(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid   and openly defy/ go against   conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer   cable networks for a bargain price.

(10-30-2019, 08:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: On something less political, I was shocked to find back in the 1980's, the typical customer of the traditional department store was 59 years old. Unless one has a product or service whose utility is largely limited to people already old (let us say nursing homes) one cannot maintain profitability unless getting a younger generation of customers.

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

1. According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak.
   
2. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says.
   
3. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid and openly defy/ go against conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible.
   
4. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer cable networks for a bargain price.
   

1. Trump never expected to win in the first place.  He planned to start Trump Network all a long.  That he won instead is the primary reason he's so extreme in his narcissism.  But let's get this straight, he rates everything in monetary terms, and his Presidency isn't getting it done for him.
   
2. How on God's green earth can Obama be Nixon?  He had a blemish-free 8 years.
   
3. Whose conventional wisdom are you citing here?  Standard run-of-the-mill conventional wisdom or your own?
   
4. Are you arguing that Fox will crash, or is it CNN or MSNBC?  Personally, I doubt that Facebook will be the preferred source for much longer, since Zuckerberg is working overtime to make them the Lying Network -- by his own admission.
   

(10-30-2019, 08:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid   and openly defy/ go against   conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer   cable networks for a bargain price.

1. He is still making deals to establish profitable operations with the aid of his office. "With the aid of office" is what is different. He is using the Presidency to enhance the value of his brand which is identical with his ego. Trump has the delusion that he can make a killing off his deals in the near future, although I expect him to be in no position in which to enjoy such.

2. His ideology is corporatism -- the idea that government melds with Big Business, both getting bigger at the expense of the little guy. What Dubya did as a big-government right-winger with comparative baby steps, Trump does with (pardon the metaphor) great leaps forward. Competition vanishes among the elites but becomes increasingly intense among the common man, who is expected to make bigger sacrifices as a worker or consumer. There are legitimate purposes for government intervention in the economy: to mitigate disputes, to aid the unfortunate and helpless, and to do what the private sector either cannot do or cannot do equitably.  

3. Nixon had his dark character; Obama is by contrast about as sunny a character as there is. Note well: there are right-wing media, and they were looking to poke holes in the Obama persona. They would have loved to expose a sex scandal or shady dealings. They would have been delighted to expose some emotional blow-up. Obama gave them nothing. Conservatives would have been wise to recognize that apart from ideology he was a good model of how a conservative President conducts himself. 

Trump has sought to disparage Obama at every turn. Pardon my repetition, but the next effective President from the conservative side of the political spectrum will behave much like Barack Obama.  If you want an idea of what that will look like, then think of another mature Reactive, who falls short of the epochal leader of the type of a Lincoln or FDR, but in a 1T a sixtyish Reactive is exactly what fits the mood if free of rancor. Try Dwight Eisenhower. Obama was that sort of leader when around fifty. 

4. Conventional wisdom? Many of us liberals consider history relevant beyond the pornography of fascism, Bolshevism and insane despotism. Most of us recognize who Caligula, Nero, and Commodus were and how relevant they are for judging leaders who entertain the masses with spectacles while bleeding the treasury. OK, at least our gladiatorial games (boxing, pro wrestling, and American football) and chariot races (auto racing) are less bloody than those depicted in [i]Gladiator[/i] and Ben Hur  and don't involve feeding Christians to the lions as in Quo Vadis? (which might involve a literal shark tank) -- and are strictly private in funding.  

Much of what many people consider conventional wisdom is their own vile tendencies and desires. Remember well: blunders must first seduce. Donald Trump goes beyind seduction: he is addicted.

5. Will it be CBS/Viacom/Paramount or Disney-ABC that ends up buying out FoX Propaganda Channel when it is discredited, and its technical infrastructure is available at fire-sale prices? Time-Warner already has CNN, and NBC already has CNBC and MSNBC.  I can see CBS/Viacom/Paramount introducing the new channel with what becomes a filler in "News as History" and with news with legitimate educational value for children (I/E content). Maybe CBS or ABC finds a way to collaborate with NPR news which is limited in its paucity of images. Credibility is everything in long-term success in news except when the news fits a popular agenda. FoX Propaganda Network has an aging, unsophisticated audience that is aging into oblivion. 

