tar

Phi, A failed American?? That is not American of you to cast me out of the club based on my not adhering to your socialist beliefs. Regards, TAR

swansonT, They absolutely should count. Regards, TAR Zapatos, Ok then communism. Regards, TAR Zapatos, Which brings up the love trumps hate thing, and the Bernie supporter thing, and perhaps the blue we have at the coasts and our borders...in this manner. The socialism of Bernie is similar to the socialism of Europe. The blue in our country happens in the metropolitan cities with international airports and near the borders with Mexico and socialist Canada. The red happens in the middle of the country and in the countryside where exposure to other cultures and ideas is less. When I as a suburbanite visit the city areas, as I did last night to go to Jimmy Buff's in my old home town, my wife felt uncomfortable, and I stood outside the car with her as she smoked her after dinner cigarette, when in other areas of the country I would get in the car and let her smoke. Socialism works in Europe because the people of each European country are ethnically similar and view each other as we. In the city, where people have different clothes and different churches and different moral values, where one feels that the other is the other, some third person, socialism is not as easy. It is a we they thing. Like the reason we moved out of East Orange was the crime and drugs that were evident as more blacks moved in and more whites moved out. Racist? I guess. But socialism would say that Syrian refugees are welcome to share the wealth that mostly non-Syrians have created. And the xenophobic reaction is to suggest that Syrians make their own county better, not come over here and enjoy the situation we have created for ourselves. Regards, TAR

but here we have the protests in the street that say that all we fear from Trump, all the demonization of Trump, the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic misogynist claims of Hilary and Warren and Reid are true, and we must take to the streets to keep it from happening in our county One must ask which party, in this debate is being the most divisive. Preventing Trump from getting into office was what one side attempted. Preventing Hilary from getting into office is what the other side did in this election. With demonization on both sides. Innuendo and slippery slopes and evil intent on the other person's part. The fate of the country in terms of supreme court and laws and international status hanging in the balance. Thing is, Trump won. The debate is over. The other side is not now, or ever was as evil as the other side says. We would not have lost the country had Hilary been elected, and we will not lose the country now that Trump will be president. Regards, TAR

well yeah, there is that but such has been the political question forever Socialism fails because the people that work the hardest and are the most capable get no more than the lazy dolt. Capitalism fails because the boss that sits in his office giving orders makes more than the guy sweating on the line.

Delta1212, So are you for the senate or against? The electoral college give votes to states according to the population, reflected in the house rep numbers, and two each reflecting the two senators per state. Regards, TAR One thing important to my 90 10 theory is that it is incumbent upon the 10 percent to do things in the best interest of those that they lead. This is where the trustworthy part of the capable and trustworthy comes in.

if we each had to pay attention to every line of every bill and debate each and vote on it, we would not have any time to do anything else and most would not be paying proper attention and just the few that were would establish policy for all...so I don't know about hoping for pure democracy and there is my 90 10 argument that says 10 percent of the population lead the other 90 In this, the senator system is workable, as it is better for a capable and trustworthy person to decide policy than to let us all decide upon it by popular vote. We are liable to all vote for free food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care and entertainment, and vote to have the 10 percent that know how to add value, pay for it.

Ten Oz, I like the idea of the popular vote having more influence. For instance, if we did not have the system where all the votes of a state go to the popular vote winner, my red vote, in a blue state would matter, and all states would be various shades of purple. Regards, TAR but then all the values of the electoral college system would be defeated I think we all think we live in a democracy when we actually live in a representative republic.

SwansonT, I am not dismissing California, I am arguing the same idea you are pressing in the opposite direction. Minus California, the popular vote in ALL the other 49 together, went to Trump. Why should California liberals dictate the policy by which the rest of the country goes? Regards, TAR

