If You're Not Happy With Any Party Right Now

[ricechickie]

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?

Oh, you can, you're just a quitter!

 

[mudwhistle]

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...

What we're you talking about?
The economy controls just about everything.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

Forget Hillary Clinton. It was the media that actually elected Trump.

Hillary had Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, the media, the Russians, the GOP and the FBI against her and she still won the popular vote by millions.
Market watch, in May, put the amount of free media for Donald Trump at 3 BILLION. By the end of the election, some estimates were 5 BILLION. Double all the GOP and all the Democratic candidates put together.

Nearly every Trump speech was played from beginning to end. Most of the time any part of a Hillary speech was played, it was the part where she talked about Donald Trump.

Chuck Todd couldn't say her name without also saying "unlikable, untrustworthy and dishonest".

On the other hand, the same media was calling Trump "authentic" and a "master of media" right up until just before the election. They even gave his hotel and Scottish Golf Course free hour long infomercials.

Remember the media swarmed the Clinton Foundation but it was a single reporter who took down the criminal organization, the uncertified and unlicensed Trump Foundation. Thousands of media personnel studying the Clinton Foundation, only one looking into Trump's criminal organization. And that reporter won the Pulitzer Prize for his investigation. Did he win it because he was the ONLY one?

Not only do politicians need to be held accountable, the media also needs to be held accountable.

We know the only reason the GOP is against Obamacare is because it has the name Obama as part of it. People in Kentucky have said they should make a national Kynect (Kentucky's Obamacare) and get rid of Obamacare. How stupid is that?

It was the media that actually elected Trump.

The media that spent months trashing Trump put him in office?

(Boy, I bet THEIR faces are red)

Yes, they did at least helped. They were there reporting everytime he took a shit. I saw very little of other candidates ads on TV but I saw plenty of Trump.

and the majority of it was negative for him.

By keeping his name in the news, they accidently put him in office.

I seriously doubt that was their plan.

Not what I saw and every one of his rallys televised. Maybe they were regional ads. No there plan wasn't to put him in the whitehouse, but marketing was good, repetition.

Not what I saw and every one of his rallys televised.

as were HIllarys.

You keep grasping at straws...

What are you going to do when you get one?

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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

the base?

No more than the democratic base is racist because of BLM.

But keep repeating your masters.

It helps make you both look foolish.

 

[Tilly]

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.

How does losing some of your loyalty manifest?

 

[task0778]

Too much focus on Trump IMHO, and not enough on everyone else inside the beltway. Both parties, all branches and agencies, what we have here is a total clusterfuck. NOBODY is leading and nobody is following either, it's all about self-interest and that of your party to a lesser degree. You and me are a ways down the priority list, regardless of who's in charge of anything. I'm sorry to say it, but I don't see a change in this status quo coming anytime soon until we have some sort of catastrophic event. And no, Trump's election doesn't count.

 

[Tilly]

When gay people can't get married, and when transgenders can get fired for being transgender, things aren't equal.

When our immigration policy is boiled down to religion (Muslim ban) things aren't equal. Now you will say that they aren't citizens, they don't get equality. You are correct. But it sets a precedent of Muslim inequality here in the US.

When our immigration policy is boiled down to religion (Muslim ban) things aren't equal.

You do realize the courts ruled on a campaign speech, and not the EO, right?

There is no 'Muslim Ban', except in the minds of the conned.

The campaign speech shows intent.

what does that matter?

Because he wanted a Muslim ban, and whatever they call it, they effectively enacted a Muslim ban.

6 countries hold all of the Muslims?

Considering the problems in England, should we add it to the 'Muslim ban'?

How about Germany?

do you understand how silly your comments are?

Quite! Most of the worlds Muslims are in no way affected.

 

[OldLady]

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 was JUST about to ask him the same thing. LOL

 

[TNHarley]

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 was JUST about to ask him the same thing. LOL

so you both like to argue strawmen? hehe

 

[OldLady]

Too much focus on Trump IMHO, and not enough on everyone else inside the beltway. Both parties, all branches and agencies, what we have here is a total clusterfuck. NOBODY is leading and nobody is following either, it's all about self-interest and that of your party to a lesser degree. You and me are a ways down the priority list, regardless of who's in charge of anything. I'm sorry to say it, but I don't see a change in this status quo coming anytime soon until we have some sort of catastrophic event. And no, Trump's election doesn't count.

What do you think of the OP and the other article by Joe Scarborough saying the duopoly is destroying itself? Can an alternative with real ideas and less power hungry plays be achieved? Can you even consider it? Would you support it?

