"Make America Great Again"the F'dup Chapters in American History (The Trump Years)

[The Overlord]

needs a serious change in focus, that change has to come from the top down

ditch the fossils like Sanders, move forward

You keep on criticizing Sanders, but you do think makes alternative?

You have guys like Corey Booker and he is just another empty suit, who takes a ton of money from the pharmaceutical industry and cares more about them then the people, that is why he didn't vote for a bill that would allow Americans to import cheaper Canadian pharmaceuticals.

You don't need someone as left wing as Sanders, but you need someone more substantive then Booker or Clinton.

Sanders is too old, but this third way Clinton machine has outlived its usefulness.

 

[TheCommissioner]

Id suggest Chris Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Warner, Maggie Hassan, Tammy Baldwin

 

[Fading]

"Politics is not a team sport."

Spoiler

bwhahhaha !!! The left always makes it a 'us vs. them' team sport. They did it w/ the Kerry / Bush election. And when Obama was running this country into the ground, there was no protests or fake internet outrage like whats going on in this country right now.

And for all these leftist / liberals who are suddenly SO INTO POLITICS and SO PASSIONATE - I bet anything if I asked them how many people make up congress, they would be clueless, as many on this thread.
Also, news flash - the President is NOT a dictator. I know the left non-educated have this strange idea of what a President actually does in the White House, like somehow he controls everything - but those who think that have no idea how politics work and do not understand the roles of congress, other branches of government.

But the typical anti-trump people are all the same. Just a bunch of whiners who complain, complain and complain - and literally do NOTHING about something they claim they are so passionate about. They will complain and want other people to do what they think is 'right' without doing anything themselves. They are the true definition of 'all talk, no action'.

If the anti-trump people are SOOO PASSIONATE AND SOOOO CONCERN - maybe they should get off of their fat asses, get an education, get into politics themselves to make a real difference or change. But every time I pose that scenario to an Anti-Trump person, their excuse is "no, i dont want to do that, i'm really into fixing cars or im really into film making' or some other excuse. Well, if politics doesn't mean that much to you, then why are you stirring up the pot, doing nothing but dividing the country ?

This election proved one thing - the left is the biggest sore losers on the planet who can't accept people think different than them. Other people have different opinions about where this country should go, who should run it, etc... They can't accept that fact. Guess what - your politician lost - get over it. Your life is no different right now than it was a week ago when Obama was in charge. And the hidden secret is.....It will continue to be no different in 2 years, 3 years, etc... Your life will stay the same. Instead, its this new age, fake internet outrage nonsense that is stirring up the pot, creating more and more negativity.

And as soon as I express a different opinion than the typical "oh my godddd...trump is so evil, such a racist....i am going to hide under my bed for the next four years, i have such inner fake internet outrage within me, im going to turn into the incredible hulk." - suddenly the VERY first response is "you're an idiot"....Which means, resulting to personal insults is a very clear sign of someone that can't control their emotions, resorts into childish responses, is not a good communicator, and full of negativity.

I suddenly have a headache, think I've finally become allergic to BS. If there's one consolation, it's that you're banned, and can't respond back as people rip your comment to shreds. Ok, to your points.

1. The left made politics a team sport in Bush v Kerry? Are you for real. Bush ran two of the nastiest campaigns in modern history back to back. Anyone daring to question him became "unpatriotic" pariah's, just ask the Dixie Chicks. His policies basically became a litmus test for whether you were a true republican. Never mind the Swiftboat, French, Heinz fortune bashing on Kerry.

2. There was no outrage over Obama? NONE? Now I know you're trolling. Did you forget the war over Obamacare? Arguing over how about how he increased the deficit? Maybe how he had to supply his birth certificate to shut up racists who said he was a foreign Manchurian candidate rings a bell.

3. You think the left are the only sore losers? Dude...I'm not sure how to even handle this one. Did you live in the US the past 8 years? How about how Mitch McConell said his job was to make Obama a one term president, but calls democrats who don't fall in line behind Trump babies.

4. Finally you say we are childish. You just generalized half the country, and called them uneducated. Maybe eventually you'll grow up, and stop seeing, "sore lefty liberals", and start seeing fellow Americans who just have different views than you.

 

[terry78]

He's banned but he'll be back. They always do.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

He's not banned? His title says bannned use.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I made that assumption when I first saw that "Bannned Use", then he made a post and I double checked that custom title of his.

 

[Xrated48]

He's not banned? His title says bannned use.

At first i thought he was banned but it just says banned use. I'm confused?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Also, news flash - the President is NOT a dictator. I know the left non-educated have this strange idea of what a President actually does in the White House, like somehow he controls everything - but those who think that have no idea how politics work and do not understand the roles of congress, other branches of government.

Are you talking about politics in general or merely in USA?

