Trump's Second and Third year in office

Quote: darkoz

From my understanding presidents have never met privately like this

"Of course, presidents can and do have one-on-one discussions with other world leaders; summits abound with photos of President Barack Obama pow-wowing with the likes of Dilma Rousseff, Angela Merkel and, yes, even a few chats with Vladimir Putin; a critical point in U.S.-Cuba negotiations came during a formal one-on-one meeting with Pope Francis."

https://www.politico.eu/article/donlad-trump-vladimir-putin-g20-why-solo-meeting-with-was-a-big-no-no/

Politico did not say this one is a good idea; just that other similar meetings have happened.

Quote: darkoz

Certainly a president who is under scrutiny for possibly being under the influence of russia says he has to meet with the RUSSIAN president in private cannot possibly bode well. The optics alone are horrible yet they had to meet in private?

If our intelligence agencies can figure out from the information provided by the victims of the hacking exactly which people did it, I am sure they will be able to find the reason and level that the President is controlled by Putin. I am confident in their ability to figure this out and get the pertinent info into the proper hands to handle the matter. That is, if they find a matter.

Until then, he is the duly elected President of these United States and should operate without being hindered by this or that accusation. If he is actually charged/impeached/indicted, then we are in a different ball game and the matter should be resolved as quickly as possible.

Quote: darkoz

No accusations trump is under german or english or canadian or north korean influence.
Notice he didnt have a need to meet with them privately

Well, yes he did...he met 1 on 1 with Kim Jong Un

Quote: darkoz

He even met the queen of england with observers

The Queen has no real power at this point.

Quote: darkoz

Something doesnt smell right. If righties think it does yhen righties must think doodoo smells good

I think it is seriously funny that "you guys" can't have a simple conversation about an issue--the possibility of interpreters being open to testifying before Congress--and state your position on that issue without making it just another negative Trump post.

--I have mixed feelings about Trump meeting alone with Putin but I don't think that he is "controlled" by him.
--I think questioning interpreters is a step down a slippery slope that we need to be careful of going down
--I believe that any testimony would be followed by leaks; probably from both sides...

Quote: beachbumbabs

Regardless of who you voted for, you should be OUTRAGED that we were manipulated like this, and the other ways they messed with us. You really should.

Why? This sounds like it’s on the idiots who bought into the little Facebook blurbs and didn’t go out and vote.

If they would have preferred for Clinton to win and couldn’t be arsed to go out and vote, screw ‘em, they got what they deserved.

I disliked both candidates equally, but I still went and voted, but it was for Gary Johnson. Honestly, if he runs again in 2020 (he said he’s not) there’s a good chance I’ll vote for him again.

To wit, there’s only one person who can take away one’s right to vote: oneself.

Quote: RonC

In a horse race, the "favorite" often pays less than the others in the field, but often goes off at something more than 1/1 odds (2/1, 5/2, etc.). I don't think that makes him anything less than the favorite. If your Kentucky Derby pick is 11/8, you would be betting on the favorite.

That gap will get closed, most likely, as the candidates dwindle and a Democrat may become the "favorite" later on if what Bovada has is true. Most people listed will be off the board and the support they show will transfer to someone else.

Maybe the overall odds are better that someone else will win, jbut how come we call the "favorite" in a horse race "the favorite" if he isn't?

There are only two horses in a presidential race. If one horse in that race is 11/8 the true odds on the second horse would be 8/11 or better. Even if the house takes its 25% vig the true odds on trump winning is still around 10/9 which by all definitions is not a favourite in a coin flip.

Quote: boymimbo

There are only two horses in a presidential race. If one horse in that race is 11/8 the true odds on the second horse would be 8/11 or better. Even if the house takes its 25% vig the true odds on trump winning is still around 10/9 which by all definitions is not a favourite in a coin flip.

There won't be a "field" in the Presidential race, either...well, most likely. There will be two candidates unless there is a third party candidate (or a few of them).

Right now, Trump is the favorite to win compared to each of the possible candidates with odds listed. How can we consider it a two person race today when there are a lot of potential candidates?

I guess I just see that the same as a horse being the favored against each possible opponent and then those odds change as horses drop out along the way. We still talk about that horse being the "favorite" even though the odds could changes as horses drop of the field or other issues (potential injuries or whatever) come to light.

If it is "just the math", then fine. I am not the math guy here. If it is just not wanting to say that an incumbent a lot of folks don't like is, like most incumbents, favored right now...well, that is not.

Quote: RonC

In a horse race, the "favorite" often pays less than the others in the field, but often goes off at something more than 1/1 odds (2/1, 5/2, etc.). I don't think that makes him anything less than the favorite. If your Kentucky Derby pick is 11/8, you would be betting on the favorite.

In the Kentucky Derby there are up to 20 horses with a chance to cash, the one with the shortest odds is obviously the favorite. In an American presidential race there are only two sides with a chance to win. Outside of death or impeachment, Trump is a virtual lock to be on one of those two sides -- and his odds are longer than the other side has of winning, according to the betting market. It is accurate to say Trump is favored over Hilary, and Trump is favored over Biden, and Trump is favored over Oprah, and Trump is favored over Pence. It also accurate to say the D side is favored over Trump -- and in the political landscape that is much more meaningful. Unless you really think Trump has a greater than 30% chance of dying or being impeached within the next two years.

Quote: RonC

There won't be a "field" in the Presidential race, either...well, most likely. There will be two candidates unless there is a third party candidate (or a few of them).

But there is right now. And Trump is the underdog against it.

Quote: RonC

Until then, he is the duly elected President of these United States and should operate without being hindered by this or that accusation. If he is actually charged/impeached/indicted, then we are in a different ball game and the matter should be resolved as quickly as possible.

Do you agree that Nixon did the right thing to resign before he was charged/impeached/indicted?

My guess is that in today's world republicans would have stood behind Nixon. Nixon would have decried, "fake news". Nixon then would pardon himself if charged and convicted. A congressional / senate inquiry would be partisan based, with the GOP turning attention against LBJs email server instead and the testimonial of FBI investigators who were registered Democrats.

The whole point of "free press" and democracy is to hold people accountable for their actions. Trump continues to attack both.

