Trump Now Blaming Sanders for the Violence

1. 61

   Live to Learnposted 8 years ago

   In a typical example of Trump's refusal to take responsibility for the hatred he is spreading he is now implying Bernie Sanders is responsible for the violence.
   
   http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ … smsnnews11
   
   What is America's fascination with this buffoon?

   replyreport
2. 79

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   
   
   H.R. 347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act
   
   ‘‘(a) Whoever—
   ‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building
   or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
   ‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the
   orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
   engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
   proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so
   that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
   conduct of Government business or official functions;
   ‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt
   the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
   obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted
   building or grounds; or
   ‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence
   against any person or property in any restricted building or
   grounds;
   or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided
   in subsection (b).
   ‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
   ‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
   than 10 years, or both, if— .....
   
   http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2802928
   
   The violent protesters will be indicted and prosecuted. 
   Same for a Trump supporter who was violent. 
   There has been enough blood shed and Trump supporter's lives lost. 
   
   Some people get so emotionally involved they can't see straight. 
   
   The use of terror and violence is not peaceful protest by Bernie Sanders supporters (or Hillary's). They need to be told to stop?
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB3Vq276dJQ

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That's it? Not surprised you'd have no reasonable response to this question. As much as one may dislike one party; putting a complete jack a** in office is not the solution.
      
      Edit. Oh, for goodness sake. I see you added something other than the picture. I guess I'll have to read it and respond.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Gotta go with colorfulone on this one - even if Trump was "inciting to riot" (which he isn't) it is neither reason nor excuse to riot.  Saying that Trump was talking mean about the protesters doesn't excuse that they entered his rally for the express purpose of disrupting it, and it certainly doesn't mean that Trump is responsible for their actions.
         
         But it's funny to see: politician A accuses politician B of wrong doing.  Whereupon politician B accuses politician A of doing it himself.  Pretty predictable - as predictable as followers of "A" putting the blame on "B".  That the real blame lies squarely and solely on a third party (the protesters) doesn't matter to any of them!  (At least until "B" produces a recording of "A" giving instructions to the protesters to do it, but that certainly isn't going to happen!)

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So, a protester shows up and that is reason enough for the supporters to attack them?  Can't agree with you on that one.
            
            And, I'm afraid we do have video footage of Trump condoning the violence.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Bernie's violent supporters:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB3Vq276dJQ

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  OK. We have one video where Trump tells his supporters it is OK to punch someone and he will pay the legal fees. You have another video where Sanders is advocating peaceful protest.
                  
                  I'm surprised you can't see the difference.

                  replyreport
               2. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  You know, Colorfulone, I, too am surprized that you cannot see the difference. Sanders is not directing the protesters at Trump rallies. Sanders has not advocated violence neither overtly or otherwise. Trump is out is of line by suggesting that Bernie needs to get his supporters in line. Getting people 'in line' is what authoritarians do, that is Trump, not Sanders. There is plenty of protesters at Trump rallies that have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. Trump is just lying with lame excuses for not operating at a higher level than the brutality that he encourages at his rallies. Is he going to pay all legal fees for his followers that are involved in thuggery?
                  
                  I do not condone the heckling and harrassment of Trump and his supporters at their rallies. But all this has a general aura that does not reflect favorably upon Trump and his claim to be 'presidential', simply by the way he is handling things.

                  replyreport
            2. 95

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               What does that have to do with Trump?  Whoever throws the first punch is at fault...except that people going to a private event for the express purpose of disrupting the peaceful enjoyment by others HAS to share some blame.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes of course they share some blame. But showing up to protest something is not justification for violence against them. Is that in any way shape or form part of the American spirit? Beat the crap out of those who disagree with you?

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      LOL. Now that I've read it I could have done without wasting my time. My response is still the same.

      replyreport
3. 61

   Live to Learnposted 8 years ago

   https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=vi … ;FORM=VIRE
   
   Trump telling supporters it is ok to punch someone and that he will pay the legal fees. 
   
   Sorry Trump supporters. I have nothing against disagreeing but he is crossing the line and complaining because his behavior and that of his supporters is escalating the violence they have started.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Bernie's supporters were hitting Trump supporter in the head.  Are people not suppose to protect themselves when they are being assaulted?  You are kidding right?   
      
      Tell us you don't believe in self-defense.  It is Scriptural to defend yourself, loved ones, and neighbors....

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Seriously? What has been happening at Trump rallies which has led us to this point? Are we to ignore all of that in order to defend what they are doing now?  I can't.
         