SwansonT, I was not dismissing California voters, I was pointing out that their wishes override the wishes of the rest of the country, as the city vote overrides the rural. Many election cycles have the republican winning in blue states up until the city vote comes in and the blue state goes blue. The red states go red and the republican is close to the democrat, until late poll closing California comes in, and 55 electoral votes outweigh the decision of two big states or three small states or 10 little states. I am not dismissing these voters, I am using their 55 electoral votes arrival on the scene, as an analog to the city vote coming in in the blue states to underscore the fact that my red vote in a blue state, means absolutely nothing, as I live in NJ when Paterson and Newark and Camden nearly always pull the state blue. And I was dropping California to point out, that Trump won the electoral vote, even though Hilary got the California 55. And I dropped California to show that before California numbers came in Trump was actually ahead in the popular vote. So why are you discounting the wishes of the other 49 states, when minus California, the popular vote was for Trump? Regards TAR Ten Oz, Thinking about the low vote turnout, I am remembering from the individual state maps talked about on CNN that red counties came in stronger than normal and blue counties came in weaker. A lot of Trump supporters energized in the red areas and a lot of Sanders supporters and minority voters and people with doubts about Hilary sitting the thing out. When my wife and I went to the polls, we drove past the high school where there was a group of about 15 kids with chairs and Trump signs excitingly urging us to vote Trump. As I watched CNN I expected the big city counties to come in Blue and turn the state. In state after state, PA in particular the city vote came in Blue with big percentage blue, but the numbers were not large enough to overcome the early red lead it usually does. The red numbers kept coming in, and the blue numbers did not. Not like usual. So, I agree, that the 60 million Trump votes does not tell the story of where the country wants to go. But it does tell the story of who 60.2 million want to lead their country. It counters who 60.8 million wanted and in that, there are 700,000 whose plurality is overridden by the electoral college system and 700,000 more people wanted Hilary than Trump, but still the wishes of the 60.2 that wanted Trump to lead, are to be respected, in this situation. Even if they are deplorable in the eyes of the other 60.8 million. So the appointment of Bannon has brought more people to the street, to protest against white supremacy. I am white, and I don't want to be supreme. I like the Seahawks locking arms to show we are one tribe. Americans. And the color of our skin is irrelevant. Regards, TAR

swansonT, They should be considered, and they are. But so should the small states be represented. If the founders of the constitution put together a genius system of checks and balances, which they did, you have to ask why we have senators at all, and why we just don't have a house of representatives that reflects the population better. And in any case, we have a representative system and the population does not vote for most issues and laws, anyway. We vote for someone to represent us, and states rightswise, the senate is important in this balance. If New York City and Chicago and Miami and Dallas and LA where allowed to make the laws, the laws would favor city interests and rural America would be left out of power and unable to have a say in their own future. Regards, TAR .

zapatos, I forgot we vote for both our senators, just on different cycles. We voted for none this cycle, in NJ. Our senatorial districts are for the state legislature. But none-the-less, small population states still get two senators and thereby have equal voting power in the senate to large population states. This is why I suggested that a constitution amendment to change the electoral college to a popular vote based system, would disadvantage the small population states, and since constitutional amendments require the ratification of the states, small states would not be interested in reducing their say in presidential elections. So yes, I was wrong about senatorial districts, but still right about small population states getting 3 electoral college votes where if it was based on population they might get less. Regards, TAR

so the 60 million and change that voted Trump came probably mostly from non city areas and the 60 million and change that voted Hilary probably came mostly from city areas The interests of city dwellers are sometimes at odds with the people that live in the small towns and farms and rural areas. That is why we hold elections, and that is why small population states are given 2 senatorial districts, regardless of the population. So that the cities don't always prevail. although there is obviously democrats in areas that are low population like northern Maine, so the reasons one votes dem or repub​ can and do vary

Delta1212, I get it, but the picture is not complete. You need to go by county to get the proper picture. In your blowup, there is no red in the blue states and no blue in the red. Then you would see the real picture. Cities go dem, outskirts go repub...usually. And I wonder how the map would look if you gave more size to people with land, or businesses or wealth. Would the red be larger or the blue. There is thread in the protests that deal with what government largess will be removed, if Trump keeps his promises. But what if his promise to bring jobs and law and order to cities is fulfilled? Then the advantage is for everybody that lives in the city. Regards, TAR Except the criminals and cheats.