Quote: Mission146

To wit, there’s only one person who can take away one’s right to vote: oneself.

Nope
The DMV has that power
Its not easy to secure a right to vote in this country if you were not born in this country
I had to fight and I should not have to fight
Its not easy proving citizenship.
There is no standard document to prove citizenship in this country
I almost had my voting rights taken away simply because DMV demanded months to research my 60 year old documents paper trail proving my citizenship that I keep in a safety deposit box. I absolutely refused. Election was a month away and I was shocked my right to vote was being taken away due to "research"
I was pretty shocked and blown away.
Been voting since 1976 with absolutely no problem till 2016 when the state of Florida demanded I prove my US citizenship before allowing me to continue to vote in this country

Quote: RonC

The latest push over the Monday Meeting seems to be to have the interpreter come before a committee behind closed doors so they can find out just what happened in the 1 on 1 meeting between the two leaders.

--has that ever been done before?
--would doing that, which would make it "ok" to do the next time someone wants to do so, be the wrong path to go down? (see "Nuclear Option"...)
--is that a position that an interpreter should be put in?
--leaks

My opinion.

Trump, three times now, (2x Putin 1x Kim) has broken faith with the US when, representing us and accountable to us, he has met privately for extended periods of time with US adversaries, committing us to unknown obligations in each case (according to what does seem to change/get said post-meetings).

Put in the context of public statements with policy and stance reversals surrounding those 3 meetings, and the long-held precedent of having advisors and recorders in virtually every meeting the president has ever had with another head of state, AND the Oval Office meeting with Russians where Trump leaked code-word secret intelligence, we have not only the right but the obligation to compel that translator to testify, at a minimum before a closed session of the Congressional intelligence committees.

Democracy Dies in Darkness.

The point being, he has brought this upon himself 100% by making this clandestine with adversaries. So, yes, his conversation needs to be shared among those tasked with both conducting diplomacy and those with oversight requirements.

Quote: RonC

Perhaps it would for the base but, if their base is not stirred up enough already to vote for a D, any D, at this point, the base may be dead at this point.

Well, okay, some are...

Nice one. I know you like Politifact...

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2017/may/18/chain-email/no-thousands-dead-people-are-not-registered-vote-n/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/04/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-theres-substantial-evidence-vote/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/jun/22/ainsley-earhardt/following-trump-voter-fraud-allegations-claim-57-m/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/17/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/feb/15/politico-news/no-four-million-democrat-votes-were-not-declared-f/

The list could go on and on and on, but I think you get the point.

Quote: RonC

The latest push over the Monday Meeting seems to be to have the interpreter come before a committee behind closed doors so they can find out just what happened in the 1 on 1 meeting between the two leaders.

The reason it has to come to this level of ridiculousness is because Putin is sharing with Russia what happened in the meeting, but Trump is withholding anything about it from America. Putin is claiming Trump agreed to give in to all their demands. Trump insists that when Putin says something about Russia-American relations it must be true (“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today”).

This is no longer Democrats fighting against Republicans or liberal fighting against conservative. This is Trump fighting against America.

Great point I heard yesterday: For as much as he claims everything is "Fake News", Trump goes so far out of his way to stop anyone from reporting accurately about what he is doing.

Quote: TomG

Great point I heard yesterday: For as much as he claims everything is "Fake News", Trump goes so far out of his way to stop anyone from reporting accurately about what he is doing.

Bingo.

Quote: terapined

Nope
The DMV has that power
Its not easy to secure a right to vote in this country if you were not born in this country
I had to fight and I should not have to fight
Its not easy proving citizenship.
There is no standard document to prove citizenship in this country
I almost had my voting rights taken away simply because DMV demanded months to research my 60 year old documents paper trail proving my citizenship that I keep in a safety deposit box. I absolutely refused. Election was a month away and I was shocked my right to vote was being taken away due to "research"
I was pretty shocked and blown away.
Been voting since 1976 with absolutely no problem till 2016 when the state of Florida demanded I prove my US citizenship before allowing me to continue to vote in this country

That’s a fair point, but I was referring only to people who, apparently, would have voted had it not been for the Facebook posts, or whatever. The people described would already have whatever necessary ID and be registered as the described time was only two weeks left to vote.

That’s not to take away or minimize what happened to you in any way whatsoever.

Quote: Mission146

That’s a fair point, but I was referring only to people who, apparently, would have voted had it not been for the Facebook posts, or whatever. The people described would already have whatever necessary ID and be registered as the described time was only two weeks left to vote.

That’s not to take away or minimize what happened to you in any way whatsoever.

Key to Ed's point is that it was the State of Florida. We have had voting rights erosion here every legislative session for over a decade, purges, and an activist governor (RickScott) who had actively pursued disenfranchising immigrants, Hispanics, and blacks. It's been REALLY ugly and underhanded stuff.

That said, DMV went a bit nuts on me as well, in trying to satisfy new licensing requirements. Even though I was just renewing a license I'd had for over 20 years, with the license and other ID in my hand, I had to go to the back of the line (after waiting 3/4 hr) because I had to fetch my current passport and prove I had a right to a resident DL.

I really doubt we know everything that's behind this stuff. Getting really weird around here.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Key to Ed's point is that it was the State of Florida. We have had voting rights erosion here every legislative session for over a decade, purges, and an activist governor (RickScott) who had actively pursued disenfranchising immigrants, Hispanics, and blacks. It's been REALLY ugly and underhanded stuff.

That said, DMV went a bit nuts on me as well, in trying to satisfy new licensing requirements. Even though I was just renewing a license I'd had for over 20 years, with the license and other ID in my hand, I had to go to the back of the line (after waiting 3/4 hr) because I had to fetch my current passport and prove I had a right to a resident DL.

I really doubt we know everything that's behind this stuff. Getting really weird around here.

I get the impression DMV told their employees to make sure everybody proves they are a USA citizen and if they cant, screw them, that's their problem.
The problem , there is no standard way for a legal immigrant such as myself to prove they are a US citizen. I keep my 60 year old paper documents in my safety deposit box. I believe I have the proper documents for proof but that's really up to whoever reviews my documents, not me.

