If You're Not Happy With Any Party Right Now

[gipper]

Analysis | A majority says the Democratic Party stands for nothing — except the only thing that matters in 2018

What are your interests? How do keep you satisfied?

What does the GOP stand for? I know they used to stand for something but nothing I can see in the past several years.

It's not a black and white issue. Both parties have corrupt politicians. The difference is Democrats have a base that doesn't care and doesn't have to be fooled. The GOP has several assholes that can be counted on to trip up the process. Democrats are all pretty much on the same team...rooting against whatever works for America.

So sick of you guys going on about the Democratic base. Tell us who that is? Don't leave anyone out.

Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, tree_huggers, dead people, refugees, foreign interests, and Hollywood elitists.

Dead people?

Refugees?

Yep. You're an idiot.

At least you don't deny the racist GOP base is, well, you know, racist.

Everyone is an idiot, but you are the smart one.

LMFAO!

 

[ricechickie]

For all their flaws, the Democratic Party still represents my interests better than the GOP.

But they screwed over Bernie, and that definitely lost them some of my loyalty.

Analysis | A majority says the Democratic Party stands for nothing — except the only thing that matters in 2018

What are your interests? How do keep you satisfied?

What does the GOP stand for? I know they used to stand for something but nothing I can see in the past several years.

It's not a black and white issue. Both parties have corrupt politicians. The difference is Democrats have a base that doesn't care and doesn't have to be fooled. The GOP has several assholes that can be counted on to trip up the process. Democrats are all pretty much on the same team...rooting against whatever works for America.

Whenever you spout off bullshit like this, you lose credibility.

But let's be clear, you're saying the Democrats and supporters are evil, but the Republicans are incompetent?

 

[OldLady]

There used to be a popular bumper sticker, "Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way"
In that scenario, I need to get out of the way. I'd happily be a follower, if there were someone I felt was worthy of following. Maybe there's a silver lining in every storm cloud. I wanted to share this with those of you who feel like me. Things may get better. Maybe some of us need to get involved in one way or other.
As bones says, stay strong.


Kathleen Parker: Trump's unique gift to America

• Jul 18, 2017
  
• BANNER ELK, N.C. — Even the least popular presidents sometimes do great things.

What might Donald Trump’s great thing be? He has unified a divided nation.

He has brought Republicans and Democrats together as only just wars can. He’s brought women, scientists, minorities, teachers, journalists, professors — and no, they’re not all liberal — out of their favorite laptop seats and moved them to march, protest and, most important, run for public office.


The pink-capped Women’s March is familiar to all but the dead. On Earth Day in April, scientists around the world staged rallies to protest Trump’s apparent lack of interest in research-backed facts.

A few prominent conservatives — George Will and Joe Scarborough among them — have left the GOP, while Democrats have offered to take drastic action.

A majority say they would forswear drinking for life if it would mean Trump’s impeachment, according to a story in The Hill. This seems a tad excessive, though given the increased alcohol consumption (anecdotally) since Trump took office, a long-term wagon ride might be just what the doctor would order. Relatedly, if not causatively, Nevada ran out of marijuana products a few days after the state legalized recreational use.

When have so many Americans of so many stripes been so united in a shared mission? And, no, Woodstock doesn’t count.

Other gifts from the president include an increased national interest in politics, civic participation and electoral office. Trump seems to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue, even among those who have never before expressed any interest in politics.

Chris Clark, an artist in this mountain village, echoed the sentiments one hears several times on any given day. “I’m obsessed with the news,” he told me during a recent visit to his gallery.

“All I do is watch TV now,” he laughed. “It’s like watching a train wreck, you can’t look away. It’s hard to go to work, really!”

Meanwhile, countless Republicans and Democrats and independents, the nonpolitical as well as scientists, teachers, and, sure, a freshly emboldened outlier class (Jay Z?) are considering running for public office, a goal previously not on the radar.

A newly formed Political Action Committee — 314 Action — is urging scientists to “Get Elected” and offers help with funding and logistics. Hundreds have signed up. Similarly, Silicon Valley tech magnate Sam Altman — president of Y Combinator, which invests in start-ups such as Dropbox and Airbnb — is offering to fund good candidates for statewide office to “create prosperity through technology, economic fairness and maintaining personal liberty.”

Nationally, a centrist movement is gaining traction under the self-explaining name of “No Labels,” and may yet prove to be a counterforce in the zero-sum sport of current politics. The group organized in 2010 and is co-chaired by former Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Democrat (later Independent) Joe Lieberman.

