Forum Thread

Mueller elected Trump.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 31 Prev 1 2 3 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Sorry Jared; the Bernie thing is not the issue right now; Trump is. I'm only saying that the result is that the "baby" can from now on can do what he wants and who is going to stop him?

    I'll never pass up an opportunity to remind Bernie or busters that they are directly responsible for the waking nightmare we are currently living in.

    Back to your point. I think you (and unfortunately, many other Democrats) had this fantasy that Mueller was going to personally walk into the Oval Office, throw Donald over his shoulder, and dump him outside the White House gates. That fantasy was egged on by 24/7 "news" channels that breathlessly covered every minor development of the probe the same way they did the Hindenburg disaster.

    Mueller's legal mandate was narrow. He was not investigating whether Donald should or shouldn't be our President; he was investigating if Donald or his team illegally conspired with a hostile foreign power to steal a Presidential election and whether he obstructed justice. On the latter point, we won't know why he punted until Congressional Democrats are allowed to see all the underlying evidence Mueller obtained.

    The only people who can stop Donald before 2020 are the 53 Senate Republicans who are so scared of his base that they would rather be partners in Donald's ceaseless drive to shit all over our Constitution than dare criticize him, let alone actually vote to remove him from office.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    jaredsxtn said:

    "I'll never pass up an opportunity to remind Bernie or busters that they are directly responsible for the waking nightmare we are currently living in."

    Why in the world would you want to highlight your inability to perceive and then do something about the worst possible person running for and then becoming president. All you did was deny. Denied the needs of the people, deny Trump could become president and now deny the ultimate responsibility for making him president. Blame the narrow minded short sighted Democratic hierarchy for not presenting an electable platform. Your type of thinking is making way for a Trump 2020 victory because of still denying the rights of the working class. Free College and free healthcare and living wages are not socialism. They are the benefits of a prosperous economy.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Sorry Jared; the Bernie thing is not the issue right now; Trump is. I'm only saying that the result is that the "baby" can from now on can do what he wants and who is going to stop him?

    I'll never pass up an opportunity to remind Bernie or busters that they are directly responsible for the waking nightmare we are currently living in.

    Back to your point. I think you (and unfortunately, many other Democrats) had this fantasy that Mueller was going to personally walk into the Oval Office, throw Donald over his shoulder, and dump him outside the White House gates. That fantasy was egged on by 24/7 "news" channels that breathlessly covered every minor development of the probe the same way they did the Hindenburg disaster.

    Mueller's legal mandate was narrow. He was not investigating whether Donald should or shouldn't be our President; he was investigating if Donald or his team illegally conspired with a hostile foreign power to steal a Presidential election and whether he obstructed justice. On the latter point, we won't know why he punted until Congressional Democrats are allowed to see all the underlying evidence Mueller obtained.

    The only people who can stop Donald before 2020 are the 53 Senate Republicans who are so scared of his base that they would rather be partners in Donald's ceaseless drive to shit all over our Constitution than dare criticize him, let alone actually vote to remove him from office.

    So somehow you are admitting ( as I did show years ago, as well now) that this "system" of governing, without strict "vetting" rules ( the way it is done now, is "child" like) and without proper laws, which can not manipulated which ever way, by a zillion lawyers and an Constitution which was only amended about 150 times in 300 years, let alone an "electoral college" thing from the "slave time", as well an "second amendment" which was meant for the "militia" (non existing today) and only was meant for the use of "flintlocks". On top of it let the "corruption" roam with plenty of "billionaires" money and "bribery" all over the place. So please admit it for a change, that all of this such is the cause of the situation we are in now. Thus Jared all of this is our own fault and not of Bernie's; he's only an victim of the "corrupt" system in this country which helped Trump. Even Mueller admits that he can't do anything because the antique "laws" don't cover the "corrupt" things Trump does all the time. So who is going to write an "mandatory" manual stating all the "no no"s for an President? Who is going to take "bribery" money" out of election or "buy "votes" via deceit . Who is going to scrap the "second amendment" and the "electoral college"?

