Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantIn short, no, their bias isn’t obvious at all. At least if you’re suggesting they’re biased against Trump. If they actually were, he would have been out of the race during the primaries. He never would have won the GOP nomination, if the Press had decided to do its job and investigate his background, mob ties, business dealings, adultery, charitable foundations, etc. etc. . . Clinton actually received far more scrutiny than Trump. They spent months on her email server and the Clinton Foundation, by way of contrast.
And beyond all of that, it’s just whining and playing the refs to complain about bias. This is something the right has done for decades, and it’s worked really, really well. It’s worked so well, they regularly outnumber Dems on TV by more than two to one on the Sunday Talk Shows. If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Conservatives!! This Week With the Conservatives!! and Face the Conservatives!!
In reality, our media tilt to the right, and they have for decades.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?
I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.
What do you want from the moderators, a confession? All that can be done is hold them to their questions and statements in the past. Their bias is obvious.
Again, you post an opinion piece, from a discredited source, and you accept that opinion without questioning it. You assume they’re telling you the truth, even though Shapiro doesn’t provide any video or audio to support his contention, and his analyses of the comments he does paraphrase are bizarre. It’s all too similar to the Breitbart opinion piece on Clinton’s racism, which basically did this:
Trump was accused of being a racist for saying X
Clinton said X
Therefore Clinton is a racist.Problem is, the premise is BS. No one accused Trump of racism for X. He was accused of racism for doing and saying other things entirely. So Breitbart — and now Shapiro — start with bogus premises, without video or audio proof, and make subjective judgments on top of those bogus premises.
Don’t fall for it, bnw.
Billy_TParticipantBeyond that, I would prefer that print journalists (rather than TV) ask the questions and fact-check both candidates, rigorously.
Better yet, I’d get the most respected political scientists and historians to ask them. I wish America didn’t have such an aversion to intellectuals, but it does, and this is something the right has fomented in particular. They actively seek the dumbing down of political culture in America, and Trump has taken this to a new low.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?
I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.
September 24, 2016 at 1:04 pm in reply to: the blm 10 points…if you don't know this, you don't know a thing about THEM #53749Billy_TParticipant11. Never pass up an opportunity to riot, loot and assault onlookers.
Do you honestly believe that’s BLM’s doing? It’s not. BLM is a non-violent social justice movement.
Yeah just choirboys and girls being funded by George Soros and bused around the country to riot, loot and assault people.
George Soros? So you really believe he’s funding BLM? Sheebus. Seriously, bnw. You need to reconsider your choice in “news” sources, ASAP. Cuz they’re feeding you classic tin-foil-hat nonsense.
Billy_TParticipantDebate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left
BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016
Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.
Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.
September 24, 2016 at 12:35 pm in reply to: the blm 10 points…if you don't know this, you don't know a thing about THEM #53745Billy_TParticipant11. Never pass up an opportunity to riot, loot and assault onlookers.
Do you honestly believe that’s BLM’s doing? It’s not. BLM is a non-violent social justice movement.
September 24, 2016 at 12:23 pm in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53743Billy_TParticipantSeems to me it’s the BLM who hates the government the most and are most dependent on the government financially, not the Tea Party folks. Tea Party people don’t hate the government. They are in favor of limited government, which was the general thought of the Constitutional fathers. And I am not a Tea Party member.
BLM has never expressed “hatred for the government.” That’s only the fuzzy false picture you get of them if all you know is what detractors say about them and don’t know what they themselves actually say. And the idea that those associated with BLM are more government dependent does not bear much close scrutiny.
We don’t listen to the constitutional fathers, who were very skeptical about letting corporate power dominate democracy. Basically that’s what we ended up with. If we had listened to them we would not have ended up with that. Interestingly part of the reason we suffer a system that limits democracy (because of the power the corporate world and the wealthy exercise over it) is because those forces used the “limit government” mantra to manipulate people. That just gave more power to them.
…
_________________________________________________________________
Allow me to re-phrase that.
The founding fathers were in favor of limited-
federal
government, for the most part.
As far as state government, very few had problems with wide reaching government.
But, again, if you look at the Constitution, they weren’t in favor of a “limited” federal government, either. We would have just stayed with the Articles of Confederation if that were the case. Remember, the anti-federalists lost the debate.
And, they did impose limits on the states, and established the supremacy clause.
