|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 01 2017 22:36 bigmetazltank wrote:
All I know is that the world has no reason to trust the United States ever again when not a single politician with any degree of power is saying enough is enough to Trump's handling of Puerto Rico. In any other democracy the leader would have probably been tared and feather out of office by now. If the president has shown this little respect and care for his own citizens, just imagine his respect for treaties and countries that aren't rolling the red carpet for him.
We've got a situation where Trump's base is practically claiming the media is fake news, Puerto Rico is in awesome condition because Trump is amazing and the Mayor is a lying bitch backed by George Soros and the Democrats. Its completely terrifying that we're just letting this happen. God knows what Trump would do if California got wiped out by an earthquake or bushfire.
They are, including the most popular politician in the US, but it gets lost in the NFL smokescreen.
NY Daily News
|
On October 01 2017 22:36 bigmetazltank wrote:
All I know is that the world has no reason to trust the United States ever again when not a single politician with any degree of power is saying enough is enough to Trump's handling of Puerto Rico. In any other democracy the leader would have probably been tared and feather out of office by now. If the president has shown this little respect and care for his own citizens, just imagine his respect for treaties and countries that aren't rolling the red carpet for him.
We've got a situation where Trump's base is practically claiming the media is fake news, Puerto Rico is in awesome condition because Trump is amazing and the Mayor is a lying bitch backed by George Soros and the Democrats. Its completely terrifying that we're just letting this happen. God knows what Trump would do if California got wiped out by an earthquake or bushfire.
I think we're lucky that the republican states are the ones more prone to natural disaster. I honestly think, with how the health care handled, that perhaps there wouldn't be as much care if a democrat leaning state was hit hard.
|
On October 01 2017 23:19 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 22:36 bigmetazltank wrote:
All I know is that the world has no reason to trust the United States ever again when not a single politician with any degree of power is saying enough is enough to Trump's handling of Puerto Rico. In any other democracy the leader would have probably been tared and feather out of office by now. If the president has shown this little respect and care for his own citizens, just imagine his respect for treaties and countries that aren't rolling the red carpet for him.
We've got a situation where Trump's base is practically claiming the media is fake news, Puerto Rico is in awesome condition because Trump is amazing and the Mayor is a lying bitch backed by George Soros and the Democrats. Its completely terrifying that we're just letting this happen. God knows what Trump would do if California got wiped out by an earthquake or bushfire. I think we're lucky that the republican states are the ones more prone to natural disaster. I honestly think, with how the health care handled, that perhaps there wouldn't be as much care if a democrat leaning state was hit hard.
That said, Republican states have received more federal dollars per capita than their less red ilk for well over 2 decades now to no avail 
|
What the fuck does this mean?
You don't need much to interpret this as a declaration of war
|
Tillerson, by coming forward that they are talking with NK is undermining the story from Trump.
Hence Trump feeling the need to comment.
|
On October 02 2017 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:Tillerson, by coming forward that they are talking with NK is undermining the story from Trump. Hence Trump feeling the need to comment.
I thought the story here is: Everyone does what he wants, and the POTUS begs on twitter to his ministers to listen to him. But nobody cares.
|
My read on this is that he is desperate for a major conflict for him to rescue America from. Our intelligence likely indicates we could intercept and eliminate any actual attack. So if we are able to bait NK into attacking, trump gets credit for being the guy who took out NK.
|
|
|
Thank god for Mattis, McMaster and Kelly. You did well with those picks Trump.
|
'We'll do what has to be done'. It's phrased as an inevitability of something to do. And it's specifically referring to something that is not talking or negotiating with NK. Now, it could refer to talking with China about increasing pressure on NK with sanctions. It could also refer to "totally destroy North Korea", which is what he said at the UN.
Now NK reads this and has to decide which of these he means. We know what the response is if they decide he means the second option. By stating it so ambiguously he's creating a huge risk here...
And even if nothing happens the best result is that he devaluated the international position of his Secretary of State hugely. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
|
On October 02 2017 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:My read on this is that he is desperate for a major conflict for him to rescue America from. Our intelligence likely indicates we could intercept and eliminate any actual attack. So if we are able to bait NK into attacking, trump gets credit for being the guy who took out NK.
how do you intercept an artillery barrage on Seoul?
Your right tho, Trump probably wants a conflict to up his ratings but the military isn't letting him. If the military wanted war we would have had it by now imo.
