James Carville rips media, says Dems are 'losing our damn minds
According to Carville, both Sanders and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., were pushing "stupid" ideas about higher education.
Carville added that he considered himself a "liberal" rather than a centrist -- but Democrats went too far even for him.
"They’ve tacked off the damn radar screen," he said when asked if the party moved too far left.
His comments came just after another interview in which he said he was "scared to death" after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., netted a large portion of the vote in Iowa's caucuses.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/carville- … damn-mindsMike, the Democrats have LONG lost their sanity. They are going completely under...……..That is OLD news. Ever since the "Great" Society in the 1960s, Democrats have been going...…….LEFTWARD......
Carville is an old school Democrat operative who wants to maintain the status quo. He has an opinion. It doesn't mean he's right.
Yeah. Which is it anyway...Democrats lost in 2016 cause they cheated Bernie, and thus Americans, out of real change. Or, that they lost because they are radical socialists? I've read both coming from the same people here on Hubpages and elsewhere. It cannot be both ways. I think some people spend too much time trying to figure out why a party, which they say they hate, lost an election.
There is an underlying psychological explanation for this odd need of Trump supporters to blame Democrats for Trump's election. They know they put a lying, cheating, bullying, lazy POS into office and desperately want to believe it is someone else's responsibility. No one forced them to cast that vote for Trump, yet they seem to want to blame others for it.
Excellent point. Why would they put so much effort into their excuses if they didn't need them?
They also don't give credit where credit is due. It's a guy named Vladimir Putin.
His opinion can basically be summed up in thinking that the game revolves around power for the Democratic party. In my opinion, he's underestimating that the corruption and incompetence of the party is making more realize that the power of the people is what matters.
I'm always stunned by the current Democrat party.
Einstein said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
They always lose to President Donald Trump. The amazing thing is how they don't change and keep doing the same thing over and over again.
Trying to force a bogus investigation on him didn't work. Trying a bogus impeachment scam didn't work. Insulting his followers hasn't worked. Insulting him hasn't worked. Telling blatant lies about him constantly in the media hasn't worked. The Democrat playbook for success that worked so well with George W. Bush, no longer works. BUT, they keep doing the same thing and they keep losing.
That is the main reason I believe the leadership of the Democrat party has lost its mind. They keep doing the same thing, it doesn't work and rather than change their tactics, they keep doing the same thing, losing and not understanding why they lost. Making up excuses, detaching themselves from reality and playing the honorable victim also isn't working.
The Democrat party has to change their ways big time if they have any hope of winning in the future.
Until then, the insanity known as TDS will continue to destroy them.Yes, being Too Damn Smart will certainly not allow them to fall for Trump's BS as his enablers do, Mike.
Yes, they have been losing to a lying, cheating, bullying POS. Except for the 2016 election, when the people selected more Democrats to provide oversight to the arrogant cheater. That doesn't mean that those who are on the side of right should start doing wrong just to win. That is not why the people chose them.
They lost the impeachment battle, as they knew they wpuld. Trump, arrogant crook that he is, will become even more blatantly criminal as a result. It is now up to the electorate to rid ourselves of this disgusting POS and the amoral sycophants who let him get away with his corrupt behavior. Mitch, Lndsay, Devin: all have targets on their backs.
It remains to be seen whether enough voters cherish the republic enough to rid our republic of those who are not interested in keeping it.They certainly do seem to think that repeated propping up of corporate Democrats is the way to go. They having been fighting the idea of a Sanders nomination since before 2016 and that seems to continue despite voters sending them the message in Iowa and New Hampshire (not to mention polls showing him leading nationwide). It seems to me they are worried more about damage to the system that allows them to enrich themselves while in office than they are about winning the election.
Keep it going. You guys are a gift that keeps giving. I hope you don't change a thing. Keep on doing what you're doing and you will always experience the same result.
And, if you are right, when our republic is no more, will you take responsibility for your role in its demise?
Of course not, Sandy. He'll blame Obama and Hillary....
Thanks. My marriage is still going and the family all seems to be doing well.
As far as politics, didn't the Democrats when over more House seats in the last election? I can't say I had much to do with that though.
I would say yes, and that is typical during a mid-term election during a president's first term in office. It happened to obama, George W. Bush(wait, I think he may have gained seats in Congress during his first term), Bill Clinton. It really isn't a surprise.
Your tendency to disrespect Obama by deliberately putting his name in small letters is obvious, believe me I dislike your hero, trump, at least to same extent. The Democratic Party President that wins both the popular vote AND the Electoral College handily, let see trump match that?
So, where does that get us?And win both without a huge amount of help from Russian intelligence agencies.
Here is a link to the Mueller Report.
Please show me in it where "huge amounts of help from Russian intelligence agencies" is mentioned. I read it, and it takes awhile, but I didn't see such a thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics … index.htmlYou seem to have a habit of inventing facts. All you need to do is use the search function on the report.
Both Mueller and the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee found extensive interference.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 538877002/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … e-n1034736
Then again, maybe you are in favor of Trump getting help from Russia. Are you?
They don't have "any hope of winning" yet it doesn't come as a surprise that they won. Nonsense.
Did you read the article? In 1972, the underground press, of which this was probably a newspaper, was into shock value. It's pretty evident that, although Sanders clearly wrote the article, was doing so ironically. The point of the article is actually for men and women to redefine their gender roles. I suppose he didn't exactly do it in the most elegant way, but this was part of the times in journalism. Of course, there's no point to explaining this. I doubt you care or would understand.
