Displaying 1 - 10 of 4633 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Jun 13, 2019 01:15 PM
    Last: 27d

    No need to jump to conclusions just yet. There are a million different scenarios in play here, so why don't we wait to see what the international consensus is before pointing the finger at anyone? I emphasized international because I think it's imperative that the international community speak with one voice on this escalating crisis.

    It could have been Iran. It could have been military factions within Iran that went rogue. It could have been John Bolton conspiring with Saudi Arabia to frame Iran. It could have been a million other things.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but I can't help but question why Iran would attack a Japanese ship when the Prime Minister of Japan was visiting Iran. It makes no sense.

    My biggest fear is that Donald will use this as a pretense for yet another war in the Middle East. Americans really, really love war and we never seem to learn from any of our previous mistakes. The travesty of Iraq would be child's play compared to war with Iran. I really hope some adults in the room will be able to convince Donald of that before jumping headfirst into what will surely be a devastating war.

  • May 26, 2019 03:27 PM
    Last: 2mo
    Welcome, Flex. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about our site. Looking forward to engaging in thoughtful discussion with you.
  • May 16, 2019 09:05 AM
    Last: 2mo
    Dutch Wrote: Right now I have the impression the Dem's have thrown in the towel; nothing achieved until now: No unredacted Mueller report, no "tax returns", nothing on the subpoena's, nothing on anything they want. Yes, people that is what you get if there are no decent laws here; total dictatorship is around the corner. Pelosi has already given up and just awaits the election results; and claims Trump will self destroy; however I've not seen anything which leads to it.

    I think your frustration has more to do with many Democrats wholly unrealistic expectations after retaking the House than anything else. I fear that many liberals convinced themselves that retaking the House meant a new era of liberal lawmaking was imminent when the reality is far messier.

    Speaker Pelosi's biggest sticks are the power of the purse and the power to investigate the Trump Administration. She can leverage her power of the purse (refuse to sign off on a budget bill/withhold funding from certain departments) to force the Administration to cooperate with their investigations, but if you're waiting for her to waive a magic wand and enact every piece of progressive legislation into law then you're going to be sorely disappointed.

    That's not how things work in our system no matter how frustrated it makes you.

  • May 15, 2019 01:20 AM
    Last: 2mo
    wwjd Wrote: Question: How do you think this would play out if Trump refused to hand over the presidency to someone who has been legitimately elected?

    Nothing surprises me anymore, so I wouldn't be shocked if Donald tries to challenge the election results if he loses. If he loses in a landslide then I don't think he'll have much of a leg to stand on, but if it's a close election then it's anyone's guess what will happen. It's truly scary to think about, but it is certainly something everyone needs to be prepared for.

    All we can hope for is that all those who are charged with ensuring a peaceful transition of power will choose country over party.

  • May 10, 2019 12:21 PM
    Last: 2mo

    I actually have mixed feelings on nationwide injunctions. It's hypocritical, but I like them when it benefits Democrats and I don't like them when it doesn't. Unfortunately, that isn't a proper way to govern.

    If I were to be honest, I'm fine with doing away with the process of allowing one District Court judge to hand down nationwide injunctions that affect people way outside of their limited jurisdiction. It breeds "judge shopping" and only exasperates the widening skepticism among the population that our courts are rigged.

    It also would benefit Democrats even when we're not in power because fringe far right-wing judges would no longer be able to unilaterally declare nationwide mandates or injunctions. Their rulings would only effect the very limited number of people residing in the district they reside pending the appeal process.

  • Apr 09, 2019 04:10 AM
    Last: 2mo
    Dutch Wrote: Sorry Schmidt, it is going to hell! ask all the preachers:-P.

    What does "going to hell" even mean if you're an atheist?

    Are we going through a tumultuous time in the country? Sure. But we've gone through many tumultuous times before and will go through more in the future.

    Would you say we're better or worse off than the 1960's when dozens and dozens of race riots brought large swaths of major cities on the precipice urban warfare? Or are we better or worse off than the various labor riots that also brought about open warfare on many city streets? And don't even get me started on the lead up to, and the fighting of, the Civil War.

    Preachers have been predicting the end of the world since The Book of Revelation was published and every one of them was wrong.

  • May 03, 2019 11:10 PM
    Last: 3mo

    My point was that there is no "right" strategy in the lead up to the primaries because no primary votes have been cast and the only thing we're relying on is what we see on 24 hour "news" channels.

    There's a couple dozen candidates all running on a platform they think is the right one. Democrats in the various states will then begin choosing which candidate they like the best when the first primaries begin in early 2020. Until then it's just a reality TV contest that will drive you crazy if you spend too much time worrying about it.

  • May 03, 2019 11:10 PM
    Last: 3mo

    The strategy is really quite simple - vote for your preferred candidate in the primary and then fight light hell for whoever the candidate winds up being in the general.

    I loathe Bernie with every fiber of my being, but if he's the general election nominee then I'll go knock on doors for him as enthusiastically as I would have if Biden, Booker, or Harris were the nominee.

  • May 03, 2019 11:10 PM
    Last: 3mo

    Getting rid of Donald is my only issue. Policy proposals come in a far distant second.

    I just hope we don’t become our own worst enemies a second election in a row.

  • Apr 30, 2019 02:34 PM
    Last: 3mo

    When I think of infrastructure projects I think of bridges, roads, dams, and other public projects, not opera houses.

    The sheer scale of critically needed infrastructure projects in America is mind boggling and is only getting worse with every passing day. Take the city of Portland. There are 12 bridges connecting the east and west sides of the city and all but one (a brand new pedestrian and mass-tran only bridge) are in various stages of disrepair. Current estimates suggest it would cost $10 billion to repair/rebuild all the bridges in this city alone. And that's just our bridges. Don't even get me started on my opinions of the city planners who built the highway system feeding into and out of the city.

    Zoom out and pick any other major city and you're going to see the same exact issues to varying degrees. We need a moonshot type program to rebuild our nations infrastructure for the 21st Century, but right now we're so stuck in our political crisis that it's basically impossible to get anything done at the national level.

    Speaker Pelosi, Leader Schumer, and Donald just agreed to investing $2 trillion in critical infrastructure projects, which is great, but, and it's a pretty big but, the two sides are in different universes when it comes to where that $2 trillion is going to come from. That pesky little detail all but guarantees that absolutely nothing is going to get done anytime soon.