Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

(04-18-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.

I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding  from all kinds of wealthy   people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most  Democrat's these days.

You got that reversed. It's well known Republicans are dependent on the wealthy people. Democrats get funds mostly from small donors now. Sanders set the trend. And tax dollars don't go to political campaigns yet. The Republicans are scared to death of financial disruption. That's why they oppose measures for fairer taxation, action on climate change, reforms to reduce power of corporations and billionaires, etc. Republicans fear that the trickle down will stop flowing, making the natives restless.

[Eric the Green]

(04-17-2019, 05:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-16-2019, 05:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Is the Starbuck's dude the one? He's the best one I've seen so far. How is Beto doing? I see he finally figured out the fact he was born a privileged white male despite feeling like an Hispanic.

Schultz is out, for all practical purposes.  Beto is more theater than candidate.  I doubt we know who is viable this early, but, then again, no one saw Trump coming in 2015 either.  Check back in the Fall, when the people running for a cabinet post are ready to cash it in, and the field narrows.

It's better to reject all these wannabees now. Forget them! We'll have 3 geezers running for president, and that will narrow down to two in the Summer of 2020. 

None of the others have a snowball's chance in hell. There is no-one "we don't see coming" this year. That's righto about Beto, and Pete is pretty but weak, Gillibrand is a firebrand, Booker is cooked, Tulsi is falsi, Warren is forelorn, Yang has no bang, Hicken will sicken, Gravel is soon in the grave, Weld will be held, Swalwell will not swell, Castro will be cast out, Inslee is out-ly, Messam is measely, Klobuchar will be closed and charred, Harris is where-is, Delaney ain't got any, Williamson has no sun, Ryan is no lion, and Schultz is shorn.

[Eric the Green]

Trump will try to run against a label. "We don't want socialism!" he cries. But Sanders will say that he is not a label. He articulates proposals and principles, comes across straight and honest, works well with others, and is not as scary as his opponents say. He's the great white-haired hope.

Biden could win too. But I prefer someone with actual ideas and solutions that challenge entrenched power to someone who says all we need is to be nice. Sanders is not young, but he's the only viable candidate who speaks to the young.

[pbrower2a]

(04-19-2019, 03:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 01:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, this is what this thread is really about. The British put historical markers at sites of historical events such as "Here, Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species", "Here was born  General Bernard Montgomery", Here, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin", or "Here the Beatles first held a concert".

Trump supporters don't seem to be  the sorts who do much foreign travel as such would violate their ideas of comfort with the familiar. But if they did they would not like to see this marker:

I'd prefer to purchase a really nice boat or some property than sacrifice/spend the same amount of money on a trip/some trips to Europe. Now, you can spend several thousands of dollars to see that stuff if you want and several thousands more seeing other places abroad as well. I don't care what you do with your money or what you'd prefer to spend it on and so forth.

But here's the deal, if you spend your money on traveling abroad and run into financial  issues down the road don't cry to me and blame the world for your financial or   blame the Republicans because that's what poor people have been taught to do by liberals for many years because all you have to show for it are some neat/cool pictures and knowledge or emotional stimulation  gained by seeing whatever stuff that  you were mainly interested in seeing that may not be viewed  much of value to anyone else.

You lack a sense of humor. I am lucky for now to be able to take a 150-mile round trip, as broke as I now am. I am probably 20 years away from a different sort of trip, but that is one way, and from one of those places from which people get no correspondence except perhaps in seances or dreams -- neither of which I trust.

All that I envy about the rich, aside from economic security (and if the common man ever got that he would have the freedom to say no to his economic exploitation and mean it, so that is impossible under our economic rules in which 95% of the people suffer for 2%), is foreign travel. Mansions, sports cars, overpriced motorcars, jewelry? I have the prospect of having to relocate for the most lucrative work that I have ever done, and to make the move economical I have decided what goes with me and what doesn't. The car, and some reasonably-good clothes? Sure. My CD and most of my video collection. Sure. Some books? Yup. A few souvenirs from interesting times in life? Yes.

I expect to abandon most other stuff at Goodwill or Salvation Army and replace it at another Goodwill or Salvation Army. That is one way to keep moving costs in line. About everything I have is 20 years old or older. That happens when one is not an early-adopter, which is one way to save money.