 

[OldLady]

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 was JUST about to ask him the same thing. LOL

so you both like to argue strawmen? hehe

It's the giggling and laughing at stuff that isn't funny. Mescaline maybe?

 

[OldLady]

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...

What we're you talking about?
The economy controls just about everything.

Political parties and candidates.

 

[TNHarley]

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 was JUST about to ask him the same thing. LOL

so you both like to argue strawmen? hehe

It's the giggling and laughing at stuff that isn't funny. Mescaline maybe?

IDK what that is. How do you know what i find funny? You are worse than the NSA

 

[OldLady]

This thread has gone everywhere. That's okay, it's in General Discussion.
I have heard from a couple of posters who are pretty strongly in support of keeping their party of choice and have defended its policies.
I have heard from a couple of posters who kinda agree with the OP's from Parker and Scarborough, but are pretty unconvinced anything will get better.
I guess I'll be hoping for some sort of No Labels solution, and a lot more input from people who think instead of just people who are good at bullshit. The two party system is not working anymore, that's for sure. It is both sides' fault and ... well, we'll see how they do coming up with a bipartisan healthcare bill and a budget for 2018. I'm not so sure things are going to improve.

 

[TNHarley]

This thread has gone everywhere. That's okay, it's in General Discussion.
I have heard from a couple of posters who are pretty strongly in support of keeping their party of choice and have defended its policies.
I have heard from a couple of posters who kinda agree with the OP's from Parker and Scarborough, but are pretty unconvinced anything will get better.
I guess I'll be hoping for some sort of No Labels solution, and a lot more input from people who think instead of just people who are good at bullshit. The two party system is not working anymore, that's for sure. It is both sides' fault and ... well, we'll see how they do coming up with a bipartisan healthcare bill and a budget for 2018. I'm not so sure things are going to improve.

I would be ok if parties ceased to exist. Collectivism is regressive.

 

[deanrd]

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.

So you think that Blacks, Hispanics, refugees, Gays, and Rich White Elitists can't be racists?

I didn't say they can't be, I said you are.

Don't you agree?

 

[OldLady]

i think it is time for hyper involvement at the grass roots level....or is that what elected trump?

Sorry it took so long to answer, strollingbones. Hyper involvement at the grass roots level did NOT elect Trump. At least not the kind of involvement being discussed in the OP. We so need smart people with ideas to start influencing policy in this country instead of a group that would, for instance, nominate Hillary Clinton because it was her turn. They knew it would be an abysmal run with all her baggage and her weak campaigning skills. Would you say the thinking processes that led to Trump and his promises were informed and workable solutions? I think they were influenced by media hype, tv and social media mostly. His promises were hollow and I think a lot of people knew that before he got in the WH and tried enacting some of them.

 

[OldLady]

This thread has gone everywhere. That's okay, it's in General Discussion.
I have heard from a couple of posters who are pretty strongly in support of keeping their party of choice and have defended its policies.
I have heard from a couple of posters who kinda agree with the OP's from Parker and Scarborough, but are pretty unconvinced anything will get better.
I guess I'll be hoping for some sort of No Labels solution, and a lot more input from people who think instead of just people who are good at bullshit. The two party system is not working anymore, that's for sure. It is both sides' fault and ... well, we'll see how they do coming up with a bipartisan healthcare bill and a budget for 2018. I'm not so sure things are going to improve.

I would be ok if parties ceased to exist. Collectivism is regressive.

Agree 100% about the parties. Don't know what the other means.

 

[TNHarley]

This thread has gone everywhere. That's okay, it's in General Discussion.
I have heard from a couple of posters who are pretty strongly in support of keeping their party of choice and have defended its policies.
I have heard from a couple of posters who kinda agree with the OP's from Parker and Scarborough, but are pretty unconvinced anything will get better.
I guess I'll be hoping for some sort of No Labels solution, and a lot more input from people who think instead of just people who are good at bullshit. The two party system is not working anymore, that's for sure. It is both sides' fault and ... well, we'll see how they do coming up with a bipartisan healthcare bill and a budget for 2018. I'm not so sure things are going to improve.

I would be ok if parties ceased to exist. Collectivism is regressive.

Agree 100% about the parties. Don't know what the other means.

Political parties form a collective bond within their constituents. People lose the ability to think, be rational or anything resembling individuality. Thats what parties are for. Collectivism.
Collectivism is regressive. Thats going backwards. Individuality, ability to think and honesty, is what we should be shooting for.
Its not about ideology. Its about policy.

 

[mudwhistle]

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).

When's she gonna start singing Fck Em All????