Trump latest poll is 48% approval. His highest since election.
At what point will liberals give up their protests and obstruction and enjoy the rise?
The economy is finally kicking into high gear.
I noticed gas prices rose by 10 cents in one day near my neighborhood...
A clear sign of increased commerce.
We are respected again on the world stage...
Assad is quaking in his boots.
Illegal immigration is down by 40%.
A new supreme court justice that follows the Constitution.
All we need now is term limits to retire some old House and Senate members.
The answer is never Jack - they'll continue to be partisan, they'll continue to use the media to disrupt, deceive, and destroy if possible anything that comes from outside of their think tanks. The two-Party system continues to show it's ineffectiveness; this post-election cycle and the lingering connections to the prior administration could be the worst in history. Also, we've never had an ex-president try to remain "in charge" or "influential" as Obama is quietly doing behind the scenes - if you disagree, then look deeper into the remaking of the DNC at the hands of a former Obama team member.
Rasmussen Reports is a Republican polling firm that always gives high numbers to Republicans. It's so discredited that its founder recently quit. The 48% rating is no surprise.
His average approval rating amont the other six major national polls is 41%. It recently picked up a bit because he bombed Syria. Otherwise, he has the worst approval rating of any modern President in U.S. history.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -6179.html
The economy has been in high gear for years. The stock market, GDP and employment rate have all been steadily improving since the Great Recession in 2008.
I can't speak for the liberals. The independents I know aren't ready to give up fighting a corrupt and mentally unstable President who got the job with the help of Vladimir Putin.
Really, so you should ask yourself this hypothetical...
What if Trump succeeds where Obama failed.
What will you do then?
Your assertion that the economy has been improving since 2008 is complete farce.
It has been stagnant for the last 8 years due to ACA and regulations...
It only started to move up after the Trump election.
You have been brain washed by the Main street media and have a false impression of who Trump is.
To make my point, if he is as you claim he is, how did he have a successful show on TV for all those years as the star of the Apprentice?
Either he is a successful businessman and a successful self promoter or he is not?
Either he is a racist and misogynist or he is not?
Either he is delusional or he is not?
Which is it?
The problem is, people like RJ keep insisting that 'we'll always be partisan' (I really think you need to look up the definition of that word); and people like you keep insisting that Obama has had no influence - over the past eight years - on the course of current events.
It is a very partisan view that Obama failed and has been 'what's wrong' with this country - without any consideration for the people who voted for him. It seems we were all just flies on a wall from your perspective.
Of course some of the things the Obama Administration put into play are coming to fruitation, and they have been the entire time he was in office - that is only logical; and it is something that can be proven - and has been proven.
That isn't saying that Trump hasn't had an influence, its just that you're not giving Obama the credit he deserves; and you're giving Trump far more credit than he deserves - yet. He hasn't been in office long enough.
You see this latest poll as being an indicator of people's confidence in Trump increasing; but the media that you hate and keep insisting smears him - has indeed been attempting to get him cozily shoved into the cookie-cutter mold for a potus. They glaze over much of what he says and does, saying things like, "Well, at least he didn't cuss Syria out in that rude way of his before he dropped a bomb on them." The shadow government that you're all so afraid of is doing what it can to get things back to 'normal'.
They accomplished their task, now its time to smooth things over to make everything 'become more normal' to us... My only question is: what the hell did they just accomplish that they're all so damn proud of?!!
You saw the polls rise after Trump bombed Syria - why? Because most of us ridiculous, pacifist liberals don't like Syria or any of the other 'terrorist' countries anymore than T-fans do. Show us images of pictures of children in a chemical warfare situation; and we start bawling like Ivanka Trump - whose Daddy just had to do something.
At least he has a heart. That was in question up until now. But, the fact that he was so quick to pull that trigger - despite that he's so suspicious of both 'fake news' and his own intelligence agencies - means that he DOES act on impulses. It could have waited for an investigation.
Acting on impulse isn't necessarily a bad thing - only time will tell, not you insisting that he's doing a good job amidst things like repealing financial regulations that were put into place for safety reasons after all the stupid 2008 recession BS, as well as environmental protection regulations that we ridiculous pacifists valued.
Mix it up, more... read/watch something that doesn't support your perceived status quo. Freedom of Speech in this country has nothing to do with the truth. ALL media is produced to make the most money. Any & every little thing any of them can find to hype in order to cause deeper divisions through emotional upset is what gets published; and Fox is as guilty of that as any other media outlet.
It is not the number of executive orders that matter. It is the type of executive order thst Obama did that was destructive. His order on immigration for exeample was unConstitutional and he knew it and he did it anyway...
The regulation over reach by the EPA is another that killed the coal industry? And he said he wanted to put them out of business and he did...
I can go on but you can give him all the credit you deemed right.
The people knew the score and they voted differently.
It has been stagnant for the last 8 years? The stock market is a non-partisan reflection of both business confidence and success to varying degrees. How much did it rise under Obama?
Your assertion that the economy just started to get better once Trump took office is ridiculous on so many levels it's not even worth discussing. How did his taking office improve the economy and make it great when it was formerly stagnant and bad?
You can neither make a bad economy good in one day nor can you make a good economy bad in one day. In fact, the economy doesn't move like that at all. It's either healthy or not. If you want to argue that Trump made it healthier, go ahead, but your assertions are based on nothing logical or scientific. They're just trolling.
His point was that the indicators all point to an improved economy and there is no realistic denying of that point . Sorry , eight years of disastrous downturn won't happen overnight and yet , it almost is , consumer confidence is always the first sign .
The economy cannot change on a dime. That is very true. So you are making my point. Obama had 8 years to change but it stayed stagnant for a slew of reasons. It is only starting to change when Trump got elected and he signaled a friendlier business ennviromemt inregulations and tax policies.
It is not rocket science.
Business was sitting on tons of cash because they did not want to invest in Obama economy.
Is this chart of the unemployment rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics a complete farce? I can also provide similar charts for GDP and the S&P 500 if you want them. They show the same thing.
Yes, it is a farce. It does not count people who have fallen off the unemployment roll. After 26 weeks, you are no longer counted as unemployed. The other number is more accurate - U6. Also, i does not take into account the labor participation rate, which has dropped to a very low rate. There are 93 million people out of work. Tell me how that compute to 4.6% unemployment?
There are not 93 million "out of work". The link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the total unemployed at 7.2 million.
Please quit using HP to post fake news from Breitbart. Use credible sources of information or don't post at all.
Here is the labor participation rate chart.
The total number of people working is 124.5 million.
The labor participation rate is 63% in 2016.
Total work force = 124.5/.63 = 197 million.
That means 37% are not working or 73 million.
OK, I respect your use of charts and numbers so we can get away from inflammatory comments.
That being said, the labor participation rate is made up of people who are working or actively seeking work. It is declining for a well-known reason, which is Baby Boomer retirements.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pe … crisis.asp
If you want a true historical view of LPR, look at the Fed's chart and not a segment. It used to be quite a bit lower for decades until Baby Boomers hit the job market.
That 73 million is the number of people who are employable but choose not to work -- like my Baby Boomer wife who retired five years ago.
Fair enough. But can you deny that there are millions that do want to work but can't find work or are working only part time and living at home? I know quite a few of millennials who are in that boat. This was never the case in my days 1970-2005. Now we have a whole generation putting their adult lives on hold.
The fake news IS using THIS government provided poliltically calculated statistic , while it does a fine job of promoting the BS factor , it doesn't reflect anything real on the street. It doesn't either take into account younger school aged worker statistics estimated at 60 % unemployment , or those who'e dropped out of the job seeking market all together and out of the unemployment compensation lines , It should cover racial profiles and immigration visa statistics where real numbers would show a far higher percentage of unemployment .
It amazes me that this number provided hardly EVER changes when I know for instance , seasonally adjusted numbers where I live , would show a markedly higher number of construction , tourist and agricultural jobs changing every three or four months . I dropped from unemployment lines in 2007 and started my own business , which wouldn't even be recorded in these statistics .
The government provides fake numbers all the time - That unemployment # is the phoniest one of all.
I do think that it's very interesting that almost every small business owner I know or have known is a Republican. There's no doubt that something needs to be done about the government interfering and crushing people with ridiculous regulations when all they're trying to do is compete in the marketplace.
I'm a small business owner and former Republican who isn't bothered at all by the alleged crushing regulations.
I run into very few of them, never did in my corporate jobs and never hear any complaints from the corporate accountants who are friends of mine.
People who complain the most are the large corporations that jump through hoops to pay only a 2% effective tax rate by creating bogus operations in places like Grand Cayman.
No it doesn't Jack, and you know what, it makes no difference. Why, because there are many reasons why those long-term unemployed who have 1) never looked for work and doesn't care to look, 2) stopped looking for other than employment reasons (like went to school), and 3) stopped looking because they were frustrated but would take a job if offered to them.
So to include these people who may or may not be associated with jobs is very problematic from a statistical point of view. The only people it makes sense to measure are actively looking for work. Only that, or similar measure that can be compared over time.
Keep in mind, it is not necessarily the actual value that is important (other than a measure of "full-employment") but it is the trend that has meaning.
"Your assertion that the economy has been improving since 2008 is complete farce." - No, Jack, your assertion is false unless you can prove this is not an increase
- GDP the end of 2009 (after the Great GOP Recession had bottomed out) $14.4 trillion
- GDP at the end of 2016: $18.6 trillion
That is a 29% increase!! or 3.8% a year (actually, it is a little less than this because I didn't take the time to use constant dollars)
So, tell me again about the economy NOT improving?
The GDP has been averging 2% in all the Obama years. That is the weakest recovery from a recession since the 1940s. You can look it up, It is a well publicized number and tracked every month.
Here is one story -
http://nypost.com/2017/03/30/gdp-growth … n-decades/
When small businessmen tells reporters they are not hiring due to the ACA and healthcare reform, I listen. When people I know lost jobs or are cut from full time to part time job due to ACA, I listen.
When the Fed. Reserve keeps interest rate at near 0% for 10 years, unprecedented in our history, I pay attention. When the national debt rose from 10 trillion to 20 trillion, I blame Obama and the GOP that allowed this deficit spending year after year without a budget.
Don't tell me everything is rosy, because if it was, Hillary would be President today.