On October 02 2017 01:06 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2017 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:Tillerson, by coming forward that they are talking with NK is undermining the story from Trump. Hence Trump feeling the need to comment. I thought the story here is: Everyone does what he wants, and the POTUS begs on twitter to his ministers to listen to him. But nobody cares.
The two aren't exclusive and yes I agree with your story aswell.
|
On October 02 2017 01:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2017 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:My read on this is that he is desperate for a major conflict for him to rescue America from. Our intelligence likely indicates we could intercept and eliminate any actual attack. So if we are able to bait NK into attacking, trump gets credit for being the guy who took out NK. how do you intercept an artillery barrage on Seoul? Your right tho, Trump probably wants a conflict to up his ratings but the military isn't letting him. If the military wanted war we would have had it by now imo. Show nested quote +On October 02 2017 01:06 mahrgell wrote:On October 02 2017 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:Tillerson, by coming forward that they are talking with NK is undermining the story from Trump. Hence Trump feeling the need to comment. I thought the story here is: Everyone does what he wants, and the POTUS begs on twitter to his ministers to listen to him. But nobody cares. The two aren't exclusive and yes I agree with your story aswell.
I think he sees Seoul as 100% not his problem.
|
On October 01 2017 16:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 15:23 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:12 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 14:13 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime. I'd have to look up the quote from you, but unless I'm mistaken I recall you saying Congress should have impeached him because of an EO you thought was unconstitutional (was it DACA? or something else?), so that was what I was referring to specifically. I have trouble finding any reading of the Constitution that suggests that an unconstitutional EO like DACA or the Obamacare cost sharing payments would be grounds for impeachment – the Constitutional remedy would be the Supreme Court declaring the order unconstitutional. Hell, plenty of people on the left think Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional, but I've seen very few of them think that was grounds for impeachment (they might think there are plenty of other grounds, of course). But I didn't really mean to drudge up arguments over the constitutionality of specific Obama actions, anyway. That doesn't seem like a constructive place to take the thread right now. I just meant to demonstrate that partisans of the opposition tend to want to impeach presidents even when most of the legal community would not think there's any good legal basis for it, and if they could sway most of the country to their way of thinking, presumably Congress would just do it anyway. So the "evidence of crime" isn't a true requirement in any meaningful sense – people could come up with something or other to call "high crimes and misdemeanors" for pretty much any president if they got unpopular enough. The real significance of the "evidence of crime" is hopefully in making them that unpopular in the first place. Each branch has their checks and balances. The executive is under the legislative via removal, the executive post-constitution is now under the supreme court as well (the second not written into the constitution, invented afterwards). You really have got to read the federalist papers and antifederalist papers. The spectre of replacing one king for another sat high in voters' minds. They are very instructive in this regards, but rather long. I don't think you'd come out thinking the travel ban and rewriting Obamacare are similar. But yeah, your examples don't show a grasp of when partisans have a legitimate point for impeachment versus when they do not. Of course they were concerned about replacing one king with another, and I don't doubt that reading those would be educational. Yes, judicial review was a later invention. But the idea that a President would be impeached for trying to do something by executive order that either violated the Bill of Rights or was not a power given to him in the first place is insane. Bills, EOs, and the like get challenged in court all the time, and nobody has ever thought that if they were found unconstitutional, that meant whoever wrote them should be impeached. Honestly, the Constitution did not seem very clear to me in the first place about what should happen if the legislative or executive tried to violate the Constitution, which is why judicial review was created in the first place. If you have a better idea of what the Constitutional remedy for something like that was, enlighten me – I haven't read the Constitution straight through since high school, maybe I forgot something. I'm not going to get into the weeds on every single action people think Obama could have been impeached for, but thinking that DACA or the CSR payments are grounds for impeachment remains an excellent example of partisans requiring essentially zero proof of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to call for impeachment. If those are constitutional actions, he's allowed to do them, and if they're not, a court can rule accordingly. There's no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be found here. No offense intended, but you absolutely should read the federalist papers. They had to sell this constitution to the states to ratify. It specifically argued that the courts were not a good place for impeachments, as well as detailing their role away from executive actions. Make you mind clear about what it does and does not say from it's writers/debaters arguing why they made the choices they did. You should also review the English use of impeachment to see more into how high crimes and misdemeanors included acting outside the limits on power and refusing to obey an act of Parliament. It's also amusing how your two cited examples are not the ones I said particularly stand out. Stick to examples I bring up? Show nested quote +Edit: On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote:
The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. How about this one: is there anything you can imagine Trump doing in the remainder of his presidency that would make you regret your choice? I would have assumed nuclear war with NK would clear that bar, but now I'm not certain. Just one last hypothetical!!! Sorry, ChristianS, your strange uncertainty notwithstanding, I really see no point going further into hypotheticals. I gave two examples for why they're unwelcome, which you didn't address. I responded to your post on micronesia, which you haven't given a response to.
