Trump Trainwreck - Ongoing diary of betrayal and evil

[Classic-Xer]

(12-19-2016, 03:27 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

Sorry that is just as I said...pointing dirty finger. Reread what I said.

You said that you weren't familiar enough with either of them to hold an opinion or give your honest opinion. I'm familiar enough with both of them to hold an opinion and give you my honest opinion.

[David Horn]

(12-19-2016, 09:22 AM)radind Wrote: The USA is in bad shape. Time for reflection and healing. Enough talk of violence.

I agree, though I'm not sure that's possible at the moment.  6 years of GOP obstruction followed by a big but shady victory does not do anything to encourage healing.  Even restraint is questionable.  We'll see soon enough.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

I don't talk about Civil War and using violence to achieve political goals like you do. I tell you what's going to happen to you and all of the idiots like you once the violence/war starts.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-19-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:38 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:27 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

Sorry that is just as I said...pointing dirty finger. Reread what I said.

You said that you weren't familiar enough with either of them to hold an opinion or give your honest opinion. I'm familiar enough with both of them  to hold an opinion and give you my honest opinion.

Sorry but you are biased and are just stating an opinion that is not supported by any evidence. Besides....does it actually clean up both parties? Is it productive?Have to ask those questions otherwise you are just feeding 3T on steroids. I am skeptical of blind tribalism and labeling with no evidence or self reflection on either side to fix what needs fixing. It is the very reason why over in my country i dropped labour for another party that seems to focus on real issues.

I'm not biased. I've seen protests by both sides many times.

[Eric the Green]

(12-19-2016, 03:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote: Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

I don't talk about Civil War and using violence to achieve political goals like you do. I tell you what's going to happen to you and all of the idiots like you once the violence/war starts.

Again, it's not about what I say, or what you tell me. You made a general point; I was just pointing out the contrary evidence.

I don't advocate violence, as you have done. I have merely made predictions about what might happen in the 2020s.

[Galen]

(12-19-2016, 04:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry but you are biased and are just stating an opinion that is not supported by any evidence. Besides....does it actually clean up both parties? Is it productive?Have to ask those questions otherwise you are just feeding 3T on steroids. I am skeptical of blind tribalism and labeling with no evidence or self reflection on either side to fix what needs fixing. It is the very reason why over in my country i dropped labour for another party that seems to focus on real issues.

I'm not biased. I've seen protests by  both sides many times.

He is actually correct on this one.  The most recent example on the right was the Tea Party protests over Obozocare.

[Galen]

(12-19-2016, 03:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:16 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/05/clinton...atar-gift/  

Many lefties know she is a crook but as long as Clinton is their crook is OK.

... and Trump is a narcissistic egomaniacal greed-head, yet the GOP is buying into Trump 100%.  Pot ... kettle ... black!

The party establishment is just as unhappy with Trump as the left is.  Truth be told, the rank and file got tired of being sold out by the usual suspects and decided to give the political establishment of both parties the middle finger.

[Warren Dew]

(12-19-2016, 04:09 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:38 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:27 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry that is just as I said...pointing dirty finger. Reread what I said.

You said that you weren't familiar enough with either of them to hold an opinion or give your honest opinion. I'm familiar enough with both of them  to hold an opinion and give you my honest opinion.

Sorry but you are biased and are just stating an opinion that is not supported by any evidence. Besides....does it actually clean up both parties? Is it productive?Have to ask those questions otherwise you are just feeding 3T on steroids. I am skeptical of blind tribalism and labeling with no evidence or self reflection on either side to fix what needs fixing. It is the very reason why over in my country i dropped labour for another party that seems to focus on real issues.

I'm not biased. I've seen protests by  both sides many times.

Which brings me to what i stated above...do you think pointing fingers is productive? Do you think likewise lefties pointing fingers causes right wingers to self reflect?

You'd prefer to let the violence pass unremarked?  Don't you think that risks encouraging violence?

[Warren Dew]

(12-19-2016, 04:48 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:09 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry but you are biased and are just stating an opinion that is not supported by any evidence. Besides....does it actually clean up both parties? Is it productive?Have to ask those questions otherwise you are just feeding 3T on steroids. I am skeptical of blind tribalism and labeling with no evidence or self reflection on either side to fix what needs fixing. It is the very reason why over in my country i dropped labour for another party that seems to focus on real issues.

I'm not biased. I've seen protests by  both sides many times.

Which brings me to what i stated above...do you think pointing fingers is productive? Do you think likewise lefties pointing fingers causes right wingers to self reflect?