Today, more than 70 members of Congress from both parties have formed a bipartisan coalition called the “No Labels Problem Solvers,” pledging to work together on legislative initiatives. Earlier this month, the congressional group released its first bipartisan effort — a “Make Government Work!” legislative package aimed at reducing government waste and inefficiency. Coming up in September, No Labels will host an international Ideas Summit to coincide with the United Nations General Assembly session in New York.

Thus, though our national political narrative is that we’re more divided than ever, a dispassionate second look suggests otherwise. We’re not so much divided as stuck. Running in mud. That’s not the swamp draining; it’s the muck of money, greed, self-interest and one-upmanship — Washington’s unique art of the deal.

We don’t have only Trump to thank. The ecosystem of media-generated conflict and America’s penchant for spectator sports has ensured a persistent game of warring factions — a perfect milieu for someone like Trump with his particular talents. He merely strolled to the lectern, called everybody else a loser, and plowed his way to the presidency on a whim and the most golden of promises — to make America great again.

We have work to do. There is hope. A trend seems to be taking shape if momentum can be nourished. What an irony if Trump’s presidency made America great again by inspiring people to get elected whose civilian lives have been circumscribed by the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and truth, which is not, in fact, relative.

Trump would go down as one of the greatest unifying presidents in history — the sooner the better.


Kathleen Parker’s email address is [email protected].
Kathleen Parker: Trump's unique gift to America

Lead? It sounds like the same argument we hear repeatedly about why the US needs to get involved around the world in various wars. It's because the US needs to LEAD!!

Yippee!

What happened to those in government just maintaining a civil society while people are allowed to live their lives in peace?

Instead, the government how has control of such things as our health care, as if it were nothing more than a pawn on a chess board while people suffer.

And now that government is involved, they will never give up the power. They will not be satisfied until they have complete control and then treat us as they wish as it changes on a political whim at any given time.

It is true of all organizations that after awhile a primary goal becomes self-perpetuation. Of course after 240+ years, our government has done the same. The serpentine mass of agencies and paper pushers and oversight boards and regulations and ..... is more than we really need, but only Congress can simplify that. I am not opposed to Trump's wish to do that, if it is done thoughtfully. If it is done only to give a break to business (thereby boosting the economy) that is not the right reason. There has to be more to it than that.

 

[ricechickie]

There used to be a popular bumper sticker, "Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way"
In that scenario, I need to get out of the way. I'd happily be a follower, if there were someone I felt was worthy of following. Maybe there's a silver lining in every storm cloud. I wanted to share this with those of you who feel like me. Things may get better. Maybe some of us need to get involved in one way or other.
As bones says, stay strong.


Kathleen Parker: Trump's unique gift to America

• Jul 18, 2017
  
• BANNER ELK, N.C. — Even the least popular presidents sometimes do great things.

What might Donald Trump’s great thing be? He has unified a divided nation.

He has brought Republicans and Democrats together as only just wars can. He’s brought women, scientists, minorities, teachers, journalists, professors — and no, they’re not all liberal — out of their favorite laptop seats and moved them to march, protest and, most important, run for public office.


The pink-capped Women’s March is familiar to all but the dead. On Earth Day in April, scientists around the world staged rallies to protest Trump’s apparent lack of interest in research-backed facts.

A few prominent conservatives — George Will and Joe Scarborough among them — have left the GOP, while Democrats have offered to take drastic action.

A majority say they would forswear drinking for life if it would mean Trump’s impeachment, according to a story in The Hill. This seems a tad excessive, though given the increased alcohol consumption (anecdotally) since Trump took office, a long-term wagon ride might be just what the doctor would order. Relatedly, if not causatively, Nevada ran out of marijuana products a few days after the state legalized recreational use.

When have so many Americans of so many stripes been so united in a shared mission? And, no, Woodstock doesn’t count.

Other gifts from the president include an increased national interest in politics, civic participation and electoral office. Trump seems to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue, even among those who have never before expressed any interest in politics.

Chris Clark, an artist in this mountain village, echoed the sentiments one hears several times on any given day. “I’m obsessed with the news,” he told me during a recent visit to his gallery.

“All I do is watch TV now,” he laughed. “It’s like watching a train wreck, you can’t look away. It’s hard to go to work, really!”

