• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Will Go Away, But the Anger That Boosted Trump Is Just Getting Started

Unitedwestand13 said:
If the current trend continues we might see Nancy pelosi back as speaker of the house and chuck schumer as senate majority leader.
Click to expand...

Nancy "We must pass it to see what's in it" Pelosi? Oh yeah...that'll really help the Dumbocrats' credibility to handle Congress.
 
Fiddytree said:
The post-Trump era is a lot like Reconstruction.

The GOP will have to figure out if it will have to embrace a 10% plan or if it will need to go Radical Republican.
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure: The GOP Establishment will continue on the same road that caused Trump to be popular in the first place. In other words, THEY WON'T LEARN A THING!
 
Fearandloathing said:
On that we agree.

He should have been disciplined by the Senate as what he did was against the rules. The fact the Democrat side laughed, and the Republicans did nothing shows how ****ed is the system.
Click to expand...

No argument here. How ****ed is the system indeed. Also part of why the electorate had such a historic low approval rate of the congress, and partly why the rise of Trump, a complete outsider to DC.
 
Crosscheck said:
Go back and read the opening thread. It said

Where did you pull peaceful assembly out?
Click to expand...

Angry or not, do you really think that there is going to be anything that's going to require "police and military to stomp out any rebellion." ?

I highly doubt it.

Sure, there have been overly emotional people shouting overly emotional things, but I seriously don't think that it's going to give rise to any sort of arm insurrection or rebellion.
 
eohrnberger said:
Angry or not, do you really think that there is going to be anything that's going to require "police and military to stomp out any rebellion." ?

I highly doubt it.

Sure, there have been overly emotional people shouting overly emotional things, but I seriously don't think that it's going to give rise to any sort of arm insurrection or rebellion.
Click to expand...

There is a large crowd for whom political insurrection is highly offensive, who conclude that it must be put down by all means necessary, up to and including fear mongering and lying.

These are the ones who claim that the despicables will be burning down the place.

No, if anyone does it it will be the youth.

But not just yet.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
No, Actually I have followed and listened to Trump for DECADES! So I know he loves the media attention, even the bad boy attention. He use to brag about his bad boy persona.

You Sir are being naive. I've known about Mr. Trump looooong before this prez run of his. He's talked like this for years, he loves the publicity. The problem is the 'bad boy' publicity that he loved for years, and which did him so well in the GOP primaries is a determent in the general election.

It's all on him. And also his gullible supporters who thought that his big uncontrolled mouth, his tell it like it is style, his make fun of disabled people anti-PC BS would work with the Indy and moderate voters that HE HAD TO HAVE to win. It didn't work.

No one could shut him up. His own people BEGGED him to shut down. Instead he sat up all night tweeting insults at a F'ing beauty contestant. lol .... Nope, it's all on him. The media just reported his tantrums and school yard bully persona.
Click to expand...



I would say that hit the mark.

His bad boy **** just didn't cut as presidential timbre, but once he'd gone down that road he couldn't move off it. Remember "I don't pivot"?

That was because he knew if he did his followers would turn on him.
 
Patrickt said:
Nice rant. But, I get it - better to have your people out of poverty and your blue state burdened with unsupportable debt that your children or grandchildren can deal with. Of course, when you make a state blue by buying votes you pretty much have to run up supportable debt. Two of the worst fifteen states for debt are red states.
Total State Debt: ranked from lowest debtor state (#1) to highest debtor state (#50) : The States Project

That probably explains how elitists liberals live so high, too.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of a conservative who thinks that budgeting for a government is (or should be) no different than budgeting for a household.

But here's a clue: there's a freaking world of difference. Yeah, yeah, I know all the talking points y'all love to use about debt and spending...but if you'll think back, when was the last time a Republican president balanced the budget? Heck, Bill Clinton handed y'all the the White House AND both the House and Senate AND a large surplus (which was on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012)...and how'd that work out? Sorry, guy, but when it comes to fiscal discipline, y'all have precisely zero room to talk.

