Why is Obama so Polarizing?

Seems people either love him or hate him, I haven't seen a President in my life time so polarizing. I get that if you have a Democratic president, conservatives will kind of hate on them, and vise versa, but I have never seen anything like it on Fox News, or other conservative media. I was shocked to find out recently he actually has a pretty good approval rating at the moment, after seeing a lot of fox news (I know but its entertaining with this GOP battle) I was led to believe he's the worst President ever, in the history of America. Seems the two main points that have got him hated by Conservatives is the Iran deal and Obama Care. I don't know if these are a good or bad thing.
These last 8 years have kind of passed by with Obama being pretty anonymous, I remember the Clinton and Bush years well in comparison.
The death of Bin Laden happened on his watch, but so did the rise of ISIS. Voters are complaining about unemployment and growth but yet he inherited an economic disaster period, and I read the economy is slowly growing.
I would be interested to hear Americans views on him, like, dislike? Why is he so polarizing? Overall I think he's a good guy, he has bold ideas, but they have kind of fallen short in being realized in these 8 years.
Two small things that kind of pissed me off being English, he called France America's closest ally, and he removed a bust of Churchill from the Oval office that George Bush had been given. Say what you want about Bush but I really liked the respect he showed Britain and the special relationship.

First, Obama could burn down an orphanage on prime time TV and most blacks would vote him into a third term if they could.

Notice how the liberal international community gave him the Nobel Prize for...what was it it again? Oh yeah, being the first black president and not being George W. Bush.

The guy was totally dishonest about his position on gay marriage early on and only "evolved" once he was safely in the White House. Not that any liberals have taken him to task for his phoniness.

He's supposed to be a Constitutional scholar but packs the Supreme Court with like-minded liberals who hold the Constitution in contempt and rule according to their own liberal views.

The guy has fed into the black thuggery, defending the likes of Treyvon Martin and sending representactives to the funeral of Michael Brown.

One can partly blame Republicans for never doing anything themselves about the cost of health care in the US but Obamacare was hardly the answer.

His Iran deal is awful and another example of him being weak on international politics.

All I give him credit for is getting Bin Laden, which was just lucky timing on his part, and not being shy about using drones.

Overall Obama has been a disaster.

Oh, in the interest of facts, that story of Obama and the Churchill bust isn't true. It was on loan to Bush during his presidency and Bush returned it when it ended. Though I have no doubt Obama, with his warped world view, doesn't look kindly on Churchill.

[quote=IvyLeague]First, Obama could burn down an orphanage on prime time TV and most blacks would vote him into a third term if they could.

The dumb shit people say(Dumbass).

Signed,

The guy who can't use the quote function correctly.

For most of America's history, presidents were figureheads. Congress ran what there was of the federal government, and that didn't amount to much until the Great Depression and World War II, when presidents, starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt, vastly expanded the government. The postwar era also thrust America into a global leadership position, putting more burden--and more visibility--on presidents. More recently, TV puts everything the president says and does in front of everyone, 24x7. Polarization is a natural consequence of vastly expanded role presidents play and the visibility they have.

FDR, elected four times and widely regarded by historians as one of the three greatest presidents, was far and away the most polarizing of the 20th Century chief executives. So, too, is Obama, who is the worst president of the postwar era.

Obama and John Kerry are no friends of the UK, kerry blocked a treaty allowing ira sympathisers to be extradicted to UK, and Obama well....you only have to read the telegraph article about him being anti british

Obama had no past no one knew what he has done as a new senator except for having the gift of gab. Very much like Rubio in this regard.

What we did know he evidently was a good family man.

Very surprised when he got elected. For change people had it with Bush. That is why he was elected for a change.

He was a member of a radical church. People found out he cut ties with the church.

He had Van jones in his cabinet a admitted communists also with the gift of gab. He let him go when the truth came out. Then CNN hires a communist as if he was a real news reporter.

Everyone he hired with different opinions then Obama. Has resigned Obama wants yes men surrounding him.

Obama is true to his beliefs he is a social list who follows the orders of the people who got him elected. He is one of them.

Our economy is not better now. More people on welfair then ever before. More fore closers then before.

Bad buyers can still get loans for houses they can't afford. Nothing was fixed.

Health care is more expensive then it ever was before. It will fold in two years. Unless the president can raise the more money from tax payers to pay for it.

It going to hurt everyone including middle class. They will become the 1 percent then they will have to pay there fair share.

On Hillary she was Secretary of State hears those guys in Bengazi are in trouble, and then does nothing to help them. President knows he does nothing to help them. Fucking cowards if I was Secretary of State I would order them helped then and there. If she would have done that I would have voted for her. She had no balls.

These people are all cowards their sheep hoping to get other sheep to follow them.

You do realize that you can be a constitutional scholar and not agree with the right wing of the court? You do understand that is a possibility?

Oh stop with all your political anaylysis...its because he is black.

It's the lazy liberal cop out to attribute criticism of Obama to his race. But playing the race card is what liberals do best.

And there it is, the race card!

When people complain about the "race card" do they not realize blacks are discriminated against?

Also Ivy, did you see my other question?

Yeah I guess Blacks are the only ones being discriminated against. Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, Asians , Disabled, Transferred, Gay, all have it made. There is discrimination on all races sometimes by their very own. The Italians, Irish went through it. Just get get over it and move forward. America offers great opportunities to everyone. Either take advantage of it or just quit crying about it! For Christ sake we have a Black President and a Black Attorney General, countless Black Congressmen, Black Senators,Black CEO's, leaders and Executives, Black Millionaires so please quit playing the race card. Maybe you are not cut out for the job or are an incompetent thats why you are getting fired or replaced. It has nothing to do with race. America is the land of opportunity so go out there and seize it!

There will always be individual racists. But the kind of widespread institutional racism that liberals whine about, and have convinced blacks abd other minorities that it still exists in order to make them feel like victims, is long gone. The only ones who keep it alive are liberals/minorities themselves. Because now it's something they can use to their advantage.

But back to the point here. MaryCas and SC know damn well Obama can be fairly criticized for any number of things. But they take the easy way out many liberals do by automatically claiming the critique is just based on his color. It's lazy and dishonest.

And, generally speaking, the right wing of the Court has always held more to what the Constitution actually says while the left wing has always read more into it than what's actually there. It's where they get their "living, breathing document" BS from. Eventually, under liberal interpretation, the Constitution gets so twisted and corrupted as to be rendered meaningless.

The "get over it" is always easier said than "done". If it was that simple than shouldn't white supremacist/neo-nazi groups stop their nefarious philosophy and disperse?

As should the New Black Panther Party that is nothing more than a racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers.

Yadda yadda yadda.

BTW - the laundry called. Your sheets with the eyeholes in them are ready.

I think some of it is his race, but to use his race when someone legitimately criticizes his administration is unfair and it happens more often then not.

So we're just doubling down on the lazy cop out and dishonesty now, huh?

If I was a KKK-minded person like you suggest, why do I think Dr. Ben Carson would have made a good president? Oh that's right, because he's a conservative so he doesn't count. He's not your kind of black politician.

I'll be the first to say I don't think a woman should be president. But I have no problem with a black (or other minority) president if they're conservative and fit for the office. All things Obama is not.

I completely agree along with the radical offshoots of the NOI and other black supremacy/separatist types as well. As you know though this isn't going to stop anytime soon nor individuals teaching their children stereotypical beliefs of other ethnicities.

You can always count on adults teaching innocent children to hate.

With me it was different dear old departed Daddio just hated me. I must have been public enemy number 1 as a 5 yr old. Man do I miss that prick.

A woman shouldn't be president? Grow up.

A women can be president just not Hillary.

And don't forget Elizabeth Warren Foots!

She is 1/20th Indian and she calls herself a minority and got a Harvard education for free. Voters did not care and elect her senator. She passed nothing while she was senator and they want her as a Vice President.

Amazing

If she's 1/20th Native American then I'm a Buick!

Crap like this makes the question in the original post seem insane.

It's one thing to watch the insanity from a distance. It's quite another when it creeps closer to home.

Obama Administration Mandate Transgender School Bathroom Access

http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-administr...ory?id=39081956



Of course we know Obama, as misguided, foolish, and just plain stupid as he is, will back this since it was his administration that pushed for women to be in all combat roles.


Senate Panel Calls for Women to Sign up for Military Draft
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-panel-women-register-military-draft-39081314

Frankly, I doubt if Obama cares about most of the shit he talks about. He does not care about transgender or Hispanics for that matter.

He cares what his handlers tell him to care about.

My brother just had his 80th birthday yestarday. I told him I think we will live forever.

Most of my friends are dead. If they were still alive they would not believe what's going on today.

In soccer they banned heading for kids. Because of that some leagues have banned punting the ball. Soon they will ban making the defensive wall.

What the fuck is next. Oh yeah Hilary's new theme countries without borders.

Oh yes ok to smoke pot more powerful then the pot we ever smoked as kids. You get into a car accident while high their is no test to confirm you were high legally. That means you might not do time for killing a family in a car while high.

Obama must love that shit. Hillary and Bernie are happy.

Hillary and Obama music


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc

Talking of Obama, it was disgusting how he came over to Britain recently and basically threatened us against leaving the EU, saying we will be at the back of the trade line. I'm sure most Americans (especially conservatives)fully understand our want to have sovereignty and Independence as you yourselves enjoy. Well Obama your cynical attempts failed and just strengthened our resolve! Vote Leave!

I think I can see why he said that. For at least the last 2 yrs we are propping up the euro with US dollars. If the euro crashes so does the US dollar and our economy.

Russia is making and selling these for $15


Septic Truck

Ivy, what is your justification for thinking that women can't be effective politicians?

It's not that they can't, I don't believe they should. Particularly the presidency. Like women in the military, it's a sign of a declining society. I believe men and women are inherently equal but they have different roles.

I have a wife for almost 50 yrs now. I have two grown daughters and two grown sons.

I believe at least in my case women are better people then men.

Of course a women can be president if she is willing to do what has to be done.

I just don't believe Hillary is that kind of women. I think if Hillary would have sent the help those guys in Bengazi needed and saved them. Even if Obama said no then she would have made a good president. That dead ambassador was a friend of her's. She did not help them except made excuses for not helping them.

Is it just me or does Hillary Clinton not look and sound like a completely deranged, swivle eyed nutcase? A total meglomaniac who assumes people havent got a brain and seems to say anything at all that means she gets her way.