         Also, please stop bringing up scripture. You've a proven track record of not knowing what you are talking about and I'm not going to beat a dead horse by attempting to enlighten you as to how off track you are.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            LOL ... c'mom!
            Trump is not the one acting like a fascist.  His critics are! 
            
            You said you are a follower Jesus Christ ... ok. 
            I'd love to hear how you could enlighten me.     God bless!

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               You can accuse all the people you want of whatever you want. Trump is inciting the violence, condoning the violence and doing absolutely nothing to diffuse the situation.
               
               He thrives on this. And you guys are feeding the frenzy by defending it.
               
               I realize we are all frustrated with our government but this is not good for the American people. Turning on each other and then acting surprised that others respond in kind is ludicrous.

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Well, for one thing saying any of these people are defending themselves and their neighbors ignores the fact that they could just as easily walk away. Then, there would be no need to defend themselves and their neighbors. I don't remember any point where Jesus suggested his followers go to political rallies, argue with opposing political views or violently or peacefully protest.
               
               God has nothing to do with this. Don't drag him into politics. If he wanted to be there, we'd know it.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Violent protest:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GepGO6H … e=youtu.be
                  
                  Luke 22:36  He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." 
                  
                  Those are the words of Jesus saying to arm yourself.  Prepare!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL times about a million. That is not news. That is speculation. Yes there was an altercation. Labeling them all in the way that reporter did is not truthful reporting. I'd label it yellow journalism.
                     
                     Can you not see that all of the coverage of the Trump rallies has led up to this? That shoving protesters, calling them racist names, punching them when they are already being escorted out and those surrounding the people who did this cheering them on.....all of these actions helped to set the stage for that moment. And, it will get worse if Trump doesn't take a leadership role in making it go away.
                     
                     And if he can't take a leadership role in turning this election into matters of substance, not violence, he isn't fit to be president. If any other candidate played into this then they are not fit to be president.
                     
                     Since we are quoting scripture, I remember something about turning the other cheek and if someone demands your shirt, give them your cloak as well. I suppose you think what he meant was, just punch them in the face.

                     replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hmm.  What I heard was Trump telling his supporters to stop anyone intending violence by "knocking the crap" out of them.  And he's right - it is legal to do so and it's even the right thing to do.  You kind of left out the part where it is only to happen to those already starting violence, didn't you?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         No, I didn't leave anything out. I don't remember hearing anything about protesters throwing tomatoes. So, what we have is a guy saying 'If someone looks like they are going to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them' and then the supporters are doing 'knock the crap out of them' without caring whether there was a tomato involved, or not. And Trump saying 'oh gee, well they threw up a finger so it was OK to hit them'

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            "And Trump saying 'oh gee, well they threw up a finger so it was OK to hit them':
            
            I seem to have missed that part, too.  Have to hone up my listening skills, I guess.  I do have to wonder, though, just how sanguine you would be when protester violence erupts in your private events, time after time and from people intending for that violence to happen.  How long would it take until you told your guests to do whatever is necessary to keep them out?  How long till you looked the other way while your guest whaled on a trouble maker that came expressly to make trouble and cause violence? 
            
            'Cause I don't think it would take me long at all.  Just a few instances and security would get an order to thrown them out so hard they bounce, and if it takes a few broken bones to convince them to leave me and my friends alone, so be it.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               So, we now know you would tell supporters to beat up those who disagree with your views. I wouldn't. That's just me.

               replyreport
      2. 79

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         The time and situation is everything under the law.  I wouldn't allow someone to attack my Mom, who I take care of, or myself in our own home.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            No, it is not. The law expects us to respond in a reasonable fashion.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I said,  "The time and situation is everything under the law.  I wouldn't allow someone to attack my Mom, who I take care of, or myself in our own home."
               
               You said, "No, it is not. The law expects us to respond in a reasonable fashion."
               
               Its not okey to protect my 89 year old mother?  or myself?   
               I would have to be totally stupid to listen to that advice.
               The law says I can protect my Mom and myself.   
               The law would expect me to respond effectively at the time in a given situation.
               
               Are you alright?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know colorful. Was your mother a part of this conversation? Is she beating up on protesters at rallies and calling them racist names?

                  replyreport
4. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 8 years ago

   How can Mr. Trump be blamed for the violence - he didn't fund the protestors (someone else did in fact admit to doing so and stressed it would continue,) nor did he make any statements (aside from one) that had any connection to violence.  We see the crowd of protestors made up of people who support breaking the law (illegal immigration,) people who are demanding free stuff (education,) and waving the flags of other nations.  I'm sorry, but as much as people might not like Donald Trump or how he comes across, he isn't the problem - its the demonstrators. 
   
