Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

If you pay attention to Trump's comments, you fall directly into his trap

---

There may be no such thing as bad publicity for someone with a new film, album, book coming out, but your President is not an entertainer, and if the mid-term elections are a measurement of public opnion, he is in trouble. What you could have said is that in spite of Ann Coulter's relegation of the President to the status of 'wimp', the President (and his revolting son, Junior) continues to insult and abuse Americans because this is who he is, he is not going to change, and it makes no difference if it is a 'Prayer Breakfast', a tweet or an interview with the media. It may yet happen, that he who must be obeyed invokes emergency powers, as he really does not care what the law says, or indeed, anything other than whatever it is that gurgles in his brain when he is on his daily tanning bed, determined to look like a pineapple.

What we've seen is exactly what you would expect from a fatally flawed wannabe with absolutely no political experience. Eisenhower had none either but he did run the entire ETO in WWII. Reagan had Alzheimers and nobody noticed. Trump had zero talent around him. The entire legitimate Republican Party wanted him G-O-H-N GONE This has to be some kind of wager between God and Lucifer, that's the only thing that makes any sense.
Even if Mueller gets hit by a bus, the Democrats are going to make sure Trump is toast. They're going to make a statement, I think. In fact, you may see nothing get done these next two years except the investigation of Individual One.

Surely it has been transparent since they had to accept him in 2016, that the Republicans know who this man is, they know he is a crook and a con-man, that he is a crude, vulgar, semi-literate moron -but they don't care about that- in fact, when it comes to race-baiting Americans, taking away their rights, insulting and abusing Black Americans, First Nations and of course women, they are delrious with joy -he has made hate legitimate.
But here is the key: he is there to do what they want with a vengeance: a) cut taxes and regulations on business; b) capture as many senior positions in the judiciary as can be achieved, from State officials to the Supreme Court of the USA, and c) erase every trace of President Obama's legal and cultural legacy on American life.
As one Republican said after the election 'It will be as if Obama never happened'.

You saw the reaction of Mitchell McConnell to the shut-down: he simply did not care. So what if 800,00 people go without a wage? He probably wishes most of them were not Federal employees anyway. Beyond the offensive, juvenile tweets there is a smug brigade of venal neo-cons quietly erasing your future so they and their billionaire friends can carry on living their lavish styles, secure in the knowledge that when it is time to pay off the national debt -$21 trillion and rising at a rate of $1 trillion a year- the schmucks in the provinces will pay. Only the little people pay taxes. That is how Republicans like it. As long as their lad in the White House continues to do as they say, he will receive their support.

There's a reason Republicans don't like Nancy Pelosi. Who would you bet on NOW? Trump paid off the Fat Cats with a 2 trillion dollar bonus, and he gave the huddled masses all the bullshit they crave. But now Nancy has the power of the purse. And with oversight power, every day the news channels can focus on a new scandal that just got undug. How many bottles of water did Whitacre drink??
Trump being elected was the worst thing imaginable. One day the USA is going to take a monster hit it can't recover from and that's it for us, NATO, maybe the world, who knows? I hope it's years after I'm dead.


I think Trump is toast, I hope the Dems keep their wits. We're not going to have debates with 50 candidates are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

We're not going to have debates with 50 candidates are we?

---

Why not join the race and make your intentions clear, that you want to be President. Make it 51.

Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
Oh no it's not -you are.
Is this compromise, a concession,or betrayal?

The compromise measure, assembled by senior members of both parties on Monday night, includes just $1.375 billion for new fencing along the border with Mexico, far short of the $5.7 billion Mr. Trump sought for a steel or concrete wall — and less even than the deal that he rejected in December, which prompted the longest government shutdown in American history.
But the president got some cover from some of his Republican allies in the Senate and at least one of his hard-line immigration critics in the media, Laura Ingraham, who have claimed some measure of victory by recalling that Ms. Pelosi had said last month she would approve only one dollar for a wall on the southwestern border.

“Well, try $1.375 billion,” Ms. Ingraham crowed on Fox News Tuesday night. “She might not want to call it a wall, but that’s what it is. And that’s not all bad.”