Look at Section 10 for those state limits, and Section 8, especially, for massive powers granted to the Federal government:
September 24, 2016 at 10:55 am in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53731Billy_TParticipantSeems to me it’s the BLM who hates the government the most and are most dependent on the government financially, not the Tea Party folks. Tea Party people don’t hate the government. They are in favor of limited government, which was the general thought of the Constitutional fathers. And I am not a Tea Party member.
BLM doesn’t hate the government per se. It protests police brutality, primarily. Racism generally. Systemic racism and discrimination more specifically. And it’s not really accurate to say they’re more dependent on government. Under capitalism, no one is more dependent than business owners, corporations, the wealthy. They receive the vast majority of all the benefits handed out by our government, and it’s not at all close.
Also, the so-called “founders” didn’t believe in “limited government,” at least not in the sense “conservatives” assume. If they had, there never would have been an Article One, Section Eight. Actually, there never would have been a Constitution at all, which set up the most powerful, non-monarchical central government of its time. It was a “revolutionary” increase in power over the Articles of Confederation.
Billy_TParticipantTrump and Clinton will not address each other, only answering questions from the moderators. This will allow Clinton to memorize her answers since the moderators have only donated to one candidate, that being Clinton. Also prevents her from any risk of having to think on her feet. Despite scheduling it opposite MNF it should shatter viewership records.
It will also be the most time (90 minutes) that she will be witnessed as on her feet. Since it is against the rules to leave the stage her wire in her ear will have to stay put to keep her reaching for her ear at a minimum. Also I wonder what type of disruptions she has planned for the event in order to get around not leaving the stage? Protest in audience? Power outage? Fire alarm? The report of an active shooter nearby? Moderator falling ill? Bomb scare? The lies and deceit of Clinton are too numerous to count.
bnw, seriously. You need to stop listening to those fringe nutcases like Alex Jones and Breitbart in general. There is no proof that she wore an ear piece. I showed you the photos. And as for the moderators, Lester Holt is a Republican. And they all work for conservatives. All of our MSM are owned by multinationals with seriously conservative agendas. It’s always been bogus to assume that because a majority of reporters lean Dem, they’re actually setting the news agenda. They do as they’re told by their bosses — right-wingers — or they lose their jobs.
Come on, you can do better than the above GOP talking points.
September 24, 2016 at 10:26 am in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53725Billy_TParticipantThe other question is, why do the most privileged people in America — white Christian males — act like they’re the most oppressed? Why are they the angriest, on a day to day basis, when they have the fewest actual reasons to be so permanently outraged?
Typical. Always race pimpimg. Working people, aka taxpayers are fed up with being ignored, forgotten, sacrificed, by the establishment. Working people realize the establishment exists for itself and this election is their chance to demand fundamental change.
Just stating the facts, bnw. No one has it better in America than white Christian males. And from that group, rich white Christian males. Like Trump.
Btw, do you consider the government to be “the establishment”? It’s not. It works for “the establishment.” In America, that’s always been the rich and big business in general. It’s always been the private sector, not the public. Which is why it makes zero sense to want a billionaire real estate conman running things.
Billy_TParticipantYou’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.
Also, not sure if you’re trying to say that a “great majority of Americans” support Trump, but if you are, you should take a look at the numbers. Total registered voters in America is roughly in the 176 million range. Dems garner roughly 29%, the GOP roughly 26%, and when we add the much larger contingent of independents, the Dems increase their advantage slightly. But we’re still talking about roughly half of all Americans, for all parties put together, and Trump has support from well under half of that half.
To be really, really generous, he’s in the 23% range. Clinton’s only slightly higher. So when she made her comment about “basket of deplorables, she was talking about half of that half of that half. Give or take, 12% of the country, roughly. Her “basket of deplorables” referred to just about 12% of Americans.
You will see how far off your numbers are in November. With all the usual democrat vote fraud Trump will have to win by a huge margin just to supposedly squeak by with a win.
Oh, come on, bnw. There is no such thing as voter fraud, beyond a few rare cases. Bush launched a crusade to find it, and came up with roughly a dozen cases out of tens of millions of votes. You want to talk about BS? The entire voter fraud fantasy is BS, designed to add political cover for GOP voter suppression efforts. No one has ever proven that it exists beyond a dozen cases or so per election — and, again, those examples come from right-wing officials bound and determined to find it, and they couldn’t.
Billy_TParticipantI’m confident you will have at least 4 more years of scratching your head. Should be used to it since Trump has been proving your prognostications wrong for the past 15 months. You’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.
bnw, I listen to Trump supporters all the time. I live in the middle of them. And I listen closely. What I never hear is any reason for them to support Trump, or how he would do any of the amazing, utopian things he’s promised you he’d do, like prevent ALL terrorism and add tens of millions of new jobs.
