US Politics

[The Unknown Poster]

At what point does the mental well-being of Trump really start to come to the forefront?  Not just "oh he's a prick", but that there is something wrong with him that could seriously hinder the safety & security of the US and thus, the world?

Ronald Reagan was heavily protected by Nancy and his aids during his second term.  Trump is his own worst enemy and beyond protection.  I flip flop between the likely outcomes being Impeachment and 25th.  (in reality it will just be that he announces he's fixed America and declines to run in the next election, giving a boost to the Republicans who will score brownie points for a "less inflammatory" nature).

[SpeedFlex27]

I'll trust more of what CNN says than Fox because it sets off Trump & his surrogates which tells me they're much more on point than Fox.

Edited June 30, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[Atomic]

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'll trust more of what CNN says than Fox because it sets off Trump & his surrogates which tells me they're much more on point than Fox.

So basically you trust them more because you agree with their bias.

Look at it from the opposite side: "I'll trust more of what FOX says than CNN because it sets off Obama & his surrogates which tells me they're much more on point than CNN"

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'll trust more of what CNN says than Fox because it sets off Trump & his surrogates which tells me they're much more on point than Fox.

The other issue here is, yes ideally the media should be unbiased.  But in this case the fact Trump seemingly has a melt down on a daily basis IS news.  His lies and insults and all the chaos around him IS news.  Trump wants the media to be an extension of his Press department.

Also, Trump and his team routinely attack, personally, the media.  What do they think is going to happen?  The media is very powerful because often times there are black & white facts but more often, especially today I think, the news needs to be "translated" for the masses.  Trump does himself no favours by belittling the media.

And you see other media people get angry and defend the industry even when its not them being attacked. 

Trump had every opportunity to re-set after he won and he got worse.  He could have re-set once he demoted (or whatever) Spicer but Sarah is even worse as an attack dog.

Trump isnt just an *******, he's an embarrassment and very likely a very dangerous person.  The only people still supporting him are either clueless morons (the racists and bigots), or so indoctrinated to the extreme conservative agenda (Hannity, many Republicans) that they'd rather have an insane, embarrassing, dangerous person in the White House because it means they "win".

America BADLY needs the Democrats to absolutely wipe the floor with the Republicans in the mid-terms.  To the extent that the Democrats take over both houses with a large majority.  Then you will see Trump completely self destruct.  His Presidency wont last long after that...

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, Atomic said:

So basically you trust them more because you agree with their bias.

Look at it from the opposite side: "I'll trust more of what FOX says than CNN because it sets off Obama & his surrogates which tells me they're much more on point than CNN"

I have to be honest, I trust CNN more.  I enjoy CNN more. 

I guess Im a bad Conservative.  But when I watch CNN, I consider it news.  When I watch Fox, I have my filter on - I enjoy it, I like the conservative perspective, but I expect to have to filter it through a BS meter.

And while clearly most of CNN's staff are liberals, my thinking is beginning to switch.  We should all be liberals.  Because how we treat each other should be the defining characteristic of ourselves, our communities and our species.  If you're a far left Liberal, I cant relate to you.  If you're a far right liberal, believing in some Conservative things such as smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national security etc, Im on board.

But the "Conservative" movement is becoming far too hijacked by the far right to the point "Conservative" is losing its traditional meaning.  At least in the US.

[StevetheClub]

I try to spend time reading both Fox and CNN. I think regardless of where you stand if your goal is to be informed and not just entertained then I think you're doing yourself a disservice by only reading what you agree with. And as someone who reads both, I find their respective leanings very clear and think they both have their fair share of contributors who sit on the far ends of the spectrum.

29 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I have to be honest, I trust CNN more.  I enjoy CNN more. 

I guess Im a bad Conservative.  But when I watch CNN, I consider it news.  When I watch Fox, I have my filter on - I enjoy it, I like the conservative perspective, but I expect to have to filter it through a BS meter.

And while clearly most of CNN's staff are liberals, my thinking is beginning to switch.  We should all be liberals.  Because how we treat each other should be the defining characteristic of ourselves, our communities and our species.  If you're a far left Liberal, I cant relate to you.  If you're a far right liberal, believing in some Conservative things such as smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national security etc, Im on board.

But the "Conservative" movement is becoming far too hijacked by the far right to the point "Conservative" is losing its traditional meaning.  At least in the US.