As with all compromises, I say to people, support the bill for what is in it,” Ms. Pelosi said Wednesday. “Don’t judge it for what is not in it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/u...-security.html

Thanks for the nomination Stavros, I have a committee working right now to find out how much funding I could reasonably raise from know-nothing constituent wannabes.
I'll leave it up to you to decide how much of the phony BS Ingraham, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter tout is stuff they really believe, or stuff they feed their listeners for ratings. The Republicans had a good thing going with their base, until Trump came in and swooped them up. Now they actually believe all those whacky campaign promises. Part two of the question is how much Trump's base believes the lies Trump tells. Because they all say they know he's lying, but that doesn't effect their belief in him, or something. National Debt hit 22 trillion today. You don't hear many people talking about that.

Trump now weigh 243 pounds, four more than last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrtrebus

Trump now weigh 243 pounds, four more than last year.

---

He's 6' 2", so that tips him over from overweight to obese on the Body Mass Index https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/edu...MI/bmicalc.htm

The White House has said it will declare a national emergency on America’s southern border as a way of funding Donald Trump’s long-promised border wall with Mexico.
...
The national emergency could allow Trump to circumvent Congress to tap funding for his wall that has been at the center of a fierce dispute with Democrats who say such a barrier is expensive and ineffective.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...itch-mcconnell

Because Democracy doesn't work. When I was CEO of my company I gave orders and they were obeyed. This Congress thinks it can do what it likes, and I have to go along with it. No, not anymore. If Congress does not obey me, so what? I will by pass it, shut it down, drain it, and my people will love me for it. This is a new America, I am your God and King, and I will have no other Gods before me.

You can bet that the Republicans who expressed opposition to this will now meekly roll over, as McConnell has done. The joke is that they did nothing about the supposed emergency in the two years they controlled Congress.

The vibe I'm getting is that it's sinking in that 40% of the United States applauds everything Trump has done. Like all his deeds have been gifts for them.

Even if I could size up the situation like the Gettysburg Address, I still think the fact remains I've got this 40 pound disease bag in my colon. Everybody has. One more goddam thing for the next imaginary President to fix. Trump has weaponized 40% of the population, his zombified followers are going to be one more mountain to move, I'm sure the Hep Cats in the Government have a projection on what year the US Economy fails, I wonder what it is????

The Constitution places the power of the purse in Congress: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .” In specifying the activities on which public funds may be spent, Congress defines the contours of federal power. This requirement of legislative appropriation before public funds are spent is at the foundation of our constitutional order.
https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...ion-9-clause-7

Not any more, as the President can now by-pass Congress. But if Senators and Congressional Representatives support this move by the President, as Mitchell McConnell has, does this not also mean they have violated their Oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States? And should this not lead to their immediate impeachment?

Democracy when it falls, often falls owing to pressures from within it, rather than attacks from without. It might make more sense for Senator McConnell to declare that Congress now recognizes the President is the supreme power in the USA, that as an interim measure he should be referred to as the 'Dear Leader' pending a vote to abolish Presidential elections, grant the incumbent the right to be President for life, indeed, and, led by Michael Pence, declare that as God's chosen President, he should be referred to as the 'Eternal Leader'.

Stavros, just because you've read the rulebook doesn't mean you know the rules. The only rule you can count on is the quality and caliber of a man, the Courts can strike down Trump over and over, do the heavy lifting, sweat all the details, yet Trump still remains in the Oval Office eating cheeseburgers and laughing it up with his pals on an unsecure line. Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump and Sean Hannity and the rest won't be shooed away, if you get between them and a dollar, be prepared to lose, Dignity is for losers, like School Teachers.

My Pop didn't risk his life with Patton so Trump could give it all to Putin, if Mueller doesn't hang Trump the handcuffs of Parliamentary Procedure come off, you'll see what happens when the sixty percent get more outraged than the forty percent. If not, then it's all over, fat fucking Americans can sit in their airconditioned shitholes and disappear in front of the TV.

Mueller's report next week? Alert the Media.

If the New York times is 'the enemy of the people' as the President has said, why hasn't he shut it down using his Emergecy Powers? Or is he just going to lie on his tanning bed so he can look like a pineapple, while the 'enemy of the people' is allowed to operate free from justice? Are the 'enemies' now to be given the freedom to do what they do? And can we at least agree that if you disagree with the Dear Leader, by definition you are an 'enemy of the people'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If the New York times is 'the enemy of the people' as the President has said, why hasn't he shut it down using his Emergecy Powers? Or is he just going to lie on his tanning bed so he can look like a pineapple, while the 'enemy of the people' is allowed to operate free from justice? Are the 'enemies' now to be given the freedom to do what they do? And can we at least agree that if you disagree with the Dear Leader, by definition you are an 'enemy of the people'?