Check this disgusting achievement of total ignorance, dishonesty and sheer contempt for people...

http://youtu.be/6QFRTZ4JEWA

If you vote for her you have no brain. She wants to grow the economy exactly like Obama did

To go to the original question: I think that he's polarizing because he wants to be. I think that's mixed up with his relationship with his father somehow, that he's bringing the western world to heel while dad couldn't do that.

Has anyone gone to see "Hillary's America" by Dnesh D'Souza?
It is a great insight into the Democratic Party, Plantation Politics, and how they keep the Blacks as votes and really don't want them to break out and get independent. Very insightful movie.

I imagine it us but, of course, Hillary supporters and Democrats/liberals in general will simply attack D'Souza rather than address the movie itself.

I watched a video on Youtube of Dinesh D'Souza giving a lecture and then a Q&A session, smart guy don't know if I will see the film but I enjoyed the video I watched

D'Souza is actually a well accomplished guy. His track record has been that he's consistently racist towards Blacks, so I don't know how objective he could be about the relationship between Blacks and one political party or the other.

The most recent incident from him involves him tweeting about Obama "You can take the boy out of the ghetto ...." or some other nonsense.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/18/dinesh-dsouza-on-obama-you-can-take-the-boy-out/202551


But this guy has been on this type of kick for years.
Smart guy.....good writer....openly biased.

D'souza, Limbaugh, Coulter make these types of comments publicly to further polarize people about Obama. It's not enough to criticize him for policy or decisions.....gotta throw in "boy" "ghetto" and other nonsense about the POTUS.
Guess it appeals to people who are already thinking like that.


The good news is that because of Trump's personality, there is no media attention given to these commentators saying outrageous stuff for effect.

Also D'souza was yet another of those public moralists who got caught cheating on his wife.Media went after him for not living what he was "preaching" and his profile fell.

"plantation politics".

lol. wtf is that?

Probably because D'Souza is a convicted felon who's known for making documentary films that bash Democrat presidential candidates in election years. There is a credibility issue here.

Except that Obama attended a private school and both of his parents had PhD's. Dinesh D'Souza is perfectly capable of making good points, but then he makes ignorant biased statements like this that damage his credibility.

What made his spousal cheating scandal even worse was that he was a president of a Christian college at the time. After his indiscretion was discovered he quickly resigned. To me an even more egregious example was when Newt Gingrich allegedly (he and his daughter disputes this version) told his told his first wife that he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer. If true, that's pretty cold.

F1,

You're right. I've read critiques of Dem.s and the POTUS and other articles by D'souza that are surgically precise and that can't be argued. In fact, because of the Portuguese last name, I often forget that it's him writing the article.

I respect the fact that he's an open bigot. Just puzzles me when non-wasps buy into and repeat the racist code words and stereotypes from the country's past. I often wonder whether they are aware that the people they are pandering to hold different but equally rigid stereotypes about their groups.

In fact, because of the H-1 B visa issue, I expect that Desi people will be the next group to be targeted by this same base level rhetoric and pandering. I'm certain that some people see the brown faces and features and group them with Arabs anyway.(and whatever stereotypes they hold about Arabs)

I have to admit that much of the time I tune into the Kelly File just so I can look at Megan Kelly. However, last week I watched her interview of D'Souza (Hillary's America) during which he cited several historically well-known anti-slavery figures (such as Lincoln and Frederick Douglas) as being Republicans and pro-slavery or pro-segregation figures as Democrats. True enough. But what he failed to cite was the ideological turn that the Republican Party took (starting particularly in the 60s) as the Congress (and society generally) embraced desegregation. He completely ignored the Solid South, Dixiecrats, and George Wallace's American Independent Party.

Oli,

Yes. "The Party of Lincoln" is a slogan that Black conservative commentators use all the time. They don't place things in context and neither is D'souza. It's deliberate, done to confuse people who are not inclined to look up the story.

LOL...Do you mean Women should wear Aprons and men should go to work? Personally, I believe women were put on this earth to have babies and give great head. Visit the East Coast where most households are a two working family. I couldn't imagine my wife having a voice. But I agree, women have no place on the Fire Department either IMO.

What are the racist code words stereotypes?

mitch McConnell and all his right wing nuts, from the start were determined to bring Obama down, wanting to make him a one term president, those neo-cons were against him the moment he took office, and cruz hated him also.

they hated the guy for one reason, and one reason only,

HE WAS BLACK! no other reason,

Not even sure if this is a joke ?

No a lot of people believe that SoCal. That's the liberal/Dem way. If you disagree with or criticize Obama, that paint brush immediately comes out and they paint you a racist. You can't win so no need to reply to it. Just make sure you vote in November.

Yea I know they act this way but he came off as TOO much of a caricature that it threw me off.

Yup. It's the lazy/dishonest liberal way. They know the "it's cause he's black" accusation is bullshit but when has that ever stopped them?

Half black.

In the case I mentioned above, D'souza uses the words "boy" and "ghetto" to describe the President of the United States.

Fringe politician Rick Tyler has/had billboard up in 2016 saying "Make America White Again"

Perhaps 100 or more American elected officials, cops, and govt.workers have been exposed using racial slurs, stereotypes, etc on OFFICIAL email accounts about POTUS since he was first elected.

Don't worry if you've not noticed them , SoCal.
In the weeks to come, you'll see and hear some of these code words/stereotypes about Latinos in ads. (for sure)

I was genuinely curious in the case of D'souza. I've never followed his work. Just a few days ago I came across a debate he had with that buffoon Cenk Uyger, and thought he came off as a legit debater. Didn't watch the whole thing though.

no its no joke, Obama wanted to see his nominee on the supreme court, and he was right for the part, but the right wingers were determined to give him nothing. not even talk to the nominee.

now, Hillary most likely will have a nominee repugnant to the far right, and will serve on the court. the republicans shot themselves in the foot on this one,

as to my reference about the far righters hated him because hes black..... there is a lot of truth in that, they have never given him any respect, and for years hung over his head the 'birther issue" which was all bogus from the start. I live in a state that is as far right as you can get, Idaho.
and the mere mention of his name brings racist remarks every time. I know the far right mindset, and it is indeed very, very, klan like. trump is just bringing it out,

I think his name being Barack hussein Obama was more to blame for a lot of that birther stuff and deep distrust. Right wingers love black conservatives for the most part. Love them as much as the Left hates them.

maybe, so cal, however they just refused to work with the man on anything, it was a definite calculated plan to make him a one termer, and it hurt the country, they 'right wing klansman' put their hatred for Obama over service to their country,

and I don't feel I was wrong by stating my reason. if he would have been white, they would not have hated him at all, and things would have been different,

You're delusional if you really believe that horseshit. They didn't work with him on many things because he's a liberal, a very liberal, Democrat. It's a political thing. Not a race thing. We see the same party gridlock with whoever is in office. Klansmen? Get out of here with that nonsense.

I don't get what's so bad about trying to make him a one term president.

The whole point of being an opposition party is to oppose the other parties agenda, especially on issues with strong ideological differences. ( I would argue the differences aren't big enough).

The idea that they wouldn't hate him if he was white makes no sense to me. I remember how much the republicans hated Bill Clinton and still do.im guessing they oppose Hillary because she's a women?

I like gridlock anyway. I like when any president, republican or democrat can't pass a bunch of laws. I hate bi partisanship too. All that means is more bullshit laws.

what do you call their mindset [far right] when they march in lockstep to mitch mconnell in not even listening to a respected legal mind, whom Obama nominated to be a supreme court justice,\

or trying to stop Obama care 40 times, even when the supreme court made it the law of the land, or shutting down the government over something they don't like. as far as kkk goes, did trump denounce david duke, NO, and neither did the rest of them. they are the delusional ones, thinking they can turn back the clock to 1954,big business puppets owned by corporate ceos.

Actually Trump denounced David Duke several times, but for some reason didn't when he was interviewed by Jake Tapper.

Yes, Republicans tried to stop Obamacare an unknown number of times because they disagree with socialized medicine. If you don't like big business then you shouldn't like Hillary Clinton since she's been in their pocket for decades. If you are against big business in politics, then vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

Opposing Obama care was their job and they failed at it.

Again, I don't get your point. They get voted in to oppose Obama care, and you have a problem with that? So they're supposed to just let the other party impose a law on an the entire country when damn near half the country doesn't want it?

What is the Supreme Court made up of ? Gods? I actually think the republicans were weak as shit on opposing Obama care. They never made a good case for a better plan. They never made the case for an actual free market in health care. All they did was say Obama care is bad and propose very little as alternative.

good point, where is their health care plan? when have they ever offered anything on their own, all they have ever done is oppose Obama, sure, Obama care can be vastly improved on and it will, but the republicans will never offer anything, republicans in this congress were nothing but reactionaires.
not lawmakers.

faithful, good post as always, just pointing out the mindsets of the two parties......... yes, overall corporations own them all. its sad but true,

Thanks for the kudos.

To your question about healthcare plans, there are a lot of GOP health care plans. Obama even said he based his on one put out by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank). Mitt Romney implemented the Heritage plan, but in the meantime Heritage renounced the plan. When Romney was running for Prez he had a modified plan, Newt Gingrich had his own plan, and more recently Ben Carson had a plan. Carson's is more libertarian and resembles something coming out the Cato Institute (libertarian think tank).

So just because someone is against Obamacare doesn't mean that they are against healthcare plans. Bernie Sanders was against Obamacare because he wanted a single-payer plan (I think Jill Stein does too). The GOP tends to lean toward libertarian models, but with a safety net. Libertarians may or may not have a safety net (compare Gary Johnson to Ron Paul).

I think the reason why conservative pundits keep trying to draw a parallel between the anti-slavery Republican party of the Civil War era and today's Republican party is because they know a lot of modern day conservatives are dumb enough to buy it. No one else does.

Saying David Duke would make a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Saying you support white nationalism.

Among other things.

They did propose some plans here and there but I don't think they ever made a strong case. I would've liked for them to really make a strong case for a free market in health care, and they didn't do that enough. Of course I'm with Ron Paul's way of handling health care and he did try making a strong case but that message didn't get to mainstream America.
I do think big business influence is the major factor in that. Contrary to popular belief, the big corporations absolutely oppose an actual free market because it means open competition and competitive prices.

No, it's because Republicans were questioning his citizenship, passing around emails depicting him with big lips, eating watermelons, etc., calling him a Muslim, calling him a terrorist, you know, and various other things that have never happened to past presidents.