swansonT, In every election and while watching the returns of every state, you see the same thing. A large swath of America is red and there is a little blue around the great lakes, in the NE and on the West Coast. And in each state race, the early vote comes in from the countryside red and later goes blue as Detroit or Miami or Phili comes in with their large city vote. In California, in the area where the two terrorists killed the guy's coworkers, the area is highly red, yet the state always goes blue because of Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego. I dropped California, because they are a good indicator of why the popular vote usually goes blue, and why the only way the reds ever have a voice in presidential elections is the extra votes in the electoral college that small population states get. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, Yes it would matter to me if Trump and the Russians are in bed. But it also matters to me that Russia owns a portion of our uranium due partially to some deal Bill and Hillary were involved in. I am not sure we are talking from different concerns. We want the U.S. strong and free. Regards, TAR and yes, it is illegal to incite a riot Ten Oz, As long as you are talking what ifs, what if Clinton's private server was hacked and the protections on it and the passwords were similar to the DNC's. Then it would not be coincidence that the DNC was hacked and not the RNC. And it would be her carelessness that made the attacks possible, not a secret deal between Trump and Putin. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, No I can't guarantee there was no contact between the Trump Campaign and the Russians as you cannot guarantee that Hilary's campaign did not hire disrupters at Trump events. There is a lot that goes on in this world that I have no knowledge of. WikiLeaks was, at one point, in past campaigns, a hero of the left, as it embarrassed Bush's administration. We did not investigate and delegitimize Obama based on that. Regards, TAR there is a danger in assuming that a leader automatically is responsible for the actions of his or her supporters just because an event helps one or the other candidate or serves to embarrass or disqualify the other, does not mean the other caused it to happen, directly did Hilary's campaign have the access Hollywood tape and release it, just at the right moment in the campaign, for instance? Can you tell me with 100% conviction that she would not do such a thing? did Trump arrange the flight schedules of Bill's plane and the Attorney general's plane so they would be on the tarmack at the same time and cause the appearance of impropriety? That would be a federal offence to manipulate the air traffic controllers in that manner. Trump should be investigated. It is a deflection attempt, away from the content of the e-mails to insinuate that Trump and Assange have a deal. Possible, and sensible to make the association, but correlation is not causation. same way the FBI was held in high esteem for clearing Hillary of impropriety by the Dems and suspected of back room deals by the Repubs...then blamed by the Dems for causing Hilary to loose the election by the Dems and praised by the repubs... one can manufacture whatever shady deals they think fit their narrative. but it is not logical to rely on the FBI as an impartial honest, straight forward professional organization when it suits your narrative, and blame them for political underhanded stuff when it suits your narrative and you can't ever say the president of the U.S. is not your president, if you are a citizen of the U.S.

Thread, I see I may have inappropriately cast evil character traits upon city folk. That is not my intent. Merely pointing out that there is a different mindset in cities than in the suburbs. In fact, in cities you probably have more cooperation because otherwise you have chaos. Plus in cities you have universities and corporate headquarters and art centers and cultural centers where one can learn what the rest of society is up to, in the way of advances and helpful things. I do go by personal trials and not by numbers in making my assessment that things are safer out here than where I lived closer to NYC. And I would draw a distinction between how a city feels during the day and how it feels at night. Maybe not NYC because it is the city that never sleeps, and there are always like minded people about, but other cities, like Dallas, which I visited 20-30 years ago, is a ghost town, once the offices and shops close, and it is not a safe feel at all to travel the streets. Where you do see people they look shady, and you get the feeling they are up to no good, with no eating places or entertainment places around, or apartments around you figure they are there to steal something or deal drugs or something. But I don't walk around out here at night either with any kind of comfort, because we do have bear and foxes and such. So city folk might even care about each other more than out here. If you are out here, you figure your neighbor has things figured out and has money for food and mortgage and clothes for their kids and gas for their car. Where in the city the guy lying in the gutter obviously needs your help. As you can not give all your money away you look to help in the soup kitchen and establish programs by which the guy can get treatment for his drug problem. Out in the rural areas you wonder why some of your tax money goes to the county seat to pay for drug treatment programs for undocumented guys from central America. In any case, sorry for the thread veer...or maybe its important. The city is more likely where you will find the guy that is afraid of deportation, or that lives in an LGBT community or that lives in a ghetto where social programs are numerous. Here there is actual, factual fear, that one or more of Trump's promises will affect you adversely, and there is at least the innuendo that a republican administration, will take away programs that you or your neighbor count on. But, here is an article that seems to lay out the fears https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/protesters-take-anti-trump-message-to-his-doorstep-and-plan-next-steps/ar-AAkdFyf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp "Speakers and protesters have talked about their fears of deportation, having access to birth control curbed, a rollback of same-sex marriage and the potential for racially motivated violence." ​I do not think it is appropriate to break it down into being helpful or being a hater, though. Regards, TAR or for that matter breaking it down into being a giver or a taker

