Current or modern politics in the United States

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Couple things here.

I have a couple of questions. First, what are your educational achievements? Second, are you aware that the founding fathers were liberals and that the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are documents based on liberal ideas?

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Would you then agree that Hitler's rise to power was also based on Liberal ideas as well? Free health care, education, affordable vehicles and housing, and then the outrage that one group of people has more wealth than another group, therefore the wealthy group must be punished and have their wealth taken from them?

To chime in here, that is ridiculous. Hitler was not a liberal, he was a socialist. A very specific sort of socialist.

His policies had nothing to do with the Enlightenment sort of thinking the Founding Fathers used in forming our governmental system. Opposition was not permitted, and the basic freedoms that we inheritors of Anglo-American tradition take for granted were suppressed. Those freedoms that remained were only allowed to Party members and Party sympathizers.

In the matter of Hillary Clinton, while I may side with Democrats on some things, I am glad she did not get into office. I think she was spectacularly unsuited for the job. Her attitudes towards some of her supporters and detractors made that clear. What sort of person refers to a section of the populace as a "basket of deplorables"? That tells you a lot about the nature of her character in and of itself.

Not that Trump is really any better. But he is bad in a different, and hopefully less destructive way. (I voted for neither of them, in case you were wondering. When offered a choice of urine soup or feces casserole at the table, I prefer to simply go to bed without supper.)

[Arturo2nd]

[QUOTE=Brian249x;4423902]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Couple things here.
/QUOTE]

I have a couple of questions. First, what are your educational achievements?

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Vast and impressive.

I was wondering because your grasp of mainstream economic theory seemed shaky and you put forth some odd assertions about American history. It is a fact that the Southern racist block was aligned with the Democrats from the founding of the Republic through the time Lyndon Johnson arm twisted the Civil Rights Act and other reforms through Congress during the mid-1960s. Since then, it has been firmly in the Republican camp. It appears to me to be a similar situation to the Vietnamese. Our leaders failed to grasp that Ho Chi Minh & company were nationalists, first and foremost. The CIA and State Department drove them firmly into the arms of Communist China and Russia. There are even indications that China's history could have been much less tragic had our ideological blinders been less rigid.

The Southern Power elite have traditionally stoked the racist flames to keep poor whites and blacks at odds to maintain their power and privilege. Party allegiance is secondary and flexible in these matters. The Roy Moore fiasco demonstrated that common decency and morality are, too.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Remove the vote from California, and Trump wins the popular vote. Again, the popular vote means nothing. Trump played the game how it needed to be won. Hilary didn't

Here is what I don't understand: In 2000, it was OK not to count the votes of many elderly people in Florida. In 2016, we are supposed to discount millions of votes in California and urban New York. Throughout the Midwest and Deep South it is being argued that it is OK to remove minority voters from the rolls and otherwise impair their ability to vote.

Now ask yourself, Is it OK if we just don't count conservative voters in your state next time around?

Originally Posted by Bosko C

This is a first. Life long Democrat, and you are the first to imply this.

Not really sure why any of this matters. I was hoping we could have a good conversation, especially since I don`t think your opinion is supported by facts. I really wish Trump had not won, but his success is as much by the hands of the party I have voted for as it is his own hard work and intelligence. I can`t call the man a buffoon or an idiot, because he ran circles around the supposed best my party threw at him

Point number 1, I am not a life long Democrat. I am registered as one now because aligning with a minority party in California cuts a person out of the ability to have a say in most local races. At various times, I have been a member of several much more radical parties, but am now much more interested in finding consensus and workability than having ideological discussions. That being said, the Republicans have been far too cozy with wealth, fraudsters, and the oppression of workers for me to vote for their candidates. We did have some middle of the road types at various times, but they always got killed off in the primaries. It is a shame, because in many ways my values and opinions are very traditional. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, I have come to believe in David Hume's prescription of relying on custom when reason fails as I near my 70th birthday.

Also as I mentioned before, I thought running a person as widely disliked as Hillary Clinton was a dubious strategy in a race where voters have demonstrated a preference for new blood. I think we can agree that both Obama and Trump were elected by the millions of voters who have found their well being slipping away in 21st century America. Obama's minority voters and the youth vote galvanized by Bernie Sanders didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton, which is really quite predictable.

Finally, as is mentioned elsewhere, my dislike of Donald Trump predates the 2016 election by many years. During my professional career, I encountered many folks like him. People who were raised in well to do families who routinely stiffed small business suppliers, landlords, business partners, lenders, and even their tailors and hairdressers. Having clawed my way up from a working class background with the ethos of honesty and integrity, I really, really don't like these arrogant bastards and would blow them away with shotguns if the law permitted.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

The campaign lasted for months. Pneumnia does not. On top of medical issues she has, she simply didn't put the work in to get the job done. Blaming a virus fr her inability to get out and work paints a bad picture of what she might be like if she got into Office. Her having to be carried into a van following the 9/11 ceremony was a major cause for concern.