When you say "The GDP has been averaging 2% in all the Obama years. That is the weakest recovery from a [major] recession since the 1940s.", you are speaking the truth. But then again not one President ever, in the history of America, ever faced an opposition whose sole purpose in life was to destroy him. As a result, I am surprised he did that good.
Also keep in mind, 2 - 2.75% is the historical growth rate over the long-term. 90% of economist agree that growth above 3% is unsustainable and will ultimately result in a recession; the higher the growth rate is about 3%, the deeper and quicker the next recession.
That is why, prior to the advent of Keynesian economics, you had a Major recessions every 5 to 6 years. After Keynesian economics was accepted there wasn't a major recession until 2008. There were several minor recessions for sure, about one every 8 or 9 years, and that was the idea. The whole point of Keynesian economics is to mitigate wild swings in the economy that America experienced from 1787 to 1929.
The economic system must have a natural cycle of ups and downs to be stable. No economic system can increase all the time. the math just won't workout.
What Keysian policy done is to disturb that natural cycle using Government spending to delay...
It doesn't work and eventually, the system fail much bigger.
That is exactly what has been going on last 10 years...
Instead of letting some banks fail like they suppose to when they are mismanaged the government intervened with bailouts that we tax payers pay for.
It just made the problem worst with the "too big to fail mentality".
The Fed Reserve also played a bad roll by keeping interest rate near zero.
That has the effect of hurting savers and benefitting borrowers of which the US government is the biggest debtor. They artificially forced the rate down so the government can stay afloat and in fact spend more that they don't have.
That is why we have a $20 trillion debt now and that a future crash is almost insured.
Yes, you are correct about the cycles. But some economic systems are much worse than others and history shows the conservative version simply does not work with things get out of kilter. Both the Keynesian and the Classical systems work fine (in fact the same way) when the economy is stable.
It is when the economy becomes unstable that the differences between the two become apparent. The Classical system actually makes instability worse by providing positive feedback to the system making the instability more and more unstable until it crashes in a very big way.
The Keynesian system provides negative feedback which dampens instability which leads to less economic volatility, few recessions, and, when they happen, milder ones. The Great Recession of 2008 is a prime example of what happens when you exchange out a Keynesian system with a Classical one.
If what you say is true, that "What Keysian policy done is to disturb that natural cycle using Government spending to delay. It doesn't work and eventually, the system fail much bigger." -- then please explain the difference between 1787 - 1929 (where you had a "financially-based" depression once every 10 years or so and a major recession every 5 or 6 years - Keynesian didn't exist then, only the economic system you believe in.) and 1937 - 2000 (where minor recessions occurred every 9 years or so, with no major recessions or depressions).
Do you just think that was luck or something to do with fiscal and monetary policy?
"When small businessmen tells reporters they are not hiring due to the ACA and healthcare reform, I listen" -- you may listen because that bounces around in your echo chamber.
If that same reporter asked me or my partners, we would say ACA had no impact what so ever, other than to lower our premiums in one year and keep increases in the following years to a little more than inflation.
Odd - the small businessman I worked for had the premiums increase 25% before implementation and another 50% the next year. I don't think either one qualifies as "lowering our premiums" OR as keeping increases to little more than inflation. Needless to say our insurance was canceled.
Given that Obama's presidency is history and only the 30% on the far-Right think he failed, your hypothetical is sort of pointless. The better question is:
"What if Trump succeeds like Obama did.
What will you do then?"
My answer is . I will be extremely happy. But he has spent two years proving he won't be so I don't have much hope.
My esoteric, you are confusing popularity with success. Obama was a popular president and polls show that. He was not a success in many areas and polls show that too. You can have both. If I am wrong, please expain how Hillary lost being ran as the 3rd term of Obama?
So, Jacklee, I guess Trump will be an example of unpopularity and success? It seem like it would be hard to have the affirmative with one and not have it with the other.
By the way, I did not see conservatives "give up" during the Obama administration, so why do you think that the left is going to entertain the idea now?
Credence, that is a very good question and I will explain it.
When Obama was pushing his big government and big spending..., we conservatives were against it because we knew it would fail.
When his policies both domestic and foreign did not produce the jobs and growth we needed, he and his party was rejected at the polls...
We didn't give up because there were no positive results.
If Obama had succeeded, then we conservatives would have been proven
wrong and we would not have had any success with TEA party candidates...
That is the difference between then and now.
It is still early in the Trump administration. You liberals are perfectly fine criticizing his policies. At some point, his policies will either work or it won't. At that point, is what I am asking about?
It is not hard. I hope you see the difference.
The bottom line is results do count.
Excerpt from Wikipedia: When did the Tea Party begin?
The movement began following Barack Obama's first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give financial aid to bankrupt homeowners.
A major force behind it was Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative political advocacy group founded by businessmen and political activist David H. Koch.
(Bush did this bailout, why did this so called Tea Party not come after him?, I am certainly not a fan of the Kochs')
Did not seem that there was not much time for a "wait and see" attitude from the GOP and Conservatives. Read it again, "immediately after Obama's inauguration?"
Wasn't Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader that said that he was determined to make Obama a "one term President"? Not much of a "wait and see" attitude here.
"When Obama was pushing his big government and big spending..., we conservatives were against it because we knew it would fail."
So when Trump trashes the Government's domestic social compact just to augment an already bloated military budget, progressives are against it because we know that it will fail.
Conservatives and GOP Obstructionists decided to be Obama's adversary effective, January 20, 2009. No "wait and see" here, either.
The GOP and its policies were responsible for the Great Recession, inspite of Conservative excuses to divert the blame. Your man George Bush was at the helm during the period.
It was the worse economic downturn since the 1930's, do you deny that?
Under those circumstances relative to where Mr. Obama started, the economy has improved. I don't know why conservatives insist on spreading the blantant lie, otherwise?
I have no faith in Trump nor the GOP, because they and their policies were responsible for the first mess.
Trump, continuing the failed GOP philosophy, gives me no reason to believe that he will fare better.
For Conservatives, Obama doing better meant that he had to walk on water, programmed to fail.
Yes, you're damned right, I criticize Trump policies based on the explanations which I provided above.
On the contrary, the difference that you are trying to explain is as clear as mud.
Liberals crack me up! YOU are the ones who elected Trump. You offered a proven pathological liar who enabled her husband to be a serial rapist as a candidate. A person who was elected twice to the Senate and has NO significant legislative success on her record. Add that to all her investigations and what did you think would happen? If Hillary is the best you can offer with that record you liberals got EXACTLY what you deserved. The only way you'll change things is to act like adults, which means nothing is going to change for a long time. Did the fact that the Democrats lost over 1,000 elected seats in state legislatures during the past 8 years mean ANYTHING to you? You got Trump elected because of YOUR actions.
Again, liberals, liberals, blah, blah, blah... liberals blah blah...
Not all anti-Trump peeps are liberals. Believe it! In fact, t-fans are the minority because there were so many people within the conservative party with higher standards to NOT vote for such a divisive jerk.
Until you can think with your own brain and stop blaming everything on the one segment of the population you've been TOLD to blame it on - you'll get no respect, nor be taken seriously.
Btw, those of us who are not t-fans could care LESS whether you choose to take us seriously, or not. We are well-aware of what we stand for along-side of what you stand for. Its not that hard to distinguish low standards from mediocre ones, LoL!
You all think you're so smart acting like the *sses you do... Blaming everyone but yourselves for absolutely everything that you think has gone wrong. Your perceptions are out of whack because you can't see anything beyond the garbage you've allowed manipulative people to pour into your brain.
The CIA, FBI, NSA and British intelligence with all of their evidence about Russian interference disagree with you. So do the Koch brothers with their $800 million campaign fund and 1,000+ political operatives.
Gee...all that and Hillary still won the popular vote. Those crazy Russians just don't know how to properly rig an election. Let's face it, Wiki Leaks let the American people see how corrupt Hillary and the Democrats are and if we didn't have such a corrupt media, THEY would have gotten this information. Nobody from the DNC challenged what was published and most of it was verified by other sources. Wow...rigging an election by releasing the hidden truth...now that is something.
I see that not many have actually even made an attempt to answer your original question? "When will liberals give up?" Although, your opening paragraph opened up a can of worms that gave way to various comments. My opinion in regards to your question, Liberals will never give up. Liberals have formed an opinion about President Trump, and it is set in stone.It.s also clear that never before has there been such a divide between Liberals and Conservatives.
I think President Trump will do well, he definitely works hard daily, making every attempt to bring about positive changes. Perhaps liberals will just have to be dragged into a better America. All the repetitive negative comments did not serve liberals well during the campaign, and won't serve them well now. It's time to move on.
The image of an elitist intellectual Pres. Obama is far removed from that of a "roll your sleeves up " kind of leader Trump is . We will see !
Liberals, blah, blah... liberals, blah, blah... Again, anyone with this 'all us or them' mentality has allowed themselves to be brainwashed. Try actually reading what I write. I know the glaring truths are difficult for most of you to get past.
When those of you who claim not to be brainwashed can have a conversation without ingrained right-wing BS (the term liberals is pretty much anyone who doesn't think like you - which is inaccurate), then we'll be able to talk. Until then, you're going to continue to be told how stupid you are to believe so many blatantly-manipulative lies.
"ingrained right-wing BS" Would you be referring to Common sense? "Until then, you're going to continue to be told how stupid you are " I hate to tell you this but we that have a more conservative views pretty much realize that liberals always resort to calling names, and throwing insults in all directions. Please note we don't as a rule insult or call names... You should read your comments, and I think you will see my point. You put down lots of words that mean very little. You seem to feel you have the right to insult without provocation. It's a very unattractive trait.
Many of us actually research a given subject, and are objective, using common sense before commenting. We don't just say something and just because we said it consider it true. We rely on facts, not twisted innuendos. It's always smart to listen to an entire interview or read an entire article, and look for actual quotes, not "a reliable source "...
He works hard? Republicans used golf and travel as the main indicator that President Obama did not work hard, but now those indicators don't apply?
"I hate to tell you this but we that have a more conservative views pretty much realize that liberals always resort to calling names, and throwing insults in all directions. Please note we don't as a rule insult or call names... Many of us actually research a given subject, and are objective, using common sense before commenting."