 

[Schlosser85]

He's not banned, it's just the user title he chose for himself.

 

[terry78]

Ironically.

 

[summerteeth]

You keep on criticizing Sanders, but you do think makes alternative?

You have guys like Corey Booker and he is just another empty suit, who takes a ton of money from the pharmaceutical industry and cares more about them then the people, that is why he didn't vote for a bill that would allow Americans to import cheaper Canadian pharmaceuticals.

You don't need someone as left wing as Sanders, but you need someone more substantive then Booker or Clinton.

Sanders is too old, but this third way Clinton machine has outlived its usefulness.

It's the super progressive policy proposals that just don't make sense for many Americans and if the Democrats want to continue to go that route they will continue to be a coastal party. The biggest ones I take issue with are government ran healthcare (I like my insurance thank you) and free college. 83% of Americans rated their healthcare excellent or good in 2007.

How many have a bachelor's degree? 35% or so? So the plan is to increase taxes on everyone to pay for those 35%? Only 5% of Americans are college students currently. What about people who wish to become plumbers/technicians/mechanics or other certificated programs found at Community College? They have to pay for a program that they will not utilize?

What about older immigrants who come here and don't necessarily have the opportunity to go to college? They should be taxed for what ultimately would be going to a program that would largely benefit young white people? Costs are the problem, the fact that community colleges are looked down upon are the problem, the fact that people pay a premium because they want to "live the college experience" is a problem. Nothing wrong with living at home until you are 20 and going to the local community college and transferring to a four year. Saves a ton of money. That's what I did, that's why I don't have any student loans.

Even minimum wage is a tricky issue that seems best to be handled at the state or local level given the differences in cost of living across the country. Living in San Diego and North Dakota are vastly different.

 

[Dr Lee]

Looks like WikiLeaks are attempting to grow a conscience... they've tweeted out for someone to leak them Trump's Taxes...

Sorry guys, but it's a bit ****ing late to be poking your nose into Trump's dodgy practices... if you wanted to be seen as a legitimate organisation, then you should have gone after Trump during the election instead of being another stooge for Trump. What you're doing now screams of desperation.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Obama should have taken out Assange when he had the chance.

 

[Sithborg]

Looks like WikiLeaks are attempting to grow a conscience... they've tweeted out for someone to leak them Trump's Taxes...

Sorry guys, but it's a bit ****ing late to be poking your nose into Trump's dodgy practices... if you wanted to be seen as a legitimate organisation, then you should have gone after Trump during the election instead of being another stooge for Trump. What you're doing now screams of desperation.

Looks like someone's gone rogue.

 

[Matt]

Every incoming President does. Remember when the Clintons stole all of the decorations when they left in 2000? Big scandal.



You forgot dogs and cats living together.



He has control of all three branches. All THREE.

Not really, which is why I think some are being overly alarmist. John Roberts is not about to allow his Court to become partisan. He showed that with Obamacare. Remember, in the ACA case, the government did not even argue that it was a tax. Roberts made that argument for them in his opinion. Why? Legacy. He does not want the Roberts Court to be remembered as the one that politicized the Supreme Court. So he jumped through all kinds of logical hoops and made arguments the government did not even set forth (which is not common practice for a judge) to uphold the opposition President's key piece of legislation. Roberts is very very legacy driven. He is not going to rubber stamp acts by this administration that are in violation of the Constitution. Nor will Kenndedy. Even if a liberal member of the Court passes away in the next four years. Roberts will vote with the libera sect if it means preserving cases like Roe, as will Kennedy. Roberts is not a partisan hack. He is a fair and decent jurist and will not be Trump's puppet. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he were harsher on Trump policies than he was Obama. It will give his court legitimacy, showing that it broke partisan lines in a very partisan era. That type of legacy will actually appeal to Roberts quite a bit, I think.

Further, for all of his gum flapping, Donald Trump will not control the legislative agenda. Paul Ryan will. And Paul Ryan knows that Trump already has a negative approval rating and won without a mandate. He also knows he is in a fickle position because he is up for reelection every 2 years. The House cannot afford to rubber stamp Trump, no matter how gerrymandered it is. And the Senate especially cannot. Congress is giving Trump PR victories to avoid turning Trump's uneducated masses on Republican leadership, but they are not so naive to think that they can exist without moderate and independent voters. That will limit Congress.

Plus, even pragmatically, Congress recognizes that a certain degree of regulation and bureaucracy is needed to maintain the Republic. They will not allow Trump to dismantle the foundation of their own power.

For those reasons, the idea that Trump gets a rubber stamp is a bit melodramatic, in my eyes.

 

[Matt Mortem]

All good points Matt. I really think people need to keep in mind that the House is up for election in two years and they don't want to do something too extreme. 2018 is going to be a major showdown and how Republicans act now is going to decide their fate then.