   The very idea that they try to label him as racist, violence inciter, etc. shows you that the establishment will stop at nothing to keep him from being elected and putting an end to the abuses America has been forced to suffer under during the Obama years.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I am not the establishment. I am very anti Washington. I would love it if Trump was a viable alternative. I just can't see how reasonable people can condone the violence at his rallies. These aren't illegal immigrants I've seen them rough up. These aren't people demanding free stuff. I doubt you even know what any of those people were there for.
      
      Yes, remove them from the rally. No, do not attempt to justify punching them when they are already being removed. No, don't defend them when they have bruised a reporter.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         The TRUTH is Trump said things he would have been much better of NOT saying IE - 'punch the guy and I will pay your legal fees' if such is accurate
         AND
         Organized group efforts IE - Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, etc. made deliberate efforts to cause violence and anarchy at more than one rally for the very purpose that the media has used it for... against Trump.
         BUT
         Trump has a right to be at his own rally, and say what he wants to say to those who came to see him.  Groups that oppose him don't have the right to interfere with those there to hear him speak, or to try and keep Trump from speaking, or to bring violence to those gathered, or  to attack Trump.
         
         In my mind it is pretty clear cut... you can protest outside the place where Trump is speaking, but you don't belong inside it trying to shout him down, or trying to attack him, or attack those who support him.
         And its a damned shame that anyone even thinks otherwise, or would try to defend such actions... those people are far more dangerous than Trump could dream of being.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            +1  That's it in a nutshell.  You want to protest, do it outside instead of bringing violence into a private gathering put on by someone else.  You want to holler to a crowd about how terrible Trump is, get your own hall and crowd to do it with.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               You guys are actually scaring me. If this is what America has come to, or has been all along....condoning violence for those we agree with and abhorring it in all others...
               
               What a bunch of hypocrites we are.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Don't blame us for telling you the facts - I'm sorry you didn't get a bunch of Me too answers supporting your beliefs on this thread.  America has always been a violent nation, its just that too many people choose to ignore it if it doesn't suit their cause.  Just look at the city of Chicago and the number of shootings and murders that happen daily - why aren't you raising a loud voice against them - actual deaths occur, but you and the rest of the liberal crowd are stone silent.......

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not a liberal. I am a reasonable, responsible and civilized American. The fact that no one has chirped in doesn't change that fact. One doesn't need validation when attempting to be compassionate.  The only fact I've seen shared by you is that you think might makes right. I disagree.

                     replyreport
         2. 61

            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Expecting Trump and his supporters to be civilized is very dangerous. Sure. That makes sense.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Trump supporters ARE being civilized - what part are you not understanding about the events?  Its the paid Soros protestors bringing the fight to them.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  +!   
                  
                  
                  Great work?

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I suppose everything that led up to that moment. Every piece of footage we've seen of Trump supporters abusing anyone and everyone who places themselves in the general vicinity of a Trump Nazi rally being bullied prior to that moment doesn't count.
                  
                  He's a bully and it appears the fact that his bullying ways are going unchecked is emboldening people to stoop to his level. I realize America plays to the lowest common denominator in politics but I am appalled they they attempt to justify this behavior by pretending that it somehow makes sense. It is exactly what it appears to be.
                  
                  Shameful.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     The only thing I see shameful is your attempt to twist our posts to suit some idea in your head that Trump is evil, and we support that evil, and those that oppose his views go to his rallies to commit violence and disrupt the rally are within their rights.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        That's what she does, twist our posts, and even the truth when presented with facts, or law.   (cognitive dissonance)   She'll shame you, call names,  lol you...   Some people just cannot admit they were wrong, made a mistake....but, look out if you make a mistake!  There's hell to pay.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Funny, that's what I think about you sometimes. And then I think if I listen long enough you might make sense. Then I realize that was a really dumb idea.

                           replyreport
                     2. 61

                        Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't think anyone is evil. I think Trump is doing whatever he thinks it takes to win the election. I am simply saddened by the one sided nature of the support. I think America has become so polarized and so unwilling to fairly assess situations that it is impossible for us to see past it. I truly would like to support Trump but the violence sickens me and I do believe he is reveling in it.

                        replyreport
                  2. 86

                     RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Show us some footage - better yet I'll provide some info
                     
                     Moveon.Org is conducting fundraising activities from the Chicago protests against Donald Trump that prompted the Republican presidential front-runner to cancel a rally there Friday, and promises that more disruptions are on the way.
                     
