Donald Trump

[rangerx]

Conservatives may struggle to win a national presidential election, but they're doing quite well in congress, state governorships, and legislatures.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/14/republicans-have-gained-more-than-900-state-legislative-seats-since-2010/

 

 

Sure. Hence the checks and balances work themselves out. When any leader gets to big for their britches, the electorate snubs it.

 

Where Trump will fail, is because he's already too big for his britches in the public specter.

 

Besides that, being a liberal in a neocon's clothing, who in their right mind actually thinks he will actually live up those promises?

[iNow]

Besides that, being a liberal in a neocon's clothing, who in their right mind actually thinks he will actually live up those promises?

Perhaps the type of people who think climate change is a hoax, evolution a lie, Obama a secret Kenyan Muslim, Planned Parenthood harvesting and selling baby parts, inflation surging, the dollar devaluing, guns evaporating, religion being attacked, and those who are just mad as hell and tired of the status quo and interested in little more than shaking things up because they've got nothing left to lose.

[rangerx]

Perhaps the type of people who think climate change is a hoax, evolution a lie, Obama a secret Kenyan Muslim, Planned Parenthood harvesting and selling baby parts, inflation surging, the dollar devaluing, guns evaporating, religion being attacked, and those who are just mad as hell and tired of the status quo and interested in little more than shaking things up because they've got nothing left to lose.

 

I guess that begs the next question. Are these people in the majority? Doing the rough math in my head, half by virtue of being liberal, no. Then among conservatives themselves, how many actually believe this nonsense? Half? Less than half? More?

 

Surely there must be level headed conservatives think women should not be incubators for the state, or that church and state remain separate, that immigration show flexibility on a case by case basis or gun laws be applied to mentally ill individuals. Yet voting conservative contradicts those values, to what end? How is subjecting women to government regulation superior to personal freedom or universal health care? How is persecuting one religion superior while imposing another for the good for religious freedom? How is rounding up and deporting tens of millions of otherwise decent people to violently corrupt countries more compassionate than offering a safe home, job and liberty?

 

Those people are often accused of not being conservative enough. That's why the party has become a dinosaur and the laughing stock of the rest of the planet.

[overtone]

The fall of the Shah, a direct result of Carter foreign policy, has lead to nothing but disaster, suffering and death.

The rise, corruption, evildoing, and fall of the Shah was not a result of Carter foreign policy (the incoming government was so hostile to Carter they aided in Reagan's election, more or less out of spite - although the missiles and other goodies Reagan traded to them were welcome). And the result was not disaster from the Iranian's point of view (liberation from tyranny seldom is) while the suffering and death that ensued was largely the work of others (including Americans - Party of Personal Accountability, remember?) The Iranians didn't start any wars, impose any sanctions, screw things up all over the Middle East, anything like that, in the wake of their Revolution. Neither did Carter - he was out of office.

 

The biggest difference between the Iranian Revolution and the overthrowings since? ( - Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq (by foreigners, but still), Libya, Sudan, Syria, etc ) - it established some genuinely democratic government, and wasn't taken over by radical jihadists. So the question would be: what went right in Iran that went wrong everywhere else?

 

 

So not being able to admit your screw ups seems to be a universal trait of human being and their political parties.

Living in a fantasy world of rewritten history and physical delusion - What Must Have Happened, Given That Things Went To Hell But It Wasn't Our Fault, Is What Happened - is not really a bipartisan trait in the US. It's something the Republican Party does, kind of as a brand characteristic.

 

 

Then among conservatives themselves, how many actually believe this nonsense? Half? Less than half? More?

Among Republican voters, a clear majority - 2/3 or more - believe multiple significant items in that list.

 

 

Sure. Hence the checks and balances work themselves out. When any leader gets to big for their britches, the electorate snubs it

The only thing Obama ever did that was "too big for his britches" was walk in the front door of the White House, rather than the servant's entrance.

Edited February 26, 2016 by overtone

[rangerx]

Among Republican voters, a clear majority - 2/3 or more - believe multiple significant items in that list.