You'd prefer to let the violence pass unremarked?  Don't you think that risks encouraging violence?

Your analysis of me is incorrect. My issue is with stating one side or the other is more violent than the other. It encourages more division, more "they are worse than me" mentality. It is how it is phrased which causes one side or the other to feel attacked. When that happens, no one listens. It is the strategy that is the problem. It is how it is taken, absorbed and the ultimate response that is the problem.

When one side uses violence and the other doesn't, as is largely the case here, you either have to overlook the violence, you have to lie about who is using it, or you have to drop the false equivalency and point out which side is doing it.

So if you're not advocating overlooking it, and you're discouraging pointing out who is doing it, sounds like you want people to lie about who is using it?  I don't think that's a healthy approach.

[pbrower2a]

(12-19-2016, 09:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:48 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:09 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not biased. I've seen protests by  both sides many times.

Which brings me to what i stated above...do you think pointing fingers is productive? Do you think likewise lefties pointing fingers causes right wingers to self reflect?

You'd prefer to let the violence pass unremarked?  Don't you think that risks encouraging violence?

Your analysis of me is incorrect. My issue is with stating one side or the other is more violent than the other. It encourages more division, more "they are worse than me" mentality. It is how it is phrased which causes one side or the other to feel attacked. When that happens, no one listens. It is the strategy that is the problem. It is how it is taken, absorbed and the ultimate response that is the problem.

When one side uses violence and the other doesn't, as is largely the case here, you either have to overlook the violence, you have to lie about who is using it, or you have to drop the false equivalency and point out which side is doing it.

So if you're not advocating overlooking it, and you're discouraging pointing out who is doing it, sounds like you want people to lie about who is using it?  I don't think that's a healthy approach.

Someone who uses violence on the side of liberal causes (like Earth First extremists who put spikes into trees so that lumberjacks get crippled if their saws  hit the spikes) I disown them. If someone draws an image of Donald Trump with a rope around his neck, I disown that person.

Imagine that we had won, and we had Hillary Clinton as President with a Democratic majority in the Senate. I would be talking sympathetically to Republicans whose politicians lost. I would tell them that we may need some of their votes in 2018 and 2020 and want to earn them. If you lost the election, then you are going to be using the same roads, your kids will be attending the same schools, you will want wise regulation of workplace safety and the environment, and you will have the same needs for law enforcement and national defense. America is as much your world as ours. The essence of democratic (notice the small letter) politics is service. The essence of undemocratic politics is a combination of graft for winners and punishment for losers.

Warren, you  may not be a troll, but I have seen plenty of them -- and they gladly talk about 'kicking your ass' and other nasty metaphors and expect us liberals to buy into a veritable personality cult around Donald Trump, and we are permanently repudiated as liberals. If we lost then such reflects our inadequacy as people, or so think those trolls. Those are hard people to like.

Presidential winners in the elections from 2000 to 2016 have gotten anywhere from 45.96% of the popular vote  (Trump in 2016) to 52.86% of the vote (Obama in 2008). Presidential losers since 2000 have gotten anywhere from 45.60% of the popular vote (McCain 2008)  to 48.38% of the vote (Gore in 2000). Neither liberalism not conservatism has been repudiated in any of those elections. I'm not going to compare the very different three0way races involving Bill Clinton, but It is ironic that Mike Dukakis got trounced while getting only 45.65% of the popular vote in 1988. that Donald Trump's result in 2016 is almost as poor as that of John McCain in 2008. But in our system, winning the right votes matters more than winning more votes. and that's the way things have been for over 200 years. We really have a travesty, but we are stuck with it. We may have voted for a horrible leader, but we are stuck with it much as Venezuelans were stuck with Hugo Chavez and Zimbabweans were stuck with Robert Mugabe.

So he will be President Donald Trump -- even if for the next four years I might prefer to be, for example, a citizen of the UK (among other sovereign states). Even if I must snicker at what we have, and cry when he exposes an extremism that will get increasingly unpopular with time. Even as I protest extremism, bad public policy, and offensive behavior. It is worse than being a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals and having to admit that the Chicago Cubs are the World's Champions of baseball. I expect to participate in protests and demonstrations and I can imagine myself doing civil disobedience.

Donald Trump and the Republican party do not have a mandate to operate a single-party system in which Democrats can be permanently neglected. "We won and you're done!" is for the likes of Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe.... and Fidel Castro. I can see through the personality of Donald Trump, and all I can think of is that people are attracted to con men and spouse beaters either out of some lust for punishment or because the con artists and spouse-abusers have to put on the charm to get victims.