Meanwhile, countless Republicans and Democrats and independents, the nonpolitical as well as scientists, teachers, and, sure, a freshly emboldened outlier class (Jay Z?) are considering running for public office, a goal previously not on the radar.

A newly formed Political Action Committee — 314 Action — is urging scientists to “Get Elected” and offers help with funding and logistics. Hundreds have signed up. Similarly, Silicon Valley tech magnate Sam Altman — president of Y Combinator, which invests in start-ups such as Dropbox and Airbnb — is offering to fund good candidates for statewide office to “create prosperity through technology, economic fairness and maintaining personal liberty.”

Nationally, a centrist movement is gaining traction under the self-explaining name of “No Labels,” and may yet prove to be a counterforce in the zero-sum sport of current politics. The group organized in 2010 and is co-chaired by former Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Democrat (later Independent) Joe Lieberman.

Today, more than 70 members of Congress from both parties have formed a bipartisan coalition called the “No Labels Problem Solvers,” pledging to work together on legislative initiatives. Earlier this month, the congressional group released its first bipartisan effort — a “Make Government Work!” legislative package aimed at reducing government waste and inefficiency. Coming up in September, No Labels will host an international Ideas Summit to coincide with the United Nations General Assembly session in New York.

Thus, though our national political narrative is that we’re more divided than ever, a dispassionate second look suggests otherwise. We’re not so much divided as stuck. Running in mud. That’s not the swamp draining; it’s the muck of money, greed, self-interest and one-upmanship — Washington’s unique art of the deal.

We don’t have only Trump to thank. The ecosystem of media-generated conflict and America’s penchant for spectator sports has ensured a persistent game of warring factions — a perfect milieu for someone like Trump with his particular talents. He merely strolled to the lectern, called everybody else a loser, and plowed his way to the presidency on a whim and the most golden of promises — to make America great again.

We have work to do. There is hope. A trend seems to be taking shape if momentum can be nourished. What an irony if Trump’s presidency made America great again by inspiring people to get elected whose civilian lives have been circumscribed by the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and truth, which is not, in fact, relative.

Trump would go down as one of the greatest unifying presidents in history — the sooner the better.


Kathleen Parker’s email address is [email protected].
Kathleen Parker: Trump's unique gift to America

Lead? It sounds like the same argument we hear repeatedly about why the US needs to get involved around the world in various wars. It's because the US needs to LEAD!!

Yippee!

What happened to those in government just maintaining a civil society while people are allowed to live their lives in peace?

Instead, the government how has control of such things as our health care, as if it were nothing more than a pawn on a chess board while people suffer.

And now that government is involved, they will never give up the power. They will not be satisfied until they have complete control and then treat us as they wish as it changes on a political whim at any given time.

It is true of all organizations that after awhile a primary goal becomes self-perpetuation. Of course after 240+ years, our government has done the same. The serpentine mass of agencies and paper pushers and oversight boards and regulations and ..... is more than we really need, but only Congress can simplify that. I am not opposed to Trump's wish to do that, if it is done thoughtfully. If it is done only to give a break to business (thereby boosting the economy) that is not the right reason. There has to be more to it than that.

Often, it seems like reducing government is meant to be done at the expense of poor people. Why? Because corporations have lobbyists and campaign donations. Poor people just have votes.

 

[OldLady]

This is why i hate the duopoly. They are SO full of shit. But the population just buys their horseshit..
You have to be a COMPLETE MORON to think they give a fuck about you.

Another editorial in my op ed section this morning was saying the duopoly is about to end. That they are destroying themselves/each other and are about to fracture into groups with real ideas, not bumper sticker logos and billions of dollars to get a shiny new Ken doll elected every four years.

So we'll have 4 or 5 parties?

I don't know. France's system has a LOT and somehow they work it out. Not saying we replicate France, but just that it can be done.

France has 65 million people. The French economy also has neighbors that contribute to their economy. We have 350+ million with a boat anchor to the South in Mexico 123 million with 30% of their GDP coming from US cash, and then Canada with 35 million to the North. We don't have equal trade partners.

I wasn't talking about their trade or economic policies, you know...

 

[ricechickie]

To a bigot, if he can't ban all Muslims, he can still make a good start with those countries.

It's like the poll tax of old. It prevented many black people from voting, due to their poverty rates. Did it prevent all? No. But it made an impact.

Do you think obama was a bigot when he did the ban? When he made the list Trump used?

Link?

Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

 

[TNHarley]

Do you think obama was a bigot when he did the ban? When he made the list Trump used?

Link?

Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

 

[ricechickie]

Link?

Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

 

[TNHarley]

Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

 

[OldLady]

Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

What I heard was that the other countries on that list had much more serious vetting.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is coming to a tipping point where in all elections

a trump like candidate is going to win

fck em all

BTW, there is a great song by Mylene Farmer "fck em all". I just love it (even though I don't normally use f-words and don't like to hear them).

thanks

 

[TNHarley]

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

What I heard was that the other countries on that list had much more serious vetting.

lol maybe. I do know some of them refused to help with the vetting so they added them to the list.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is coming to a tipping point where in all elections

a trump like candidate is going to win

fck em all

What's wrong with that?

it is awesome

hope to be in the part that makes it happen

 

[ricechickie]

Thank you. At first glance, this link seems to say that comparisons between the two aren't valid. But I have to go now, will read more later.

Bye!

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

So, Obama made a list, but never acted on it, and Trump acted on it, and I, to demonstrate some non-partisan honesty, am supposed to think they are the same thing?

You high? How high?

 

[TNHarley]

They are but they arent. But that doesnt change my point.
Later

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

So, Obama made a list, but never acted on it, and Trump acted on it, and I, to demonstrate some non-partisan honesty, am supposed to think they are the same thing?

You high? How high?

I never said they were. If i did, why would i post a link proving otherwise?

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not European. I'll never be a follower.

 

[ricechickie]

It does, when Obama's stoppage of processing refugees was in response to an actual specific demonstrable threat from Iraq.

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

So, Obama made a list, but never acted on it, and Trump acted on it, and I, to demonstrate some non-partisan honesty, am supposed to think they are the same thing?

You high? How high?

I never said they were. If i did, why would i post a link proving otherwise?

But you asked if I was angry about Obama's list. As if it was the same thing.

Seems like you tried to catch me in some double standard, and then provided a link that completely absolved me of double standard!

 

[TNHarley]

It was still a travel ban. Trump used a list that obama made. Those were my two points. Seperate points.

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

So, Obama made a list, but never acted on it, and Trump acted on it, and I, to demonstrate some non-partisan honesty, am supposed to think they are the same thing?

You high? How high?

I never said they were. If i did, why would i post a link proving otherwise?

But you asked if I was angry about Obama's list. As if it was the same thing.

Seems like you tried to catch me in some double standard, and then provided a link that completely absolved me of double standard!

No, he made the list because their countries are fucked up. Trump used that list to issue his ban so he could figure out how to vet them. You say its a muslim ban but the countries were listed by the previous administration. That was my only point.

 

[ricechickie]

There might have been a list, but according to that article, the only ban was on Iraq. Because of a specific, demonstrable threat.

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

So, Obama made a list, but never acted on it, and Trump acted on it, and I, to demonstrate some non-partisan honesty, am supposed to think they are the same thing?

You high? How high?

I never said they were. If i did, why would i post a link proving otherwise?

But you asked if I was angry about Obama's list. As if it was the same thing.

Seems like you tried to catch me in some double standard, and then provided a link that completely absolved me of double standard!

No, he made the list because their countries are fucked up. Trump used that list to issue his ban so he could figure out how to vet them. You say its a muslim ban but the countries were listed by the previous administration. That was my only point.

In other words, not the same. One affected lots of people, and the other was....... a list.

Thanks, TN.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, thats all that was included in the ban. But that wasnt my point.
There was a list. Thats the list trump used. With one or two differences, cant remember which, though.
Allowing unvetted people from war torn countries is a direct threat as well.

So, Obama made a list, but never acted on it, and Trump acted on it, and I, to demonstrate some non-partisan honesty, am supposed to think they are the same thing?

You high? How high?

I never said they were. If i did, why would i post a link proving otherwise?

But you asked if I was angry about Obama's list. As if it was the same thing.

Seems like you tried to catch me in some double standard, and then provided a link that completely absolved me of double standard!

No, he made the list because their countries are fucked up. Trump used that list to issue his ban so he could figure out how to vet them. You say its a muslim ban but the countries were listed by the previous administration. That was my only point.

In other words, not the same. One affected lots of people, and the other was....... a list.

Thanks, TN.

Of course they werent the same. It was just the same list.
I cant keep repeating myself lol
Decent read
7 nations in Trump travel ban were named by Obama?