The larger point though is well-taken. If we're going to hold some people to today's standards of behavior, all should be held to them.Well, context doesn’t seem to matter anymore, so not surprised.
You do buy into the ridiculous memes, however.
Let me answer that. The Russian propagandists have done extensive research on what tickles the amygdala of the Trump base, and Onus is apparently prime prey for their bait.
I got the picture from a Snopes article about the creepy essay he wrote. Unless your beloved Snopes is now in cahoots with the Russians.
Let's cut out the BS. Are you in favor of Russian support for Trump? I await your answer.
Hey, this is progress. Perhaps you could source every meme from now on.
Your comment prompted me to go find that Snope's article. I did, and am now perplexed. Do we cut him some slack for stuff that is similar to what many of us would wish we never said in the zeal of our youth, or do we condemn him for what his 'inner thoughts' betray?
I will cut him the slack. Heaven help me if I were held, now, to the standards of some of the thoughts I espoused in those early years.
Did you think about that, or the source of the meme, before posting it?
GAHe never thinks, Gus. His silly memes are proof of that.
He didn't stoop. That is true. Out of context, in my opinion, because it does sound quite wretched as a stand alone statement. But Bernie did write that and by the rules of the left it should be left out of context to stand alone.
Your rules. You should be happy to play by them.
- Onusonusposted 4 years ago
0Rules are rules. Liberals believe government is God and you should emulate your god.
The violence of the left also makes them look more crazy than usual.
"Man accused of driving through Republican voter registration tent arrested
“Hours after a van plowed through a Republican Party tent where volunteers were registering voters, Jacksonville police arrested a 27-year-old man on two counts of aggravated assault on a person over 65 years old, criminal mischief and driving without a license.”
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/202 … tion-tent/Yeah, it seems it's like that with the actors in Hollywood as well.
Bernie got you scared...here comes "the left." Better watch out, I think these people are called "the left" as they take the left hand path on their way to the local marijuana sin parlor.
I think there is a good reason to fear Bernie supporters. One of them shot up a few Republican congressmen. As I said before, the violence on the left knows no boundaries.
Yes, he should have used a car like the Trump supporters in Charlottesville.
There it is again..."the left" and "one of them". You took the us vs them memo hook, line, sinker. Never mind all the violence in America everyday...let's focus on "the left" because "the right" needs American enemies.
He should be driving a VW and flying in a Piper Cub, right? What a stupid meme as usual, Joey.
- Onusonusposted 4 years ago0
Why's Elizabeth Warren hiding behind her staff after jumping off her private jet? Doesn't she believe in saving the environment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7rqWVS6RUI don't really care, but why does Trump denounce the foreign Visa program when foreigners on that program built Trump Tower?
So you're saying Warren can be as bad as Trump as long as she has a "D" in front of her name at the ballot box.
Good argument.So you're saying Trump can be worse than Warren as long as he is Trump? Good Argument. I never even stated I supported Warren, but your complaints are ridiculous and whiny. You come off as obsessed with being scared of a group of people who sometimes vote Democrat.
I was unfamiliar with this new 'problem', and I found some interesting information discussing the purpose of, and proposed changes to, the H1-b visa program that sparked your comment.
Since my understanding is not yet fully-informed, take a look at these two links that gave me a start. It doesn't seem like such a bad idea at surface level.
NYT - Top C.E.O.s Denounce Trump Immigration Policy as Threat to U.S. Economy
"The letter’s main focus was the treatment of applications for, and renewals of, H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers. The visas are used by companies to hire computer engineers and other professionals."
. . . "In recent years, however, the visa program has been criticized because corporations, especially Indian technology outsourcing companies, have exploited legal loopholes in the H-1B regime to replace American workers and shift jobs out of the United States. The immigration service has said its increased scrutiny and enforcement actions were intended to strengthen “protections to combat H-1B abuses.”
The Guardian - Donald Trump to overhaul H-1B visa program that admits foreign workers *This is an older article, but the information seems relevant
"H-1B visas admit 65,000 workers and another 20,000 graduate student workers each year. Most of the visas are awarded to outsourcing firms, which critics say exploit loopholes to fill lower-level IT jobs with foreign workers, often at lower pay. The White House intends “a total transformation” of the programme from a lottery to a merit-based system, a senior administration official said.
Trump’s executive order will call on government departments to introduce reforms to ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the “most skilled or highest paid applicants”, the official told reporters.
“Right now H-1B visas are awarded by random lottery and many of you will be surprised to know that about 80% of H-1B workers are paid less than the median wage in their fields. Only 5% to 6%, depending on the year, of H-1B workers command the highest wage tier recognised by the Department of Labor.”
I know that other trade fields also use the H1-B program, but the current reform effort seems to be directed at the higher-skilled worker applications, and, a fight against losing American jobs to foreign workers. (Do you remember the Disney fiasco where Disney made American workers train their foreign H1-B replacements?)
What do you think?
GAThis is not a simple matter though I'm sure Trump knows something about manipulating the VISA program, or at least his lawyers do (thus making the hypocrisy allegations valid IMO). I also understand that Trump made it harder to get skilled worker VISAs, per your links, which I don't think is necessarily good or bad right now. I would need more information to make an informed more detailed opinion. However, I do think we either have to reasonably accommodate the H1- or watch the companies move their entire operations overseas and lose even more tax .
