The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Does this idiot even realize the irony; that she's talking about herself?

https://www.newsweek.com/alyssa-mila...is-pro-1436288

Milano snapped back towards Voight, saying his words are why “Republicans discredit actors and our political views,” Milano tweeted herself on Saturday.

“Stay in your lane, Jon!” she tweeted.

“Has been!”

“F-lister trying to stay relevant!”

“Nobody cares what an out of touch actor thinks!”

[Gatefan1976]

Pence wasn't on the ballot. Of the choices we had, Trump was the best choice available.

You had 2 choices, side with a self serving moron, or side with the system.
You chose the moron because you cannot conceive of not voting republican.
You are a political slave.

If Trump wants to step down, or is forced from office so Pence takes over, I'm fine with that.

Why?

I am NOT fine with Democrats who will try to push us down a road going the wrong way.
And I'm not so happy with many Republicans, either. After all, Trump had both houses of Congress for two years, and there were enough Republicans who would not support closing the southern border that he couldn't accomplish that. Or a few other things as well.

You wanted to vote in a incompetent moron over someone with political savvy, just because YOU don't agree with everything they do?
That's a what a child does.

Congress could have acted as just as much as a check on Hillary for the first 2 years, and I doubt SHE would be asking for a 6 year first term "because unfair".
Politics is NOT about what is best for you, it's about what is best for US

If you recall, Trump took on Republicans he saw as on the wrong side of things as well as Democrats.

Like who?
He attacks anyone he feels threatens HIM, not your country.

[Annoyed]

You had 2 choices, side with a self serving moron, or side with the system.
You chose the moron because you cannot conceive of not voting republican.
You are a political slave.

Not true. Show me a Democrat in the mold of John F. Kennedy and he's got a good chance of getting my vote. He was one of the greatest presidents we've had, certainly one of the best I'll see in my lifetime. Problem is that the Democratic party has changed. They are no longer even close to what Kennedy was.

Not only did Kennedy light a fire under this country's collective arse, spurring us to achieve the greatest non-military success in history, but Kennedy asked "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Compare that to the modern Democrat theme of "What can we give you to get you to vote for us".

Why?

Because it's not the man that I support, it's the agenda being pushed. Pence would no doubt be actually more effective in pushing the same agenda as Trump is.

You wanted to vote in a incompetent moron over someone with political savvy, just because YOU don't agree with everything they do?
That's a what a child does.

You keep forgetting that I don't look at things the same way that you do. And that's fine. We each have different opinions. I happen to like the "Bull in a china shop" approach that you consider to be incompetent. The "system" is broken, so I see no need for him to restrict himself to operating within it. I LIKE the fact that he challenges and rewrites the status quo.

Congress could have acted as just as much as a check on Hillary for the first 2 years, and I doubt SHE would be asking for a 6 year first term "because unfair".
Politics is NOT about what is best for you, it's about what is best for US

But why would I vote for someone who I feel ought to be in prison? Just as you think Trump ought to be locked up, I think Hillary should have been prosecuted and jailed.
But aside from that, why would I vote for someone whose agenda I oppose, when there was a candidate who was pushing an agenda that I actually like and support? You seem to forget that many people DO agree with and support Trump's agenda. You obviously don't, but that doesn't automatically make you right or wrong. It just means that we have different views and there is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, and as for "Politics is NOT about what is best for you, it's about what is best for US" I assume that is a typo, and should end with "the US". If not, if what you wrote was your intent, why should our politics be about doing what's best for Australia? Isn't that what your country's politics are about?

Like who?
He attacks anyone he feels threatens HIM, not your country.

Just for one example, how often has he called out Republicans who did not support the wall on the southern border? The situation there, with the never-ending hordes of invaders is a legitimate threat to the country. And it is Trump's JOB to defend the country. Isn't that even part of the oath of office?

[Gatefan1976]

Not true. Show me a Democrat in the mold of John F. Kennedy and he's got a good chance of getting my vote. He was one of the greatest presidents we've had, certainly one of the best I'll see in my lifetime. Problem is that the Democratic party has changed. They are no longer even close to what Kennedy was.

Nor is the republican party anything like Lincoln, and has not been since it got taken over by the "moral Majority" (which is funny as they are a minority)
JFK was a uniter, a visionary (and a womanizer, so he's got that in common with trump), do you see those better angels in anything trump does? The primary process should have weeded out a person like trump, but it didn't, so the notion that he was the only choice stands in stark contrast you mention soon.

Not only did Kennedy light a fire under this country's collective arse, spurring us to achieve the greatest non-military success in history, but Kennedy asked "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

That's right, he did. Could you imagine a blowhard narcissist like trump ever getting you there? Hillary was not a good candidate, but she was competent.

Compare that to the modern Democrat theme of "What can we give you to get you to vote for us".

That's a perception, and a flawed one at that. How about we compare that to the modern republican theme of saying to corps "what will you give me for my vote"? (and don't even bother to say both parties do it, look up how much money gets funnelled into political parties in a comparative way, don't embarrass yourself again like you did with gerrymandering)

Because it's not the man that I support, it's the agenda being pushed. Pence would no doubt be actually more effective in pushing the same agenda as Trump is.

Then you have the wrong system for what you want. You (the USA) DON'T vote party, you vote the person. Would pence be more effective? I sorta doubt that, he does not have the charisma trump has, nor would he have the same agenda. Trump believes that the presidency grants total power -to him-, at least pence has an outside guiding principle that is not entirely about himself.

You keep forgetting that I don't look at things the same way that you do. And that's fine. We each have different opinions.