I would be in a place with plenty of nearby cultural attractions (it is southeastern Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia) in such places as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and, should I handle my money well, NEW YORK CITY! I trade off the attractions around Chicago, Detroit, Toledo, Indianapolis, and Grand Rapids...

Experiences matter far more than things, fellow.

I would not make a side trip to see that unofficial plaque. On the other hand, I would love to see the historical sights associated with Shakespeare, J S Bach, Michelangelo, etc. The Swiss and Austrian Alps? Wunderbar! 

Your life would be far richer with complete sets of Beethoven and Shostakovich string quartets available together for less than $100. Less expensive than a couple hours playing slots, or three pints of rotgut whisky, n'est-ce-pas?



My sets:

[David Horn]

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization. Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical. To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-19-2019, 12:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Quote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

The current right-wing elite prefers that liberalism become irrelevant so that Americans can accept that the only way in which to survive is to defer to the all-powerful elites of ownership and management. Such people are closer to the sorts of aristocratic elites who dominated political life in much of central Europe before World War II than to what I would consider conservatives -- and they were the backers of local fascists who destroyed democracy.

The current right wing elite prefer that we remain independent and capable of fending for ourselves for the most part and prefers that we require minimal support from government and themselves. The right wing elite aren't interested in having a liberal government for obvious reasons. The right wing voters aren't interested in having a liberal government for obvious reasons. The current left wing elite and their supporters prefer the opposite. You see, a blue society who is reliant upon government that is reliant upon the rich is essentially controlled by the rich unless the government empowers itself and becomes a police state and seals it's borders and makes it virtually impossible to leave freely or escape.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-19-2019, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'll blame all poverty on you, Classic Xer!

I don't blame you for sticking to what works for liberals and the liberal Democrats in Washington these days. If I were a so called liberal, I'd be doing it too.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-19-2019, 03:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.

I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding  from all kinds of wealthy   people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most  Democrat's these days.

You got that reversed. It's well known Republicans are dependent on the wealthy people. Democrats get funds mostly from small donors now. Sanders set the trend. And tax dollars don't go to political campaigns yet. The Republicans are scared to death of financial disruption. That's why they oppose measures for fairer taxation, action on climate change, reforms to reduce power of corporations and billionaires, etc. Republicans fear that the trickle down will stop flowing, making the natives restless.

I'm not dependent upon a wealthy person. I don't know a Republican voter who is dependent on or is at all interested in becoming dependent upon a wealthy person or wealthier people in general. Sanders pulled the pulled the Democratic party to the left. I suspect that you're mainly seeing small donors these days as a result. The Republicans are only scared of large scale financial destruction. We've been through many small scale financial disruptions and there is no reason to be scared about them.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 05:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization.  Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical.  To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

Oh yes definitely both have people who do not want to listen as I have had extremely toxic lefties call me racist and blocked me when missing my point on a certain topic which left me completely confused, and on the other hand I have actually had right wingers who were losing their shit calling me a communist who is wishing to see America burn, that I hate America and they also blocked me, oh and some very religious right wingers too who were rather unhappy to the point they blocked. Its ok, I get it. They need inner peace. I don't hold anything against them for it. Kind of like Eric actually. He too needs inner peace and doesn't like to be told what he does not agree with. There can be problems of creating bubbles this way and lack of communication. But I get it all the same. But to say its all rather one sided is short sighted of xer to say this when the cognitive dissonance runs on both sides of the coin in his country as is true in most countries.

Listening is one thing. Agreeing with and accepting what you've been told, heard or read is another thing. I've been accused of not listening for not agreeing. I've been accused of racism for not agreeing, I've been accused of being evil for not agreeing. It's childish but it happens a lot as you may have heard or read yourself. In America, the left and right actually know each other pretty well these days. Lots of video cameras and lots of forums like these and lots of information available to read and so forth.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2019, 03:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 05:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization.  Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical.  To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

Oh yes definitely both have people who do not want to listen as I have had extremely toxic lefties call me racist and blocked me when missing my point on a certain topic which left me completely confused, and on the other hand I have actually had right wingers who were losing their shit calling me a communist who is wishing to see America burn, that I hate America and they also blocked me, oh and some very religious right wingers too who were rather unhappy to the point they blocked. Its ok, I get it. They need inner peace. I don't hold anything against them for it. Kind of like Eric actually. He too needs inner peace and doesn't like to be told what he does not agree with. There can be problems of creating bubbles this way and lack of communication. But I get it all the same. But to say its all rather one sided is short sighted of xer to say this when the cognitive dissonance runs on both sides of the coin in his country as is true in most countries.