 

Well... whether accurate or not, that's viewed by other countries as the slippery slope to fascism.

 

I don't live in the USA, but where I live American fascism is much more insidious than pretty much anything Americans shake in their boots about.

[overtone]

Well... whether accurate or not, that's viewed by other countries as the slippery slope to fascism.

The Republican Party has been taken over by American fascism, yes. That's its current dominant ideology. This is no longer even an open secret - it's comfortably acknowledged, and the term is used routinely and accurately by anyone who can't be damaged by the PC police.

 

US Lefties have been calling Trump "Il Douche" for months now. Taibbi compares his speech preparation routine to Mussolini's in a recent Rolling Stone article, and describes the theatricality of the show (Taibbi is an example of those who have long recognized the obvious but are still subject to PC concerns professionally, so cannot use the actual term analytically). That's mainstream, sort of (nobody like Taibbi has a chance at power chair in the major media, but he does get hired and paid by a legit magazine and occasionally invited as a guest on TV).

 

 

I don't live in the USA, but where I live American fascism is much more insidious than pretty much anything Americans shake in their boots about

Americans are only wary of the label, not the ideological reality, of fascism. Especially in the former Confederacy and its post Civil War extension northwest, where the antecedents of comfort with fascist governance highlight the living history of the region, it's not a radical or particularly extreme ideology. They just don't want to be confused with Nazis, because that would imply they were odious crackpots.

Edited February 26, 2016 by overtone

[rangerx]

They just don't want to be confused with Nazis, because that would imply they were odious crackpots.

 

Nobody likes to Godwin the discussion, but in this case it's warranted. The second Trump opened his mouth about deporting 11 million people to where many will face persecution and resident muslims must carry special ID's, was a brown shirt short of Hitler Nazi-ism.

 

There's no other way to explain it.

 

Trump flew off the handle during tonight's CNN debate, claiming the former president of Mexico was not politically correct for saying "We are not paying for his fucking wall" then demanded an apology.

 

His skin is thin as paper, especially when it comes to PC. That's no leader. Nobody likes anyone who cannot practice what they preach, unless maybe 2/3 of Republicans.

 

He's just a loose cannon empowered by a deck load of "under-educated" and "over-medicated" cannonballs rolling around destroying everything useful in the meanwhile while cursing the port they'll never make.

[Ten oz]

 

Sure. Hence the checks and balances work themselves out. When any leader gets to big for their britches, the electorate snubs it.

 

Where Trump will fail, is because he's already too big for his britches in the public specter.

 

Besides that, being a liberal in a neocon's clothing, who in their right mind actually thinks he will actually live up those promises?

It is not an example of the checks and balances working at all. Democrats have been earning more votes but losing seats do to redistricting (gerrymandering).

 

"Although Democratic candidates received a nationwide plurality of more than 1.4 million votes (1.2%) in all House elections,the Republican Party won a 33-seat advantage in the state-apportioned totals, thus retaining its House majority by 17 seats."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

[Willie71]

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

 

It seems you are scared of the term "socialist" and don't know what it really means. What is scary about Bernie's proposals?

[dimreepr]

I get the feeling he thinks the word “socialist” is a euphemism for ‘they’ll take my guns’.

[Phi for All]

I get the feeling he thinks the word “socialist” is a euphemism for ‘they’ll take my guns’.

 

Partially, but I think it's more equating socialism with the former Soviet Union. For those of us born in the 40s-50s, there was an enormous propaganda effort against Communism in the ensuing years, which we mistakenly thought was what the Soviets were practicing. A couple of generations of Americans were led to believe that Soviet Russia was the very definition of Communism.

 

Despite the fact that the US has always practiced Socialism in one form or another, it was really easy for conservative leadership to convert "Communism" to "Socialism", and I think it was in response to Eisenhower's socialist programs. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the country prospered under Eisenhower and those Socialist programs he enacted, the already fabulously wealthy wanted more.