To me, the crux of the matter is American public school funding. I worked on an immigration plan as a lobbyist. The lobbying campaign was payed for by Zuckerberg. I heard him state that the problem was he could not find enough qualified Americans to do the jobs he needed. I believed him as he was paying a lot of money to push the bill that would have made skilled labor VISAs last longer and easier to apply for. The public education system just doesn't have the funding to teach engineering skills of the caliber our tech companies need. So, while fighting this VISA manipulation is probably not a bad thing, I don't think it's going to solve the bigger problems.
One bigger problem that Washington needs to be working on is how the tech companies take advantage of Americans in the "gig economy." The tech industry taps into a market that they know is not easily employable. They often pay Americans below minimum wage and break all kinds of employment laws. The way to solve this is through tort and justice system reform, and I don't see Trump, or anyone for that matter, hitting on this huge problem.
I may have to dig a little deeper on what is going on right now with these visas. It really would be nice to discover that Trump was listening to expert advisers and actually making an informed decision on this.
Why should anyone really care about a person like Mike who stereotypes all of the Democratic party as being as far to the left as Sanders and Warren? That kind of thinking, which is often what he espouses on these forums, just puts on full display his lack of knowledge about the true makeup of our party. It'd be like us liberal thinking people claiming all of those who support the GOP are white nationalists because that group tends to think along similar lines.
They aren't all white nationalists? Coulda fooled me!
Geez, even I did not hold something that Kavenaugh did at 17 against him during the debate regarding his addition to the SC.
So, no, I am not going to hold anyone to something they said almost 50 years ago. No more than I would castigate the late Senator Byrd of Virginia for being associated with the KlAn years before. He turned out to be a good Democrat and got on board with the agenda, instead of allowing himself to participate in the "Southern Strategy".
The point is is that I am satisfied with Bernie's track record here and now and his long history of progressive activism.As always, you are a voice of reason.
I wonder what it means to you to be a progressive and how that would change the government.
How do you think it would make things better?I think Trump crushes Bernie, which is why Trump is promoting Bernie when he can. If Trump runs against a moderate, he might lose. He's not going to lose against anyone really far left.
However, at this point, both sides are running up the deficit so high, does it really matter what we're spending all the taxpayer's money on?I go back and forth on this. From my personal vantage point, I think I'd have to agree. In other words, the potential swing voters I know, and most of the Dems I know, are more moderate. However, I do personally know of some of the more economically far left crowd who just won't get the will up to vote against Trump if we don't have an anti-establishment sort of Democrat candidate. Essentially they don't see much difference between Trump and Biden beyond a few pounds and Trump's big mouth, which may not be enough to get them to the polls.
I think this article makes a good case for Bernie's chances: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 694526002/
I also like this Buttigieg quote from the article: "“If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do?” Republicans will say "we’re a bunch of crazy socialists. So let’s stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it.”"I also like this Buttigieg quote from the article: "“If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do?” Republicans will say "we’re a bunch of crazy socialists. So let’s stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it.”
-----------
You want to know something, Hard Sun, I like that quote as well.
The reality is that anything for conservatives or right wingers that is "left" of Trump is radical from their view. They will NEVER get it and simply must be vanquished at the polls. That is why milquetoasts and the lukewarm candidates can never win, if they are afraid to address the real problems in American Governance and the economy head on without equivocating. My issues with this society and culture go far beyond Donald Trump and unlike many Democrats who believe that removing Trump is the sole priority, for me that in itself is not enough.I like it too; a Democrat willing to stand up for his Socialism and proclaim it to all that will listen rather than bury it until after the election in spin and half truths and then bring it out.
It remains to be seen whether it can be effective. It might be; there are millions that want their "bread and circuses" at any cost as long as they aren't the ones paying for it. It is unfortunate that those millions are unable to look beyond their next "free" pile of money to the long term effects of unlimited charity and control, but it could change an election enough to return power to the Democrat handlers rather than the Republican ones.I'm guessing you didn't really misunderstand that, and are attempting to be funny. At this point, a Democrat could say they want to de-regulate the entire energy industry and Trump would scream "dirty socialists."
Modern socialism consists, in a simplistic view, of a giant nanny state with government in control of nearly anything including the support of its citizens.
And in that respect, the Democratic party is very much in favor of it - they just don't wish to acknowledge that. People can take offense when treated as children, unable to make decisions for themselves and that is not in the best interests of a party wishing such control.
So in that regard it is refreshing to hear a candidate tell us what their goals and policies really are. We don't get much of that any more, from either side.
But your gross exaggeration of what Trump would say is beneath you, for you know better. He might happily sign such a bill (although I very highly doubt it), but he would not make the comment you say he would.Trump would never say such a thing. Why not? Has he suddenly become a good person? I missed it I suppose!
You must have missed it. The TDS, I suppose, kicking in and preventing you from actually reading the comment. To think that Trump would call massive de-regulation socialistic, after his attempts to deregulate dozens of things, doesn't seem very realistic. Just another nonsensical slam at Trump, then, which you are happy to add to your collection.
I'd bet good money that he'd say what I proposed before what Dan proposed.
The Democrats are becoming more socialistic in their ideology. That is why many discerning Democrats are looking at their party suspect. They don't agree with the insane, leftist socialist ideology or rather rhetoric which this increasingly insane party is espousing. The Democrat Party is no longer the party of the middle class but has become the party of the poor & other never do wells who consistently want, even DEMAND handouts. Oh my God, there is another thread...……..