What a bunch of horse hooey! If that were true, you would not be blaming absolutely everything on 'liberals' - which again, all anti-trump people are not liberals. You really do need to wake the F UP!! It isn't just people with conservative views. Not all conservatives voted for Trump for the same excellent reasons the rest of us didn't: they have MUCH higher standards than people like you.
You voted a man with a mouth like he has into office because his offensive insults impressed you. You ALL wanted the end of PC talk because it bothered you to not be able to say what you meant without getting lectured over it. It really is quite amazing the double-standard t-fans have of themselves.
We are respected again on the world stage - sorry Jackclee, not the case.
Assad didn't look like he was quaking in his boots in this morning's interview - although he should be, but it's Putin he would be afraid of, not Trump. While Putin is on Assad's side, he has nothing to fear from the Americans and he knows it - but if he pisses off Putin, he's in trouble.
America is a laughing stock throughout Europe and Australasia because of your choice of President, and nothing Trump has done so far has changed that view. He's still presented as a dangerous buffoon in all our media.
As of right now, NEVER!!!
Until the RIght is rendered ineffectual in American politics, the struggle will continue.
Credence, that is very telling. You mean to tell me even if people are better off under a Trump administration, with more jobs, better paying jobs, increased security and safer world...you would not give up. Your ideology is showing...
It is fine by me. I am just pointing out the insanity on the left.
When blacks are doing better under a Republican administration, you would reject it based on what?
Blacks doing better under Trump? I doubt it. Prove it and I will be the first to eat crow. But it is like saying that the 'Indians' have got any room to negotiate with the 'Cowboys'.
Right wing politics has never been better for anyone except the well heeled plutocrat.
You didn't understand my question. I said "if". Trump has only been in office less than 3 month.
I can prove that blacks has done worse off under Obama. In fact most people have been worse off. The only people that did well under Obama are wall street bankers and big investors. Can you deny that?
At the moment, the AVERAGE poll numbers for April are:
Job Approval: 38.5% Approval vs 56.1% Disapproval and getting worse (includes Rasmunssen)
Job Approval - Econ: 46.6% Approval vs 42.1% Disapproval and getting worse
Job Approval - Foreign: 40.3% Approval vs 49.3% Disapproval and getting worse
Favorability - 43.5% Approval vs 53.3% Disapproval and no change
"The economy is finally kicking into high gear." - Not True and not one iota of proof. It is still growing at a little less than 2%.
"I noticed gas prices rose by 10 cents in one day near my neighborhood".- and I have seen it go up And down 15 cents, so what?
"A clear sign of increased commerce" - then why did retail sales just decrease?
"We are respected again on the world stage" - in another universe maybe
"Assad is quaking in his boots" - and what makes you think that? The fact he kept bombing the sites he gassed?.
"Illegal immigration is down by 40%" now you have ONE data point. When you have 5, get back to me.
"A new supreme court justice that follows the Constitution" - Since I happen to agree with 15 of 20 decisions of his that I recently read, you may not be very happy with him at all.
"All we need now is term limits to retire some old House and Senate members." - and then you will have a totally inexperienced government, just what the founders DIDN"T want.
My esoteric, by the responses on this forum, I can see why those numbers are the way they are.
I can also see no matter what happens, good or bad, some people will never come around.
Remember though, one should never say never... history are full of people disappointed.
Ahem... Excuse me My Esoteric, but, that was a reasonable and factually valid comment.
... and not fair. We are supposed to be antagonists, not choir buddies.
Fortunately for America, liberals never gave up trying to make this nation a better place (nor should they). You know who you are denigrating by calling them a "liberal"? Here is a short list based on the definition of liberalism, which is:
"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties" - Merriam-Webster
"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. ... According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential.May 29, 2009" - Britannica
John Quincy Adams
Just to name a very few.
Yes, but modern liberalism has been perverted by progressives who believes not in the individual but in the state. They believe cradle to grave entitlements and a global village. They believe in income redistribution by taxing one to give to the other. They don't believe in a standard of behavior but a non judgemental way. Liberalism has good intentions but deliver poor results.
Hello My Esoteric, I was with you all the way up to your inclusion of "Theodore Roosevelt." Why would you include him, and not FDR?
I would think Theodore's 'Bull Moose' perspectives would have knocked him out of the Progressives/Liberals category you are defending. (not that I am contesting your perspective of the need for those Progressive and Liberal efforts)
Not at all GA, Teddy Roosevelt is a strong representative of the "Progressive Era". The last Republican who can be called a "Progressive"
_____________ Excerpt from Heritage.org
With his former Secretary of War William Howard Taft installed in the White House, Roosevelt embarked on an extended African safari followed by a European speaking tour. While abroad, he was dismayed to learn that Taft was not carrying on his legacy as he had hoped. Somewhere along the way, he also read Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life and was much taken with the principles Croly advanced to justify further reform.
In June 1910, the former President returned to the United States, ready to do battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Over the next two years, as he contemplated an unprecedented third run for the presidency, in numerous speeches and essays, TR spelled out what Progressivism might mean for America.
To begin with, it spelled the end of America’s naïve exceptionalism. Where once the United States had prided itself on its superiority to the monarchies of Europe, it was now lagging behind the governments of Western Europe, and especially Germany, in its commitment to social welfare. It was time for America to become part of the larger “world movement” and adopt an expanded conception of the aims of the federal government.
Progressivism also meant moving beyond the “shopworn” protection of individual rights, especially property rights. Because these rights were grounded in a permanent view of human nature as essentially self-interested, Roosevelt concluded that the whole idea of natural rights was scientifically wrong and morally obsolete. Evolution meant that there was no such thing as a fixed human nature; human beings could progress beyond their selfish individualism. Roosevelt’s goal was to move Americans beyond purely “legal” justice toward a higher, more “ethical” justice where citizens thought less about their individual rights and more about rights “developed in duty.”
In his landmark “New Nationalism” speech, delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas, in 1910, TR explained what this meant for property rights. In contrast to the Founders, who believed that the right to property was rooted in the natural right to the fruits of one’s labor, Roosevelt argued that the right to property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and the only way to benefit the community was to redistribute the wealth. As things stood now, some men “possess more than they have earned,” while others “have earned more than they possess.” The task of government was not simply to enforce the rule of law, but to bring about “social justice” through redistribution. Roosevelt was surely correct when he observed that the “New Nationalism” implied “a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had.”
At the same time, Roosevelt denied that his reforms were meant to bring about socialism. In essays written during the closing days of his presidency, he had explained where he could and could not work with the socialists. But what he meant by socialism was the Marxist variety, with its calls for violent revolution, the abolition of private property, and the withering away of the state. As the essays make clear, he was not the least troubled by a peaceful, gradual transition to democratic socialism with its promise of social justice. In fact, he considered proponents of these reforms nothing more than “advanced” liberals.
While the “New Nationalism” initially called for the expansion of the federal government’s regulatory powers to deal with the problems of industrial capitalism, Roosevelt’s ideas continued to evolve as the 1912 election approached. In the West, insurgents led by Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin had promoted a program of direct democratic reforms, including the direct election of Senators and adoption of the initiative, referendum, and recall as ways to make public officials more accountable to the people.
A man, rather than excluded from the definition "Progressive", is a man whose views are right in line with the concept.
I think that the omission of FDR was erroneous.
What cockamamie definitions! They must have come directly from the Handbook for American Liberals.
When one of the priorities and primary goals of liberal politics is to take possessions and wealth from a small portion of the population the words "autonomy", "civil liberty" and even "political liberty" don't have much meaning. And certainly "living freely" or "fully developing their potential" doesn't fit anything at all! One does not "fully develop their potential" when 80% or more of their production is taken from them with nothing given in return.
I read an interesting article a while ago saying "Be careful what you wish for."
Liberals have labelled Trump as the next Hitler, evil, disgusting, etc. Admitting to being wrong to that would be painful and humiliating. He could turn out to be the best President the USA has ever seen and they still won't climb down and admit they're wrong. I'm sure most of them are kind of hoping he WILL turn out to be evil (they demonise everything he does anyway) just to be proven right. They've really dug themselves into a hole.
So, after reading the question, I'll try to answer that, and that only.
I certainly hope liberals never give up. America is all about expressing and seeking to understand different points of view on any given topic.
I just wish all sides would show some respect for other points of view when another side expresses their own point of view.
It would not be American to ask them to give up. That said, I think it would be fair to ask all to grow up.
Fitnezz, perhaps you're missing the premise of my question.
Of course, we all have a right to disagree...
The premise is when or at what point do they give up protesting?
Assume, and that is a big assume, we are improving on some fronts, such as jobs and economy...
And the war on terror is making a dent on ISIS, and we are able to stop N. Korea with negotiations...from developing and testing nuclear ballistic missiles...
Civil rights are not being violated as you liberals claim...
What is the watershed moment?
It did happen in the 1980s under President Reagan.
I guess what I am trying to get at, is what will placate some on the liberal front?
Or is nothing going to do it.
They will go down in flames with the liberal progressive ship if you will...
Is that the end goal? Bet everything and the farm on a failed Trump presidency.
Gosh, we can do this every morning, Jack... I thought this person attempted to answer your question pretty well, but you actually want people to let you know when liberals will give up? Its a stupid question to start with. You know damn well that we liberals, conservatives, moderates & independents aren't going to give up - anymore than you intend to give up. At least we are aware of our enemy's tactics, while you are apparently ignorant.
There will be no giving up because Trump won't, can't and isn't 'fixing' anything. Why? Because he's bucking 2/3 of the country who don't TRUST him for so many obvious reasons that you and his supporters are unable to analyze or comprehend. He could do things to earn it like releasing his tax reforms while showing that there is nothing wrong with them. He could remove himself from his investement interests by putting them into a blind trust. He doesn't do those things. Why?
I'm so sorry you don't understand why that is SUCH a good question. Your incessant state of denial is exactly where the shadow government put you and where it wants you to STAY.
You look like you are Asian or Polynesian, Jack... Do things like this not bother you?
"You know damn well that we liberals, conservatives, moderates & independents aren't going to give up"
Agree, minus the silly memes. And it is a good part of why our legislature is so deadlocked - not only has partisanship become the order of the day, but if we don't get our way we'll go around through the back door, or try to chip slowly at the "problem". Whether it is defunding Planned Parenthood or banning so-called "assault weapons" this slow chipping is abhorrent. Either a concept is acceptable and good or it is not: to accomplish the same thing via small, emotion laded steps, is not in the best interests of anyone, let alone an entire country.