And it’s pretty obvious you and they don’t listen to Trump’s critics. You dismiss it all out of hand. If you were listening, you’d at least attempt to answer the questions I posed.
Can you do that, bnw? Can you answer those very basic questions, honestly, clearly, with details?
I listen to his critics and laugh at their tired BS. They always resort to being what they are, race pimps. The end of PC is at hand.
They’re just repeating what Trump has said and done, verbatim. Not sure why you want to dismiss all of that out of hand.
But the questions I asked you weren’t about race. Can you answer them, please?
Billy_TParticipantYou’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.
Also, not sure if you’re trying to say that a “great majority of Americans” support Trump, but if you are, you should take a look at the numbers. Total registered voters in America is roughly in the 176 million range. Dems garner roughly 29%, the GOP roughly 26%, and when we add the much larger contingent of independents, the Dems increase their advantage slightly. But we’re still talking about roughly half of all Americans, for all parties put together, and Trump has support from well under half of that half.
To be really, really generous, he’s in the 23% range. Clinton’s only slightly higher. So when she made her comment about “basket of deplorables, she was talking about half of that half of that half. Give or take, 12% of the country, roughly. Her “basket of deplorables” referred to just about 12% of Americans.
Billy_TParticipantI’m confident you will have at least 4 more years of scratching your head. Should be used to it since Trump has been proving your prognostications wrong for the past 15 months. You’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.
bnw, I listen to Trump supporters all the time. I live in the middle of them. And I listen closely. What I never hear is any reason for them to support Trump, or how he would do any of the amazing, utopian things he’s promised you he’d do, like prevent ALL terrorism and add tens of millions of new jobs.
And it’s pretty obvious you and they don’t listen to Trump’s critics. You dismiss it all out of hand. If you were listening, you’d at least attempt to answer the questions I posed.
Can you do that, bnw? Can you answer those very basic questions, honestly, clearly, with details?
Billy_TParticipantTrump will win by beating the establishment on a national level. So astsin context of the 50 states it is more than theory. I live in Trump country. For literally hundreds of miles in all directions this is Trump country. People are tired of voting on issues only to see their vote overturned by the court on issues that are a state concern. The economy here is generally shit and has been for the last few decades. The trade deals have decimated our economy in flyover country but the establishment only gives a shit about the coasts. We’re supposed to just put up with it? Really? How do you think that is going to work in the long run?
Trump IS the establishment. He was born into it, and has always used his wealth and power to gain more wealth and power for himself. He has never shown one ounce of concern for “the people.” I honestly can’t for the life of me see why anyone thinks Trump would champion your interests, if you’re not in the 0.1% or some Russian oligarch or Chinese businessperson he owes money to.
Doesn’t it bother you that he plans to slash his OWN taxes? Doesn’t it bother you that he plans to eliminate all the estate taxes his heirs would normally pay? Doesn’t it bother you that he’s gone bankrupt six times, received six deferments to avoid military service, used his own charity foundation to pay off at least $258,000 in legal fees that we know about, and bribed Pam Bondi NOT to pursue an indictment in Florida regarding Trump University?
He has NO plan to help you, your family, your neighbors, your friends. Just empty slogans and empty words. And, no, he’s not going to fix our trade agreements to help you. And we know this because he won’t acknowledge the reason they DO hurt American workers: They enable American billionaires like Trump to ship jobs overseas, produce products there and sell them back here. They make capital king, and crush workers and the environment. Trump outsources ALL of his manufacturing overseas, and he tries to blame OTHER countries for what he and his fat cat peers do routinely, and he wants to destroy regulations that protect the environment.
Seriously, why on earth do you support him, given your concerns? And I’m not saying Clinton is the answer. She’s just not as horrible for workers and the environment as Trump and the Republicans will be.
I’m scratching my head on this one, bnw. It doesn’t make ANY sense for anyone in the working class to vote for him.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
Billy_T.
September 23, 2016 at 9:38 pm in reply to: Why do people who need the government the most hate it the most? #53692Billy_TParticipantThe other question is, why do the most privileged people in America — white Christian males — act like they’re the most oppressed? Why are they the angriest, on a day to day basis, when they have the fewest actual reasons to be so permanently outraged?
Billy_TParticipant[
The question is, who will do the least damage, and that’s Clinton, in my view.
