Cory1848

5 hours ago, Trujillo said:

All I know is I went to a pie shop I frequent in Nimenhamen and they had no idea about letting anyone inside. I drove to the Sunday Walking Street at 5:30pm and nothing. Went home via Loy Kroh Road and nothing open for sit down (95% of shops shuttered). Down Night Bazaar total ghost town. Anusarn Market shortcut -- total shutdown and the far end gate locked. 

Along the river road, nothing open at all. No restaurants even for take away. 

 

I'm sorry I didn't hit the 2% that tried to open but I am just posting about what I actually saw. 

As I understand it, restaurants that provide outdoor (open-air) seating can be open for sit-down diners; restaurants that are exclusively indoors (with air-conditioning) can only provide take-out service. I had a sit-down meal at the Gekko Garden yesterday (covered with a roof but "open-air"); not many customers, but they were happily serving!

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

When trump tries to paint Sanders as a communist, which he is not, What is preventing Sanders from painting trump as an Idiot, which he is?

Or is it that the republicans are the only ones with painting skills? 

Very good question. I, too, would love to see Sanders get in (or Warren; I’d be happy with either), but the Democrats have been calling Trump an idiot for three years and his base remains firm at 35-40 percent, and his support has even gone up since the impeachment. Plus, there are cynics who vote exclusively on what their 401Ks are doing, and those have done well. Plus, there are all the reasons Jingthing mentioned above that favor an incumbent and especially this incumbent. Republicans seem to paint “dirtier” than Democrats do.

Other Sanders supporters who are friends of mine say it’s all about getting the vote out, especially young voters, who are often apathetic during elections. Plus, an article I recently read somewhere pointed out the numbers of African Americans in crucial urban areas like Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami, and even Atlanta and Charlotte, who simply didn’t vote last time (was it Hillary?), who could also turn those states around if they voted this time. Sanders even talks about Texas, and why not? I recently spent some time in Texas, and it’s an interesting place. If he can spend more effort generating broader enthusiasm and less time talking about Trump (simply calling Trump an idiot doesn’t work), anything can happen, but it’s risky ...

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

All that matters is that the republicans can successfully paint Bernie as a commie (I agree he is not) and that will make it very hard indeed for him to beat 45. Considering 45 has massive advantages already based on:

 

Much more money than Bernie will have 

 

Incumbent is always strongly favored

 

The economy IF it still can be sold as "good" by November

 

Structurally the electoral college and even congress where democrats need to get massively more than 50 percent of the vote to win majorities (gerrymandering)

 

Active suppression for decades by the republicans against poor people and minorities voting

 

Putin

 

Bottom line, it would be truly crazy to nominate Bernie but leave it to the democrats, they probably will. 

Unfortunately, I think you’re right, the Republicans will have little trouble painting Sanders as a communist, at least sufficiently to turn enough gullible voters against him. But Republican politicking is so deep in the gutter, if for instance Buttigieg somehow ends up as the candidate I’m sure they would find subtle ways of inciting homophobia, for instance via Medal of Freedom winner Rush Limbaugh. The Democrats have had three+ years to prepare for this, and it’s all starting to look like a slow-motion train wreck.

5 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

As always, the claim that other people can't read, and that communists are only theoretical. I know a communist when I see one. Its anyone from an organization that calls each other Comrade. Communists ALWAYS hide who they are. 

My parents lived under communism for a year. When the Nazis invaded, they were greeted as liberators. When the Red Army returned three years later, my parents fled for their lives and watched from abroad as their country was destroyed. Please, don’t tell me about communists, and don’t try to draw parallels between communism and the social democratic programs advocated by Sanders and Warren (and tens of millions of other Americans who see more clearly than you do). If you somehow think that Sanders will suspend civil liberties and open up labor camps in Alaska immediately upon taking office, then you’re seeing ghosts.

11 minutes ago, riclag said:

   My countries fight against Maxism  and democratic socialism ideology has a long history with many fatalities to show for it. Hopefully, the history of  government control as seen in other instances from past failed experiments  won't take place in my country ! I won't be voting for sanders . There is a profound reason why he a Independent, never affiliated himself with the dem party !

 

Assuming that your country is the United States, can you provide details about the US fight against democratic socialism involving "many fatalities"? I don't remember any such conflict.

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'll never understand the appeal of Gabbard, but that's academic. She has zero chance.

I was totally kidding about Gabbard; I wonder why she hasn't dropped out yet. I found her candidacy somewhat intriguing several months ago, if only because it seemed so bizarre ...

8 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

There are two wild cards in the equation that could bring victory for Sanders.  1) illegal voters 2) the coronavirus will hurt the economy and the health care system will be in panic mode.  People want universal health care and this will make it even more necessary.

 

Bernie is a communist sympathizer.   Communists who Bernie cherishes such as Stalin and Mao and Castro killed many of their own people with Stalin being a madman in a slaughterhouse responsible for millons of deaths through his Gulags.  These Gulags were operated with the western powers knowing but doing nothing. A real crime against humanity.  So you want to start down Bernie's path?

My goodness what are you talking about. Bernie now wants to start up a gulag system? You sound like Joseph McCarthy, who died more than sixty years ago; his reputation hasn't aged well.

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It is too late. We have our final list of choices now. This election is not really about policy. It's a referendum on 45. If the democrats put up anyone remotely acceptable, 45 is vulnerable. The one choice of the finalists that won't be acceptable enough in a CENTER RIGHT WING country is indeed Bernie. That may be a horrible situation but that's the reality. 