The system we have is not working in my opinion for most of the people. I don't buy this charity and control stuff, I rather work to get the shackles of the oligarchs off from around our necks.
I am rooting for it, a refreshing breath of fresh air....Do you have a system that would work better? If you think socialism is the answer, what do you think happened Venezuela?
Why are needed reforms to make the current system more fair and just always made a akin to Communism and Socialism aka Venezuela? Don't you know that Conservatives said the same about FDR's New Deal?
Conservatives always do that you know, I wonder why, Mike?Really, Credence2? Instead of social programs, people should be DOING for themselves, not rely upon the government to be their parents. That is what is WRONG with the Democratic Party! People ought to be DOING FOR THEMSELVES. Doing for people makes them IRRESPONSIBLE! The more people are given without effort on their parts, the MORE DEPENDENT they BECOME!
So, what system?
Venezuela is always used as an example because they tried to do what most progressive claim they want done. They promised income equality and free education, healthcare and more. To pay for this they put a huge tax burden on corporations and the wealthy. It worked for a few years, then guess what happened? The wealthy left and took their capital and business knowledge with them. So, then government tried to run the Venezuelan companies, and that is when disaster occurred. Government bureaucrats know nothing about running a business. So, now the government can no longer afford to pay for anything except for the military, police and the paychecks of the bureaucrats who messed things up to begin with. Now, Venezuela is allowing limited capitalism and private ownership of companies and capital. So, they are slowly coming back. Venezuela is a good lesson what progressive policies can do to a country.
Exactly Mike. Also look what happened to America as a result of the "Great" Society. There was a plethora of social programs which taxed the hell out of middle class Americans. Welfare programs broadened-my parents who were middle class complained about the broadening of welfare programs which increased their taxes. The "Great" Society created the entitled American who believe that things should be free & that society OWES them. The Democratic Party started going leftward then & now it is COMPLETELY LEFT!
I do agree that in order to be effective, the Democrats need to distinguish between gifts and help. They should emphasize help and de-emphasize freebies.
That said, it's really just come down to who is getting the benefit of the government's freebies. The right gives it to the rich and the left gives it to the poor. Why is giving free money to the poor worse than giving free money to the rich?I think it should be determined by who creates the most jobs for those who want to work.
Cause the rich always put that free money into creating jobs. If you believe that, I bought a successful casino from Trump I'd like to sell to you.
Tax incentives for companies DO create jobs. When a large company moves into a new area they are often given tax incentives, why? Because the large company will provide jobs for the new area. The cities and towns know they'll make money from taxing goods, services as well as employee and property taxes and provide a more stable local economy. So, yeah, the wealthy DO take tax incentives and turn them into jobs.
And, providing assistance to the poor sometimes results in helping people climb out of poverty so that they can pay more taxes, contribute to the economy, and maybe even create some jobs someday. The tax incentives/abatements to goad companies in got our local community in a ton of trouble and helped drive out some local businesses. Providing tax incentives/abatements to certain businesses seems more like socialism than do programs to help the disadvantaged, disabled, etc. And I meant the bad side of socialism where government picks and chooses winners, bordering on communism where government winds up owning the means of distribution because those companies are intertwined with the government. No, I think businesses should be on a level playing field when it comes to taxes.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000 Mike but you are talking to those who refuse to listen. Intelligent people know that the wealthy create jobs & great economies. The poor just drain the economy through useless, wasteful social programs i.e. the welfare system. Need I say more...… It is the poor that is creating crime & other negativities because of their negative conditioning & mindset. In America, poor people are poor because they WANT to be. If they didn't want to be poor, they WOULDN'T be poor. Poor people in America don't want to better themselves but want the government to better them.
Well, a very successful man who came here in poverty and because very wealthy told me once "Look at tax breaks like a financial football. In the game of economics who are you going to give the ball? Someone who has no talent, but a big heart, or, the star who has scored the most touchdowns during the game? Think about it."
I think there are benefits to both situations and I think there are those who take advantage of the system in both situations.
A big business was once only a business idea until it became a big business. So, that's the level playing field. Every business starts as just an idea. Those who can succeed at it do, others are mediocre and some go out of business. The cream rises to the top. I sold my business because I'm not an aggressive businessman, but the woman I sold it to took it to levels I would never imagine. She was the cream that rose to the top. Am I upset she took my idea and grew it into something more successful than I could have ever done? No, she deserves everything that comes her way. She was on a welfare to work program when I hired her, you should see her now. Quite a great story."I think there are benefits to both situations"
Now we are getting closer to the truth. Your story is a good validation of my point. See my response you seemingly overlooked "And, providing assistance to the poor sometimes results in..."
There are also failures with both situations. However, I've witnessed business welfare get out of control in our city over the last several years, and the results weren't good.Mike, there are people who DO & those who make illogical rationalizations. My parents were born impoverished & they DID-become solidly middle class. Most of my paternal family from the Virgin Islands made something of themselves- they become civil servants & in succeeding generations became entrepreneurs, business owners, etc. The opposite occurred in my maternal family, except for my 4th uncle & youngest aunt & my mother, they are a bunch of whining ne'er do wells who expect others to support them. They make endless illogical rationalizations- I have totally disassociated myself from such losers.
Well, I hear you gmwilliams, but, when I had my business in Los Angeles they had a program where you got tax incentives to hire people going from the welfare to work program. I had warehouse jobs so I hired people from that program.
