4 hours ago, Time Traveller said:

I'm pretty happy living in a country like that.

My problem is the rest of the world when they ask military help from United States to protect them from any agressor nation.

Or, ask for aid money.

Or, expect America to resettle millions of migrants from those countries each year - whether as refugee or illegals.

Or, want to sell goods to America freely but then block American products from being sold into their nations then complain about free trade.

Yes sir, if you're dumb enough to not realize just how positively America impacts the world, then by all means detach yourself from America and go and live without internet, TV, electricity, automobiles, aircraft, and anything else America created.

great, when will America take care of it's own?  their are parts of Santa Monica that resemble a third world country.  i am anti immigration until we can help our fellow native Americans.

2 hours ago, patsfangr said:

And that, Mr Smart, is why you dangerously misguided. You simply fail to understand human nature. Greed, envy, and lust for power exist in every human being; more strongly in some than in others. Competition is an absolutely inescapable element of human nature. We ARE part of nature. Nature is, as you said, dominated by the "Law of the Jungle". Human intelligence has, over thousands of years, produced the realization that we must have laws to regulate our behavior. But it is absolutely impossible to remove competition from our psychological base. And THAT, Mr Smart, is why socialism will always ultimately fail. People WILL compete. People will ALWAYS want have more, and to be "better" than their peers. I believe that you are a decent person, who truly believes what you are saying. But you are terribly naive and misguided, my friend, if you believe that the world you dream of can ever exist. Socialism is nothing more than the dream of the naive and inexperienced who refuse to accept the realities of life. 

Hear, hear.....

6 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

wow, delusional observations at best.

 

you do know the largest homeless areas are in towns run completely by democrats, yes?

Perhaps you could point me to a town in America, with no homeless and run by Republicans.

40 minutes ago, mlmcleod said:

It saddens me to see the USA become a joke to the rest of the world

don't you worry sunshine, we could not care less what the lefties think in the UK or the EU, as you have your own serious problems to sort out.

take care of that first, as the joke is right in front of you

56 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Most of the people in civilised societies are able to name the mass shootings what has happened in their countries in the past 20 years. 

 

One would have to be a statistician to do the same in the USA. 

 

The huge amount of suppressed anger along with political environment and amount of guns in the country will eventually purge as a civil war. 

 

The current leader of the country is not even trying to solve the huge internal problem. Nor does the clickbait press. 

 

I just wish USA doesn't take the the rest of the world with it, once it implodes. This is one of the rare times, I'd suggest USA to take the course of Soviet Union as an example how to dismantle itself in peaceful manner.

1. How many of the other "civilized societies" in the world have a population of over 300 million people. 

2. How many countries have had an enemy declare, as Japan did during WWII, that they wouldn't dare to invade because the population was so well armed?

3. It is not the job of the POTUS to stop violence in the streets of America. That is the job of local law enforcement. The POTUS, via the FBI and the ATF, investigates and tries to prevent criminal activity that is within the purview of federal authorities according to US law (the Constitution of the US). 

4. The Soviet Union dismantled itself because individual nations within the USSR revolted against being controlled by the central government in Russia. The division in the USA is not geographic. People are divided in their sociopolitical opinions all across the country; as they have been since the country was created in 1776! The USA cannot "dismantle itself" in anything remotely similar to what happened to the Soviet Union. 

5. The division we see in the USA now is a DIRECT RESULT of the exponential increase in communication due to the growth of the internet. More people, particularly young, pliable people, are engaged in "big picture" politics now than has ever been the case in the history of the country. There is more organized "agitation" being created and spread by opposing political parties than has occurred in the past. There is more "news" displaying that agitation than has ever been broadcast or published in the past. Those are the reasons why the "division" in the USA now involves so many more people, and is so much more visible than it has previously been. 