As in, Trump will cause the most damage of the two.
I see Clinton as the protector of the status quo, as was Obama. He protected the status quo handed him by Bush. I see Clinton as doing the same. Basically, to oversimplify, the status quo with a Dem in the White House means soft neoliberalism and soft neoconservatism — if there is a standoff with a GOP Congress, it’s a little “harder.”
That, to me, continues the damage inflicted by endless wars, economic inequality, environmental devastation, mass incarceration, the war on drugs, the absence of sane gun safety regulations, the expansion of the surveillance state. Soft neoliberalism and soft neoconservatism.
If, however, Trump is elected, we’ll see hard neoliberalism and hard neoconservatism. He and a GOP Congress will inflict a great deal more damage as they double down, accelerate and expand the status quo maladies protected by the Dems in their uneasy “truce” with the GOP.
No more need for an impasse or truce, because Trump and the GOP will control all. So, even more wars, even more environmental devastation, even stricter “law and order” bullshit, even higher rates of mass incarceration, profiling, the nationalization of “stop and frisk,” etc. etc. etc. Far, far higher levels of economic inequality, as he slashes taxes for the rich and regulations for business. Far, far more environmental, workplace and consumer devastation as he either obliterates government watchdog depts like the FDA, OSHA and the EPA, or kneecaps them.
Not to mention the Courts, where we’ll go from business-friendly, corporate-friendly center-right judges, chosen by the Dems, to rabid far right, Ayn Rand devotees chosen by Trump and company.
So, again, Clinton will cause less damage. That’s my view.
Billy_TParticipant#5 has been thoroughly debunked by umpteen fact-checkers. The Birther movement didn’t start with Clinton.
Another one: The Breitbart author, following Trump’s lead, tries to make it sound like Clinton was actually talking about Native Americans when she said:
Hillary Clinton has a message for Donald Trump ahead of the general election: “I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak.”
“I’m not going to deal with their temper tantrums or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me,” Clinton said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper aired Friday. “He can say whatever he wants to say about me. I could really care less.” Clinton: I’m very experienced with men who go ‘off the reservation’ By Nick Gass 04/29/16 01:43 PM EDT
Come on. It’s a silly “he said, she said” back and forth, with endless strawmen and a major distraction.
Both candidates suck. Both parties suck. The question is, who will do the least damage, and that’s Clinton, in my view.
Billy_TParticipantSo now sources of facts that leftists disagree with have “no merit”. Such arrogance. Your next president is Donald J. Trump.
They’re not “facts,” bnw. They’re accusations from a completely discredited source, which is itself white supremacist. Nothing from their article proves what you claim. As mentioned, the one from theweek is damning, as is the one I just posted from Michelle Alexander. But not the one you posted from Breitbart.
Everything in the Breitbart article is fact.
No, it’s not, bnw. Notice they don’t offer any sources for their accusations. They just state them. And most of their examples don’t show “racism” even if they’re reporting them accurately. Read it again. The article is an opinion piece, not verified fact. The author makes judgments regarding what they say was said by reading additional material into them.
Look at #8, for example. No one says Trump is a racist because he uses the term “illegal alien.” The author of the piece just makes shit up, creates strawmen, and tries to get people to think it proves Clinton is racist.
Look at #11. Are you serious? Carrying hot sauce makes a person racist?
Or #7? Again, are you serious?
Come on. The entire article is a bad joke.
Billy_TParticipantThat is your opinion and I won’t question the merit of your opinion.
bnw,
But you have, repeatedly. Pretty much every time I’ve posted a critique of Trump, you say it’s BS or something similar.
Regardless, all I’m saying is please post credible sources. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantSo now sources of facts that leftists disagree with have “no merit”. Such arrogance. Your next president is Donald J. Trump.
They’re not “facts,” bnw. They’re accusations from a completely discredited source, which is itself white supremacist. Nothing from their article proves what you claim. As mentioned, the one from theweek is damning, as is the one I just posted from Michelle Alexander. But not the one you posted from Breitbart.
Billy_TParticipantAddendum.
Your second source, however, is pretty solid. Thanks for posting that article from theweek.com.
Also, this one from Michelle Alexander is very strong.
Neither candidate should be president, in my view. Neither party has earned the privilege of governing this country.
But I do see Trump as worse — beyond matters of race as well. On energy policy, the environment, deregulation of business, law and order issues, profiling, the surveillance state, and he has said he’s fine with using nuclear weapons, even on Europe.
