American Politics

[Omega 3]

Am getting the very strong sense that there are certain vested interests who would reap enormous financial benefit from destabilizing and splitting the USA, and that destabilization is happening now.

It is in our common best interests to put aside differences and personal rancor. It is not the time for name-calling or casting blame or bickering. We must rise above all this, because we are facing a much more dangerous common threat to us all. We are at an important crossroad.

"United we stand, divided we fall".

OM.

[Member #2041]

What on Earth have you "suffered" as a result of those supposed transgressions? I'll bet the farm you, your parents and your grandparents suffered a hell of a lot more, genuine suffering and not this phony outrage "suffering" play-acted by the Dems' / Obama's political opponents, as a result of the horrifically failed Republiturd policies that led directly to the Great Republiturd Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's, the Great Republiturd Reagan Recession of 1981-1983, and the Great Bush / Republiturd Recession of 2008-2009.

No other president of the last 100 years with the possible exception of FDR pulled us out of a deeper economic hole blasted into the system by still favorite Republiturd policies and into major economic recovery relative to where we were when he first took office than Barack Obama. Certainly no Republiturd president in history has bested him on that measure. And there isn't one chance in a trillion President Donald Trumpty-Dumpty is going to even come close to matching the improvements in the economy by the end of his term relative to what was happening in January 2017 as long as he continues to espouse and promote the exact same Supply-Side/Trickle-Down/lax regulation enforcement Republiturd economic nonsense policies that brought us those previous disasters.

ElhTooms, it's not worth the effort. These righties only believe what Breitbart and Faux News tell them. They actually believe that Obama was a worse President than George W. Bush. Can you imagine how ill-informed someone has to be to draw that conclusion? They forget that it was on Bush's watch that the most successful foreign attack on USA Soil ever took place, and the reason it took place is because the Bushies ignored the Clinton administration's warning that Al Qaida was the single greatest threat to USA Security. And then Bush / Cheney invaded the wrong country, because they had a hard-on for Iraqi oil, and that catastrophe has given us what is today known as ISIS. And only THEN did Bush preside over the worst economic collapse to befall this country since the Great Depression in 1929 through the 1930's. A collapse so severe that over 1/2 of the entire aggregate wealth of Americans was wiped out. Oh, and BTW, that aggregate wealth was fully restored, and then some, during the 8 years of the Obama Presidency. But god forbid, people had to actually buy adequate health insurance under Obama, rather than free-ride on the system with only ER care and catastrophic coverage that was useless if they actually needed it.

And they think that Donald Trump is THEIR savior, not the most corrupt, ill-prepared, fraudulent charlatain ever to hold the office. A guy who Vladamir Putin put into office, and who is an unstable narcissist who is so hung up by the facts that Obama had a bigger crowd at his inauguration, and lost the popular vote by 3 Million citizens (but only the citizens of the well educated states) that he can't even focus on rolling out his first major promise without fucking it up by letting Stephen Bannon try to extend it to Green-Card holders, and as a result, got it blocked in court.

[EihTooms]

You nailed it, Dg. OM, too. Irreconcilable. Still, I refuse to let the liberals get away with Trump-bashing given the last eight years of Obummer automatic freeloader freebies, muslim ass kissing, terrorist exonerations and trillion dollar deficits we have all suffered for. The democraps have lost face and power according to.

What on Earth have you "suffered" as a result of those supposed transgressions? I'll bet the farm you, your parents and your grandparents suffered a hell of a lot more, genuine suffering and not this phony outrage "suffering" play-acted by the Dems' / Obama's political opponents, as a result of the horrifically failed Republiturd policies that led directly to the Great Republiturd Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's, the Great Republiturd Reagan Recession of 1981-1983, and the Great Bush / Republiturd Recession of 2008-2009.

No other president of the last 100 years with the possible exception of FDR pulled us out of a deeper economic hole blasted into the system by still favorite Republiturd policies and into major economic recovery relative to where we were when he first took office than Barack Obama. Certainly no Republiturd president in history has bested him on that measure. And there isn't one chance in a trillion President Donald Trumpty-Dumpty is going to even come close to matching the improvements in the economy by the end of his term relative to what was happening in January 2017 as long as he continues to espouse and promote the exact same Supply-Side/Trickle-Down/lax regulation enforcement Republiturd economic nonsense policies that brought us those previous disasters.