                     Ilya Sheyman, a failed Illinois contender for Congress and the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, has taken credit for the violence at a cancelled Trump event last night in Chicago. He promised similar violence and disruption will occur at future Trump political events leading up to the election
                     
                     Funny but you don't see Trump supporters out at the Democrat events

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't doubt that the Democrats are doing whatever they can to turn this to their advantage.
                        
                        But, there would be nothing to use if we hadn't seen months of footage of Trump rallies.
                        
                        I don't mean to demonize Trump. I want him to rise above this disgusting phenomena he has started. He can do it. I think he won't do it because he thinks it is what America wants. It lowers my opinion of him every time he attempts to justify it.

                        replyreport
5. 61

   Live to Learnposted 8 years ago

   The violence simply feeds Trumps ego. I am surprised decent people will condone this.

   replyreport
6. 79

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   See!   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry. I simply lost the ability to respect your opinion when you refused to back off from a lie. About 20 lies ago.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         One thing I am not is a liar.    See how you are?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'm fine. I accept that you don't believe you are a liar. I, unfortunately, have read many posts by you where you were consistently proven wrong and refused to stop posting falsehoods. I'm not sure how to categorize that. If you can share the term you would like me to use I will ensure that is the term I use when referencing it.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Excuse me?    That is totally false.  You just don't agree, so I am lying?  That's not how it works...people do have different perspectives....and they aren't lying.  Finding an alternative source of real news instead of the liberal mainstream media would be very helpful.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not sure there is anything to excuse you for. Nor would it be my place to believe I was in a position to be asked to excuse you. I apologize if you took anything I said to mean I did think I was.
                  
                  Edit. You are killing me with this adding stuff to your post after the fact. If you doubt, go back and read through the thread you started about Ben Carson not wanting a Muslim for president. That should enlighten you, if you decide to be honest about whether your posts are honest or not.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Just because we don't agree with someone else's perspective doesn't mean a coin doesn't have a flip side to it.  Cred helps me see another perspective at times and I appreciated it when we have a discussion.  We learn from each other.
                     
                     “We’re looking at rioting and we’re calling that protesting. The cops are the bad guys, the crooks are the victims now."
                     
                     Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr told Sean Hannity that everything in this country seems to be backwards.
                     
                     https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos … 6/?fref=nf
                     
                     I like listening to Clarke, he knows how things are.   You might not like him, but I hope you can at least respect what he has to say as an officer of the law.   It'll give you a different perspective, maybe, other then MSM.  Just a suggestion,...no problem. 
                     
                     ADDED:   I love Dr. Carson...I cannot stand Obama, but I am not lying.   You don't have to take it personal, its not personal toward you.  He is a political figure and is open for criticism like public figures.    If you don't agree, fine, I have no problem with that, but insults are getting real old.  Posting about Obama is an outlet for me.  Some times truth is uncomfortable.  I do not have any respect for the guy. Liberals do though, and that's fine and dandy.  I get that!  But, I have a right to free speech without being harassed by another hubber and repeatedly called a liar.  ---  I have been turning the other cheek, but I'm tired of that.  So, I am asking you to stop it, because I'm fed up with it.  Now, I said that as nice as I can.  The rules of the forum are not hard to follow. If you cannot, I would suggest we do not interact with each other.  I'm drawing a line in the sand.  A truce!  ---  Its like you have been an enemy.  Which is weird, because I normally have fellowship with other Christians. And, you even attack me on my Christianity.  I don't know what your problem is, but it isn't me.  -  The Lord bless you!

                     replyreport
      2. 86

         RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Has a Micro Aggression been committed against you?
         Do you need to call in a "Safe Space" development team?
         Are you suffering from emotional discourse from an overdose of FACTS?
         Using the Liberal - Shutting off anything I don't agree with tactic not getting you the respect you think you're entitled to?
         Repeating the same line over and over not making it fact today?
         
         Well, then you're suffering from a severe case of Liberalitis - if left unchecked this could destroy your entire life and make you extremely ugly and possible turn you into a lesbian feminist - Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Whatshername have been suffering for decades.  I suggest you visit Breitbart.com and force yourself to read the real news of the day until your head is cleared up and you can resume thinking with your own brain - beware, the liberal brainwashers wont give up cranial control that easily, so you'll be tested with offers of free education, free food stamps, and even teased with free daycare and feminine hygiene products.
         
