This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Don’t worry childish insults like you are doing aren’t unusual in here for those that don’t fall in line. Someone as rich as Bezos dumping billions to sway an election is clearly corrupt but it is funny how you will justify it. So predictable.
Well I guess respectfully I’m confused - you don’t see any distinction - at all - between a foreign dictatorship engaging in criminal acts and a US citizen engaging in 1st Amendment rights?
It seems to me the solution to this hypothetical would be Republicans supporting the limitations on speech that Citizens United had overturned. But they don’t. The oft lauded USSC nominees of Trump obviously oppose such limitations.
I never discussed the distinction, I just think it’s funny that after all the time many of you invested in here over foreign interference (which has happened forever but glad you all are finally concerned) with 1% of the funding behind them of what Bezos could do would jump right on board with someone with means beyond anyone swaying an election. Just stating my opinion, quite interesting.
Thanks, and seriously I’m sorry about the knock earlier. To me the distinction matters - country with x-thousands warheads aimed at us led by ex-KGB dictator - Vs someone who is an American freed by a ruling from conservative appointed USSC to back who he wants - makes all the difference in the world.
I tend to agree with this. For all the "He's a barely functioning idiot" talk, I think it will further his cause to be featured in a debate. He's good with a crowd.
Not this again.
Remember last time? "Blumpf won't debate Hillary! He is terrified of her!!"
How did that work out?
Trump is at his best in front of a crowd and will relish the chance to ask Biden or Bernie all of the things the MSM is unwilling to ask.
To be fair, they don't care when guys from the right try to hold them to that standard either...that was my point and thanks for illustrating on this board, what I've seen in real life
Also agree. The question then becomes, do debates have any real impact anymore?
It will take a firm moderator who can interrupt a candidate. Candidates have, for far too long, been able to get away with non-answers, restating questions to their prepackaged talking points. They get away with saying, 'what I hear you asking is" …. and then they state what they want to answer, not what was asked. That is not a debate. Either that or they say, "what I am more interested in is why the other candidate didn't (fill in the blank), again not a debate just an exchange of talking points.
There are so many different things we could be doing better wrt elections, including the way we handle our debates. One of the most frustrating things about being a Democrat is the way the party refuses to be the smart party and instead continues to hold primaries and debates using the same old tired formula. I guess feeding the television dollar is more important than inventing a smart way to choose a candidate for the nation's highest office.
DING DING DING!
Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
I think the GOP Senate comes across as cowardly, and if I were running a campaign against the likes of McSally and Gardner I would be hitting that theme hard.
I think this is true. Can I also offer something coming from someone (myself) who dislikes the anti-Trump hysteria that sweeps most rational thinkers and thinks it bad for the nation?
They're hard to write. Perhaps their torturous nature in form is related to how torn I am about the direction of the country. For most people, it's settled. I have a harder time not with the issue of a bad President or candidate, but in the alternative, in the void left.
Are you beginning to feel like a voter without a home? How does this change your view of the upcoming election?
A voter without a home: I guess I've felt that way since the GOP public demanded Trump. The politicians have now caved. I've always been registered as an independent yet fully believe I'm a conservative/classical liberal through and through. The inroads we made were with the GOP while William F. Buckley was kingmaker, and thus, the GOP was my default position for practical politics (I'm way more libertarian than the South, though). But now, where to turn? There's no good answer. I don't have one
Can’t speak for @rockaction (and certainly can’t write like him) but this perfectly encapsulates my position. The only person running on either side I can become the least bit excited about is Yang and he has no realistic shot. I didn’t like any of the candidates in 2016 either but didn’t feel disenfranchised like I do now. That’s probably the biggest Trump effect on me personally, this coupled with the Democratic Party’s lack of vision, fore thought and pushing of retread candidates and I’m feeling a bit lost heading into 2020.
Appreciate the responses from you both. All I can do is welcome you to the pit of the unrepresented. I must say, it's quite the load off feeling absolutely no obligation to defend individuals and I can spend my time trying to figure out who best lines up with where I want to see things go.
That's me as well. I line up more with the Democrats only because I see Trump for the huckster he is. But I'm pro guns and anti abortion. I go to church on Sundays and feel healtchcare should be a right. I don't think anyone represents me.