He's anti war, he's against the federal reserve system banking cartel , that's not my fault.
Even an ex KKK guys plan would help the poor in this country than the mainstream candidates that want to drown us in debt. It has become that sad.

They never accused Bill Clinton of not being a citizen.

They never passed emails around with drawings of Bill Clinton eating watermelons, having a bone in his nose, etc.

They never called Clinton a Muslim.

They never called Clinton a terrorist.

As usual, you're WAY off the mark.

You have it backward, of course.

Trump refused to denounce David Duke on Jake Tapper, despite Tapper giving him chance after chance.

Then, when Trump realized this was a bad move and that it was hurting him politically, he then began to denounce Duke, "several times".

Bill Clintons name wasn't Barack Hussein Obama.

Which names sounds more Muslim or more foreign??

I'm not saying it's right, but there's more factors here than just race. Obama wasn't the average black guy that grew up in one town with a black mother and father. He's half white, has a different kind of name. Isn't his father from Kenya?

That's why Clintons citizenship wasn't called into question. If Jesse Jackson was president, nobody would question his citizenship.

Anybody remember Clinton and the impeachment? Talk radio was on a roll because of Clinton. Rush Limbuaghs career skyrocketed off of bashing Clinton everyday.

I'm right on the mark as always, thank you.

And, of course, this is bullshit. The corporations know they could just buy out the competition. And, when they have a monopoly, the deregulated market will suit them just fine. They donate their money all around to play the field, get into the pockets of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

that's the point I was trying to make, it was pure hatred of Obama just because he was black, the right could not take a black president, and now they have nominated a man who exemplifies the true republican. against anyone who is not lily white, holds the poor in contempt, thinks any one who is not country club golf, doesn't belong in this country, and to quote George w, bush jr "the constitution is nothing but a piece of
paper,

If it's bullshit than why do corporations always oppose any actual libertarian type candidate? Why would they oppose any free market reforms and fight tooth and nail against them?
Yeah they donate to both major parties. Both parties are mostly bought off.
You're simplistic idea of deregulation suits them just fine isn't reality. It depends on the regulation being passed.


You are unread on this subject. You have no idea what you're even talking about. Corporations have always went to government to create legal monopolies, to keep competitors out, to regulate smaller competitors off the market and make it harder for smaller business to compete. Regulatory capture is absolutely a real problem in the economy that many economists are aware of.

Lol. Trying to equate Clinton getting criticism on right wing radio to the onslaught of racism Obama faced when he first took office, not to mention the death threats, which I believe exceeded all of the death threats Bush received in his entire 8 years in the first week of his presidency. Clinton had to fuck an intern with a cigar for Republicans to say he was unfit for the office. All Obama had to do was get elected, with his Arabic name and dark skin. Your attempt to equate the two is an insult to anyone with a conscience.

I don't know what you mean by support, but they donate to the candidates that have a chance of winning. The reason they don't donate to some third party libertarian wacko who wants to set dynamite to all of the banks is because they know an idiot like that is not going to win. It would be a waste of money to donate to them.

Scroll up to my other post. I said I think the birther thing had to do with his name. And yes the right wing hated Clintons guts and still do. But that was before the economy collapsed and before 9/11. I think by the time Obama came into office there was just much more over hatred on both sides plus internet confirmation biases and conspiracy theories all over.
If Hillary gets into office she will be just as much hated if not more.
When Obama got into office I knew a lot of people that actually liked him.
I don't know a single person in my personal life that actually likes Hillary Clinton. She's hated across the board. I'm sure people like you will say because she's a women?

Is that so, Mr. "big corporations don't want a free market"? Man, you are silly.

Yeah, that's right, the types of drawings that depicted Obama as eating watermelons, having big lips, chucking spears, etc., all started with 9/11 and the recession. White Americans were just venting! It wasn't real racism...

It becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way when all the media and entire establishment keeps telling the population which candidates are acceptable and which ones you shouldn't even bother paying attention to. It's not an accident that there's only two major parties and other viewpoints or parties have a hard time getting in debates and air time. Then you'll justify it by saying"those people don't have a chance, ignore them"
Truth is the big businesses want politicians that will pass laws that will crush their competitors or at the very least keep them competitive. The free market is fucking hard to survive in without government subsidies. You have to stay competitive at all times, with prices and services. New innovation and business models can whip you off the map. It's not a comfortable environment for almost any business. But it's good for the consumer and customers.

Politics is evil anyway. It's a giant auction and absurd popularity contest. It isn't about truth. It isn't about reason. So it's not a surprise the worst climb their way to the top.

Drawings? I don't know, I never seen them. Who drew them? Random white people or some republican senator?
Where did I ever say that wasn't " real racism" by the way?

Omg he had to deal with racist drawings ?? Lol man you're soft. Yeah whoever drew those are racist shit heads. So what.

Your white guilt isn't going to work on me. Mexican people don't suffer from soft ass white guilt.

Yeah all those banks that deliberately conspired to create the federal reserve system to" regulate themselves" because JP Morgan and all those guys were just looking out for the public good when they created their powerful cartel that still holds stronger than ever today.
Yeah that was just the exception right. Usually they push for free market. Right.

The problem is liberals, including on this board, use some racists (who certainly are not all Republican) as an excuse to automatically ignore or explain away any and all criticism of Obama. It's easier to do that then actually deal with legitimate complaints about him.

How would you know?

throwing in the towel? I thought so. You're empty.

No, I'm legitimately asking. How would you know? Do Mexicans tell you this? Have you surveyed Mexicans? Why would you bring up Mexicans? It was just a bizarre point that I felt needed scrutiny, that's all.

Because I laugh at you when you bring up stuff about racism, David duke, the KKK. Like it's supposed to make me feel bad or something. It's not going to work.

Secondly and most obviously, Mexicans don't suffer from white guilt because most don't identify as white.

Again, how did we get to Mexicans?

Nobody was talking about Mexicans. Then you went to this weird argument about how Mexicans don't believe in white guilt, or something. Did you take some sort of a survey? Are you referring to the Mexicans in the "So Cal Gangs" you're such an expert on? Seriously, wtf are you talking about?

The reason why so many of us suspect racism in Obama's critics is because so few of their complaints are legitimate.

Or something? I know you have a real hard time comprehending simple concepts so I'll spare both of us some time.

But if you want to talk so cal gangs we can do that too.

Whatever you say.

Just, Mexicans not believing in white guilt? Seriously? Where did that come from? How would you know? Weird.

Anyhow, if you don't want to expand on that, fine. Moving right along.

Notice you always twist words?? Really bad, bad habit.

Mexicans don't believe in white guilt?? Where the hell did I ever write that? And what would that even mean? No wonder you're so confused. You make up shit and then confuse yourself..

Okay...

"Mexican people don't suffer from soft ass white guilt"

That's a direct quote.

What does any of this mean?

Why is any of this relevant?

How would you know this, even if it were true?

How did you determine it?

Did you extensively interview Mexicans?

I see you posted a video of some cholo rapper in another thread.

Is this your source? Gang members posting youtube videos?

My goodness, did this get strange...

Ok I wish this conversation was in person so I can talk real, real slow for you so that maybe you can understand.

"Mexicans don't suffer from white guilt"

"Mexicans don't believe in white guilt"

Now, notice the difference? Two different claims being made here. Now which statement did I make?

Here's another question. Do blacks suffer from white guilt?

It's an easy question. No survey needed.

Why is white guilt such a big issue with you?

If you're not white, why would you care?

Besides, I don't think guilt is really a horrible thing. White people should feel a little bit guilty of their privilege. It's not an admission or taking responsibility for any wrong doing. It's just an acknowledgement that there are a lot of people that have it worse than you. There are a lot of very successful white people that go a long way in life harboring some of this guilt. They make charitable decisions based on it. They start programs based on it. Is this such a horrible thing? You really can't find anything worse to complain about?

And, again, it's really weird that you're so hung up on white guilt while you at least claim to not even be white.

How am I hung up on it? A big issue?

I made one comment about it towards the end of a post. You're the one getting all confused and blowing it up into something bigger..

You've never made just one comment about anything in your life.

the facts are republicans wont step away from trump because he represents what they really think. their racism shows because of their insistence on illegal voting laws that they imposed on several states. the us supreme court threw out the voting laws
as being discrimatory, their intention was clear, to take away voting rights of minorities.

now they know that wont work, so they have to have trump as president to preserve their illmoral and racist party.

Binnie, you're doing the overgeneralization fallacy again, making claims about an entire group based on the opinions of some members of the group.

If you read the news there are plenty of Republicans who don't support Trump. Do a search of "nevertrump" and see how many results you get.

Then you just make up stuff that isn't true, such as they are going to take away your Social Security. Trump said he doesn't want to touch the program. The fact is, Social Security is running out of money and if something isn't done to fix it there won't be anything for anyone else. What some other Republicans and Libertarians have discussed is to partially privatize it. That means the people already on it, like you, would be grandfathered in the program and things would stay the same. You won't be affected. Younger people who aren't in the program could choose between different options. Plus some of that SS money would be invested in the stock market similar to how Chile did it. I don't know all the details, but that's the gist of it.

As for voting, showing an ID to vote is just common sense and it's done all over the world, including third world countries. There's nothing discriminatory about showing ID. It helps reduce voter fraud. Voter fraud is a real problem and has been a problem since the days of Tammany Hall. Some (notice I didn't write ALL) Democrats claim it's nonexistent, but they not only ignore the evidence, they claim it's not a problem because there's no prosecutions for it. But if they refuse to prosecute that's really a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Then you assert that all the attacks on Obama are because of racism. Every single one. That's crazy. It's also wrong. If you've read American history you do know that every president has been attacked and mocked, yet you seem to think that every past president has been treated with respect until Obama. Do a Google search for "george bush" and "monkey" and you'll see images of him turned into a chimp. You can also find movies made about assassinating George Bush. Has there been a single movie about doing that to Obama? There are books with "I Hate George Bush" in the title. Have you seen any books titled "I Hate Barack Obama"? Yes, Trump believes or used to believe that Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to be President. He also said Ted Cruz was ineligible. Others made the same claim about John McCain and Mitt Romney. Were they racists too? Anyway, how is claiming that someone was born in Kenya racist? It might be wrong, but how is it racist? Nationalities are not races.

