The Thread of Democrats

[Forty Two]

O no. Not that again. I suppose calling Obama's administration more Fascistic and police-state-like than that of Bush is the same as saying Democrat candidates can do no wrong. Or at least it's muted criticism. Or not enough sackcloth and ashes.

I was speaking generally. No need to take this personally. I wasn't talking to you. I think it's plain as day that most folks on this thread are far more sympathetic to Democrats than Republicans. Just look at how mad certain people get when fun is poked at Democrats. I had someone say "fuck you" to me because I posted humorous memes about major Democrat leaders, and I hadn't directed any communication toward any member of this forum.

Really, Coito, you live in a curious bubble. By the way, when was the last time we heard some trenchant criticism of Trump's administration or the Republicans in general by you? Had a look in the mirror lately?

Fairly recently. I never had an issue criticizing Bush or Republicans. I just made the argument of Ted Cruz not being eligible - I've made that argument before. I was, throughout the election cycle, a staunch critic of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and every other Republican candidate. My favorite Republican candidate was Trump, precisely because he was the least Republican of the bunch, and the least conservative of the bunch. I specifically said that I would not vote for any of the Republican candidates besides Trump, and you may recall that I predicted that Trump would lose the election. I was wrong about that. I criticized Trump on his comments about grabbing women by the pussy. I even noted that I was personally opposed to building a wall (I've never been outraged about it, but I don't think it's necessary or advisable).

Beyond that, I think it's too soon to criticize Trump too heavily, and he's not been afforded a fair shake in the media. When Obama was first elected, I thought it was important to give him a chance, and I acknowledged that the problems he faced were a product of what was handed to him. The first year budget is the predecessor's budget, etc.

I find a lot of the criticism of Trump to be nit-picky, and knee-jerk, and politically motivated. People are as willing to accept every allegation made against Trump as the far right was willing to accept every stupid allegation against Obama, like his "birther" issue, which was ludicrous.

I think the reason I am less interested in railing against Trump is that there is no shortage of anti-Trump criticism here. It's non-stop. I'm part of the balance the other way. So, I'll acknowledge fully that I criticize Trump less, mainly because plenty of you leave no stone unturned regarding him. Also, I voted for the guy, and honestly, I don't mind much of what he's done so far. My personal jury is still out on him, and it's only been 4 months of his Presidency. If he can swing 3% GDP, and help adjust the balance of trade, and help American business and industry, as well as increase labor participation while keeping unemployment low, he'll be a success. The illegal immigration thing is secondary or even tertiary to me, and largely with the current trends I think we'll see next year a dramatic drop in illegal immigration. All the banter aside, if next year or the year after the NATO countries are upping their percentages of GDP spent on defense, that will be a success. If he makes headway on combatting ISIS, that will be a success. But, it's not reasonable to expect all these issues to be resolved in a few months. And, the focus on dumb issues like "back-channels to Russia" and such just makes me roll my eyes.

[pErvinalia]

Man, the guy is clearly mentally challenged, and emotionally totally unsuited to the job. How anyone can support a man-child like Trump is beyond me.

[Forty Two]

Blah blah blah. At this point it only matters if he succeeds. General commentary on whether he's emotionally unsuited and such is really not an arguable criticism. He's not mentally challenged in the sense of being retarded - he has a high IQ and high level of education. He speaks on a very low level, directly to "the people" who mostly communicate at a 5th grade level. He knows how to communicate with them, but to think of him as stupid or acting impetuously is to make the same mistake that has been regularly made of him: underestimation.

When he announced his candidacy, it was portrayed as a joke. All the smart people who knew how things worked gave him 0 chance to win. All the polls. All the analysts. Even the "never wrong" 538.com and the Princeton Election Consortium gave him no chance. All the major media outlets thought he had no chance, and came out against him. All the major Republican figures figured he'd fizzle out and gave him no respect.

[pErvinalia]

Blah blah blah. At this point it only matters if he succeeds. General commentary on whether he's emotionally unsuited and such is really not an arguable criticism. He's not mentally challenged in the sense of being retarded - he has a high IQ and high level of education. He speaks on a very low level, directly to "the people" who mostly communicate at a 5th grade level. He knows how to communicate with them, but to think of him as stupid or acting impetuously is to make the same mistake that has been regularly made of him: underestimation.

Bullshit. He's been making gaff after gaff non-stop. There's never been a person more unsuited to that level of responsibility. The US is currently the laughing stock of the world, and for good reason. How the mighty have fallen.

[Forty Two]

Most of these "gaffes" are things that are extremely minor irrelevancies. Every President gaffes. The media blows them out of proportion for some, and not for others.

As with the other issues of emotional suitedness, etc., talking about the US as the "laughing stock" of the world, well, that's something you'd have to try to demonstrate. It's the laughing stock of the anti-Trump world, but as with many things, the anti-Trump folks tend to think most everyone is anti-Trump, when there are plenty of people around who don't share that view, even in, say, Oz, and don't think the US is a laughing stock. Some people thought of the US as a laughing stock when Obama was President, thinking of Obama's obsequious apology tour around the world, his "leading from behind" policy, and his weak-willed foreign policy, sucking up to Iran, and other such entities. Now, I don't expect you to agree with that - but there are plenty of people who had that view during the previous administration. What I'm pointing out is that whether the US is a laughing stock now, or then, depends on one's place on the political spectrum.