There comes a time when the proper actions it to accept that we can't have our way, sit back and accept it. Wait a decade and try again, when our culture may have changed.
I think most of us can agree that we need term limits. The Trump Administration isn't going to see that happen all of a sudden, but if we push for it for the next 4 to 8 years...it could happen within the next elected president.
I tend to agree - most Americans would like to see congressional term limits. Except for their own very powerful representation, the one that "brings home the bacon" each year, in money collected from residents in other states. And, of course, is willing to pander to their own idiosyncracies such as those in abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. rather than look at the country as a whole.
Plus, of course, those politicians whose jobs depend on continued residency on the Hill. Idaho voted a few years ago for term limits in their state legislature, but it took only days to reverse the new law when the state congress re-convened in the new year as it was only a law, not a constitutional amendment.
I don't see much changing anytime in the near future unless the way people vote changes. Historically, when one side or the other became overbearing and harmful, the people voted in the other side. Voting was such that Congress was packed full of right-leaning moderates and left-leaning moderates (albeit it was also well populated by conservative racist. Democrat and Republican) that understood how the founders wanted the legislature to work.
Now, the center, who knew how to govern, have been replaced by extremists who don't. Right now the right-wing extremists outnumber the left-wing extremist. The only way I see is for Congress to abolish gerrymandering and most, if not all states start using California's, Louisiana's, and apparently Georgia's way of voting - some version of jungle primaries where the top two winners compete in the November elections regardless of which Party they belong to.
JackieLee, you are correct, I totally missed your intent to ask the question: "when or at what point do they give up protesting?", in favor of answering the question you asked, which was: "When will liberals give up?
From Robert Reich:
1. Trump told you NATO was “obsolete,” claiming it doesn’t fight terrorism. You bought it. Now he says NATO is “no longer obsolete.”
2. He told you he’d “bring down drug prices” by making deals with drug companies. You bought it. Now the White House says that promise is “inoperative.”
3. He said he’d close “special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors but unfair to American workers." You bought it. Then he picked a Wall Street financier Stephen Schwarzman to run his strategic and policy forum, who compares closing those loopholes to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
4. He said that on Day One he’d label China a “currency manipulator.” You bought it. Then he met with China’s president and declared "China is not a currency manipulator."
5. He said he’d “renegotiate NAFTA” on Day One. You bought it. He hasn't.
6. He said he wouldn’t bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria.
7. He said he’d build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now his secretary of homeland security says “It’s unlikely that we will build a wall.”
8. He said he’d clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses, along with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they recently worked for.
9. He said he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “wonderful.” You bought it. Then he didn’t.
10. He said he’d use his business experience to whip the White House into shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional, back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge.
11. He said he’d release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn’t, and says he never will.
12. He said he’d divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and copyright rights, travels to promote his properties at taxpayer expense, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has more conflicts of interest than can even be counted.
13. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration.
14. He said he’d surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in charge of education; Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in charge of voting rights; Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in charge of fair housing; Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.
10. He said he’d faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI’s investigation into collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election.
15. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals did. You bought it. Then he green lighted a disastrous raid in Yemen- even though his generals said it would be a terrible idea. This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no useful intel was gained.
16. He called Barack Obama “the vacationer-in-Chief” and accused him of playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer’s dime, not when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the world on Trump business.
17. He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times “fake news” and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars.
Wow, that is quite a list. Very impressive. Trump did appoint some originalist to the Supreme Court as he promised.
He promised to bring jobs back to the US, and he negotiated with quite a few companies and they are hiring again and moving plants back...
He promised to roll back regulations and he did with his executive orders...
He promised to help the coal industry and cut back the EPA over reach and he did.
He promosed to reduce government and he did by freezing federal hiring...
So you see, it is not a one way picture.
He did some good in the first 100 days but many more to go.
The most important accomplishment is consumer confidence. Once people have an optimistic view of our future, all things are possible. It transcends all other aspects.
Too bad your TDS prevent you from feeling the same.
It is still very early, things can go either way, but given Trump's history of winning, I would not bet against him.
It is rare that something is a one-sided picture but, like in this case, it can get extremely lopsided. In any case, Reich's point is that Trump told you many, many, many things, you bought into them, and then he reversed himself.
"Wow, that is quite a list. Very impressive. Trump did appoint some originalist to the Supreme Court as he promised". - I will give you one originalist shoved down America's throat by McConnell after he spit in the founders' faces by ignoring the Intent of the Constitution and refused to process Marrick Garland, an equally qualified nominee
"He promised to bring jobs back to the US, and he negotiated with quite a few companies and they are hiring again and moving plants back..."- He has negotiated with no company to start hiring again and he has bullied and threatened other companies with financial ruin to stop them from opening plants in Mexico and in virtually EVERY case where Trump attempts to take credit (or it was given to him for political reasons) plans had Already Been in Place to do what he is taking credit for well before he became President.
"He promised to roll back regulations and he did with his executive orders..." - I must give you that one
"He promised to help the coal industry and cut back the EPA over reach and he did." - He hasn't brought back one coal job yet and in any case, many former miners Don't Want to go back to the mines, they Want training (which is available now unless Trump cancels it) to do other jobs
"He promosed to reduce government and he did by freezing federal hiring..." - yes, he copied Clinton (which ended up in costing the tax paper hundreds of million more dollars by using expensive private workers to do the jobs left unfilled.) and Bush after him and Obama after him. So it looks like Trump is just carrying on a tradition.
You are missing my point. No one expected to get everything from Trump.
From the very beginning, in the primaries, thst has been his MO...
He say things that are extreme, gets media attention, take up all the oxygen and the media goes crazy...
He is not crazy or extreme. You can tell by the people he appointed to his cabinet... all successful people in their fields, unlike President Obama who had on 28% of his cabinet who had worked in the private sector...
He is pragmatic and knows how to negotiate and make deals.
Lastly, he does not telegraph his intentions especially when it comes to military actions. That is why he will defeat ISIS where Obama couldn't...
You don't have to buy any of this.
Let the events play out. We will see at the end of his first term, if he succeeds, he will be reelected, if he fails, we will get someone else.
It is unfortunate that all politicians lie at some point. That is how the game is played. Did Obama lied? did Clinton lied?
Was there something factually inaccurate in that list? Instead of dealing with the list, you seem to be attacking the messenger, Jack.
And consumer confidence is not an accomplishment. You realize, of course, that consumer confidence was virtually identical to what it is now a year ago, when Obama was President and most people thought he would be succeeded by Hillary Clinton.
This is from 2013:
Confidence in the U.S. jumped eight points to an index of 98 from the same period 12 months ago, while sentiment in Europe rose three points to 74, according to Nielsen’s latest Global Survey of Consumer Confidence. Consumer confidence in the U.S. was the highest it’s been in six years (since Q3 2007) and neared pre-recession levels, and the rise in Europe was the biggest quarter-on-quarter increase since Q1 2010—it was also an improvement from three consecutive quarters where confidence was fixed at 71.
Once again, your "facts" don't back up your conclusions.
My personal assessment and experince is documented here -
It is just one person's view but if others have similar reactions, that is how consumer sentiment goes.
I also see constrution cranes everywhere, restaurants packed even on week nights, and housing prices on the rise as interest rates start to go up.
I also see gas prices jumping up by 10 cent in one week...
These are all signs of a recovering economy.
The stock market is a different story. People point to the steady rise of the market since the recession of 2008. It is true it has gone up year after year in the Obama years. However, it is a bubble in the making. The reason the market was up is not due to increased commerce. It was artifically created by the low interest rate set by the Federal Reserve. For most savers, there was no place to invest your money except in the market. Look at the banks, they were paying 0.1% interest for deposits.
You don't have to believe anything I say.
I am just trying to look out for the small investor.
My advice is be careful and don't panic. When a correction comes, don't sell.
Keep some cash on hand, approx. 2 years of personal expenses.
The market will recover at some point.
I also published a few hubs on investing...
You can check it out at my home page.
Robert Reich has been wrong most of his career.
In recent days, he has gone over the deep end with the folowing -
"In February 2017, Reich stated that he wouldn't rule out that left-wing violence at UC Berkeley against Donald Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos was a right-wing false flag for Trump to strip universities of federal funding. This idea was described as "phantasmagorical" by The Washington Post."
So, the fascist tactics of the left, is a master plan of the right? What is he smoking?
Crankalicious, hope you don't mind, but I used your comment regarding Reich's point in my hub https://hubpages.com/politics/Donald-Trump-the-Disaster
Too funny. I had to post. This was what Obama did too, right? Played golf?
Liberals will give up when people like you stop finding people like me to kick when they're feeling down. What kind of person sees someone's post about feeling down due to grief from multiple deaths of loved ones and decides to go see what that person has published lately so they can go bash it?
Kylyssa, If I did that, I am sorry. It was not my intent. If anything, I was trying to lead you to a better way. You can reject my message but that is your free will to choose.
The difference between people of faith and others, comes down to who do you think is in control.
In my case, I believe I have free will and I control part of life which I can effect, and not the rest. Those, I defer to God or a higher power to deal with. It relieves me of a burden.
For atheists, you have no luxury. Your lack of belief, means you must have total control. If things does not go well in your life, you have no one to rely or pray to. You are stuck with that predicament.
I do hope you find some relief.
Religion and faith, as I said many times, cannot be forced. Either you belief or you don't.
To each his own.
I kept your words up. I did not, however, publish the comment with your self-promotion link to your hub in it. I get that you can't see me as a person and your comments on my hub show it so others can see it, too.
I get it. You saw my post about being depressed and decided to try to get some views and visits to your hub out of getting me more upset. You also lied about knowing about the hub, because I sent you an email before I published it, pointing out that you had a few grammatical errors in your hub you might wish to repair before my hub sent views to yours. You even followed through and touched a few things up.
There's no way you actually believe defending your God's supposed choice of slaveholders to write the Constitution would be something that would help me move in a better direction. Reminding me that you believe that there are human beings lesser than yourself by accident of birth isn't helping anything. Why choose to make your religion look evil and lacking in empathy when you are evangelizing to people in their times of loss? Why not go for the positives, instead?
