Election 2020 - Page 41 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15048595
Just pointing out that my grammar correction post was a joke and contains the same grammatical error I am supposedly condemning.


Yes it does. I am sorry I painted you with Hindsite's brush.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15049103
Drlee wrote:No. He settled so that there would be no criminal charges. You articulate a distinction without a difference.


You said he was convicted.

He wasn't.

I swear, I've never encountered anyone so paralyzed with fear at the very thought of admitting he was wrong...

The rest of your insults are simply tochildish to respond to.


-5 points for spelling...
User avatar
By jimjam
#15049104
Ahead of a potential Democratic presidential run, former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York reversed his longstanding support of the aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policing strategy that he pursued for a decade.

“I was wrong,” Mr. Bloomberg declared. “And I am sorry.”

Can you in your wildest imagination imagine Obese Donald saying "I was wrong and I apologize." :eek: :lol:
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15049109
jimjam wrote:Ahead of a potential Democratic presidential run, former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York reversed his longstanding support of the aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policing strategy that he pursued for a decade.

“I was wrong,” Mr. Bloomberg declared. “And I am sorry.”

Can you in your wildest imagination imagine Obese Donald saying "I was wrong and I apologize." :eek: :lol:


I cannot, in my wildest imagination, imagine you giving Trump a pass if he did, as you're giving to Bloomberg...
By late
#15049115
BigSteve wrote:
I cannot, in my wildest imagination, imagine you giving Trump a pass if he did, as you're giving to Bloomberg...



I've met Jimjam in real life. I don't think he's giving Bloomberg a pass. But he is saying that Trump is literally incapable of doing such a thing.

But you are correct, he would not give Trump a pass. This is a matter of ethics, to balance the equation would require far more than an apology.

But an abject apology during a resignation speech would be a start.
By Hindsite
#15049434
late wrote:I've met Jimjam in real life. I don't think he's giving Bloomberg a pass. But he is saying that Trump is literally incapable of doing such a thing.

But you are correct, he would not give Trump a pass. This is a matter of ethics, to balance the equation would require far more than an apology.

But an abject apology during a resignation speech would be a start.

That is crazy talk.
By late
#15049538
Hindsite wrote:
That is crazy talk.



No, it's obvious.

The Stone convictions takes us back to the campaign, when the Trump crowd was lying constantly about their contacts with Russians. There is a pattern there, and it's not hard to see.

Crazy is ignoring that mountain of evidence for dubious political reasons.

Crazy is ignoring the small army of decent, hard working people testifying to the corruption of Trump and his cronies. Arguing that this was innocent when you know Perry was pressuring Ukraine to grease the palm of America political donors is not crazy, just an amazing display of a willingness to be disinenguous about blatantly corrupt behavior.

Crazy is ignoring the largest obstruction of justice in American history, and by a massive amount.

Crazy is treating the Constitution like toilet paper.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15049671
jimjam wrote:Ahead of a potential Democratic presidential run, former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York reversed his longstanding support of the aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policing strategy that he pursued for a decade.

“I was wrong,” Mr. Bloomberg declared. “And I am sorry.”

Can you in your wildest imagination imagine Obese Donald saying "I was wrong and I apologize." :eek: :lol:

He apologized for his locker room talk in October 2016.

Bloomberg is apologizing for an effective policy that reduced the murder rate in New York City--effectively making his campaign pointless, unless he thinks there is a huge constituency for banning big gulp sodas or something.

late wrote:But he is saying that Trump is literally incapable of doing such a thing.

Trump has already done such a thing.

Trump Apologizes for Vulgar Comments About Women Recorded in 2005

late wrote:Crazy is treating the Constitution like toilet paper.

Why would a progressive care about the US constitution?
User avatar
By jimjam
#15049681
blackjack21 wrote:He apologized for his locker room talk in October 2016.


point well taken. Three years and 13,000 lies later ……. anything else?

BTW ….. any news about Donald's unscheduled 2 1/4 hour visit to Walter Reed hospital? I assume the White House has a full hospital setup on site so ………….. :hmm:

The WH claims it was a simple "checkup" but in view of zero credibility for Donald and his shills we can pretty well assume this is another lie.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15049742
jimjam wrote:BTW ….. any news about Donald's unscheduled 2 1/4 hour visit to Walter Reed hospital? I assume the White House has a full hospital setup on site so ………….. :hmm:

The WH claims it was a simple "checkup" but in view of zero credibility for Donald and his shills we can pretty well assume this is another lie.

