The Success of President Donald Trump

OA412 · Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:00 pm

jetero wrote:
Bannon, who along with Breitbart and some other Trump stalwarts, has endorsed former state Supreme Court justice Roy Moore against Strange, told Hannity that there needs to be a “real … review” of how Trump came to the decision to endorse Strange.

Ugh let's at least be happy he was duped into supporting Strange over Roy Moore. I'm not familiar with Strange, but Moore is a horrid human being who's twice been removed from his position on the Alabama Supreme Court, first for refusing to remove a sculpture of the ten commandments from outside the courthouse and then for blocking gay marriages in Alabama in defiance of a federal court order. Why he hasn't yet been disbarred is beyond me. Then again, this is the same state that elected to the Senate a man deemed to racist to be a federal judge in the 1980s....

treetreeseven · Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:19 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
treetreeseven wrote:
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the EC being abolished by amendment. You can pry those +2 electors out of the low population states' cold dead hands.

Our larger parties thought the same, benefiting from the system that was in place, until our supreme court explained to them that being equal in front of the law included that each vote has the same value no matter what.

In the United States, the Supreme Court cannot unilaterally change the constitution. An amendment is required.

It would be interesting to see what, if anything, the Supreme Court could do in the inevitable lawsuits that would result from the Popular Vote Interstate Compact, should it take effect.

jetero wrote:
You guys really have some sort of "tit-for-tat" wiring in your genes.

There is some evidence to support the idea that the "authoritarian personality" is heritable to some degree.

jetero wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Nope. Every leftist ever. Apparently everything bad that ever happened in the world is GWB's fault. Still is apparently, although fortunately we can start blaming stuff on Trump now. Clinton and Obama were Gods however.

There is help out there, buddy. All it takes is a phone call.

("Every leftist ever." God, you guys really believe that sh*t, don't you?)

The level of black and white thinking is pretty amazing, although "conservatives" certainly don't have a complete monopoly on it as far as the human race goes. But again, it's a major foundation of the authoritarian personality.

I'd say maybe the guy has a poor sample of leftists with heavy confirmation bias. But assuming he's been reading the posts on here past the first sentence (a generous assumption for ANYBODY on here I'm finding out), that can't be the case.

I'm a leftist. Clinton did plenty of bad shit. So did Obama.

Reagan probably takes the cake, though :wink2:

salttee · Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:42 pm

treetreeseven wrote:
I'm a leftist. Clinton did plenty of bad shit. So did Obama.

Would you please tell me what some of this "bad shit" was?

Something beyond "she had her own E-mail server" if there is any such stuff.

And Obama?

treetreeseven · Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:27 pm

salttee wrote:
treetreeseven wrote:
I'm a leftist. Clinton did plenty of bad shit. So did Obama.

Would you please tell me what some of this "bad shit" was?

Something beyond "she had her own E-mail server" if there is any such stuff.

And Obama?

Interesting you think I was referring to Hillary. The right-wing loons have us all trained, perhaps :smile:

Brief examples? The Clintonian record on criminal justice was highly sub-optimal. As was Obama's headlong continuance of the massive Executive Branch power grab that Dubya got off the ground.

Dutchy · Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:25 pm

salttee wrote:
And Obama?

Drone attacks? Not closing Guantanamo bay?

jetero · Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:40 pm

Yikes salttee! No go zone!

Re criminal justice I'm sure he's referring to this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-m ... 38934.html

Should've made him popular with the righties like NoTime for trying to change "culture," though.

salttee · Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:45 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Drone attacks?

Maybe you don't like the drone attacks but they were the very best option he had. He didn't invade Iran or Syria or Yemen and those were the alternatives. Doing nothing militarily was not a option for him. He would have been driven from office if he had done things entirely his way: cutting Israel loose and making actual peace with the Islamic people of the ME: apologizing for a century plus of western meddling and western imperialism.

You're here spouting off your mouth about US politics and you can't even see that. I think you should stick to Dutch politics.

Dutchy wrote:
Not closing Guantanamo bay?

Another impossibility in the land of realpolitik.

salttee · Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:49 pm

jetero wrote:
Yikes salttee! No go zone!

Re criminal justice I'm sure he's referring to this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-m ... 38934.html

Should've made him popular with the righties like NoTime for trying to change "culture," though.

Yea, right. Bill Clinton is responsible for the war on drugs!

LOL

jetero · Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:49 pm

OA412 wrote:
Ugh let's at least be happy he was duped into supporting Strange over Roy Moore. I'm not familiar with Strange, but Moore is a horrid human being who's twice been removed from his position on the Alabama Supreme Court, first for refusing to remove a sculpture of the ten commandments from outside the courthouse and then for blocking gay marriages in Alabama in defiance of a federal court order. Why he hasn't yet been disbarred is beyond me. Then again, this is the same state that elected to the Senate a man deemed to racist to be a federal judge in the 1980s....

Agreed on Moore, but it matters not as he stands to win. Trump will not accept blame and will say "He knew it all the time" and blame someone else.

Decades of Republican leadership have just done lovely for Alabama, BTW. Will they accept defeat and try something different, perhaps a little more accommodating? NO, PUSH EVEN HARDER THEY WILL SAY!!!!!!! #MAlaGA

330west · Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:36 pm

330west wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
When the left interjected themselves into my personal life, I don't take too kindly to that. The GOP tries everyday but at least you can ignore them/tune them out. Leftists will make sure to ruin your life if you don't agree with them.

How did the left interject into your personal life?

jetero · Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:49 am

This just in from the Dotard-in-Chief, Self-Declared President of the Uneducated.

"Puerto Rico is an island in a big ocean, a very big ocean. It's not like Texas." You heard it here first!

Way to raise the bar, Repubs!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... ck-of-aid/?

apodino · Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:52 am

Aesma wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Aesma wrote:

She's the winner because a majority will choose her as Chancellor, not just because her party has 32.5%. If all the other parties agreed to support someone else, then Merkel wouldn't be Chancellor with these results. She will ally her party with other parties and get more than 50%.

So in the end she has a majority, and much more support than someone like Trump, who can't get anything done despite having supposedly more than 50% power in every branch.

Your point is well taken.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

If I could swap Mrs. Merkel for Mr. Trump, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Your system prevents the rise of smaller parties. The US should have at least 4 parties, 1 center-left (democrats), 1 center-right (GOP), 1 more to the left (socialists ?), and the Tea Party. Then Trump would have had a harder time getting a majority.

I have actually thought about this. I agree that the US needs 4 parties but in my world they would be as follows. 1 Fiscal Liberal and Social Liberal party (The current Democratic party). 1 Fiscal Conservative and Socially Liberal party (Something similar to the Libertarian Party or the blue dog Democrats, also the wing of the GOP with Collins and Murkowski). 1 Fiscal Liberal and Social Conservative party (This would be the establishment wing of the current Republican Party and although they talk fiscal conservatism they always end up passing more liberal legislation on the fiscal side), and 1 Fiscal and Social Conservative Party (This would be the Base of the current republican party and would be the Freedom Caucus in the House and the Ted Cruz, Mike Lee side in the senate) I say this because I tend to see how places are politically. A state like New Hampshire for example is a very libertarian type of state and if the Libertarian party were strong I believe they would have members in the House and Senate. A state like California is never going to be socially conservative, but many of the rural areas are fiscally conservative, so its another state where I could see a Libertarian party having some power. Utah is always going to be socially conservative, but they are not going to be led by a Sam Brownback type guy either.

It would be interesting to speculate how this country would look politically if we had 4 strong parties rather than 2. Coalitions would have to be formed just to get a speaker named, and I think this would actually result in much less power in the speakers hands and then every state actually would be represented in Congress. The more and more I write the more and more I like this idea.

Some people have speculated on what the US would be like with a parliamentary style government. Well in a two party system there is no coalition, so the republicans would still be in charge of government. That being said there is no way that Donald Trump would have ever ran as head of the GOP nor would he even get elected to his own seat in congress to become a prime minister. Getting the party behind one person would be difficult and ensuring party loyalty would as well. I would venture to say that Paul Ryan would be Prime Minister but I couldn't say for sure. Someone like Mia Love, who is currently what the British would call a backbencher, could have become leader and then the US would have its first woman leader. Or the Democrats could have gained the majority in which case we would be looking at Prime Minster Pelosi. That being said, if Congress as a parliament worked like it did in other countries, the Senate would not be as high profile, which would meant that Bernie Sanders could still be in the House, or Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Ted Cruz, or anyone else. Its just difficult to know. We wouldn't have Trump though. There is no chance in hell.

One thing I will say about Gerrymandering. It is a disgusting practice and there is no doubt that both parties practice it, and benefit from it in different locations. Many on the left believe that if it didn't exist, the GOP would not be the majority party. This may be true, but I am going to take a hard look at this sometime and see just how much of an effect it is having on congressional representation. Up until now the only data we have is the raw vote saying that Democrats get more votes than republicans. This may be true, but if Democrats are running up totals in Blue areas like Massachusetts, California, and New York, these numbers may be a bit misleading. I will look hard into this and post again when I have some more data. I don't like making accusations without facts.

DIRECTFLT · Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:58 am

News Flash.... Trumpism Wins over Trump, McConnell, and a $30 Million Dollar Strange Campaign for the Alabama Republican Senate Runoff ! ! !

The People have spoken...and that will not sit well with the other side.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... not-trump/

Francoflier · Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:10 am

treetreeseven wrote:
I'm a leftist. Clinton did plenty of bad shit. So did Obama.

They did. No question. But then every politician does. Every President of the US (or any other country, for that matter), has done and will do bad shit.

We may prefer one to the other, but politicians are, by definition, not to be trusted. I don't believe for a second that anybody would get into politics for the sole purpose of devoting themselves to the nation. And even if that was the case early on in their career for some, the US political scene has become such a self-serving bunch of lobbyists that the interests of voters usually barely makes the bottom of the priority list. No idealistic-minded person would be able to successfully navigate this tangled mess without at least abandoning some of his/her values along the way.

And I believe that this is part of the current problem. People have come to take an intimate emotional involvement to their elected leaders.
At the end of the day, as South Park famously coined, we all have to vote for either a turd sandwich or a giant douche. I think it would help a lot with the current situation if people injected a healthy dose of cynicism and pragmatism in their political views and voting decisions.

That being said, there are shades of grey. If we are going to judge politicians, then we should at least use the same yardstick for all of them...
Obama and Hillary are no saint, but if we are going to compare them to the current incumbent of the WH, you'd have to be blind and oblivious to reality to believe that the maelstrom of incompetence, hypocrisy, scandals, stupidity and nefariousness we are currently witnessing could have been associated to any of the other politicians who pretended to the title early in the presidential race, on either side of the spectrum... (maybe Ted Cruz would have come close).

salttee · Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:24 am

Francoflier wrote:
treetreeseven wrote:
I'm a leftist. Clinton did plenty of bad shit. So did Obama.

They did. No question.

Like what???

This is proof of Joseph Goebbels' theory. "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it", nothing more.

tommy1808 · Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:39 am

treetreeseven wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
treetreeseven wrote:
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the EC being abolished by amendment. You can pry those +2 electors out of the low population states' cold dead hands.

Our larger parties thought the same, benefiting from the system that was in place, until our supreme court explained to them that being equal in front of the law included that each vote has the same value no matter what.