It appears there is nothing I could say that will help you. You choose to hear what you want to hear and kept to your own bias against me and my beliefs. That is fine, it is a free country. You don't have to do anything or belief anything that I suggest.
I have nothing to hide or to apologize for. My beliefs are based on years of studying our history and world history. I've travelled all over the world as part of job at IBM and now retired and vacationing...
I've had a successful career and done well in my life and my family. My wisedom is given to the millennials who, I see, are struggling under the past few years. It is a shame that they could not have the same opportunity afforded me. Peace.
"I have nothing to hide or to apologize for. My beliefs are based on years of studying our history and world history. I've travelled all over the world as part of job at IBM and now retired and vacationing..."
I hear you, Jacklee, and I am American, Red,White and Blue through and through, without having come from elsewhere.
My beliefs are based on years of studying our history in a scholarly setting with a BA degree as part of that. I have travelled over much of the globe as part of my military and federal service background. I, too, am retired and now drink deeply of the sweet nectar of life. You have nothing to apologize for, except recognizing that your views are not held universally, and those that do not hold them are no less for it. That is something that more conservatives need to learn.
No, my bias is against your actions.
Lying and link spamming are not any part of any Christian belief system I've ever heard of. None of my Christian loved ones would agree that they are.
Of course you don't feel the need to feel ashamed for anything, because you believe you are special, that the rules of human decency, such as leaving people alone during their times of grief, just don't apply to you.
Bragging about what you have doesn't give your beliefs any special weight. People who aren't impressed by money don't care if you bought a bunch of trips and a Conservative Christian university education. Most people believe too deeply in taking care of each other to be impressed by any source absent of empathy, no matter how well he's done financially. That includes Christians, too. Most Christians aren't impressed by what you've been able to buy for yourself in life, but what you've done and been, instead.
I love my country, otherwise I wouldn't give a damn if people were going to die with the changes to healthcare or in the two wars Trump has started. I wouldn't care about how our police have been militarized and have corporate owners or how the city of Flint was invaded and taken over by Republican corporate managers who caused the poisoning of hundreds of thousands of people.
Your love of everything you love is too conditional to be the Christian love I've seen. Christian love doesn't require money, race, gender, or a specific belief system to be expressed. It doesn't attack or kick people when they're down. It doesn't brag about its accomplishments as if they equal higher wisdom.
There is no truth in any of this whatsoever. Thank God, President Trump is in charge now and has granted $100 million to the Flint water crisis, which is another Democrat scandal. Flint has been under Democratic control for a very long time, too long. Obama didn't lift a finger to help those residents and sure could have. And, where the hell was Congress?
People are dying now because they cannot afford the high deductibles on ObamaCare. That needs to end so people can get the care they need to live. I am one of them.
Trump has not started any wars.
"List of wars involving the United States"
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w … ted_States
The police have been being militarized since 9/11, Bush, especially so under Obama.
Boy oh boy! Who is lying?
JACKCLEE does have higher wisdom...everyone should seek it and apply it. Having wisdom helps people to better themselves and those around them in many ways.
(accuser of the brethren: Revelation 12:10)
Yes, Flint was under democratic control then it was taken over and non-elected Republicans put in charge. Those Republicans, the ones who chose a different water source and stopped putting in the additives are responsible for the deaths, cancers, contagious diseases, and neurological disorders. Yes, Obama should have taken power away from the Republican administrators and restored a healthy water supply to Flint as soon as their crimes against humanity were discovered. Lead is a neurotoxin, a carcinogen, and a teratogen. It may also be a mutagen. Hundreds of thousands of people are affected and people will be affected for generations to come because the upstanding conservatives who you wanted in charge decided over a hundred thousand people's lives weren't worth $100/day in additives.
Trump declared war against Native Americans by using our military and police to attack them as they stood defending their water. Admittedly, Obama did so first, but he backed down on it and decided to honor treaties with their government. Yes, Obama should have acted sooner and shut it down before the first shot was fired by US troops. Just because you don't recognize them as people or as a sovereign nation, it doesn't make it so.
Dropping bombs on a country is a declaration of war whether semantics say it is or is not. Japan declared war on the US during WWII by dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor. We didn't wait for the paperwork.
Just because these things are done with actions rather than words, it doesn't make the organized killing of people via the military any less a war.
Yes, Jacklee does linkspam on hubs. If I cared enough, I'd put up screenshots of all the dropped links, but you'd just say I created them in PhotoShop anyway, so what's the point?
People are not dying due to high deductibles. If you have insurance, you can get the care, you just have to go into debt forever for it. Many of us will die when your prophet President Trump removes the pre-existing condition protections, because insurance will be able to just dump us. Then, we won't be able to get past the emergency room in any hospital, just like it was before Romneycare. I will likely be one of them as will likely everyone you know who has a cancer relapse. I'm sure that will please you.
I don't know what sources you use for the Flint water crisis, but they aren't the same as I have used. So we won't agree. The main thing is that "Daddy Trump" is making sure it is corrected. I really feel for the people there, I used to live there a long time ago.
Trump didn't declare war against Native Americans, neither did Obama.
"Just because you don't recognize them as people or as a sovereign nation, it doesn't make it so."
You have no idea what you are talking about. I have many friends since high school who are Native American, and have gained even more through life's journey. Do you just say ignorant things to insult, or what?
Did you ever notice before the involvement of the US Military in Syria or Afghanistan? I have no idea how many thousands of bombs have been dropped, but I could look it up. Most people in this world were glad ISIS leaders were killed recently, about one hundred. They are the enemy.
"Yes, Jacklee does linkspam on hubs. If I cared enough, I'd put up screenshots of all the dropped links, but you'd just say I created them in PhotoShop anyway, so what's the point?"
No wrong again, I wouldn't say that. If Jacklee posts a link to a hub that is on topic, its ok with HubPages evidently...so why would I care, I don't have to go there and won't be forced to read it. I'm free!
I don't care for your perspective on the present healthcare problem and just go into debt forever attitude. ObamaIDon'tCare will be replaced with something better eventually.
Seriously, just dying is better than being able to get the care you need at the price of permanent debt? Of course you don't care about the healthcare opinion of someone likely to die under the healthcare laws you want. You know I'm going to be against just waiting to die so I can't possibly be on your side of the issue. Anyone likely to die from his policies is unlikely to love him as passionately as you do. I'm for a single payer system and think Obama betrayed the American people by bringing the insurance companies, with their corporate death panels, to the negotiation table instead of the unemployment line. It's far, far cheaper and results in better outcomes for everybody.
Try googling Flint Michigan. There's no point in even discussing the issue if you were not aware that Flint has not been a democracy with a democratically elected government for years.
How does whether a bombing is right or wrong affect whether or not it's a declaration of war? Are we ready to be bombed on American soil without Congress even getting a say?
If you think Native Americans are people, then why haven't you noticed the war Trump declared on them in using US military and police to desecrate their water sources and sacred spaces, shoot them with rubber bullets, blind their women, and black out areas of cell coverage to keep it secret? How are you OK with going to war with Native Americans? Are we ready to face what Natives did the last time the US tried to wipe them out without Congress even getting a say? Don't you understand how dangerous it is to attack a country inside your own country? And how stupid to risk the water supply in the first place? What do you drink if there's no water, anyway?
Whatever. You're just here to enjoy a little carrion, to kick someone you see as your enemy a bit.
Jacklee came to one of my hubs to cause more emotional distress in the hopes of "helping me" because I posted a thread about my feelings of grief overwhelming my ability to take pleasure in anything and he hoped to get a few views out of it. So I came to out him on his pet thread. It wasn't the right thing to do, but neither was deciding to kick me when I'm down or to be so delighted by my pain. I'm done here. I'm just about done everywhere. I don't even have to do anything about it, just sit here and wait for my health insurance to disappear and then a few more months for my meds to run out. It's what you pray for. So why aren't you just content that people like me will die off, just like you want? Why do you have to grind it in? Does it give you more pleasure for us to be aware you're happy about it?
I just want to be left alone. Reaching out here, in this pit of vipers, was the dumbest thing I ever could have done. I should have known someone here would find a way to use it against me, just like someone has every single time I've ever asked for help here. I should have known better than to ask help with something important, like living, here of all places. Who would Jesus try to hound to death when someone confessed to Him they were in pain?
Pit of vipers? I wish that something you said made some sense to me, Kylyssa. I'm not waiting to die, I'm not passionately in love with the President, on and on again you go...
I'm going to try to understand. Are you out of some meds that are needed for social interactions, or is the pain from grief that great that you are incoherent? I'm grasping at straws. Obviously something isn't right. Maybe you need to make an appointment with your doctor.
You take care of yourself, please. I hope you feel better.
Suggesting someone see a doctor when they disagree with you is called gaslighting.
I'm not really that incoherent, seeing as I've been running a fever on and off for over 103 for three days and I've been in constant, severe physical pain from what that does to my lupus. I'm also emotionally distressed over the deaths of four human beings and a cat I inherited from one of them. Additionally, I'm dealing with an online stalker who just won't leave me alone anywhere he can identify me and he hasn't figured out my HubPages handle yet. I posted about my suffering in this forum because of that. It was just a final straw that Jacklee chose to try to profit from my pain by starting an argument on one of my hubs instead of just posting some encouraging words, or even combative ones on that thread itself or, imagine this, just not doing anything.
It wasn't really fair to call this whole forum a pit of vipers because almost everyone has responded kindly to the thread I posted. It was only Jacklee who decided to do some self-promotion by stirring up an argument with someone deep in grief. But you support him in it. And sometimes, people react badly when they are physically suffering, grieving, and being emotionally attacked online. Hubpages was literally the last place I felt safe posting and, in truth, it was, because Jacklee only chose to be a bit rude and gauche rather than threatening like my stalker.
No, you are not waiting to die because you don't have a preexisting condition and thus won't suffer when everyone who does loses coverage. But you want me to just sit here and wait for your President's policies to kill me because people like you tell me to shut up again and again. This whole thread is literally asking why people like me haven't just shut up, haven't given up. It's literally questioning why we don't just let the policies that will literally kill some of us just go through without saying anything. The person who started the thread is the person who saw my suffering and decided to add to it by posting comment after comment on my hub claiming my beliefs are responsible for all the suffering in America and lying while pretending not to get my points.