On something less political, I was shocked to find back in the 1980's, the typical customer of the traditional department store was 59 years old. Unless one has a product or service whose utility is largely limited to people already old (let us say nursing homes) one cannot maintain profitability unless getting a younger generation of customers. Knowing this, are you surprised that Montgomery-Ward is no more, along with many old-fashioned regional department stores, and that Sears is dying?  Target, Meijer (it will likely expand into Minnesota within ten years about as it gets into the Nashville, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis areas), Kohl's, and Wal*Mart survive by treating dry goods as if groceries.

(10-30-2019, 01:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 08:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid   and openly defy/ go against   conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer   cable networks for a bargain price.

1. He is still making deals to establish profitable operations with the aid of his office. "With the aid of office" is what is different. He is using the Presidency to enhance the value of his brand which is identical with his ego. Trump has the delusion that he can make a killing off his deals in the near future, although I expect him to be in no position in which to enjoy such.

2. His ideology is corporatism -- the idea that government melds with Big Business, both getting bigger at the expense of the little guy. What Dubya did as a big-government right-winger with comparative baby steps, Trump does with (pardon the metaphor) great leaps forward. Competition vanishes among the elites but becomes increasingly intense among the common man, who is expected to make bigger sacrifices as a worker or consumer. There are legitimate purposes for government intervention in the economy: to mitigate disputes, to aid the unfortunate and helpless, and to do what the private sector either cannot do or cannot do equitably.  

3. Nixon had his dark character; Obama is by contrast about as sunny a character as there is. Note well: there are right-wing media, and they were looking to poke holes in the Obama persona. They would have loved to expose a sex scandal or shady dealings. They would have been delighted to expose some emotional blow-up. Obama gave them nothing. Conservatives would have been wise to recognize that apart from ideology he was a good model of how a conservative President conducts himself. 

Trump has sought to disparage Obama at every turn. Pardon my repetition, but the next effective President from the conservative side of the political spectrum will behave much like Barack Obama.  If you want an idea of what that will look like, then think of another mature Reactive, who falls short of the epochal leader of the type of a Lincoln or FDR, but in a 1T a sixtyish Reactive is exactly what fits the mood if free of rancor. Try Dwight Eisenhower. Obama was that sort of leader when around fifty. 

4. Conventional wisdom? Many of us liberals consider history relevant beyond the pornography of fascism, Bolshevism and insane despotism. Most of us recognize who Caligula, Nero, and Commodus were and how relevant they are for judging leaders who entertain the masses with spectacles while bleeding the treasury. OK, at least our gladiatorial games (boxing, pro wrestling, and American football) and chariot races (auto racing) are less bloody than those depicted in [i]Gladiator[/i] and Ben Hur  and don't involve feeding Christians to the lions as in Quo Vadis? (which might involve a literal shark tank) -- and are strictly private in funding.  

Much of what many people consider conventional wisdom is their own vile tendencies and desires. Remember well: blunders must first seduce. Donald Trump goes beyind seduction: he is addicted.

5. Will it be CBS/Viacom/Paramount or Disney-ABC that ends up buying out FoX Propaganda Channel when it is discredited, and its technical infrastructure is available at fire-sale prices? Time-Warner already has CNN, and NBC already has CNBC and MSNBC.  I can see CBS/Viacom/Paramount introducing the new channel with what becomes a filler in "News as History" and with news with legitimate educational value for children (I/E content). Maybe CBS or ABC finds a way to collaborate with NPR news which is limited in its paucity of images. Credibility is everything in long-term success in news except when the news fits a popular agenda. FoX Propaganda Network has an aging, unsophisticated audience that is aging into oblivion. 

On something less political, I was shocked to find back in the 1980's, the typical customer of the traditional department store was 59 years old. Unless one has a product or service whose utility is largely limited to people already old (let us say nursing homes) one cannot maintain profitability unless getting a younger generation of customers. Knowing this, are you surprised that Montgomery-Ward is no more, along with many old-fashioned regional department stores, and that Sears is dying?  Target, Meijer (it will likely expand into Minnesota within ten years about as it gets into the Nashville, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis areas), Kohl's, and Wal*Mart survive by treating dry goods as if groceries.