We’d be better off with neither of them. But Trump is worse.
Billy_TParticipantShe is racist. I doubt anyone here would have argued otherwise.
Can you admit the same about Trump?
Someone has argued otherwise that Trump is a racist though their only focusing on Trump is their not being a “partisan hack”. Thats why I made this thread. I was told my opinion has “no merit” because I do not give “facts”. Hildabeast is a racist and has campaigned for decades with her racism there for all to see. Those that want to see. Those that feel the need to pimp race at every opportunity to smear someone in a cowardly premeditated attack will not get a pass from me. I will call them out because they deserve to be called out. They’ve earned it.
Some of the things listed against Trump I would say are BS. However Trump hasn’t done anything on the order of Hillary’s saying “fucking jew bastard” nor her supporting policies that have devastated black america nor her using her opponents race against him in her campaign.
bnw,
Clinton may well be a racist, but your sources don’t prove that, and Breitbart is the last publication you should cite on the subject.
First off, the guy who used to run it, Steve Bannon, is Trump’s campaign manager, and it’s the flagship for the Alt-Right. So it’s a bit like you quoting David Duke on HRC’s supposed racism. You’re posting a white supremacist media outlet to supposedly “prove” HRC’s racism.
And even if we ignore its white supremacist ideology, it has a long history of just making shit up, going back to its deceased founder, a serial liar.
If you want to persuade anyone here that “Clinton is just as bad as Trump” when it comes to racism, you’re going to need to cite legitimate, creditable sources, not white supremacists themselves.
Billy_TParticipantThe state level is much closer to the people. That cannot be denied.
———–
In wv the state-gov is owned and operated by ‘Big-private-sector’. Big Coal, Big Fracking, Big Pharma (Mylan), and a few others.So, it may be closer ‘in theory’ but in reality the rich-folks run things at all levels. Fed, State, County, City. Its always been that way in the real world.
I would love to see America be a country where small businesses had equal influence with the big-private-sector-monstrosities, bnw. It woulda been nice if it had turned out that way. Making the Big-Government smaller wont save us. Cause it will not kill Big-Private-Sector. If you only kill half the problem, the ‘other’ half will just grow even more powerful and deadly. This is my fundamental problem with rightwingers. They only see half the problem. And thus their solution will lead to even worse corporate-monsters.
w
vWell put, WV.
Libertarian Socialists (as you know) want to reduce, if not end, all concentrations of power and wealth, public or private. Some of us also want an all-public economic system — in my case, because I think that’s the only way to ensure that kind of dispersal of all wealth and power to individuals . . . so there can be no concentration, etc. etc.
The issue isn’t just “the tyranny of the government.” It’s “tyranny,” period, and that exists in both public and private sectors. The way to end that “tyranny” is to prevent even the possibility of permanent hierarchies, concentrations of wealth and power, influence, access, privilege, etc. etc. Prevent this from Day One. Don’t even let it get to the point where it needs to be rolled back. Set up the system to make it as difficult as is humanly possible to grow power centers of any kind.
Right-wing theories of minarchy would just lead to concentrations of massive power, privilege, access, wealth, etc. etc. in the private sector. It would be more “tyrannical” in that form that it is currently, because there wouldn’t even be the slightest check on that power.
Why not seek a system that prevents any/all of it, anywhere?
Billy_TParticipantVin Scully weekend starts tonight – Dodgers ahead by 6 with 10 to play. Been listening to Vinny since 1968 – won’t be the same without him.
I’m a long time Giants fan in baseball, thanks to Mays, McCovey and Marichal, especially. So I’m pretty bummed by their second half collapse. But Scully is one of the best all time. No reason the Dodgers need to win for him, though.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantAlso, bnw,
If Trump manages to get Congress to pass his tariffs — he won’t — how would that help our trade imbalance? Do you think this won’t provoke retaliation? We’re not going to be able to impose tariffs without having our trading partners do the same, so how will this lower the trade imbalance?
As this:
by design worsening race relations, insane increases in the cost of healthcare, shovel ready jobs that meant shovel the public money to political cronies and failed green energy tech companies
There is no evidence that Obama has sought to worsen race relations, and absolutely zero incentive for him to do so. He has nothing to gain by doing such a thing — and there is absolutely zero proof that he’s tried to make that happen. As for increases in health care costs: The ACA is a conservative plan, invented by the Heritage Foundation, implemented in Massachusetts by Romney, in which “the markets” are used to deliver health care insurance. We leftists wanted Single Payer, not for-profit, privately held insurance plans. The ACA does the latter, not the former. Trump has no answer to those costs other than doubling down on the epic failure of leaving it up to “the markets.”