2 hours ago, patsfangr said:

And that, Mr Smart, is why you dangerously misguided. You simply fail to understand human nature. Greed, envy, and lust for power exist in every human being; more strongly in some than in others. Competition is an absolutely inescapable element of human nature. We ARE part of nature. Nature is, as you said, dominated by the "Law of the Jungle". Human intelligence has, over thousands of years, produced the realization that we must have laws to regulate our behavior. But it is absolutely impossible to remove competition from our psychological base. And THAT, Mr Smart, is why socialism will always ultimately fail. People WILL compete. People will ALWAYS want have more, and to be "better" than their peers. I believe that you are a decent person, who truly believes what you are saying. But you are terribly naive and misguided, my friend, if you believe that the world you dream of can ever exist. Socialism is nothing more than the dream of the naive and inexperienced who refuse to accept the realities of life. 

not me and now a happy buddhist in Chiang Mai, i use to be a inveterate Beverly Hills shopaholic.  i walk everywhere now and sold the BMW.  can be done if you are strong

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Not exactly. Many states fought to keep the privacy of their voters. The voter fraud commission was asking them to hand over names, social security numbers, voting history, party affiliation, registration status, etc. 

 

The reality though is that Trump made these claims and wasted all these taxpayer dollars on a lie. There is zero evidence... NONE... of widespread voter fraud. His own commission couldn't even find anything substantial. It's obvious why he made these claims. His ego couldn't take the fact that he lost by 3 million votes. So instead he claimed there were 3-5 million illegal voters. Just like the crowd size Trump's ego will force him to lie. Just like his rallies he will make up data to support his claims, even after it's been fact checked multiple times he'll keep repeating the same lies. 

voter fraud is real, and voter ID requirements are just plain common sense.

it does not matter the total number

 

 The 1993 "Motor Voter" law opened the floodgates for fraudulent voting. According to Fund, the "Motor Voter Act," which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, allows people to register to vote "without showing ID or proof of citizenship" when they're filing for "welfare or unemployment" or attempting to renew their driver's license. "Motor Voter" also increases the difficulty of removing ineligible voters from the voter rolls.

6. As expected, it is not hard to commit voter fraud due to the lax conditions created by the "Motor Voter Act." Fund explained in a 2014 National Review article that New York City's Department of Investigations agents went undercover and assumed the identity of people who had become ineligible to vote due to death, change of residency or being in prison. The result was that 97 percent of the time, the agents were allowed to vote despite being under a false identity.

3 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

I agree with "has been", but is not anymore.

 

America could certainly withdraw from many of the 150 + countries where it has miltary bases...what's the point?

 

It could also reduce the number of soldiers stationned abroad: between 30,000 and 40,000 in places such as Japan, Korea or Germany...again what's the point?

 

It is a mistake to think that Russia or China would immediately seize the occasion to invade all these countries...they don't have the will, and even less the financial means.

 

We are not anymore in the times of conquests by Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan or Napo!eon...modern warfare is extremely expensive, with little to expect in return.

 

Fighter jets and missiles are not as cheap as horses and swords, and only America with its gigantic military budget can afford to use them on a regular basis.

 

 

It seems to me that Trump has a very much different geo-political strategy to his predecessor, which was largely one of appeasement when challenged.  Now, the world was in many ways, a "quieter" place, under Obama, but he was also being taken advantage of by opponents who saw him as weak.  As much as Trump's style is much more brash, possibly aggressive, he learned his trade in the harshest school of all - business - and one of the strategies he employs is a well known negotiating tactic; in a negotiation, decide who holds the balance of power, and strategise accordingly.  Lao Tzu had some interesting lessons in this regard.  Trumps foreign adversaries (and even some of his perceived "friends") now know just how far he can be pushed.  Who will blink first, in other words. Sure, the globe may be more uncertain now, perhaps, but everyone knows where they stand.  We are not about to see a war between the USA and Russia, the USA and China, even the USA and Iran!

30 minutes ago, patsfangr said:

Simple question. Do you believe that the world would be better off if America withdrew all of her military, and withheld all of her financial and humanitarian aid? If not, you're remarks are ludicrous. America has made mistakes, both domestically and internationally. But, overall, Americas "influence" on the rest of the world has been hugely positive! 