In the United States, the Supreme Court cannot unilaterally change the constitution. An amendment is required.

In Germany it can't either. And I'd be surprised if it could anywhere, as they are by definition not legislators. If they couldn't decide this part of the constitution is mutally exclusive of this one, so one has to go, they wouldn't be supreme courts. It is already in the word supreme.

Best regards
Thomas

727LOVER · Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:04 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
The People have spoken

THEY CERTAINLY DID !!!

jetero · Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:21 am

treetreeseven wrote:
jetero wrote:
You guys really have some sort of "tit-for-tat" wiring in your genes.

There is some evidence to support the idea that the "authoritarian personality" is heritable to some degree.

treetreeseven wrote:
jetero wrote:

There is help out there, buddy. All it takes is a phone call.

("Every leftist ever." God, you guys really believe that sh*t, don't you?)

The level of black and white thinking is pretty amazing, although "conservatives" certainly don't have a complete monopoly on it as far as the human race goes. But again, it's a major foundation of the authoritarian personality.

Lucky for us we have to deal with their manias, hysteria, and superstitions.

DIRECTFLT · Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:02 am

jetero wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right. President Trump is an awesome president and his policy of national interest is spreading, even in Germany people want to be proud of their nation again and want illegal and criminal foreigners removed.

We should outlaw the left then. Because all of the people who have voted Democrat have also killed people. Actually we do it all the time. That's part of our party platform. So sad Hillary isn't president so we couldn't kill more people, because, you know, that's in our veins. It's evidently very instinctive.Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, right?

#AwesomePresident

Watching the Ken Burns Vietnam series last night, I couldn't help but think to say, with all of the drafting the Dems did for "the War:"

Beware Dem. Jobs Programs

Francoflier · Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:12 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Watching the Ken Burns Vietnam series last night, I couldn't help but think to say, with all of the drafting the Dems did for "the War:"

Is that why your hero Trump dodged the draft?
:eyebrow:

salttee · Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:32 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Watching the Ken Burns Vietnam series last night, I couldn't help but think to say, with all of the drafting the Dems did for "the War:"
Beware Dem. Jobs Programs

More BS from the right. Nixon's "southern strategy" stripped all the uninformed war loving neanderthals from the Democratic party and ingrained them into the Republican base where the now make their home. Those mid 20th century "Dems" are all yours now. You're throwing rocks at your own friends; in fact, you're probably throwing rocks at yourself, or your own daddy.

jetero · Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:51 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
jetero wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right. President Trump is an awesome president and his policy of national interest is spreading, even in Germany people want to be proud of their nation again and want illegal and criminal foreigners removed.

We should outlaw the left then. Because all of the people who have voted Democrat have also killed people. Actually we do it all the time. That's part of our party platform. So sad Hillary isn't president so we couldn't kill more people, because, you know, that's in our veins. It's evidently very instinctive.Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, right?

#AwesomePresident

Watching the Ken Burns Vietnam series last night, I couldn't help but think to say, with all of the drafting the Dems did for "the War:"

Beware Dem. Jobs Programs

Of course, LBJ loved all those protesters, too. Did everything he could to ensure they had a voice! And the Democrats certainly didn't run another candidate against LBJ in the primary, causing him to abandon the race. Oh, and he killed more than a million leftists! Sounds like your "side" should be canonizing him.

But don't let history stand in your way! You only read the self-serving chapters. And make stuff up when you need to.

Dutchy · Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:51 pm

salttee wrote:
You're here spouting off your mouth about US politics and you can't even see that. I think you should stick to Dutch politics.

So criticism isn't taking lightly.

OA412 · Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:35 pm

Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
You're here spouting off your mouth about US politics and you can't even see that. I think you should stick to Dutch politics.

So criticism isn't taking lightly.

This bothers me no matter who is saying it. It's one thing to spout off about another country's politics when you clearly don't know anything about it, another when you are at least somewhat informed. This is an international website. We are all here to discuss. If you don't want non-Americans "spouting off their mouths about US politics" you need to find an Americans only website to frequent.

seb146 · Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:05 pm

Since we are talking about the perceived "success" of dear leader, can we talk about how he is allowing Puerto Rico to descend into chaos? Even though he is head of the military and there are military hospital ships that can dock in Puerto Rico and he can order the military to help get our island back to working order, he lets them suffer. Such winning.

jetero · Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:07 pm

seb146 wrote:
Since we are talking about the perceived "success" of dear leader, can we talk about how he is allowing Puerto Rico to descend into chaos? Even though he is head of the military and there are military hospital ships that can dock in Puerto Rico and he can order the military to help get our island back to working order, he lets them suffer. Such winning.

Just blame the (minority) victims! C'mon, seb!

salttee · Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:32 pm

OA412 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
You're here spouting off your mouth about US politics and you can't even see that. I think you should stick to Dutch politics.

So criticism isn't taking lightly.

This bothers me no matter who is saying it. It's one thing to spout off about another country's politics when you clearly don't know anything about it, another when you are at least somewhat informed. This is an international website. We are all here to discuss. If you don't want non-Americans "spouting off their mouths about US politics" you need to find an Americans only website to frequent.

Your quote of me above omits the context.

My complaint was that Dutchy presents as a progressive or liberal, to the left of most US politics, yet he attacks the standard bearer for progressive politics in the US with an uninformed argument. He plays right into the hands of the fascists. He reinforces the big lie: you tell a lie often enough and soon it becomes the truth. It's similar to how some of the US libs here are touting the line that the Clintons are the genesis of corruption in the US, yet they can't come up with anything other than the fact that Bill got a blow job from a consenting adult and Hillary used her own E-mail server, like those before her. I've called "liberals" out on that several times recently and they simply don't respond.