 

[Matt]

Looks like WikiLeaks are attempting to grow a conscience... they've tweeted out for someone to leak them Trump's Taxes...

Sorry guys, but it's a bit ****ing late to be poking your nose into Trump's dodgy practices... if you wanted to be seen as a legitimate organisation, then you should have gone after Trump during the election instead of being another stooge for Trump. What you're doing now screams of desperation.

Obama should have taken out Assange when he had the chance.

Assange will be dead within weeks if he picks fights with this administration. Back when it became clear that his goal was to sabotage Clinton to aid in Trump's election, likely for the purpose of embarrassing the US government (which, childish though it sounds, does seem to be one of his primary goals), I opined that he should be careful what he wishes for. Because Trump will not hesitate to have him assassinated, under the guise of national security, if it means avoiding embarrassment for Trump.

And if Trump won't do it, Putin will not allow the person who is, at best most pro-Russia president since before the Cold War, at worst Putin'S own Manchurian candidate to be railroaded by Assange. And Putin doesn't care about little things like the sovereignty of an embassy.

My point is, if Assange pushes Trump's buttons too much, Assange will be dead sooner than later.

 

[Matt]

All good points Matt. I really think people need to keep in mind that the House is up for election in two years and they don't want to do something too extreme. 2018 is going to be a major showdown and how Republicans act now is going to decide their fate then.

Honestly, I think January 1, 2019 is going to begin the showdown between Trump and the GOP. Republican leadership is quietly acquiescing and giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. But they do not want their party's long term future ties to this man. Hell, they basically ran a campaign against him this past election.

Come 2019, after his supporters have sealed up a Republican House majority, I wouldn't be surprised for the smoking gun to "suddenly" come out. Maybe it'll have something to do with his business interests. Maybe it will be Russia related. Maybe none of the above. But the Republican leadership will prosecute it as Trump's own personal Watergate. Republicans will oust Trump.

They will then claim moral superiority and say how they are willing to take on their own Party's President if he is harming America. And that sort of cynical, manipulative "non-partisan" leadership will form the basis for Ryan's 2020 bid.

Mark my words, the only way this doesn't happen is if the Democrats and media find something so damning that they take Trump and the whole GOP down first.

 

[Sithborg]

Yeah, the Court isn't something I'm too worried about. Even the 8 person court struck down definitely the Texas abortion clinic shenanigans.

Assange will be dead within weeks if he picks fights with this administration. Back when it became clear that his goal was to sabotage Clinton to aid in Trump's election, likely for the purpose of embarrassing the US government (which, childish though it sounds, does seem to be one of his primary goals), I opined that he should be careful what he wishes for. Because Trump will not hesitate to have him assassinated, under the guise of national security, if it means avoiding embarrassment for Trump.

And if Trump won't do it, Putin will not allow the person who is, at best most pro-Russia president since before the Cold War, at worst Putin'S own Manchurian candidate to be railroaded by Assange. And Putin doesn't care about little things like the sovereignty of an embassy.

My point is, if Assange pushes Trump's buttons too much, Assange will be dead sooner than later.

I think Assange has more to worry about from Putin at the moment. I have a feeling the Intelligence Community would really, really drag their feet over political assassinations at the moment.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Honestly, I think January 1, 2019 is going to begin the showdown between Trump and the GOP. Republican leadership is quietly acquiescing and giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. But they do not want their party's long term future ties to this man. Hell, they basically ran a campaign against him this past election.

Come 2019, after his supporters have sealed up a Republican House majority, I wouldn't be surprised for the smoking gun to "suddenly" come out. Maybe it'll have something to do with his business interests. Maybe it will be Russia related. Maybe none of the above. But the Republican leadership will prosecute it as Trump's own personal Watergate. Republicans will oust Trump.

They will then claim moral superiority and say how they are willing to take on their own Party's President if he is harming America. And that sort of cynical, manipulative "non-partisan" leadership will form the basis for Ryan's 2020 bid.

Mark my words, the only way this doesn't happen is if the Democrats and media find something so damning that they take Trump and the whole GOP down first.

I'm wondering if they will keep their majority. The anti GOP sentiment right now is pretty high.

 

[The Overlord]

It's the super progressive policy proposals that just don't make sense for many Americans and if the Democrats want to continue to go that route they will continue to be a coastal party. The biggest ones I take issue with are government ran healthcare (I like my insurance thank you) and free college. 83% of Americans rated their healthcare excellent or good in 2007.

How many have a bachelor's degree? 35% or so? So the plan is to increase taxes on everyone to pay for those 35%? Only 5% of Americans are college students currently. What about people who wish to become plumbers/technicians/mechanics or other certificated programs found at Community College? They have to pay for a program that they will not utilize?