[snip]

Doubt it. Most likely 50 years from now Liberal scholars will attempt to re-write history by claiming the parties switched sides, just as they use to make an excuse for why the Democrats are the party that started the KKK, and fought against the Civil Rights Bill.

I was not thrilled when Trump won. But I didn't want Hilary either. Martin O'Malley was my guy. But the proof is there, despite what CNN is trying to tell people, Trump has done a fine job through his first year. If the Korean Peninsula sees peace as is promised, then Trump gets considered one of the best ever.

I agree with a lot of this post, particularly your analysis of Hillary Clinton and her deficiencies as a candidate. Where I disagree is:

1. The parties did indeed switch sides on issues of civil rights and social positions in the 1960s. If you chart the career of the egregious Strom Thurmond you will chart the switching of sides. The Dixiecrats live in the GOP now.
2. Mr Trump's chances of rising from the bottom quartile of worst ever presidents are extremely remote. This is mainly because he has character issues every bit as damning as those which afflict Hillary Clinton. Two more profoundly unworthy and contemptible candidates I never ever did see in a US presidential election, not even when Bill Clinton ran against George HW Bush.
3. I am not optimistic that Mr Trump has the ability to negotiate a successful nuclear disarmament of the DRK and peace between the two Koreas, but he is right to make the attempt. I won't especially condemn him for failure if his endeavour is honest and sincere, because this one is really difficult. But to be a successful president he has important work to do at home and so far all he has really done is to guarantee a future USG deficit crisis by entrenching budget deficits through even more unfunded Republican tax cuts and meddle destructively with healthcare without having an agreed alternative plan.
4. I myself am also of the opinion that these days we live in now are extremely dark days for US democracy. As Prince Hamlet would have put it ~

   Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

   It goes much deeper than two appalling candidates, but the rot is signified by the pathetic quality of the people who ran against Trump, Governor Kasich being one possible exception, and by the exposed corruption of the DNC who completely rigged the Democrat nomination. American politics has been captured by money and America is now a fake democracy, an oligarchy with democratic window dressing to fool the people.
   
   But Lincoln's maxim should be a warning to these Koch brothers and Goldman Sachs and NRA prostitutes currently wearing the suits in Congress.
   

   You can fool all of the people some of the time; and you can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

   Inevitably the American people will wake up, and indeed the popularity of Bernie Sanders in 2016 was a signal that this is in the wind.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

I never claimed they were. I just found it odd that someone would claim that the Founding Fathers and their ideas were mostly "Liberal".

While my edumacation is not vast or impressive the Founding Fathers were extremely liberal for their social class and the times they lived in.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

To chime in here, that is ridiculous. Hitler was not a liberal, he was a socialist. A very specific sort of socialist.

In fact Nazism was a racist fascism runned by a "Führer" (an authoritarian leader). A racist dictatorship.
Not liberal, not democratic.

Hitler had his own perception of socialism. He defended the notion of social classes.
Joseph Goebbels presented National Socialism as "true socialism", in that it would allow classes to live together instead of training them against each other.

At the beginning Hitler was anticapitalist, but in 1926 he changed his mind and he suppressed all the 25 anti-capitalist points of his 1920 program.

[Arturo2nd]

[QUOTE=Bosko C;4425541]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Probably due to the fact I have real world experience dealing with it, you don't. My economics professor in University was a professor because he couldn't cut it in the real world. If I followed his advice, neither would I.

Are you freaking kidding me? What part of me being 69 years old and having spent 30 years as an accountant, 20 at the controller level do you not understand? Prior to discovering my gift for accounting, I spent 10 years in sales and logistics.

I did have some interesting interactions with a Finance professor who couldn't seem to grasp my point that a theory that was not supported by empirical evidence was a theory that ought not to be taught as truth. He seemed to think there was something wrong with the evidence. I was left to wonder why someone who didn't understand the scientific method had his job.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Real history, or the one Liberals have tried to change because they are embarrassed about their past?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but there is plenty of shameful stuff in American and world history to go around.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

No it isn't. It's an attempt to re-write history

I am not sure what you are referring to. I was referring to the fact that the co-founders of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. were both slave holders, as was Democratic president Andrew Jackson. The Southern Democrats led the secession movement, and their "Copperhead" allies in the North sought to enable them. Southern Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws in the post-Reconstruction era. But the southern Democrats didn't really adhere to the liberal tradition.