Here we have a "liberal" showing no understanding of the political circumstance faced by the Obama administration joining in with Stratosphere and No Time et al, throwing meritless accusations at a man who should be given the esteem he deserves. I consider myself a Europhile, I do see things from the international POV and I have spoken as such here; I assume that Dutchy has noticed that. I feel a right to call out someone from Europe who sees the US as a cardboard entity. If he were from NY I might have told him to go back to Yonkers. But I guess that would have personalized it, which need to be avoided in a debate.

So while I get your point, please keep the context in mind.

salttee · Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:36 pm

seb146 wrote:
Since we are talking about the perceived "success" of dear leader, can we talk about how he is allowing Puerto Rico to descend into chaos? Even though he is head of the military and there are military hospital ships that can dock in Puerto Rico and he can order the military to help get our island back to working order, he lets them suffer. Such winning.

Upscale New Yorkers have a "special" relationship with Puerto Ricans; at least that's my understanding.
IMO, that explains everything.

apodino · Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:36 pm

salttee wrote:
OA412 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

So criticism isn't taking lightly.

This bothers me no matter who is saying it. It's one thing to spout off about another country's politics when you clearly don't know anything about it, another when you are at least somewhat informed. This is an international website. We are all here to discuss. If you don't want non-Americans "spouting off their mouths about US politics" you need to find an Americans only website to frequent.

Your quote of me above omits the context.

My complaint was that Dutchy presents as a progressive or liberal, to the left of most US politics, yet he attacks the standard bearer for progressive politics in the US with an uninformed argument. He plays right into the hands of the fascists. He reinforces the big lie: you tell a lie often enough and soon it becomes the truth. It's similar to how some of the US libs here are touting the line that the Clintons are the genesis of corruption in the US, yet they can't come up with anything other than the fact that Bill got a blow job from a consenting adult and Hillary used her own E-mail server, like those before her. I've called "liberals" out on that several times recently and they simply don't respond.

Here we have a "liberal" showing no understanding of the political circumstance faced by the Obama administration joining in with Stratosphere and No Time et al, throwing meritless accusations at a man who should be given the esteem he deserves. I consider myself a Europhile, I do see things from the international POV and I have spoken as such here; I assume that Dutchy has noticed that. I feel a right to call out someone from Europe who sees the US as a cardboard entity. If he were from NY I might have told him to go back to Yonkers. But I guess that would have personalized it, which need to be avoided in a debate.

So while I get your point, please keep the context in mind.

With all due respect there is more to the Clintons than just the emails or Bill screwing Monica. One issue at hand is the Clintons raised a ton of money that was supposed to go help the people of Haiti, yet much of this money was never received in Haiti which has a lot of people wondering where it ended up. Another issue is a purported Uranium deal with Russia that was negotiated and then later on a lot of Russian Money ended up being donated to the Clinton Foundation. Fact checkers have reached different conclusions on this so I am not sure what the truth is. There is also the entire DWS deal with the Democratic Primary, and later on Hillary being fed debate questions by Donna Brazille. One other question I have is why was the Clinton Foundation disbanded after the election? If they were doing good work, why not keep it going and allow them to do their good work and make a difference without needing to hold office. There is no definitive proof, but the only logical explaination is that the Clinton Foundation was a front for something else. And the tarmac meeting Bill had with Loretta Lynch still makes no sense to me at all and I don't buy their explanation of it.

There are other right wing conspiracies out there like the one that supposedly a lot of people that have had relationships with the Clintons have all turned up dead for some reason. There is no evidence of foul play in any of these deaths and for this card to be played is just as wrong as the whole Obama birther card.

I will say this though. I believe Obama did more harm to Liberalism and Progressivism than good. Yes he got some liberal priorities accomplished like the Health Care bill and got Sotamayor and Kagen on the Supreme Court. But Democrats have lost a lot of seats at all levels of government since he was elected. He had an awful relationship with congress, and yes I include Pelosi and Reid in that as well as he did not work well with them either even when Democrats had the majority. He speaks very well and can make things sound good, but he also presents it in an elitist way that does not win detractors over. I also believe that the best thing that could have happened for the Liberal Cause would have been for Romney to be elected president. I say this because had Romney been elected, there is no way Trump runs and wins this year. Although Romney is a nice guy he is also a very wealthy guy and he would have had trouble relating to middle America. The democratic party would have had motivation to go out and develop new leaders and we would have had some fresh blood last election. Instead Obama upset a lot of people with some of his policies and the establishment continued to corrupt Washington and he made enough people angry that we elected Donald Trump, who is one of the worst people we could have ever elected president and with all the other talent that the GOP ran this year, to say this is the cream of that crop insults my intelligence. My choices were so bad this year I was forced to write in my choice for president. I have zero regrets and would do it again in a heartbeat.

BobPatterson · Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:54 pm

apodino wrote:
...... we elected Donald Trump, who is one of the worst people we could have ever elected president and with all the other talent that the GOP ran this year, to say this is the cream of that crop insults my intelligence. My choices were so bad this year I was forced to write in my choice for president. I have zero regrets and would do it again in a heartbeat.

I hope you will not feel insulted when I say that you seem to be blaming Mr. Obama or the Democrats for the fact that Mr. Trump was the sole survivor of the Republican primary process.

Probably all of the Republican primary candidates were "better" than Mr. Trump. A few of them might even have been considered to be "Presidential material".

You might as well blame the free press, by giving Mr. Trump's lies and outlandish statements constant and free exposure, for making him the nominee of the Republican Party.

apodino · Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:11 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
apodino wrote:
...... we elected Donald Trump, who is one of the worst people we could have ever elected president and with all the other talent that the GOP ran this year, to say this is the cream of that crop insults my intelligence. My choices were so bad this year I was forced to write in my choice for president. I have zero regrets and would do it again in a heartbeat.