Finally, about Trump voters. I'm not a Trump voter nor a Republican, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe all his supporters are racists. They're not. Far from it. Yes, some are racists. Most aren't. Many are just pissed off people who've seen their jobs vanish and they want someone to fight for them, and they believe he'll do that. They don't agree with everything he says.

So please, stop making the generalizations about all Republicans being racist and wanting to get rid of Social Security. Those are scare stories and DNC talking points.

We already went through this. No previous president had elected officials in the opposing party passing emails mocking his ethnicity. No previous president was accused of not being a citizen. Past presidents had to bang interns and commit burglary to get half the scorn this president received just for being elected while black. Your argument has been debunked. It's an insult. Drop it.

you know I agree, ty for pointing out what I have been saying.

faithful 1, I have always respected you and your posts, no one on this site is more informed.

but about ss, I'm 75 yrs old and it matters a great deal to me, hence the mention of my fears over ss. and I am not alone in this thinking.
as far as Obama goes I stand by my previous posts,

with all due respect, bennie.

Yeah Regan didn't have to deal with hateful emails being passed around, you're right. And Kennedy didn't get nearly as much hate on Twitter and Facebook like the kind of Obama has gotten. Argument debunked !

Binnie, my mother and my aunt both live on SS and my brother is on SS Disability, so it matters to me too. It's also unsustainable. If you live another ten years or so then you'll probably be okay, but the next generation that will soon go in it may find that treasury to be empty. Something has to be done or else there's going to be a lot of homeless and starving seniors.

SS is going to crumble because rich people today are spoiled, greedy little shits who don't want their taxes increased so much as 1% to help stabilize it.

well if it dries up, 65 million americans will take to the streets.

those that can walk anyway.

if obama was doing a bad job as president it would be on the news all day

republicans spew racist views and call it being "conservative"

obama's job as president was to stop the bleeding george bush started

and obama has not caused chaos in the middle east? Libya was his fault was a stable country before US backed a coup against Gaddafi now look its a mess. Helped destabilize Syria aswell under his administration

Now dont get me wrong i actually like obama i would have voted for him and i do agree he had to deal with the problems Bush caused in Iraq and US actions in Afghanistan in the 80s but he is no saint either he has is share of mistakes. I felt sorry for him every time the man wanted to do anything congress blocked him and even if people do disagree with his policy i do think he was trying to do good and thats rare for a politician

It's already happening, Binnie. The boomers were the last generation to fully understand how important things like social security are. My generation and the ensuing generations just don't think they're going to get old. Or, they think if they do get old, they'll be rich by that time. Or, they'll just live off the land and not need government, or something. It's scary what's going on. Hopefully there's just enough smart, sane people in these ensuing generations that get it, and somehow save the system, for everyone's sake.

Another ignorant statement. Raising taxes 1% is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed, and raising taxes isn't the best solution.

More words of wisdom from oak.

Hopefully this generation wakes up and puts all their trust in the politicians to plan for their retirement years. Let's be sane and let our future be determined by the political whims and climate, years on down the line. What can possibly go wrong??

Social Security isn't "drying up" nearly as bad as most people say it is.

And Faithful, raising taxes 1% is more than a drop in the bucket. If you can raise the payroll tax to cover incomes just even a little bit, that would do wonders.

And that's if you take the argument that the government needs to raise revenue to fund programs at face value... but let's not start a fiat currency discussion, that will bring out the NWO conspiracy theorists.

The income cap is like $110,000, which is ridiculous.

Sorry for the quadruple post, but the propaganda campaign against Social Security is soooo ridiculous. It is led by banks because banks want more privatized retirement programs because more privatized retirement programs = more fees.

As a program itself, from administrative costs to effective distribution, Social Security is well run.

I hear you oak, one of the major problems is the dissapearance of the middle class, and yet the republicans continue with the tax cuts for the rich, which is no solution to job-creating, and they wont be content until there is nothing but rich, and poor, and they will never give up until they accomplish that goal.

not to mention wanting to give social security to wall street, if that happens, god help us all.

I agree........... but banks and wall street will never give up trying to privatize S.S. so they can raid and loot the fund.

and the republican party is complicit in this criminal conspiracy.

If you want to bury your head in the sand, that's up to you. Social Security is being paid by current employees to fund retirees and the disabled. It's a huge pyramid scheme and eventually those pyramids collapse.

Read the Trustees Report: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Then consider our aging population with insufficient economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2034 benefits will be limited to 79% and it will decline from there. It can't be looked at in isolation either. The national debt is about $20 trillion and unfunded mandates raise it up to about $230 trillion (numbers range from about $180 to $280 trillion). It's not some "vast right-wing conspiracy." It's reality. Deal with it.

Live off the land? That is doubtful

You don't need the government if you make smarter choices in life; if you can't afford something don't buy it. Save money if you don't want to trust an ira or 401k put money in a saving or money market h*ll even a cd to try and get some interest on it. If you don't want to save money that is on the individual

Someone said don't mention fiat money and ironically that's one of the main reasons so many people end up having to depend on SS because of a devalued fiat currency and artificially low interest rates that make saving much harder for an average person.

Definitely hard to save, banks don't make it easy (part of the reason why I left my job in banking, they didn't care about people only CEO making money) But you always have options.

I'd suggest checking out: The Richest Man in Babylon by George S. Clason and The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need by Andrew Tobias

[Edit] Also The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham

Maybe check out this App interesting concept

https://www.acorns.com/

Not advettsing or telling people to use it do your own research first

Dude,

you have the right attitude and ideas about saving and investing. start early, stay consistent, live a lifestyle that can be sustained even in stormy situation.


One recent victory for young people was the Credit Card act of 2009.Some of the provisions protect young people from themselves and keeps them from getting further into debt before they even enter the workforce.

Are you going to use social security? Are you now?

If it's worth anything by the time I retire. if I had the opportunity to opt out of it now and not pay and do my own savings with the extra money, I'd do that.

That's what I thought.

You're sitting here mocking people who are dependent on social security when you admit that you're not about to turn it down when you're eligible.

You're really chicken shit.

You're a lunatic. And I mean that in the most serious way. Not just a cheap insult.
Every time I make the mistake of trying to engage with you on a human and rational level you come back with some way out there troll kind of response.

I'm "mocking" people huh? Yeah sure. You're out of your mind.

You have a condescending, shit attitude toward people that need social security. It was obvious in your previous comment. You talk about them as if they're flawed, as if they made a mistake. I knew you were going to answer yes when I asked you if you're going to draw social security. You won't be dependent on it, but you'll take the money anyway? You're just cheap and chicken shit.

"I would opt out"

Oh, sure. You know you can't really do that, so you'll just say that you would, even though you'll never be put to the test. That's the equivalent of flipping someone off on a freeway while they're on the exit ramp. You're a cheap, chicken shit person.

You're full of projection. There was absolutely no condescending or shit attitude anywhere in my post what so ever. You're reading into it with what you want. You have all these preconceived notions about people that you talk to on here, I've noticed. You like to shove words into people's mouths and misrepresent everything they're saying.

You're a true bigot in the purest definition of the word.

"big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

If you were even semi rational or intelligent, you would've read my post in full context and seen that the EXACT opposite is the case. I'm showing EMPATHY for the average person that is having a hard time saving money in a low interest rate environment. That includes MYSELF. Idiot. Low interest rates discourage savings. Basic shit. it has nothing to do with other people "making mistakes." That's your own words you made up. Nothing to do with what I said. That's crazy talk.

What, you think I'm exempt from the banking and monetary policies of this country? Lol.

You just cannot, in any way, entertain an opposing view point of somebody else for even one minute without assuming they're a Terrible person with sinister motives.

That's why you troll people so hard, with non arguments and insults.

Bullshit. You were separating yourself from people "dependent" on social security, otherwise why would you even single them out in the first place? Most people who bash social security are just like you. You guys are glad to draw it yourselves, but you think others are weak because they use it. You act as if they made bad choices, didn't save, etc. But, oh, you'll take social security because heck, why not? But you don't NEED it, you just want to make that clear. You do need it. And now you're in the shout box talking about how your whole family's on social security. Look at you now, mr. humbled working man all of a sudden. A half hour ago you were Warren freaking Buffet. Save your guilt trips. You were being an obnoxious asshole and I called you on it.

So by acknowledging that it's harder to save money in this monetary environment, I'm:

1. Mocking people on Social Security.
2. "Separating " myself from people dependent on it? Lol maybe because I'm not on it?
3.I'm acting like Warren Buffett.

Wow. You've completely lost it.

You need government. You use government every day. You're going to draw social security. You just tell yourself a bunch of bs lies to separate yourself from others that do it, like SoCal does.

Oh, shut up.

I never said government doesn't do good things I also have little choice when it comes to using government. Maybe I will maybe I won't we will see what happens when I reach that age. I will tell you this much I will not be dependent on it.

What lies have I said? I said people should make smarter choices throughout their life so they don't need to be dependent on government when they are older

Raise the cap on the payroll tax. As I said before.

Just curious, leaving the monthly SS check out of the discussion-

What do you plan to do for health insurance when you're older and no longer working?

Do you plan to buy a private health insurance plan out of your savings, or will you use Medicare (and just pay privately for the supplemental insurance/drug plans that most medicare recipients use)?

Hm I guess I will know for sure in 30 years, but it will be expensive if I pay for private, Medicare maybe depending on where I am at in life or the state of the country.

I try to save as much as possible, I meet my companies 401k match plus 4% to Roth IRA (obviously because it is after taxed money) I buy bulk a lot as well so my hope is I can save enough to cover all expenses. That being said I am currently single and have no kids so I have the luxary of having few expenses

Right now Medicare and suppliment medical costs about 170 a month for a pretty good plan. My co payments are low reg Doctor 5 dollars and specialist co pay 15.

That's it.

Buying in bulk when Ma died. We go to her apartment to clean it out. I found 200 rolls of toilet paper in a closet:) she had no car?

Before you retire you have to think a head. Do that you will be fine. Don't do it you won't be fine.

Medical plans will go up soon. A lot of good plans are leaving NYC for example.

Obama care expenses is the reason. Hillary will keep it so they are going to change a lot of things to keep it going. One is no more filing a joint return on income taxes and other taxes will go up to pay for it.

But everything is fine Hillary will fix everything except her own physical condition that I hear is getting worse. She knows just what to do

Relevant article on the Obamacare bubble about to burst:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/the-big-obamacare-bubble-is-about-to-explode-commentary.html

"Real hourly compensation decreased 0.4 percent after revision, rather than the previously-published increase of 4.2 percent." -- Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 9, 2016
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm

What do you think is going to happen when you get older to where you would not need social security?