Jacklee chose to use my suffering to get a few views. And I'm the one with something so wrong with me you want me to shut up and get medicated? There's no doctor in the world who can give me a pill that will make people stop harassing me. It's also impossible to get more pain medication for breakthrough pain so physical suffering is the only option. I don't need to see a doctor because it's normal to get upset when someone harasses you and normal to blow up when they do it in a calculating manner while you are physically and emotionally suffering.
Seriously, look up what happened and continues to happen at Standing Rock and read up on Flint, Michigan if you are brave enough to question your own deeply held beliefs abut them. And read the healthcare bills so you can see what they really are. And please, try to see that the people around you suffering are real people, not targets for you to use for shooting practice.
Here is one of your hubs on your AS.
"My Asperger Syndrome requires me to put a lot of work into basic social interactions"
So, there you go. I won't take anything personally.
Take care! I hope you feel better.
Kylyssa, If you google the MBTI ESTJ http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html and couple that with my belief that she is a high scoring Right-wing Authoritarian follower https://hubpages.com/politics/An-Analys … lower-RWA, you will gain an understanding of how ColorfulOne (and those who think like her) mind works.
As to single-payer and blaming Obama for not backing it. Like me, I don't think single-payer is right for America. We, as a people, have never in our history philosophically leaned in that direction; the idea of it makes most Americans queasy from my observations. But set that view aside, you should be thanking Obama for what he was able to cobble together. Single-payer was not, nor ever will be IMO, in the cards ... plain and simple it was not going to happen. By beating on Obama for getting "something good" through Congress (the Ds by themselves would not have approved single-payer because too many Ds didn't like the idea), you play into the conservative's hands. In effect, by blaming Obama for not getting single-payer is equivalent to saying you wish he had done nothing.
For virtually every poll that the GOP points to showing "Americans" didn't like Obamacare, half of those saying "No" were those who wanted a single-payer. In fact, throughout ACA's history, the polling actually showed that those who didn't want anything like Obamacare were a distinct minority. The majority of those polled thought that ACA was good, more or less the way it was, as well as those who didn't think ACA went far enough (and therefor check the box "Don't like ACA because it didn't go far enough", which registers as a 'NO' in the top line). Bottom line it looked like the majority of Americans wish Obamacare never happened. That perception has led to what is happening today in Congress.
I am old and belong to the single-payer that does exist Medicare as well as Tricare. Consequently, I don't really have a dog in this fight other than to put forward what I think is right. Do I wish that Medicare be more like ACA, no I don't. But the reason is not that I think it is better, but rather it is simply fact people (not just Americans) do not plan (or more likely cannot plan) for their future (many can't see that far ahead, even more don't have the money) and leave society to pay for medical care in their old age. A single-payer (which is still a competition between providers) takes care of that problem at an affordable price (1.45% of gross income). I think that rate ought to be applied to all income, not just earned but capital gains, etc as well.
'JACKCLEE does have higher wisdom...everyone should seek it and apply it. Having wisdom helps people to better themselves and those around them in many ways.'
Really? that depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Just because progressive folks might take issue with Jacklee's point of view does not make them any less valid. The people that claimed that they have God "locked up" are the first ones that I suspect as being frauds and hypocrites. I guess that is my point of view. A little less lip and more living and setting the example. And lets face it, rightwingers don't do that very well.
Good example! That's the point here isn't it, that liberals today / progressives have an issue? Maybe deal with your personal issues instead of taking them out on others. shrug
Some people do put a lot of lip service into it, that's about all. Zero faith. How do you like those results mr. progressive?
No one has God locked up, that would be impossible. God can not be put in a box. Recently, over one million South Africans gathered together to pray in the name of Jesus for their country. That was three times the size of Woodstock. I expect God will honor the prayers of their lips and of their hearts. They are taking a stand against the devil. I join them in the Spirit and in faith for a great move of God because of their faith.
We do still have freedom of speech to share our faith in God as we understand Him. May God bless you.
Why would we give up?
We're the only ones fighting to protect the environment. But really, who needs drinkable water? Is that really that important? Science says so, but then again, we're the only party that believes in science.
Trump working hard? Seriously? In the first 81 days, the man has played 17 rounds of golf. In the same time period, the previous president played exactly zero.
Suddenly liberals are the voice of conservative spending. In this first year, Trump will spend more than Obama did on travel in all eight years of his presidency.
I cannot argue the economy with you, I've seen it's merits so far. He's certainly building consumer confidence and trying to bring companies back to the US. Stripping regulations away to do it will have its own risks, so we'll see what happens there.
I guess you answered it.
Nothing would convince you.
I can't believe you brought up golf. Did you say anything when Obama played over 300 rounds of golf in his 8 years? Look it up on google.
As far as science and the environment goes, you are confusing environment protection with climate change. They are not the same. We conservatives believe in protecting our environment but disagree about the current science claim of climate change. If you want to know more, please read my hub on this topic. I go into great details into why I am a skeptic...
So you're a climate change skeptic. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth? If you believe the former, why do you believe it?
If you have cancer, would you see an oncologist or a pediatrician?
Why is it that when it comes to climate change, why do you believe and seek out people who aren't experts in climate change and refuse to believe those that are?
Based on the above numbers, Obama averaged 3 rounds a month while Trump is pacing at 6 rounds a month.
But the more important fact is Trump flying off to his resorts to play golf at enormous taxpayer expense -- while promoting the resorts to line his own pockets.
Why are "conservatives" not conservative when it comes to Trump wasting taxpayer dollars and getting richer from it?
Because he is not spending our money. He is using his own facility at Marla largo and playing on his golf course. Even if he is, he earned it. He is doing work we want him to do. While Obama did not. I had hoped Obama would play more golf so he would do less damage... haha
Ah yes, but he IS spending your money on air travel to get himself and his entire entourage to his own facility and back, which is costing you millions.
And let's face it, it's not like he rents out the White House or sends all the staff home when he's not there, so there's no saving in the cost of running his main residence.
Also, we know he does charge the government (i.e. you) for use of Trump Tower and other facilities when he uses them for meetings etc, it's a matter of public record. And again, he could hold those meetings in the White House free of charge, so it's a waste. How do we know he doesn't charge them for his resort too?
Did you complaint about spending on vacations and golf trips when Obama was in office? I remember the trips where President Obama and Michelle Obama took separate planes within a day to vacation in Hawaii and else where. Just saying the double standard is striking.
My original question stands...when will you give up? Or perhaps a better questions is what events will make you give up?
Use your imagination
I remember with Reagan, it was towards the end of his first term, after the economy turned around and inflation which was double digit under Carter, came down and the gas lines ended.
Reagan was re-elected with 49 out of 50 states, a landslide.
There were some die hards who never came around. To this day, on HubPages and else where, we have people writing how Reagan was the worst President in modern times. Huh?
I am not saying Trump will be another Reagan.
I am merely posing the question, what if?
If you are 100% sure that Trump will fail as a President, go ahead and say and do what you want. It is a free country. However, just remember all those Hollywood celebrities who said they will leave the country if Trump was elected, being so sure he would not be, had to eat their words and swallow their pride...don't be copying them.
No, I didn't complain about Obama ... or even Bush; Presidents need a break.
What is different, Trump has ALREADY spent more on personal travel in 70 days than Obama spent in 8 years. What is also hypocritical (and an apparent 1000th lie) is Trump's criticism of Obama playing golf a few times while he does it ALL the time. (I don't believe is rational that he is working on those many outings because he keeps almost all of them a secret).
"Personal travel" as in flying to Florida to meet the Chinese president? That kind of "personal travel"?
No, its really not right that 'we the people' are required to pay for every one of Trump's weekend romps to play golf in Florida. The difference between Obama & Trump so far is the concentration of unnecessary trips within a small time frame - not across an entire eight years.
And anyway, isn't that why we have a White House - for hosting people like the Chinese president? We pay a lot of money to maintain that residence and we're very proud of it. Why does he have to take dignitaries to Florida? I wonder how much that weekened cost us (and how much money Trump's resort benefited from it)? Its a good question...
However, Trump's travel itinerary is just another little thing to nit-pick at. I'm far more concerned about the reason why he has refused to release his tax returns. There are only two reasons I can come up with on why he won't:
1) There is stuff in them that he doesn't want the American people to know about; or
2) He's being a dick about it as a way to protest the media.
Either reason is not a good one. He would be releasing them to 'the people' not the media. He really needs to stop using the media as an excuse. Its not like its NEW. Every politician deals with media BS. Its part of the job and it always has been.
Purely guessing here but has Trump not made his private business dealings public...because there is no reason to do so? The prurient fascination of the mob is certainly no reason, nor the desire of same mob to find ways to hurt him financially; what else is there?
The question is, why did he have to travel to Florida to meet the Chinese President? Wouldn't it have impressed the Chinese President just as much to be entertained in the White House? Why all the extra expense?
I'm pretty sure I already gave you several VERY good reasons why people you insist on referring to as liberals won't ever be giving up - but, it certainly doesn't hurt for you and your buddies to all keep hoping. At the moment, we're protesting to get Trump to fulfill yet another campaign promise that he has neglected: releasing his taxes. Unfortunately, I have a meeting in a couple hours and can't go; but I appreciate my fellow Seattleites who are taking time out of their weekend to do this.
He probably made this 'promise' because he didn't expect to win. After all, not even Trump could have predicted the affect all the fake news would have on the hate-base he was intentionally courting, LoL!
Tax Day protests: Anti-Trump marches planned nationwide to demand tax returns
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04 … turns.html
You forgot a few names when you said "... inflation which was double digit under Carter, came down and the gas lines ended" It Should have been "... inflation which was double digit under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, came down and the gas lines ended.
You forget to mention the 16 month recession at the beginning of Reagan's term (which forced me out of business) or his 10.8% unemployment (Reagan's 10% unemployment numbers lasted months longer than Obama's)
Oh yeah, Reagan was not a serial liar or flip-flopper like Trump is.
My esoteric, so you are going to play that game of blaming previous administrations for the sins of the current. In Carters case, he created the malaise that lead to the election of Ronald Reagan.
Like Obama, still blaming Bush after 7 years of his presidency... does any one buy this?