What the hell response did you want to I'm specifically talking about policy and the direction of the US. I don't think we'll get very far about Clinton's uniquely terrible things vs Trump's uniquely terrible things. Hell, even talking about Obama's unprecedented and terrible things.
I read that as "we shouldn't get into this," and since it sounded like it would require a full airing of grievances for both Clinton and Obama I agreed. It's not even Festivus yet.
I'm not gonna go read the entire federalist papers just to have a discussion on an internet forum, but to be clear, I never said impeachment should be handled by the judicial branch. I said impeachment is not a practical solution to extraconstitutional actions from the legislative and executive branches. If that was the only remedy the Constitution had to that problem, that was a failing on the Constitution's part. That, like the expressed powers strategy for limited government, failed, each needing a fix added (judicial review and the Bill of Rights, respectively).
I focused on the CSR payments and DACA because I was defending my original characterization as an insufficient justification for impeachment, which was based on those two things. If you don't think those two things would be sufficient justification for impeachment, I apologize for attributing that viewpoint to you; I must have misremembered what you had said should be an impeachable offense. My argument was not "there are no good justifications by which Obama could have been impeached," it was "these two justifications are not good, but some partisans would accept them." I didn't say the former specifically because I didn't want to get out in the weeds on GM and Chrysler bailouts, birtherism, and whatever other justifications the far right offered. That discussion seemed useless at this point anyway, seeing as he's not predident anymore.
Look: I didn't expect you to actually answer the hypothetical. I know it generally takes more than that to drag an answer out of you. But you kept complaining that the hypotheticals required you to accept a bunch of assumptions that you disagree with. For purposes of discussion that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway, and you're smart enough to consider an idea without believing it.
But the hypothetical I asked required no such assumptions anyway. It was just "is there anything Trump could do that would make you decide he was the wrong choice after all?" You could just answer "no," or "short of nuking someone unprovoked, no," or whatever else you might clear the bar for you. Several liberals, including Kwark, were willing to answer the reverse question before the election. I'm not gonna spend 15 pages trying to get an answer out of you, but if you really wanted the hypothetical not to require any assumptions you don't share, I offered that. Do with it what you will.
|
Good/bad cop routine? That's what it sounds like.
|
Wait for the spin. It'll happen. While I don't see it as a declaration of war, it's not a good look and it's definitely provocation.
|
Trump was watching Cable news, as he does for 6 hours a day. He saw on TV that Tillerson was talking to NK. Trump then made his stupid comment without any thought or research. There was no plan, no strategy, no discussion involved in this tweet. It was just him watching the TV.
|
|
|
The generals and the deep state are conspiring towards a military coup against the PREEEEEEEEEEEEE.
|
On October 02 2017 04:09 Gahlo wrote:The generals and the deep state are conspiring towards a military coup against the PREEEEEEEEEEEEE.
I'm of split opinion on that. Getting rid of Trump would be good but it also sets a precedent that isn't all that good. Once it happens once without consequence it often keeps happening.
(I am aware you were sarcastic.)
