War on women? GOP silent as Trump sounds off on abortion

[inbangkok]

So you support rolling back defense (in reality, offense spending), limiting future military involvement in foreign countries, ending corporate welfare (corporate socialism) and making sure Wall St. never crashes the world economy again, right? Because these are the things that drive debt. Not food stamps, not welfare moms, not Obamacare, etc.

If you don't support these things, you cannot be taken seriously when you say you are concerned about the debt...... Simple.

Totally agree with all of the above and have no argument with you. I don't see any contradiction except with Hillary representing Goldman Sachs in the Whitehouse.

Considering I don't support Clinton I am not sure what contradiction you are speaking of........

[Linzz]

Totally agree with all of the above and have no argument with you. I don't see any contradiction except with Hillary representing Goldman Sachs in the Whitehouse.

It's interested you mention Goldman Sach's (GS's) influence in the corridors of political power. It was Bush Jr. who appointed GS execs to take over the gov't purse strings when Wall Street was on the brink of collapse. And even tho I like Obama, I fault him for keeping the same GS execs in the driver's seat, when he took over. Even tho Republicans blow a lot of hot air about 'free markets', they're the most vociferous when it come to protectionism and generous bail-outs. I would have been tougher than Bush, and allowed failing companies to fail. It's not as though all the people in those companies would die that night. No, new or restructured companies would have risen to take their place - companies that were probably smaller and hopefully better run. GS was part of the cheating/gambling mentality which hobbled Wall Street and saw many US investors lose money, yet GS was put in charge of the fix. What was the first thing GS execs did? Surprise! They protected their own money interests. The next thing GS execs did was protect all their multi-millionaire buddies who gambled with little peoples' money (the little people be damned).

Those are the sorts of things that Sanders has been spending many years trying to fix. Yet he's had to go up against billionaires like Trump (embedded in the establishment), so it's been a hard row to hoe. If he becomes president, Sanders will be more effectively positioned to deal dynamically with millionaire/billionaire hucksters around the US.

Don't worry. It makes no difference who is President. They are just puppets. They have to do what they are told by the elitist. It's all about making money for them.

That could also describe Thailand. Re the USA, yes, largely true, but the prez still has influence and, if he/she knows how to get legislation through congress (something that Trump doesn't know how to do), then the prez can affect policies. The Prez also steers foreign policy, though usually with the advice and counseling of aides. Trump supporters are so excited about his promises to create jobs and keep foreigners from taking US jobs, that the supporters don't seem concerned about what a Trump president might do as Commander in Chief. I'm more aware of foreign issues than Trump or his followers, so I am concerned about an uninformed hot-head being in charge.

You are right, I wouldn't expect Trump's followers to be looking beyond their own self interest in the main. But that's actually not a criticism because they are the electorate for which the Great American Dream is not working hence the appeal of a shoot from the hip billionaire with (as they perceive) street cred, so they effectively don't give a toss what he says (to get back on topic!) since he represents the American Dream and someone who speaks their language at the same time and rightfully or wrongfully (probably the latter) expect him to represent them. The birth of Trump politics is totally understandable. Especially when they see as you mention the bail out of banks because they are too big to fail. Bernie wants the reintroduction of Glass Steagle and the break up of the banks which the Clintons repealed and was instrumental in the 2008 financial crisis, where banks gambled with the people's money and lost. Nobody went went down because they're too big to jail, but concerning Goldman Sachs they are currently paying millions in fines and reparations.Hillary will not release transcripts of her $250,000 per speech(s) because she does not want the poor whom she claims she represent getting to hear her double speak. You don't receive that sort of money criticising banks.

I see we are a little off topic again, probably my fault sorry Mod. I was going to abandon this thread but people are engaging in meaningful dialogue, please tolerate

[Linzz]

So you support rolling back defense (in reality, offense spending), limiting future military involvement in foreign countries, ending corporate welfare (corporate socialism) and making sure Wall St. never crashes the world economy again, right? Because these are the things that drive debt. Not food stamps, not welfare moms, not Obamacare, etc.

If you don't support these things, you cannot be taken seriously when you say you are concerned about the debt...... Simple.