Yes, there are some people who are brought up in a welfare environment and are more worried about how to get benefits from the welfare system rather than get an education and get a career.
I learned many things from the people I hired on this program. It was explained to me that I don't know what it is like to be raised in an environment where getting a job and making yourself better is "becoming white." Success is discouraged. I think it takes courage to break free from that mind set. It's hard to believe some people disappoint their parents when they get a job, but it happens. So, to break free from that environment and mindset takes courage and determination. I can only imagine the internal and external struggle.
I was raised in an environment where success and education was an expectation. There was no excuse for failure. I had the benefit of those around me sharing their stories of success. I was told how we overcame struggles coming here in the early 1900s. So, I had a benefit.
I think there is no perfect magical solution that will work in each situation. I don't think the problem will ever be resolved in my time.
As I said, I can see the reason for both situations. Sometimes good people have bad time and sometimes giving a company tax benefits is short time pain for long term gain.Yes, there are some people who are brought up in a welfare environment and are more worried about how to get benefits from the welfare system rather than get an education and get a career.
You know Mike I wouldn't be surprised that if more people within the welfare environment had the money and opportunity to get an education and career, I think that you would find more people taken advantage of this. It is not just a matter of character but of opportunity. I think that this direction is a more practical way of reducing the welfare rolls rather than having people sitting around doing nothing.Yes, the best way to liberate poor people is to teach them to do for themselves. When people do for themselves, it is a very empowering experience. Poor people have to taught not to be parasites. Another way to teach poor people to do for themselves is to drastically reduce, if not cut off, all applied social benefits. I believe in the mantra that each tub sits on its own bottom. To give to people make them LAZY & DEPENDENT-it also makes THEM ENTITLEMENT. NO ONE is entitled to what I have earned with the exception of my children(don't have any) & very closest, trusted family members(those who have proven themselves).
Well, I don't know what the welfare system is like in any place, but back when I had my business, people on welfare could get community college or a trade college paid for, child care assistance, transportation assistance and more. I would say in the Los Angeles area, at that time, if you were on welfare the only reason you didn't have a job or education is you didn't want one. Most of the people I hired were beyond happy with their first paycheck. When they got a taste of working for their money and that they could have as many jobs as they could handle, a light would go off in their minds. Others, were just plain angry and resentful they had to work to keep their benefits. They didn't last long in my company. As I said before, I sold the company to an employee who was a welfare to work hire. She was an amazing person. The experience left me believing there are other amazing people in bad situations and the only way they will get out of it is to go against the thinking of those around them.
Yep, people are different, that's for sure. Maybe some people aren't just very motivated by money. I'm not saying this makes it okay to not contribute to society and only take from society though. I know people that are like this. I also know "poor" people who help our community in ways that a person of means would never dream of. Some of these poor people are richer than the people that have money. People are strange like that.
I think the Midwest, where I've spent most of my life, "welfare" is a bit different than LA. But, people are people.
Logic & common sense decree that it is the wealthy who create jobs. The poor for the most part are a drain to society. It is the poor who are recipients of social programs which result in taxing of the middle class. It is the poor who are entitled & expect the good life but NOT ON THEIR DIME BUT ON OTHER'S DIME. The poor believe that others have AN OBLIGATION to support them.
Middle class Americans are sick of the poor who drain their wallets through the creation of social & free programs. That explains why many middle class Americans are turning against the Democrats. The Democrats are nothing but anathemas to the middle class.
Totally agree. The Democrat Party is now known as the Socialist Party & the Party of Freebies. The Democrat Party for the past 5 decades is responsible for creating inane social programs which are toxic to the middle class- e.g. welfare. Welfare should be cut AT LEAST 85-90%. Welfare is making many people lose their incentive to better themselves. Also the rising of minimum wage. Minimum wage was fine the way it was before the increase. Minimum wage was meant as an entrance, not lifetime. Charity & freebies make people lazy & entitled. It is time to reduce social programs & MAKE people earn their lifestyle through work. If one doesn't have, WELL DO WITHOUT...…...STOP LOOKING TO OTHERS FOR SUPPORT...…..
Hmmm...yeah,at this point the Republicans are going to label and divide no matter how hard "the left" tries to meet them in the middle.
I also think I understand what you are saying in terms of issues with society and think this point is something we must not forget. When I voted for Obama the first time, I really wanted big change, as I believe many others did. I was a bit disappointed on his ability to deliver, but I think that's more of a reflection on how entrenched the status quo is than on Obama's motivations.
Trump voters say they want change as well. Of course, the vision is different in many ways, but is the same in other ways. I think this sameness gets lost in the shuffle among Trump's behavior and his attempts to divide for the sake of his own reelection chances.
Personally, our issues/grievances with the government and culture are not likely 100 percent the same, but I'd bet they are at least mostly parallel.
Precisely. Yet enough Democratic voters seem intent on a Far Leftist agenda, that it very well may come to pass. Even if it doesn't, how many Far Leftist planks will the moderate Democratic candidate have to swallow so that the fringe Democratic voters show up for him/her?
Just enough to win an election. You could switch this around and say the same about moderate candidates. How many moderate policies does a lefty have to gravitate toward in order to get middle of the road voters to vote for him or her?
I'm kind of leaning more and more toward Mayor Pete.
America has lost its soul and with it, the country and our way of governing. I think Mayor Pete may be the only one who can recover the country's soul and remind us what we're all about.