Yes, he's actively involved with some American trade deals with some foreign country's right now. However, I don't believe he has much time or much need to dabble in business related to him personally or much need to do what Biden may have actually done as far as using his position to pull some strings, open some doors, eliminate/end investigations and financially set up his kid for the rest of his life before he leaves politics or checks out so to speak. I'm pretty sure the Trump kids are very capable of running the company they've been involved with running for many years and dabbling on their own with other business without relying upon their father at this point in their lives. Yes, his obvious lack of a cozy blue attitude/temperament that is often fake. If you were able to read body language and weren't emotionally connected to Obama and liberal movements that pertain to you personally, you'd be able to see Obama and the Democrat's for what they are vs what they should be according to the propaganda you've been fed and the propaganda you've been feeding others for years. BTW, most reddish folk don't take the time to show you their actual capabilities in advance like I've been doing for years when business schedules permit. So, how many blue plutocrats have been eliminated for doing what those who claimed to believe and claimed to support shouldn't have been doing had they truly believed in what they were being paid to sell to the American public. Dude, what we are seeing today has become so obvious it's comical at this point.

(10-30-2019, 11:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

1. According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak.
   
2. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says.
   
3. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid and openly defy/ go against conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible.
   
4. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer cable networks for a bargain price.
   

Answering your points in order:

1. Trump never expected to win in the first place.  He planned to start Trump Network all a long.  That he won instead is the primary reason he's so extreme in his narcissism.  But let's get this straight, he rates everything in monetary terms, and his Presidency isn't getting it done for him.
   
2. How on God's green earth can Obama be Nixon?  He had a blemish-free 8 years.
   
3. Whose conventional wisdom are you citing here?  Standard run-of-the-mill conventional wisdom or your own?
   
4. Are you arguing that Fox will crash, or is it CNN or MSNBC?  Personally, I doubt that Facebook will be the preferred source for much longer, since Zuckerberg is working overtime to make them the Lying Network -- by his own admission.
   

(10-31-2019, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 11:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

1. According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak.
   
2. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says.
   
3. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid and openly defy/ go against conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible.
   
4. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer cable networks for a bargain price.
   

Answering your points in order:

1. Trump never expected to win in the first place.  He planned to start Trump Network all a long.  That he won instead is the primary reason he's so extreme in his narcissism.  But let's get this straight, he rates everything in monetary terms, and his Presidency isn't getting it done for him.
   
2. How on God's green earth can Obama be Nixon?  He had a blemish-free 8 years.
   
3. Whose conventional wisdom are you citing here?  Standard run-of-the-mill conventional wisdom or your own?
   
4. Are you arguing that Fox will crash, or is it CNN or MSNBC?  Personally, I doubt that Facebook will be the preferred source for much longer, since Zuckerberg is working overtime to make them the Lying Network -- by his own admission.
   

!. What you say about Trumps original intentions and his expectations doesn't (jibe) with what I saw him do and the relentless approach that he took towards winning the election back in 2016. I'm sorry but a candidate who isn't all that interested in winning because they are more interested in accomplishing or achieving some other goal for themselves doesn't start the process of directly engaging and eliminating the competition from top to bottom like he did during the Republican primary in 2016. You should be familiar with this, I accomplished a similar task using a similar style and approach as him. Also, Trump could have started the Trump Network without running for President if that was all that he was truly more interested in accomplishing that during his lifetime. Trump is practical minded. A practical minded person wouldn't drop everything and go all in when they know their the underdog and the odds of winning aren't in their favor. An idealistic minded person would ignore reality and ignore the odds and continue preaching and continue following their faith in destiny like Obama.

Quote:2. Are you aware of the more serious criminal investigation that been going on behind the scenes for a while now? I assume you most likely are aware of an investigation that liberal news has been portraying as a sinister plot and portraying Anthony Bahr the evil henchmen who's taken care of business for his evil boss Donald Trump. Maybe not, you may be more interested in the liberal investigation into Donald Trump that's trying to find enough legal grounds for impeachment that's been going on instead. What did Nixon do that got him in so much trouble? I know what he did and what he did is very similar to what may have happened to Donald Trump. I must say the initial evidence was pretty overwhelming considering it was just a portion of evidence that Fox and some talented individuals were able to obtain and piece together on their own.