It took most of Reagan's first term to fix what Carter did to our economy.
I was a kid during Carter's reign, but I remember people talking about how 'limp' he was... Plus, he was only in office for one term. I can't imagine that everything he did (or didn't do) in those measley four years broke the country's back; and I can't imagine that the effects of previous presidents didn't continue to happen.
You are obviously a devout member of the GOP, Jack. You're convinced they can do no wrong. That's why I keep telling you to mix up your news sources. The GOP is as dishonest, conniving, manipulative and scandelous as the Dems, Trump OR Hillary. Believe it.
If that were not true, you would not have it so embedded in your mind that 'everyone who doesn't think like you is a liberal' and 'all liberals are bad'.
You are wrong about me. I am a conservative and not a member of the GOP. It is my contention for some times that both party are complicit in our current demise. Both Democrats and Republicans gets elected but end up doing the bidding of power brokers and donors...
I am honest in my assessment. i call our both parties when I think they are wrong. It is just, the Democrats of late, especially with Obama and the current election of Trump, they have gone over the deep end...
I was not trying to be argumentative. The closest I came to even a strong opinion was my statement " I think President Trump will do well, he definitely works hard daily, making every attempt to bring about positive changes." I won't argue science with you. Scientists opinions vary on the subject of environmental changes. I do believe in science, I am a registered nurse with a second degree in science. In regards to clean water. I live in Michigan, the people of Flint have lead in their water. They have had lead in their water for over 4 years... Obama did nothing to solve this horrendous problem. So for all his" let's save the planet"... He offered Zero to the people of Flint. He had a great gift for giving speeches, one could say he was eloquent. However, when it came to problem solving, he was a failor.
I believe president Trump does work hard daily, I follow his daily itinerary on his Facebook page. He also gives updates on his day's events. I realize this is only a rudimentary way to keep tabs on president Trump, but I find his transparency refreshing. It appears to me that he is trying to make America a better place for all. The golf on the weekends does not disturb me, other than the cost. I don't care to compare it to Obama's golf habits. Obama was in office 8 years, and I never got to know much about him, he was reclusive, and very private. He did little, stayed under the radar so to say. I guess as time passes we will see just what kind of president he is.
I will say president Trump should not e spending taxpayers money for weekend golf in Florida.I hope he will soon address this, and pay for his own expenses.
Jack, Obama averaged 38 rounds of golf a year. Trump is on track to average over 70. This is a huge cost to the taxpayers and for someone who claims to work really hard, that's a funny way to show it. Especially when he said over and over again on the campaign trail that he'd no longer be golfing. He flat out lied and you believed him.
In terms of protecting the environment, I'm talking about the removal of protections for dumping waste into streams, the green lighting of oil pipelines that leak into the soil and water tables. Climate change is a whole other conversation. The fact that Trump is gutting the EPA is further proof he is all business and no environmental protections.
And as for being convinced, let an independent investigator do the work of looking into the Trump team and Russia. Once the facts come out of that, then maybe I could get on board with more of his policies. For now, I'm not convinced he didn't win by treason. That's not someone I will ever refer to as president. He'll continue to be Mr. Trump until that topic is concluded in an unbiased manner.
Disagree, we are not the laughing stock any longer, that was 'so last administration'. The big bully Pyongyang, Putin, Assad, name the bad guy. ISIS...... are finally paying attention (although, the dozens of ISIS fighters taken out yesterday by MOAB, don't get to rethink their evil ways.
Perceptions are everything... T-fans don't think they are a laughing stock anymore because Trump has a quick trigger finger?
1) He's carrying on and/or carrying out military options that the Obama administration already had in place. (For example, the MOAB was brought over around August of last year, around the same time that about 100 of our guys carried out a big attack on those tunnels. They supposedly killed 'hundreds' of ISIS soldiers hiding there. Yeah, dang PROUD of our guys!!)
2) Many of his own supporters are now angry because he has allowed his attention to be focused elsewhere instead of on 'America First'.
3) He's pulled the trigger too fast. Despite that he is so suspicious of fake news and his own intelligence agencies, he refused to wait for an investigation on chemical weapons - and now Assad has the upper-hand in the media with 'it was fake news that caused Trump to bomb us' claims. (But, this is also one of the ways Trump manipulates his base, so I guess that would seem normal to you.)
4) Some within his own party are worried that he is ramping up to start WWIII.
Which again, REMINDER... Wars are one our country's biggest money-makers; and it doesn't matter which political party's guy is in that office. We go to war when the shadow government SAYS we go to war. Stop jumping through their hoops.
Please watch more foreign cable channels. They mock Trump all the time.
Not a T-fan, I'm a TC-fan, however T is growing on me! (although, I didn't like that he called out Freedom Caucus members for their hesitation on Obama Care II)
We are no longer the laughing stock, because we no longer have a spineless President who says, "if you cross this red line.... if you cross it again... if you do it one more time...you better cut it out!"
"Cut it out"...Seriously? He was never taken seriously.
I believe Trump is being tested, as any new U.S. President always has been and always will be! At this point in time, he is being taken very seriously.
Hillary stole the party nomination from Sanders, which fractured the party. Don't say liberals did that, most of us wanted Sanders as the nominee.
And with all the Gerrymandering going on, that's a bigger reason for many of those lost seats. As the courts continue to weigh in, those seats should shift back to Democrats.
Wilderness, in answer to your question, there's a difference between a liberal and a democrat.
And as for your wife not getting hired, many people will go with younger workers who they can pay less and will be more physically reliable.
Of course liberals will not give up! We'll not allow Trump to destroy our country with his stupidity, offensive remarks and fascistic tendencies. Peace!
How would you stop him assuming you could? Whinning? Or protest?
Good thing he isn't stupid, that only those that allow it (or look for it) can be offended and that he has no fascistic tendencies isn't it? Nothing to worry about, then!
Kosmo - "We'll not allow Trump to destroy our country with his stupidity, offensive remarks and fascistic tendencies. Peace!
How is president Trump destroying our country? I is very clear he is bring about change, he is working and succeeding on improving the economy. He is mending our relationships with nations that Obama had strained. He has rid us of many job stifling regulations. He has defended the people in Syria that were bombed with chemical weapons. He stood up for what is humane... He did not turn his back. He has accomplished more in the Middle East in 8 weeks than Obama did in 8 years, and he did this by giving the decision making back to the military there in the war forum.
"His stupid remarks" he says what he means, it is clear he never won any awards for speeches, as Obama. However, Obama could speak a good game, but was the "JV team" as he labeled ISIS... He was a do nothing president, a president that made such a mess of the country it would be a miracle if anyone could fix the damage he did.
In regards to his "fascistic tendencies" . How dare you even make a statement like that. He has not exhibited not one tendency that would warrant an your accusation. I suppose you are referring to his decision to initiate a travel ban or the stance he has taken on immigration. He is putting America first, trying to keep us safe. We have laws in regard to immigration, and he intends to enforce them... And you keep fighting for peace! Because you know what, this man just may be the one that can bring it about. He sure was not the man that caused all of this upheaval, that man was our last president, his name is Obama.
Wilderness, as in the case of Manafort, we'd like to see his links to foreign countries economically, specifically Russia. That would also hold him accountable to many conflicts of interest between his policies and his own private holdings.
What "conflicts of interest"? I keep hearing that there are hundreds of them but so far not a single person has produced a single conflict.
While I fully understand you'd like to see it, your curiosity and interest is insufficient reason to give his tax return to you. Can you offer more that "I want to see them" - some reason for Trump to make his private business dealings public and swallow the inevitable financial harm?
Let's see, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, Corey Lewandoski, and Carter Page all have financial ties to Russian interests. Russian mobsters lived three floors door in Trump tower from the Donald.
Russia, as has been verified by ever intelligence agency we have, interfered in the election to help Trump get elected. Trump policies help certain Russian interests.
Gee, why would we want to see if his business dealings have ties to Russia? Can you really not see any reason? Are you blind or do you just bury your head in the sand about the ties?
(Please use the "reply" button under the post you're replying to - it lets everyone know what you're talking about)
First, you seem to confuse your desire with a reason for Trump to go public. You've produce no possible reason for him to do so - you can't possibly think that he cares what you think or want, no matter how much you desire to see his returns.
Trump policies helping "certain Russian interests" is NOT "conflict of interest". Unless you can prove that it helps those interests, and Trump, while harming the US? Likewise with the statement that Russian mobsters lived in Trump tower - even if you could prove it (highly doubtful), it is not a "conflict of interest".
conflict of interest:
n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.
While you've insinuated that Trumps interests are contrary to those of the country, and that he has put his interests first, you've provide no proof. Until you can do so, it's perhaps best not to say there are any conflicts at all.
I just provided you with four proven cases of Trump subordinates who had ties to Russia? That's not desire, that's fact. It's also been proven that Russia intervened in our election process to help get Trump elected. Fact, proved.
I don't even care if he goes public. I don't need to see his taxes. But there should be an independent investigator that is given access to swear that Mr. Trump does not have interests that conflict with his duty as leader of the United States. Especially given the already proven facts that his campaign and associated have ties and benefited from Russia.
Four subordinates that have ties with Russia, but the conflict of interest you claim is why you must look at private financial records is missing. That Russia interfered is not a conflict of interest either. I copied/pasted the legal definition - did you understand it?
LOL And you're willing to make the claim that the information won't leak? That it won't be given to his business or political enemies? That would make you one of the more stupid people in the country - I don't believe it.
Which means you know it will be leaked, you know it will damage him both financially and politically. Is that the goal?
But so far you still haven't given Trump a reason to disclose, just said why you want it done. Were I Trump I wouldn't do it either, not without a good reason, and your claims of conflict of interest are both groundless and insufficient reason. Can you do better?
whose checking to make sure that his tax returns are in fact without conflict of interest? You seem to be saying that when Trump says that it is irrelevant, it is. Of course, he is going to say that. What if there are gross improprieties, how is that to be revealed? Who is responsible for bringing it out, if we just take Trump's word as you seem to suggest? I am not for keeping this information covered up just to spare Trump political business adversity. I don"t have to know, but an impartial source needs to know. The goal is that the spotlight is placed upon Everybody, Trump included, to prove that you are in compliance with the law beyond his merely saying so.