What about older immigrants who come here and don't necessarily have the opportunity to go to college? They should be taxed for what ultimately would be going to a program that would largely benefit young white people? Costs are the problem, the fact that community colleges are looked down upon are the problem, the fact that people pay a premium because they want to "live the college experience" is a problem. Nothing wrong with living at home until you are 20 and going to the local community college and transferring to a four year. Saves a ton of money. That's what I did, that's why I don't have any student loans.

Even minimum wage is a tricky issue that seems best to be handled at the state or local level given the differences in cost of living across the country. Living in San Diego and North Dakota are vastly different.

So in 2007, what percentage of Americans with pre existing conditions had coverage?

Except wishy washy, third way, don't rock the boat, do nothing substantial method did nothing to help Hilliary Clinton win did it?

I also find a lot of industries treat a college or university degree like they used treat a high school degree, it is the price of admission. Look at all the unemployed people who only have high school degrees who voted for Trump, these guys would not be unhappy if they were managing to get good jobs with just a high school degree.

Trump tried to protray the bi partisan support for free trade policy

Also how is Booker blocking the importing of cheaper drugs from Canada, helping any average Americans.

The US political spectrum is really out of whack, if the Republicans turn into itself into the National Front and that is okay, but the Democrats moving an inch from the center is considered unacceptable.

Again the Dems do not someone as left wing Sanders, but why would another third way Democrat succeed if Hillary Clinton was dragged through the mud by the GOP and Trump beat her by running to left on her on trade?

Shouldn't the Dems have someone who substantive against GOP to provide an good ideological contrast to the GOP rather then another wishy washy third way Democrat?

 

[st barbara]

With respect to you people in the U S A no president has ever actually been removed from office by an impeachment. True, Nixon resigned BEFORE he could be removed, but expecting Trump to be impeached may be overly optimistic.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

It's the super progressive policy proposals that just don't make sense for many Americans and if the Democrats want to continue to go that route they will continue to be a coastal party. The biggest ones I take issue with are government ran healthcare (I like my insurance thank you) and free college. 83% of Americans rated their healthcare excellent or good in 2007.

Isn't that the problem the ACA was addressing? More and more people were losing healthcare.

To say, "healthcare is good. Too bad you can't get any or lost it" Is the kind of divisions that are driving a wedge in the country.

How many have a bachelor's degree? 35% or so? So the plan is to increase taxes on everyone to pay for those 35%? Only 5% of Americans are college students currently. What about people who wish to become plumbers/technicians/mechanics or other certificated programs found at Community College? They have to pay for a program that they will not utilize?

The first time I remember the idea of free college/reduced tuition wasn't for millenials. I was to help older Americans who were going to lose their jobs get retrained for "21st Century jobs." This was in the late 90s/early 2000s. So because many of these people voted down the attempt, they now are losing their jobs/healthcare cause they didn't want to pay for something.


You call them Coastal Democrats but anytime they seem to try and do something that helps the middle American Reps/Dems, they're met with a barrier of enjoying complaining about being forgotten.

 

[Matt]

With respect to you people in the U S A no president has ever actually been removed from office by an impeachment. True, Nixon resigned BEFORE he could be removed, but expecting Trump to be impeached may be overly optimistic.

With all due respect to an Australian, you may not be the best authority on this. Two presidents have been impeached in US history. Clinton should not have been removed from office, so he wasn't. The system worked. The only two who should have been removed from office are Nixon and Johnson. Nixon left office before he could be impeached and subsequently removed, but he most definitely would have been if he did not. And Andrew Johnson, who was impeached, dodged removal by one vote.

My point is, in American history there are only two examples of presidents who ought to have been removed (and Johnson is even iffy, while a terrible president, he probably didn't violate the law, based on subsequent SCOTUS rulings). Of the two, one happened in the Civil War era, in which there was no mass media or public scrutiny as there is today. Further, he dodged removal by one SENATE vot. This was in the 1860s. That matters because the Senate were appointed until 1910. Therefore there was little public accountability. So yes, one of the two who should've been impeached dodged it. But he only did so by one vote in a non-elected body with no public scrutiny. His impeachment vote was won 126-47, so the House of Congress that had public accountability voted for impeachment by a huge margin.

The other of the two resigned because he knew in the age of national news and elected senators, there was no chance in hell he wouldn't be removed.

The only other impeachment was not removed from office because he ought not have been.

My point is, there is no precedent that we don't impeach. It simply doesn't happen often because there have only been two occasions where it would've been warranted, based on the law (remember, you can only be removed for a violation of the law). The one time in the modern era that this happened, the president left office. So I'd say that the process generally works and if Trump does not abide by the laws of the office, Congress will act.

 

[TheCommissioner]

On Monday, Trumps first official day in office

a conflict of interest lawsuit will be filed