Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[Dill]

(07-20-2018, 10:54 AM)Benton Wrote: That one generally is. HRC — even though she's had fewer illegitimate children, bankruptcies, Russian business deals, distances of sexual assault and paid off fewer porn stars — is irrelevant. Republicans had several candidates to chose. They picked Trump. Saying Trump was better because he was less flawed ignores the fact that there were 72 other Republican candidates for POTUS. Republicans picked Trump.

Saying after the fact that Trump was the only choice because of HRC's emails is like saying you have to rob a bank because starvation is horrible while walking by a half dozen help wanted signs.

LOL sounds like you criticize everything Trump does.

But seriously, you raise the issue of how and to what degree Hillary hate framed--and continues to frame-- voting alternatives for a segment of the voting public. Those "boring" candidates could not beat horrible Hillary because Republican voters would not vote for them.

If you compare Hillary's faux scandals--Whitewater, Vince Foster, Pizzagate--to Trump's real scandals, then they are indeed equally flawed candidates at the level of media imaging. How COULD you choose between them?  But factor in hatred of Washington and BIG GOVERNMENT, and Hillary's biggest plus, experience knowledge of government, becomes just another negative. 

Imaging and energy--Not much has changed if the occasional "hyperbole" of a Trump critic not responsible for national security drowns out the daily hyperbole of the Commander in Chief. An analytic framework which would allow people to scale and prioritize some "flaws" over others, especially in terms of their consequences for the public, is totally absent. Concern for factual record itself is absent.

[Belsnickel]

So Trump walks back his walk-back from the Helsinki conference, saying again that the idea of Russian meddling is a hoax.

So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election. Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign? Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 22, 2018

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2018, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So Trump walks back his walk-back from the Helsinki conference, saying again that the idea of Russian meddling is a hoax.

So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election. Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign? Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 22, 2018

Of all the things Trump has done I feel this has been his biggest misstep by far.

He is calling into question or investigative departments as well as our past administration's behavior. It is beneath the office of POTUS. he should be censured by Congress. I think it has only happened one other time in the history of Presidents.

WTS, censure may increase his popularity with some. many view him as giving a big FU to politics.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of all the things Trump has done I feel this has been his biggest misstep by far.

He is calling into question or investigative departments as well as our past administration's behavior. It is beneath the office of POTUS. he should be censured by Congress. I think it has only happened one other time in the history of Presidents.

WTS, censure may increase his popularity with some. many view him as giving a big FU to politics.  

Don't get me wrong, I see the way he is doubting the USIC as a big problem, but what concerns me with this is how quickly his position changes to suit his needs. It makes the White House appear to be built on shifting sands, and that makes many things more difficult.

[*Nately120*]

(07-23-2018, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I see the way he is doubting the USIC as a big problem, but what concerns me with this is how quickly his position changes to suit his needs. It makes the White House appear to be built on shifting sands, and that makes many things more difficult.

I must admit he really is pushing the boundaries on what a non-institutionalized supporter can rationalize and justify.  With that being said, there is always the whole "Yeah, well the other candidate is worse" ace in the hole to fall back on.  I don't really know any Trump supporters I can ask about this without being shut down a few sentences in about how it isn't polite to ask someone to explain why he thinks or believes the way he does, so I'm a bit in the dark here.

[GMDino]

(07-23-2018, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I see the way he is doubting the USIC as a big problem, but what concerns me with this is how quickly his position changes to suit his needs. It makes the White House appear to be built on shifting sands, and that makes many things more difficult.

(07-23-2018, 01:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I must admit he really is pushing the boundaries on what a non-institutionalized supporter can rationalize and justify.  With that being said, there is always the whole "Yeah, well the other candidate is worse" ace in the hole to fall back on.  I don't really know any Trump supporters I can ask about this without being shut down a few sentences in about how it isn't polite to ask someone to explain why he thinks or believes the way he does, so I'm a bit in the dark here.

Trump supporters like him because he's "not a politician" and he "says what he means".

The fact that they go on believing that and can justify all the flips and flops and lies says as much about them as it does him.

[Millhouse]

(07-23-2018, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of all the things Trump has done I feel this has been his biggest misstep by far.

He is calling into question or investigative departments as well as our past administration's behavior. It is beneath the office of POTUS. he should be censured by Congress. I think it has only happened one other time in the history of Presidents.

WTS, censure may increase his popularity with some. many view him as giving a big FU to politics.  

He will always have supporters til the end. But I agree on this though. He has said all sorts of things in the past that I shook my head at, yet he was like teflon to his support. But Russia though was one thing that almost all Americans seemed to agree against because of their support of Iran, Syria, and NK.

All the Dems have to do is get a candidate who seems to be in touch with the middle class while not pushing for massive socialistic programs to win back the White House. Because though Trump will still get votes regardless of what he does, he will lose a lot of votes from the moderates and semi-conservatives that voted for him, as this is one of those dealbreaker sort of things, imo.

