Trump

[ShockingButTrue]

I believe Trump's words "trump" his policies in the minds of many, if not most. Those words get the limelight and not because the press and the left make them a big deal, but because Trump makes them a big deal. Those words are easy targets and, yes, they do undermine his policies. It seems the man cannot help himself. He is the leader of this country and he continually spits in the wind. Why??

It causes people to question his capabilities, sincerity, and smarts (thus his policies). Not just those who oppose those policies, but many in the middle as well. He acts worse than a bratty little (rich) kid, so why would one think he should be taken seriously or that what he does is any better than what he says. He's a walking facepalm. His opposition doesn't have to continually work at finding problems with his policies because he is always giving them an out by making a stupid tweet or a hateful comment. One has to wonder just how effective he could be and how difficult it could be for opponents if he could simply control his pie hole. Even the First Lady is countering him more and more.

Agree with a little of what you expressed, believe it or not.

But, for example, his tweet from today, stating again that the whole russian investigation, concerning collusion, is a sham; if I understand his viewpoint, and I might not, he's perplexed why the investigators are so insistent on pointing to a meeting in Trump tower to gain some opposition research was so deceitful it could, and should, lead to an impeachment of the President. Yet, that exact same thing is the genesis of why this whole pageantry of perversion is happening in the first place. I know it, you know it, cnn knows it. It defies sound reason. They must think we're (the public) deaf, blind, and stupid... Oh, wait...

He has to defend himself from that, because no one else will. I see no problem with him tweeting that. Is he wrong? Why?

[shockfan89_]

The biggest problem is most people have the attention span of a gnat. There are two issues that are being conflated, by design, to keep the witch hunt going.

Issue #1 - Russian interference in the 2016 election. This happened, of course it happened, Russia has tried to interfere in every election in the US in the last 60 years. The US interferes in other elections. This is no surprise, no big deal, and nobody should contest this. This is also what all the intelligence agencies agree with. Russia (and many other countries) tried to interfere in the election.

Issue #2 - Foreign government collusion during the election. This is an absolute witch hunt. There has been no evidence produced that Trump or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election. Anyone spouting this narrative is delusional. There is way more evidence that the DNC, DOJ, FBI, and Clinton campaign colluded with foreign governments, including Russia, than the Trump campaign.

[proshox]

Some highly entertaining stuff

[WstateU]

rtibjuudo6yx.jpg

[wufan]

I think the big difference between the right and the left, is that:

The right looks at the problems in the world (perhaps the poor) and realizes it is tragic. They take pity and hope that they can help. They know that this is a byproduct of the system we live in, but are okay with it because it is the best system the world has ever seen. They know that overall things will continue to get better if we keep pushing for natural rights.

The left looks at the world and realizes it’s tragic. They take pity and hope they can help. They know this is a byproduct of the system we live in, and they are not okay with the injustice it has caused. They know that overall things could be better if we all just gave a little more.

We look at the same problems and attribute different causes to our suffering. The job of the right is to maintain order so that we don’t lose the many gains we’ve seen in the last 25, 50, 100 or 200 years. The job of the left is to make sure we aren’t corrupted by our successes and that we don’t leave the less fortunate behind. I think the a fundamental problem is that we have been so successful that there are many with wealth and few in poverty. There are not many villains on either side of the political spectrum, and our problems are small compared to eras past. Through all this it is still human nature to try and find the leader without fault to lead us against the perceived Satan of the opposition.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://youtu.be/mSUmzMi-vwQ

T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

I generally agree, but I have two key caveats:

1. There are a fair number of people on both sides who are completely self-interested. There are big republican donors who are just in it for the lower taxes and absolutely don't have "pity" for the poor, believing that anyone can get rich with the right work ethic. There are also some democratic politicians who are beholden to corporations. I actually think the bigger issue for liberals are the fake "liberal" celebrities. Basically no one is more of an outspoken liberal than Emma Watson, and then it came out that all of her money was being stored in an offshore tax haven. So you're probably right that there are "not many villains" on either side, I actually think a disproportionate number of the most visible and vocal supporters on both sides are not believers for the altruistic reasons you put forth.