---

You don't think that's what he would do eventually if he stayed in power and his allies in Congress and the courts did nothing to stop him? His dictator friends like Viktor Orban have already established the template for how to do it. I don't think you necessarily have to ban them directly - just use all the legal and regulatory powers available to favour friendly media and punish those who aren't.

If the people of these United States elect a Clown, there is no cure for that. These are the same people that elected Bush Jr.
Trump won't go down for being a jerk, he'll go down for being a traitor.

I think Bush Jr may be secretly enjoying Trump's presidency because he knows that someone else is going to take over the mantle of worst president in recent US history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I think Bush Jr may be secretly enjoying Trump's presidency because he knows that someone else is going to take over the mantle of worst president in recent US history.

---

To Trump's credit, it's amazing a man of his age could limbo beneath such a low bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

To Trump's credit, it's amazing a man of his FATNESS could limbo beneath such a low bar.

---

He studied at the Rush Limbo School of Limbo

God, I hope Cohen has lots of rat stories tomorrow, it's been a long time since I've seen quality entertainment on TV. It could be a flood, Cohen may be the last guy on earth testifying before a House Committee that Trump wants to see. It may play like an episode of "The Sopranos" Time to get fucked Trump.
I have a 10 AM dentist appt. Just a cleaning. Or so they say....

https://i.ibb.co/FHz5LbY/not-detected.jpg

It was written by a NY Times employee get over it people. Trump is the greatest thing that has happened to this country since Regan

Cohen is a liar and an felon get over it. You would rather have Democratic muslim that wants to change this country into another Islamic state.

You are all a bunch of assholes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petelovesall

…... Trump is the greatest thing that has happened to this country since Regan

---

Regan was the little girl in the Exorcist.
The main thing I got today is that the Republicans live in an alternate Universe.
Democrats laid some good groundwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petelovesall

Cohen is a liar and an felon get over it. You would rather have Democratic muslim that wants to change this country into another Islamic state.

You are all a bunch of assholes

---

Are you sure you've joined the right forum? You seem to have wandered away from the right-wing delusional hate-monging conspiracy theorists bubble.

Attachment 1136875

Donald Trump recently sold out the family of Otto Warmbier, an American who was brutalized and murdered by the North Korean regime while being held in captivity for a non-offense. Trump said Kim Jong Un told him he knew nothing about Warmbier's mistreatment and he believed him, following his pattern of believing dictators and murderers.

Following his pattern of disbelieving career law enforcement and prosecutors Trump has continued to vilify those heading the Mueller investigations, oddly by pointing out that Mueller is not elected. The entire point of the special counsel statute is to allow for an appointed, independent prosecutor to look into executive branch crimes. Mueller's investigation has seen the conviction of Manafort, Cohen, former NSA Michael Flynn, and will probably yield a conviction against Roger Stone too.

If anyone can sum up what the Cohen testimony brought to light I'd appreciate it. I didn't watch and all I'm hearing are sound bytes about Trump not wanting to release his SAT scores, which frankly is obvious because if they were decent we'd have heard them by now. Obviously anything Cohen says will have to be investigated and corroborated by someone who hasn't been convicted of making false statements, but the testimony of a crook claiming he's coming clean is a decent place to start.

Your President is a coward. He could have called Comey and Tillerson into his office to fire them, face to face, but he did not. He stands next to, or in front of dictators like Putin and Kim and crumbles, they know better than he does, and better than the USA's own intelligence services. He may not need to tell them to their face they are unacceptable dictators, diplomatic protocol may suggest that is not a good idea, but to simply cave in as he has does is an astonishing exhibition of cowardice and a dereliction of his duties as President.

But this is a Presidet who has now dragged the Office into the gutter by swearing in public, something that reveals the contempt he has for the Office, but even more depressing is the fact that he is now supported by a part, it used to be called the Republican Party that does not object to his lies, that does not object to his use of crude language, and now cursing in public when insulting and abusing Americans just because they challenge him, and who can't even suggest he button his jacket or his coat. He looks like he is going to the toilet, perhaps because that is how he views his country.

Here are the Cohen takeaways from three different sources linked below:

-"I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is. He is a racist. He is a conman. He is a cheat."

-"He was a presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails."

-"There were at least a half-dozen times between the Iowa Caucus in January 2016 and the end of June when he would ask me 'How's it going in Russia?' -- referring to the Moscow Tower project."