iNow, I personally have in the past, and will in the future, attempt to act as a damper to the pendulum. To try and avoid the wild swings, as there is danger at the extremes. Lean against the motion and coax it toward the middle, where things work the best and nobody is too far from happiness and contentment. Granted, the swing to the right is premature, we are still left of center, but it is important to not go too progressive, because then, as Raider5678 points out, we then swing too far right in reaction. Maintaining what we have is as important as progress. Although, to young people, it is always important to fix the evils of the past and map and activate a brighter future. Protesters are mostly young, and feel they have the answers that the older group has missed. Having grown up in the 60s and 70s where one did not trust anybody over 30 and being 62 now, I can sort of see the situation from both perspectives...that of maintaining our gains, and that of securing further gains. Enough to say I backed McGovern and campaigned for him in New Hampshire AND that I am now a registered Republican and like the feel of the suburbs and the countryside, more than the city. It is safe out here, and people watch your stuff and your back, unlike in the city, where people steal your stuff and you need to watch your own back. And politically I understand now, that someone has to create wealth and work to maintain it, for us to be a wealthy country. I sort of get the pendulum thing. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, Personally I hated the Snowden deal, and the WikiLeaks and don't like enemies in our computer systems at all. But in terms of Hilary and the private server, the ability for her communications to have been hacked, is doubly possible given the hacking that happened during the election. Trump and the republicans have been on your and my side on this, from the first we knew that Hilary did not maintain proper care of government communications. You don't give your private stuff away, it is very dangerous to our national security. Snowden had a clip drive full of stuff that compromised us in a thousand ways. Our data and how we protected it, has been in the Russian hands since Snowden fled from china to there. We are still paying a security price, I am sure, and Russia's boldness in Crimea may or may not be related to knowing some things they found out through Snowden that weaken us. Dangerous and deadly, for sure. But this is why Hilary's carelessness was such a big deal to everybody, and her deleting what was government records, as they were to and from the secretary of state, was a possibly criminal act. Trump did not want Russia to hack us, he exactly did not want Hilary's communications as Secretary 'of State compromising our security. I saw live his comment about maybe the Russians have the deleted e-mail and it was sarcastic at the get-go, it was not something that he said as a Russian spy and said was a joke later. It was to point out that Hilary's server was possibly comprimised and wouldn't that be especially damning to her, if the Russians had the deleted emails. We could find out what she deleted and know she was compromised, at the same time. I am though concerned that Russia has so much of our communications. Makes us vulnerable.'s But it is really scary to me how negative Trump was toward Obama's policies, and how negative Obama was toward Trump's qualifications. It is not helpful to undermine your president, or your future president. I did it to Hilary, expressing my concerns, so I guess it is normal for people to be fearful as to what dangerous mistakes the third person will make. As is the thrust of the protestors, afraid of Trump putting everyone in jail and deporting everyone. Fear of the other going down some slippery slope toward destruction. But, given that Russia could kill us, and we could kill Russia, and they know as many of our secrets, as they do...what would be the harm, as Trump puts it, for us to have better relations with Russia? Phi is concerned that Trump will be OK with Assad...like that is an evil thing. What if during the Arab spring, we had NOT backed the rebels. We would have Assad in charge of Syria, which we have anyway, and we might not have a quarter million dead Syrians. I am willing, given the dangerous situation of a possible air war with Russia over Syria, to maybe take a different tact in Syria, than the apparent unsuccessful one, we have been on. Helping Assad regain control and kick out ISIS, with Russia, might not be the worst choice. So these protests are understandable. Dreams dashed of our first female president, and social justice, and gay rights and other liberal goals of single payer health care and free college and the like...so a period of mourning is understandable. But there are 320 million wills in the U.S. and not everybody is comfortable doing it the way it was going. The pendulum has swung somewhat right, but that does not mean we won't still find a way to do it right. Regards, TAR Besides, it might not be so bad to have Trump as our president. He is, after all capable. He destroyed a capable field of Republican candidates in the primary, and beat a sure thing first female in the election. The most qualified candidate in history, defeated by the most unqualified in history. And he did it by himself. He, and his family and several loyal supporters, without the support of donors and the media or Washington insiders. Well he did have the RNC and their ground game, but basically he went to rallies with just him and Pence with a few stars here and there. He did not have two presidents and a vice president helping him on the trail, yet he won, which says something about his capability. If you can win the presidency you must have some skills. And he is financially successful and really can do it on his own, and does not need to follow any body else's interests. He can do what is best for America and her people, without fear of losing financial support. And he is a deal maker, and knows how to negotiate, and knows how to walk. And he is not as conservative as Cruz, having once been a democrat and having once supported Hilary, so we may be pleasantly surprised by his ability to reach across the aisle. And he, even as just a candidate, has affected world actors, as Germany I hear upped their contributions to NATO since he said what he said, showing me, all in all, that people are affected by his words, and know he is capable of getting things to work. So protestors who say he is not their president, should give him a chance. One, because he actually is going to be our president. And two because as Americans, we need him to be successful.