 

So it's more ignorance, really. So many conservative talking points have been refuted, or shown to be outright lies, but they still pull the old "if your audience hasn't heard the truth, you can keep repeating the lies and they won't check" trick. And now these People have The Donald, who is allowed to make up anything he wants and puke it up on the base that doesn't care about liars, only alleged criminals and Socialists.

[dimreepr]

Indeed, after all it’s so much easier to create fear than it is to create understanding; which is probably why conservatives on both sides of the pond have denuded the educational chances of the poor.

[Phi for All]

Indeed, after all it’s so much easier to create fear than it is to create understanding; which is probably why conservatives on both sides of the pond have denuded the educational chances of the poor.

 

It's also easier to switch an old fear onto new tracks, rather than start a new fear.

 

I'm going to stop talking about conservative fear. To the People I'd most like to aim the words at, it comes off like I'm calling them cowards, rather than addressing legitimate concerns. Because those concerns are legitimate. Where I think conservatives make the biggest mistake is in NOT learning what's being done about their concerns. They assume no one is doing anything, and so they want to believe Trump when he lies about how much he cares for the average American.

 

The conservatives develops a concern (or hear about one from their favorite conservative pundit/ranter). They voice it, gain followers who agree, but they leave it at that. They never check to see if the concern is legitimate, or that we've done a reasonable job already of addressing those concerns. That's the part they never learn about. They squawk about welfare recipients scamming the system, but don't bother to learn that such behavior is a tiny percentage of the whole program (1.9% in 2001, and it turns out the biggest scammers are the businesses who service welfare contracts). They hear about illegals doing criminal things, but don't check to see that what Donald said was a complete lie. It turns out that first and second generation immigrants have a lower propensity towards criminal activity. Who knew? People who checked when Trump lied about it, that's who.

 

I'm reminded of the saying, "Why let the truth ruin a good story?"

[waitforufo]

I get the feeling he thinks the word “socialist” is a euphemism for ‘they’ll take my guns’.

My money and property first.

[dimreepr]

My money and property first.

 

 

Well let’s all hope your citadel is impervious to a siege; perhaps then, when you have nothing but your neighbours (or rats) to shoot (and eat), and they you, you’ll realise the value of cooperation.

[Phi for All]

My money and property first.

 

I can understand why you mistakenly think your money will be taken in the form of higher taxes (it's more than offset by the savings in NOT paying into higher-priced private options, of course). I don't get the property bit. Please explain how Bernie wants your property, so we can correct this obvious misunderstanding. Wanting your property sounds like a Trump maneuver (ding dong, Real Estate Mogul!), one he's been admittedly and gleefully ruthless about.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Well let’s all hope your citadel is impervious to a siege; perhaps then, when you have nothing but your neighbours (or rats) to shoot (and eat), and they you, you’ll realise the value of cooperation.

 

 

 

I can understand why you mistakenly think your money will be taken in the form of higher taxes (it's more than offset by the savings in NOT paying into higher-priced private options, of course). I don't get the property bit. Please explain how Bernie wants your property, so we can correct this obvious misunderstanding. Wanting your property sounds like a Trump maneuver (ding dong, Real Estate Mogul!), one he's been admittedly and gleefully ruthless about.

Well it simple. Modern liberals, and in particular socialist, have a problem understanding money an property. That is why you are confused. With regard to both, most normal people understand the concepts of mine an not mine. Conservative thinking people understand that some money is theirs and some is not theirs. Same goes for property. Mine and not mine. For the modern left there is just "the money" and "the property." In a modern liberal's eyes the purpose of government is to distribute the money and the property as the government see fashionable at the moment. They call that fairness. Firearms present a problem with this modern liberal view because normal thinking people might say "hey wait a minute, that's mine." Conservative thinkers, which oddly enough are traditional US liberals, think that the purpose of government is to secure for the people their natural rights of life, liberty, property and the personal defense thereof. That an incredibly liberal understanding.

 

I, and others like me, are very cooperative in preserving the concepts of mine and not mine. In fact, we understand those two concepts are the foundation of all lasting cooperation between people.