Quote: darkoz

The optics alone are horrible yet they had to meet in private?

Take Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch. Then let all the rumors fly.

But a true fair comparison with Trump would be if after that controversial meeting Clinton went ahead and had a private meeting again with her.

Quote: terapined

Nope
The DMV has that power
Its not easy to secure a right to vote in this country if you were not born in this country
I had to fight and I should not have to fight
Its not easy proving citizenship.
There is no standard document to prove citizenship in this country
I almost had my voting rights taken away simply because DMV demanded months to research my 60 year old documents paper trail proving my citizenship that I keep in a safety deposit box. I absolutely refused. Election was a month away and I was shocked my right to vote was being taken away due to "research"
I was pretty shocked and blown away.
Been voting since 1976 with absolutely no problem till 2016 when the state of Florida demanded I prove my US citizenship before allowing me to continue to vote in this country

So you don't mind if illegals aliens vote in US elections ?

Quote: dogqck

So you don't mind if illegals aliens vote in US elections ?

I know this is an unpopular opinion and the start of a slippery slope, but if an illegal alien was holding down a job, somehow paying his or her fair share of taxes, and not getting into legal trouble, I wouldn't care if they voted in our elections.

How the hell is he paying his social security taxes ??? With somebody else's SSN. Hope he is using yours, so you can have all the fun of being audited for unreported income on your tax form. OH, maybe's he's being paid under the table, willing to work cheaper than an American who will have SS taxed taken from his salary and also paid by the employer. And the employer can skip worker's comp insurance, just tell the illegal to go to the ER, come back when he can work again. No unemployment till then, employer doesn't pay that either.

Skip that BS about illegals only doing jobs Americans won't do. What a racist idea. Illegal aliens bring a pleother of talents with then beside working on farms. Tell the illegals matching in parades to put away The Cesar Chavez flags away. UFW union failed due to illegal scabs.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I say again, Traitor.

What a terrible thing to say about the Commander in Chief of the US military.

I can't think of a worse insult to Gold star family's, to state that they serve under a traitor, to this country.

You have given comfort with this statement, not once but twice to America's enemy's, as well as a recruiting tool.

Quote: dogqck

How the hell is he paying his social security taxes???

My understanding: non-US citizens can get a social security number and pay into our social security system legally, usually granted for only a certain period of time. Sometimes they continue to work and pay into social security even after the time they are legally allowed to do so expires (at which point they join the majority of illegal immigrants who were completely immune from any border security). Someone please correct this if my understanding is wrong.

-----

To answer the earlier question. Some people get their butts hurt most at the idea of any non-US citizen voting. Others get most upset when they see the highest ranking government officials encouraging non-US citizens to influence our elections in other ways. My biggest concern in this area is seeing Americans losing their right to vote for no reason at all, as terapined showed is definitely going on.

Quote: petroglyph

What a terrible thing to say about the Commander in Chief of the US military.

I can't think of a worse insult to Gold star family's, to state that they serve under a traitor, to this country.

You have given comfort with this statement, not once but twice to America's enemy's, as well as a recruiting tool.

So you feel nixon should have stayed on as president because it was an insult to gold star families they served under a crook?

If trump is proven a traitor he should be... lets see what was that phrase righties loved so much?

Oh yeah, "LOCK IM UP!"

Ramblings of a Liberal (+10 Friend Points if you read all of this)

Okay, so I kind of feel like talking about a few things here, so that's what I'm going to do.

1.) Why I'm P***** Off at Some Liberals

A.) For being totally unobjective when it comes to everything that Donald Trump says and does. I'm not talking about the Russia thing, I'm talking about day in and day out making any social media unreadable because all they're doing is crying about Trump constantly.

The thing is, there's only one place where any of this griping matters; at the ballot box in 2020, absent Mueller finding something extremely damning.

B.) Why would a Liberal even want Trump to be impeached? His approval rating is in the toilet compared to presidents past, even at this time in their tenures. If the polls are to be believed, 41.8% Approval against 52.8% Disapproval. In my opinion, those numbers add up to one thing (other than 94.6%) and that is, EASY TO BEAT. The Democrats just need to roll out a candidate who doesn't completely suck in 2020.

C.) For being angry at me, personally. You wouldn't believe how much flak I've taken from some so-called, "Liberals," for voting for Gary Johnson. It's truly hilarious, in my opinion. Here's a cliff notes version of how that conversation usually goes:

THEM: You mean, you didn't vote against Trump?

ME: When I go to the ballot box, I usually like to vote FOR a person rather than AGAINST a person. In my view, Gary Johnson would have made the best president of the bunch and I'm sorry he lost, even though he had absolutely no chance of winning.

THEM: Your vote helped put Trump in office.

ME: That would be true, had I voted for Trump. I believe, in America, we're supposed to vote for the candidate we want to win. Besides, I hate the two-party system.

THEM: Normally I would agree with you, but it's different THIS TIME because...

ME (Interrupting): Because you hate Trump? No. That does not make it different. This is America and I can vote for whatever candidate I want to win.

(It goes on from there)

D.) For being ******** hypocrites.

Some Liberals are hypocrites, it's that simple. Anti Free Speech: There are Liberals out there these days who want to absolutely END people for what comes out of their mouths. I'm not even necessarily talking about politicians, I'm talking about anyone who says anything they disagree with. Sometimes even people who they generally agree with. Tell the wrong joke and see what happens, that sort of thing.

I could cite any number of examples, but I don't feel like it. Makes me angry.

Anyway, you can't be in favor of social freedoms on a selective basis, in my opinion. I think one should either be in favor of a society that is as unrestrictive as possible socially (except when it comes to the public safety) or not be in favor of it. I don't think anyone should say, "People should be allowed to be honest and say whatever they want, except you, because we disagree with you."

2.) Why Trump is the President...and I Don't Care

A. The first thing is that Trump isn't really the problem and the people who voted for him are not really the problem, the problem is the two-party system. Of course, the two-party system is essentially made necessary by the Electoral College and the fact that the #ConstitutionSucks, otherwise, you wouldn't need a majority of the Electors to win.