The Obama everything was supposed to explode from the second he took office. It never did. You know what did explode? The Bush economy.

Well my hope is by smart decision making and hard work at a younger age I can be able to not "need" or be dependent on government if that is not the case I have nobody to blame but myself. I have no issue with people collecting SS some people actually need it but, I don't live my life thinking that it doesn't matter what I do I can spend all I want because I am going to be taken care of. I have more faith in myself to be successful than some people and if I'm not as successful as I want like I said before I can only blame myself.

Unleash of course I have some debilitating disease or something beyond my power

And again where did I lie?

You think most people on social security are on it because they didn't make smart decisions, or didn't work hard enough?

The so called rich when they are making a lot of money will not get their earned social security in the future. But using that money by the government is not even pennies on what we oue on the national debate.

Let's penalize the rich for making a lot of money. So no one even tries to be rich anymore. See how our economy is helped by that.

When you work for a big company who owns that big company a poor person?

You work for a small business how much money do you think you can make there?

Open a small business most people have to devote all their time doing hands on work there. Then let's say they are doing well and making gross 700 thousand a year. From that employee get paid and other stuff if you clear less then half your lucky then pay taxes high taxes because you are considered rich to pay your fair share. I hate that phrase but no politician will say how much the fair share is does Hillary pay her fair share?

When people get all their tax money back and end up paying no taxes. Are they paying their fair share? Their the ones who want other people to pay their fair share.

I think most people can make a lot of money if their willing to do anything to make it. Like forget about their family life their wife and kids and just concentrate on work. I have no doubt they can make a lot of money.

But who is willing to make that sacrifice to do that. Definately not most people. No followers will give up everything to make that happen.

The weak will not do it. That's why I despise weak people.

I saw a guy who could barely walk go food shopping in a local big grocery store. People there wanted to help him shop. Hell I wanted to help him. But that guy did not want any help from anyone. That guy had a will of iron. He was not weak he was strong he was an animal. I respect someone like that.

You have little to no reading comprehension skills. I never said that I'm not even talking about other people I am talking about myself and I was when you called me a liar but can't seem to tell me what I lied

Just asking a question, that's all. You said you're hoping to avoid being "dependent on government" (which I assume entails needing social security at an advanced age) by working hard and making smart choices. So, I just asked you if you think people on social security didn't work hard or make smart choices. Do you?

You think there's a possibility that no one will want to be rich someday?

thedudeabides,

Let me say this.

I hope you do succeed to the point to where you won't need social security.

I also hope social security is there for you, in case you don't.

I think that's the best way to articulate my argument.

I think when you work in a communist or socialist country there is no incentive to come up with an idea that you can make real money with. If you do come up with a great idea it becomes the property of the state not the inventor. Get it

I think if you are a doctor a surgeon in one of those places you can't make any money. So why put all that time in to study.

I know a high ranking officer in a foreign army. He make a lot of money by being in the army. He also happens to be a doctor a surgeon he make no money doing that.

Communist countries are one thing, but in this country, there will ALWAYS be people that want to be rich. That fantasy is right up there with the love of guns.

becoming rich IS looking more, and more like a fantasy,

the tax structure is set up to benefit the extreme rich

and the stock market is more or less rigged, with all the leveraged mergers, and manipulation going on daily.
becoming rich used to the dream of the middle class now
the dream of the middle class, is the hope it doesn't disappear
altogether/
.

Being "rich" is subjective.

Dude,

just got finished watching the Glenn Beck "Founding Fathers" clip you put up a while back.Thanks. Definitely interesting. Beck has to throw in some of the garbage of course, but pretty interesting. I had some good debates on this site about "Black History Month" and I've always said that It exists because the contributions of Africans were omitted from general American history books. Not by coincidence either.
When they take questions at the end, the people are clearly plants and it looks like an infomercial.

Central banking destroys the middle class little by little. Disproportionately hurts the poor and those on fixed incomes. The financial sector, the stock market, and the banks become bigger and richer because they have access to the money and credit first. All artificially propped up. Add the promise of bail outs and it is a complete house of cards.
Too much money and resources get shuttled into the financial sector, which means less capital, resources and productivity in sectors that the economy actually needs.

It's not because of the tax system. Taxes just send more money to the government. The government spends way more than what it takes in. Artificially low interest rates discourages savings. Savings is where real capital comes from. Artificially low interest rates and credit expansion leads to over consumption of resources, massive debt, and highly leveraged business models.

Simply taxing rich people can't solve the problem of finite resources.

so cal gang................ what you have said is basically the reasons for the death of the middle class, and when it in its death throes, will we ever be able to get it back, one thing that made the middle class in the 50s... 60s was labor unions.
now they are nowhere near the membership they had 30 40 yrs ago, I believe I will live to see the complete dismemberment of the middle class.

It always was a fantasy. You can take the U.S. economy at its historical high point, which is arguably the 1950s or the 1990s, depending on which economists you ask, and the odds were never in favor of the average American becoming rich. Ever. It's always been a long shot. There's nothing wrong with setting it as a goal. But to walk around having it as some sort of inherited expectation, anticipating it being a substitute for things like a secure union job, health insurance, and social security, is clearly a flawed plan. This is not pessimism, this is a conclusion based on the odds, and the odds aren't even close.

Let's call it 200k/year.

The vast, vast majority of Americans will never see that. Just a statistical fact.

yes,i understand you, a good secure job, and health insurance, and pension is indeed a dream for most u.s. workers.
young married couples can't even afford a new car, much less a house, I guess you could say that the crashing of the American dream, has finally hit home to most americans, hence the demigod Donald trump exploiting this realization of dissatisfied American workers,

Good jobs and pensions are still attainable. They're being whittled away at, but they're there. Being rich is not attainable. It's a tall mountain for most Americans, and it always was. Yet, a lot of Americans are dealing with the loss of the former by clinging to a delusional belief in achieving the latter. We can fight for middle class jobs and win. Instead, we choose to fight to be rich, where only 1 in a hundred or so are going to win. In the past 16 years the Republican party has done a number on our grasp of reality.

excellent post, and I for one totally agree, the republican party has devastated the middle class. and I agree about the delusion.

I think there are number of factors the lead to current trend of shrinking middle class.

One that is often overlooked is that as people have become more assimilated they are generally LESS likely to think of entrepreneurship.


Those of you who are 4-6 generation Americans or less, think about the stories you heard about previous generations owning businesses...often out of necessity because of prejudice towards their group from Americans who had been here longer.

Older generation smartly pushed their kids to get formal education and enter the mainstream. Somewhere along the way people lost the entrepreneurial spirit , and as the economy has contracted the job opportunities just aren't there anymore.

Old school guy who owned a pizzeria predicted this to me when I was a kid. He said today's kids were like house cats, who were declawed. Put them out in nature and they will starve.

Another large part of what has happened to the US middle class is the loss of the kind of manufacturing jobs that allowed many Americans to move into the middle class starting in the post WW2 era. Strong unions, high wages, high demand for ourgoods, etc made the leap up possible for millions. Men could work in a factory, own a house, send their kids to college, etc. Good luck with that today.

Those jobs aren't coming back, no matter who you vote for.

The H1B visa program,and the way businesses misuse it ,is especially a slap in the face.

It does highlight a point that if often loss on American workers, to Big Business labor is just a cost. If the cost can be lowered, you are expendable.

It's a tough pill to swallow, especially for people who bought into the things that talking heads have been feeding them for years.

But, I thought Trump said he's THE guy who can fix it.

For the past couple of decades, the talking heads have been feeding people the opposite, telling them they don't need government, unions, social security, health insurance, etc. People who buy this are the ones that will be swallowing a tough pill.

Absolutely. And in the interests of full disclosure, my industry and I are an excellent example, so I bear some guilt in all this. Not the visas, but the cost of labor and it's expendability.

When I began my career about 25 years ago about 85% of the total goods made in my industry were produced in the US and 15% were made overseas. The numbers are now reversed,but slightly worse, say 93% overseas and 7% US.

Why? Because even with the costs of shipping merchandise from China/India/Pakistan to the US I can still make a bigger margin by manufacturing overseas and bringing it here than I could making it here. The cost of labor is the biggest factor in that calculation.

We have the biggest most powerful government in the history of the world. Trillions upon trillions of debt to show for it. The most regulations the world has ever seen.

No, the people that have a tough pill to swallow will be those of you that think adding a few more trillions of government spending and programs
Will solve the problem of a shrinking middle class. Because you do not understand resources are finite and that the more resources go towards government/ political distribution of resources, the poorer and weaker the private economy becomes.

I don't know what talking heads you're talking about. All I heard all my life, from government run schools, to the media, is that the government is like a god. And we all need government to solve ALL our problems. Just give the politicians more power so they can wave that magic wand and fix it all. Without them, everything would collapse. Even the so called small government conservatives will spend and grow the government even bigger than the democrats when in power.
The statists have been in charge for decades. This is your economy.

The money is being spent on wars, and making the rich even richer. The money isn't being spent on the people, or the infrastructure and services that make the quality of life peaceful and prosperous for average Americans. They're leaving poor Americans to fend for themselves, while they're building a nest egg for themselves.

The money is being spent everywhere from
Wars to welfare both corporate and crumbs to the poor.
The government has no incentive to help poor people in a permanent way or else they wouldn't be able to justify their power and massive budgets. This is how they maintain their power, why would they ever give that up? They're not charity. They're an institution built on the initiation of force and coercion. It's about power and control.

At least welfare is putting food on peoples' tables. And when you break it down per person, it's crumbs. The military contractors are making out like bandits.

So how many more trillions should be redistributed towards welfare programs for the poor? What amount exactly would solve it?

just a quick note to you oak, don't know if you know it or not.but... dick cheney used to work for haliburton, he became vice-prez, engineered wars In Afghanistan, and Iraq, haliburton got a majority of military contracts, funny thing is at cheneys urging haliburtons contracts were NO-BID CONTRACTS.

haliburton had billions of military contracts, cheney should have been prosecuted for his sweetheart deals with them.
he never left his haliburton job, continued to work for them, when he was vice-prez.

I don't know. I never looked at starving children as a price tag. Just my way of thinking, I guess.