Totally agree with all of the above and have no argument with you. I don't see any contradiction except with Hillary representing Goldman Sachs in the Whitehouse.

Considering I don't support Clinton I am not sure what contradiction you are speaking of........

Apologies. I meant I didn't see any contradiction of my argument with yours regarding reasons for the national debt.and how to prevent it

[Linzz]

Trump supporters are so excited about his promises to create jobs and keep foreigners from taking US jobs...

I couldn't help but comment on this point. This article just came out, talking about how Trump consistently seeks out foreign workers for his businesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wanted-trumps-seek-foreign-workers-us-businesses/story?id=38061964

It makes you wonder how Trump supporters can believe a word this man says.

Trump is a businessman and will do what suits Trump's businesses. Trump is a wannabe politician and will say whatever it takes to get elected. His supporters mostly don't care what he says or does.

[Chicog]

Trump supporters are so excited about his promises to create jobs and keep foreigners from taking US jobs...

I couldn't help but comment on this point. This article just came out, talking about how Trump consistently seeks out foreign workers for his businesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wanted-trumps-seek-foreign-workers-us-businesses/story?id=38061964

It makes you wonder how Trump supporters can believe a word this man says.

Trump is a businessman and will do what suits Trump's businesses. Trump is a wannabe politician and will say whatever it takes to get elected. His supporters mostly don't care what he says or does.

As long as he continues to belittle foreigners and women, he's got the angry white men sewn up.

[grumpyoldman]

Totally agree with all of the above and have no argument with you. I don't see any contradiction except with Hillary representing Goldman Sachs in the Whitehouse.

It's interested you mention Goldman Sach's (GS's) influence in the corridors of political power. It was Bush Jr. who appointed GS execs to take over the gov't purse strings when Wall Street was on the brink of collapse. And even tho I like Obama, I fault him for keeping the same GS execs in the driver's seat, when he took over. Even tho Republicans blow a lot of hot air about 'free markets', they're the most vociferous when it come to protectionism and generous bail-outs. I would have been tougher than Bush, and allowed failing companies to fail. It's not as though all the people in those companies would die that night. No, new or restructured companies would have risen to take their place - companies that were probably smaller and hopefully better run. GS was part of the cheating/gambling mentality which hobbled Wall Street and saw many US investors lose money, yet GS was put in charge of the fix. What was the first thing GS execs did? Surprise! They protected their own money interests. The next thing GS execs did was protect all their multi-millionaire buddies who gambled with little peoples' money (the little people be damned).

Those are the sorts of things that Sanders has been spending many years trying to fix. Yet he's had to go up against billionaires like Trump (embedded in the establishment), so it's been a hard row to hoe. If he becomes president, Sanders will be more effectively positioned to deal dynamically with millionaire/billionaire hucksters around the US.

Don't worry. It makes no difference who is President. They are just puppets. They have to do what they are told by the elitist. It's all about making money for them.

That could also describe Thailand. Re the USA, yes, largely true, but the prez still has influence and, if he/she knows how to get legislation through congress (something that Trump doesn't know how to do), then the prez can affect policies. The Prez also steers foreign policy, though usually with the advice and counseling of aides. Trump supporters are so excited about his promises to create jobs and keep foreigners from taking US jobs, that the supporters don't seem concerned about what a Trump president might do as Commander in Chief. I'm more aware of foreign issues than Trump or his followers, so I am concerned about an uninformed hot-head being in charge.

You are right, I wouldn't expect Trump's followers to be looking beyond their own self interest in the main. But that's actually not a criticism because they are the electorate for which the Great American Dream is not working hence the appeal of a shoot from the hip billionaire with (as they perceive) street cred, so they effectively don't give a toss what he says (to get back on topic!) since he represents the American Dream and someone who speaks their language at the same time and rightfully or wrongfully (probably the latter) expect him to represent them. The birth of Trump politics is totally understandable. Especially when they see as you mention the bail out of banks because they are too big to fail. Bernie wants the reintroduction of Glass Steagle and the break up of the banks which the Clintons repealed and was instrumental in the 2008 financial crisis, where banks gambled with the people's money and lost. Nobody went went down because they're too big to jail, but concerning Goldman Sachs they are currently paying millions in fines and reparations.Hillary will not release transcripts of her $250,000 per speech(s) because she does not want the poor whom she claims she represent getting to hear her double speak. You don't receive that sort of money criticising banks.