I have to agree. While I fully support what Sanders (or Warren) would want to do and in fact am off to the left of them, I have to recognize that it will take several years of advocacy to bring a majority of the country to a consensus on some of their positions, if it ever happens at all. If what it takes to change administrations in 2020 is a billion dollars, then I’m solid behind Bloomberg; if what it takes is a candidate who’s easy on the eyes, then I’m all for Tulsi Gabbard, who’s somehow still in the race (she surfs too!). Whatever!

37 minutes ago, jingjai9 said:

Sanders is not really a socialist. He is more or less a Roosevelt Democrat wishing to use socialist flavored programs and policies to save captalism. Roosevelt told the corporate leaders of the 1930's - "share the wealth or risk real trouble" as the distribution of weath was concentrated among the rich in the 1920's. Therefore it is easy for Bernie to truly say he is not a radical. A radical would want to bring down all of the capitalist institutions. Bernie wants to redistribute the wealth held by the one tenth of one percent at the top.

 

America has always put forth an intellectually dishonest portrayal of socialism. The Soviet Union may have had socialist aspirations after the revolution, but what they ended up with is state capitalism. The US equated the government of the USSR with socialism and used that argument to put a lid on socialist ideas. In the US,the rap I heard as a youngster was, "well if you like them socialist ideas, why  then do you go to Russia?" Even US textbooks portrayed Marx at best as a Utopian thinker or unkindly as a failed philosopher. 

 

Bernie Sanders is one of the first mainstream politicians in a long time to make a distinction between his "democratic socialism" and the socialism of Russia, Cuba and the Soviet bloc of the cold war era. Joe Biden and Trump still use the cold war argument against socialism. 

 

Bernie's enemies are the donor class that supports Biden, Trump, Pelosi and Schumer and perhaps Mayor Pete as well. It is this donor class that has a great stake in maintaining the status quo. They love to use the argument that someone too far to the left at the top of the democratic ticket would assure a Trump victory. The corporate media seem to endorse this idea.

Thanks for the fact-based comment. The nonstop labeling of Sanders as a “socialist” or “communist” and the debasing of words like “socialism” and “socialized medicine” indeed get tiresome, and it’s only going to get worse if Sanders is the candidate. (And, given the apparent effectiveness of right-wing propaganda -- evidenced by many comments in this forum -- such labeling may indeed make it difficult for Sanders to get elected.)

Sanders recognizes as you point out that the existing income disparity, and the completely unregulated brand of capitalism that allows such disparity to grow unchecked (neoliberalism), is morally repulsive. As for “socialized medicine,” a more palatable way to phrase it might be, the removal of the profit motive from all aspects of health care. (If the possibility exists to profit from the sale of opioids to the public, then plenty of entrepreneurs will step up and take advantage of that possibility; the only solution is to change the system.) Free-market capitalism is appropriate for consumer goods and services; it has no business influencing the distribution of essential human services.

19 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

This is where you people go off the rails.  The process as you call it, much like lawmaking, was created to be as you put it "gummed up."  When the President exercises something that afforded to him as head of the Executive Branch, that isn't gumming up anything.  It is the process. 

 

If you don't like it, change the laws and Constitutions.  Oh, good luck with that.

 

If you need a flowchart, the line goes to:

 

START WHINING

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>End

I understand from above that you have some kind of legal training. I don't, but I do know that lawyers can make a case for just about anything ("bring lawyers, guns, and money," right?). You, however, resort to name-calling ("you people" ??) and pounding your fists into your chest. Have a good rest of your day, man ...

13 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

You lack flowcharts.

 

Is the POTUS able to remove a government employee as he sees fit?

 

Yes

 

Go to End

 

Notice there was no line about it being corrupt or criminal as that is for a court to decide. 

But when the president prevents relevant witnesses from appearing before that court claiming “executive privilege” and gums up the whole judicial process with endless lawsuits and appeals, that’s obstruction of justice, which is itself a crime. If you favor not only the president’s authority to fire whomever he chooses on a whim but also his ability to supersede the judicial system, at least on paper a coequal branch or government, then you favor dictatorship. Unfortunately, you’re not alone in that ...

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, an ambassador can be removed by the president at any time in any way he chooses. 

Yes, and the president’s lawyers have also argued that he is literally beyond the reach of the law -- that he literally could shoot someone dead and get away with it, because he’s the president. An executive with such power is not part of a democracy; he creates tyranny; and it is this that the House of Representatives is seeking to curtail with impeachment proceedings. I don’t know what your nationality is, but if you favor unlimited executive authority (at least as long as you like the person in charge), then you are no American.

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Except for the pesky little thing called an election. She serves at the pleasure of the president. She was vehemently against him. She should have been replaced on day one like Obama had done with all political appointees 

For the millionth time, she was not a political appointee -- she's a career diplomat! Why are simple facts so hard to digest?

11 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

'most' means what?

 

here it says currently 45% were trump appointees.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/468169-bera-bill-would-cap-number-of-ambassadors-who-are-political-appointees-as

 

point being trump perhaps feels the other 55% are disloyal and subverting his foreign policy.  regardless, he has the power to fire them at will.

Following the statistic you provided and doing the math, “most” means 55 percent, which is what I said. Generally, only around 30 percent of ambassadors are political appointees, and many columnists and others have commented on Trump’s higher number in that regard. I really don’t care what Trump “perhaps feels”; given the larger number of political ambassadors, however, he clearly does value rewarding loyalty, at the expense of competence, more than did his predecessors.