         Please get help soon, before its too late!!!!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Oh gosh. An ugly lesbian feminist. Way to dumb down your retorts. I suppose now I'm supposed to say you are in jeopardy of becoming a closet gay guy who cross dresses?

            replyreport
            1. 86

               RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               When you deem the opinions of others who oppose you as hate speech and lies, they call that Fascism.  Burn the books, silence the opposition, only the Democratic doctrine is right.....You haven't posted a single thing that anyone in the thread agreed with.  I'm tired of hearing you whine, please close the thread before you have an aneurysm or worse.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfollowed - don't bother responding

                  replyreport
               2. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't have a lot of problems with L & L's positions in this forum discussion. In my opinion they are more correct than otherwise.

                  replyreport
               3. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  The funny thing is I'm not a democrat.
                  
                  I used to call myself a compassionate conservative. These days, I suppose open minded and reasonable is all you need to call yourself if you swing Republican but don't have a taste for Trump.
                  
                  What many of you don't realize is if Trump is what he appears to be to those who are scared of him he will do lasting damage to the Republican party that may not be recovered from. That would be OK if we weren't a 2 party system and it would be OK if we weren't in a position where we need some conservative leadership which can reach across the aisle to correct some serious missteps.
                  
                  I don't need to shout, punch, bully those I disagree with because I do think reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable. And reasonable people can find solutions we can all live with and sleep well at night knowing we did the best for everyone. Not just our selfish interests. I also believe I'd rather lose than become such as that which we are seeing at Trump rallies.

                  replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            RJ, I am liberal, and I resemble that remark. Your attacks on progressives are unfounded. From my perspective, it is the conservatives that are the most irrational and through their moral priggishness and hypocrisy, sucking up to the plutocrat at the risk of their own well being, they prove it every day.
            
            Yes, I want the clear choice between Sanders and Trump. But if Trump gets trashed will you live with the will of the people and their selection of Sanders without some sort of rightwing resurrection taking us all back to the past, when everybody knew their place?
            
            I am honest when I say that whatever conservatism has morphed into over the last 30 years, I dislike a great deal.
            
            The references to lesbian feminists are really below the belt and reflects on the anxieties of the Right and why you can never win the presidency in an open, general election. Do you realize that you are sounding just like Trump?

            replyreport
            1. 86

               RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I respect you Cred, so I'm going to top toe with this answer.  Since I live in America, I have the right of free speech and if I choose to say something that is disagreeable, then its my prerogative.  If Bernie Sanders gets elected, America will deal with it the same way we dealt with Obama, Bush, Clinton, and all the other Presidents who failed to live up to their promises.  I am a member of the Republican party, not the conservative movement which has hijacked the party.  I'm for America first and I do not believe in all of the social programs we have in America - the so-called progressive movement has left people in poverty for decades with no way to climb out.  I'm for a robust economy which provides plenty of jobs for citizens.  I'm for halting immigration until we get our problems internally fixed.  Did I hit below the belt with my overly sarcastic montage?  Yes, I did, but it was only after post after post with a closed minded person.  Why do you think Trump wants to take us all to the past because he wants to protect America and her citizens?  What are you worried about, because I'd genuinely like to know.  Are you implying his plans are racist in some way?

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  RJ, this is the sort of dialogue I been wanting to have and I cannot think of anyone else better to have it with than you.
                  
                  I can disagree with you while not engaging in personal insults.
                  
                  So, you are a member of the Republican party? But today, the GOP and the conservative movement is one in the same. But, you have said as much.
                  
                  Well, I believe some of the social programs are necessary, are you against SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc?  If you are, then you are that blast to the past to the 1920's. Do you really think that it was better then? I am for America first too, but obviously that has different meanings for the both of us, yes? Do we return to 19th century tenement houses and piece work factories?
                  
                  What is the Right's solution to poverty, resist minimum wage, beggars on the street reminiscent of Dickens novels?  As, I mentioned before, every major world power provide a minimum wage for its workers. The GOP is against this in principle, why? What is that the rightwinger knows that the rest of the planet does not understand?
                  
                  We are all for a robust economy with more good paying jobs, I just don't believe that we should leave stimulating the economy to Thurston Howell III and his buddies. 
                  
                  Ok, on the immigration as long as the hold applies to EVERYONE and not just some specific group based on irrational and unsubstantiated fears from the Right.
                  
                  You conservative types seem pretty closed minded to me, but it is just a matter of perspective.
                  