    So in 2020 an "new" President can do exactly what Trump is doing right now, without any problems at all. An "oath" means nothing anymore. If Trump wins in 2020, forget this country, it will be just another large "banana republic" Which is now already the case. What a country.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I've never once claimed we have the best (or even close to the best) system in the world, but my feelings about the Constitution simply don't matter.

    We don't have the system we want, we have the system we have. We can and should continue to fight for the system that we want, but none of those changes will ever happen if we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by kowtowing to the far lefties who insist on a nationwide ideological purity "my way or the highway" test.

    The system we have makes it next to impossible to remove a President from office. Is it fair? Absolutely not. Does it handcuff us from removing a President who is obviously unfit for office? Darn tootin'. But throwing a temper tantrum about how unfair it is isn't going to accomplish anything other than raising your blood pressure.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Consider this. If the election were held today, Trump would win, and by some estimates he would win in a landslide. Trump has never stopped campaigning and keeping his base intact and loyal since he won in 2016. Impeaching Trump would not change that thinking one iota; in fact it would further alienate his base to come out to vote in super high numbers as Trump played the victim.

    I agree with Nancy Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. It's a choice between enduring him now for another year or so, or putting together a formidable Democratic Party campaign focusing on the issues that matter to Americans -- health care is No. 1. It's how we won the midterms with moderate Democrats flipping red and purple Republican held seats. The right candidates with a unified message can make the 2020 election an even bigger win for Democrats across the board.

    I bolded the "unified message". We do not have a unified message right now with Bernie Sanders and his Our Revolution doing what they did in 2016 selling his brand of "socialism for all" and applying purity tests to centrist Democrats. The Bernie folks and the Social Democrats can make inroads in cobalt blue districts, but they cannot win a single purple or red district or state. Their message does not expand the party. It "stove pipes" it.

    Only the moderate Democrats, the pragmatists, can expand the party by appealing to Independents (the largest voting force in the nation) and moderate Republicans who are turned off by Trumpism. The more the Democratic Party moves to the left, the smaller it gets.

    My opinion...

    Schmidt, Saying ""socialism for all" is a total exageration. Free College, Free Health Care and a living wage is what constitutes and builds a strong peaceful country and sets an example. As pointed out before and again by Dutch the USA ranks 19th in best countries to live in and the top ten all have what you might call socialism. In fact all tbe most successful countries are a combination of socialist and capitalistic economies. The most successful companies all operate on a pure socialist agenda.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Schmidt, Saying ""socialism for all" is a total exageration. Free College, Free Health Care and a living wage is what constitutes and builds a strong peaceful country and sets an example. As pointed out before and again by Dutch the USA ranks 19th in best countries to live in and the top ten all have what you might call socialism. In fact all tbe most successful countries are a combination of socialist and capitalistic economies. The most successful companies all operate on a pure socialist agenda.

    Does Sanders actually state these things should be "Free" or does he state they should be human rights as citizens? I am asking because I don't know what exact terms he is using, and it makes a difference.

    I have not objection to the idea that health and education should be human rights. I object to them being "Free" as in being fully funded by the government without anything expected in return. I would like to see that education at the college level be fully funded to those students who earn it. In other words, the tuition is provide at no cost to the student if the student meets a specific set of conditions, before, during, and after. This would apply to trade schools as well. If it is free to everyone without some expectations (goals), then it would appeal to the same jerks in HS that don't give a shit if they get an education, and are there for other nefarious reasons. Maybe there to sell drugs and commit other crimes, etc, etc.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Schmidt, Saying ""socialism for all" is a total exageration. Free College, Free Health Care and a living wage is what constitutes and builds a strong peaceful country and sets an example. As pointed out before and again by Dutch the USA ranks 19th in best countries to live in and the top ten all have what you might call socialism. In fact all tbe most successful countries are a combination of socialist and capitalistic economies. The most successful companies all operate on a pure socialist agenda.