-"Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project."

-"Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of 'wouldn't that be great.'"

-"He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn't a 'shithole.' This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States."

-"He told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid."

-"He finished the conversation with the following comment. 'You think I'm stupid, I wasn't going to Vietnam.'"

-"Everything was done with the knowledge of, and at the direction of, Mr. Trump."

-"What he didn't want was to have an entire group of thinks tanks run through his tax return ... and then he'll end up in an audit and eventually have taxable consequences."

-"I fear that if he loses the presidential election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/27/p...sia/index.html

Note that Cohen says he has never been to Prague or the Czech Republic, but that
Another discrepancy involves Prague. He has denied the claim, and here he did so again, this time under oath. But he went even further, saying, “I’ve never been to Prague. I’ve never been to the Czech Republic.”
Except he told Mother Jones’s David Corn in 2016, “I haven’t been to Prague in 14 years. I was in Prague for one afternoon 14 years ago.” And he told the Wall Street Journal he was in Prague in 2001, so around the same time. Did he mean he was only there briefly? Is that the same as never having been there? Expect to hear more about this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.9bb5b35eb37a

Representative Ocasio-Cortez asked sharp questions which you can see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTjKJbotjLo

The sharp cut heals fastest.

From what I've been hearing about the Mueller Report and from what I saw at Cohen's hearing and Trump's two hour CPAC rant, the USA is going to go through another year and a half of strum and drang, I thought the best thing about Cohen was, after two hours of being called a rat and a liar by the Republicans, he calmly told them "I used to be like you, protecting Trump, but I lived to regret it"
They say in the private hearings the Republicans are less confrontational, they don't have to play to Trump and his adoring fanbase.
I hope a year and a half of daily revelations about Trump is enough to sour the Republican voters enough for a Democratic Landslide. It might be better if this whole thing gets uglier and leaves a permanent stain on the Republican Party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I hope a year and a half of daily revelations about Trump is enough to sour the Republican voters enough for a Democratic Landslide. It might be better if this whole thing gets uglier and leaves a permanent stain on the Republican Party.

---

The people you are talking about don't care if their leader swears in public, insults and abuses Americans, crumbles to his knees when meeting dictators. The days when Republicans talked about American 'values' and criticised autocratic regimes is over, they have no values, no morals, no loyalty to the rule of law or the Constitution and are delirious that their leader treats everyone with insolent contempt. They hate what they perceive to be a multi-cultural USA, and are as detached from it as the Confederacy was in the mid-19th century. That they will ever tire of being told how corrupt Washington is, how bent and crooked its politicians are, is daft, they love it and lap it all up, and don't care if their Dear Leader is the most corrupt of them all. They are creating laws in their states which will base all policies on the Bible, they are appointing judges who believe in the rights of the unborn child, rather than the living one, they have turned their backs on the America they hate, and will never vote against their Dear Leader, and may yet mount a challenge worthy of Robert E. Lee if he is not re-elected in 2020.
Your Democracy is in peril, and they don't give a damn.

I would like to qualify my post above. Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, one might believe there is a natural majority against BS-45, and that the key is winning 'marginal' states where the Electoral College figures are decisive.

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

If this means Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I see it as a winning combination, but while Biden is a safe pair of hands and not someone who is going to insult and abuse Americans in the way BS-45 does, he could also be seen as a return to the past, leading a party that cannot make up its mind in what direction it wants to take the US. Kamala Harris would thus give Biden the edge he lacks, and position her for the succession, as Biden may choose to be a one-term President.

In policy terms, I assume Democrats will seek to improve relations that have been sullied by BS-45 and not be so friendly with dictators, though the USA's record in its dealings with Saudi Arabia does not encourage anyone who thinks that relationship will change, though one at least hopes the sale of nuclear technlogy will be denied to the Kingdom of 9/11.

The problem is thus confusion among Democrats as to who and what they want. It would be a tragedy if weakness and division were to deny them the opportunity they have to remove from power the most disgusting person to have occupied the Office of President since his grubby idol, Andrew Jackson.