48% of the American electorate voted against him in 2016. An even shift of even 1% of the popular vote (which is how it usually works in near 50-50 elections) means that Donald Trump loses in 2020. Democrats probably get the Senate back in 2020, and America gets to undo whatever it perceives as the damage. But I expect that over time more people are going to say "How could I have ever voted for that?" than say "I didn't vote for him, but I am glad that he was elected -- so I will vote for him in 2020".

Yes, I see him as a sociopath and a demagogue -- which is also how I see Fidel Castro. I also see him having reduced the issues to language suitable for appealing to unruly elementary kids, also a very bad sign. I do not communicate that way. Reality is far too complex for that. I expect the worst from Donald Trump, and we will be lucky just to avoid getting into a Yugoslav-style split-up. By 2021 I will be ready to exchange my US passport for either a passport of the "Republic of Michigan" or the Dominion of Canada without having moved.

When we are through with this nightmare, I expect that we will make major changes in the educational system  and shore up the political system so that Americans are too sophisticated to vote for a sociopath and our political system closes the seams in the Constitution. We might even go to a parliamentary system and decide to go to proportional representation instead of relying upon those in power in a state legislature to select the electorate for the politicians of their choosing.

The happiest ending for a Crisis is that we end up better for it all without paying too high a price. God help us should we have to pay the price for our follies as did the Germans and Japanese (let alone their innocent victims) did in the last Crisis.

[Bronsin]

(12-12-2016, 07:51 AM)Odin Wrote: A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

This has got to be the dumbest, most uninformed, retarded post I have read yet on this board, and considering the political bent around here, is saying a lot.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-20-2016, 12:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 09:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:48 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:09 PM)taramarie Wrote: Which brings me to what i stated above...do you think pointing fingers is productive? Do you think likewise lefties pointing fingers causes right wingers to self reflect?

You'd prefer to let the violence pass unremarked?  Don't you think that risks encouraging violence?

Your analysis of me is incorrect. My issue is with stating one side or the other is more violent than the other. It encourages more division, more "they are worse than me" mentality. It is how it is phrased which causes one side or the other to feel attacked. When that happens, no one listens. It is the strategy that is the problem. It is how it is taken, absorbed and the ultimate response that is the problem.

When one side uses violence and the other doesn't, as is largely the case here, you either have to overlook the violence, you have to lie about who is using it, or you have to drop the false equivalency and point out which side is doing it.

So if you're not advocating overlooking it, and you're discouraging pointing out who is doing it, sounds like you want people to lie about who is using it?  I don't think that's a healthy approach.

Someone who uses violence on the side of liberal causes (like Earth First extremists who put spikes into trees so that lumberjacks get crippled if their saws  hit the spikes) I disown them. If someone draws an image of Donald Trump with a rope around his neck, I disown that person.

Imagine that we had won, and we had Hillary Clinton as President with a Democratic majority in the Senate. I would be talking sympathetically to Republicans whose politicians lost. I would tell them that we may need some of their votes in 2018 and 2020 and want to earn them. If you lost the election, then you are going to be using the same roads, your kids will be attending the same schools, you will want wise regulation of workplace safety and the environment, and you will have the same needs for law enforcement and national defense. America is as much your world as ours. The essence of democratic (notice the small letter) politics is service. The essence of undemocratic politics is a combination of graft for winners and punishment for losers.

Warren, you  may not be a troll, but I have seen plenty of them -- and they gladly talk about 'kicking your ass' and other nasty metaphors and expect us liberals to buy into a veritable personality cult around Donald Trump, and we are permanently repudiated as liberals. If we lost then such reflects our inadequacy as people, or so think those trolls. Those are hard people to like.

Presidential winners in the elections from 2000 to 2016 have gotten anywhere from 45.96% of the popular vote  (Trump in 2016) to 52.86% of the vote (Obama in 2008). Presidential losers since 2000 have gotten anywhere from 45.60% of the popular vote (McCain 2008)  to 48.38% of the vote (Gore in 2000). Neither liberalism not conservatism has been repudiated in any of those elections. I'm not going to compare the very different three0way races involving Bill Clinton, but It is ironic that Mike Dukakis got trounced while getting only 45.65% of the popular vote in 1988.  that Donald Trump's result in 2016 is almost as poor as that of John McCain in 2008. But in our system, winning the right votes matters more than winning more votes. and that's the way things have been for over 200 years. We really have a travesty, but we are stuck with it. We may have voted for a horrible leader, but we are stuck with it much as Venezuelans were stuck with Hugo Chavez and Zimbabweans were stuck with Robert Mugabe.