As for the stimulus. It was far too small to meet the 8.9% contraction in Bush’s last quarter, and a third of it was tax cuts, thanks to Republican amendments which the Dems allowed. It was no more “crony-capitalist” than standard operating procedure for both parties, and the record of government support for Green companies is far better than without that support. As in, they did better than if we had just let “the markets” decide. Much, much better.
In general, no Trump proposal would actually address your concerns, and most of them would make the situation far worse.
It’s not just his delivery. It’s his policies too.
Billy_TParticipantI am personally invested in his campaign since it is addressing many of the issues I’ve considered important for over 20 years. The problems of trade imbalance, jobs and job security with outsourcing jobs offshore, illegal immigration, never ending war, saddling future generations with our debt, Wall Street above the law, falling standard of living, healthcare held hostage to politics, interventionist foreign policy, and the need to audit then abolish the Federal Reserve.
I’ve wanted all of this and it is within the Trump campaign that these issues are addressed. Leftists hate the delivery of the message. Too bad. The establishment has had its time and failed. Obama promised change. We received change for the worse in a failing economy, failed foreign policy, by design worsening race relations, insane increases in the cost of healthcare, shovel ready jobs that meant shovel the public money to political cronies and failed green energy tech companies, and the deliberate policy to menace Russia.
Trump addresses the real issues. I expect him to make real progress when president.
I don’t overlook his imperfections. I see them. He’s human. He’s new to politics and thus his delivery is very raw and out there compared to the establishment candidates. That is a great part of Trump’s appeal. He’s perceived as genuine. In politics today that is quite powerful. I do not believe he is a racist and I’m sick of the charge being leveled constantly at those who disagree on policy. Political correctness doesn’t work any more and it is high time the race pimps realize it.
bnw,
There’s a lot to chew on there. But let’s start with your point about delivery versus actual policy. You think we leftists only criticize his delivery. That’s not true at all. We are highly critical of his policy ideas, which are generally quite vague and don’t add up. Take for instance the issue of debt and taxes:
Trump has redone his tax plan several times now. Independent economists said his first would add 12 trillion in new debt. His latest, after dialing back a little on his massive tax cuts for the rich, will still add 5.3 trillion in new debt, again, according to independent review. He has called for massive new spending for the military, and an even larger commitment to infrastructure than Clinton — we actually need more than either is calling for — all the while slashing revenues. There is no other way for the math to work out: When you slash revenues and increase spending, you get added debt.
Reagan did this and tripled the debt. Bush did this and doubled it.
Billy_TParticipantThe state level is much closer to the people. That cannot be denied.
It depends upon what you consider “the people.” In many cases — the ones I mentioned — it’s much further away from them than the Federal government. In many cases throughout our history, in fact, the states were in direct opposition to “the people” and the Federal government stepped in to end that.
In other cases, when the states were imposing the majority’s will, but the majority wanted to crush “minority” rights (ethnic and racial minorities, women, political dissenters, etc), the Federal government opposed this, citing the Constitution as protection for those minority rights. And throughout the South, the states, if they had their way, would crush workers’ rights and radically weaken worker protections.
Overall, I see both the states and the federal government as in the tank for the rich and powerful, and it’s too rare that they work effectively to improve quality of life for all Americans. But our history shows that the states have been worse overall on that score than the Feds — and much, much worse in the South.
In short, there is no evidence that the states do a better job overall of working on behalf of the citizenry. They, like the Federal government, focus most of their time, energy and money to help the already wealthy and powerful, whom they work for.
Billy_TParticipantThat there would be my first question to tea partiers. I’ve asked it many times btw, over the years. Never once got a good answer. Closest anyone ever came to answering it was “well, first we need to end big government, then we’ll deal with big corporations and banks’.
w
v
————-With what mechanism…since they just dismantled government?
Not government. Big government. Power closer to the people as at the state level.
The state level is still “big.” It’s no closer to the people than the federal. It’s still set up to kowtow to the rich and powerful. And its history is one of denying civil, women’s, LGBT, human rights. “States’ rights” meant/means: Slavery, Jim Crow, legal “marriage rape,” the right to fire workers on a whim, the right to do away with all worker protections, etc.
It’s still “big,” and it does nothing about concentrations of wealth and power which kill democracy and freedom for the people.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