But you're referring to states, you say? The debt held by the states is not nearly as big a deal as you seem to think. Why? Look back at the federal debt - the amount of federal debt has not been below 20% of GDP since before WWII (see the chart on the page - I'm too lazy to convert the file and repost it here). Now, compare that to what's going on with the states. Your reference was just a list of states, but I really don't like seeing lists without data to back them up...so I found a table giving the debt-to-GDP ratio of all the states...and not a single state had a debt-to-GDP ration higher than 19.33% (Rhode Island).

In other words, not a single state was as bad off (when it comes to debt) as the federal government has been each and every year since before WWII...and whaddaya know, our federal government hasn't melted down despite its debt, has it?

So relax...and learn that austerity is not and has never been the way to national prosperity.
 
Trump Will Go Away, But the Anger That Boosted Trump Is Just Getting Started​

Which is sad because Trump's political persona exist because of people's directionless anger. When people get that angry they go blind and directionless and they will follow whomever the angriest guy is so long as that angry guy and point a finger and tell these folks where to aim their hate.

All these angry people can tell you what they hate but will be about as broad an obtuse as is humanly possible when trying to espouse what it is that they want. "I want to take our country back" is about as specific as you are going to get out of them.
 
LowDown said:
All of this is true, but beside the point. A lot of people are hurting despite what you regard as a good economy. I suppose your investments are doing well.

At several points in American history a populist uprising threatened the established order. Statesmen had the foresight to head that off by squelching the excesses of the elite. Teddy Roosevelt's anti-trust efforts, FDR's farm reform, and Wilson's reforms come to mind. But I see absolutely no one among the elite of either party who has any inclination or ability to function as that sort of statesman now.
Click to expand...

Get real. No matter how good our economy is, there are ALWAYS a lot of people who are hurting. Such has been the case in every nation in all of human history...and no matter how good the economy is, the opposition politicians will ALWAYS try to make the claim that everything's going to hell in a handbasket. This is true of both major parties...and I think you'd agree with that.

And when it comes to "squelching the excesses of the elite"...really? Who was it that passed Citizens United? Who was it that refused to pass bills Obama supported that would have ended the tax breaks that corporations get for shipping their jobs overseas? Who was it that instituted "trickle-down" economics?

Sorry, guy, but when it comes to "squelching the excesses of the elite", y'all's track record is, how you say, freaking deplorable.

And now you have Trump who swears up and down he'll change all that. Mm-hmm...right. And he'll do that how? By slashing taxes more than Bush 43 ever did, by slashing regulations, by tearing up trade deals and tossing them out the window. In other words, trickle-down on steroids...and since Reagan first implemented trickle-down (which Bush 41 rightly called "voodoo economics"), how did the different income brackets do? The bottom 90% grew only slowly (and for the lowest income brackets, it fell)...but for the rich, their incomes freaking skyrocketed...

...and Trump wants to do exactly that which did NOT help the 90%, but greatly benefited the rich. For the rest of us, just like before when it came to trickle-down, we got the down, but we never got the trickle.

So...NO, whatever Trump is claiming at the moment, what he's proposing did NOT "squelch the excesses of the rich" before, and there's precisely zero reason to think it would work any differently now.

Oh, and FYI, I have precisely zero investments. I'm very, very fortunate in that I have a good retirement with good medical care, but I have no investments. And like with a heck of a lot of people I've got my own financial problems...but I'll make it.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yet another example of a conservative who thinks that budgeting for a government is (or should be) no different than budgeting for a household.

But here's a clue: there's a freaking world of difference. Yeah, yeah, I know all the talking points y'all love to use about debt and spending...but if you'll think back, when was the last time a Republican president balanced the budget? Heck, Bill Clinton handed y'all the the White House AND both the House and Senate AND a large surplus (which was on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012)...and how'd that work out? Sorry, guy, but when it comes to fiscal discipline, y'all have precisely zero room to talk.