Quote:3. It's a blend of average run of the mill and the additional that I have gained over many years.

Quote:4. No, I don't think Fox will crash and be purchased by it's liberal competitors. I think it's more likely that the big three and their cable channels will be sold or dumped by their owners because of liabilities relating to owning them. If what you said about Trump has some truth to it, Trump will most likely end up purchasing the best of the litter after he leaves office.

(10-31-2019, 12:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-31-2019, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 11:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-30-2019, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.

1. According to you, he's making all kinds of money off being President. I don't think he's making nearly as much as he did while in business. Now, according to you, he's not making money like he expected going in so to speak.
   
2. Won't you be surprised if Obama turns out to be the modern Nixon today as you says.
   
3. One thing I've learned about the liberals over the years is liberals/Progressives/blues tend to ignore, try to avoid and openly defy/ go against conventional wisdom as much as humanly possible.
   
4. How much is a fake news channel going to be worth in six years? I bet he'll be able to purchase the old TV networks  and all their newer cable networks for a bargain price.
   

Answering your points in order:

1. Trump never expected to win in the first place.  He planned to start Trump Network all a long.  That he won instead is the primary reason he's so extreme in his narcissism.  But let's get this straight, he rates everything in monetary terms, and his Presidency isn't getting it done for him.
   
2. How on God's green earth can Obama be Nixon?  He had a blemish-free 8 years.
   
3. Whose conventional wisdom are you citing here?  Standard run-of-the-mill conventional wisdom or your own?
   
4. Are you arguing that Fox will crash, or is it CNN or MSNBC?  Personally, I doubt that Facebook will be the preferred source for much longer, since Zuckerberg is working overtime to make them the Lying Network -- by his own admission.
   

!. What you say about Trumps original intentions and his expectations doesn't (jibe) with what I saw him do and the relentless approach that he took towards winning the election back in 2016. I'm sorry but a candidate who isn't all that interested in winning because they are more interested in accomplishing or achieving some other goal for themselves doesn't start the process of directly engaging and eliminating the competition from top to bottom like he did during the Republican primary in 2016. You should be familiar with this, I accomplished a similar task using a similar style and approach as him. Also, Trump could have started the Trump Network without running for President if that was all that he was truly more interested in accomplishing that during his lifetime. Trump is practical minded. A practical minded person wouldn't drop everything and go all in when they know their the underdog and the odds of winning aren't in their favor. An idealistic minded person would ignore reality and ignore the odds and continue preaching and continue following their faith in destiny like Obama.

Trump seems to have seen nothing more than the prospect of winning. Politics is about getting the opportunity to serve either voters or (all too often) the special interests that bankrolled one's campaign. Hillary Clinton was thinking far more of issues of policy once elected, probably with Democrats making big gains in the Senate that did not materialize. 

Donald Trump is a failure as President because once elected he has seen American politics as largely the glorification of his ego as the measure of his success. Trump's practicality is about nothing other than his own gain, indulgence, and self image. Leaders like that in other countries have been able to destroy or co-opt democratic institutions as the political life is reduced to robotic obedience and media are transformed into conduits for the personality cult.

Many people believe in the personality cult -- but far more don't. Those of us who have read of the horror of totalitarian regimes see far too much in common between Trump and with outright dictators.  

 

Quote:2. Are you aware of the more serious criminal investigation that been going on behind the scenes for a while now? I assume you most likely are aware of an investigation that liberal news has been portraying as a sinister plot and portraying Anthony Bahr the evil henchmen who's taken care of business for his evil boss Donald Trump. Maybe not, you may be more interested in the liberal investigation into Donald Trump that's trying to find enough legal grounds for impeachment that's been going on instead. What did Nixon do that got him in so much trouble? I know what he did and what he did is very similar to what may have happened to Donald Trump. I must say the initial evidence was pretty overwhelming considering it was just a portion of evidence that Fox and some talented individuals were able to obtain and piece together on their own.

Threatening to deny military aid already allocated by Congress to Ukraine, a country that has endured several efforts by its giant neighbor to transform Ukraine into a satellite while promising to allow such aid to go to Ukraine if the President of Ukraine will dredge up dirt on the son of one of the President's likely opponents is  a monstrous wrong. It is abuse of power, and it seems more flagrant than anything that Richard Nixon ever did. 

If you take FoX Propaganda Channel as a serious news source, then you are a fool.

Quote:3. It's a blend of average run of the mill and the additional that I have gained over many years.

Mush.

Quote:4. No, I don't think Fox will crash and be purchased by it's liberal competitors. I think it's more likely that the big three and their cable channels will be sold or dumped by their owners because of liabilities relating to owning them. If what you said about Trump has some truth to it, Trump will most likely end up purchasing the best of the litter after he leaves office.

FoX News is an oxymoron. It is a source of overt propaganda for the Trump Presidency, and it was nearly non-stop demonization of Barack Obama. It has no subtlety on such. Should the Trump Presidency and the GOP implode, then what will be left of Fox News? Like most once-going concerns that loses its ability to generate profits from operations it will be worth more dead than alive, worth less than the sum of its assets. FoX News has sophisticated technology and competent journalists. Its problem is in extreme editorial bias.

I suggested ABC and CBS because those networks have no cable news and might find such tempting.

Broadcast news does well. Credibility is everything in news, and GOP Pravda is losing such credibility as it once had.

(10-31-2019, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: FoX News is a sick joke to others in the news business for bias and for manipulation of the audience. Fill-ins between politics are often "get angry stories" perfectly suited to riling people for hatred of liberal causes. It reeks of authoritarian, Orwellian Newspeak.

FoX News is #1 in viewership because the Right side is not so splintered as is the center (the three main networks) or the ones that go decidedly Left (MSNBC, NPR, and CNN). Viewership is no indication of quality. For years, the best-viewed episode on American television (ruling out live sports) was an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, a comedy that would not stand up to the polished standards of our times. Twenty minutes of comedy around an implausible plot line? It's not going to work now.

We "Blues" are utterly ineffective at shutting down your side. We are good, in contrast, at mocking the President's mannerisms and exposing the emptiness of most things that President Trump and his acolytes say.

I look at the polls, and I see them ratifying what I see in a chaotic Presidency, pervasive corruption and cronyism, butchery of the English language (so bad that it reminds me almost of the fictional Archie Bunker of All in the Family), failure to get along with the military and the CIA, and contempt for anyone who shows signs of voting against him in 2016. A chaotic Presidency with a liberal President (Carter) proved inadequate to meet stagflation and the Iranian Revolution. I have seen corrupt politicians get exposed in many places and the partisan dynamics of those places are never strong enough to let that corrupt pol get away with it.  

 
Obama's problem as President was that he faced the reality of a social order in which well-funded entities that can accept the idea that government rightly represents economic power at the expense of all else. Such is the old feudal principle that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it serves the super-rich who own the assets.  The Right saw Donald Trump as the vehicle for pushing a right-wing agenda of monopolization, privatization on the cheap, evisceration of labor unions, ending welfare, and basically making 95% of the People responsible to people who see no responsibility except of the masses toward the Master Class.  Governments have established themselves on the principle that the sole measure of goodness is that the rich-and-powerful are to get everything possible and that all others are expendable tools. Such has never worked well.  

By the way -- you live in a very Blue area, the Twin Cities, which from most statistical measures is one of the most livable areas in America. In view of the harsh winters, your community needs a strong welfare system just to keep people from freezing to death, and your sch9ools must be adequate for making people able to afford heavily-insulated housing, heating fuel, food with more caloric content, and winter housing,  that would not be so necessary in rural Mississippi. Note well that much of the HVAC that you service is in government buildings. You probably know enough to keep your opinions to yourself when you install or service an HVAC unit in certain places.

...I can say this about FoX News: people watching it tend to get angrier, which demonstrates that FoX News manipulates the news to fit a right-wing agenda. I have been priced out of cable service (I am -poor now, and I hate being poor because poverty forces unpleasant and even dangerous compromises), but I can say that there is a big difference between Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow from when I had cable TV. I could imagine someone watching Hannity and wanting to pound someone into a pulp... or at least shouting him down in a town hall. Rachel Maddow? She is pulling us away from acceptance of "conservative" myths of the time, but she invites us to check what she says against objective news sources. She fact-checks, or at least insists upon people fact-checking and getting multiple sources on her behalf.