|
On October 01 2017 21:54 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 14:05 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 micronesia wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote:
The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. I don't have a problem, in principle, with folks voting for the reasons you gave. However, those voters shouldn't try to simultaneously justify the reasoning for wanting to vote against certain people like Hillary and take no responsibility for the bad actions of the person they chose to vote for. It's one or the other. Either people voted for Trump knowing he would do embarrassing/harmful things like what we've been discussing here, and decided that was worth it to send a message that the status quo must end, or they shouldn't have voted for him. I'll make an exception for those too simple-minded to understand the ramifications of their vote (whole separate problem), but the majority of voters, like I said before, should have known exactly what they were getting as most of the people who voted for Hillary did once the election was over. If you voted for the current president, you are in part responsible for his actions. That's of course always true to some extent, but it's especially true when the candidate did such a good job of telegraphing exactly what type of a person he was and how that would not change when he got into office. You're somewhat right and somewhat wrong. A primary process that ended in Trump should be mitigated by the opposing party's nomination, but this time they picked someone worse than Trump. That doesn't absolve a voter from having weighed the positive message Trump sent against all the buffoonery, incompetency, and twitter/speech behavior. You accepted the good with the bad in the vote, and should somewhat stand by it. If you've been reading the thread, maybe you got the perspective from the country standpoint and from a within-party standpoint: + Show Spoiler +On November 10 2016 01:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 01:11 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 01:08 ACrow wrote:On November 10 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 00:58 Logo wrote:3) Abortion rights aren't going anywhere. Gay rights aren't going anywhere. You've won on these issues. Even if Trump gets capped and Pence takes over, there's nothing that the president can do to unwind the progress that's been made. Virtually no judge that Trump may appoint will overturn the precedents that have been set. Judges are egotistical assholes, and they'd rather not tarnish their reputations (see John Roberts). And the American people don't have the appetite for a protracted cultural war on these issues right now. Trump didn't even run on those issues. There are bigger fish to fry. Which takes me to my last point.... This one seems incorrect (the abortion part)? There's already a bunch of states chipping away at abortion rights by imposing overly strict regulations on where abortions can be performed or allowing shady centers to operate that appear to be about family planning or offer abortions but then really hammer anti-abortion messages into you. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/01/14-states-have-passed-laws-making-it-harder-to-get-an-abortion-already-this-year/ among others. Anyone can get an abortion in this country. Unless you're an advocate for late term abortions, the battle is being fought at the margins over convenience. This is a non-issue that is blown out of proportion by the left. That is so egotistical it is disgusting. "I'm male, so I'm not affected, so I don't care". Jerk. Keep your nose out of women's affairs and let them decide you control freak. Come on that's not what he said ... I truly wonder : is the vote Trump some kind of millenarism ? Did US citizens showed their desire for the end of the world ?I've had some tough discussion with students this morning. The media attacked their brains so much they actually thought Trump meant WW3. Like I've said for a long time (and you have said the same), what exactly did Trump supporters have to lose? What was their alternative? They've been maligned culturally for so long, that a populist revolt was inevitable. On November 09 2016 13:11 LegalLord wrote:
On my drive home (at long last) I was looking for what I could use as my personal description of what's happening here. Ultimately, I came up with "the fuck-you to Hillary and the establishment that I was not willing to risk my own skin to send."
Trump is now favored to win, and we are favored to see four very interesting years. If that is what happens, I really hope that at the very least the Democrats understand exactly why it is that this happened. Their attitude towards this was absolutely not acceptable. You seem to be echoing exactly what I was saying. I don't agree with those poster's decisions, but I don't see them trying to argue that they have no responsibility for Trump. Show nested quote +We have some very deep issues in this country that will extend beyond Puerto Rico and Trump's twitter feed that are absolutely core to civic peace and future harmony. I do have a lot of sympathy for people like you, micronesia, that don't grasp the ramifications of the culture wars, or the media-Clinton(Democratic) establishment, or the forgotten white/other working class. Obviously you're ranking the current trauma as eclipsing all these, and it's absolutely not the case. Clinton did a great job telegraphing why she was the worse choice. The existing division prevented a good recap of that fact, so oh well. He will probably continue to do badly in office. He will also prove how rotten the DC core and media are in their response, and that's a very valuable reminder to Americans. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether or not all of the buffoonery of the sitting POTUS and the incompetence of this administration is worse for the country than the alternatives in the most recent presidential election. That doesn't really support your claim that I am somewhat right and somewhat wrong, given what I was saying in my previous posts. Recall that I was just pointing out people who voted for Trump own that decision for the remainder of his presidency, regardless of how justified they felt in voting for him to disrupt the status quo. The thing we actually disagree about will probably not be reconciled in this thread. The left does have a lot to learn about how we got here. The right has a lot to learn as well. I don't see voting for the current POTUS to be a reasonable way to solve either of those problems, and now the USA is the laughingstock of the whole world while at the same time terrifying the whole world that we might plunge it into God knows what because of some stupid reason like a mean comment on twitter. I'm not so cynical to think these 'culture wars,' problems with the media-Clinton(Democratic) establishment, or the forgotten working class couldn't be improved without bringing the entire world into it in a big and bad way.
Yeah we’re not all that far apart. Only the appraisal of the two candidates and how dire the country’s situation was in the choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