I hope you will not feel insulted when I say that you seem to be blaming Mr. Obama or the Democrats for the fact that Mr. Trump was the sole survivor of the Republican primary process.

Probably all of the Republican primary candidates were "better" than Mr. Trump. A few of them might even have been considered to be "Presidential material".

You might as well blame the free press, by giving Mr. Trump's lies and outlandish statements constant and free exposure, for making him the nominee of the Republican Party.

Its not entirely Obama, but for whatever reason the climate that was created during his presidency, whether his fault or not, led to the people being so angry that they wanted someone completely outside of Washington to come in and clean things up. Unfortunately for many people that was Trump. Also unfortunately is the fact that Hillary was the democratic nominee. I really wish Joe Biden had run because he would have had my vote in a heartbeat had he been the democratic nominee. I don't agree with him a lot politically, but he is the most honest, down to earth guy I have seen serve and I know that he would have served with what he thought was our best interests.

BobPatterson · Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:17 pm

apodino wrote:
Also unfortunately is the fact that Hillary was the democratic nominee. I really wish Joe Biden had run because he would have had my vote in a heartbeat had he been the democratic nominee. I don't agree with him a lot politically, but he is the most honest, down to earth guy I have seen serve and I know that he would have served with what he thought was our best interests.

Agreed.

maortega15 · Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:45 pm

apodino wrote:
I really wish Joe Biden had run because he would have had my vote in a heartbeat had he been the democratic nominee. I don't agree with him a lot politically, but he is the most honest, down to earth guy I have seen serve and I know that he would have served with what he thought was our best interests.

Just watch these videos. :bigthumbsup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzWZc9Kug64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zavUwmEAKA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMYW8jFPHg

Warms your heart especially the last one, doesn't it?!

apodino · Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:17 am

maortega15 wrote:
apodino wrote:
I really wish Joe Biden had run because he would have had my vote in a heartbeat had he been the democratic nominee. I don't agree with him a lot politically, but he is the most honest, down to earth guy I have seen serve and I know that he would have served with what he thought was our best interests.

Just watch these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzWZc9Kug64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zavUwmEAKA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMYW8jFPHg

Warms your heart especially the last one, doesn't it?!

I don't care what party you belong to, those videos bring tears to my eyes.

maortega15 · Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:56 am

apodino wrote:
maortega15 wrote:
apodino wrote:
I really wish Joe Biden had run because he would have had my vote in a heartbeat had he been the democratic nominee. I don't agree with him a lot politically, but he is the most honest, down to earth guy I have seen serve and I know that he would have served with what he thought was our best interests.

Just watch these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzWZc9Kug64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zavUwmEAKA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMYW8jFPHg

Warms your heart especially the last one, doesn't it?!

I don't care what party you belong to, those videos bring tears to my eyes.

It's not really about politics in this case as you can see, the other side loved and respect him. It's really about humanity and compassion.

With Trump, you can see his behavior. Attacking folks even from his own party, and blocking a cancer patient on Twitter. And with the Charlottesville incident, when asked a question by a reporter, his rebuttal was, "What about the alt-left?!".

It's not about politics when it comes to these issues, it's really about humanity and compassion.

maortega15 · Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:06 am

And here is a perfect example:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump- ... 56324.html

einsteinboricua · Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:06 am

maortega15 wrote:
Warms your heart especially the last one, doesn't it?!

None will ever bring me to tears like when Obama bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom, completely surprising him and catching him offguard. People (including on this forum) railed against the award, but Lindsey Graham's words come back to mind: "If you can't admire Joe Biden as a person, you have a problem". He is the true embodiment of what public service is all about, about persevering through the toughest of times and do what's best for your country.

maortega15 · Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:24 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
maortega15 wrote:
Warms your heart especially the last one, doesn't it?!

None will ever bring me to tears like when Obama bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom, completely surprising him and catching him offguard. People (including on this forum) railed against the award, but Lindsey Graham's words come back to mind: "If you can't admire Joe Biden as a person, you have a problem". He is the true embodiment of what public service is all about, about persevering through the toughest of times and do what's best for your country.

As a human being, you really have to admire the guy's perseverance and courage to weather the toughest of times. I mean, how many children and wives did he lose?!

You have to feel for the man, no human being should have to go through what he went through.

And back to the Trump family: https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/m/849a4 ... d-jr..html

While Obama gave money to Biden so he wouldn't have to sell his house.

You know there's a problem with healthcare when the VP has to sell his house to pay for healthcare costs.

seb146 · Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:40 am

More success and winning from the minority president:

At least six (probably more; definitely more) use private email

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/p ... annon.html

Mnuchen was CEO of a bank that foreclosed on active duty military (because they love the military so much)

http://www.businessinsider.com/mnuchins ... res-2017-8

Of course, the rebuttal will be something about Hillary and "antifa" and Obama because they are in charge or something?

tommy1808 · Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:52 am

apodino wrote:
One issue at hand is the Clintons raised a ton of money that was supposed to go help the people of Haiti, yet much of this money was never received in Haiti which has a lot of people wondering where it ended up.

.... what did the US GoA have to say about it? Wasn´t it something along the lines of "no sign of wong doing"

Another issue is a purported Uranium deal with Russia that was negotiated and then later on a lot of Russian Money ended up being donated to the Clinton Foundation. Fact checkers have reached different conclusions on this so I am not sure what the truth is.

the truth is that Secretary was just one of many that had to sign off on that deal. And i am deliberately saying "had to", because that is a pure administrative decision, which means that she had to sign off once the legal criteria are met. If anyone bribed here for something she couldn´t change if she wanted, it would require a new word beyond stupid.
The only one that could have vetoed the deal was the President, but dumping on Obama wasn´t useful last year, so they dumped on Clinton. They could relay on very few people taking the 2 minutes to check that...it is not that hard: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... idance.pdf

And just for the record, there was no deal selling Uranium. There was a deal that a Russian state owned company Rosatom bought a 51% share in a Canadian mining company, that happens to own a Uranium mine in the US.Which represents 20% of the US Uranium mining capacity, not 20% of the US Uranium. There is no export licence for that Uranium, so simply Russians paid money to dig out Uranium for use by the US. Wow.. how terrible that is....