Anger is not healthy behavior in politics. I write as calmly as possible about the egregious misdeeds of the Trump regime. I can get away with such because shaking my fist in the air and using vile words solves nothing.

Donald Trump is not a conservative; he lacks the respect for tradition that marks conservatives. He is a fascist, a revolutionary of the Right.

(11-01-2019, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Actually, I don't live in the very blue area. I live in the more reddish area. The very blue area is actually small in comparison to the reddish area that surrounds it. I live in one of those Republican Districts that you were cheering about winning/picking up not so long ago. I think she probably lost her job today. You see, the demographics that you keep reminding me about haven't really  changed enough to matter. I'm sorry but Rachel Maddow looked like a fool when a copy of one of Trumps taxes returns actually looked normal and acceptable. I guess she should have actually seen it before she started promoting it and selling it as solid proof of wrong doings by Trump. A dumb mistake that one would expect to made by an adult who acts as if  she has the mentality of a juvenile.

As far as tradition, I think the liberals are doing a wonderful job getting rid of them and making it possible for us to get the kind of judges we wanted to have in the Supreme Court. Hey, if you ever meet Harry Reid, thank him for the judges we received from his big mistake. Oh, if you ever meet Obama, thank him for breaking tradition and changing long standing rules that were then used by the other side to help me become a more wealthier person today.

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

Quote:The first full month of impeachment headlines has taken a toll on President Donald Trump's standing, the November IBD/TIPP Poll shows. Now 61% of Americans following the news back the Trump impeachment inquiry, while 39% oppose it. Meanwhile, Trump's job approval slumped to 39%, with 56% disapproval. Americans grew more negative on his handling of China trade, despite a partial trade deal.

....

Trump's job approval rating backtracked to 39% in the November IBD/TIPP Poll from 43% in October. That matched September's reading for the lowest since February. Disapproval of Trump rose to 56% from 54%.

Among independents, just 34% said they approve of how Trump is handling his job, while 58% disapproved. That's a sharp deterioration from the 43%-52% split in October.

(11-01-2019, 05:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-01-2019, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Actually, I don't live in the very blue area. I live in the more reddish area. The very blue area is actually small in comparison to the reddish area that surrounds it. I live in one of those Republican Districts that you were cheering about winning/picking up not so long ago. I think she probably lost her job today. You see, the demographics that you keep reminding me about haven't really  changed enough to matter. I'm sorry but Rachel Maddow looked like a fool when a copy of one of Trumps taxes returns actually looked normal and acceptable. I guess she should have actually seen it before she started promoting it and selling it as solid proof of wrong doings by Trump. A dumb mistake that one would expect to made by an adult who acts as if  she has the mentality of a juvenile.

As far as tradition, I think the liberals are doing a wonderful job getting rid of them and making it possible for us to get the kind of judges we wanted to have in the Supreme Court. Hey, if you ever meet Harry Reid, thank him for the judges we received from his big mistake. Oh, if you ever meet Obama, thank him for breaking tradition and changing long standing rules that were then used by the other side to help me become a more wealthier person today.

Uhhh... The areas in which Democrats have an electoral advantage are the more compact giant cities and their suburbs.  People vote. Cattle, corn, cacti, and cotton don't. 

Now that Donald Trump has abolished the short forms so that paupers get to use the same forms as plutocrats, tax forms for a farm laborer can look much like those for a big farmer.  I can understand you seeing a tax form as "only numbers". Distort the numbers through understated earnings or bloated deductions, and one commits tax fraud. 

...Now, for the change in Senate rules. Republicans who had rejected every Obama appointee on the principle that the appointee was by Obama.  Now Republicans do the same so that they could rush through someone like Bart Drunk-enough. The Republican party now seems to operate on the principle that government rightly operates to represent economic power instead of the people. That sounds much like Mussolini's Corporate State to me. Yeah, right -- the farm laborer has more in common with the big land-owner than with a sweatshop worker who in turn has much in common with shareholders and executives. If you believe that, then you can believe in a flat earth.

