Passionate pre-election opinion of prominent Democrat

[detbuch]

"The Democratic Party Today"

[Pete F.]

Are you trying to tell us that Trump is the new Jimmy Carter?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you trying to tell us that Trump is the new Jimmy Carter?

You should be ashamed yourself to even mention a vile Petty lying philandering person like Trump in the same sentence with Carter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Fox News. 😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

The guy makes sense and a lot of good points. We will see where this goes as time will tell but Thankfully we don't have Clinton as our leader. I don't see her Standing up to Rocketman.
Hillsdale College is one of the few places our young minds won't be indoctrinated to socialism.
People need to wake up and boot the career hacks out before it's too late.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

We will see where this goes as time will tell but Thankfully we don't have Clinton as our leader.

I hope you do realize a primary reason for the Russians working to elect Trump is because they were afraid of a Clinton POTUS.

Perhaps she doesn't have a pee tape.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I hope you do realize a primary reason for the Russians working to elect Trump is because they were afraid of a Clinton POTUS.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I hope you do realize a primary reason for the Russians working to elect Trump is because they were afraid of a Clinton POTUS.

the primary reason Trump was elected was because Americans were all afraid of a Clinton presidency

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I hope you do realize a primary reason for the Russians working to elect Trump is because they were afraid of a Clinton POTUS.

Perhaps she doesn't have a pee tape.

No. Putin simply hates Clinton. He also feels he has elevated influence with Trump. But Putties ability to sow discord across both parties is his biggest accomplishment.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

the primary reason Trump was elected was because Americans were all afraid of a Clinton presidency

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I hope you do realize a primary reason for the Russians working to elect Trump is because they were afraid of a Clinton POTUS.

Perhaps she doesn't have a pee tape.

Oh my yes, when she was crying in the early days of the 2008 primaries (when things weren't going so well for her), I'm sure that had Putin shaking in his boots.

[Pete F.]

I think Trump was elected because he was one of two bad choices, one won the electoral college and the other the unpopular vote.
I know a number of republicans who voted for neither candidate, just think how bad Clinton could have lost to a decent Republican candidate who could actually do the job.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think Trump was elected because he was one of two bad choices, one won the electoral college and the other the unpopular vote.
I know a number of republicans who voted for neither candidate, just think how bad Clinton could have lost to a decent Republican candidate who could actually do the job.

How is Trump not doing the job?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How is Trump not doing the job?

Most of the people think so, look at the Rasmussen poll. Notice how quiet he is on that but, don't worry he is having another rally.
When he gets done playing golf.
"I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf." --Donald J. Trump, August, 2016
And dont forget this one
‘‘The mob takes the Fifth,’’ Trump told a campaign crowd in Iowa last September. ‘‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’’

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Most of the people think so, look at the Rasmussen poll. Notice how quiet he is on that but, don't worry he is having another rally.
When he gets done playing golf.
"I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf." --Donald J. Trump, August, 2016
And dont forget this one
‘‘The mob takes the Fifth,’’ Trump told a campaign crowd in Iowa last September. ‘‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’’

Again, how is Trump not doing his job?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, how is Trump not doing his job?

I guess it depends on what that "job" really is. If you were to ask how he's doing giving ridiculous tax breaks to the wealthy and generally making a clown of himself I'd say he's doing a great job.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, how is Trump not doing his job?

seems to appear when taken in context that by all measurable standards he's doing a pretty good job...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, how is Trump not doing his job?

If his job is making sure that the proletariat (lowest class of citizens, predating Marx by more than a thousand years) have less and grows as a group, while ensuring that the wealthiest people control more and more then yes, one would say he is doing his job.
The rise of the corporation will lead to the end of democracy in this country. The middle class is the heart of democracy and it is dying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

The Russians did not elect Trump. The American People elected Trump.

The American Media and American Press has far more influence on the American People than the Russians do. The American Press and Media were substantially against Trump.

The source of the pee story was Russian.

[Pete F.]

Slip, I think the destruction of the middle class is done by more than politicians, they are one tool in the process.
When we were kids who owned the dairy, who owned the corner store, bank, lumberyard, gas station, clothing store, factory, farm, restaurant? Did you know them and their families?
The money did not leave town and only provide low wage jobs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The job
Time will tell how Trump did . . . I don’t trust him.

So when you said "just think how bad Clinton could have lost to a decent Republican candidate who could actually do the job" you didn't actually mean that Trump could not "actually do the job,"--right? You just don't trust him, and "time will tell," and he really hasn't done anything worthwhile, just hasn't screwed things up yet, that we can tell, and he's a scumbag, and you just don't trust him, and he's a scumbag, and what the polls say, and stuff, right?

And when you said "If his job is making sure that the proletariat (lowest class of citizens, predating Marx by more than a thousand years) have less and grows as a group, while ensuring that the wealthiest people control more and more then yes, one would say he is doing his job" you weren't actually saying That Trump is creating or expanding a Roman Empire form of the proletariat, right? Because, after all, the Roman proletariat did not have a Constitution which protected their unalienable rights. Nor were they allowed to vote. And, of course, you weren't saying that Trump was expanding a Marxist type proletariat, right? Because that proletariat would have control of the political power--a dictatorship of the proletariat that would imprison or execute a Trump. You were just making kinda nice, smart sounding, offhand remarks, right?