Therefore, the whole system is set up in such a way that you can either choose one candidate you'd rather not have as your President or the other candidate that you would rather not have as your President.

See, you need a majority of the Electors to win outright, or they end up having to decide on someone. That's why there was an outside chance that Evan McMullin could have actually become the President as a compromise choice, had he won Utah. You should read about that, it's at least interesting.

Anyway, if everything were straight popular vote, then you wouldn't need to have a two-party system.

OBJECTION: "But, Mission146, if you did that, then you might have a candidate win the Presidency without getting a majority of the popular votes."

MY COUNTER:

A.) So what?

B.) They sometimes don't get a majority of the popular votes now.

C.) In two of the last three Presidential Elections won by a Republican, they didn't even WIN the popular vote. (Yes, were I a Republican supporter, I would still see this as a problem.)

The biggest problem is that some 35-40 states simply don't matter every year because we all already know what way they're going. Honestly, were nothing else on the ballot, most of the people in those states who do vote now probably wouldn't bother. Honestly, if I lived in North Dakota, POTUS was the only thing on the ballot, AND Heidi Heitkamp was not the Democratic candidate for POTUS< why would I even bother to go?

Finally, the entire system is stacked in favor of two parties, even including organizations with Government oversight.

If you look at the Kennedy/Nixon debates, those were the last nationally televised debates for a few election cycles, first and last, because the FCC said that it would only be fair if everyone running for President got equal time.

After that, the FCC said, "Okay, we will call it a legitimate news event as long as the nationally televised debates are not sponsored, so you do not have to give the candidates from different parties equal time.

After that, the FCC said, "Ah, screw it, do whatever you want."

Anyway, now the so-called, "News organizations," can basically do whatever they want. They can come up with whatever arbitrary percentage a candidate has to be polling in order to make the Presidential Debate, or even the Primary Debate...but I do think the latter was understandable when you're talking about 10+ candidates.

So, as far as myself and most other electoral processes in this entire country are concerned, Trump lost. I mean, I'm not saying he lost. I'm saying he would have lost, all else equal, if the means by which we elect the President made any friggin' sense at all.

B.) Hillary Clinton Sucks

The second problem is the fact that HRC was a garbage candidate.

a.) Heir to the Throne

There were multiple media sources, not all of them Conservative, that referred to HRC as the, "President-in-Waiting." I see a couple of problems there:

-Do I really want the next President (or nominee) to be a foregone conclusion before we even start the process?

-Do I think the same three families should be in power for no fewer than 28 years?

The answers are, "No," and, "Not sure."

To the second question, I would say whoever wins is the winner as long as it is done by proper democratic process. I really don't see the problem with the fact that FDR won four times, not if that's who the people wanted as their President.

Either way, I don't want there to be a, "President-in-Waiting," I want there to be a contest for the nomination on both sides. Bad enough we only REALLY have two parties.

b.) HRC had the DNC in her PKT. (Pocket)

The Democratic Primary may or may not have been rigged, but it might as well have been, either way.

Just for the record, I'm not a Bernie supporter. I don't dislike him. I just think a Federal Minimum Wage of $15 an hour in the timeframe in which he wanted to see it is not feasible. I mean, it strikes me that the guy just hasn't been in some of the places in this great country to come to understand why that would be economic turmoil for a bunch of MicroEconomies (read: localized.)

But, it was really only those two. Anybody else who had wanted to run would have, I believe, all but been told by the DNC that it's Hillary's year, so not to even bother. There's no way they would have acquired the funding. Total grassroots job, and impressive, for Sanders to have even made a (almost) contest out of it, so I'll give him that.

---It's just more of that foregone conclusion stuff that is endemic of the two-party system. I'd have much rather had the Republican Primary in which you have 13-14 (I forget how many at peak) guys, a handful of whom have a chance and another handful of whom could realistically get the funding to have a chance if they perform well on the national debate stage.

Anyway, you end up whittling it down from there.

And, I'll give Trump that much. He won that primary and he wasn't always the favorite. It was just an excellent job of branding on his part, coming up with a great slogan, appealing to the right racists people.

The best part I remember is when he was losing pretty badly amongst White Evangelical Christians, so he used the word, "Bible," in a sentence once or twice, and his numbers amongst that demographic shot up immediately. Idiots.

Anyway, the Democratic Primary was never a primary.

c.)No Issues

Also, what was Hillary's campaign actually about? Does anyone know? I'm not sure. I think it was about something, but then it turned into, "I'm not Trump."

Actually, it was half, "I'm not Trump," and half, "Look at me, I'm a woman."

Obama 2008: Yes, We Can

Obama 2012: Forward

Trump 2016: Make America Great Again

Clinton 2016: I'm With Her (Or, Stronger Together)

Anyway, if you look at the first three, it's about what are we going to do as a country. I think the primary or secondary slogan actually means something and finds a way to sum up, in only 2-5 words, a sentence about what the campaign comes down to.

Obama 2008: We can get out of this if we work together.

Obama 2012: Let's finish what we started.

Trump 2016: Make America Great Again (Pretty much what it says, A+ for effectiveness)

Clinton 2016: I'm a woman, vote for me.

Hillary's celebration, had she won, was going to be to hammer away a giant glass ceiling.

I ask: What glass ceiling?

Let's go ahead and acknowledge for the time being that Mondale had no chance in Hell.

That brings us to, ironically enough:

2008: McCain/Palin

That's right, had McCain won (which was a very realistic possibility) the United States would have only been one missed heartbeat away from our first female President. Ironic, because the first female to have a very real chance of becoming President was courtesy of a Republican ticket.

What the hell kind of glass ceiling is that? Not a very effective one, I'll say that much.

Anyway, that's the company (HRC) line, "Glass ceiling," and the company line is BS. "I'm doing this for all the women and little girls out there...yada, yada, yada."

Which brings us to:

d.) Missing Some People

I'm guessing you guys have heard of the Rust Belt, you might know it as the place that cost HRC the election.

For one thing, she didn't visit Wisconsin AT ALL. That little state up North there home to the (Republican) Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. No, that state's in the bag, no reason to go there.

HRC didn't campaign enough or make enough personal appearances in any of the Rust Belt states, which isn't going to do her any favors, because Trump's populism is exactly the kind of political lean that is going to appeal to uneducated white male voters (and some females) in those states. Many of the people in this (which happens to be my) area tend to be socially Conservative and Economically more-or-less Liberal.

Anyway, they also tend to be skilled, but uneducated, labor...at least a good many of them.

So, you have guys who are coal miners, (many out of work) steelworkers (most out of work) or other sorts of manual laborers whose primary problem is not having a manual labor job to do.

What's going to appeal to them more: Populism or Let's Put a Woman in office and break the glass ceiling?

Besides that, Trump at least paid lip service to infrastructure spending. Didn't say how exactly he planned to get that done, but he talked about it, so the guys who are unemployed or underemployed are going to hear a signal there that says, "We're going to put you back to work."

THE BEST PART

The best part of the whole thing was that it DIDN'T EVEN WORK!

While Clinton had a higher share of white women in 2016 than did Obama in 2012 (slightly) her numbers amongst women overall fell off compared to Obama 2012 and even moreso compared to Obama 2008. Obama also had better overall numbers among men in every single racial demographic (including white men 35%-31%) and in women in every category except white.

In effect, she alienated some potentially Democratic-leaning men and she didn't even necessarily appeal to women (other than white women) all that well.

FINALLY

Simple arrogance. She spent time and money in places that wouldn't even normally be in contention because of how sure she was that she was going to win. She didn't want to just beat Trump in the Electoral Vote (the Popular Vote actually WAS a foregone conclusion) she wanted to dominate him.

Why would you spend any money in Georgia or Texas? Why would you actually physically visit Arizona?

In the meantime, she basically forgot about the whole Electoral College thing and the fact that there are places in this country that are, and have been, legitimate swing states. I guess Florida was supposed to be more interesting than it ended up being, though.

I think Pennsylvania + Michigan = GAME OVER would have been the easiest path. Just looking at the margins, in fairness to HRC, I don't think anything she could have possibly done would have won her Ohio. She really just needed to shore up minority turnout better in those two states aforementioned.

/RANT

Quote: dogqck

How the hell is he paying his social security taxes ??? With somebody else's SSN. Hope he is using yours, so you can have all the fun of being audited for unreported income on your tax form. OH, maybe's he's being paid under the table, willing to work cheaper than an American who will have SS taxed taken from his salary and also paid by the employer. And the employer can skip worker's comp insurance, just tell the illegal to go to the ER, come back when he can work again. No unemployment till then, employer doesn't pay that either.

Skip that BS about illegals only doing jobs Americans won't do. What a racist idea. Illegal aliens bring a pleother of talents with then beside working on farms. Tell the illegals matching in parades to put away The Cesar Chavez flags away. UFW union failed due to illegal scabs.

Do you read the posts that you respond to?

Even ignoring how much above that you're flatly wrong about, TigerWu's propositions started with the word, "If." I know words can be difficult for you sometimes, so here comes another explanation from your friend, Mission146:

The word, "If," can be referred to as a condition or supposition, which is how it is being used in this case. In other words, TigerWu's post is simply stating, "In the event that x, y and z conditions are satisfied, then I would not mind if b were to happen."

Your (incorrect) argument appears to be that the illegal alien could not be satisfying all of those conditions:

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-federal-taxes-an-explainer/

Quote:

Further, the IRS will not allow a tax return to be filed with a fake or stolen Social Security number. Therefore, unauthorized workers who wish to file their taxes–and potentially get future credit for it— must find another way. Thus, many use the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, which allows immigrants without Social Security numbers to legally file tax returns and claim the income reported on their W-2’s to the IRS.

However, even if your nonsensical pile of drivel had any merit whatsoever, the fact remains that TigerWu's post was a conditional, or a supposition. In other words, were the first part (the conditional) not being satisfied, then the second part (what he would allow for) would be moot. Therefore, even if you had taken fifteen seconds to use Google and determine that your supposition is flat out erroneous, it wouldn't matter anyway because the conditional could not be satisfied.

Your entire second paragraph literally has absolutely nothing to do with what he said.

Quote: TomG

My understanding: non-US citizens can get a social security number and pay into our social security system legally, usually granted for only a certain period of time. Sometimes they continue to work and pay into social security even after the time they are legally allowed to do so expires (at which point they join the majority of illegal immigrants who were completely immune from any border security). Someone please correct this if my understanding is wrong.

That's basically correct, except they wouldn't be working here illegally under the initial condition that you describe. It would only be after the work VISA expires that what you are describing would apply.

However, as you will see in my post immediately prior to this one, there are ways for people who absolutely are here illegally (and never were here legally to begin with) to pay into the tax system.

Quote: Mission146

I believe, in America, we're supposed to vote for the candidate we want to win.

An almost guaranteed return of nothing, is negative EV. Do it over and over, for what reason?

(this response due to your Gary Johnson vote)

Quote: rxwine

An almost guaranteed return of nothing, is negative EV. Do it over and over, for what reason?

(this response due to your Gary Johnson vote)

Actually, I think this previous election was a great time for the “third party” to gain some traction, given how many people hated both Trump & Clinton. I think in due time it won’t be so much as just a two party system and the librarians (sic) could be competitive. But it’s not going to happen overnight.

Quote: terapined

There is no standard document to prove citizenship in this country

Of course there is. It is called a birth certificate. Or in the case of immigrants a certificate of naturalization. In their place a passport usually serves the purpose.

Quote: rxwine

An almost guaranteed return of nothing, is negative EV. Do it over and over, for what reason?

(this response due to your Gary Johnson vote)

I don't necessarily do it, "Over and over," I just vote for the candidate I want to win, which can sometimes be from one of the two parties.

I could be wrong, but I wanted to say I voted Bush in 2004. I would have voted Gore in 2000, but I wasn't old enough. I know I voted for Obama in 2012, but not in 2008, though I don't remember who I voted for in 2008.