Trump has actually done some very important stuff, policy-wise, on taxes and with China, but he's a cancer. No Trump supporter will admit this, but he's dragging our country to a bad place. And honestly, it's possible he's the symptom and not the cause, but somebody with some moral courage needs to emerge.I agree that Trump has brought a couple of things to the forefront that need to be addressed (i.e. China) But, this is just simply not worth the "cancer" in my mind, which I think is a good descriptor.
I like Mayor Peter also, and being a gay male mayor in Indiana definitely means he has some moral courage. I know he's not as "radical" as Yang, who was my favorite, but I think he's more likely to get things done in Washington than was Yang.
I hope more people think along the same lines as you, as far as putting decency first. America needs decency and unity right now. I think Klochubar resonated in the last debate with this type of message. I'm liking her more now also.When your President begins using his influence to intimidate the judiciary, your country is going down the drain. It's the beginning of the end of a free society.
Just to throw some gas on the fire . . . I wonder if there is any truth in the claims that the DOJ's 'opinion' was in the works before the president's tweet?
There does seem to be some validity to the argument that the planned original recommended sentencing was a bit harsh, comparatively speaking, of course.
Would it make a difference if those two thoughts were true?
GADo you actually believe Trump wasn't involved in having Barr get into Stone's sentencing, Gus? If you decide to retire to a warmer clime, I've some prime swampland I need to move. No extra charge for the gators and snakes.
I don't know what to believe, yet, Randy. Are you certain that he was? Or are you just running with the early media reports that fit your bias?
And I will take that swampland, gators and all. I have been looking for a get-away hide-away.
GACool! Are you saying it's all simply coincidence, Gus? With all of Trump's vengeance in the last few days? I'm gonna have to dub you Shar/Gus if you do!
Nope, I am saying I have heard conflicting reports. (one being the Washington Post—certainly not a Trump-supporting outlet), and I don't know what to believe yet.
The anti-Trumpers' promoted narrative is not unbelievable, but neither is it without feasible rebuttal. It appears the WaPo article says the DOJ action was initiated prior to any presidential statements or tweets. I think it also said this action was taken at a level below one that would automatically directly involve AG Barr's input or sign-off.
If that is true, then I think it takes some of the certainty out of your claim.
It has also been noted that, relative to comparable high-profile cases, Stone's 9-14 years is an unusually harsh sentence, and, it is not unusual for the DOJ to weigh-in on high-profile case sentencing. If that is true, then there may be some justification for the DOJ's lower-than-Barr-level involvement.
If any of those mitigating thoughts are true, then the only support for the anti-Trumpers' claim would be that the 'unofficial' presidential directive was 'unofficially' passed down to the DOJ folks that needed to hear it. Of course, that is possible. But, is it true?
To be clear, I am not taking a position either way—yet. I have not looked into this at all—yet. All that I have said is from what I have heard from conflicting media reports. Before you jump to a CNN vs. Fox criticism, so far, to me, the most Trump-supportive reporting is coming from WaPo. Have you looked for more information than just what you are hearing from CNN and Schummer?
It appears that Democrats, (or other anti-Trumpers), have concluded that none of those thoughts can possibly be true. It seems to me that can only be because of a pre-conceived bias, not a result of factual consideration.
And that is the basket you have placed your eggs in. Good luck with that.
GAI assume the 4 prosecutors know much more than we do about Barr's interference and felt Barr was out of line. But perhaps you can think of some other reason they resigned?
Now, Randy, don't you know those four prosecutors are just petty, vindictive cowards not fit to lick Trump's shoes? I'm sure he'll find some real prosecutors who understand the glorious goodness of Trump and how everything he does--and I mean everything!--is to Make America Great Again.
[Extra sarcasm, because I don't see how anyone can believe any of this is ethical.]Trump enablers believe anything Trump does is okay. If he moved another woman in the WH for his recreation, they'd say, "Well Bill set the precedent."
I'm so disgusted with both Trump and Barr. It will be interesting when Barr testifies before the House in a few weeks. I'm surprised he agreed to appear. He still may chicken out if Trump tells him to.Barr holds the House in disdain and believes he is smarter than all of them and can weasel out of any line of questioning they might throw at him. Sadly, it will work perfectly with the Trump base and the additional 10-15% who don't pay close attenttion.
My take.I believe it will be a bit different this time, Sandy. He will be grilled about his role in the Ukraine scheme, as well as the Stone trial.
ohh gawwwd . . . First sarcasm, and now extra sarcasm. Is there some class I can take?
GA
Acknowledging that some of these "thoughts can possibly be true" is one thing. However, thinking it's okay for the President to influence this sentencing, as he clearly did with his Tweet is off the rails IMO, especially considering the President's links to this matter. We have THREE branches of government for a reason.
Once again, nope, I don't know more than they do about the case and don't have an alternate reason to offer—beyond what I already mentioned.
One article from the NYT did say that in the original DOJ/prosecutors' discussions there was no clear agreement. You can see it and the link in my response to hard sun.
GA
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
12 feb.
Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress!Are you vying for the Understatement of the Year award?
Well, after my last couple forays I am trying to stay in my 'safe place'
GA ;-)Add another rail and you'll be a bit safer, Gus.
No need. I got the stroke I needed. I am ready for the world again.
GABetter buckle your fence belt, Gus. A storm's a-comin!
AG Barr talked back to the Don!
I had to go look for what you were talking about. It was ABC's Barr interview, right?