(11-02-2019, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

There's always a chance that concern for justice and the interests of the country will prevail over the Republican Party ideology and loyalty, even if a slim chance. The Republicans are actually right that impeaching him may be the only way to defeat him. It so happens that impeachment is also necessary because otherwise our society ratifies Trump's behavior of using his office solely for his own power and wealth without any concern for other powers in the government. We would be on the way to Mussolini taking power in the USA. 

But it's also true that a first-term impeached president, but who was not yet removed from office, has never yet stood for re-election. Impeachment by the House might put Trump at just enough of a disadvantage to overcome his natural talents and the cheating and power plays of the Republicans that put him in office. It might convince just enough voters in Wisconsin (and PA and MI) to swing the election to one of the relatively-inadequate Democratic candidates now likely to be nominated.

Most Republicans will call this impeachment a partisan witch hunt, and stay loyal to their demagogic cheetftain. But enough working-class independents and Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 might switch that it could shift the electoral college into the Democratic column. The voters then might complete what the loyalist, Trumpist, partisan Republicans in the Senate refused to do-- these senators knowing as they do that they are stuck at the hip to this clownface as the only hope they have to win.

(11-04-2019, 08:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-02-2019, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

There's always a chance that concern for justice and the interests of the country will prevail over the Republican Party ideology and loyalty, even if a slim chance. The Republicans are actually right that impeaching him may be the only way to defeat him. It so happens that impeachment is also necessary because otherwise our society ratifies Trump's behavior of using his office solely for his own power and wealth without any concern for other powers in the government. We would be on the way to Mussolini taking power in the USA. 

But it's also true that a first-term impeached president, but who was not yet removed from office, has never yet stood for re-election. Impeachment by the House might put Trump at just enough of a disadvantage to overcome his natural talents and the cheating and power plays of the Republicans that put him in office. It might convince just enough voters in Wisconsin (and PA and MI) to swing the election to one of the relatively-inadequate Democratic candidates now likely to be nominated.

Most Republicans will call this impeachment a partisan witch hunt, and stay loyal to their demagogic cheetftain. But enough working-class independents and Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 might switch that it could shift the electoral college into the Democratic column. The voters then might complete what the loyalist, Trumpist, partisan Republicans in the Senate refused to do-- these senators knowing as they do that they are stuck at the hip to this clownface as the only hope they have to win.

The way I see it, the two sides have already made up their minds on that issue. I'd say it's very obvious that the impeachment push the Democratic congress is driven by partisanship. Right now, I'd say the Democrats are going to have to impeach him because they've left themselves no other choice or option but to do it at this point. The question is, how many people view the Democrats as actually doing it for so called justice and the country as they claim instead of actually doing it for themselves to obtain power and how many people view that as being a good thing for them. I've been telling you of a natural split/fault line that exists within the Democratic ranks that doesn't exist within the Republican ranks these days. You are already on the way to Mussolini taking power in Blue America. How many time's have I've told you that our side doesn't mind watching as the blues dig themselves deeper holes and continue burning bridges with groups of Americans. So, it's more of a matter of whether America will allow you to continue and learn the hard way for yourselves while being cut off and isolated as America continues to go about it's business and continues to go about with its lives. You see, it's easy to ignore blues in real life like I used to do before posting here.

(11-04-2019, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans seem 90% behind Trump these days, but without him fault-lines appear on your side two. But let's take your division and take a look. Right now, moderate Democrats and independents leaning Democratic are leaning more blue. You see that in suburbs who are turning away from Trump and the Republican extremism. There is a fault-line, though, within Democrats between gradualists and whole-hog progressives. The latter are not really extremists, except by comparison to you red-state and red-county guys, who compared to the rest of the developed world are way off on the extreme right; provincial and parochial rednecks and hillbillies at heart. 

But it looks like your "America" red group has about 40% of the vote, with blue moderates about 25% and blue progressives about 25%, with 10% at the most up for grabs. That's just a rough estimate, and these categories are fluid. But a good president, like Obama was, will unite both Democratic factions for the most part and swing the majority of independents along, while Trump will have to settle for about 45% in that case. Rumphead could still win though, because he only needs 46% for an electoral college win if there's a third party candidate that's strong, if voters are suppressed, if big dark money talks, and if Republican cheating and hacking is successful.