Anyway, it's not a waste because, if a third-party candidate can get 5% of the national popular vote, (Ironic, since Popular Vote doesn't actually matter when it comes to actually electing the President) then they get federal funding for the following Presidential Election proportionate to the percentage of the vote received. More than that, given the Federal Funding situation, I should like to think that news organizations could be pressured enough to include them in the debates.

It's hard to tell though, because both sides really do have a vested interest in ensuring that one or the other gets an electoral college majority. Things can get really messy if that doesn't happen.

Mission...

I respect your comments. They have thought behind them. This board, on politics, has become so hopelessly into being 100% for or 100% against that there is not room for any real discussion. It mirrors what I hear on cable news--there is less and less discussion of anything; just a firm digging in of the heels.

I guess it reflects whatever our "team" is on cable news. To any extent that I have done that myself, being pushed that way by the actions of others is a poor excuse.

I'm gonna slow down my posting because as an outlet to discuss issues, this place is not so good.

TRUMPeting those who toss out the word "traitor" is not original thought and is a pretty big allegation from people who really don't know everything about what is going on. I certainly don't...but I am also certain that I would want Trump, or anyone, removed if allegations of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were charged and evidence supported removal from office.

Cheers!

Quote: rxwine

An almost guaranteed return of nothing, is negative EV. Do it over and over, for what reason?

(this response due to your Gary Johnson vote)

Unless the election is decided by one single vote, I could not vote and the result would be the same. So a vote for a major party candidate has almost the exact same EV as a vote for a small party candidate.

-----

Except perhaps that a third party vote is perhaps even more valuable than a major party vote. Moving Gary Johnson from 3.3% to 5% (a couple million votes) could definitely help the viability of that party at both local and national levels. And puts them in position to move even further ahead. Whereas a couple million more for Trump would have meant no difference in the results at all. A couple million more for Hilary may or may not have made any difference depending on how they are spread out across the states (any extra votes for her in Nevada where I voted wouldn't have meant anything).

There were a lot of things I liked about Gary Johnson, but his Allepo moment was disqualifying in my opinion. That, and as unfortunate as it might've been, I knew that a vote for him or Jill Stein was a vote FOR Trump.

Quote: RonC

Mission...

I respect your comments. They have thought behind them. This board, on politics, has become so hopelessly into being 100% for or 100% against that there is not room for any real discussion. It mirrors what I hear on cable news--there is less and less discussion of anything; just a firm digging in of the heels.

Thanks for saying so, I think that your posts here have thought behind them, so you should continue to post about politics. More importantly, I think if everyone just puts the agitation about certain things (including one another) in their back pockets for a bit, we could all have an informed and leveled discussion about these affairs.

Quote:

I guess it reflects whatever our "team" is on cable news. To any extent that I have done that myself, being pushed that way by the actions of others is a poor excuse.

I'm gonna slow down my posting because as an outlet to discuss issues, this place is not so good.

I think that it can be. Maybe my advantage is that I pay exactly zero attention to cable news. I think another advantage is that I am legitimately interested in knowing, "Why would the ideas that I like not work?" I think that's an important thing.

Also, while numbers can lie, I think they are less likely to do so. I think aggregate numbers actually get you really close to the truth, which is why I like fivethirtyeight.com so much.

Granted, I am very hard on organized religion, specifically White Evangelical Christians, but I generally try to use words to indicate that I don't mean all of them. Many of them are basically like (most) Catholics I know, most of the Catholics I know really don't care what other people are doing, they just want to follow their own guidelines in their personal behavior.

Quote:

TRUMPeting those who toss out the word "traitor" is not original thought and is a pretty big allegation from people who really don't know everything about what is going on. I certainly don't...but I am also certain that I would want Trump, or anyone, removed if allegations of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were charged and evidence supported removal from office.

Cheers!

I would say they can make any allegation they want to, because their opinions really don't matter in that regard, as the American public does not get to vote on impeachment or removal from office. It's just annoying on the social media when it's every single day when you're actively trying to look at other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

I agree that, in the face of that kind of proof, I would then want Trump removed. Even though I think he is easier to beat than Pence in 2020, assuming the Democrats roll out a candidate I can at least choke down the pill of voting for.

My real concern is that this is going to become a country run by extremists on both sides because, eventually, all of the most vocal and extreme people are going to turn the wallflowers off from the process entirely, and in my opinion, nobody really benefits from that. I mean, I already don't openly self-describe (in-person) as, "Liberal," or, "Democrat," because I don't like the notion of who people are going to assume that lumps me in with.

Actually, I've been responding, "Libertarian," and as I read more and more about it...I'm starting to wonder if it's not true. I disagree with them on a ton of Economic philosophies, but I'm onboard with most everything else.

Quote: Steverinos

There were a lot of things I liked about Gary Johnson, but his Allepo moment was disqualifying in my opinion. That, and as unfortunate as it might've been, I knew that a vote for him or Jill Stein was a vote FOR Trump.

I hate ever agreeing with Fox News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiZf3WdNUCE

"What he said was what he did this morning is prove that he was human and he'll try to do better in the future."

I mean, would you rather have a candidate who tries to BS his/her way through an answer (as they often do) having no idea what they're talking about or one who asks, "What's that?" I'll take, "What's that?" and when you're the President, you have foreign policy advisors whose job it is to answer that question for you.

Also, a vote for Gary Johnson is NOT a vote for anyone else. It's a vote for Gary Johnson.

I can get you some polling numbers if you really need me to prove my point, but honestly, (while you're right about Stein if I agreed with your point) a vote for Johnson is more likely to be, "A vote for Clinton," under your definition. I'm actually one of the minority who voted for Gary Johnson such that it, "Took a vote away from Clinton."

If you want to know the truth, had it not been him, it would have been a different third-party. I don't think I could have brought myself to vote for Clinton under any set of circumstances.

Quote: petroglyph

What a terrible thing to say about the Commander in Chief of the US military.

I can't think of a worse insult to Gold star family's, to state that they serve under a traitor, to this country.

You have given comfort with this statement, not once but twice to America's enemy's, as well as a recruiting tool.

Part of being a patriot is recognizing treason when it happens. I have never used that word about any President before, and I do not use it casually now.