Maybe he picked up syphilis from Stormy Daniels and it's making him tell crazy lies, and he's getting treated for it now. :lol:
User avatar
By jimjam
#15051851
“The working-class white man is actually in revolt against taxes, joyless work, the double standards and short memories of professional politicians, hypocrisy and what he considers the debasement of the American dream.
Any politician who leaves that white man out of the political equation, does so at very large risk.”

Pete Hamill
Last edited by jimjam on 30 Nov 2019 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15051854
jimjam wrote:“The working-class white man is actually in revolt against taxes, joyless work, the double standards and short memories of professional politicians, hypocrisy and what he considers the debasement of the American dream.
Any politician who leaves that white man out of the political equation, does so at very large risk.”

Pete Hamell

Image
"I'm going home...."
User avatar
By jimjam
#15051856
The news of the day brings its own form of distraction. “Every day, it’s another stupidity or tragedy, To call Washington D.C. a moral pigsty would be an insult to pigs.”

Pete Hamill
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15051862
jimjam wrote:BTW ….. any news about Donald's unscheduled 2 1/4 hour visit to Walter Reed hospital? I assume the White House has a full hospital setup on site so ………….. :hmm:

The WH claims it was a simple "checkup" but in view of zero credibility for Donald and his shills we can pretty well assume this is another lie.


I love when liberals hyperventilate over shit like this.

The fact that there's a "full hospital setup" at the White House means nothing. Presidents as far back as FDR have used Walter Reed. Reagan had surgery there twice. If there's a "full hospital setup" at the White House, why did Regan go to Walter Reed?

The fact of the matter is that libs have so little chance of actually winning back the White House next year that they're latching on to anything to try to rile up some nonexistent concerns about the man...
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15051865
Potemkin wrote:Image
"I'm going home...."


That's fucking beautiful...
User avatar
By Drlee
#15051870
The news of the day brings its own form of distraction. “Every day, it’s another stupidity or tragedy, To call Washington D.C. a moral pigsty would be an insult to pigs.”

Pete Hamill


Very true.

One of the reasons that the US system is in collapse is the proliferation of national news. We now listen to news that is not designed to tell us all we know nationally in 1/2 hour a day but rather is designed to fill a 12 hour programming cycle. Think about this. Look a the following:

Americans have responded to the proliferation of media choices by increasing their consumption. Looking at the full range—TV, radio, print, mobile devices, computers, video games, movies, recorded music—the average number of hours a typical American spends taking in some form of media rose from 7.4 hours per day in 1980 to 11.8 in 2008.


This is staggering if you think that a person generally works 8 hour a day. It makes these numbers suspect in my mind but for the moment (source is PEW Research) let's assume that even for workers the increase of 5 hours of media holds.

So:

1The consumption of news has fluctuated in recent years. The average American spends 70 minutes a day taking in the news, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (although that number does not include news read on cell phones, iPads, or other digital devices).2Americans have not abandoned traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers); they spend 57 minutes with those sources, roughly the same as in 2000.3 But they spend an additional 13 minutes each day getting news online.


The additional 13 minutes is about the total time that my father spent looking at national news. He watched the evening news on television which, after commercials and puff pieces, probably pretty much summarized the national political news in maybe two thirds of that. Call it 10 minutes of national news. And this 10 minutes was chosen from all topics and had to be (because advertisers demanded it) at least somewhat objective. He read the paper in the AM and watched the 10PM local TV news so his consumption of local news was far more than the national news. Again though, this news was more or less "objective".

Now anyone who watches either Fox News or MSNBC gets a steroidal dose of highly partisan reporting designed specifically to play to a particular agenda and the people who are sympathetic to it. The result? A great many Americans (I would say the majority) who get only a huge dose of highly inflammatory "confirmation bias". I mean look at this thread. We actually commented on the fact that the president spent a few minutes with his doctor. That would not have even been mentioned in the news a mere 30 years ago.

Now let me add a new wrinkle. We can, if we want to, search for our biases. Google decides (they say by some mystical algorythm) what is searchable and important. So I imagined myself intrigued by @blackjack21 comment and searched "picked up syphilis from Stormy Daniels", not mentioning Trump and guess what came up? You guessed it. Tons of stuff about Trump having unprotected sex with two porn stars. Is this news? For someone looking to have their biases confirmed...yes. For the evangelical who can't see herself voting for some "lib'ral" it is not or she declares it "fake news". Should it even be a story? For someone who is getting "all they know" from 70 minutes a day absolutely. But in what detail?

