SURVEY: USA -- Headed in the right or wrong direction?

[Jingthing]

28 minutes ago, Becker said:

Although idiocy is by no means the prerogative of the right the only faction that can be labelled as "idiot" is that which is led by one. If the candidate who received the most votes (by far) had also been elected president the US wouldn't have become the laughingstock of the world and best friend of dictators and despots.

HRC was in no shape or form an ideal candidate but she's miles ahead of the petulant child in the WH.

There were some purist morons upset about the way the DNC messed with Bernie Sanders (related to the timing of the Russian linked leaks) to the point where they either didn't vote or more bizarrely voted for the right wing demagogue president. How a Bernie supporter rationalizes voting for that con man I will never, ever understand. They were not equivalent evils by any stretch of the imagination. 

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Tell that to the people who suffer under those "transitory" changes. And no, had Hillary Clnton won, there wouldn't be a Neal Gorsuch and a Brett Kavanaugh on the supreme court. As for the rise of hatred, that happened during the Obama administration thanks to fake news. Remember the birther conspiracy, Obama is a Muslim, etc.? And if it's all a matter of the rise of the corporate state, why are corporation so desperate to undo the work of the Obama administration? More false equivalence.

 

FWIW, I'd have supported impeachment proceedings against any members of Congress than didn't act on the Obama SC nomination. Instead people seemed to be content to Tweet their frustrations. And raise money of course.

Edited October 30, 2018 by lannarebirth

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I've been against what Trump is about for 35 years. I'm amused by thePavlovian dogs that are reacting toeach of the daily news articles which one could predict in advance if they had lived through the same period.

Apparently you are one of the few who can see the big picture.

Trump or Clinton makes no difference for non-Americans, the foreign politics of USA would be the same.

On a positive note, the clown is allowing us, vassal-state citizens, to have a good laugh about America, while heading into a global disaster.

[Jingthing]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Apparently you are one of the few who can see the big picture.

Trump or Clinton makes no difference for non-Americans, the foreign politics of USA would be the same.

On a positive note, the clown is allowing us, vassal-state citizens, to have a good laugh about America, while heading into a global disaster.

If you actually think that the foreign policy of Clinton would have been the same as the nationalist demagogue "trump" you are SERIOUSLY misinformed. 

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

There were some purist morons upset about the way the DNC messed with Bernie Sanders (related to the timing of the Russian linked leaks) to the point where they either didn't vote or more bizarrely voted for the right wing demagogue president. How a Bernie supporter rationalizes voting for that con man I will never, ever understand. They were not equivalent evils by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

Thanks for taking me off ignore. 

 

Anyway, I'm not rationalizing voting for Trump. I'd never do it. But I do understand why no one would ever vote for the other candidate on offer.  Me, I wouldn't vote vote for either one of them, and didn't.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If you actually think that the foreign policy of Clinton would have been the same as the nationalist demagogue "trump" you are SERIOUSLY misinformed. 

That America's economy is hugely reliant on war is not today's news.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

If you actually think that the foreign policy of Clinton would have been the same as the nationalist demagogue "trump" you are SERIOUSLY misinformed. 

 

That's true. Probably at least two new foreign military adventures by now under the other candidate.

[Jingthing]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

That America's economy is hugely reliant on war is not today's news.

I can only assume you don't really follow the news. 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I can only assume you don't really follow the news. 

You got that one right, news make me sick.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You got that one right, news make me sick.

Thanks for your honesty. 

[Brunolem]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Apparently you are one of the few who can see the big picture.

Trump or Clinton makes no difference for non-Americans, the foreign politics of USA would be the same.

On a positive note, the clown is allowing us, vassal-state citizens, to have a good laugh about America, while heading into a global disaster.

Yes!

Trump is the source of many laughs, especially thanks to his tweets, but many of his henchmen, such as Pompeo, Haley or Bolton to name a few, are not funny at all!

 

It is difficult to imagine a European leader, even from the far right, talking the way Trump talks...even though the most appropriate language for politicians should probably be somewhere between the high school playground rethoric used by Trump, and the fake 19th century polished verbiage used by European leaders.

 

Having said that, Trump has quite nicely surfed the wave during his first two years, but the wave is soon going to crash on the shore of reality, and the surfing is going to get way more difficult...

 

Growing tremors are felt everywhere, and not only underground!

[Becker]

30 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Congratualtions on one of your better posts. You said:

 

 

If you are not a partisan, and your interest is moving your country forward you don't support tremendously flawed candidates just because they are on "your" team. Because if you do it opens the door for other tremendously flawed candiates to win. I don't see any evidence that anybody is learning that lesson.