Here is a more global answer to your question:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/01/u-s-power-and-influence-increasingly-seen-as-threat-in-other-countries/

3 hours ago, allanos said:

One of the challenges being faced by the European "Union" is that the disparate countries you mention have thousands of years of disparate cultures and languages, not to mention national psyches.  In that way it is a diametrically opposite situation that that faced in the USA when bringing the States together; which had, essentially, a common culture and a common language, in a republic founded less than 100 years earlier.

Allanos, ...and that is exactly our (US's) challenge right now: how to bring together sets of US citizens who have disparate cultures, religions, languages, races, sexual preferences, etc. It's not easy, but that's our challenge, and I can tell you one thing for sure, Trump is not the leader we need to help us do that. 

31 minutes ago, malibukid said:

sad news, America will never be great again until they address the question of mental illness and start spending some money.  fat chance.  the Republicans see mental illness as Gods Will and will never do anything serious about this and the homeless.  Santa Monica now looks like a Hoover Ville. soup kitchens reminiscent of the great depression.  this is how the conservative elites want to keep it.  more guns, less social programs. 

Santa Monica is part of the socialist state within the USA known as California. It is the policies of that socialist state government, not of the USA, that have caused the poverty level in California to rise so dramatically. Most, if not all of those homeless people could be housed, fed, and clothed by the money made by the Hollywood liberal elite who constantly spew the liberal mantra of "the rich not paying their fair share". Meanwhile, they live in their "WALLED IN", multi-million dollar mansions; dress up in their multi-thousand dollar clothes and jewelry; get into their luxury cars; and party on with champagne and cocaine at some exclusive location. If all of the hypocritical wealthy Democrats would give their "fair share" in voluntary contributions, poverty in California could be wiped out! 

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps you could point me to a town in America, with no homeless and run by Republicans.

slow down, take a breath and put down the bernie sanders doll.

 

I did say the largest homeless populations, you know like the ones in LA and San fran.

where fecal matter and needles litter the streets

4 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

 The 1993 "Motor Voter" law opened the floodgates for fraudulent voting. According to Fund, the "Motor Voter Act," which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, allows people to register to vote "without showing ID or proof of citizenship" when they're filing for "welfare or unemployment" or attempting to renew their driver's license.

Huhh? People can get a driver's licence or without showing ID or proof of citizenship.

"Florida law requires identification, proof of date of birth, proof of residential address, and proof of social security number (if issued, Chapter 322, Florida Statutes, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles see proof of social security number for the issuance of driver license and identification cards) from all "

https://www.dmvflorida.org/drivers-license/drivers-license-identification

Most states if not all require similar

25 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

wow, delusional observations at best.

 

you do know the largest homeless areas are in towns run completely by democrats, yes?

FACT! ABSOLUTE FACT! I'll just add that that applies most to cities that have been run by Democrats for at least a few consecutive decades. 

7 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

what a load of ignorant generalizations to feed your uninformed opinion.

so demeaning those that disagree with progressive ideologies grants you this

power to know what people are? amazing

 

3 hours ago, patsfangr said:

Where did he suggest that they should stop trying? You seem to read the words, but fail to comprehend them. The same can obviously be said for your political and economics education. 

The words in his post were, "It has not reached the European level yet, but why would anyone want to imitate Europe, which is desperately trying to cope with unmanageable issues?" Part of my response was to challenge his assertion that no one should want to "imitate Europe, which is trying to cope with unmanageable issues." My point was it is their duty to try to cope with issues, even if they seem unmanageable, and to do so is something we should all be "imitating." 

26 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

I agree with "has been", but is not anymore.

 

America could certainly withdraw from many of the 150 + countries where it has miltary bases...what's the point?

 

It could also reduce the number of soldiers stationned abroad: between 30,000 and 40,000 in places such as Japan, Korea or Germany...again what's the point?

 

It is a mistake to think that Russia or China would immediately seize the occasion to invade all these countries...they don't have the will, and even less the financial means.