I see we are a little off topic again, probably my fault sorry Mod. I was going to abandon this thread but people are engaging in meaningful dialogue, please tolerate

A billionaire with "street cred"

Taking daddy's money and doing really no better than the S&P represents "the American Dream"?

"Banks gambled with people's money and lost, led to the 2008 crisis" (not GW Bush running for 2nd term on "everyone should own a house" and allowing banks to loan money never to be repaid?).

Man, I wonder if just reading your own gobbledegook is an ego trip for you(?), but you are off the mark mate, way off.

[Linzz]

It's interested you mention Goldman Sach's (GS's) influence in the corridors of political power. It was Bush Jr. who appointed GS execs to take over the gov't purse strings when Wall Street was on the brink of collapse. And even tho I like Obama, I fault him for keeping the same GS execs in the driver's seat, when he took over. Even tho Republicans blow a lot of hot air about 'free markets', they're the most vociferous when it come to protectionism and generous bail-outs. I would have been tougher than Bush, and allowed failing companies to fail. It's not as though all the people in those companies would die that night. No, new or restructured companies would have risen to take their place - companies that were probably smaller and hopefully better run. GS was part of the cheating/gambling mentality which hobbled Wall Street and saw many US investors lose money, yet GS was put in charge of the fix. What was the first thing GS execs did? Surprise! They protected their own money interests. The next thing GS execs did was protect all their multi-millionaire buddies who gambled with little peoples' money (the little people be damned).

Those are the sorts of things that Sanders has been spending many years trying to fix. Yet he's had to go up against billionaires like Trump (embedded in the establishment), so it's been a hard row to hoe. If he becomes president, Sanders will be more effectively positioned to deal dynamically with millionaire/billionaire hucksters around the US.

Don't worry. It makes no difference who is President. They are just puppets. They have to do what they are told by the elitist. It's all about making money for them.

That could also describe Thailand. Re the USA, yes, largely true, but the prez still has influence and, if he/she knows how to get legislation through congress (something that Trump doesn't know how to do), then the prez can affect policies. The Prez also steers foreign policy, though usually with the advice and counseling of aides. Trump supporters are so excited about his promises to create jobs and keep foreigners from taking US jobs, that the supporters don't seem concerned about what a Trump president might do as Commander in Chief. I'm more aware of foreign issues than Trump or his followers, so I am concerned about an uninformed hot-head being in charge.

You are right, I wouldn't expect Trump's followers to be looking beyond their own self interest in the main. But that's actually not a criticism because they are the electorate for which the Great American Dream is not working hence the appeal of a shoot from the hip billionaire with (as they perceive) street cred, so they effectively don't give a toss what he says (to get back on topic!) since he represents the American Dream and someone who speaks their language at the same time and rightfully or wrongfully (probably the latter) expect him to represent them. The birth of Trump politics is totally understandable. Especially when they see as you mention the bail out of banks because they are too big to fail. Bernie wants the reintroduction of Glass Steagle and the break up of the banks which the Clintons repealed and was instrumental in the 2008 financial crisis, where banks gambled with the people's money and lost. Nobody went went down because they're too big to jail, but concerning Goldman Sachs they are currently paying millions in fines and reparations.Hillary will not release transcripts of her $250,000 per speech(s) because she does not want the poor whom she claims she represent getting to hear her double speak. You don't receive that sort of money criticising banks.

I see we are a little off topic again, probably my fault sorry Mod. I was going to abandon this thread but people are engaging in meaningful dialogue, please tolerate

A billionaire with "street cred"

Taking daddy's money and doing really no better than the S&P represents "the American Dream"?

"Banks gambled with people's money and lost, led to the 2008 crisis" (not GW Bush running for 2nd term on "everyone should own a house" and allowing banks to loan money never to be repaid?).

Man, I wonder if just reading your own gobbledegook is an ego trip for you(?), but you are off the mark mate, way off.