[D Cups]

You nailed it, Dg. OM, too. Irreconcilable. Still, I refuse to let the liberals get away with Trump-bashing given the last eight years of Obummer automatic freeloader freebies, muslim ass kissing, terrorist exonerations and trillion dollar deficits we have all suffered for. The democraps have lost face and power according to.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/de...inority-party. I don't want to be civil when I see my country brought to the brink of disaster given the above. I want to shake the shit out of dummies like good enough who is a poster boy for the idiots on the left.

But I believe the civility is gone. 20 some per cent of the voters were afraid to openly state their preference for Donald Trump and just went to the voting booths and voted. Now the left do not want to acknowledge him as president or his platform and will do everything to tear him down. Even worse is the right is ready to pull the carpet out from under the President. Neither political party is in charge, which is how the voters voted. Voters are tired of the do nothing politics.

Once again people want change but just don't take away their freebies!

.

[Dg8787]

The sense I am getting is that there are huge and irreconcilable differences between "the US left (globalists)" and "the US right ("make America great again)". Huge and rancorous divisiveness, not seen since perhaps the days of the America Civil War.

Perhaps this is part of a stratagem created and fomented by the unscrupulous few, to eventually sunder and split apart the USA, for the greater monetary gain of a few plutocrats? "Divide and conquer"?

Just one man's musings.

OM.

I can't answer to since the days of the American Civil War as I wasn't around then.

But I believe the civility is gone. 20 some per cent of the voters were afraid to openly state their preference for Donald Trump and just went to the voting booths and voted. Now the left do not want to acknowledge him as president or his platform and will do everything to tear him down. Even worse is the right is ready to pull the carpet out from under the President. Neither political party is in charge, which is how the voters voted. Voters are tired of the do nothing politics.

Once again people want change but just don't take away their freebies!

[Golfinho]

The sense I am getting is that there are huge and irreconcilable differences between "the US left (globalists)" and "the US right ("make America great again)". Huge and rancorous divisiveness, not seen since
Perhaps this is part of a stratagem created and fomented by the unscrupulous few OM.

Nationalism wherever it is breaking out: Trumpmerica, Brexit, Spain-Greece-Hungary in the eurozone is just push back against the last several decades of neo-liberal (and it isn't left wing!) corporate based globalism. Notice how the US slaps down and smears any semblance of nationalism in countries Russian and Iran that they have not been able to co opt into their globalization scheme.

[Omega 3]

The sense I am getting is that there are huge and irreconcilable differences between "the US left (globalists)" and "the US right ("make America great again)". Huge and rancorous divisiveness, not seen since perhaps the days of the America Civil War.

Perhaps this is part of a stratagem created and fomented by the unscrupulous few, to eventually sunder and split apart the USA, for the greater monetary gain of a few plutocrats? "Divide and conquer"?

Just one man's musings.

OM.

[D Cups]

The creampuff crybabies are fading away but not fast enough IMHO. Cheers.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/de...inority-party/

[Wimble]

A good editorial is backed up with supporting facts. Yes, editorials may not tell both sides, but then a lot of so called "straight reporting" these days fail to tell both sides. CNN's election night coverage is a perfect example of biased "straight news".

Did you bother to read the WSJ editiorial.

Cannot read the WSJ unless you have a subscription. The interesting issue now is the First Amendment rights. WSJ editor got in trouble about a month ago by asking for objectivity. I got a red card for my Thai post, somewhat expected. Always thought those rights were only for US citizens on US soil. Now it appears there are more imperialistic views of those rights from the US, even though they are getting trampled in the US.

[Member #4698]

I believe the operative term here is "editorial. " The edifying purpose of editorials is to reinforce the thinking of like-minded people, and usually not to educate people with different perspectives. And please be clear that the WSJ's ideological take on the world is rarely consistent with the Democratic Party. So, is there some actual news here?

A good editorial is backed up with supporting facts. Yes, editorials may not tell both sides, but then a lot of so called "straight reporting" these days fail to tell both sides. CNN's election night coverage is a perfect example of biased "straight news".