There's something called the lesser of two evils. With no chance of a candidate that actually wants to drain the swamp of lobbyists and whatnot it's definitively not a good idea to go with the candidate that is mentally and morally challenged and would rather see the whole country go up in flames than stop pandering to his base supporters.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Brunolem said:

Yes!

Trump is the source of many laughs, especially thanks to his tweets, but many of his henchmen, such as Pompeo, Haley or Bolton to name a few, are not funny at all!

 

It is difficult to imagine a European leader, even from the far right, talking the way Trump talks...even though the most appropriate language for politicians should probably be somewhere between the high school playground rethoric used by Trump, and the fake 19th century polished verbiage used by European leaders.

 

Having said that, Trump has quite nicely surfed the wave during his first two years, but the wave is soon going to crash on the shore of reality, and the surfing is going to get way more difficult...

 

Growing tremors are felt everywhere, and not only underground!

Well, in the end we get the government we deserve, they say, although i like to think that i deserve much better.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Becker said:

There's something called the lesser of two evils. With no chance of a candidate that actually wants to drain the swamp of lobbyists and whatnot it's definitively not a good idea to go with the candidate that is mentally and morally challenged and would rather see the whole country go up in flames than stop pandering to his base supporters.

Exactly. The level of evil between the two choices we ended up with was not in any way equivalent. It's like for some people it's the first time they heard about holding their noses and voting for the least worse choice. Personally I think Hillary Clinton would have made a great president, but that isn't the point. She wasn't the best choice to run against "trump" and too many people that should have known better helped "trump" win by not voting or going fully to the dark side and voting for a white nationalist demagogue. 

 

To add, personally, I think Bernie Sanders would have lost in a landslide. He would have been red baited into the ground. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Jingthing

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Apparently you are one of the few who can see the big picture.

Trump or Clinton makes no difference for non-Americans, the foreign politics of USA would be the same.

On a positive note, the clown is allowing us, vassal-state citizens, to have a good laugh about America, while heading into a global disaster.

You mean the US would have pulled out of the Iranian nuclear arms agreement and woujld currently be engaged in a massive trade war with China?

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

That's true. Probably at least two new foreign military adventures by now under the other candidate.

where?

[Brunolem]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, in the end we get the government we deserve, they say, although i like to think that i deserve much better.

It would be off topic to enter in this debate, but let say that a "two party democratic system" is doomed from inception, and will always ultimately bring the wrong people in power, as can be seen in more and more countries, and not only in the US...

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean the US would have pulled out of the Iranian nuclear arms agreement and woujld currently be engaged in a massive trade war with China?

Yeah and so many more huge differences. Imagine Hillary Clinton treating traditional close allies like Canada and Germany worse than nations run by anti-democracy autocrats. 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean the US would have pulled out of the Iranian nuclear arms agreement and woujld currently be engaged in a massive trade war with China?

I am not a clairvoyant, i cannot answer that, i'm not even claiming to be right.

[Brunolem]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

where?

Syria for one, where Hillary wanted to impose a no fly zone...and probably Russia by extension...in which case we wouldn't have this debate...

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

It would be off topic to enter in this debate, but let say that a "two party democratic system" is doomed from inception, and will always ultimately bring the wrong people in power, as can be seen in more and more countries, and not only in the US...

Being probably much more cynical than you, i think nowadays we would have the wrong people in power anyway.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I am not a clairvoyant, i cannot answer that, i'm not even claiming to be right.

Oh please! There is no way Hillary Clinton would have done either of those things. We could post a like of many similar differences. Such as exiting the Paris climate accord. HRC would have never done that! 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Oh please! There is no way Hillary Clinton would have done either of those things. We could post a like of many similar differences. Such as exiting the Paris climate accord. HRC would have never done that! 

Well, mate, i would rather have a cup of coffee with you than with a Trump supporter, but, really, don't ask me to believe that Clinton would have done much better in the big picture.

I was having some hope when Obama got elected, but it lasted less than 1 week.

[Brunolem]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Being probably much more cynical than you, i think nowadays we would have the wrong people in power anyway.

Well it's a bit like the serpent biting its tail...a more or less decadent government gives rise to a more or less decadent population, which in turn gives rise to an even more decadent government, and so on.

 

We, at least in the West, are now reaching the tail end (so to speak) of the cycle (called fourth turning by some).

Edited October 30, 2018 by Brunolem

[lannarebirth]

20 minutes ago, Becker said:

There's something called the lesser of two evils. With no chance of a candidate that actually wants to drain the swamp of lobbyists and whatnot it's definitively not a good idea to go with the candidate that is mentally and morally challenged and would rather see the whole country go up in flames than stop pandering to his base supporters.

 

Let me leave you with a few quotes from Ralph Nader:

 

"If you choose the lesser of two evils you are still choosing evil" 

 

“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.”