Listening is one thing. Agreeing with and accepting what you've been told, heard or read is another thing. I've been accused of not listening for not agreeing. I've been accused of racism for not agreeing, I've been accused of being evil for not agreeing. It's childish but it happens a lot as you may have heard or read yourself. In America, the left and right actually know each other pretty well these days. Lots of video cameras and lots of forums like these and lots of information available to read and so forth.

Generally, people do not engage outside of their bubble today. You can on this forum sometimes. But even when the left and right engage each other, they rarely are able to learn from the other's point of view. Written comments on social media do not usually penetrate to the level of values and ideology. It takes direct and emotionally-touching experiences to shift political opinions. Maybe among scientists or scholars such verbal dialogues can shift opinions on facts and logic. But most people are not part of those select communities. The right does not appear interested in what scientists say either. So no, I don't think the left and right understand each other very well today. Naturally, I think the left understands the right more than vice-versa, but neither side is very adept at this, generally-speaking today, in my opinion.

I never block or resent someone for expressing a different opinion from mine, even if my arguments might get sharp at times. I block people sometimes for other reasons. I prefer participating in forums where opinions differ.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2019, 01:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 03:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.

I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding  from all kinds of wealthy   people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most  Democrat's these days.

You got that reversed. It's well known Republicans are dependent on the wealthy people. Democrats get funds mostly from small donors now. Sanders set the trend. And tax dollars don't go to political campaigns yet. The Republicans are scared to death of financial disruption. That's why they oppose measures for fairer taxation, action on climate change, reforms to reduce power of corporations and billionaires, etc. Republicans fear that the trickle down will stop flowing, making the natives restless.

I'm not dependent upon a wealthy person. I don't know a Republican voter who is dependent on or is at all interested in becoming dependent upon a wealthy person or wealthier people in general. Sanders pulled the pulled the Democratic party to the left. I suspect that you're mainly seeing small donors these days as a result. The Republicans are only scared of large scale financial destruction. We've been through many small scale financial disruptions and there is no reason to be scared about them.

Here's an example where communication is difficult. In this case I could have been clearer about what I was referring to, although I guess I thought that was understood. Here I was referring to Republican politicians, since Classic Xer was discussing campaigns and tax dollars given to candidates and politicians. But he replies that he and other Republican voters he knows are not dependent on wealthy people. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians are more dependent on wealthy donors than Democratic ones are. And that's because Republican politicians serve the interests of the wealthy. That's their purpose and their policy.

Sanders was practicing what he preached: that candidates should not be dependent on wealthy donors, and he did well enough that this way of raising money is now being practiced by more Democrats who want the votes of those who don't think wealthy donors should run our politics. 

I agree Republicans and people in general are more scared of large scale financial destruction than small scale ones. It is true however that small ones also do affect elections. And the large disruptions, such as the Great Depression and Great Recession, are usually caused by Republican and Democrat-lite trickle-down economics policies, historically speaking. The economic cycle in general may also hinge on many various factors besides that, however.

[pbrower2a]

(04-19-2019, 05:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization.  Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Indeed, dishonest and biased reporting is rare. Such is suicidal for one's career. I'm guessing that most people are in journalism out of love for getting stories. Faking or plagiarizing stories is a good way of finding a new career -- perhaps washing dishes in a diner.

Quote:

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical.  To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

Some deeds do not merit tolerance. Saddam Hussein exemplified much that I found intolerable, beginning with gassing the Kurds. "Nothing wrong with him that a well-tied rope and a seven-foot drop wouldn't solve!", I said.

[pbrower2a]

[pbrower2a]

Just a reminder:

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 12:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's an example where communication is difficult. In this case I could have been clearer about what I was referring to, although I guess I thought that was understood. Here I was referring to Republican politicians, since Classic Xer was discussing campaigns and tax dollars given to candidates and politicians. But he replies that he and other Republican voters he knows are not dependent on wealthy people. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians are more dependent on wealthy donors than Democratic ones are. And that's because Republican politicians serve the interests of the wealthy. That's their purpose and their policy.