When we talk about the Liberal Tradition we are talking about a political view based on liberty and equality. John Locke is considered the seminal figure. Other prominent figures are Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill. "Liberals generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

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

I suspect that you are a Liberal without realizing it and that our views are much closer than you realize. Forgive me for saying so, but I get the impression that you have been reacting to what you think I believe rather than hearing what I am saying.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Requiring someone to have photo ID to prove who they are and that they are legally allowed to vote in that election is not "impairing" someone from voting

It is when you know that the births of African Americans went generally unrecorded in county records and are still often unrecorded. We are talking a continuation of the racial repression dating back to the slave holding era.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

I live in CA, I'm quite sure we don't already

According to the California Secretary of State 28.9% of voters are registered Republican and 43.9% Democrats. We have Libertarians, Greens, and a slew of minority parties, but the 23.3% of voters registered as independents have had a strong tilt to the Democrats since 1992. Chicanery is not necessary to keep the state's strong leftward tilt.

To elaborate on my earlier comment about abandoning the "winner-take-all" allocation of Electoral College votes, this is a movement underway in several states, not just California. A couple of states have already transitioned. Adopted nationwide, it would make the Electoral College vote adhere more closely to the popular vote, encourage more voter participation, and result in minority parties receiving more votes. Who knows? It may open the way to minority parties replacing the current cesspools of corruption.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Really!??!?! How is it that Liberal politicians who have only ever held public office have managed to gain such wealth? I'm a Democrat as well, but at least I don't pretend my sh!t don't stink. Both parties are corrupt.

And what is really disgusting is Diane Feinstein, who together with her husband is believed to be worth well over a billion dollars, has used her office to increase her personal wealth. Both parties are corrupt, but the Kochs, Mercers, and company scare the hell out of me. Please understand that I grew up in a union household and the view of history from the working class is that the Republicans are the enemies of the workers. Not that the Democrats haven't sold out working people on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Bosko C

But all the money the Clinton Campaign pocketed that was supposed to go to Haiti was ok with you? If Trump was truly as bad as the media claims he is, he would have never had the success in the private sector that he has. There are plenty of legit things to criticize Donald Trump about, as both a citizen and the President, but the way the MSM has tried pushing some stories has only helped him along the way. They are more responsible for Trump being President than anyone else

I was really disgusted at the amount of free campaign advertising the supposedly pro-Clinton CNN gave Trump during 2016.

There is a lot of innuendo in the press and unsubstantiated allegations. Each of us is certainly guilty of believing the worst of those we don't like and discounting reports about those we do.

[crinolynne]

[QUOTE=Bosko C;4425541]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

If Trump was truly as bad as the media claims he is, he would have never had the success in the private sector that he has.

Success? He's a bankrupt several times over. The banks won't lend him money. If he'd simply invested his father's seed money, he'd be much further ahead. But the metric I like best is, nominally, he he's translated about 20 million into 3 billion, a ratio of 150 to one. I take my own nest egg, my ration is 1000 to one, no business failures, can get a loan anytime I ask, now who's the better business person?

[Arturo2nd]

[QUOTE=crinolynne;4431101]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Success? He's a bankrupt several times over. The banks won't lend him money. If he'd simply invested his father's seed money, he'd be much further ahead. But the metric I like best is, nominally, he he's translated about 20 million into 3 billion, a ratio of 150 to one. I take my own nest egg, my ration is 1000 to one, no business failures, can get a loan anytime I ask, now who's the better business person?

That quote came from Bosko C, not me. This is what I had to say about Trump in that link.

[QUOTE=Brian249x;4424149]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Finally, as is mentioned elsewhere, my dislike of Donald Trump predates the 2016 election by many years. During my professional career, I encountered many folks like him. People who were raised in well to do families who routinely stiffed small business suppliers, landlords, business partners, lenders, and even their tailors and hairdressers. Having clawed my way up from a working class background with the ethos of honesty and integrity, I really, really don't like these arrogant bastards and would blow them away with shotguns if the law permitted.

Here is an earlier statement of my opinion of "Our Mighty Leader."

Originally Posted by Brian249x

It does take a very special kind of moron to go bankrupt while running casinos. I have known several people who learned the hard way about the house edge built into casino gambling games. If you are lucky, you can play for hours before losing what you are prepared to risk or even win some. In the long run, you will prove to yourself that those fancy casinos don't stay open by sheer luck.

And another comment.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Like I have repeatedly said, the guy is a crook who has gotten rich by stiffing his lenders and vendors. He may have put several thousand small companies out of businesses by not paying them.

I have been reading about Trump in the business press since the 1980s. IMO, if it were not for the Russian oligarchs pouring massive amounts of cash into his real estate ventures after American lenders grew tired of being shortchanged in his deals, he would have disappeared from the scene after his Atlantic City debacle.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

While my edumacation is not vast or impressive the Founding Fathers were extremely liberal for their social class and the times they lived in.

Yup,They were Liberals and so were Their slaves..