So he will be President Donald Trump -- even if for the next four years I might prefer to be, for example, a citizen of the UK (among other sovereign states). Even if I must snicker at what we have, and cry when he exposes an extremism that will get increasingly unpopular with time. Even as I protest extremism, bad public policy, and offensive behavior. It is worse than being a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals and having to admit that the Chicago Cubs are the World's Champions of baseball. I expect to participate in protests and demonstrations and I can imagine myself doing civil disobedience.  

Donald Trump and the Republican party do not have a mandate to operate a single-party system in which Democrats can be permanently neglected. "We won and you're done!" is for the likes of Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe.... and Fidel Castro. I can see through the personality of Donald Trump, and all I can think of is that people are attracted to con men and spouse beaters either out of some lust for punishment or because the con artists and spouse-abusers have to put on the charm to get victims.

48% of the American electorate voted against him in 2016. An even shift of even 1% of the popular vote (which is how it usually works in near 50-50 elections) means that Donald Trump loses in 2020. Democrats probably get the Senate back in 2020, and America gets to undo whatever it perceives as the damage. But I expect that over time more people are going to say "How could I have ever voted for that?" than say "I didn't vote for him, but I am glad that he was elected -- so I will vote for him in 2020".

Yes, I see him as a sociopath and a demagogue -- which is also how I see Fidel Castro. I also see him having reduced the issues to language suitable for appealing to unruly elementary kids, also a very bad sign. I do not communicate that way.  Reality is far too complex for that. I expect the worst from Donald Trump, and we will be lucky just to avoid getting into a Yugoslav-style split-up. By 2021 I will be ready to exchange my US passport for either a passport of the "Republic of Michigan" or the Dominion of Canada without having moved.

When we are through with this nightmare, I expect that we will make major changes in the educational system  and shore up the political system so that Americans are too sophisticated to vote for a sociopath and our political system closes the seams in the Constitution. We might even go to a parliamentary system and decide to go to proportional representation instead of relying upon those in power in a state legislature to select the electorate for the politicians of their choosing.

The happiest ending for a Crisis is that we end up better for it all without paying too high a price. God help us should we have to pay the price for our follies as did the Germans and Japanese (let alone their innocent victims) did in the last Crisis.

Isn't hard to imagine considering Obama was elected in 2008' with a Democratic super majority. Ask yourself a question, was changing the rules to better suit his political needs at the time really worth it at this point.

[Eric the Green]

It was worth getting rid of the filibuster for appointments, since then the Republicans could not attain their goal of shutting down the government. But now that we have an abnormally bad president appointing alligators to the swamp, it doesn't seem so good. But having such a bad president is not normal. The people are to blame for electing him. The people will get the bad government they deserve.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-20-2016, 12:43 AM)Bronsin Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 07:51 AM)Odin Wrote: A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

This has got to be the dumbest, most uninformed, retarded post I have read yet on this board, and considering the political bent around here, is saying a lot.

I'm not sure it is #1, but it is well up there.

With the Electoral College phase behind us, hopefully one class of absurd conjectures can be left behind.  I suspect greater emphasis on other classes.

[Odin]

(12-19-2016, 04:12 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry but you are biased and are just stating an opinion that is not supported by any evidence. Besides....does it actually clean up both parties? Is it productive?Have to ask those questions otherwise you are just feeding 3T on steroids. I am skeptical of blind tribalism and labeling with no evidence or self reflection on either side to fix what needs fixing. It is the very reason why over in my country i dropped labour for another party that seems to focus on real issues.

I'm not biased. I've seen protests by  both sides many times.

He is actually correct on this one.  The most recent example on the right was the Tea Party protests over Obozocare.

You mean Koch Family Astroturf?

[David Horn]

(12-19-2016, 04:18 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:16 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/05/clinton...atar-gift/  

Many lefties know she is a crook but as long as Clinton is their crook is OK.

... and Trump is a narcissistic egomaniacal greed-head, yet the GOP is buying into Trump 100%.  Pot ... kettle ... black!

The party establishment is just as unhappy with Trump as the left is.  Truth be told, the rank and file got tired of being sold out by the usual suspects and decided to give the political establishment of both parties the middle finger.

Agreed, but to what end?  Trump is appointing the most plutocratic and neoliberal cabinet ever.  Let's see if they have the cojones to do what they've been saying they would for the last few decades.  It will be the empirical test, and one I don't see being successful ... except for the plutocrats, of course..