                  Why do people, identical in most of the ways that matter see the world from totally different perspectives. It is much like the whether the 'dress' is gold or blue. (Red and Blue?)
                  
                  I am worried about a man that is an authoritarian strongman figure rather than a traditional leader by consensus.
                  
                  I am worried about a man that talks about dumb negotiators and bad deals while he has had no diplomatic experience.
                  
                  I worry about a man that foment the fans of racism with his birther and transcript demands from the President, who does he think that he is?
                  
                  I worry about a man who is long on rhetoric and short on feasible solutions, besides the sheer force of his personality, how does he back up all of his demands in the foreign policy arena?
                  
                  There is more, I will have to research and focus but I am willing to do just that, let's get it all out there.
                  
                  The only idea that I liked was making our allies in the middle east pay for use of American defense forces.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     If I might interject.
                     
                     "Why do people, identical in most of the ways that matter see the world from totally different perspectives."
                     
                     I see your stance in an ever increasing minimum wage and increasing social programs (Not SS and medicare - they are bought and paid for by the recipient) as one answer to the quoted one.  The liberal and conservative (not meaning the radical religious right) both want everybody to lead a fine life, but the price for the country is simply too high.  Providing that utopian dream will destroy the country.
                     
                     So the fiscal conservative looks down the road 10, 20 or 50 years and sees stagnation and decay, as the end result and denies that it is a good idea regardless of the short term results.
                     
                     The fiscal liberal jumps with joy at those short term gains and refuses to consider the long term results.  Today's pleasure is what counts, and the future will take care of itself.  When we have to borrow such massive sums each year to pay for those short term gains, shifting the cost to future generations, it says something.
                     
                     So we have radically different perspectives from people wanting the same thing.  We even see it in the new term for "liberal".  "Progressive".  But "progression" to eventual decay in just a generation or three is not something to be applauded and the conservative recognizes the polispeak for what it is - rhetoric, words, but little else - while the "progressive" is gleeful that we are progressing (for the day) towards eventual utopia.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Wilderness, always open to your participation.
                        
                        Your point is well taken, and you are right about the costs being over the top, that danger is ever present. I don't know where that line needs to be drawn, but looking at the pie charts, there are a lot of sacred cows that are difficult to touch.
                        
                        But the fiscal conservative has always preached gloom and doom when ever the minimum wage has been raised or when another 'socialistic' program has been introduced. These arguments and controversies go back to the thirties, I am glad that the nation did not listen to them then. When the conservatives were howling in the thirties and forties about the long term results, what were they?
                        
                        Being fiscally responsible is not something to ignore, you and other conservatives probably consider the ACA as 'over the top', the straw that broke the camels back.  It is also a matter of priorities, I can find a great deal of waste in DOD, subsidies to industries etc.
                        
                        It is not so much that I disagree with your premise, I am not sure where that 'over the top line' would be crossed and my tolerances and limits and consequent adjustments may well be different from yours.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Where is the doom and gloom of prophesies in the 30's?  Are they that half the nation is now getting charity from the other half?  While it's popular to write that off as "inequality of wealth" being the cause, isn't it just as possible that people won't work to improve themselves if they don't have to?  If the improvement just means that they now have to subsidize instead of being subsidized?  When that improvement in earnings means that there is but a very small improvement in living standards for a big cost in effort (as the subsidies are taken away with increasing earnings), could that be playing a major part in why so many "need" charity just to "survive"?
                           
                           I'm sure that our tolerances are different.  But I saw a meme the other day that compared government deficits to a homeowners by simply lopping off a few zero's, bringing those numbers down to something reasonable for a private household.  If we as individuals spent as our government does, with ever increasing debt for no return, we would be bankrupt in very short order, and it's really hard to see that as merely a difference in tolerances to debt.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              I was looking at realestate in DC in comparison to some states on Zillow.  Seems prices are soaring in DC while things aren't looking good in states.   They are untouchable? 
                              http://www.zillow.com/dc/sold/

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 ??  Real estate prices have varied on a strictly local basis for as long as I remember.  I don't understand your point.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 78

                              Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              After looking at the pie chart, much of that 'half' that receives charity from the other half are the Social Security recipients and Medicare folks, but did you not say these folks are ok?
                              
                              It is always the conservatives that assume that the disparity in wealth and in opportunities come because everybody is lazy, and I don't buy it.
                              
                              I can agree with the last sentence of your first paragraph, in the face of an ever rising cost of living and compensation that is not keeping up with it.
                              