And when you said "The rise of the corporation will lead to the end of democracy in this country. The middle class is the heart of democracy and it is dying," you weren't blaming Trump, right? That stuff has been going on long before Trump--probably in earnest since the 1960's. All those Presidents and Congresses and state and local politicians left that mess for Trump to "inherit," right? And, anyway, even though he hasn't done anything significant yet and claims credit for anything good that would happen in spite of him, since you don't trust him and he's a scumbag, he probably won't be able to do the job either. But maybe a "decent" Republican would (for a change from all the presidents of the last 60 years) be able to do the job and bring back the middle class, right?

I am a tiny bit curious about your claim that corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country. And about your notion that what you refer to as "Non-Originalist" judges who can change the meaning of constitutional text, which in effect rewrites the Constitution without having to amend it by will of the people, would not lead to the end of our form of democracy in this country.

As you have corrected my misunderstanding of your view on Trump's doing "the job," could you now explain how corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country, but why judges usurping the power of the people's representatives by legislating from the bench and rewriting the law which guarantees our liberty, in ways that suit their personal prejudices, thereby replacing those unalienable liberties with only freedoms that government allows, will not endanger democracy in this country?

[wdmso]

“judicial activism” like voter fraud more the sky is falling talk

https://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...ial-politics-0

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

“judicial activism” like voter fraud more the sky is falling talk

https://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...ial-politics-0

I was not able to read your article because after a couple of seconds a pop-up ad blocked it and required me to subscribe in order to finish reading it.

It sounds interesting. Could you summarize it in your own words and we can have a discussion about that.

[Pete F.]

I don't trust him because he doesn't think things thru, reacts to things without thought and is easily lead astray, all you have to do is flatter him. Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?
Don't you think they know that at worst he will be around for 6 years?
Look at the history of negotiations with N Korea and see where we are now.
They have nukes, ICBMs and as a reward are having a meeting with the leader of the USA.
As far as being whatever nasty name you want to call him, that's up to you. I just think he's a schmuck.
All the inalienable rights in the world will do you no good if you don't have access to capital or the ability to accrue it. That is what is happening to the middle class and you can look at income distribution over the past 100 years and see it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?

The Russians do...oh wait, they are Fox and Friend's intelligence source

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't trust him because he doesn't think things thru, reacts to things without thought and is easily lead astray, all you have to do is flatter him. Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?
Don't you think they know that at worst he will be around for 6 years?
Look at the history of negotiations with N Korea and see where we are now.
They have nukes, ICBMs and as a reward are having a meeting with the leader of the USA.
As far as being whatever nasty name you want to call him, that's up to you. I just think he's a schmuck.
All the inalienable rights in the world will do you no good if you don't have access to capital or the ability to accrue it. That is what is happening to the middle class and you can look at income distribution over the past 100 years and see it.

Pete makes a lot of good points except pointing out the fact they have nukes and icbms. Do you honestly blame that on Trump Pete? My feeling is that is another problem he inherited from his predecessors. I feel like this is a great opportunity to make the world safer,who is responsible for this moment of clarity? Do you think the US is misguided when we "reward" NK with a meeting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Pete makes a lot of good points except pointing out the fact they have nukes and icbms. Do you honestly blame that on Trump Pete? My feeling is that is another problem he inherited from his predecessors. I feel like this is a great opportunity to make the world safer,who is responsible for this moment of clarity? Do you think the US is misguided when we "reward" NK with a meeting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it is not Trumps fault, but time is on their side. They are a nuclear power. In order to negotiate a treaty with them we will have to modify our existing relationship with S Korea and Japan. It is not a simple problem, unless the current regime is substantially different than his father. Who knew North Korea could be so complicated? (Couldn't resist)

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't trust him because he doesn't think things thru, reacts to things without thought and is easily lead astray, all you have to do is flatter him.

I don't know that what you say about him is true. His success in life is evidence that what you say is not true. I get that those who don't like him, and those who are pissed at being defeated by him, and those who want to win an election against him, would say stuff like that. That's just boilerplate politics.

Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?

That's just sarcasm, not an argument. Not part of an intelligent, honest discussion.

Don't you think they know that at worst he will be around for 6 years?

I don't know who the entire "they" are. Nor do I know why I should have trust, confidence, and agreement with those "they." There's a lot of "they" in this country and in other countries who would replace the word "worst" in your question with the word "best." Of course, those who hate Trump, don't want that notion to be exposed.

Look at the history of negotiations with N Korea and see where we are now.
They have nukes, ICBMs and as a reward are having a meeting with the leader of the USA.

You may want to frame it as a "reward." Others may want to call it Kim being scared out of his pants. And how did the history of negotiations with non-schmuk, decent leaders who didn't "reward" Kim work out?