And the worst part is that the media totally gave Dick Cheney a pass on that. You hardly heard about it. Had to look it up. 'Oh, the vice president's former company receives a no bid contract to provide oil to Iraq in an already controversial war? Non story!'

So are you saying that despite the government war on poverty since atleast the 1960s and trillions of dollars spent, there's still children starving?

I am sure where you live you never actually saw a starving child. If you did you would not help him. You would say let the government do it. A lot of people are poor here. A lot of people on drugs here would use any money they have on the thing they love drugs not their children.

I can picture you donating to crudity to stray animals but not to people.

If there wasn't welfare, there would be children starving. Obviously. People fear we're becoming a 3rd world country. A good way to do that would be to cut off welfare. The second welfare is cut off, we're a 3rd world hellhole, and it really is over.

I didn't ask what you think would happen if all welfare was cut off.

The question is how much more should be spent in order to solve it. How much more money needs to be redistributed in order to Win the war on poverty?

I'll give you the same answer every time. I don't put a price tag on starving children. I don't care how much it costs. Children should not starve in a nation as wealthy as ours.

So I take it that you don't think the government war on poverty can ever be won and that children are stil starving or on the verge of starvation.

oak, I agree. you have all these organizations fighting world hunger, but the republicans could care less, they wouldn't
spend a nickel on a starving child, the great depression proved that. when has a republican ever introduced anything like the war on poverty. which by the way helped many children.

spot on oak, there can be a price tag on deprived children,
many who now live in shelters with their single mothers.

Completely false. Conservatives and republicans give more money to charity and donate more time towards helping people.

I'm not a republican but it's a fact.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

The war on poverty is a failure. As is the war on drugs and the war on terror and any war the government declares that isn't an actual real war with clear objectives.

Government isn't a charity.

I find myself agreeing with both "sides" of the discussion.

During the Great Depression...proud men who would have NEVER asked anybody for anything stood in soup lines. They would preferred to work, but they would swallow pride before starving to death or allowing their kids to starve.

FDR, and his policies kept the country from falling apart.* He created programs that helped people, put Americans back to work , and created safety nets.

The govt. gave people fish, taught them to fish, and stocked lakes with fish....figuratively.

I support govt. agencies and private organizations that teach people to fish and that give fish to those who can't fish (children and the elderly.)


*I got a preview of what a collapse of society could look like during Hurricane Sandy's aftermath.....NJ came this close from descending into Lord of the Flies.A few more days and it would have been total chaos.

Brooks methodology for analysis have been criticized (and not just by liberals).

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

http://bit.ly/1i8SiL2

spot on helen, everything I said is a matter of record.

republicans have one god, MONEY,

democrats have a conscience. will help poor.

Thanks. I just read the first link. The takeaway seems to be that there's not a significant difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to giving to charity, but maybe the difference lies between "moderates" vs conservatives and liberals.

Still, none of this supports the idea that conservative people wouldn't give a nickel to help starving children or support any cause. I get that a lot of conservatives give money to churches. But a lot of churches do work to try helping the poor.

The idea that one whole group of people from a political party is just evil and greedy, just seems ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous. Painting any enormous group with a broad brush is reductive and frankly, just plain old stupid.

Conservatives are...
Liberals are...
Muslims are...
Blacks are...

It's all bullshit. People are people at their core. Some are good, some are bad, most are in the middle.

Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and Europeans:

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013/12/...-and-europeans/

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

"What's more, Republicans appear to give bigger gifts, but Democrats pour in the smaller donations in a big number. Said the survey analysis, "If, however, you zero in on giving that is heavier or lighter than the middle range you find that the parties differ a lot. Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors — 31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americ...article/2580876

There's plenty of Republicans who help the poor, but for some reason you're just full of hate towards them and demonize them. It's simplistic black and white thinking that is absolutely not true. Some people call it Republican Derangement Syndrome.

ive never in my life ever seen any of the evidence of republicans being givers, sorry, that's my take on them.

Simply answer, No.




Thank you, I hope the same for you.

Some people no doubt need it because of things beyond their control and I would never discourage them from doing so.



I agree but it is not impossible and not a "fantasy"



I wish I had learned this in highschool so I didn't have to hear the commentary but that is media at its "best," at a very leat you can learn something if you are a fan of history it is very interesting and a good watch.



As usual, I agree with most of your post I am on both sides but at some point, people relied on receiving fish so much they become dependent on it and not learning how to fish.


FDR- “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is in violation of the traditions of America.”

I cannot take away the fact the some people do need it.

Dude,

Thanks again for the clip. I'm not ashamed to say that there were two guys in the paintings who I had never heard of.

I have a poster of the Black Heritage Postage Stamps and I always joked that the picture used for Benjamin Banneker(same poster in the clip) looks just like Nas.

Great FDR quote. Think it should apply to corporate welfare also.

Just don't forget the missing parts of that quote:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.


You can read that entire SOTU address here
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html

After that bit above the speech goes on to propose that those that cant care for themselves be cared for through social agencies, and for those that can work emergency public employment, both of which many consider filthy commie socialism.

But wouldn't it be better had the Great Depression been avoided in the first place?

My biggest beef with government is that it will create a problem- the Great Depression- and then blame the supposed "free market gone wild" and then expand government welfare and say see"you need us."

Government didn't create the Great Depression. Greed, and a total lack of regard for the poor and working class did. This almost created another depression between 2007-2009, and would have if Democrats had not taken the white house.

Blaming greed is like blaming gravity for a plane crash. Gravity is always there as is greed but that doesn't explain what went wrong.

The federal reserve inflated an unsustainable boom throughout the 1920s which caused a stock market bubble. Artificial credit expansion always leads to an inevitable bust. It's economic herion. It feels good when you first inject the drug of cheap money but eventually reality has to hit and it comes crashing down. Very similar to the housing market crash of 07-08 and the dot com bubble of the late 90s.

It actually does explain what went wrong. When those who have the money refuse to distribute it, refuse to pay a tax rate that would sustain civilization, sabotage union efforts, the result is that poverty reaches catastrophic levels.

Poverty is the natural beginning state of the human condition. It doesn't come from lack of redistribution of wealth and lack of some specific tax rate.
Economic freedom combined with property rights and the rule of law is what creates the conditions necessary to get rid of poverty.

So Aslong as the arrogant and power hungry political elite think they can overturn economic law -supply and demand- by manipulating interest rates and flooding the financial markets with cheap money, you'll always see booms followed some sort of crash.

Banks benefit from government privileges and government benefits from cheap money. The two were natural partners then as they are now.

So is being a caveman. I think a government's purpose in advanced civilization should be to avoid going back to those primitive conditions.

That was my point. Poverty is our natural starting point. Only certain conditions that we create could bring us out of that starting point.

The ruling class does not advance us.

the ruling class makes alot of money from people they don't help

programs that help people are designed to make the ruling class richer...it's business

I didn't forget the first part I chose the quote him on the point I have been trying to make.

Like I have stated some people need help, a friend of mine her mom was a nurse she was diagnosed with MS she can't help the situation so her receiving disability is fine. But when you have people receiving money from the government who are perfectly able to get themselves out of that situation that is where I have a problem. For the most part I believe government assistance should be used as temporary to help get you on your feet again and too many people have come to rely on it.

As a small example of how some become dependent
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/...ollow-suit.html

Government forces private business to make better pay to help people get out of poverty and some are asking for less hours so they can still receive money. People are given the opportunity and some made the decision to not work as hard because receiving something with out giving something in return (hours worked) is easier than working for it.

The ruling class is made up of the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the corporations that have the most influence and government granted privileges.

They have no incentive to help people in any meaningful way. If anything, the bureaucratic failure will be used as an example as to why they simply "need more funding." And they skim a whole lot off the top before it gets to the poor.

Putting food on the table of a family with no money is helping in a meaningful way.

Labor unions, thus, the Labor Relations Act, does help in a meaningful way. The pay and benefits of the average union worker in America significantly exceeds those of the average non union worker. It's the difference between middle class and poor for a lot of Americans.

Universal health care, which is what Obama fought for and what we're going to get under Hillary helps people in a meaningful way. Having an actual family physician that knows you, has your records on hand. No more going to the ER when the kids are sick. That is helping in a meaningful way.

Only in the short term. Helping people in a meaningful way would mean that people wouldn't be trapped under government dependency generations after generation. It would mean that people didn't have to work two jobs just to support a family. It would mean getting people on their feet permanently.

Government interventions and programs lead to more interventions as the system gets worse.

Obama care has made health insurance more expensive for working families. I don't know one persons who's premiums didn't go up significantly. But it isn't just Obama's fault but the fault of pervious government interventions that lead to skyrocketing costs Which of courses leads to more intervention. Another example, the government causes problem and then offers their "solution."

High wages and benefits are a luxury of a strong and growing economy. Not the cause of it. Everyone has it backwards.

the state is built on historical myths and propaganda. It's the only way they can maintain their control.

bingo..... spot on oak.

No it hasn't. Having a primary physician drastically lowers medical bills in the long term. People without insurance, and thus a primary physician, go to the ER when they're sick or injured. That is the costliest way to seek health care, both short and long term, for the individuals and the tax payer.

Well said, Binnie.

When you take away all of the productive things for at risk children to do after school, the streets become the only option. The public high school that I went to was pretty much open every day from 6am to 7 or 8 at night. There was always something going on. Visual and Performing Arts Center (VAPAC...our school had a radio station), the library, academic and social clubs, sports practices/games, the basketball gym, which was open to the public on weekends, just to name a few. Our school was a safe place in the neighborhood. Now they whittle away at aftershool programs until the schools become ghost towns in the late afternoon, which is a pivotal time of day for a lot of teenagers.

Took me out of context. Yes Obama care has made health insurance more expensive for working families. All my family members, co workers and friends aren't imagining that their costs has gone up.
Supply and demand. Increase the demand but not the supply, prices have to go up or services will have to be rationed somewhere down the line. There's no politician with magic powers that can overpower this fact.

yes, great post oak, now, when I was in high school [56-60]

you could get in a trade uhion [if you were white] plumbers, electrians. carpenters. etc. and good wage, benefits.
now the construction unions are almost extinct.. many more "right to work law states" now,

so, what options does a young guy have? college cost money, student loans put you in debt forever, so, he flips burgers, or
some other 'DEAD END JOB'
what if could learn to machine metal, machine wood,
learn skills, welding, auto body, auto mechanic, diesel mechanic, not out of a book, but hands on expierence.

if we can waste billions on wars, we can do this, but the
commitment is not to young people, but wars, and wall street.