Edited February 26, 2016 by waitforufo

[overtone]

Conservative thinking people understand that some money is theirs and some is not theirs.

I haven't seen much evidence of conservative "thinking" people ever coming to an understanding of the concept of "not theirs", when money is involved.

 

Even their guru, Jesus, after taking time out and breaking things down into very. simple. steps. - - "Whose picture is on this coin?" - - had to admit general failure: as he put it, it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than explain the concept of money that is not theirs to conservatives.

Edited February 26, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

I, and others like me, are very cooperative in preserving the concepts of mine and not mine. In fact, we understand those two concepts are the foundation of all lasting cooperation between people.

 

We do differ in this a bit. I think the underlying foundations should be trust, since lots of folks claim my money is theirs somehow.

 

And I think that trust was broken by the people who lied and told us to accept lower pay, wages not tied to my ever-increasing productivity. I think the folks who did that manipulated all of us, made us think we had no choice.

 

By your way of thinking, we got flimm-flammed by con artists, and that's our fault because we should have just agreed that that little bit they kept taking away from me was theirs, not mine. But some of us feel that needs to change. We want it to stop, and we want the folks who broke it to pay. And first we have to change the laws back so they don't favor the rich anymore.

[waitforufo]

I haven't seen much evidence of conservative "thinking" people ever coming to an understanding of the concept of "not theirs", when money is involved.

 

Even their guru, Jesus, after taking time out and breaking things down into very. simple. steps. - - "Whose picture is on this coin?" - - had to admit general failure: as he put it, it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than explain the concept of money that is not theirs to conservatives.

The pharisees were attempting to get Jesus to incite rebellion against Rome by encouraging jews not to pay their taxes. This simply would have gotten him and his followers killed. A common act by despots to those who don't pay their taxes. He was basically saying worship god, but pay your oppressors taxes so you don't get killed by government.

 

Also, it's interesting that you say he admitted is failure by saying "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Interesting because he said "Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?" and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22, Mark 12) after he said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.(Matthew 19, Mark 10." So are you saying, being god, he knew what he was going to say, and admitted failure before he said it?

 

Finally the images on my money are of revolutionaries for liberty, and those sworn to uphold that liberty, so I'm not in the same dilemma.

 

One more thing. I'm also not rich, but liberals and socialist still want my property and money.

 

We do differ in this a bit. I think the underlying foundations should be trust, since lots of folks claim my money is theirs somehow.

 

And I think that trust was broken by the people who lied and told us to accept lower pay, wages not tied to my ever-increasing productivity. I think the folks who did that manipulated all of us, made us think we had no choice.

 

By your way of thinking, we got flimm-flammed by con artists, and that's our fault because we should have just agreed that that little bit they kept taking away from me was theirs, not mine. But some of us feel that needs to change. We want it to stop, and we want the folks who broke it to pay. And first we have to change the laws back so they don't favor the rich anymore.

Were you forced into involuntary servitude? Could you not walk away from a poor paying job an find a hiring paying one. I have been doing that my entire life and no one tried to stop me. Should an employer really have to pay a worker following a wiring diagram to wire a product the same money as a person putting a red wire in a red hole, a green wire in a green hole and so on. How about someone who has to stuff a printed wiring board with leaded parts compared to someone who puts part reals on a pick and place machine? My guess is that employer will pay the engineer who figured out how to simplify the wiring of his products and automated placement of components more. Innovations like that are the primary source of improved productivity. Productivity drives the price of products down and makes them more affordable. This is a benefit to all people.

 

Do you mourn the job losses for all those buggy whip makers and wheel rights?

Edited February 26, 2016 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

This is a benefit to all people.

 

I take it you've never looked at all those graphs that show how the middle class was burgled by their employers cutting wages while productivity remained high. You always dismiss evidence piecemeal, and forget that it's just part of a mountain of evidence that shows how undue influence, and illegal acts made legal with that influence, have almost broken the global economy. You tend to ostrichize the preponderance, and instead focus on anecdotes and rhetoric.