Sanders was practicing what he preached: that candidates should not be dependent on wealthy donors, and he did well enough that this way of raising money is now being practiced by more Democrats who want the votes of those who don't think wealthy donors should run our politics. 

I agree Republicans and people in general are more scared of large scale financial destruction than small scale ones. It is true however that small ones also do affect elections. And the large disruptions, such as the Great Depression and Great Recession, are usually caused by Republican and Democrat-lite trickle-down economics policies, historically speaking. The economic cycle in general may also hinge on many various factors beside that, however.

We aren't reliant upon wealthy people or the bulk of the services provided by liberal government (like healthcare, housing, welfare, jobs and so forth) for that matter. The bulk of us are private sector people who work and make our livings in the private sector economy. The bulk of us aren't paid politicians or paid political operatives or paid public sector employees or welfare recipients or paid non profit business owners like yourself who are affiliated with political or social movements or one of their paid employee's either. What separates us from the much smaller countries that liberals often refer to as countries they wish or believe that we should be more like don't have a private sector like ours that's constantly working for us and providing stuff for us and solving problems and finding cures/solutions for issues and making advancements that improve our lives and so forth.

As far as wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups having influence over politicians and their ability to make good decisions, I can see it more likely to occur and go unchallenged or be ignored by the liberal side. You see, the liberal voters tend to need or believe they need or believe they deserve to receive or feel that their entitled to receive than the conservative side, The conservative side has fewer needs that must be supported and fewer needs that must be addressed and fewer needs that must be taken into account with their decision making and fewer issues to address as well. Hitler's conquest of western Europe went very well until he was facing a group of staunch conservatives.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 02:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Just a reminder:

I'm not aware of anyone associated with the Trump Campaign who was associated with the murder or death of US citizens. The blue narrative seems to be that illegal immigrants aren't dangerous people that American citizens shouldn't care and shouldn't have the right to bitch about being here. My response, Fuck YOU LIBERAL. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND THE RIGHT TO SHOOT CRIMINALS. THE TRUTH IS THAT EVERYONE WHO COMES IN ILLEGALLY WILLINGLY BROKE THE LAW WHEN DOING IT AND EVERYONE WHO ARE TRYING TO GAIN ENTRANCE UNDER FALSE PRETENSE ARE WILLING to BREAK THE LAW TOO. Now, I hope for your sake, Bluish Americans don't begin to feel compelled to intervene on their own behalf and become more radical in their treatment of illegal immigrants than what they are or seem to be are today. Gee, the blues who run California and the blue cities who run large cites might find all of themselves dealing with internal civil wars.

[Eric the Green]

You don't have the right to shoot criminals, and if you do that, then you may a criminal too and thus lose your right to bear arms.

Undocumented immigrants do have a lower crime rate than associates of Donald J Trump, although, as one senator said during the Watergate hearings, I "don't think it could include murder."

I was thinking, maybe we could turn this thread into "Let's Make fun of Classic Xer, bash him, etc., while we can!" Just kidding dude. I'm glad you're here, and carry on.

Reference of quote:
SENATOR TALMADGE: Now, if the President could authorize a covert break‐in [of Dr. Ellsberg' psychiatrist's office] and you do not know exactly what that power would be limited, you do not think it could include murder or other crimes beyond covert break‐ins, do you?

MR. EHRLICHMAN: I do not know where the line is, Senator.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/26/archi...ee-on.html

https://youtu.be/IfXPcQroX1U?t=714

It is at least warranted to speculate if Mr. Trump and his associates might be as unsure of where the line is, as Mr. Nixon and his associates were.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-19-2019, 03:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump will try to run against a label. "We don't want socialism!" he cries. But Sanders will say that he is not a label. He articulates proposals and principles, comes across straight and honest, works well with others, and is not as scary as his opponents say. He's the great white-haired hope.

Biden could win too. But I prefer someone with actual ideas and solutions that challenge entrenched power to someone who says all we need is to be nice. Sanders is not young, but he's the only viable candidate who speaks to the young.

Unfortunately, it's a label that fits.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2019, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's an example where communication is difficult. In this case I could have been clearer about what I was referring to, although I guess I thought that was understood. Here I was referring to Republican politicians, since Classic Xer was discussing campaigns and tax dollars given to candidates and politicians. But he replies that he and other Republican voters he knows are not dependent on wealthy people. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians are more dependent on wealthy donors than Democratic ones are. And that's because Republican politicians serve the interests of the wealthy. That's their purpose and their policy.