Trump has knnowingly and repeatedly placed Putin, Russia, and his own interests above those of the United
States. As a private businessman, it's galling enough, but in the office of the President, it is treason.

Please try and see what is really happening. Please believe your own ears and eyes. We are being had.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Part of being a patriot is recognizing treason when it happens. I have never used that word about any President before, and I do not use it casually now.

Trump has knnowingly and repeatedly placed Putin, Russia, and his own interests above those of the United
States. As a private businessman, it's galling enough, but in the office of the President, it is treason.

Please try and see what is really happening. Please believe your own ears and eyes. We are being had.

You are, by definition and legal opinion, wrong.

This is an article very much against Trump (I quote them often, others notice it and comment on it but don't necessarily realize that I only do it because it is a source they might actually read and because I believe every single thing in the article).

"“Treason against the United States,” reads Article III, Section 3, “shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”"

" In the few treason cases tried, mostly after World War II, the courts have ruled that “enemies” implies opposing armies in wartime. Jurists have also agreed that, while Congress doesn’t have to declare war in order for acts of betrayal to be considered treasonous, there does have to be an open state of “armed conflict” between the United States and some enemy."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/accusing-trump-of-treason-makes-him-stronger.html

Quote: RonC

You are, by definition and legal opinion, wrong.

This is an article very much against Trump (I quote them often, others notice it and comment on it but don't necessarily realize that I only do it because it is a source they might actually read and because I believe every single thing in the article).

"“Treason against the United States,” reads Article III, Section 3, “shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”"

" In the few treason cases tried, mostly after World War II, the courts have ruled that “enemies” implies opposing armies in wartime. Jurists have also agreed that, while Congress doesn’t have to declare war in order for acts of betrayal to be considered treasonous, there does have to be an open state of “armed conflict” between the United States and some enemy."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/accusing-trump-of-treason-makes-him-stronger.html

adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

You may be right, on a legal basis. I don't know. But this part I excerpted applies strongly to what Trump.has done and is doing.

Attacking our elections in 2016 is an act of war. So are other attacks against our NATO allies, both cyber attacks and assassinations, and so are some of the events in Syria and Afghanistan, where we are on opposite sides, especially in actions involving ISIS.

RUSSIA thinks we're at war even if our Congress hasn't declared it. They consider the Magnitsky act an act if war. Freezing all their assets in the West, and stopping the $500 billion oil deal, are hostile acts towards Russia, and our Congress passed it for good reason (from our POV).

Trump, almost from the day he took office, has both personally and by direction to his administration, tried to reverse these embargos and restrictions. He nearly refused to sign the sanctions, then has tried not to enforce them.

I really think (now - I didn't at first) it was no mistake Mueller released those 12 indictments the Friday prior to the meeting. I think it was Mueller sending a clear signal to Trump he had identified the specific people who could name names within his campaign. And trying to get him to cancel the meeting.

I think the Russian woman arrested Monday was another shot across his bow. And Manafort prosecutors asked for something very unusual: they wanted immunity for 5 unnamed witnesses to get their testimony, asking that they not be revealed to the defense or anyone else for now.

I think Mueller is sending the strongest possible signals to Trump that the pieces are in place for his entire structure to fall down, and so understand that serving Putin should no longer be his priority.

But, obviously, I don't know. Yet.

Quote: RonC

You are, by definition and legal opinion, wrong.

This is an article very much against Trump (I quote them often, others notice it and comment on it but don't necessarily realize that I only do it because it is a source they might actually read and because I believe every single thing in the article).

"“Treason against the United States,” reads Article III, Section 3, “shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”"

" In the few treason cases tried, mostly after World War II, the courts have ruled that “enemies” implies opposing armies in wartime. Jurists have also agreed that, while Congress doesn’t have to declare war in order for acts of betrayal to be considered treasonous, there does have to be an open state of “armed conflict” between the United States and some enemy."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/accusing-trump-of-treason-makes-him-stronger.html

War and arms do not necessarily mean guns bullets and grenades

In todays digital age developing hacking tools and infiltrating enemy cyberware is an act of war

Perhaps even more malicious as its not obvious

If someone hacks your personal computer and your spyware says your computer is under attack your response is "no not really. I dont hear any guns or explosions"

A foreign power has done an attack on our country. If trump helped this occur that is treason

Quote: SanchoPanza

Of course there is. It is called a birth certificate. Or in the case of immigrants a certificate of naturalization. In their place a passport usually serves the purpose.

I don't have a certificate of naturalization or a passport
I came to the USA in 1959 legally as an infant just months after I was born.
Born in the Republic of China
My mother was Chinese
My father was a US citizen serving our country overseas
My birth was immediately reported to the US State Dept in the Republic of China
I am a US citizen from birth I believe
I do have a Chinese birth certificate with an English translation attached


Went I went to the DMV, I thought it was going to be a smooth process. Instead they told me I could not vote. I was shocked. Been voting since 1976. I shouldn't have argue and ask for a supervisor to make sure I can Vote. I AM A US CITIZEN. MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE BEEN A US CITIZEN

Quote: darkoz

War and arms do not necessarily mean guns bullets and grenades

Hearts and minds. . .

Trump supporters are now starting to embrace the idea that if Russia did interfere in our elections it would make them heroes for helping their guy win. Given how strong their anti-American views are I'm surprised it has taken them that long to get there: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/trump-voters-putin-russia/565592/

Seems like a good idea to me.

Quote:

The Justice Department plans to alert the public to foreign operations targeting U.S. democracy under a new policy designed to counter hacking and disinformation campaigns such as the one Russia undertook in 2016 to disrupt the presidential election.

The government will inform American companies, private organizations and individuals that they are being covertly attacked by foreign actors attempting to affect elections or the political process.

“Exposing schemes to the public is an important way to neutralize them,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who announced the policy at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado

Of course, those who believe our government is simply a force to subvert and dominate, put you in chains, etc., can simply ignore and go on preparing your eventual "bug out" gear for the big day when they come for you.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-department-plans-to-alert-public-to-foreign-operations-targeting-us-democracy/ar-BBKPUmy?ocid=spartanntp

(BTW, they are coming for YOU. YOU know who you are. They're watching. Always watching.)