It sounds like you're implying that consideration for you we treat each other is a liberal value, which is unfair. As a liberal, I would say that the far left is doing just as much hijacking as the far right and that those closer to the middle on both sides value how we treat each other.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, StevetheClub said:

I try to spend time reading both Fox and CNN. I think regardless of where you stand if your goal is to be informed and not just entertained then I think you're doing yourself a disservice by only reading what you agree with. And as someone who reads both, I find their respective leanings very clear and think they both have their fair share of contributors who sit on the far ends of the spectrum.

It sounds like you're implying that consideration for you we treat each other is a liberal value, which is unfair. As a liberal, I would say that the far left is doing just as much hijacking as the far right and that those closer to the middle on both sides value how we treat each other.

yes and I stipulated the difference between the "far".

We can debate values.  But lets not pretend that many traditional conservatives values are simply out-dated and have no place today.  That doesn't mean you, as a Conservative, believe in them.  But every time someone says they believe in the "traditional definition of marriage" and are a conservative, it's a PC way of being bigoted.    That's all I meant.  Social liberalism.

A lot of people I know are Conservatives  (ie vote Conservative) but are social liberals.  In Canada it's a bit different.

My point being, the right wing nuts seem to be taking more and more ground from the conservatives.  Steve Bannon basically runs the White House under a Republican government.  How can any moderate Republican vote for a party like that?

[StevetheClub]

 

14 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

yes and I stipulated the difference between the "far".

We can debate values.  But lets not pretend that many traditional conservatives values are simply out-dated and have no place today.  That doesn't mean you, as a Conservative, believe in them.  But every time someone says they believe in the "traditional definition of marriage" and are a conservative, it's a PC way of being bigoted.    That's all I meant.  Social liberalism.

A lot of people I know are Conservatives  (ie vote Conservative) but are social liberals.  In Canada it's a bit different.

My point being, the right wing nuts seem to be taking more and more ground from the conservatives.  Steve Bannon basically runs the White House under a Republican government.  How can any moderate Republican vote for a party like that?

Sorry, I'm not following. I agree with you that the far right seems to be "taking more and more ground from the conservatives". The point I was trying to make is that you seem to be letting the far left off the hook. The far right is "nuts" and "bigoted" whereas the far left is simply something you "can't relate to". I think that the far left is just as destructive and increasingly pervasive as the far right - we only just have to look to our universities in Canada and the US to see evidence of this -  and as a social liberal I find this very sad to watch.

Edited June 30, 2017 by StevetheClub

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, StevetheClub said:

 

Sorry, I'm not following. I agree with you that the far right seems to be "taking more and more ground from the conservatives". The point I was trying to make is that you seem to be letting the far left off the hook. The far right is "nuts" and "bigoted" whereas the far left is simply something you "can't relate to". I think that the far left is just as destructive and increasingly pervasive as the far right - we only just have to look to our universities in Canada and the US to see evidence of this -  and as a social liberal I find this very sad to watch.

Im not letting the far left off the hook at all.  I was just not making a point about the far left.  I was talking about the right.  If I talk about Apples, I dont need to give a details accounting of oranges.  There is nothing more eye roll inducing then the arrogance of the far left.

[Atomic]

39 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

yes and I stipulated the difference between the "far".

We can debate values.  But lets not pretend that many traditional conservatives values are simply out-dated and have no place today.  That doesn't mean you, as a Conservative, believe in them.  But every time someone says they believe in the "traditional definition of marriage" and are a conservative, it's a PC way of being bigoted.    That's all I meant.  Social liberalism.

Other than their stance on gay marriage what other values are outdated?

[StevetheClub]

24 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Im not letting the far left off the hook at all.  I was just not making a point about the far left.  I was talking about the right.  If I talk about Apples, I dont need to give a details accounting of oranges.  There is nothing more eye roll inducing then the arrogance of the far left.

You provided your thoughts on news organizations from both sides of the spectrum and made clear statements about how you view the far left and right; I don't think my comments are a stretch. That being said, if I misunderstood you I misunderstood you. No biggie.

 

**edit: Amen to the arrogance of the far left. Preaching to the choir there.

Edited June 30, 2017 by StevetheClub

[Mark F]

3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

At what point does the mental well-being of Trump really start to come to the forefront?  Not just "oh he's a prick", but that there is something wrong with him that could seriously hinder the safety & security of the US and thus, the world?

Ronald Reagan was heavily protected by Nancy and his aids during his second term.  Trump is his own worst enemy and beyond protection.  I flip flop between the likely outcomes being Impeachment and 25th.  (in reality it will just be that he announces he's fixed America and declines to run in the next election, giving a boost to the Republicans who will score brownie points for a "less inflammatory" nature).

one of the problems with Trump, is that he has surrounded himself with people that are just as stupid as he is.