 

We are not anymore in the times of conquests by Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan or Napo!eon...modern warfare is extremely expensive, with little to expect in return.

 

Fighter jets and missiles are not as cheap as horses and swords, and only America with its gigantic military budget can afford to use them on a regular basis.

 

 

So you believe that Russia and China are the only threats to all of the countries in the world? No dictators in Africa, South America, or the Middle East who would like to "annex" the next door neighbor? No powerful, aggressive men within a country with a US presence who'd like to stage a coup if the US pulled out? Do you really believe that these things wouldn't happen in many countries if the US pulled its military back to the USA? do you REALLY, TRULY BELIEVE THAT?

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Not exactly. Many states fought to keep the privacy of their voters. The voter fraud commission was asking them to hand over names, social security numbers, voting history, party affiliation, registration status, etc. 

 

The reality though is that Trump made these claims and wasted all these taxpayer dollars on a lie. There is zero evidence... NONE... of widespread voter fraud. His own commission couldn't even find anything substantial. It's obvious why he made these claims. His ego couldn't take the fact that he lost by 3 million votes. So instead he claimed there were 3-5 million illegal voters. Just like the crowd size Trump's ego will force him to lie. Just like his rallies he will make up data to support his claims, even after it's been fact checked multiple times he'll keep repeating the same lies. 

Crowd size? A few days ago, Obama was in Nevada. Trump was in Houston.  The difference in the crowd-pulling appeal of these to ex- and current President's is immense.  Trump's arena was packed.  Obama's venue more akin to a high school auditorium.

3 hours ago, allanos said:

Read "Animal Farm", by George Orwell.  It should be required reading in every high school the world over.

I'm a big Orwell fan! 

15 minutes ago, billsmart said:

Allanos, ...and that is exactly our (US's) challenge right now: how to bring together sets of US citizens who have disparate cultures, religions, languages, races, sexual preferences, etc. It's not easy, but that's our challenge, and I can tell you one thing for sure, Trump is not the leader we need to help us do that. 

I understand, and you may well be right.  Perhaps time will tell?

 

I certainly hope that Trump will have more success than the "enlightened", "progressive" leaders of the European Union, who are absolutely floundering.

32 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

wow, delusional observations at best.

 

you do know the largest homeless areas are in towns run completely by democrats, yes?

Yes indeed

Republican places such as Alabama, West virginia,  Luisiana  etc are doing great , Where Democratic run places such as California, New York Connecticut etc are languishing in poverty.

People in Alabama need to be careful not to apply socialist policies or the could be like California.   

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Jeepers Creepers,I love my Constitution just the way it is! Especially when it comes to the Supreme Court Justices that interpret the laws, strict  constitutionalist. I don't want  modern day  liberal  activist with radical ideas, experimenting with what has worked for hundred's of years! 

 

It hasn't worked for hundred's of years without being changed. It has to change. IMO, change always comes too slowly, but at least it does come. Our Founding Fathers knew that and made sure there was a process to change it written into it.

19 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Here is a more global answer to your question:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/01/u-s-power-and-influence-increasingly-seen-as-threat-in-other-countries/

Opinion and speculation are not facts. 

I'm absolutely sure, that it's impossible to change the minds of hardcore rightwingers like mcambl61 or patsfangr.

 

Just a waste of time!

 

Hopefully the americans who not learn everything only from Fox or Breitbart will show this kind of people at the coming election that the USA is still a sane country!

17 minutes ago, patsfangr said:

Santa Monica is part of the socialist state within the USA known as California. It is the policies of that socialist state government, not of the USA, that have caused the poverty level in California to rise so dramatically. Most, if not all of those homeless people could be housed, fed, and clothed by the money made by the Hollywood liberal elite who constantly spew the liberal mantra of "the rich not paying their fair share". Meanwhile, they live in their "WALLED IN", multi-million dollar mansions; dress up in their multi-thousand dollar clothes and jewelry; get into their luxury cars; and party on with champagne and cocaine at some exclusive location. If all of the hypocritical wealthy Democrats would give their "fair share" in voluntary contributions, poverty in California could be wiped out! 