Ten Oz, Yes I said those things about Trump. I viewed him as a con-artist, a negotiator, and a salesman. He said or did a disqualifying thing every day for a year and a half. Except people don't listen to me, and I am not in any kind of position of power. I was equally suspicious of Hilary and hold her responsible for backing the Arab spring and seeking regime change in Syria, without committing our blood, just our treasure, and helping to maintain the civil war in Syria that has taken a quarter million lives and spread refugees and unrest throughout Europe. I liked neither candidate and neither would be my choice as leader of the free world. However, my country decided who they wanted, and it was a shock and surprise to every pollster and pundit out there. But I have a theory as to why so many backed Trump. It has to do with one of my 90 10 theories. This one, that 10 percent of the population are the leaders and these are the people with the power and charisma and wealth and ability and intelligence and trustworthiness, that are the coaches and teachers and preachers and project managers, and counselers and bosses and owners and leaders in science and art and politics, business and entertainment, that lead our society and make it work...Trump went after the other 90 percent, and struck a chord. Regards, TAR Thing is, the 90 percent that are not the leaders, are the majority, and are equal Americans whose will needs to be respected. and Ten Oz, folding this back in with my other 90 10 theory, that 90 percent of us are good, and 10 percent questionable, and less than 1 percent downright evil, it means that most republicans AND most democrats are good, but not in the top 10 percent of the population in terms of ability and trustworthiness and "mob rule" is not the best way to go

The electoral college protects the low population states, because even if a state has 10 people they still get two senators and a house representative. Where California is a bully in the house, they are on equal footing with S. Dakota in the senate. Actually a system meant to protect minorities against being bulldozed by the majority.