Sanders was practicing what he preached: that candidates should not be dependent on wealthy donors, and he did well enough that this way of raising money is now being practiced by more Democrats who want the votes of those who don't think wealthy donors should run our politics. 

I agree Republicans and people in general are more scared of large scale financial destruction than small scale ones. It is true however that small ones also do affect elections. And the large disruptions, such as the Great Depression and Great Recession, are usually caused by Republican and Democrat-lite trickle-down economics policies, historically speaking. The economic cycle in general may also hinge on many various factors beside that, however.

We aren't reliant upon wealthy people or the bulk of the services provided by liberal government (like healthcare, housing, welfare, jobs and so forth) for that matter. The bulk of us are private sector people who work and make our livings in the private sector economy. The bulk of us aren't paid politicians or paid political operatives or paid public sector employees or welfare recipients or paid non profit business owners like yourself who are affiliated with political or social movements or one of their paid employee's either. What separates us from the much smaller countries that liberals often refer to as countries they wish or believe that we should be more like don't have a private sector like ours that's constantly working for us and providing stuff for us and solving problems and finding cures/solutions for issues and making advancements that improve our lives and so forth.

As far as wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups having influence over politicians and their ability to make good decisions, I can see it more likely to occur and go unchallenged or be ignored by the liberal side. You see, the liberal voters tend to need or believe they need or believe they deserve to receive or feel that their entitled to receive  than the conservative side, The conservative side has fewer needs that must be supported and fewer needs that must be addressed and fewer needs that must be taken into account with their decision making and fewer issues to address as well. Hitler's conquest of western Europe went very well until he was facing a group of  staunch conservatives.

Well, I think the smaller countries that we liberals and democratic socialists or greenies want to be more like (which have to some extent united into a "country" larger than the USA, in other words, the European Union), do a much better job of providing for peoples' needs and solving problems than the USA does. That's because they are mixed private/public economies, and don't live under a Reaganomics regime that allows the wealthy leaders of this private sector in the USA to pollute, export jobs, make lousy products, pay low wages, etc., if they want to.

Some liberals believe that they themselves or that others need services from the government. But the government is not the same as "wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups." The most wealthy and powerful people in these groups support the Republican Party, because they know it looks out for their interests, lowers their taxes and regulations, hampers unions, gives them subsidies and provides their paid lobbyists with all the attention they want so they can gain favors and be appointed to positions of power by Republican presidents like Trump, and provides them the ability to acquire and spend all the campaign spending money they want so they can buy elections.

Well, I guess you could call Churchill a conservative, but not a Trump-like one. And I don't think you could call FDR a conservative, because he brought in all these "socialist" programs you don't like. General Eisenhower later ran for president as a Republican, but by today's standards, as brower points out, he might be a Democrat today like Barack Obama. On the other front, Hitler faced his staunchest resistance of the war from Soviet communists, who certainly affected what he was able to do in The West, and were supported by The West. So I'm not sure your attribution of who Hitler faced is accurate, ha ha.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 06:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You don't have the right to shoot criminals, and if you do that, then you may a criminal too and thus lose your right to bear arms.

Undocumented immigrants do have a lower crime rate than associates of Donald J Trump, although, as one senator said during the Watergate hearings, I "don't think it could include murder."

I was thinking, maybe we could turn this thread into "Let's Make fun of Classic Xer, bash him, etc., while we can!" Just kidding dude. I'm glad you're here, and carry on.

Reference of quote:
SENATOR TALMADGE: Now, if the President could authorize a covert break‐in [of Dr. Ellsberg' psychiatrist's office] and you do not know exactly what that power would be limited, you do not think it could include murder or other crimes beyond covert break‐ins, do you?

MR. EHRLICHMAN: I do not know where the line is, Senator.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/26/archi...ee-on.html

Do you think I'd care or feel hurt if you did it? We don't actually how many crimes the undocumented, as you say, are involved with or commit these days. As far as I know, no one is in charge of keeping track of the undocumented these days. All we know is how many crimes that have been committed by illegal immigrants who have been apprehended by police and/or released due to liberal policies and the substantial reduction in crime that occurs when illegal immigration is addressed.