                              Yes, as individuals we don't have the luxury of deficit spending. The concept was invented by REagan, where he and his buddies said at the time that 'deficits did not matter' tax cuts without corresponding cuts in government outlays, that was the formula for disaster. The conservatives are no better, just cuts on the little guy, while the Defense monster grows without rhyme or reason. They are not about cutting spending, just that their spending is going in a different direction.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 That's the part that kills me. I was pro Obama, at the beginning. I assumed all he was talking about attempting to accomplish would be coupled with reductions in budgets in other areas; to offset the new spending. It didn't happen. There are quite a few areas we can look toward to cut. Defense being one of them.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    I think there are certain budgetary monsters that defy people of either party to rein in, the military industrial complex, the military is one of those.
                                    
                                    It is politically difficult to make the spending cuts and no one like rising taxes. I wonder if anyone can really do it, whose ox is going to be gored?
                                    
                                    I was a  military officer. I appreciate the danger  of lack of preparedness from the 2 visits to the Pearl Harbor Memorial. But throwing money at the military without real accountability, as conservatives are apt to do, is not helping.

                                    replyreport
                              2. 95

                                 wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 "It is always the conservatives that assume that the disparity in wealth and in opportunities come because everybody is lazy, and I don't buy it.
                                 
                                 I can agree with the last sentence of your first paragraph, in the face of an ever rising cost of living and compensation that is not keeping up with it."
                                 
                                 That your two paragraphs are both there indicates that I failed to make the point at all, for it has nothing to do with inflation (one result of increasing wages without increasing productivity or value).  Nor does it have to do with being lazy, except that no one in the world will double their work load for an extra $1 per month. 
                                 
                                 It has to do with charity, and the results of getting off of it.  Not being "lazy" doesn't mean that you're willing to work when everything is free (although we used to have that mind set.  The problem is that weaning people off of charity requires that their work load increases exponentially for zero gain; for every dollar they earn we're going to take away a dollar and half in charity.  It's a part of what's broken in the system.
                                 
                                 And, of course, we have lost that "work ethic" to a large degree.  There is a large segment of our population that either works meaningless, nearly valueless jobs simply because charity will make up the rest of what they need.  Take it away and you'll find those people very quickly "learning" how to do productive work; hunger is a great motivator. 
                                 
                                 I guess it's that last word (motivation) that is the problem when unlimited charity is freely available to so many people.  Without motivation, there is no reason to improve one's self, and so they continue to draw charity for their needs.  If that means "lazy" to you, so be it.  Personally, I'd call it "smart" even if it means there is no work ethic left.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    I understand you and it is an interesting point.
                                    
                                    "Take it away and you'll find those people very quickly learning how to do productive work, hunger is a great motivator."
                                    
                                    If you consider 'starving' women and children a desirable outcome...
                                    Circumstances do not always make it possible for people to 'improve' themselves, much of it requires education which again cost money. So, who has the money to pay the tuition? With skyrocketing childcare rates, who pays? The Horatio Alger primers don't work anymore, Wilderness.
                                    
                                    You can have motivation, but is there an practical outlet for it? Nobody wants to work for nothing, I mean, is that not human nature. The employers are more than happy to have starving people compete for substandard wages, as they fall back the 'market' as an excuse for this. How many jobs paying an dollar an hour can you work in a single day because the market says that is all that you are worth?
                                    
                                    Just how much productive work is truly available. A certain amount of unemployment or underemployment is part of the 'system'. Do we jail the people to keep them from stealing from us just to survive?
                                    
                                    Work does not pay for too many.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       "Nobody wants to work for nothing, I mean, is that not human nature."
                                       
                                       And no one does - that's highly illegal and employers that do not pay the wages earned are liable for serious consequences.  Of course, unskilled labor should not expect to buy a Cadillac from that labor, either.  Or were you just exaggerating?
                                       
                                       "The employers are more than happy to have starving people compete for substandard wages"
                                       
                                       When was the last time you saw someone starve to death in the US?  Or is that just another exaggeration?
                                       
                                       "How many jobs paying an dollar an hour can you work in a single day because the market says that is all that you are worth?"
                                       
                                       In this country, none.  Another exaggeration?
                                       
                                       "Just how much productive work is truly available."
                                       
                                       Enough for everyone that will work - the recession is over.  And if we got rid of the illegal aliens, there is MORE than enough. 
                                       
                                       "Do we jail the people to keep them from stealing from us just to survive?"
                                       
                                       Saw a report yesterday where the AG is asking that not paying fines should not result in jail time.  If we don't punish, what do you think the result will be?  If there are no consequences to such actions, whether stealing "for food" or speeding, will shoplifting go through the roof and high rates of speed through school zones become the norm?  I think you know the answer as well as I do.
                                       
                                       "Work does not pay for too many."
                                       
                                       And you hit the nail on the head.  When we give a better life style from collecting charity than from working, why work?  That's the whole point, and it doesn't need exaggerations or false insinuations to make it.  One has to wonder at the need to make such statements, or pick out the very worst cases, to discuss the failures of excessive welfare - is it because more is always better?