As I mentioned, to me, the issue depends very little on such matters. Right now, it's whether Trump can facilitate success on certain key issues. If he can, he'll be a success. If he can't, he won't. It's going to come down to those numbers, for me.

[pErvinalia]

How is a man who has absolutely no idea what he is doing and whose government is actively leaking against him because he is such a tool going to do any of that? You really live in a fantasy land. You must if you think that Trump isn't more gaffe prone and unsuited than past presidents. And that even includes Dubya.

[Hermit]

O no. Not that again. I suppose calling Obama's administration more Fascistic and police-state-like than that of Bush is the same as saying Democrat candidates can do no wrong. Or at least it's muted criticism. Or not enough sackcloth and ashes.

I was speaking generally. No need to take this personally. I wasn't talking to you. I think it's plain as day that most folks on this thread are far more sympathetic to Democrats than Republicans.

Speaking generally, being "far more sympathetic to Democrats than Republicans" is putting a rather misleading slant on it. I'd describe the general attitude as a clear preference for a lesser evil. Compared to a pathological liar with the attention span of a fruitfly, a narcissist in a septuagenarian body and the mindset of an eleven year old class bully even a Wall Street shill with warhawkish tendencies looks preferable, especially after Trump loaded his administration up with people from Goldman Sachs, Exxon and the like and followed this trick with increasing the military budget by $54 billion. And speaking about success, have you read up on Carrier's Indy factory?

[Forty Two]

Hillary Clinton was and is a pathological liar and world class scumbag, who is a bigger darling of Wall Street than Trump would ever be. She was a much bigger war hawk than Trump and flat out called for confrontation with Russia. She supported every War since Vietnam, and I can't find any evidence she ever opposed Vietnam. If a friend of Goldman Sachs is who you oppose, not sure why you'd pick Hillary over Trump. She was the establishment candidate. The establishment said "never Trump." Trump was the candidate of a block of pissed off voters. He did not have the big money behind him. He did not have the PACs and SuperPACs. That was Hillary.

[Tero]

Yeah! Bomb Russua, bomb Putin! Take back Crimea!

Enough of this feeding billions into states that make arms. We make them, we scrap them. Bomb Putin, bomb Assad.

[pErvinalia]

Bomb the cunts!

[Forty Two]

Yeah! Bomb Russua, bomb Putin! Take back Crimea!

Trump would never do that. He's colluding with the Russians. Hillary, however, it has been pointed out, would likely start a war with Russia, just with her plans for a no-fly zone in Syria. And, we know the Guardian is a reputable source. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... sia-us-war

Jill Stein noted, quite rationally, that Hillary Clinton's policies could start a nuclear war - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... r_war.html "It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone."

Enough of this feeding billions into states that make arms. We make them, we scrap them. Bomb Putin, bomb Assad.

Bomb them indeed - Hillary Clinton says we need to "take out" Assad's air fields. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/ ... ria-assad/ She made no comment on whether we need Congressional approval to do so, or secure UN approval. Nor do we need an "imminent threat" to the US. We just need to bomb them because Assad is beyond the pale. She knows that now, of course, but in 2011, she said she thought Assad was a "reformer." Her judgment is fantastic.

Hillary, of course, is an arch-enemy of Russia, and she noted Trump would be Putin's Puppet - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/ ... tin-trump/ However, her emails showed she was seeking “a positive relationship” with Moscow and praised President Vladimir Putin as recently as 2014. She called Putin “engaging” and said he was a “very interesting conversationalist” as her panties moistened over the Russian strongman. In her June 4, 2013, speech to her buddies at Goldman Sachs, she said “I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia...[and] obviously we would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues.” She was so close to Putin that Clinton herself said Putin then took her into his “private inner sanctum” and began showing her a huge map of Russia, pointing out “the habitat of the tigers and the habitat of the seals and the whales.”

So, which is it, Hillary? Is Putin interesting and engaging, and someone you're able to deal with productively on a variety of issues? Or, is Putin awful and tyrannical, and a great threat? Or, does it depend on political expediency, and whether you need to smear your opponent as being a Russian puppet?

No no... Hillary is a feminist progressive, who has only the best interest of the "least fortunate among us" at heart, and who will never stop fighting for the people, especially the children. She'll never forget the children.

[Forty Two]

[pErvinalia]

Did I see the other day a news grab saying that Bernie Sanders is in court for something not insignificant?

[Forty Two]

He and/or his wife are up to some sort of million dollar fraud, apparently. It makes page 8 of Section D, behind the personal ads, of the New York Times, and CNN mentioned it in an article about how the Russians are trying to make it look like Bernie Sanders is involved in something shady, to try to help Trump.

[JimC]

Every one in this world apart from me (and possibly Brian Peacock) is corrupt!