Also for the record, Russia and the US are selling Uranium back and forth from time to time, actual Uranium changing hands, but no fuzz was ever made..... and i do have the feeling if Trump waves such a deal through today, he would be celebrated and praised for his hard work to fix the relationship with Russia.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy · Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:55 am

salttee wrote:
OA412 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

So criticism isn't taking lightly.

This bothers me no matter who is saying it. It's one thing to spout off about another country's politics when you clearly don't know anything about it, another when you are at least somewhat informed. This is an international website. We are all here to discuss. If you don't want non-Americans "spouting off their mouths about US politics" you need to find an Americans only website to frequent.

Your quote of me above omits the context.

My complaint was that Dutchy presents as a progressive or liberal, to the left of most US politics, yet he attacks the standard bearer for progressive politics in the US with an uninformed argument. He plays right into the hands of the fascists. He reinforces the big lie: you tell a lie often enough and soon it becomes the truth. It's similar to how some of the US libs here are touting the line that the Clintons are the genesis of corruption in the US, yet they can't come up with anything other than the fact that Bill got a blow job from a consenting adult and Hillary used her own E-mail server, like those before her. I've called "liberals" out on that several times recently and they simply don't respond.

Here we have a "liberal" showing no understanding of the political circumstance faced by the Obama administration joining in with Stratosphere and No Time et al, throwing meritless accusations at a man who should be given the esteem he deserves. I consider myself a Europhile, I do see things from the international POV and I have spoken as such here; I assume that Dutchy has noticed that. I feel a right to call out someone from Europe who sees the US as a cardboard entity. If he were from NY I might have told him to go back to Yonkers. But I guess that would have personalized it, which need to be avoided in a debate.

So while I get your point, please keep the context in mind.

So your argument is that Obama did the least worst thing, given American politics, so we should applaud him? I am well aware of the American context, thank you. I applaud Obama for trying to close Guantanamo Bay and I even think The Netherlands should have let 1 or 2 detainees in after the Republicans blocked every solution which is up to the human right standards. As for drone attacks, with all do respect, Obama forced to invade as an alternative to illegitimate drone attacks? There are other options you know and yes that means slower international solution, but more durable and not just blow people (including bystanders) up (hint: doesn't make America more popular).

So the classic debate between real politics versus moral politics.

WIederling · Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:46 am

apodino wrote:
I believe Obama did more harm to Liberalism and Progressivism than good.

Obama was the first (DEM) president who was completely and unmoderatedly opposed by
the GOP and its conservative entourage
_in all aspects of his activities just for being there and black_ .

This afaics gave the marginally democratic US system the final push over the brink.

What you see today is "Absolutism on a Whim" and most of corporate America and
people with money working with it. ( This is a description that would also fit rather
well for 1930++ Germany, likewise preceded by a comparable hamstrung leadership
in what was the democratic failure and end of the Weimar Republic. )

jetero · Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
apodino wrote:
I believe Obama did more harm to Liberalism and Progressivism than good.

Obama was the first (DEM) president who was completely and unmoderatedly opposed by
the GOP and its conservative entourage
_in all aspects of his activities just for being there and black_ .

This afaics gave the marginally democratic US system the final push over the brink.

What you see today is "Absolutism on a Whim" and most of corporate America and
people with money working with it. ( This is a description that would also fit rather
well for 1930++ Germany, likewise preceded by a comparable hamstrung leadership
in what was the democratic failure and end of the Weimar Republic. )

Agree with all of the above

salttee · Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:38 am

apodino wrote:
With all due respect there is more to the Clintons than just the emails or Bill screwing Monica. One issue at hand is the Clintons raised a ton of money that was supposed to go help the people of Haiti, yet much of this money was never received in Haiti which has a lot of people wondering where it ended up.

Unless you can provide some substance to this accusation by innuendo, that's a big nothing. A zero.

apodino wrote:
Another issue is a purported Uranium deal with Russia that was negotiated and then later on a lot of Russian Money ended up being donated to the Clinton Foundation. Fact checkers have reached different conclusions on this so I am not sure what the truth is.

Another empty accusation by innuendo. You don't even know what you're accusing her of. The "uranium deal" was an above board business transaction of no great consequence. The uranium remains in the Canadian uranium mining areas where it always was. The controlling shares of the company which owns the land came into Russian hands. Uranium is a commodity, this is no big deal. Unless you have some rational and specific complaint, which is something that I have never encountered.

apodino wrote:
There is also the entire DWS deal with the Democratic Primary, and later on Hillary being fed debate questions by Donna Brazille.

That is in the running for the most trivial national politics fraud story ever, a tempest in a teacup. Wow, a politician looked over somebody's shoulder to get the questions to an exam. Do you have even a slight clue about how actual politics work in everyday life in this country or anywhere else, from the school board up? Apparently not: it's either that or you're just trying to convince everyone that you've never been out of your mom's basement and have no clue.

apodino wrote:
One other question I have is why was the Clinton Foundation disbanded after the election? If they were doing good work, why not keep it going and allow them to do their good work and make a difference without needing to hold office. There is no definitive proof, but the only logical explaination is that the Clinton Foundation was a front for something else.