Couldn't have said it better.  This egotistical, narcissistic, self-praising and self-adoring Hollywood "elite" (not a name I would give them; there are more-appropriate words) should simply be ignored, or shunned, and which would cut them to the quick as their egos wouldn't be able to take it.  They really are a blot or a stain on America, and not the role models that their elevated status requires.

3 hours ago, patsfangr said:

And that, Mr Smart, is why you dangerously misguided. You simply fail to understand human nature. Greed, envy, and lust for power exist in every human being; more strongly in some than in others. Competition is an absolutely inescapable element of human nature. We ARE part of nature. Nature is, as you said, dominated by the "Law of the Jungle". Human intelligence has, over thousands of years, produced the realization that we must have laws to regulate our behavior. But it is absolutely impossible to remove competition from our psychological base. And THAT, Mr Smart, is why socialism will always ultimately fail. People WILL compete. People will ALWAYS want have more, and to be "better" than their peers. I believe that you are a decent person, who truly believes what you are saying. But you are terribly naive and misguided, my friend, if you believe that the world you dream of can ever exist. Socialism is nothing more than the dream of the naive and inexperienced who refuse to accept the realities of life. 

I don't so much think that a pure version of socialism will ever be instituted for the reasons you gave above, but unlike you, I think we should work towards that as a goal. In other words, we should try to establish a system that was more caring and compassionate, rather than just accepting the fact that we, as humans, are greedy, me-first, beings, and set up our systems to encourage and reward that.

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yes indeed

Republican places such as Alabama, West virginia,  Luisiana  etc are doing great , Where Democratic run places such as California, New York Connecticut etc are languishing in poverty.

People in Alabama need to be careful not to apply socialist policies or the could be like California.   

Check out the largest cities and towns in ANY of those states. The AREAS with the highest levels of poverty are run by Democrats! 

2 hours ago, Peasandmash said:

when the free press is gone only a one sided narrative will be tolerated or CNN. 

I use to watch the news back in the day! It's unfortunate that they have become mostly liberal activist pretending to be reporters working for mostly liberal elites!

 Free Press and what's at stake 

(CNN)"The conservative skepticism of the media runs deep.

Believe me, President Donald Trump didn't invent it. Ever since the advent of "the media" as an industrial complex -- large corporate conglomerates based in coastal cities where many of the ad agencies are -- it's been a left-leaning, urban-minded, somewhat elitist outfit with a blind spot for conservative America".

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/16/opinions/conservatives-and-media-distrust-opinion-cupp/index.html

6 minutes ago, CptnAhab said:

I'm absolutely sure, that it's impossible to change the minds of hardcore rightwingers like mcambl61 or patsfangr.

 

Just a waste of time!

 

Hopefully the americans who not learn everything only from Fox or Breitbart will show this kind of people at the coming election that the USA is still a sane country!

Well, CapnAhab, I'm 75 years old. I was born, raised, and educated (including college) in that "right wing hotbed" called Boston, Massachusetts. I've been a registered Republican since I reached voting age, which was long before either Fox or Breitbart existed, because I have always believed in the basic principles of the Republican Party, and the law of land defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. ... And on that note, folks, I'll say Good Night. 

2 hours ago, patsfangr said:

That last sentence is both ludicrous and blind. Let's set aside the military aid issue for the moment. What country makes greater contributions toward fighting poverty and disease, and aiding in recovery from natural disasters than the USA? Please name it for me. No country in the world has done more to assist other countries than the USA has done over the past 100 years. You can question "motives" as much as you care to; but you can not deny that fact. 

Many of millions of dollars of private donations can be added to the Government figure

17 minutes ago, patsfangr said:

Check out the largest cities and towns in ANY of those states. The AREAS with the highest levels of poverty are run by Democrats! 

Don't look at the big picture, look at the poor people , they are democrats.They are poor because they are  democrats and they are not democrats because they are poor??

but why would I expect reason from a Trampian.