Sure, but what I don't like is when people flat out ignore a problem for political expediency. You and I can agree on a problem, say, illegal immigration and recognize it is a problem. Where we differ is on how to deal with it. Trump just ignores problems, and that is dangerous.

I happen to like the "Bull in a china shop" approach that you consider to be incompetent.

You can go "bull in a china shop", but that doesn't mean that trump is not competent enough to even be a bull.
I get you want change, but you picked a selfish moron who does not give a damn about anyone but himself to do it. He has damaged your democracy, your republic, not for you, but for HIMSELF.

The "system" is broken, so I see no need for him to restrict himself to operating within it. I LIKE the fact that he challenges and rewrites the status quo.

That only underscores how little you know about the system that governs you.

But why would I vote for someone who I feel ought to be in prison? Just as you think Trump ought to be locked up, I think Hillary should have been prosecuted and jailed.

I don't randomly think trump should be locked up. Hillary WAS investigated, has been investigated longer, and on more issues than trump, and found ………….. not guilty. If trump can't handle the same level of scrutiny, he is a coward.
Hillary HAD the investigation, trump want's to deny the investigation. Think about that.

But aside from that, why would I vote for someone whose agenda I oppose, when there was a candidate who was pushing an agenda that I actually like and support?

You don't understand trumps agenda. His agenda has always been and will always be about himself. He's pushing a wall, not because he wants it, but because it "plays well" with the "base" He wants to renegotiate trade, if it helps HIM (look at what farmers think of his trade wars)
Open your eyes kid.
You get your issues heard, then handled in the most self serving method for trump, and he does not give a rat's arse if you suffer for them.

You seem to forget that many people DO agree with and support Trump's agenda.

A minority, and you like to crap on minorities, so why should yours be any different?

You obviously don't, but that doesn't automatically make you right or wrong. It just means that we have different views and there is nothing wrong with that.

I have never said I am "right", so put the poor strawman down.

Oh, and as for "Politics is NOT about what is best for you, it's about what is best for US" I assume that is a typo, and should end with "the US". If not, if what you wrote was your intent, why should our politics be about doing what's best for Australia? Isn't that what your country's politics are about?

I meant what is right for the people in a country. politicians are supposed to serve the people, not themselves.

Just for one example, how often has he called out Republicans who did not support the wall on the southern border? The situation there, with the never-ending hordes of invaders is a legitimate threat to the country. And it is Trump's JOB to defend the country. Isn't that even part of the oath of office?

It's also part of his oath to uphold the constitution which he violates every day. As for "southern invaders", you have done quite well out of them, so has trump. His job is to LEAD the nation, not be a selfish partisan hack.

[aretood2]

And suppose Warren or some other socialist does win in 2020, and does just that.

Will you oppose or support that emergency action?

Oppose, obviously. Or at least obvious to most people.

[jelgate]

People who can see beyon binary partisanship?

[Gatefan1976]

[Chaka-Z0]

Watched it live yesterday, and what my take on his statement is:

Presidential immunity is the last leg Trump is standing on, 2+ years of investigation to shelf the report because of constitutional shenanigans.

Disgusting.

[jelgate]

What I find disgusting is how paratisan is what is keeping him in office. It doesn't matter how bad someone is for our country because we Don't want our side to lose sickens me

[Annoyed]

What I find disgusting is how paratisan is what is keeping him in office. It doesn't matter how bad someone is for our country because we Don't want our side to lose sickens me

Maybe things look so partisan because the two major parties, although there are some similarities (both are as crooked as $3 dollar bills, both are for sale to the highest bidder, although the currency is not always cash, etc.) there are clear differences on what they and their supporters think is best for the country?
I, for example, think the socialist crap that we've seen coming out of the Democrats is the exact wrong direction to take the country in, and that's not because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it is that I think it is wrong.

[Chaka-Z0]

I, for example, think the socialist crap that we've seen coming out of the Democrats is the exact wrong direction to take the country in, and that's not because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it is that I think it is wrong.

In normal circumstances I would agree but I know you and you deem everything you dislike as socialist crap.
Just going to put this out there:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/

...97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Follow the money for the 3% left and see where it leads. Now waiting on void arguments from your part saying that 97% of the most renowned and respected scientists of the world got it wrong.

[jelgate]

Maybe things look so partisan because the two major parties, although there are some similarities (both are as crooked as $3 dollar bills, both are for sale to the highest bidder, although the currency is not always cash, etc.) there are clear differences on what they and their supporters think is best for the country?
I, for example, think the socialist crap that we've seen coming out of the Democrats is the exact wrong direction to take the country in, and that's not because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it is that I think it is wrong.

That totally avoids the issue and is a scapegoat

[magi877]

What is this about cats now?

ok but ---warnings---

[Annoyed]

In normal circumstances I would agree but I know you and you deem everything you dislike as socialist crap.
Just going to put this out there:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/



Follow the money for the 3% left and see where it leads. Now waiting on void arguments from your part saying that 97% of the most renowned and respected scientists of the world got it wrong.

And who is saying this? Unbiased sources? Hardly. As I said the other day, all are on the payroll of some school or otherwise govt. funded operation. You follow the money. And the bias of their employers.

Naomi Oreskes is an American historian of science. She became Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Wikipedia

Author affiliations

1 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia

2 Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

3 School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia

4 Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA

5 Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA

6 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK

7 Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

8 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA

9 Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada

[Gatefan1976]

That totally avoids the issue and is a scapegoat

True.
I realise where he wants to go here, but it has nothing to do with what you said.