Another baseless accusation by innuendo. Maybe they lost interest in the people who were attending those board meetings. Or more likely, after losing the election, the Clintons lost their clout to extract money from a bunch of rich tightwads. Your wild reasoning is unwarranted and unethical unless you have something to back it up.

apodino wrote:
And the tarmac meeting Bill had with Loretta Lynch still makes no sense to me at all and I don't buy their explanation of it.

Another big nothing. Bill and Loretta are friends that go way back; they are political allies. Bill's contacting her is not illegal or immoral in any way. Without the Clinton witch hunt, it would have been quite unremarkable. It only has legs via innuendo which seems to be your specialty.

apodino wrote:
There are other right wing conspiracies out there like the one that supposedly a lot of people that have had relationships with the Clintons have all turned up dead for some reason. There is no evidence of foul play in any of these deaths and for this card to be played is just as wrong as the whole Obama birther card.

You gave up on that one eh?

apodino wrote:
I will say this though. I believe Obama did more harm to Liberalism and Progressivism than good.....

Just exactly how relevant do you think your right wing analysis is to the progressive community? What a vapid tack for you to take! All this does is to illuminate how biased and slandering you are. That snotty little bit makes me wonder how you managed to type that with your hands on your hips.

apodino wrote:
But Democrats have lost a lot of seats at all levels of government since he was elected.

We have a lot of morons in this country that think Fox news is actual news. That and the garden variety Trump supporter's xenophobia and racism.

apodino wrote:
He had an awful relationship with congress, and yes I include Pelosi and Reid in that as well as he did not work well with them either even when Democrats had the majority.

Awww, they didn't work well with the Republicans? Should you pay a little attention to what's going on right now, you may notice that the Republicans don't get along very well with Republicans either.

apodino wrote:
He speaks very well and can make things sound good, but he also presents it in an elitist way that does not win detractors over.

I'm sorry that your education never got beyond the 7th grade. But others in this country appreciate the break from the G. Bush kind of down home bullshit. And who are you to critique Obama's professional political demeanor? How many offices have you been elected to?

apodino wrote:
I also believe that the best thing that could have happened for the Liberal Cause would have been for Romney to be elected president. I say this because had Romney been elected, there is no way Trump runs and wins this year. Although Romney is a nice guy he is also a very wealthy guy and he would have had trouble relating to middle America. The democratic party would have had motivation to go out and develop new leaders and we would have had some fresh blood last election. Instead Obama upset a lot of people with some of his policies and the establishment continued to corrupt Washington and he made enough people angry that we elected Donald Trump, who is one of the worst people we could have ever elected president and with all the other talent that the GOP ran this year, to say this is the cream of that crop insults my intelligence. My choices were so bad this year I was forced to write in my choice for president. I have zero regrets and would do it again in a heartbeat.

As if you care about "the liberal cause".

salttee · Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:03 am

Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
OA412 wrote:
This bothers me no matter who is saying it. It's one thing to spout off about another country's politics when you clearly don't know anything about it, another when you are at least somewhat informed. This is an international website. We are all here to discuss. If you don't want non-Americans "spouting off their mouths about US politics" you need to find an Americans only website to frequent.

Your quote of me above omits the context.

My complaint was that Dutchy presents as a progressive or liberal, to the left of most US politics, yet he attacks the standard bearer for progressive politics in the US with an uninformed argument. He plays right into the hands of the fascists. He reinforces the big lie: you tell a lie often enough and soon it becomes the truth. It's similar to how some of the US libs here are touting the line that the Clintons are the genesis of corruption in the US, yet they can't come up with anything other than the fact that Bill got a blow job from a consenting adult and Hillary used her own E-mail server, like those before her. I've called "liberals" out on that several times recently and they simply don't respond.

Here we have a "liberal" showing no understanding of the political circumstance faced by the Obama administration joining in with Stratosphere and No Time et al, throwing meritless accusations at a man who should be given the esteem he deserves. I consider myself a Europhile, I do see things from the international POV and I have spoken as such here; I assume that Dutchy has noticed that. I feel a right to call out someone from Europe who sees the US as a cardboard entity. If he were from NY I might have told him to go back to Yonkers. But I guess that would have personalized it, which need to be avoided in a debate.

So while I get your point, please keep the context in mind.

So your argument is that Obama did the least worst thing, given American politics, so we should applaud him? I am well aware of the American context, thank you. I applaud Obama for trying to close Guantanamo Bay and I even think The Netherlands should have let 1 or 2 detainees in after the Republicans blocked every solution which is up to the human right standards. As for drone attacks, with all do respect, Obama forced to invade as an alternative to illegitimate drone attacks? There are other options you know and yes that means slower international solution, but more durable and not just blow people (including bystanders) up (hint: doesn't make America more popular).

So the classic debate between real politics versus moral politics.

And that's all it is to you: "classic debate".
That is what put me off about the Dutchy persona when you showed up in these forums, in the MH-17 discussions.
It was as if you weren't offended by the Russians shooting down an airliner full of people.
All you cared about was an official report.

To me that was a superficial view. But I see that at least you're consistent.

seb146 · Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:45 am

The minority president didn't want to lift the Jones Act to assist the American territory of Puerto Rico because "a lot of shipping companies didn't want it lifted..."

Such compassion...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/ ... index.html

BobPatterson · Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:09 am

seb146 wrote:
The minority president didn't want to lift the Jones Act to assist the American territory of Puerto Rico because "a lot of shipping companies didn't want it lifted..."

Such compassion...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/ ... index.html

This nonsense gets tiring. Unless there is a legitimate need to grant waivers, why do so?

Is there a demonstrated need for non-USA ships to carry additional material to Puerto Rico?