Did you bother to read the WSJ editiorial. There is a very interesting insight into Cory Booker's motivations. I will quote it here:

"As recently as May 2016, Mr. Booker delivered an impassioned speech at the AFC's annual policy summit in Washington. He boasted about how Newark had been named by the Brookings Institution "the number four city in the country for offering parents real school choice. ".

He described the school-choice cause this way: "We are the last generation, fighting the last big battle to make true on thatthat a child born anywhere in America, from any parents, a child no matter what their race or religion or socio-economic status should have that pathway, should have that equal opportunity, and there is nothing more fundamental to that than education. That is the great liberation. ".

Some liberator. On Tuesday Mr. Booker voted no on Mrs. DeVos.

His calculation is simple. Mr. Booker is angling to run for President in 2020, and to have any chance at the Democratic nomination he needs the unions' blessing. He knows that a large chunk of both the party's delegates and campaign funding comes from the teachers unions, and so he had to repent his school-choice apostasy. ".

The last paragraph is editorial opinion. The 1st two paragraphs are fact. Look, if you don't see the unhealty relationship between the National Teacher's Union and the Democratic Party there is not much I can say to you. The fact is that American union run public schools in the inner cities are a disfunctional disgrace. If they were not we would not be having this conversation. The Dems have no ideas on how to improve things except to throw more money at the problem. At least the Republicans and Mrs. Devos have some new ideas. Why not let them try to improve things? As Trump says, "what have you got to lose?"

So what is wrong with injecting a little competition into the dysfunctional system and allowing charter schools? Please tell me why low income parents should not have a choice in where to send their kids for an education? Just like democrat politicians send their kids to expensive private schools if that is what the parents want or feel their children need. The only rational explanation why Dems fight this is because if school choice were to be succesful it would kill the golden goose. Union dues. I hope Mrs. DeVos will be successful. You should hope she is succesful too! To repeat: the current state of public eduication in the USA is a disgrace and a growing danger to our Democracy.

[Soapy Smith]

I have a hunch you were refering to Betsy DeVos when you made the above comments. So for your viewing entertainment and possible edification, here is a link to a recent WSJ editorial on Betsy entitled, "The Real Democratic Party, Why not a single Senate Democrat voted for Betsy DeVos."

I believe the operative term here is "editorial. " The edifying purpose of editorials is to reinforce the thinking of like-minded people, and usually not to educate people with different perspectives. And please be clear that the WSJ's ideological take on the world is rarely consistent with the Democratic Party. So, is there some actual news here?

[Omega 3]

Read an interesting article today (dated 1-15-17) at Alex Jones' Infowars, entitled "Will the CIA Assassinate Trump?" A year ago, I would have dismissed outright such an article, and even the site. Now, however, after the enormously bizarre events of the past few months, am no longer so sure.

Some effort recently has been made to discredit Infowars as a fake news site. Brings to mind the saying, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. " Ha ha.

Actually, find the Washington Post recently to be more of a fake news site. Blatantly biased and unfair reporting (brings to mind The Philippine Daily Inquirer here) and discredited "news" articles, especially regarding WaPo reporting of alleged Russian activities in the USA. See recent commentaries by Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept.

Surprisingly, John Brennan has been publicly belligerent and antagonistic, even to the point of outright arrogance. Is there really a "shadow" or "deep state" government, which thrives on the huge profits of endless conflicts and perpetual war, running things in the USA?

If so, will there be tangible and adverse consequences for the Philippines and its President, as well as for the US, and its President, in 2017?

Just one man's thoughts and questions.

OM.

[Amavida]

Whew, D30 is giving the world a preview of what US foreign policy would look like under a Trump administration. Most likely, the demographics (women, college educated, minorities) will prevent this from happening.

Perhaps Stein may be a dark horse in this race to the bottom?

[Jack Burton]

... this place which attracts so little in the way of DFI. The fact is that existing regulatory frameworks that discourage investment would have to be dismantled before lopsided trade agreements become a real problem here.

GE.

I dunno. I find mongering to be a bit one-sided, depending on who needs it more. And certainly direct "investment" is one-sided if I let it, of the "I will gladly pay you the second Tuesday of next week for Jolibees today". But I'm not a wimp, and don't do business with Whempies.

[Random99]

Whew, D30 is giving the world a preview of what US foreign policy would look like under a Trump administration. Most likely, the demographics (women, college educated, minorities) will prevent this from happening.