[overtone]

He was basically saying worship god, but pay your oppressors taxes so you don't get killed by government

That's not what he actually said, though, is it.

 

He said: This is not your money, and not even your God's money. It's Ceasar's. Was he wrong?

 

 

Finally the images on my money are of revolutionaries for liberty, and those sworn to uphold that liberty.

The images on your money are government officials, of the same government that issues the money and levies the taxes.

 

Your revolutionary's country home. Notice the observation level with it's 360 degree viewing windows, from which all his slaves could be kept under surveillance. http://www.orcaconsultingllc.com/images/monticello-01.jpg

The city home, or working residence: http://globaltalentidaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/white-house.jpg

Where your money comes from: https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x89b7b82921a2cf17:0x482a3f7c10cf8c4!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e1!4shttps://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/114335112!5scapitol+us+photo+-+Google+Search&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXt4qav5bLAhXM1CYKHckpC8gQoioIbjAK

Where Jesus's money came from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Trevi_Fountain,_Rome,_Italy_2_-_May_2007.jpg

Edited February 26, 2016 by overtone

[rangerx]

One more thing. I'm also not rich, but liberals and socialist still want my property and money.

 

Another classic example of how conservatives claim "their" money is sacred. They have no concept of general revenue coffers.

 

If a liberal was to say... don't spend MY money on wars in the middle east, the conservative response would be something entirely different.

[waitforufo]

 

I take it you've never looked at all those graphs that show how the middle class was burgled by their employers cutting wages while productivity remained high. You always dismiss evidence piecemeal, and forget that it's just part of a mountain of evidence that shows how undue influence, and illegal acts made legal with that influence, have almost broken the global economy. You tend to ostrichize the preponderance, and instead focus on anecdotes and rhetoric.

Wages went down because the jobs became less skilled. Productivity went up because more could be produced by fewer and less skilled laborers. That's what technology and innovation produce. People in poverty today have technology that people 100 years ago would marvel at.

 

I have had to change jobs in my life because the skill I provided was no longer needed. I have also lost jobs in my life because other companies saw that my company was making money hand over fist and went into competition with us. That competition drove down profits. Before long there was not enough profit to stay in business. The only winner in that game was the consumer because prices dropped an order of magnitude. When my skills were no longer needed or my company was driven out of business, I just moved onward and upward. I have been at it now for 35 years. I got no complaints. People have been doing what I have done since the dawn of civilization. How many farrier do you know. How many gas stations are service stations with mechanics on duty? There there used to be one on every other corner on most arterial roads. How many milkmen do you know? How many TV repair men? All those were middle class jobs.

 

 

Another classic example of how conservatives claim "their" money is sacred. They have no concept of general revenue coffers.

 

If a liberal was to say... don't spend MY money on wars in the middle east, the conservative response would be something entirely different.

My money is no more sacred than yours. It's just that mine is mine and yours is not mine. I will also defend your right to keep your money and property.

Liberals did say don't spend MY money on wars in the middle east. That's why Obama is president. I think he is a terrible president, but he is my president. Maybe one day Trump will be your president. I think there would be better Republicans, but if it is the will of the people, so be it.

[overtone]

Wages went down because the jobs became less skilled. Productivity went up because more could be produced by fewer and less skilled laborers. That's what technology and innovation produce.

Jobs did not become less skilled in the US. White collar productivity - the focus of much technology and innovation - did not go up in the US.

I think he is a terrible president, but he is my president.

In 2009 several Republican Congressmen declared - in public - that Obama was "not my President". Then they behaved accordingly. (A great many of their constituents did as well. To this day a large fraction - by some surveys a majority - of Republican voters think Obama is Kenyan, or his election was fraudulent due to ACORN and other sources of vote tampering, or he is a secret Muslim in league with jihadist forces and should have been impeached).

 

You don't actually know anything about the Obama presidency, so you don't actually think he is a terrible President - your thoughts are restricted to a fictional President with the same name.

Edited February 26, 2016 by overtone