[David Horn]

(12-20-2016, 01:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was worth getting rid of the filibuster for appointments, since then the Republicans could not attain their goal of shutting down the government. But now that we have an abnormally bad president appointing alligators to the swamp, it doesn't seem so good. But having such a bad president is not normal. The people are to blame for electing him. The people will get the bad government they deserve.

As H. L. Mencken once said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."  We may have reached that point this time.  We'll see soon enough.

[David Horn]

(12-20-2016, 05:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 12:43 AM)Bronsin Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 07:51 AM)Odin Wrote: A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

This has got to be the dumbest, most uninformed, retarded post I have read yet on this board, and considering the political bent around here, is saying a lot.

I'm not sure it is #1, but it is well up there.

With the Electoral College phase behind us, hopefully one class of absurd conjectures can be left behind.  I suspect greater emphasis on other classes.

Think about this for a second.  If prevention of unsuitable candidates is no longer under consideration, and I believe it is not, then what purpose does the institution serve?  I guess you can argue that it promotes geo-diversity, but so what?  Is that a better option than minority rule? 

I don't see the EC being added to the trash heap any time soon, but a serious discussion of its fate is long overdue.  If nothing else, the bias created by adding the number of Senators to the number of Representatives to get each state allocation is unsupportable.  Kill that, at least.

[Mikebert]

(12-19-2016, 09:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: When one side uses violence and the other doesn't, as is largely the case here, you either have to overlook the violence, you have to lie about who is using it, or you have to drop the false equivalency and point out which side is doing it.

So if you're not advocating overlooking it, and you're discouraging pointing out who is doing it, sounds like you want people to lie about who is using it?  I don't think that's a healthy approach.

This is supposedly a 4T, a social moment, that in the past had a lot of violence.  I see little violence now.  How many have been killed by social unrest this year?  One or two mass murderers in a spree shooting does not constitute social unrest--that is simply crime (and is represented in murder statistics which are way down from 3T levels). The word social implies the involvement of a group. Something like a riot, a strike or demonstration, lynching, etc.

What violence are you talking about?  How many dead? If there no dead from the violence it doesn't even count since any historical comparison will be to lethal violence.  I see almost NO deaths from social unrest this year. compared to a great may in previous years.  So what are you talking about?

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-20-2016, 03:11 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 09:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: When one side uses violence and the other doesn't, as is largely the case here, you either have to overlook the violence, you have to lie about who is using it, or you have to drop the false equivalency and point out which side is doing it.

So if you're not advocating overlooking it, and you're discouraging pointing out who is doing it, sounds like you want people to lie about who is using it?  I don't think that's a healthy approach.

This is supposedly a 4T, a social moment, that in the past had a lot of violence.  I see little violence now.  How many have been killed by social unrest this year?  One or two mass murderers in a spree shooting does not constitute social unrest--that is simply crime (and is represented in murder statistics which are way down from 3T levels). The word social implies the involvement of a group. Something like a riot, a strike or demonstration, lynching, etc.

What violence are you talking about?  How many dead? If there no dead from the violence it doesn't even count since any historical comparison will be to lethal violence.  I see almost NO deaths from social unrest this year. compared to a great may in previous years.  So what are you talking about?

For the most part I'm with you Mike, but you might want to calibrate a bit.  How many died in the Boston Massacre?  Harper's Ferry?  It doesn't take all that much of a demonstration to make it clear that extreme partisans are ready to kill and be killed.

While the media and police are spinning things in the direction of crime committed by lone nuts, it is hard to judge the extent the loan nuts consider themselves to be martyrs for a just cause.  The Black and Blue Lives Matter conflict is flirting with a low level spiral of violence.  Home grown Muslim violence is not unheard of.  There is a general unrest with the latino situation.

But nothing is organized.  To my knowledge, there are no cell structures of conspirators.  There is also little in the media -- official or net crazies -- that is claiming that the proper response to a death on one side is two deaths on the other side.  After both the OKC bombings and September 11th, the establishment politicians and media pushed hard a message that violence is not the solution to domestic problems.  That push and that message still dominates the notion that non-violent means are doomed to fail, that the problems are serious enough to expend lives, that it is time to shift to violent methods.

Thus, I'm of the opinion that the spirals of violence are still on a gentle simmer.  I'd agree with your request for more specifics.

I've also got a vague feeling that the establishment is not apt to significantly shift until the possibility of a spiral of violence going critical is real.