I keep hearing these boogieman stories about people paying more for health care, when I don't know anyone that is, other than, obviously, people that weren't insured beforehand. And, again, in the long term they're going to save because going to the ER for care, as they had been, is costly for both them and the tax payers, short and long term. At my workplace we choose between Kaiser and Blue Cross. My co-workers with children are not paying more, for visit co pays, deductibles, or pharmacy. Then again, our plan is negotiated. All the more reason unions are important.

I never had a deductible until Obama care passed and Oxford left NY. I am not in a union now I don't have deductible because I pay more not to have it 170 more a month for me. My wife is 130 more a month so she doesn't have it either.

So have you made any donations to the poor lately big spender Union guy

You'll keep hearing about these stories because they're real and widespread. Everyone I know working in the private sector has been affected by higher payments, one way or another. My girlfriend works for Kaiser customer service and one of the main complaints has been people calling up complaining and asking why they're suddenly having to pay so much.

It isn't hard to understand that if you insure a bunch of sick people that it has to be paid for by somebody. It isn't free.

Yeah, well, taxpayers foot the bill one way or the other. You get that, right?

Yea, especially for emergency visits.

It all goes back to my original point. The government creates a problem, in this case, expensive high cost medical care, and then offers up a terrible solution(Obama care). It's the same over and over and people still don't get it. Very frustrating.

There's no good reason health care costs should be skyrocketing at a time when technological and medical advancements are better than ever. Regular health care should be relatively affordable and even cheap in most cases. Now it's inflated beyond belief which means more calls for intervention.

It will be payed for by employers.

Health care reform is a work in progress. Obamacare is the first phase. It's going to go more into the direction of single payer when Clinton's president.

The free market run up in cost is one of the reasons why the PPACA got traction to begin with - first under a version endorsed by the Heritage Foundation and many Republicans, and afterwards as the version now in place.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourc...l_americans.pdf

Actually that's a myth. What the Heritage Foundation recommended was different and it disavowed anything like Obamacare.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opin...tage/52951140/1

What Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts was similar, but it had since been discovered that he had assistance through Sen. Ted Kennedy in getting federal subsidies in order to keep it on life support. Without those subsidies "Romneycare" wouldn't have survived. Doesn't foretell well for Obamacare.

The link I posted is to the actual report, not an editorial. It's easily readable if anyone is interested. I much prefer to go to original sources when possible, I don't need it to be parsed by a newspaper Op-ed.


For those that prefer editorial,the WSJ published a counter to Butler's USA today Op-ed the time. Linked here.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204369404577211161144786448

And of course, as can be seen in my post I didn't say the plan was the same. (I noted the 'version now in place')

The Heritage plan proposes that all individuals should be guaranteed access to affordable health care, and called for a mandate.

It isn't the first phase. The government has been intervening in health care for about 100 years. One intervention leads to another as the system gets worse. It will have to either go single payer or get abolished completely. The current system will collapse regardless of what anyone here has to say.

The free market didn't run up the costs. Government intervention did. As it did in education, as it did in the housing market, as it regularly does with the stock market, as it does anywhere it heavily regulates, manages and subsidizes.

Reminds me of when Republicans swore that Obama would "collapse" our entire economy his first year in office.

Why? Why is your mind always on what republicans have to say? Fuck what they have to say.

The system is a disaster. It's falling apart as we speak.

This article sums a lot of it up.
https://fee.org/articles/an-insurance-giant-has-rung-obamacares-death-knell/

No use in arguing about it. It's headed towards single payer for a reason. Mainly because it's a disaster.

Just pointing out a resemblance, that's all. That word "collapse" came up a lot when Obama took office. He's going to collapse this..He's going to collapse that...etc. He didn't collapse anything. The country was in a serious recession when he took office. It's much better now.

republican propaganda, they are good at that,
wmds in Iraq, billions of dollars must go to wall street
or we will collapse.....

I speak for myself. I don't pay attention to what republicans do and say.

Don't conflate what I have to say with different things they say in a weak attempt to discredit.

I never claimed Obama care would collapse the economy. I did believe Obama care would be a disaster and it is. It didn't help the economy either. The overall health of the economy has to do with many other factors.

I wish it were as easy as the good guys democrats vs bad guys republicans.

"disaster" is another one of those terms Republicans use when describing any policy of Obama's.

And, of course, Obamacare is not a disaster. It's a much improved system over what existed previously, and is only going to be improved upon.

Oh no, did they use the same word as me before? well then, that changes everything..

Yeah, they did. Since you asked. If you don't want to be mistaken for a card carrying, Obama hating Republican, you can at least try to sound different than them when criticizing him. Just a suggestion.

I criticized Obama care. I gave reasons. I'm not attacking Obama personally.

So if the republicans say the sky is blue and I say the same thing, that must mean the sky isn't blue. No it doesn't work that way. Pointing out that somebody used a similar word or the same word as your political opposition also, isn't a a valid argument.

Funny how my intention wasn't even to talk about Obama care but it was brought up. The Obama care problem will work itself out the hard way. No need to prove anything at this point.

Maybe you're just such a Democratic shill that you think any criticism of Obama and the Democrats means that the critic is a Republican. It's called GOP Derangement Syndrome, and you've got it bad. You parrot DNC talking points to the letter and back them up with...well, usually nothing. Sometimes when confronted instead of admitting your error you just change the subject. A couple weeks ago Helenwheels challenged me on something that I could very well be wrong about. I haven't followed up on it yet, but I will, and if I'm wrong I will gladly say so. I'm more interested in the truth than just asserting that I'm right.

It's also funny that the two people who most often point out your faulty assertions are NOT Republicans. I don't know about SoCalGangs, but I've never belonged to any party and have voted for people on both sides of the aisle, as well as third party. I was even considering volunteering for Democrat Loretta Sanchez, and I may still do so. The thing is for me, I'm not beholden to any party.

You gave reasons for a prediction that is yet to come to fruition. It's like if I said that a flying saucer is going to land in a field tomorrow. Oh, and here's the reasons...then I go on to give concise reasons. If the prediction hasn't yet come true, then the reasons are not yet applicable to anything. Obamacare is fine. When it first went into effect there was one scare story after another. The long term cost projections are now $ trillions lower than they were when it was implemented. The "disaster" didn't happen. the "collapse" didn't happen. They were Republican lies.

You must have me confused with someone else. I've made no "errors" since posting here.

That's right. Truth is more important than some political party. Peoples identities get wrapped up into these political parties and then it blinds them from the truth as they're unable to challenge their biases and assumptions. We all have bias but it's important we expose ourselves to new ideas and counter arguments. And not just dumb counter arguments but the best counter arguments out there.

I've never belonged to a political party either. philosophically I'm more libertarian than anything and even that's subject to change in the face of new evidence and reason.
I don't even belong to the libertarian party. I don't believe party politics are the answer anyway. Speaking truth no matter what, or seeking truth no matter what is what is important. Politics and elections are about popularity. Speaking truth doesn't usually make you liked and popular.

Higher premiums for working families isn't fine. It's a pretty big deal. Major insurance companies announcements that they're withdrawing exchanges In multiple states isn't fine. You're resistant to reality.

But I forgot. The republicans are behind everything bad. Republican conspiracy everywhere.

What is so wrong with being a member of a political party? What is wrong with people working as a group, for something good? Working with a group toward something good is better than being a shut-in and thinking you know everything. A lot of self proclaimed independents I know don't have the first clue as to how anything really works. They repeat what they hear on right wing radio (that's right, these so called independents live and die by the Republican daily talking points), and think that calling themselves independent somehow automatically makes them smarter than people who declare a political party or affiliation. A lot of self proclaimed independents in America today are the least knowledgeable people on global and political issues, and I'd have to guess their IQs are extremely low.

Excuse me while I vomit in my mouth from too much ROFL. "I've made no 'errors' since posting here." Right, like your bogus claim that due process is universal and compounded by the false assertion that you've made no errors since you've been posting here. So you're either a liar or just not bright enough to realize your errors. You could also just be a troll who makes hit and run comments to provoke other posters. You've already admitted to trolling Ivy.

lol. "reality". There's another term.

The "reality" is, Obamacare is going to explode the whole universe and send us all flying into outer space. - average Republican, 2010.

Didn't happen.

Did you see the recent cost projections through 2020? Trillions lower than what was anticipated in 2010. Scare tactics, anyone? The "reality" is that things are never as bad as Republicans say they are. It's a rule of thumb.

It was actually you who erroneously confused the due process clauses in the U.S. constitution with the general term, "due process". Rehash this all you will.

While it's possible he could be a troll, Oak just may be as clueless as he seems. Either way, I've come to the conclusion he's no more worth responding to than cookcounty. At least cook is a barely literate inner-city halfwit who probably didn't pass the eighth grade. Not sure what Oak's excuse is.

You're really good at attacking imaginary republicans that don't post here and attacking arguments of people that don't post here. Now when will you address the arguments made by people on this forum?

Lol. What's wrong with being a hyper partisan person. Well just read all your posts. Republican obsessed. You rarely make a post without mentioning republicans.

Oh I just realized I used the word "reality".. SHIT!! Did those evil republicans use that word too? Guess that makes everything I ever said invalid.

Why do you HATE logic? WHY???

Exactly, Binnie.

Democrats have the better ideas and most people know it. The only way their opposition can bring them down is by turning their ideas into scorched earth fear scenarios. They're comical, really. It would be funny if their alternative to Democratic leadership wasn't so disastrous.

There goes that word again "alternative"....

That's another term they use. I'm starting to suspect you're a secret republican.

ivy...
why is it you are so insulting to everyone? you cant carry on an intelligent conversation without attacking your adversary.

can't you respond to someone without trying to take away their dignty. you are indeed the most offensive poster on this site, doesn't it matter to you what other people think of you.

Uh, I've made plenty of posts without attacking anyone. But certain posters, like cookcounty or Oak, are beneath contempt and have no dignity to take away.

Consider this a warning, Ivy and everyone else. The snide, personal remarks in these threads must stop. I don't know why you guys have to be reminded of this every few weeks unless it's that you don't give a shit. That being the case suspensions and banishments are going to start if you continue with this sandbox shit.

No further warnings will be given.

Going back to the original topic of the thread, Obama supposedly being polarizing...

His approval rating is over 50%. Bush's at this time was around 30%.