2. I'm not sure I agree that our problems are small compared to past eras. Certainly some of them are smaller, but some of them are larger. Without getting into a debate about which are larger, I hope we can agree that it's all relative. The problems we do face today are the largest problems that many young people will ever face. It's like pain. My "10" when I'm at the hospital is a broken bone, but I've also never been sawed in half by a lightsaber, so Darth Maul probably has a different number when he shows up with a sprained ankle. The point being: we have too many people in the world saying "you don't understand how good you have it! Back in my day..." when, instead, it's probably okay to continue trying to rectify the problems we do have.

[wufan]

We can disagree, strongly, and recognize that the opposition is not evil. It is the ideas that are battling, not the individuals. Some ideas are better than others, but it isn’t always one side that is right and one side that is wrong. The same ideas aren’t right in all circumstances, nor across time. That’s why it’s important to listen and exchange counter points. It helps to refine positions and to move towards solutions.

[ShockingButTrue]

Social media makes all of that rather complicated, doesn't it? That's just the reality of today's world. We ain't seen nothing yet.

[wufan]

Social media is a big problem in that any anonymous person can post any nonsense they want. It’s more problematic due to character limitations. The solution isn’t to ban these posters. Let them come out and be judged as idiots.

[ShockingButTrue]

Banning would create more problems, yes. I myself don't pay any attention to anonymous posters. And I do hereby solemnly swear I'm not a bot either.

Don't most these days interact via facebook? Or chat sites?

[ShockerPrez]

I have a hard time granting the benefit of benevolent intentions to much of what the left ultimately wants. Sorry. Socialism fully carried to its ultimate end is EVIL. Communism is EVIL.

[ShockerPrez]

The left will always find something else to 'fix' through control. Just a matter of time.

They know best.

[WstateU]

I Beggs to differ.

[WstateU]

... and I’m a “bonehead”.

[C0|dB|00ded]

The Government aka Law and Order aka Property Rights are essential for a strong economy. Government gets in trouble when it starts meddling in the free market and attempting to set or govern prices. When this happens it causes an immediate reduction in the country's wealth.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

This post was supposed to be included as a comment above. Someday I might learn to use this posting system. Such a noob.


T


...:cool:

[pinstripers]

I wish I could vote for Trump again today.

[C0|dB|00ded]

You are not alone sir.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

More than ever.

Maxine Water's America is downright ugly. There seems to be a lack of genuine benevolence there. No?

[wufan]

I have a hard time granting the benefit of benevolent intentions to much of what the left ultimately wants. Sorry. Socialism fully carried to its ultimate end is EVIL. Communism is EVIL.

Even if the means are evil, the intent is good. Two political rules to live by:

1. Don’t destroy the great things we’ve done.
2. Don’t force those that have fallen behind to stay in the rear.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I've got a big problem with the use of the word "force". The last time I checked, America is not a caste system. If you want to trade most of your life for education and/or hard work, the American Dream is still waiting for you. Of course if you come from a lower socio-economic class the odds are lower that you will make the sacrifices necessary in order to succeed in this great country of ours. To that I say: tough titties; if your parents were trash, then there must be a penalty in a free market. Please note I am not equating growing up poor with being trash, only that poverty and trashy choices/behavior are strongly correlated.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

I think we agree. America is not a caste system and forcing someone to take their predestined position in society is a bad thing. If I’d have used the word “allow” instead, I think that would have been more of an issue, because that implies that if someone doesn’t move up socioeconimicly then it is due to the actions of society.

[ShockerPrez]

Even if the means are evil, the intent is good. Two political rules to live by:

1. Don’t destroy the great things we’ve done.
2. Don’t force those that have fallen behind to stay in the rear.

If the left wants socialism and their intentions are pure, then make it voluntary. Hillary, Barack and all the celebs can donate all of their excess income to a private fund and distribute it to the poor.... When they make a movie and get paid a million bucks, they can pocket 50 grand and voluntarily tax themselves the remainder and they can all live by their values.

But thats not going to happen is it? No, it isn't. Because in the end, it's not about helping. Its about power.

I love Walter Williams who said,

"To reach into your pocket to help your fellow man is honorable.

To reach into your neighbor's pocket to help your fellow man is despicable."

The left wants to praise themselves and all the great work they do while robbing their fellow citizens to do it.

Despicable.

It's a slap in the face to all of the truly compassionate and wonderful people of this generous nation who perform these tasks through their own accord. Who do it because of love and not coercion.