But you're referring to states, you say? The debt held by the states is not nearly as big a deal as you seem to think. Why? Look back at the federal debt - the amount of federal debt has not been below 20% of GDP since before WWII (see the chart on the page - I'm too lazy to convert the file and repost it here). Now, compare that to what's going on with the states. Your reference was just a list of states, but I really don't like seeing lists without data to back them up...so I found a table giving the debt-to-GDP ratio of all the states...and not a single state had a debt-to-GDP ration higher than 19.33% (Rhode Island).

In other words, not a single state was as bad off (when it comes to debt) as the federal government has been each and every year since before WWII...and whaddaya know, our federal government hasn't melted down despite its debt, has it?

So relax...and learn that austerity is not and has never been the way to national prosperity.
Click to expand...

Of course. You can live on debt and never have to pay. Just ask the King of Debt, Donald Trump. But, if you don't mind, I'll continue to live within my means, and put a little away for a rainy day. I just wish liberals would quit asking me to "help me".
 
Patrickt said:
Of course. You can live on debt and never have to pay. Just ask the King of Debt, Donald Trump. But, if you don't mind, I'll continue to live within my means, and put a little away for a rainy day. I just wish liberals would quit asking me to "help me".
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps you should check to see which states pay out more federal taxes than they receive in federal funding, and vice versa: when it comes to federal taxes, of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC.

In other words, it's Y'ALL who are saying "help me"...and it's us in the blue states who are helping to foot YOUR bills.

Of course, that's not what the right-wing echo chamber would have you believe, is it? That's not something you'd ever hear on Fox News or on Breitbart, is it? But those are the HARD NUMBERS.

Oh, and one other thing - there's a quote you might want to bear in mind: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney said that. So it would be nice if y'all would grasp the fact that y'all have precisely zero room to talk when it comes to fiscal discipline.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
None huh? Not a single one? We read that daily HERE who fit that description to a T, but you say you know HUNDREDS and that should be good enough for me. lol... Thank you.
Click to expand...
Being fed divisive partisan BS? You made the generalization.

You shouldn't take foreign press at face value.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Where have you been?

There are entire threads bitching and moaning about the election being "rigged", how the media has created "lies", invented the women who have complained. This is right out of the Trump modus operendi. You may recall Trump claimed the primaries were "rigged" until he stared winning. His trolls never said a word about media bias when he was getting $3 billion in free publicity.

Trump several times bitched that the Television "Emies" are rigged because he didn't win.

And I think we're going to be hearing this whining for at least eight years
Click to expand...

I was responding to the angry/miserable part. Sick of it.
The Trump supporters know are good down to earth folks who are fed up with the debt, foreign policy, security, etc.
 
Fearandloathing said:
The un-reason that nuclear power is seen as "dirty" lies at the feet of Europe's anxieties about being the nuclear battlefield between east and west. It began as the old saw "ban the bomb" and unreasonably spread to anything nuclear. That same gang became global warming experts when communism failed.

We were to use "reason" we would see that nuclear energy is the cleanest, most sustainable and least expensive source of power. The only thing that rivals it is hydro-electricity which tears up thousands of square kilometers, which heal in 10 to 20 yrs, but you can never tell an ecologist that

That shows you how powerful sustained propaganda is.
Click to expand...

I thought that the EU nations had a bunch of nuclear electrical generation plants in operation with a solid safety record?

Though recently, I know the Germany is winding down their plants, after Fukushima (tell me where in Germany would a tidal wave come ashore :confused:), but now that their sustainable effort can't meet demand, they may have to reconsider that.

Seems the ecomentalists want the US to follow down that path.
 
Trump's narcissism and immorality have laid bare the pretensions at the core of the Republican
Party. Nothing's there.
 
iguanaman said:
I disagee, alot of it IS Trump. He has capitalized on his reality show fame and many of his supporters are smitten by this fame. Then there is the "sick of losing" factor in where they believe Trump has a better chance to win because he is famous. That will all go out the window when he loses badly. How popular were Romney and McCain after their losses? Trump has also destroyed his brand which is all he really has. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Has Donald Trump destroyed his brand and his business? The GOP nominee stands to lose more than the election - Salon.com
Click to expand...

While I agree with your analysis of the micro situation, I believe that the problems go much deeper than this smoke and mirrors tycoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom