I would also like to know how you square your knee-jerk opposition to socialism when America has long embraced it in plenty of aspects of current government and society.  Or do you really not understand how police and fire departments get money, among other things?  

This is also the 2nd time one of you has mentioned Bernie's supporters.  Again, this is not a discussion on supporters of either candidate.  I shouldn't have to work this hard to get some pretty basic answers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, X said:

OK, this thread is about Trump, not Bernie.

 

If someone wants to move this discussion to the other thread, that would be okay.  It's not like I'm going to get serious answers, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...