Obama's not polarizing. He just has a political opposition that's in the minority.

ive got a hunch that in a few years people will want Obama back.

the next president will no doubt put troops on the ground in the middle east, and that added to the mess that's already there could involve us for decades to come, spending billions, while inflation skyrockets out of control,

Obama is taking a lot of heat for not sending troops to Syria,
but, I think hes right, and in a few years from now so will everyone else. his popularity will increase year, by year.

Obama already put troops down in the ME. He's sent over 5000 troops to Iraq. Obama and Hillary have bombed Syria and paid hundreds of millions of dollars to local fighters to battle against Assad. Most of those local fighters ended up running away and leaving US taxpayer funded vehicles, equipment and arms behind for ISIS to pick up. Still think he's right? And Hillary will probably expand the war against Assad. After all, she not only supported the Iraq war, but supported bombing Libya and Syria.

Not to mention killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki a boy of 16 and an American Citizen

were those drone strikes?

well, 5,000 troops is a long way from a total commitment,

yes, I'm well aware of Hillary, and hopefully she's not a big as a hawk as you have painted her. [hopefully]

I just don't see any good in sending thousands and thousands of troops in Syria, or Iraq, the wars over there may be the kind we can never win. is Hillary really that dumb.
I certainly hope not because whether we like it or not

she will be our president.

Yes, drone strikes

lot of innocent people killed in drone strikes......

that's what I hate about war! its always the innocent, and women and orphans that suffer most.

But George W. Bush is responsible, right Binnie? Bush and Cheney secretly made Obama order all those drone strikes.

I enjoy almost every single OakAsFan post. I think that poster is a valuable addition to the board, something Pizzaboy once said about myself.

Even if you don't agree with OakAsFan, you certainly must be relieved that you have a poster with knowledgeable posts to converse with.

Well the actual target of that drone strike has never been named maybe it was the 16 year old boy his father Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen was killed (some say justifiable some say not) 2 weeks before, both I will add happened in Yemin a country that we have never officially declares war

There is also Samir Khan an American citizen who was killed in Yemin

Where does the outrage start? When it is a republican and not when it is a democrat?
Or are you equally as critical of both administrations (as I am)

This might piss a lot of people off but....

War is just another government program..historically the worst though.

dude, it was leaked to the media sometime ago that American citizens would be targeted overseas. I really think it was a Pentagon leak to desensitize everyone to what they were planning to do.

President Obama has supposedly authorized drone strikes that have killed thousands. Two to three thousand or better. But he really can only trust what the Pentagon or his advisers tell him. They may be the only ones who really know why a drone strike has to occur.

no, it was Obama but to be fair, its like alfa says. the military chiefs are really to blame, I can't imagine a president going against them.

well, Obama is certainly no bush, [thank god] but, yes, it never seems to end. no matter who is in office, that's why I fear the next prez, there really is no check or balance on the president. and that is truly sad. so yes, I'm critical of the lack of opposition when presidents decide to bomb when and where they choose.

hi alfa, but don't you really think congress should have a little bit of say -so, when the military hawks start their bombing.

yes, as I have posted before, I'm 75 yrs old, saw all the war protests in the 6os, and they were much, much bigger than young people realize.

the people were against the Vietnam war, most of congress was against it, protests started in 1965, ended at kent st. in 1970 when Nixon ordered the national guard to shoot and kill
unarmed teenage protesters.


the point is you can't stop a war, and you are right nothing can stop a war machine.

When I said that I was responding to calling one person a war criminal while not acknowledging atrocities by another andministration I see as hypocrisy but I could be wrong.



The U.S. Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones unless it is used as a last resort against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of grave harm. Even in the context of an armed conflict against an armed group, the U.S. government may use lethal force only against individuals who are directly participating in hostilities against the United States.-From ACLU

It being leaked doesn't make it right



Not really supposedly he has admitted to civilian deaths.



You can say it is the advisors Pentagon but we may never know, the same thing can be said about Bush administration and weapons of mass destruction he was told by his advisors and the Pentagon yet he is still called a war criminal. I will say I don't believe the War in Iraq was "right" and I think Hussein should still be in power as bad as that sounds



The President may get information from advisors but the decision is his.

yes, alfa I myself respect every poster, but one, I wont mention who, but, we must remember everyone has a right to their opinion. and we are so lucky we have freedom of speech.

it is a rare gift, we americans have always had.

Good post. To your first paragraph, looking for consistency in people to separate the thinkers from the partisans is helpful. Let's find out, who's standing on principle and who's just shilling for a political party.

I got called. Left wing "libtard" many times during those last years of Bush being president. Now I'm getting called a racist right winger for criticizing the government.

It's not about being dumb, it's about keeping the engine of the war industry running. And it's not only for profit, but also to test new weapons and to provide fresh troops with field experience. If you're a world power you can't sit still if you want to keep on top. That is why the U.S. is continuously involved in conflicts. Politicians like Hillary won't tell you this but it's the simple truth.

We're living in times where independents somehow became the real partisans.

That doesn't make any sense at all. It's an oxymoron. The key concept is that PARTisan relates to a PARTy. Especially someone who knee-jerk instinctively defends their party and depends on the party's talking points to have an opinion instead of thinking for him or herself. So independents can't be partisans, which means we're living in times where partisans are so partisan that they falsely accuse independents of being "the real partisans."

Now there's a very accurate statement.

Thanks. I got the same thing then and now sometimes, when I support "liberal" social things I'm a libtard I support "conservative" fiscal policy I'm a racist right Wong conspirator, can't win.



+1

I've seen no evidence in today's political climate that independents "think" more than partisans. None.

Independent could mean anything and be anybody. It's too generic of a label.

But then again labels are harmful sometimes.

Since the 80s political scientists have pointed to the 'myth of the independent voter'. It's been covered in most basic college poli-sci texts since that time.

Most data seems to indicate that of the electorate, only 10-11% of self proclaimed independents are truly independent. This is from Pew, Gallup, ANES studies/polls. Most independents are 'leaners' that fall in along dem/GOP party lines, rivalling the support of self proclaimed partisans.

The number of people who are not registering as a member of a party is increasing, but truly independent voters are much rarer.

I think it's obvious that most people calling themselves independent lean one way or the other ideologically. But that's besides the point.

The distinction isn't between independents vs people belonging to a political party but by people that defend their party no matter what, and hate the other side no matter what. That's what's usually meant by partisan people.

You can be a registered democrat/republican but not be hyper partisan. You can be a critical thinker and belong to a party, it's just that some people let their identity become wedded to the party to the point where it's almost impossible to be objective.

That's what partisan means? Thanks, guy. Must write that down. Just have to find a pen...

Anyway, someone had mentioned upthread that independents can be partisan, someone else mentioned that they can't be. My point was they can be, and frequently are partisan. Statistical evidence supports this.

Democrats should just start openly recognizing "partisan independents" as a segment of the Republican base, not unlike the tea party, just for the fun of it.

yes, of course you are right, my post above explains my thinking, no one is going to stop our war machine, but,is their one smart enough to try and slow it down, the next prez, no matter who, hopefully won't expand the situation in the middle east.

Yes, when someone is called partisan it usually has that connotation especially in the context I was using it in. Being independent doesn't mean you aren't ideologically leaning in any direction and are straight down the middle. but I would ask, if someone is so partisan than why would they not atleast join the party they supposedly like so much?

Also I specifically tried to make a distinction in my post between someone who simply belongs to a political party and somebody that is hyper partisan.

I can't believe that you don't think independents votes matter, in 1968 geo, Wallace pulled 10 million votes, 1n 1980
john Anderson got 11 millions votes, most who were disappointed in carter, but didn"t want to vote for Reagan,

thereby helping Reagan gain the presidency. by taking votes away from carter,

Partisan shares the same root word as party for a reason. You have to belong to or support a party to be a partisan.

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(political)

This is a perfect example of a flaming or trolling comment. It's not written to encourage conversation and reasonable debate, but to inflame.

Yes, the etemology of the word is not under dispute, certainly not by me.

But people can and do call themselves independent and still consistently support a particular party, or specific ideology that aligns with a party.

Calling yourself something and actually being that thing in practice and principle are different.

What would being an independent in principle even mean?

The way people vote is a different issue than wether or not some people are consistent issue by issue.

Not true at all. It was humor which targeted no other forum members, and there was certainly no intent of disrespect. I'm sorry you didn't like it.

I did not say that independent's votes don't matter.


What I said was many people claim to be independent. Of those that claim this, only about 10% actually vote independently. The remaining vote along consistently partisan lines.

It's a good thing our troops aren't independents.

"Private Jones, take the hill"

"Not now, sarge."

^
Is that another attempt at humor using a false analogy and a misrepresentation?

Hey Binnie, I'm replying only now because I just noticed your reply for the first time.

Only Congress can levy war, or at least that's the way it's supposed to work. But because the executive is charged with protecting the homeland, the President can launch attacks in defense of the country without having to wait for Congress to convene and come to a vote. That is very understandable. So the Boss gets a 60 day window to kill whoever they want as long as they can explain it to the Commission (Congress) after the fact. Naturally that freedom or power gets misapplied intentionally and unintentionally.

Right on, Nicky Scarfo would agree.

This is one of the reasons why so many do not envy any president. It's a horrible job. It's probably the worst job out of any government job.

I disagree. The poster did not attack any other poster...unless of course you are partisan and identify with a party that was being criticized.

didn't we have at one time a war powers act ? I'm thinking if trump gets elected, who's to stop him, if his finger is on the button.?

One of the many reasons that Trump's fallen so far behind in the polls there's actually talk of him dropping out.

oak, don't you believe for one minute trump will drop out,
by election time, hillarys baggage could do her in, believe it or not, more e mails to come. and god forbid a special prosecutor
looking in to the Clinton foundation.

You can disagree with the truth all you want

I'd love to hear Hillary identify the "partisan independent" wing of the GOP. That would be the highlight of what's looking to be an easy road to the White House.

What would be the point? A huge percentage of independent voters lean towards the democrats also. Independent doesn't automatically mean "moderate" it usually means the person isn't in love with the party establishment. Or the party platform doesn't represent their views even though they lean more in some direction.

Is anyone really in love with any party's establishment? Are you referring to me here? Am I in love with the Democratic party's establishment? I'm not even sure I know who they are. Do you mean Hillary? I guess. I like her. Not sure if I'm "in love" with her. Democratic operatives? The DNC head? I'm not even sure who it is. So, can't really say I'm "in love".