What is Trumps reason to release his information, causing himself harm?
What is Trumps reason to release his information, causing himself harm?
What is Trumps reason to release his information, causing himself harm?
What is Trumps reason to release his information, causing himself harm?
Nowhere there is there a question as to why YOU want to see it - only what reason Trump has to give it to you. I keep asking the same thing and keep getting answers that it is because you want to see it. You guys even produce reasons why you want to see it, but that again does not give Trump a reason to give it to you. What is so hard about understanding that he has no reason in the world to make his private information public, to hurt himself financially or politically? Until he has a reason, I seriously doubt that he will give it to you.
And no, that you want him to prove that he is in compliance with the law beyond his saying so is insufficient. If nothing else, nothing he can ever say, do or show will convince the naysayers of that any more than proof positive convinced the birthers, but beyond that he has no reason to care about what the people that hate him want out of him.
Nor is there any possible to believe that is your real goal OR to think it is Trumps goal. ("you" referring to the Trumpaphobes that are screaming for what they have no right to have).
Let not get your pants into a wad, Wilderness. There are plenty of people that don't fawn over Trump that are asking these kinds of questions, even members of Trump's GOP. And you can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have to answer and deliver at some point or pay a political price.
What if he is has been less than honest? I TOLD you why I want to see it. I want to know that he doing everything above board and has been. I expect that of the Chief Executive, since he is the enforcer of all of the law. As for the risk of disclosure, he should have thought of that before he assumed the office.
And you can spare me all the rightwinged crap. It is the same all or nothing arguments you always propose, is it not? Because you think that naysayers are after Trump regardless what he does or says, that is the excuse for him to do whatever he pleases and not disclose. Well, that is not good enough.
Anyway, time will tell and I watch the clock.
You're right - I think the Trumpophobes are after him no matter what he says or does. But that doesn't mean he can do whatever he pleases - instead it is you proposing he cannot do what he has a legal and ethical right to do. And if he does it won't mean a thing and will please no one at all.
So he's in a no-win situation, where nothing he does will help anything at all, and you wonder why he doesn't make his business dealings public knowledge. C'mon Cred - were you in the same no-win situation, would you? The man isn't stupid!
Trumpaphobes do not dominate the landscape, however. It is possible for Trump to have impartial evaluation if and when the time comes when he will be required to have returns disclosed. It won't be me but it could be the courts that will bring this to the forefront on conflict of interest issues. As a previous poster mentioned, he has his hands into a lot of pies.
The President is not here to protect himself at all costs, in defiance to adhering to the requirements of the job. Nixon was not allowed to wallow in his concept of the privacy of his conversations when the courts said otherwise.
My desire to protect myself can only go so far, I cant illegally have with my hand in the cookie jar and yet believe I have the right to conceal it because I could be caught. Operate transparently and above board and there will be no issue about 'no win" scenarios.
Really? Because the way Trump associates were tied to Russia was what, exactly? Oh yeah, they were financial ties. Four cases is sufficient for many Americans, myself included, to believe he is also tied to Russian interests. Especially since he won't disclose.
Oh, and going to back to proving that the Russian mafia operated three floors down in Trump Tower which you think is doubtful, google the name: Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov
Another fact that you cannot disprove and yet another connection between Trump and high level players in Russia. But I'm sure you can dismiss this too.
At the end of the day, many Americans will believe that he is tied to Russia. There is sufficient evidence linking his campaign to Russia without him releasing his taxes.
As for conflicts of interest, which turned into him releasing his taxes somehow, take your pick. There are more than 150 financial institutions on Wall Street that hold debt linked to Mr. Trump. Surrogates have already been disciplined for promoting Ivanka's brand.
Trump could still own stock in Phillips 66 which owns 25% of the Dakota Pipleline, which would be known if he disclosed. It was a known fact previously, but people don't seem sure now and the White House won't address it.
The secret service has to pay Trump Tower to lease space to protect Ivanka. So in essence, he's making money off the secret service because Ivanka isn't living in the white house.
Every weekend seems to be a trip to a Trump property at the cost to the taxpayer. Which basically is free marketing. That in and of itself is a conflict.
And these don't even count the international ones that many watchdog groups are tracking.
I don't want liberals to give up as much as I'd like to see them grow up.
Perhaps you missed the gist of my question.
I was speaking of Trump and his policies in specific.
At what point, after what event or policy or laws or effects, will liberals admit they were wrong about Trump and stop attacking him...
The capitulation point is what I am after.
For example, suppose Trump build the wall and illegal immigration dropped by 99%.
Then we can focus on reforming the whole illegal immigration process and deal with the 12 million that are here including the dreamers...
Would that be a good thing? And gain Trump the respect as a capable leader?
What accomplishment will Trump need to do to earn the respect of liberals?
"For example, suppose Trump build the wall and illegal immigration dropped by 99%."
If it should happen that way, then Trump is evil for enforcing the law and protecting our borders. Anyone that wants in should be allowed to come, and Trump must ignore his pledge and the law to encourage that.
There will always be a rationalization by those that refuse to reason, by those to whom party affiliation is more important than the country.
I think, had we asked the same question about Obama and conservatives you'd have the same unfortunate scenario. Nothing. Hate is hate and nothing trumps hate.
I think you're right - "I hate (X), so don't confuse me with facts for I refuse to give up that hate".
I disagree. As a conservative, assume the ACA had worked, after 8 years, or sooner, I would have said, you know what, I was against this from the start, but now, seeing how it is working, I will stop my criticism and move forward. All the power to President Obama for his vision and policy to bring universal healthcare to the American people...
That did not happen did it? He created a mess of our healthcare. He ruined the Healthcare for 90% to give healthcare to the 10% and now the system is going broke.
But Jacklee, you're forgetting that there are two classes of those against Trump. Class A is the one you and Quilligrapher belong to; people that don't think he will succeed but are honest enough to consider that he might.
But Class "B" isn't interested in any of that stuff - all that matters is further splitting of the nation and getting Trump out of office. Hate overrides anything else to them. And they are 90% of who we hear from, whether on these forums, the web in general or even the general media.
Here is a wish list for non-conservatives; which includes middle-of-the-road (me) and anything to the Left.
1. Accept NATO
2. Repudiate Russia
3. Admit he barely won
4. Admit Putin and Comey (unwittingly maybe) helped him win. (Save for either one or both of those, Clinton would have won in spite of the terrible campaign she ran and the DNC's lack of a ground game)
5. Stop threatening the health of the economy with his threats of job killing tariffs (Home builders will take a hit from his timber tariff on Canada
6. Accept that most people really do want to keep Obamacare, they just want parts of it fixed.
7. Drop this deficit busting tax plan that is not needed. Corporations effective tax rate is already at 15%
8. Drop his war on Muslims. There hasn't been a deadly terrorist attack from an immigrant is 20 or 30 years. All recent terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been by American citizens. There is no credible danger that a terrorist will get through the already stringent, 3-year long vetting process.
9. Learn that immigration is good for America because they replace a declining natural born population. Population growth is one of the two fundamental factors to a growing economy.
10. Stop the bombast and act respectable rather than a silly child; start acting like the President he is and stop embarrassing America.
11. Learn the details of the job
12. Stop shooting from the hip; it may work in business but it is fatal in running a government
and that is just for starters.
My esoteric, that is quite a list but not what I am aiming...
I am looking for that watershed moment when liberals will recognize that Trump, like him or not, is presidential and will accomplish some great things for America and Americans. All americans not just his friends or his business moguls or his donors...
It would be interesting to see when that moment comes for some and maybe never for others.
There won't be a watershed moment, it just doesn't work that way. Trump has proven (yes, just 100 days into his term) that doing anything of significance that will please most Americans is beyond his capabilities.
This isn't to say I have disagreed with everything he has done so far. Off the top of my head, I think these were wins for him:
1. Show of force in Korea with one of our submarines making a port-of-call. (it is too bad he blew it with the "naval armada" not showing up at Korea's doorstep)
2. The retaliatory attack on Syria for their chemical attack.
3. Finally getting on Putin's case over Syria
4. Stopping his ridiculous bombast over China (apparently he switched his ire to Canada, unfortunately)
5. His order establishing the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis.
6. His order instructing agencies that whenever they introduce a regulation, they must first abolish two others (I like this idea, but not for the reasons Trump does)
7. His memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense to draw up a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS. (A great idea, but they already had one and it is working without dragging America into a ground war like Iraq was.)
8. His order to lengthen the ban on administration officials working as lobbyists. (Now he just needs to enforce it for his administration, which he is only doing a selective basis)
9. His memorandum calling for a 30-day review of military readiness. (That was one of my jobs when I worked for OSD, although 30-days allows for huge mistakes due to cutting way to many corners and making unfounded assumptions in order to meet a ridiculous deadline.
Jack...what accomplishment will Trump need to do to earn the respect of liberals?
Stop. F**king. Tweeting.
How does tweeting affect anything? Be realistic, I may not like Trump tweeting but it has no impact on my life or the life of 330 million americans. What does matter is his immigration and tax policies and trade and responses to ISIS...
Let's not forget that bizarre class who fully support the Rev.Donald but rails against bizarre right wing fundamentalist leaders in the same breath. I think it's called the Fawlty Premise Club.
by fishskinfreak2008 10 years ago
So President Obama's approval rating after one month is...only 68%. Our expectations of him on Inauguration night were too high. His approval rating back on Jan. 20 was around 80%.
by JAKE Earthshine 27 hours ago
SHOCKING: ******* Now the number of potentially indictable charges against Donald Trump seems to have exploded from one or more related to Michael Cohen in the SD of NY, to what looks like MULTIPLE Charges of Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power and other pertinent and or related issues: And...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
If President Trump is "doing a bad job so far" then why are his approval numbers rising?Despite the partisan climate we're seeing since the election - Americans are starting to warm up to this president and his approval rating climbed to 55%
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
This question is addressed to the TDS crowd. What do I mean about this question? Suppose Trump achieve even 50% of his goals in the first two years.Suppose the economic policies lead to more jobs, better pay and increased wealth for all people both at the top and the middle and even the bottom of...
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Do you believe Trump was wiretapped before the election?The Trump administration has spoken out loudly that Obama had him wiretapped. There has been a wierd non-denial from an Obama spokesman. Thoughts ?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|