The left's policies will destroy the great things we have done.

[C0|dB|00ded]

That was just beautifully said 'Prez.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

Have to agree. Going further, the progressive/leftist platform is that the other side is made up of people who look and sound like Archie Bunker, not realizing that when we watched that caricature of the modern American we-were-laughing-at-him, not with him. The only person who took that simpleton seriously, then as well as now, was, you guessed it, the Meathead! They just don't understand how far we've come... It's sort of like when the radicals over in the Middle East want to do us in because they think that hollywood is America; Radicals believe that America is Archie Bunker, sadly. They're living in a social media bubble, where the bots
roam.

p.s., speaking of "social media"...

[proshox]

You have heard these "talking points" so many times it may be hard to consider how false the "choices presented" are.

[ShockerPrez]

proshox Please elaborate.

[proshox]

First, the left wants “socialism” is about as true as saying the right wants “anarchy.”

Sure there are people on the spectrums, but you can be for issues left of center and not want socialism.

Second, the idea that people can donate their way to a large scale goal. We already witness that disaster with never ending “go fund me” campaigns to help people survive a medical issue.

I can go on and on, but you can probably extrapolate from there.

[Guest]

If the left wants socialism and their intentions are pure, then make it voluntary. Hillary, Barack and all the celebs can donate all of their excess income to a private fund and distribute it to the poor.... When they make a movie and get paid a million bucks, they can pocket 50 grand and voluntarily tax themselves the remainder and they can all live by their values.

But thats not going to happen is it? No, it isn't. Because in the end, it's not about helping. Its about power.

I love Walter Williams who said,

"To reach into your pocket to help your fellow man is honorable.

To reach into your neighbor's pocket to help your fellow man is despicable."

The left wants to praise themselves and all the great work they do while robbing their fellow citizens to do it.

Despicable.

It's a slap in the face to all of the truly compassionate and wonderful people of this generous nation who perform these tasks through their own accord. Who do it because of love and not coercion.

The left's policies will destroy the great things we have done.

What is your definition of socialism? Is all taxation equivalent to theft from your perspective?

[ShockerPrez]

I use the term socialism in describing the policies that empower the government to either more strictly regulate or tax, in order to redistribute those proceeds with the purpose of equalizing the economic welfare of said governments' citizens or businesses.

I do not consider all taxes theft. Taxes that are raised to provide common services are necessary.

[proshox]

So public schools such as Wichita State... where do they fall on this taxation litmus test.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Public schools, police, utilities (not exactly government but strictly regulated).


T


...:cool:

[CBB_Fan]

Are we a socialist country? If yes, when did we become one? If not, what line do we cross before we are one?

I ask because because I see many definitions of socialism. All those ever given to me by a conservative would put the transition to socialism at around the 1930s. To me, everything before that is almost unrecognizable as our modern country, and certainly isn't a standard to head back to. I don't think there is a right to social services or anything (I don't even think there is a right to education, food, or water), but I believe as a nation we are entitled to make a social contract to enact objectives for the national good and in most cases our public works projects have garnered the support to stand.

I have a simple definition of socialism, the one in the dictionary: an economic system where the the government owns the means of production instead of any private business. A system where some industries are regulated or controlled by the government is a mixed-market economy, and the differentiation is that in a socialist country there are virtually no private business. This to me is a better definition because I can clearly differentiate when a country goes from "has social services" like the Western World to "private business is a crime against the state" like Soviet Russia, Venezuela, etc. In the latter, the government produces the products. The government mines the resources. The government tells people what they get, when. Not in addition to private business, instead of.

I think throwing around the term 'socialist' without care dilutes the term and poisons dialogue. It is easier to paint all social services as socialism and theft than to try to argue against a social contract where the majority of the country approves of additional taxes in exchange for goods and services, particularly when one is in the opposing minority. But it is intellectually dishonest and reductionary to the extreme. The real debate isn't as simple as 'socialism vs capitalism', but the much harder to argue debate where each individual tax and service are fought over.

[ShockTalk]

Perhaps everyone should start using the term democratic socialism, socialist democracy, and the such as a direction that they do or do not want to head closer to and have that discussion. That way we can just skip most of the above and not get all hung up on socialism in its purist form, just something very close to it.

[CBB_Fan]

^^^ Fake News! LOL!

https://www.weeklystandard.com/ethan...-than-marginal



^^^ Real News!