Did any of you guys watch the summit?

Here’s a word-for-word quote from Donald Trump:

Quote:

A reason why Democrats lost an election, which frankly, they should have been able to win because the Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think I actually believe that Donald Trump is an idiot.

I think that he probably realizes that the average Trump supporter doesn’t know that he LOST the popular vote, and moreover, that two of the last three times a Republican has won the Presidency have come by way of winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.

Yes, against all odds, Donald Trump and the Republicans overcame that rigged Electoral College system that has been boosting the Democrats for the last several decades.

I just like how the Conservatives can have a President who can spout the most flagrant absurdities, though not everything he says is absurd, and that’s just fine. It’s like mass delusion. I imagine a good many of them will try to spin it such that the EC does actually benefit Democrats. I don’t know what possible argument could support that assertion, though.

Quote: Mission146

Here’s the thing: I don’t think I actually believe that Donald Trump is an idiot.

The platform Trump should have run on is, "I will lie and lie and be corrupt, and try to benefit myself and family, but don't hold me accountable for that or any irregularities of my past and I will accomplish these particular policy positions you like."

That's the deal his supporters have accepted. Deal with the Devil if you ask me. Certainly not a moral or respectable deal. Let it reflect poorly on his followers. Karma is a bitch, some say.

Quote: rxwine

That's the deal his supporters have accepted. Deal with the Devil if you ask me. Certainly not a moral or respectable deal. Let it reflect poorly on his followers. Karma is a bitch, some say.

It is what it is. I don’t blame people for voting in what they feel their best interests are, which is why Trump beat Hillary silly through the entire rust belt. Like I mentioned earlier, white women (by 1%) was the only race + gender demographic in which Clinton took home a greater percentage of the votes than did Obama in 2012. Obama beat her in every other race + gender combination.

Never mind.

Quote: Mission146

Yes, against all odds, Donald Trump and the Republicans overcame that rigged Electoral College system that has been boosting the Democrats for the last several decades.

Don’t worry. Changing demographics assure the dems will control the EC, and the House and Senate in perpetuity within a few years.

Then, you and your kids can spend the rest of your owned lives working on the plantation they’ve created for you. If you call that living.

Quote: Mission146

It is what it is. I don’t blame people for voting in what they feel their best interests are, which is why Trump beat Hillary silly through the entire rust belt. Like I mentioned earlier, white women (by 1%) was the only race + gender demographic in which Clinton took home a greater percentage of the votes than did Obama in 2012. Obama beat her in every other race + gender combination.

Clinton didn't run in 2012. Guessing you're comparing Obama 2012 numbers to Clinton 2016. Not totally awake yet, so that may be obvious.

This is, in part, true because of the disenfranchising campaign of the Russians & Trump the last couple months of the campaign, whether coordinated or not remains to be seen . The Bernie far-left faction did not turn out, blacks and young people stayed home.

Whether that part was enough to turn the election? It seems logical to figure it did , but can't be proven.

Quote: Tanko

Don’t worry. Changing demographics assure the dems will control the EC, and the House and Senate in perpetuity within a few years.

Then, you and your kids can spend the rest of your owned lives working on the plantation they’ve created for you. If you call that living.

I know mileage varies, but at 34 years old, I think I’ve been able to understand the feelings of doom and gloom for every single election cycle since 1992. Funny thing is, I’ve not really seen day to day life change all that much in that time.

Also, what makes you think they’ll control those things in perpetuity? Granted, 2020 is a favorable Senate map for Democrats, but it’s also a favorable Presidential Election (assuming all stays the same). If a Democrat were to win the Presidency in 2020, then 2022 being a big swing state year in the Senate, Republicans might expect to hold while Democrats may drop a seat or two.

Or, maybe you just meant increasing percentages of minorities. I don’t think you’re a racist, but I do think a good many people who see that as a problem in and of itself are sometimes racists.

Besides, maybe you would do well not to assume minorities are automatically going to vote Democrat. If you want the opposite to be true, you could always try appealing to them with, I don’t know, civil discourse?

Quote: beachbumbabs

This is, in part, true because of the disenfranchising campaign of the Russians & Trump the last couple months of the campaign, whether coordinated or not remains to be seen . The Bernie far-left faction did not turn out, blacks and young people stayed home.

Whether that part was enough to turn the election? It seems logical to figure it did , but can't be proven.

Yes, Clinton 2016 v. Obama 2012.

I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that some 44,300 people stayed home in Pennsylvania because of some Facebook posts or Tweets. Some 11k in Michigan. If they did, so what? I guess don’t rely on low information voters is the lesson.

The Bernie far-left faction did not turn out because they were royally p***ed about the system that, if not rigged, was such to effectively make Hillary’s nomination a foregone conclusion before the process even started. Some of those people did turn out, but it was to vote for Jill Stein.

If you give Clinton all the Stein votes in Michigan and Pennsylvania, she wins. But, you know, maybe don’t suck as a candidate and you don’t have to worry about losing votes to Jill Stein.

Absent cheating at the actual ballot box, it comes down to Clinton and her campaign at the end of the day. You can read my long post a few pages back for what I think of that. Bottom line, Clinton lost, no matter how you try to spin it.

Now, part of that is Electoral College which is what results in our two party system because the #ConstitutionSucks, but still, there was every reason in the world that Clinton should have dominated had the campaign been better run.

Quote: Tanko

Don’t worry. Changing demographics assure the dems will control the EC, and the House and Senate in perpetuity within a few years.

Umm... maybe. Maybe not. Can't find my source right now, but I recently saw a demographic analysis that indicated 50 percent of the US population would live in just four states (maybe by 2040? 2050? Cannot recall exactly, but the trend is clear).

If that occurs, the US House of Representatives will be controlled by those four states (assuming Texas, California, New York, and Florida have common interests). Meanwhile, the lightly populated 46 states will control the Senate (probably reflecting a very different set of common interests). Looks to me like a recipe for government gridlock.

However, if this plays out as described, those rather conservative underpopulated states will control the electoral college, not the more diverse and somewhat more liberal states.

I'll try to locate my source. Maybe others also have seen it and can provide a good link.