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2018, 01:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: He will always have supporters til the end. But I agree on this though. He has said all sorts of things in the past that I shook my head at, yet he was like teflon to his support. But Russia though was one thing that almost all Americans seemed to agree against because of their support of Iran, Syria, and NK.

All the Dems have to do is get a candidate who seems to be in touch with the middle class while not pushing for massive socialistic programs to win back the White House. Because though Trump will still get votes regardless of what he does, he will lose a lot of votes from the moderates and semi-conservatives that voted for him, as this is one of those dealbreaker sort of things, imo.

The Dems are going to have an internal crisis. The DNC has already shown they will go out of their way to stop a candidate that goes toward the extreme left (sanders); however, more and more extreme leftist are winning Dem nominations throughout the country. I think a huge measuring stick will be how these extremists will fare in the mid-terms.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 01:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: All the Dems have to do is get a candidate who seems to be in touch with the middle class while not pushing for massive socialistic programs to win back the White House. Because though Trump will still get votes regardless of what he does, he will lose a lot of votes from the moderates and semi-conservatives that voted for him, as this is one of those dealbreaker sort of things, imo.

Can you give me some examples? I ask because one that I hear repeatedly on this is the Medicare for all thing, which is actually is a policy that polls with the majority in favor in every single state.

I think if we stopped labeling some of these policies as socialist, because they really aren't, anyway, then maybe we wouldn't have such an issue.

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 02:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Dems are going to have an internal crisis. The DNC has already shown they will go out of their way to stop a candidate that goes toward the extreme left (sanders); however, more and more extreme leftist are winning Dem nominations throughout the country. I think a huge measuring stick will be how these extremists will fare in the mid-terms.  

Who are the extreme left candidates? Sanders, even though he said he was a democratic socialist, really wasn't. He was a social democrat, which is a center-left ideology. Same for what's-her-face in NY.

[GMDino]

(07-23-2018, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Can you give me some examples? I ask because one that I hear repeatedly on this is the Medicare for all thing, which is actually is a policy that polls with the majority in favor in every single state.

I think if we stopped labeling some of these policies as socialist, because they really aren't, anyway, then maybe we wouldn't have such an issue.

(07-23-2018, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who are the extreme left candidates? Sanders, even though he said he was a democratic socialist, really wasn't. He was a social democrat, which is a center-left ideology. Same for what's-her-face in NY.

Anything left of Attila the Hun I believe.  

[Millhouse]

(07-23-2018, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Can you give me some examples? I ask because one that I hear repeatedly on this is the Medicare for all thing, which is actually is a policy that polls with the majority in favor in every single state.

I think if we stopped labeling some of these policies as socialist, because they really aren't, anyway, then maybe we wouldn't have such an issue.

Free college tuition is the main one that has been proposed last few years.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-23-2018, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who are the extreme left candidates? Sanders, even though he said he was a democratic socialist, really wasn't. He was a social democrat, which is a center-left ideology. Same for what's-her-face in NY.

He is not center left here.  You gotta speak American when talking to Americans.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 02:42 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Free college tuition is the main one that has been proposed last few years.

Also not a socialist policy, but a policy I am not largely in favor of. There ought to be policies in place to increase access to tuition, but just a generic "free college tuition" thing is stupid. Policies geared to educating the work force, whether it be through trade schools, business schools, or liberal arts education are a good thing and help foster a more democratic society, but there hasn't been any good policies, IMHO.

All of that being said, this is also not a great example of what you are talking about. Not only is it not a socialist policy, it is also favored by a majority. A poll done last year found that about 63% of Americans overall supported the policy, including a slim majority of Republicans and 50% of self-identified Tea Party types.

[*bfine32*]

(07-23-2018, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who are the extreme left candidates? Sanders, even though he said he was a democratic socialist, really wasn't. He was a social democrat, which is a center-left ideology. Same for what's-her-face in NY.

Many consider Socialists to be on the extreme left. Especially economically.

[Dill]

(07-23-2018, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:
I think if we stopped labeling some of these policies as socialist, because they really aren't, anyway, then maybe we wouldn't have such an issue.

Isn't creating an issue the point of labeling them "socialist"?  Not that socialist is bad, but so long as Americans perceive it as bad, and can't tell the difference, we'll never stop seeing policies thus labeled.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-23-2018, 02:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Isn't creating an issue the point of labeling them "socialist"?  Not that socialist is bad, but so long as Americans perceive it as bad, and can't tell the difference, we'll never stop seeing policies thus labeled.

We could call them Nazis.

[Dill]

(07-23-2018, 02:42 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Free college tuition is the main one that has been proposed last few years.

Just curious, what do you think of public schools--taxpayer funded grade, middle, and high schools?

Socialist or no?

[Dill]

(07-23-2018, 02:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We could call them Nazis.

 . . . as long as your target audience can't or doesn't want to tell the difference. yes.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-23-2018, 03:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Just curious, what do you think of public schools--taxpayer funded grade, middle, and high schools?

Socialist or no?

Well hell some liberals have been trying to tell us for years that if we support a police or fire dept we support socialism as a way to cleverly trap us.