Even if more materiel is shipped to Puerto Rico, can the ports and roadways handle it at present?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... e48838daff

"Getting relief supplies to Puerto Rico ports is only half the problem"

"Three days after Hurricane Maria clobbered Puerto Rico, the Crowley shipping company opened its San Juan terminal and switched on its computers. When the port opened at 8 a.m. the next day, the shipping firm delivered 500 containers of commercial goods. Three of its managers had to cut their way out of their homes to get there."

"Four days later, those containers and others filled with goods for stores such as Home Depot and Walgreens have been languishing at the port. Retailers hobbled by broken distribution chains and damaged stores have opened only a few outlets, and customers have had to wait in long lines."

“It’s pretty ugly out there,” said Jose Ayala, Crowley’s vice president for Puerto Rico services. “There is damage to the trucking infrastructure, to the distributors, to the supermarkets, to the roads. And then, if your infrastructure is not so damaged, and you can get a driver to the truck, there is no fuel to move the equipment.”

Dutchy · Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:16 am

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
Your quote of me above omits the context.

My complaint was that Dutchy presents as a progressive or liberal, to the left of most US politics, yet he attacks the standard bearer for progressive politics in the US with an uninformed argument. He plays right into the hands of the fascists. He reinforces the big lie: you tell a lie often enough and soon it becomes the truth. It's similar to how some of the US libs here are touting the line that the Clintons are the genesis of corruption in the US, yet they can't come up with anything other than the fact that Bill got a blow job from a consenting adult and Hillary used her own E-mail server, like those before her. I've called "liberals" out on that several times recently and they simply don't respond.

Here we have a "liberal" showing no understanding of the political circumstance faced by the Obama administration joining in with Stratosphere and No Time et al, throwing meritless accusations at a man who should be given the esteem he deserves. I consider myself a Europhile, I do see things from the international POV and I have spoken as such here; I assume that Dutchy has noticed that. I feel a right to call out someone from Europe who sees the US as a cardboard entity. If he were from NY I might have told him to go back to Yonkers. But I guess that would have personalized it, which need to be avoided in a debate.

So while I get your point, please keep the context in mind.

So your argument is that Obama did the least worst thing, given American politics, so we should applaud him? I am well aware of the American context, thank you. I applaud Obama for trying to close Guantanamo Bay and I even think The Netherlands should have let 1 or 2 detainees in after the Republicans blocked every solution which is up to the human right standards. As for drone attacks, with all do respect, Obama forced to invade as an alternative to illegitimate drone attacks? There are other options you know and yes that means slower international solution, but more durable and not just blow people (including bystanders) up (hint: doesn't make America more popular).

So the classic debate between real politics versus moral politics.

And that's all it is to you: "classic debate".
That is what put me off about the Dutchy persona when you showed up in these forums, in the MH-17 discussions.
It was as if you weren't offended by the Russians shooting down an airliner full of people.
All you cared about was an official report.

To me that was a superficial view. But I see that at least you're consistent.

And now I take offense. I wasn't offended by shooting down by the MH17, I was and am outraged. The question is what to do with that? Here you jump to a conclusion: Russia did it (still not proven), so if you reach that conclusion, then it is time to act: so what do you do?
Same reasoning goes for Iraq 2003, did you jump to the conclusion Iraq had WMD? Consequence: invade and hundreds of thousands of dead and we still feel the consequences today, IS for instance. Drone strikes: what do you think the consequences are? No drawbacks? Guantanamo bay? No drawbacks?

You have a cowboy style kind of view. America doesn't own the world and can't do what it likes without consequences.

salttee · Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:59 am

Re: Dutchy

Knowing that some echelon of the Russian chain of command ordered an airliner shot down is not jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. It's acknowledging preponderance of the evidence with zero contradictory evidence. My action is to speak to the truth. And I speak the truth as someone who had significant knowledge of SAM operation including command and control before the event and who looked deeply into the known facts around MH-17 (with the help of some outstanding journalistic activity.) It's all still there in the thread. You're just waiting for the politicians to make the political decision to go on record and I am confronted with the fact that you confuse applied politics with a theoretical university coffeehouse discussion.

BTW
Just because someone is an American, you shouldn't assume that they ever bought into George Bush's lies or policies.
I would ask you for what your plan for a workable solution to the conflicts in the ME is, but that would be a waste of time as you appear to be out in a detached kind of la la land.

IMO the real solution to ME problems begins with the US cutting Israel loose. But since that isn't going to happen anytime soon, I have to take the world as it is, not as I would like it. I give the hawks a pass on drone strikes. Where I am opposed to US military action is in Yemen and especially Iran. In any event, whining about drone strikes is counterproductive.

Once again: drop the stereotyping of Americans.

Dutchy · Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:49 am

I have always said that I find it most likely (and now proven) that a Russian missile shot down MH17, now the question is did the Russians themselves shot it down or not (most probably they did or they are responsible when supplying such a weapon). And with this, I would like to see the rule of law applied and that takes time. I am waiting for the rule of law to take its course and yes it has some political dimensions and that takes time.

What is your applied politics here? So your action is to speak your truth here. Yippy and what has that solved? What has that accomplished in the real world or in the mind of anyone? Is that your applied politics that you speak of? If that is it, I will continue to sip my coffee and don't care what your opinions about yourself and others are.

The 2003 Iraq war I used as an example as you seem to prefer action instead of rule of law, doesn't matter if you supported it or not. Some actions will do more harm than good, you do agree with that, don't you?

I do not have a solution for the ME, cutting Israel loose isn't an option, not in theory, not in practice. Not have you or anyone else. So you give the hawks a pass on the drone strikes, well I don't and that seems to be the only real difference here. So welcome to my coffee bar, I will order you an espresso.

So you don't care about interaction with someone whom doesn't share your exact opinion or even as they express it a bit different than you. as you classify them as being in lala land.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net