    Does Sanders actually state these things should be "Free" or does he state they should be human rights as citizens? I am asking because I don't know what exact terms he is using, and it makes a difference.

    I have not objection to the idea that health and education should be human rights. I object to them being "Free" as in being fully funded by the government without anything expected in return. I would like to see that education at the college level be fully funded to those students who earn it. In other words, the tuition is provide at no cost to the student if the student meets a specific set of conditions, before, during, and after. This would apply to trade schools as well. If it is free to everyone without some expectations (goals), then it would appeal to the same jerks in HS that don't give a shit if they get an education, and are there for other nefarious reasons. Maybe there to sell drugs and commit other crimes, etc, etc.

    " Free" is never free; likely your taxes pay for it. Also in countries which have an good "social" system the taxes are pro-rated; the rich pay more and are cut of social services at an certain level of income and have to get private insurance. Also there are plenty of requirements to prove if you have the right to get such services. For instance "free" education requires good grades and behavior. Also mostly you have to pay for the education material etc. Thus "free" is not all that simple as thought here.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I have used the word "free" in the sense that there would be no fees associated with use of the services whether it is free health care or free college tuition. Of course, nothing is free. The costs are just absorbed by the tax payer much the same as free use of roads requires tax payers to build and maintain those roads.

    I support affordable universal health care, and we have plenty of options besides Berniecare. I also support initiatives to make college tuition more affordable and available to those who want to attend college to pursue a career. However, even in Germany, "free college" is not without controversy.

    Germany proves tuition-free college is not a silver bullet for America’s education woes

    "Two years after the last few German universities went tuition-free, Germans are almost equally split about the idea. According to a survey conducted earlier this year by the Ifo Center for the Economics of Education at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, 44% of Germans are in favor of re-imposing tuition, while 46% want to keep things as they are.

    "Interestingly, when informed that university graduates earn 40% more than those with a vocational education, the proportion of respondents who support bringing back tuition rises to 50%. And an even higher 60% like the idea of requiring students to pay for their tuition after graduating as a portion of their incomes, a model similar to systems in England and Australia."

    I have said this before. We need to expand programs to make college more affordable for those who otherwise are locked out of the system because of income. But I also believe every student should have "skin in the game" to incentivize them and to not take their education for granted.

    That skin in the game could be methods of paying back their tuition costs with community service or other means.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If free tuition produces people that earn more money doesn't that increase the income tax revenue. Investing in students with free tuition will improve the country. Right ???
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: If free tuition produces people that earn more money doesn't that increase the income tax revenue. Investing in students with free tuition will improve the country. Right ???
    Chet, I don't know about that; don't forget we get lots of students from other countries and they likely go back to get positions there. Also don't forget the "tax-brackets" which favor the "rich" . Improving the country? I guess not really, unless they help with the infrastructure or social structure. Studying for "priest" does not help the country.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "lots of students from other countries"

    We should use foreign aid to pay for education for people from central America.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "lots of students from other countries"

    We should use foreign aid to pay for education for people from central America.

    Not such bad idea. ( if they are "allowed" to come in, on an student visa?)
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    That skin in the game could be methods of paying back their tuition costs with community service or other means.

    Yes, that is what I'd like to see.

    Alaska once had no-pay-back plan in place. The state of Alaska would pay full tuition for anyone to go to any college as long as the person spent a few years working in Alaska. Example, a person could have their Harvard college tuition paid for, and upon graduation they were required to work in Alaska for a few years.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "But I also believe every student should have "skin in the game" to incentivize them and to not take their education for granted."

    All the successful people I know do not need to be incentivized. On the contraire you have to fight them to get them to quit working.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    James Comey may have elected Trump as well. Seems like he's in a bad place. This was an interesting article.

    thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/442278-ja...