I liked it. Barr pushed back, and also lends a little credibility to my 'if they are true' questions—if you believe Barr.
Do you believe Barr?
GAYes, a "don't throw me under the bus" kinda response.
Oh, I believe he answered one of your questions.
"I was very surprised," Barr said. "Once I confirmed that that's actually what we filed, I said that night to my staff that we had to get ready, because we had to do something in the morning to amend that, and clarify what our position was."Apparently Barr is practicing up for his House testimony, if he actually shows up.
Could be. Or it could be an 'enough is enough' response. I can't tell—yet.
GASo, you're kinda "on the fence'?
Sorry Gus, it's after five.No worries bud. But on this one, I would compare it to riding a bronco instead of a fence rail. I know I am going to get thrown, I just don't know to which side yet.
GA
Yup. Even Barr says Trump's Tweets are making his job impossible. And, Trump is telling Kelly to shut his mouth....Come on man, if you voted for this POS, it's okay to admit you were wrong.
I believe Gus voted for someone else, Don. He'll tell you who when he sees your post. That's why I kid him about riding the fence.
Yeah...I just jumped in here after reading the breaking news. I wasn't really directing that GA personally. Some comical happenings here on the forums though.
Yes indeed, Don, especially from the Right! The excuses for the cretin are getting more desperate by the day, and we still have 7 more months of lies and treachery to scandalize us every day until the election.
By that time, Trump should have taken control of all of the voting machines for safe keeping.Yup. Which means his lunacy hasn't even neared its crescendo. I don't think we could come up with good enough joke excuses to rival the ones that will we read over the coming months. He turned America into a parody.
In the meantime, Trump will ensure he has to hide ballot boxes as he scares away the many voters who don't pay much attention until just before the election.At least Saturday Night Live is enjoying the experience of Trump.
Be glad to repeat it, Randy. I wrote in Kasich in 2016.
GAJohn or Dennis? I'm guessing John lol..did Dennis even run in 2016? I would have voted for John over Hillary if he would have been on the ballot.
Edit: Okay it's Dennis John Kucinich, not Kasich, --I think they are both from Ohio --it's too early for jokes and I gotta work anyway.Yes, it was John Kasich. I just couldn't support the alternatives.
GA
Sure, it would make a difference. It just seems like everything Trump does requires some kind of mental gymnastics to justify.
Indeed, one has to give Trump every possible excuse under the sun before one has to realize he's being screwed over by the cretin. I really don't think the Founding Fathers had this in mind, Crank.
Is it an excuse if the questions turn out to be true? Or doesn't that matter?
GAWhich queries, Gus?Are we supposed to trust a habitual liar for the truth?
I hear ya on that. I am not into the gymnastics yet, just noting that in these 'early days' reports are flying both ways—Trump ordered it and the DOJ did it on their own.
I don't think we can know, yet, just what is true.
GAEither that or a decision not to jump at the first thing that produces thought of massive wrongdoing. That seems the "normal" first reaction of far too many people; an assumption that Trump has done wrong and concoction of a possible scenario to satisfy that assumption.
No. I've never heard of a case like this before, no matter how harsh the sentence. What makes Stone special? I'm not a lawyer, but I think I pay attention to the "justice" system more than the average citizen.
Damn! Now I guess I will have to look deeper. The reporting that it was not unusual for DOJ to get involved in high-profile cases seemed reasonable to me. Now you say it is unusual.
I'll ask Google and get back to you.
GADamn! Now I guess I will have to look deeper. The reporting that it was not unusual for DOJ to get involved in high-profile cases seemed reasonable to me. Now you say it is unusual.
I'll ask Google and get back to you.
[EDIT ADDED]
Google offered some interesting reading. One article of an interview with an Assistant U.S. Attorney for nearly twenty years in the District of Columbia who also served as the acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security seems to confirm that DOJ involvement in high-profile cases is not unusual, but that the nature of this involvement may be.
It does not support the gist of my original question, you should give it a read. DID DONALD TRUMP JUST GET ROGER STONE’S PRISON SENTENCE REDUCED?
Another article also says that DOJ involvement in cases like this is not unusual and that they were not in contact with the White House prior to this intervention. :
"Justice Department officials did not discuss the case with anyone at the White House, including the president, said Kerri Kupec, a department spokeswoman, adding that they were not reacting to any directive from Mr. Trump or to his criticism on Twitter. Mr. Trump also told reporters later in the day that he did not discuss the case with the department.
As is customary in prominent prosecutions, the line prosecutors on the Stone case discussed their proposed sentencing recommendation with senior officials. But they apparently came to no clear agreement before the document was filed in court, an outcome that one Justice Department official blamed on a breakdown in management."
Prosecutors Quit Roger Stone Case After Justice Dept. Intervenes on Sentencing
There was other reporting that supported the contention that DOJ guidance was not unusual, but opinions vary on whether this involvement was abnormal.
So it appears this particular point is still a judgment call influenced by perspective.
GA
Yeah, I just read a bit about the prosecutors quitting on the Roger Stone case. He is getting closer to having all government branches answer to him.
You're right, that can be viewed either way. I do wonder how many moderate planks Sanders would swallow to be elected. He seems to me to be a true believer, and not so likely to water down his message.
Kudos to you as well, Mike.
I would have to write a book to go into it all.
Being a progressive means
1. Making this society into a true meritocracy, rather than being more akin to a monarchal structure we have now where power and privilege are bestowed to those with advantages that are unearned. The leveling of the playing field means that the corporate class and the affluent have less influence over the rest of us regarding what happens in Washington and the economy. Warren makes these points far more eloquently than do I.