 

"The "democracy gap" in our politics and elections spells a deep sense of powerlessness by people who drop out, do not vote, or listlessly vote for the “least worst” every four years and then wonder why after every cycle the “least worst” gets worse."

“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.”

[lannarebirth]

15 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Well it's a bit like the serpent biting its tail...a more or less decadent government gives rise to a more or less decadent population, which in turn gives rise to an even more decadent government, and so on.

 

We, at least in the West, are now reaching the tail end (so to speak) of the cycle (called fourth turning by some).

The kids seem alright for the most part, so there's hope in the next turning.

[pegman]

58 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Very convenient to try and straddle the center, pretending to be objective.  But if you're not against what Trump is about, you're for him.  There's no "ebb and flow" that you speak of.  Trump is destroying the America that I know like no one else could have.  The divisiveness--America is more divided now than ever.  The environment--Trump is destroying our environment for the benefit of only a select few and detriment of many others.  The out-of-control national debt--massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy makes no sense right now.  Healthcare--geez man, doesn't he give a flying hoot for the average American?  More military spending...for what exactly?  Not to mention the corruption within his family to profit from his position.  I can go on and on, but Trump is scum and so are his rabid supporters.  I can't wait until the mid-terms.   

The same was said about Dubya/Chaney/Rove if not worse. W. Bush started 2 wars and had record setting deficits. Then he gave 2 huge tax breaks to the wealthy while also presiding over the biggest economic downturn since the dirty thirties. Speaking of the enviroment statues were put up of him by the petroleum industry.

 

As for Mrs Clinton she was a disaster. She got to the senate and off the hop tried to out hawk the likes of warmonger McCain. I have zero doubt that she would have significant troops on the ground in Syria today had she been elected. Losing to Trump demonstrates how really bad a candidate she was. Truly one of the worse in American history. Thing is many Democrates don't see it that way and that is a huge problem for that party. If they can't accept how bad she was as their nominee there isn't much hope for them. It would be best for it to break up and let labour and the working class form a new party. They could leverage their votes to get something done for those groups. Big money liberals could carry on running the Democratic Party as they do now. 

 

Trump has come as advertised. He is from money and he will look after monied interests. The country was founded on that basis, by the rich (G.Washington) for the rich, so he just carries on the tradition. I'm a little surprised at the margin presently in the OP question. Seems the Trumpster brigade down Pattaya way hasn't caught on to it being up. Once they do expect it to tighten up. 

 

 

[Becker]

33 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Let me leave you with a few quotes from Ralph Nader:

 

"If you choose the lesser of two evils you are still choosing evil" 

 

“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.”

 

"The "democracy gap" in our politics and elections spells a deep sense of powerlessness by people who drop out, do not vote, or listlessly vote for the “least worst” every four years and then wonder why after every cycle the “least worst” gets worse."

“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.”

And here are a couple of recent tweets from Nader:

 

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

And here are a couple of recent tweets from Nader:

 

 

Yes, he's a great American. Probably the best presidential candidate since FDR.

[Brunolem]

4 minutes ago, pegman said:

The same was said about Dubya/Chaney/Rove if not worse. W. Bush started 2 wars and had record setting deficits. Then he gave 2 huge tax breaks to the wealthy while also presiding over the biggest economic downturn since the dirty thirties. Speaking of the enviroment statues were put up of him by the petroleum industry.

 

As for Mrs Clinton she was a disaster. She got to the senate and off the hop tried to out hawk the likes of warmonger McCain. I have zero doubt that she would have significant troops on the ground in Syria today had she been elected. Losing to Trump demonstrates how really bad a candidate she was. Truly one of the worse in American history. Thing is many Democrates don't see it that way and that is a huge problem for that party. If they can't accept how bad she was as their nominee there isn't much hope for them. It would be best for it to break up and let labour and the working class form a new party. They could leverage their votes to get something done for those groups. Big money liberals could carry on running the Democratic Party as they do now. 

 

Trump has come as advertised. He is from money and he will look after monied interests. The country was founded on that basis, by the rich (G.Washington) for the rich, so he just carries on the tradition. I'm a little surprised at the margin presently in the OP question. Seems the Trumpster brigade down Pattaya way hasn't caught on to it being up. Once they do expect it to tighten up. 

 

 

America's political decline is a bit like a roller coaster, ending in a "Thelma and Louise" fashion:

 

first the wagon climbs, slowly and painfully,

then after reaching the peak, there is a slight slope (that would be the Clinton presidency),

then the slope gets steeper (Bush junior and Obama)

before reaching the bottom and sending the wagon on a ramp to nowhere...

 

At first, there is a Wile E Coyote moment (Trump first two years) where everything seems fine, then gravity does its job...