I've leaned libertarian my whole adult life. I think authoritarianism is a real threat -- the most prominent threat -- in every system of government, including democracies. The concentration of power leads to corruption, and corruption leads to the concentration of power, and it's easy to get sucked into a disastrous feedback loop. It can happen from the left or the right -- examples abound worldwide on both sides.
Thanks. That to me feels like a much bigger thing that what most people seem to think it is. I know a LOT of people like you that don't line up neatly checking every box for "their side". I'm that way. Not sure of the answer.
I think some of that is also explained by feedback loops. Twenty years ago, I generally described myself as a moderate Democrat. Now, I'm more likely to say I'm liberal, and that's in large part in response to the radicalism of the GOP. For me it really started during the Bush Administration, where trying to meet the GOP anywhere near the middle became a sucker's bet. I think a big part of Obama's appeal in 2008, particularly with respect to Hillary, was that he didn't sound like someone who felt he had to shade his views to cynically appeal to centrists.
I still think the greatest real threat is from large overpowering bureaucracies with a secondary threat coming from ultra large corporations. I think the founders put in a brilliant system to prevent a dictatorship from the left or the right. But as government grows and grows, the power of these faceless bureaucratic organization with their thousands of thousands of unforgiving rules and regulations will loom over many aspects of our lives. That is the main threat to the freedoms this country was founded on. Trump will be powerless in 1 or 5 years, and will become just a distant memory. What we need are politicians who will keep the size of government in check, and neither party represents that. Trump is a terrible, terrible candidate, but the vision coming from the left is a rapid expansion of government and loss of freedoms, especially economic freedoms. You can make the case for the left for keeping large corporations in check, but they are pretty well under the sheets with many of these corporations too. We have two parties, neither of which really care about freedom of the people. I really can not make a case for positively voting for any politician from either side. Not one of them comes anywhere near what I would like to see in a President.
I think this anti-authoritarianism is where I stand and have always stood, in a nutshell, though we are different in our pet issues, learned contemplation (I'm gonna give you the nod), political emphasis, and temperament.
I just looked it up and will read into it. I know political gerrymandering to be a problem. Our district in CT was gerrymandered and our town was placed in a wildly unnatural district map. It's not something I'm personally an expert on, but it seems like the work that's already been done by independent commissions or even algorithms -- I remember a 538 article or series of articles about a school project turned wildly efficacious from their Gerrymandering Project -- would allow a fairer electoral process.
Mmm...that's a good point. I was thinking ad hoc about my district in CT whereby we were taken from our natural district in terms of culture and politics and shoved in with two cities. (We were a rural area that made up a larger, natural block in the Farmington Valley area of CT.) "Fair" indeed means many things to many people, and I agree with starting with definitions before debating, so I can only say I used it with keeping the natural population and culture intact when districting. How to do so is the twenty million dollar question. I'm not looking for quid pro quo in terms of results, I can assure you that. That's how we got gerrymandering in the first place. .
I think I gave this short shrift the first time around. First there is a concentration of power, then corruption follows and that corruption leads to the concentration of power. What is interesting is that it seems that the more citizens distrust their own government, the more that they demand government oversight or regulation of normal events. When a public is distrustful of its government, it holds the things that it does to be in bad faith and therefore wants a watchdog; ironically, here, one overseen by the government.
It sure does. I don't feel like there is anyone I want to vote for. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans in this way. Biden had his chance and passed. Bernie is way too far left for me. Warren puts me to sleep. And to be honest, they are the only ones with a chance after running Harris off. I think I'm leaning Tom Steyer, who has no chance.Joe Bryant said:
No offense taken.roadkill1292 said:
The trial portion had 0 witnesses for the first time in any impeachment in this country's history. The discovery period had several, but not as many as they'd have liked for reasons that fall on both the GOP and Dems. The GOP for obstructing actual requests and the Dems for not officially requesting some (via subpoena) show up to testify.
This, I think the Senate races are going to be the fall out of the Impeachment. The question is which side is going to be hurt more. For President Trump, his base is what his base is. The problem is can President Trump pull enough independent voters to his side. Last election, he was the unknown.. this election he has lots of baggage.
He's good with "his" crowd. I think he is embarrassing as a public speaker quite frankly. "No. You're the puppet". Then you add in the obvious early dementia that is creeping in and becoming more prevalent IMO (Biden has this issue too) and Trump will likely be a disaster in the debates.