Snip. When I was first voting, if you asked a person what their political preference was the majority would answer "democrat or republican". (The number of independents was about the same then and they might answer that way to avoid a political discussion but then, as now, independents don't really exist. Virtually all of them identify with one party or the other.) Now they are far more likely than then to answer "conservative" rather than republican, democrats still answering "democrat" rather than liberal. (The irony is that both parties have moved hugely to the right from the WWII and boomer generation. And boomers have really moved right from where they were in the 1960's and 70's.)

One more comment. Local politics has dramatically changed. With the current almost entirely national focus on one election (president, our only national office) local political candidates have to purchase all of the time for their message. Care to guess what this does to the character of their message? They are not running on local issues anywhere nearly as much as national ones. So our Arizona Senatorial candidate virtually never speaks of statewide issues yet forwarding our state agenda is what a Senator is supposed to go to Washington to do.

We have two parties now. Republicans who are borderline reactionary, somewhat racist and generally lock-step corporatists and democrats who are pretty much exactly the same as republicans were in the Nixon era.

But look at the previous post. It is peppered with the term "lib. This is a pejorative coined by one guy, Rush Limbaugh, which has caught on. We have no liberal party in the US. None at all. Not even close. And all but a few of our overseas pofo members would confirm this. Even AOC is as her best a Rockefeller Republican politically.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15051873
Drlee wrote:Even AOC is as her best a Rockefeller Republican politically.


Please, do us the favor and explain how...
User avatar
By Drlee
#15051877
@BigSteve Please, do us the favor and explain how...

I don't want to get into the weeds on this particularly opening a debate with people who do not know to what I refer. I commend to you this wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican

Although I do not completely agree with the wiki characterization it is good enough for discussion. All I ask is that you really read it and not just look for shit to extract that feeds your obvious confirmation bias.

For the others here. AOC is a "democratic socialist" with a few off the wall ideas on immigration. Otherwise she is not far off from a Nixon republican. Maybe she could qualify as a New Deal Democrat. Often cited is her call for a 70% tax rate on those who earn over 10 million. This is actually a joke historically. From 1936 until 1980 the top marginal federal tax rate never dropped below 70% and was in the 90%+ range frequently. And this was on people who earned far less than $10 million even adjusted for inflation. In 1921 it was 73%.

Irony of Ironies, AOC sides with republicans in calling for deficit spending even with higher tax rates. The rest of the democrats have called for revenue neutral spending policies requiring cuts or higher taxes to support all new spending. Goldwater would give this one thumbs up. (Two thumbs up would be a balanced federal budget which was a mainstay of the Republican party for a several generations before Trump who embraces deficit spending in spades.)
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15051885
@Drlee wrote:

But look at the previous post. It is peppered with the term "lib. This is a pejorative coined by one guy, Rush Limbaugh, which has caught on. We have no liberal party in the US. None at all. Not even close. And all but a few of our overseas pofo members would confirm this. Even AOC is as her best a Rockefeller Republican politically.


You are right in the sense that the two party majority parties in the USA are not that different. The problem is that most of the posters defending Trump and his ilk don't understand what 'radical' means or a real socialist. They don't understand what types of socialism are practiced in different countries and why it is implemented Drlee. Why does this ignorance happen? Because they believed anything their conservative masters who think for them tell them. And never bother to do what a high schooler doing a book report must do. Verify terminology, and verify historically reliable sources and get economists and people who are experts in Political Science who give TED talks on the terms all the time and sit through it and take notes and LEARN. No, they want to be right. And never know the realities of political science. For me? No credibility is what that implies. Accept you are an ignorant---and you know who you are in this thread because when beaten you cry and whine and put up a fuss because YOU SUCK at work. Be honest now.....you lazy dummies. Lol

Bernie Sanders and AOC are fairly modest in the asks about what needs to happen. Latin American socialists are far far Left. They have a heavy pressure from an enormous group of incredibly poor voters who want heavy changes and FAST. The American Left is a different bird altogether Drlee.

AOC though would love radical change. That she can do it in that congress and that Bernie can do it in that senate ruled by hawkish Clinton machine people is another matter.

The problem is you got dummies who never studied political history of their own nation well or never bothered to figure out why so many Republicans hate socialism so much? Lol. It is because it is about losing money to the government and not controlling it in the process. A horror show for people who want to pay zero taxes to the government and keep billions in their own sphere of influence. But they don't understand that the vast majority of people in the USA are NOT in that tiny fraction of a fraction of category and they should realize they are advocating for things that are patently bad for them.