You should be careful using emoticons of laughing idiots. Please take the time to note that I am not endorsing but providing an explanation to Trump's popularity. Street cred is an common description of Donald Trump by his supporters. I qualified that if you care to read my post (as they perceive)

Definition of street smart or street cred:

"The stereotype of a street smart person is someone who is intelligent and knows how to handle important situations in the streets but is not as well-educated academically."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=street+smart

Some examples of publications by his supporters:

"What is it that Donald Trump has that I like the most, besides the $10 billion dollars that he earned the good old hard way – by working for it? Well, I call it street cred. It’s a kind of rare credibility that makes an extraordinary man like Donald Trump seem like an ordinary man of the street. For my money, Donald Trump says that he wants to Make America Great Again, and it appears as though he has the street cred to do just that, and I like it." patriotupdate.com/street-cred/

"Critical coverage feeds his anti establishment message and affords him conservative street cred"

http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/donald-trump-to-media-i-hate-you-now-check-out-my-private-jet/

Fox contributor and actress Stacey Dashmade the case on her Patheos blog that Donald Trump isn’t condoning violence, he’s just “street” from his tough New York City upbringing.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/stacey-dash-donald-trump-isnt-violent-hes-just-street/

The American Dream

When the Great American Dream eludes a huge sector of the American people there is bound to be vicarious satisfaction in supporting someone (rightfully or wrongfully) whom they would like to be themselves and believe he may even be able to help them in that direction. Hence:

.@realDonaldTrump: "American Dream is dead but we're going to make it bigger & stronger & better than ever before."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Banks gambled with other people's money

Gambling with Other People's Money

How Perverted Incentives Caused the Financial Crisis

In the United States we like to believe we are a capitalist society based on individual responsibility. But we are what we do. Not what we say we are. Not what we wish to be. But what we do. And what we do is make it easy to gamble with other people’s money—particularly borrowed money—by making sure that almost everybody who makes bad loans gets his money back anyway. The financial crisis of 2008 was a natural result of these perverse incentives.

Who got to play with other people’s money in the years preceding the crisis? Who was highly leveraged—putting very little of his own money at risk while borrowing the rest? Who was able to continue to borrow at low rates even as he made riskier and riskier bets? Who sat at the poker table?

Just about everybody.

Homebuyers. The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The commercial banks—Bank of America, Citibank, and many others. The investment banks—like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Everyone was playing the same game, playing with other people’s money. They were all able to continue borrowing at the same low rates even as the bets they placed grew riskier and riskier. Only at the very end, when collapse was imminent and there was doubt about whether Uncle Sam would really come to the rescue, did the players at the table find it hard to borrow and gamble with other people’s money.

http://mercatus.org/publication/gambling-other-peoples-money

In 2011, Phil Angelides, chairman of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, summarized the problem: “These banks are too big to fail. They’re too big to manage. They’re too big to regulate. They’re too complex to understand and they’re too risky to exist. And the bottom line is they offer very little benefit.”

President Obama’s theory is that Republican deregulation policies left Wall Street free to plunder the country, causing the crash.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s theory is that government interference in the market—forcing bankers to give mortgages to poor people—caused the crash

Neither party proposes that the too-big-to-fail banks be broken up or that some competition replace the oligopoly. Neither party proposes a reasonable plan to get rid of the national debt. The current system gives bankers incentives to take excessive risks, since profits are private and losses are socialized. Any reform has to start with changing those perverse incentives.

Underlying this election, largely unspoken, is the worry that the U.S. debt has become so large that the country’s future is endangered. The 2010 Simpson-Bowles report on fiscal reform predicts that if interest rates rise, which seems inevitable, our country’s annual interest payments could increase to $1 trillion, meaning our annual deficit will be $2 trillion. That will no doubt further lower the American standard of living and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, “weaken the United States’ international leadership.”

https://theamericanscholar.org/too-big-to-fail-and-too-risky-to-exist/#.Vv-93vl95Mw

So please tell me Mr. Grumpy where I am so far off the mark. Without using stupid emoticons or gobbledygook. You could try doing your own research before you bounce off the walls