They are completely without experience. and They're all yes men/women. All have to gaze at him worshipfully(is that a word?) . Maybe Tillerson could do a good job, probably could, but they aren't letting him. Some of The others appear to want to use the White house to improve their investment deals.

Trump is horrible, and so are the bulk of his appointees. This makes it much more serious.

and no help from their mates in the senate / house.

They are incompetent as well.

Probably going to get worse.

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Mark F

[SpeedFlex27]

14 hours ago, Atomic said:

So basically you trust them more because you agree with their bias.

Look at it from the opposite side: "I'll trust more of what FOX says than CNN because it sets off Obama & his surrogates which tells me they're much more on point than CNN"

When you listen to Kelly Anne Conway, Jeffrey Lord & Kayleigh McEnany on CNN you know they're lying thru their teeth or twisting the facts so tight... there's no way I believe anything they say. Fox is full of Trump shills like that. It's not a matter of bias as I'll listen to another POV but a matter of trust.

[Mark F]

Good thing everyone was packing heat, otherwise, who knows, the wrong person might have gotten shot or something. pretty sure, the darkness and strobe lights did not hinder the good guys or result in them hitting an innocent bystander!

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Mark F

[The Unknown Poster]

Ladies & Gentlemen, the President of the United States 

 

[HardCoreBlue]

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Ladies & Gentlemen, the President of the United States 

 

'You're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts' - Daniel Patrick "Pat" Moynihan 

Listening to Ben Sasse Republican from Nebraska quoting Moynihan when in talking with Jake Tapper about weaponizing mistrust.

[Jacquie]

And the response to Trump's tweet:

 

[Mark F]

Half of the population in the US lives in 9 states, with 18 senators, the other half in 41 states, with 82 senators.

Problem.

[Atomic]

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

Half of the population in the US lives in 9 states, with 18 senators, the other half in 41 states, with 82 senators.

Problem.

Is that a problem?  This is why the House of Representatives is based on population.

Without the equal representation by senators, smaller states have no voice.  Just because you disagree with the way they vote doesn't mean they should be silenced.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 hours ago, Atomic said:

Is that a problem?  This is why the House of Representatives is based on population.

Without the equal representation by senators, smaller states have no voice.  Just because you disagree with the way they vote doesn't mean they should be silenced.

No where did I see being silenced suggested... 

Edited July 4, 2017 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Mark F]

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

No where did I see, being silenced suggested... 

no. I don't see anywhere that I said or implied that. It's quite a leap.

Why should a state with a million people have same number of votes in the senate as a state with ten million people?

This is a nonsensical situation.

Americans hold billions of dollars of state of Germany's gold reserves, phsysically, in New York State. But the Germans haven't been allowed to see it, or count it, since 1979.  LOL.

 

Quote

For decades, German central bankers have contented themselves with written affirmations from their American colleagues that the gold still remains where it is said to be stored. According to the report, the bar list from New York stems from "1979/1980." The report also noted that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York refuses to allow the gold's owners to view their own reserves.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-politicians-demand-to-see-gold-in-us-federal-reserve-a-864068.html

[Atomic]

42 minutes ago, Mark F said:

no. I don't see anywhere that I said or implied that. It's quite a leap.

Why should a state with a million people have same number of votes in the senate as a state with ten million people?

This is a nonsensical situation.

So you're completely ignoring the role of the House of Representatives?

HoR exists for population representation.  Senate exists for equivalent representation for each state.  So if you take that away you are effectively silencing the role of smaller states in federal decision making.  It's not a leap at all.  That's what you're talking about.

[Atomic]

51 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

No where did I see being silenced suggested... 

How would a small state be heard on the federal level without equal representation?

[The Unknown Poster]

58 minutes ago, Mark F said:

no. I don't see anywhere that I said or implied that. It's quite a leap.

Why should a state with a million people have same number of votes in the senate as a state with ten million people?

This is a nonsensical situation.

Americans hold billions of dollars of state of Germany's gold reserves, phsysically, in New York State. But the Germans haven't been allowed to see it, or count it, since 1979.  LOL.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-politicians-demand-to-see-gold-in-us-federal-reserve-a-864068.html

Arent their conspiracy theories that all the gold in New York was secretly removed?

[Mark F]

27 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Arent their conspiracy theories that all the gold in New York was secretly removed?

yes there are. wouldn't surprise me at all if it was stolen.

Why can't the Germans even see their own gold? How absurd is that?

If there's no consequences, why wouldn't somebody steal it? 

If you knew you could walk into a bank, take a few million, walk out, and never be caught, how many people wouldn't do it?

Edited July 4, 2017 by Mark F