                                       report
                                    2. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Malnutrition is not an exaggeration.
                                       
                                       You are the one that talks about the benefits of the open market, a surplus of unskilled labor brings down their value, and without minimum wage it can go far below what is needed to sustain at minimum level. According to your market based ideas, people are only worth what their employer says that they are.
                                       
                                       If the country were the way you envision it, that dollar an hour job would be a possibility. Saner minds keep us from it.
                                       
                                       In Hawaii, the unemployment is high and the fact that the social safety net has almost become a hammock is a realistic adjustment for a society where there simply are not enough jobs for everyone. There are not enough police to put everyone in jail for theft or to disrupt the profitable tourist market. I know that is not the world in 'pull yourself up by your bootstrap, Idaho. But again, Idaho is an aberration in the 'real world'.
                                       
                                       Funny, everybody says that the economy is still not up to par. So what is your alternative?
                                       
                                       Your pull yourself up by your bootstraps is just as unrealistic. I am not supporting welfare without limits or work related requirements. If enough people get frustrated with inequity folks  just might topple the cookie jar and start fresh..... Despite your dismal view, I believe that most people would rather not be on the dole with all of its restrictions, settling for a meager survival at best.
                                       
                                       What you say are exaggerations and false insinuations is just the unreasonable conservative talking.
                                       
                                       And you know how many living wage available jobs there would be if illegal workers were removed?
                                       
                                       I am not advocating anarchy, but there is a chasm of difference between the conservative and liberal and we will just have to see how that plays at the polls next fall

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          If you meant malnutrition then you should have used that instead of starvation.  There is a major difference.
                                          
                                          "without minimum wage it can go far below what is needed to sustain at minimum level."
                                          
                                          It's that "minimum level" where we disagree the most.  I don't find "minimum level" to be a wide screen in every room with satellite reception, a smart phone in every hand and dinner on the town every week.  I DO find walking to work, the necessity for a room mate and an almost total lack of costly entertainment "minimum level".
                                          
                                          "According to your market based ideas, people are only worth what their employer says that they are."
                                          
                                          Sorry - I have consistently said that the worth of a person is incalculable.  That it is the value of what they produce that determines what needs to be paid, and that that value does not come from some idiot committee in DC but from true market value.  What it can be sold for, in other words.  I'll leave it to the liberal mind to decide what a person is worth - as far as I'm concerned that went out with the emancipation proclamation when we could no longer sell people and thus cannot assign a value.
                                          
                                          "But again, Idaho is an aberration in the 'real world'."
                                          
                                          And Hawaii isn't?  Or Washington DC?  Or Texas, with it's oil wells?  Or California? 
                                          
                                          "Funny, everybody says that the economy is still not up to par."
                                          
                                          Guess that depends on what you call "up to par", doesn't it?  It's far better than it was just 5 years ago, and appears to me to be in what might be normally called a small dip rather that a recession that bordered on depression.
                                          
                                          "I believe that most people would rather not be on the dole with all of its restrictions, settling for a meager survival at best. "
                                          
                                          As over 50% (barely) of people support themselves, I'd say you are right.  I'd even add that at least 50% of those on the dole would prefer not to be.  As for the rest - while they'd like a better life (anyone short of a billionaire would), they aren't willing to improve themselves to do it.  With the caveat that those truly unable to work are not included in any category here.
                                          
                                          "What you say are exaggerations and false insinuations is just the unreasonable conservative talking."
                                          
                                          Funny, coming from one that grossly exaggerated almost everything in the post!
                                          
                                          "And you know how many living wage available jobs there would be if illegal workers were removed?"
                                          
                                          With some 12 million illegals in the country, I think it safe to say that removal would provide sufficient jobs for unemployed legal citizens.  Of course, that mythical "living wage" for a family of 10 with 4 disabled among them is a little tough, but I would certainly expect a lot of business to either increase their illegal wages (that neither liberals nor conservatives will put a stop to) or go under.  Whereupon someone else will start a business doing the same thing and paying a legal wage.

                                          report