But? Ignorance is an expensive thing Drlee. What can I say? :p :D

You see Drlee I was taught by my most beloved father, his name was David by the way, I was taught by David this term and then one must go and figure out why someone might be AGAINST the concept.

Socialism
Political ideology
DescriptionSocialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. Wikipedia


That is a dictionary terminology. So? Why would someone be against workers doing self management? You can do social ownership that is public, collective, cooperate or citizen ownership of equity.

Why would this be seen badly by a capitalist person? Because it means giving up control and giving up living off of surplus value. Why would someone want to control a company in which they never are there? Never work with the workers or do much but collect royalties, interests and or profits? Because it means that they can't dictate who is in control and it means they can't live off of workers. The purpose of all of it? The banking system, and everything else is about who needs a loan, who needs money to live and who needs to sell their labor or not eat, not be housed, and fall behind on bills and lose any form of self sustenance. That threat is the driving force for keeping the world of capitalism in many many nations, worried about survival and fear is the engine of capital.

No one who works thinks that working is something that is not meaningful to society. Maybe the ones who hate what they do? But the ones who love their work? Find it meaningful.

How to organize society so that fear is not there and people can concentrate on security and improvement of both the work environment and the product. Again Mondragon is interesting. This Basque country cooperative model is very interesting. Five minutes. Why would a worker decide a shorter work week is better than being laid off permanently? Why invest and become part owner in a big huge varied group of industries and insure no lay off? What is attractive about not having top heavy privately owned CEO big kickback salaries done away with and having more democracy in a work place? Where is the benefit?

That is something people need to deal with.




Many pro capitalists then argue. No, don't trust workers who own their own factory or business. They don't know what they are doing? Why? Because they are not intelligent. They are dumb. They are lower in IQ. Stupid. Etc.

Have you seen an episode of Undercover Boss? The TV show. Where the big wigs try to do the job of the low paid ones? And FAIL and get upset? Their ideas of what working actually implies to many people who work for a living at low wages is not what the top CEO's perceive as what it is.

Working people are very good at what they do when they are constantly threatened with layoffs if they are incompetent.

That is the reality. Making the 40 credits to get your full social security check at retirement age means or implies a bunch of years of proven reliability, dependability and quality productive value. It does. Especially for workers without college educations.




Yes, the lazy homeless and so on.

I used to work with homeless people. I worked with people who were working full time and could not get enough money together for the first and last month's rent and deposit. They can't do it on the reality of the bills and high rents in expensive cities. A lot of them have dependent children. It is not only mental health people and veterans' with PTSD. It is working parents and kids and seniors and a bunch of people.

Colorado Coalition for the Homeless deals with that population all the time. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS>
Last edited by Tainari88 on 30 Nov 2019 18:57, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15051889
Drlee wrote:@BigSteve Please, do us the favor and explain how...

I don't want to get into the weeds on this particularly opening a debate with people who do not know to what I refer. I commend to you this wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican

Although I do not completely agree with the wiki characterization it is good enough for discussion. All I ask is that you really read it and not just look for shit to extract that feeds your obvious confirmation bias.

For the others here. AOC is a "democratic socialist" with a few off the wall ideas on immigration. Otherwise she is not far off from a Nixon republican. Maybe she could qualify as a New Deal Democrat. Often cited is her call for a 70% tax rate on those who earn over 10 million. This is actually a joke historically. From 1936 until 1980 the top marginal federal tax rate never dropped below 70% and was in the 90%+ range frequently. And this was on people who earned far less than $10 million even adjusted for inflation. In 1921 it was 73%.

Irony of Ironies, AOC sides with republicans in calling for deficit spending even with higher tax rates. The rest of the democrats have called for revenue neutral spending policies requiring cuts or higher taxes to support all new spending. Goldwater would give this one thumbs up. (Two thumbs up would be a balanced federal budget which was a mainstay of the Republican party for a several generations before Trump who embraces deficit spending in spades.)


We're just going to disagree.

AOC is in favor of the Green New Deal, which is an economic impossibility, not to mention a physical impossibility.

No Republican, be it a Rockefeller Republican or a Nixon Republican (of which she is neither), would ever support something so stupid...
  • 1
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 47

The cure for that disease is single payer. It's t[…]

What crime? You know nothing about facts you h[…]

Turn, turn, turn

@late Whom are you trying to convince? Trump[…]

Election 2020

Your post does not make any sense at all. Please[…]