Therefore, I only trust candidates that are willing to prove to me that they are not "for sale".
I want to see, as part of leveling the playing field, inexpensive or free education made available to all from either trade schools or community colleges. So, that being fabulous wealthy is not a prerequisite for acquiring a education and changing your economic fortunes. We can't afford to leave talent on the table or leave anyone behind.
I read an article recently saying that we have invested over 2 trillions, with a T in Iraq and the region over a handful of years. What do we have to show for it outside of enriching military contractors and earning the ire of the Iraqis?
I can bail out banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, yet investing in our people to ultimately allow them to be more competitive in this economy is Socialism. We want to know why China and Western Europe are not committing so much of their resources the way we do?
It makes things better by allowing all those with a desire to better their lives given the means to do so without having been born with a silver spoon in their mouths to start. No one can tell me that 3 men can have more wealth than the population of one half of the country without serious consideration to how it was done or how it was possible.
I want to invest in people not make oligarchs even richer. And believe me when people see that their economic situation become increasingly dire, the "haves" are going to become less secure in the ability to have people subscribe to a system and a game that is structurally rigged against them. Then there is going to be trouble in "River City".
So, if this makes me a Socialist contrary to the classic definition, then so be it.
I agree with you about not holding past transgressions against someone, but only if they have admitted those past transgressions were wrong and have indicated by their words and actions that they have changed or learned.
This can be said of Senator Byrd and Senator Sanders.Writing a shocking sentence in an underground publication in 1972 is not a transgression, so there's nothing to hold against Bernie. This is being taken way out of context.
I am on board with your clarification here, Panther.
- Onusonusposted 4 years ago0
Socialist Bernie could have beaten Trump last time, he may have even had a shot this time, but,,,,
Super Delegates know who's best for the party...
Those are all good points hard sun. Each of them worthy of their own thread, particularly the one about our education system.
Your closing point was the reason I responded originally. It seems to be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.'
I took yours, and the media's comments about his H1-B actions as criticism. That may be wrong relative to your comment, but that is how it sounded.
So what if the president was listening and acting on sound advisor advice? (I know that would seem a stretch to many ;-)) There does seem to be valid reason to look at the program, if for no other reason than the very public examples like the Disney fiasco.
However, your bottom-line is the same as mine. I need to be better informed about this issue before forming an opinion too.
GAI agree that there does seem to be valid reason to look at the H1 lottery program, and the media could be looking at that more closely. However, I don't blame the "enemy of the people" for not giving Trump any benefit of any doubt on anything. I think the media begged Trump for a chance to give him some fairness at the beginning of his term and Trump told them to kiss off as that isn't part of his political strategy. I digress again though.
As far as H1s, I do think this is something Trump could make progress on if he could listen to advisers and perhaps keep personal sentiments about people from certain backgrounds out of the equation.
I agree with the sentiment here. How does one pay for these things. Trump appears not to have answers either and doesn’t care.
It would seem that deficits only matter to the party not in power.Why would you bring Trump into this particular point? What does he have to do with a criticism of a Sanders' proposal?
GASadly, I would agree with that. Conservatives used to be concerned about spending, but not longer. Not for quite a few years, in fact.
What do you think happened to the "Tea Party" movement? . I look at the Tea Party website now and see NOTHING about government spending. https://www.teaparty.org/
I see the entire nation, all parties, shifting left from what they were. And part of that is a declining concern about budgets and spending; all parties appear (to me) to be moving towards more government and more spending.
Welp. In this context especially, it's difficult to argue with you. I also think maybe the corporate interests, which were always involved to an extent, took over even more. Also, in keeping with your reasoning, it seems like Trump kind of helped push the Republicans over the edge on this. I mean, prior to Trump, we still had people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who at least gave the deficit lip service.
Oh that's Dennis Kusinich. I think they are both from Ohio and Dennis was once homeless. It's too early for trying to make jokes. I gotta get to work.
Related Discussions
- 76
What Happened To The Democratic Party We Once Knew
by Sharlee 11 days ago
What happened to the Democratic Party we once knew? It seems that over the years, the party has shifted, and not in a way that resonates with the people who once felt truly represented by it. In the past, the Democratic Party prided itself on standing up for working-class Americans, fighting for...
- 121
Paranoia of the Democrat party on full display
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
If you are a president-elect and you have these worries. You may have been elected fraudulently. They are behaving like dictators who know they've stolen an election.“FBI Vetting National Guard Troops in DC Over Fears of ‘Insider Attack’ or Threat From Service Members Securing Biden...
- 45
Pelosi waves off impeachment. She says it would divide country
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
- 156
The AIM of the DEMOCRATIC Party in America
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 months ago
In recent decades, the Democratic Party has become increasingly leftist. Examples of these are the decriminalization of marijuana, lax rules regarding criminals-there are no jail time for petty crimes, & the proliferation of illegal immigrants to the United States among other...
- 98
The Democrat Party Change of Heart On Illigal Immigrants
by ga anderson 8 months ago
Then:Now:The point is not about Pres. Biden or which party's immigration goals are better. Or which president would be better on immigration? The point is about the change in the party's core values.GA
- 70
Democrats Are Not Socialists
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Really? Prove it! What do democrats NOT agree with as far as socialism? What principles DO the democrats stand with?Wondering!