CharonY, I respect your opinion on this board, more than anybody else here. You are informed, educated and pragmatic, without preconcieved notions of who is evil and who is good. And I agree with people's overall feeling that Trump is suspect when it comes to racism (did not rent to blacks) and sexism (access Hollywood tape) and now the trial starts to have him pay back the monies that he scammed from people with Trump university...but some things about him that people have strong feelings against, were not primarily due to what he did or said, but due to what somebody else said about him, using innuendo to construct a straw man. Like his railing against the criminal drug gangs and the drugs coming across our southern border, and this being proof in the eyes of progressives that he is racist against Mexicans. While Obama has deported many Mexicans and other illegals from central America, without being called a racist. And I laughed silently at Hillary's demonization of him because he ranked females on a scale of 1 to 10 (because I do the same thing as a time passer in Airports, to myself). I have two daughters and a wife, myself, independent and educated and in charge of themselves...but do think testosterone is sometimes on trial, and while I plead guilty, I do not find it evil to have testosterone. So there is reason to call those areas out. That he wants to fix it, and fight the gangs and drugs and bring law and order and jobs to these areas is not racist. It is a way to empower blacks that are currently not. That the Hilary team would promote the access Hollywood tape as a disqualifier, in spite of Monica for instance, is somewhat proof of Pinker's linguistic idea that the same thing, when framed in the first person is good, second person neutral and third person bad. Like I am exploring my sexuality, you are loose, and she is a whore. With these protests, people need to take a breath, and look again at what evils they wish to see defeated and what good things they wish to see promoted. It is about respect for each other, and working together as Americans to make it work. And if the majority of the U.S. is white, then white people should not be both then considered the problem and the solution, except in the ways that they actually are. Many of the marchers are there to protect the rights of minorities. To march for the poor and disenfranchised, to protect the immigrant that came here to lead a better life in peace and security, to march for the black man who is kept in ghettos, and the women that are kept in the kitchen, and the gays that are disrespected and shunned by society. But many of the marchers are white. Whites that to a certain degree are not united in terms of who and what they are for and who and what they are against. A general idea that we are a fair country, and Trump is not fair, is being voiced. But this is the election being litigated again, and that actually was the purpose of the election, to choose a leader. It is my wish that we lock arms during the national anthem as the Seahawks did along with their coach the other day. Not burn the flag in the streets. Regards, TAR

String Junky, I think it so, because we are people and all suffer the same human characteristic of framing the exact same thing as good when seen in the first person, neutral when framed in the second person and bad when framed in the third. When we all think of each other as we, then we are all good. When we think of the other as they, then we assign evil motives and characteristics to people we might have under normal circumstances, trusted as a neighbor, who had our back. Basket of deplorables for instance, was a polarizing statement. Obama, our head of state, and leader to the world, for instance, was also the head of the Democratic party and spoke against Trump as an unqualified danger. Not surprising that young people would listen to their president and see trump as evil incarnate, when Reid says he is a sexual predator, etc. People have cursed at Trump during the protests, and even threatened his life. This is actually a federal offense to threaten the life of the president. A felony. Do they know why? Regards, TAR Arete, Perhaps it is​ ​a fear of the other. That if the other has power, they will use it against the other. I am personally of the opinion that the stronger the other is, the stronger I am, as they are on my team. If however there is a feeling that the other is not on your team, then I can see the fear. But, right now, with the protests, the old white guy, like me, sitting at home, wonders if the Fu@@ Trump chants are directed at me. If people are angry at each other, and fed up with each other, and distrustful of each other, it is partially their own fault. Take any marriage or partnership you can personally get involved in. No matter the mate you choose, you are 50% of the relationship. Regards, TAR

on the electoral college thing, it is unlikely that a constitutional amendment would pass as it would require the OK of all the small population states, whose voice and power is protected exactly by the system

Third night of anti trump protests. Saw a group in Miami, and actually quickly counted about 80. Then a shot of people peacefully marching in Atlanta. Too many to count, but maybe a thousand would be a good estimate. From the interviews I have seen over the last couple days the points are mostly that love trumps hate. I have no objection to this message. It is inappropriate to think that people in the Red States don't love their mothers and spouses and children and neighbors. Nor that democrats are the only ones interested in protecting the weak. The polarization of our nation is our own doing. We demonize the other side, when the other side is most likely good. My protest is against people that do not give their own countrymen and women the benefit of the doubt. As a CNN pundit said a little while ago, even a dysfunctional family is still a family. We need to listen to each other and understand and support. Not look to demonize. Regards, TAR especially on veteran's day, when we thank the many that have served to protect this nation and our freedoms

But still, in general about 50 million folks voted Trump and 50 million voted Hilary. Neither gives a mandate as to the direction Sanders supporters or Kasich supporters or people that stayed home, want to see the country go. Ten Oz, That Russia would want to disrupt our election is both disturbing and understandable. That Trump seized upon the Wikileak stuff that embarrassed Clinton is politics. His joke about Russia maybe having the 33,000 e-mails, was meant to point out that we might be able to find out what was in the e-mails she deleted, not that he wanted Russia to hack us. Regards, TAR protesters are good...burnings and breaking stuff and beating people up is bad