Theoretically, there should be no personality in politics, theoretically there should be no egos.
I don't really see a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton yet, there have only been two Democrats in the White House since Jimmy Carter. I would love to see Bernie pulling all the levers, but I don't see him as a spokesperson for the people, the people haven't got there yet.
Trump is in office because he speaks racist. Racists don't have much anymore except themselves. Then again, that's all they need. Racists don't see themselves as the problem, they see brown colored people that talk funny as the problem. Education isn't the problem, F students are the problem. The framers of the Goddam Constitution didn't think women or blacks should vote. Maybe we should elect an Asian who believes in Education.
We've seen clues of what the Mueller Report might say, but we have not had any charges that stick to BS-45....YET. But I'd say they're coming. CRIMINAL charges straight outta New York South District. Stuff Mueller found but had to send to New York. When criminal charges from grand juries start popping up on a weekly basis, the Republicans won't have any choice, and they won't have a choice of anybody to follow that act. But yeah, that leaves another huge mess for a Democrat to fix. Fixing Trump will be easy compared to what comes next. I'm glad I bought a nice little one room apartment next to my pineal gland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

---

I'm not so sure. There's a certain logic that says it's best to appeal to the centre, especially when the other side has moved to the right. But that same logic also suggested that Hillary Clinton was the right candidate to beat Trump in 2016.

In order to win elections you need to get people inclined to your side motivated enough to turn out to vote. A key reason why Trump won is that voter turn-out among Democrat-leaning groups was lower than it had been for Obama. Will the revulsion towards Trump be enough to turn things around next time, or do Democrats need to do more to offer a positive alternative than just being not Trump?

One of the roots of Trumpism is that working people have not been doing well economically over the past decade or so. Will a continuation of the moderate Clinton-Obama approach be enough to convince these people that the Democrats offer a better prospect to improve their lot than Trump's protectionist anti-immigrant approach?

How radical are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren anyway, and why do you characterise their approach as negative? Many of their policies seem to be just bringing the USA closer to the norm for other developed countries; eg single-payer health cover, higher minimum wages. I'm pretty sure they are less radical than Jeremy Corbyn, and most people wrote him off in the last UK election for being too far to the left.

I'm not saying I have a firm view that Sanders or Warren are the best candidates, but I think your assumptions are open to question. There is a good case for the next Democrat candidate to move somewhat to the left of where Hillary Clinton was. Traditional centre-left parties haven't been very successful around the world in recent years. Perhaps they need to offer a clearer alternative to the politics of nationalism and xenophobia? Isn't that what FDR did in the 1930s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I would like to qualify my post above. Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, one might believe there is a natural majority against BS-45, and that the key is winning 'marginal' states where the Electoral College figures are decisive.

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

If this means Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I see it as a winning combination, but while Biden is a safe pair of hands and not someone who is going to insult and abuse Americans in the way BS-45 does, he could also be seen as a return to the past, leading a party that cannot make up its mind in what direction it wants to take the US. Kamala Harris would thus give Biden the edge he lacks, and position her for the succession, as Biden may choose to be a one-term President.

In policy terms, I assume Democrats will seek to improve relations that have been sullied by BS-45 and not be so friendly with dictators, though the USA's record in its dealings with Saudi Arabia does not encourage anyone who thinks that relationship will change, though one at least hopes the sale of nuclear technlogy will be denied to the Kingdom of 9/11.

The problem is thus confusion among Democrats as to who and what they want. It would be a tragedy if weakness and division were to deny them the opportunity they have to remove from power the most disgusting person to have occupied the Office of President since his grubby idol, Andrew Jackson.

---

When you have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez telling the centrists in the party to get on board with the program or face primary challenges, you know the Democratic Party is in trouble. So far, I haven't been impressed with any of the candidates that announced they were running. At this point, I'm going to wind up voting for the CEO of Starbucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

At this point, I'm going to wind up voting for the CEO of Starbucks.

---

Why do you think that will achieve anything other than increasing Trump's chances? And why do people think that businessmen with no policy experience make good political leaders? Why would your prefer Howard Schultz to a mainstream Democrat like Joe Biden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

How radical are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren anyway, and why do you characterise their approach as negative? Many of their policies seem to be just bringing the USA closer to the norm for other developed countries; eg single-payer health cover, higher minimum wages. I'm pretty sure they are less radical than Jeremy Corbyn, and most people wrote him off in the last UK election for being too far to the left.

I'm not saying I have a firm view that Sanders or Warren are the best candidates, but I think your assumptions are open to question. There is a good case for the next Democrat candidate to move somewhat to the left of where Hillary Clinton was. Traditional centre-left parties haven't been very successful around the world in recent years. Perhaps they need to offer a clearer alternative to the politics of nationalism and xenophobia? Isn't that what FDR did in the 1930s?