T


...:cool:

I made more points than "Trump ran a bad business." For one, some portion of that was about the abhorrent person he is, not just the status of his company. It is much easier to get ahead if you cheat, steal, and break the law.

But the broader point is that we know Trump went nearly a billion dollars into debt (from his released taxes), and then got hundreds of millions from Russia to get him out of debt. Saying his business had great profits in 2013-2014 neither disproves that he went into debt nor that the Russians helped get him out of it. In fact, it helps prove my point. Here's some Trump-Russia news from that time:

• August 2013: Eric Trump tells author James Dodson, "We don’t rely on American banks [...] We have all the funding we need out of Russia", and says, "We go there all the time".
• November 2013: Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant is held in Moscow, sponsored by VTB Bank; Trump meets Putin there
• November 2013: The Moscow Times reports that Trump is in talks with Russian companies to build a new Trump tower in Moscow.

[C0|dB|00ded]

A Real Estate developer in debt? OMFG! Next you'll tell me that water is wet. It's called leverage and it's how you make money in this world.

Donald got HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF SKILLIONS FROM RUSSIA????????????????

Russian investors and/or banks have chosen to INVEST in one or more of Donald's EXTREMELY successful real estate developments. Just like other parties from dozens and dozens of other countries. The Trump Organization is global.

More Fake F***ing News!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russia-paid-donald-trump-millions-of-dollars/

T


...:cool:

[ShockerPrez]

I will stipulate to my friends on the left-hand side of the ledger that full bore socialism is not their aim, and that, for instance, out of say 100 socialist policies, wanting to enact a dozen, does not make them a socialist.

My intention in using the term is to convey that #1 there is a much larger proportion of Democrats who do support full bore socialism than the proportion of republicans that support anarchy. And #2 that continued gradual moves to the left will ultimately end with full bore socialism. It may take 100s of years, but it will happen.

And when I am talking, I am speaking at a federal level.

The industry control and policies of the federal government that would have the most impact on moving us to socialism off the top of my head are.

1. Universal Basic Income
2. Single payor healthcare
3. Energy production
4. Financial institutions
5. Internet Control
6. Gun Control

If I were to put the U.S. on the scale of where we are on the socialistic pool, we are up to about our ankles.

I fear governments and their ability to restrain themselves. They will never look at the state of the country and say, "Nothing else to fix, here" or "We'd like to do something about that problem, but the constitution doesn't grant us the authority."

The natural tendency of all societies over history is leftward. I concede some 'socialistic' policies are necessary, ie making sure poor people can eat, children are educated, etc. But I don't believe that being on government assistance should be comfortable and permanant.

[WuDrWu]

Fake News examples from today's coverage of the GOP primary for Governor here in Kansas from our own Eagle.


"The outcome holds national implications: A Kobach loss would embarrass President Donald Trump, who endorsed his informal adviser the day before polls closed.


Read more here: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article216045360.html#storylink=cpy"

I really doubt this President will be embarrassed. Liberals will certainly enjoy it, but let's remember that Trump hired Brownback, so my guess is he's pretty supportive of 99% of Colyer's plans.

"A Kobach victory would represent a stunning rejection by Republicans of the state’s sitting governor, Colyer, who took over the job in January when Sam Brownback resigned."


Read more here: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics...#storylink=cpy

A stunning rejection? Again, as if Kobach is going to do things a lot different? The margin, whichever way it goes, will be razor thin. Everyone knew it was going to be close. Nothing stunning about it at all. And yes, while Brownback did resign, that's hardly the story. He was asked to serve his country as an Ambassador by the President of the United States of America. He was asked to serve. The paper's "reporting" does everything to spin things in a negative light when it or he or she has any ties to the right.

He (Kobach) has promised not to moderate his positions going into the general election, where Democrats and moderate Republicans are terrified he will take the state in a hard-right direction.


Read more here: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics...#storylink=cpy

Who is terrified? TERRIFIED? That's opinion, not fact reporting. Fake News.


Fake News isn't made up by crazies in their mom's basement. It's right in front of you, every day. I submit most who read this are not swayed by Fake News either way. But as I stood in line yesterday, and chatted with my fellow citizens, I am quite certain that the Fake News carries a lot of weight. And to me at least, that is terrifying.