Rather than not "thinking things thru," as you put it, Trump may have employed a version of Kissinger's "mad man strategy" to scare the be-Jesus out of Kim so he would be more likely to quit the nukes. Bombing Syria might well have been the kind of demonstrations which would help to convince Kim that Trump actually would attack NK if it didn't cooperate.

As far as being whatever nasty name you want to call him, that's up to you. I just think he's a schmuck.

When I said he was a scumbag, I thought I was reflecting your opinion of him, which seems to be the opinion of most anti-Trumpers. Again, I misinterpreted you. You don't consider him a scumbag. You think he is a schmuck. That's actually a bit nicer, but still as devastating. Probably even more so. Since scumbags in politics are very common and our previous, and several, scumbag Presidents have been able to do "the job." Schmuks would be too stupid to do "the job." Even so, you are willing to let time tell if Trump does "the job." Even though schmuks would not be capable of doing "the job."

All the inalienable rights in the world will do you no good if you don't have access to capital or the ability to accrue it. That is what is happening to the middle class and you can look at income distribution over the past 100 years and see it.

It is interesting that the past 100 years have been the time period in which Progressivism had begun to take hold and gradually have taken nearly total control of our society and our government. Yet it is those who are Progressive in their politics who rail against what they have wrought.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is interesting that the past 100 years have been the time period in which Progressivism had begun to take hold and gradually have taken nearly total control of our society and our government. Yet it is those who are Progressive in their politics who rail against what they have wrought.

And the Conservatives are happy?
This is a reply to the stuff you wrote in the body
Apparently you believe that because Trump says he is rich, that he is.
Perhaps John Barron told you so also.
As far as being around for some number of years, the rest of the world's leaders also feel some responsibility for their economies and realize that business needs the ability to be able to plan based on stable relationships, not the latest deal that someone thinks he can bully others into. This is not selling your name to anyone who wants to buy it for a minority stake in a project and if it's a loser, on to the next one.
You actually think Trump read any of Kissingers books, and developed a plan?
I think you could spend some time researching Trump, assume 20% is true. To me, it's pretty scary that he is where he is.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And the Conservatives are happy?

Who said that conservatives are happy about what Progressives have done to this country? You complain about the so called disappearance of the middle class, the rise of corporatism, and the so called growing "income inequality" that has occurred during the ascendance of Progressivism in this country, yet you don't seem to connect that to Progressive distribution policies (which creates larger groups of low income dependents), nor to the Progressive growth of "government inequality" in which the federal government constantly grows in power at the expense of local and individual governance. Eisenhower originally intended the phrase we are familiar with as "The Military Industrial Complex" to be "The Military Industrial Congressional Complex."

Progressive policies linking the central government to all facets of society in ways that gives it power over them, centralizes political power, which, in turn, more easily links with centralized corporate power than with a plethora of small business entities. And its unconstitutional network of regulatory agencies creates regulations that favor large corporations over small businesses--which contributes to fewer "wealth owners" as well as watering down the number of "middle (class) wealth owners. Which, along with the larger number of low wealth government dependents creates a larger average wealth disparity as capital flows overall to fewer, much larger business entities in the form of centralized corporations.

So Eisenhower's "Complex" has expanded into the Big Business Big Government Complex. This is a result of the Progressive model of government being that which is not checked by constitutional bounds, but, rather, unlimited in its ability to do what it considers "good"--to do "the job."

This is a reply to the stuff you wrote in the body
Apparently you believe that because Trump says he is rich, that he is.

Trump was touted to be rich by the mainstream media long before he ran for President and before I read or heard anything he has said. I didn't get the notion of his richness from the Don's own mouth.

Perhaps John Barron told you so also.

Perhaps you want to appear to be stupid.

As far as being around for some number of years, the rest of the world's leaders also feel some responsibility for their economies and realize that business needs the ability to be able to plan based on stable relationships, not the latest deal that someone thinks he can bully others into. This is not selling your name to anyone who wants to buy it for a minority stake in a project and if it's a loser, on to the next one.

It is nearly impossible, and way too taxing, to respond in detail to effusive blabber. But I'll give it a brief, summarized, try. Trump has, apparently, understood how to successfully deal with various world business and political leaders. One of his most important tactics is to get advice from "experts" in how to achieve his goals.

You actually think Trump read any of Kissingers books, and developed a plan?

Trump has met with Kissinger several times regarding foreign policy.

I think you could spend some time researching Trump, assume 20% is true. To me, it's pretty scary that he is where he is.

I assume that what you say about Trump is a result of your extensive "researching." But what you say as a result of that does not explain nor negate what Trump has done during his brief time in office. Ergo, I have no confidence in the veracity or relevance of your sources. There are sources that picture Trump as a positive force. I don't care about them either. The actual facts of his doing "the job" unfolding before our eyes determines what I think about him vis a vis "the job."

BTW, I am still interested in how you believe that corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country, but that judges usurping Congress's power to amend the Constitution simply by rewriting the law (the Constitution) through "interpretations" that suit their personal prejudices, will not endanger democracy in this country?