---

I agree my assumptions can be questioned, because I don't live in the US I don't get many of the nuances in the discourse that shape the tone as well as the content of it, for example I was not aware of the remarks of AOC that Blackchubby refers to in his post.

I live in the UK wherre we have single-payer health cover, but don't know if this is the right model for the US. I see the problem being huge -a Federal Tax for a Federal Service to replace most of what exists in States, that is a big admin project, but must surely collide with States Rights on taxation and even the definition of health care. Would family planning become part of a Federal Health Care programme, integrated into General Practice and the Hospital sectors? I did once try to understand health care provision in the US and gave up as life is too short and it quickly becomes evident the US missed the boat on health care and have been left stranded with a broken mast taking them nowhere. A minimum wage might be one way of raising living standards, but if OAC and people like her are right, a structural change to taxation in the US is in order, with restrictions on capital flight added in to the mix, though ultimately, in a capitalist society, it is all about jobs -and jobs for all.

I am not that much older or younger than Warren and Sanders, but feel the US needs someone with youth and vision to offer a positive alternative to the misery it has at the moment, but Blackchubby, who has to make the real decisions, is not energized right now, and that is not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I did once try to understand health care provision in the US and gave up as life is too short and it quickly becomes evident the US missed the boat on health care and have been left stranded with a broken mast taking them nowhere. A minimum wage might be one way of raising living standards, but if OAC and people like her are right, a structural change to taxation in the US is in order, with restrictions on capital flight added in to the mix, though ultimately, in a capitalist society, it is all about jobs -and jobs for all.

---

I once took an entire course on health care law in the U.S. and the point of the course was that our health care system is not a system, but dozens of overlapping, poorly written laws.

The best model for how a single payer system would work for us is provided by Medicaid (though technically it gets funds from two payers-state and federal). Medicaid is funded by our federal government but administered by the states and provides health care to those below a certain poverty threshold. States can technically opt out of this system, but they tend not to want to turn down federal money even if it requires them to take care of their needy. It might avoid any constitutional challenge if it were set up in this way, by allowing for state administration and tying federal funds to certain minimum care requirements.

We spend far more than other countries for the quality of care we provide and one reason is that health care is not accessible until people are very sick. The system we have now, even with Obamacare is better than it was but not good for people who work for small employers, for the self-employed, or unemployed. So, this should be a priority for us in the election.

I like the idea of higher taxes in this country and better allocation of them for social programs. I think people like Bernie and AOC have been very helpful in making people understand that robust social programs are not frightening or crazy. My complaint with Bernie has been more about the fact that he didn't seem to know how he would achieve his vision and not what he recommends. I also thought the demagoguery with finance was performance politics; regulating the financial sector very stringently over Republican objections is extremely important. Breaking up banks is possibly disastrous imo.

I certainly won't be voting for Howard Schultz and obviously hope he decides not to run. Beyond that, I tend to like Kamala Harris but mostly for personal characteristics and don't know a lot about her policies but have always been impressed with her.

Is someone in their mid-70s a bit too old to begin a first term as President? Everyone is different but I agree it's not an asset for a candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Why do you think that will achieve anything other than increasing Trump's chances? And why do people think that businessmen with no policy experience make good political leaders? Why would your prefer Howard Schultz to a mainstream Democrat like Joe Biden?

---

If Biden gets in, I would vote for him. But last I checked, he hasn't said he was running.

Also if past history is any indication, a 3rd party candidate is not going to increase Trump's chances of winning. The Democrats running a shitty campaign and/or candidate will do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Also if past history is any indication, a 3rd party candidate is not going to increase Trump's chances of winning.

---

Why do you say that? There are historical examples where a 3rd party candidate is thought to have influenced the outcome, although we can't know for certain how their supporters would have voted if they had not run..
https://www.history.com/news/third-p...nfluence-facts

The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Even Teddy Roosevelt only managed a distant second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Why do you say that? There are historical examples where a 3rd party candidate is thought to have influenced the outcome, although we can't know for certain how their supporters would have voted if they had not run..
https://www.history.com/news/third-p...nfluence-facts

The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Even Teddy Roosevelt only managed a distant second.

---

I'll give you the impact that Teddy Roosevelt had on the 1912 election. But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

I think there are enough people who are fed up with both parties, that you can start to see more people clamoring for a third party candidate to run. It has to be the right person though.