Let's be 100% serious here for a moment:

[Simfan34]

I mean, how can any of you look at Trump--mouth agape as always, repeating the same lines again and again like a child, almost never really saying anything, and if does, it is something repugnant in the extreme-- and still think that "I'm proud that I live in a democracy, where everyone can vote!"

[ProudModerate2]

I'm hardly one of the "wackos", but if you think that the logical position on nearly every issue happens to be that of the Democratic Party... you might just do better in the Democratic Party.

It seems I prematurely lumped you in with the wackos. My apologies.
But by the way, I do not "think the logical position on nearly every issue happens to be that of the Democratic Party."

I essentially despise what the modern Republican Party has become ...

I completely understand and agree with you ; I'm in the same shoes.


PS: I despise Trump, and will not vote for him.

[bedstuy]

Simfan, just vote for Clinton you goof-ball. 

If we took political party politics out of it, I bet you and I would agree on most "political" issues.  We would both vote for Bloomberg over De Blasio, so to speak.  You, like me, are socially conservative in some way, but in favor of secular government and legal equality for women, gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.  You, like me, are cosmopolitan and educated, so you don't like buffoons like Trump or rubes like Huckabee.  If you could convince yourself to vote for Rubio for example, it would be by convincing yourself he just buys into that Christian right buffoonery for votes, he doesn't actually believe it. 

On economics, we probably are both somewhat libertarian, in that we want economic freedom and free markets over socialism.  We see the regulatory state and redistribution as a gloss on capitalism that makes it work, rather than an end goal in themselves.  If we were talking on a local level, with these politics of Republican fundamentalism gone, we would agree on things like ending rent regulation, NIMBYism and the overabundance of bureaucracy in city government.  But, on the national, I could never vote Republican because I believe in infrastructure, environmental regulation, medical care for the poor and progressive taxation, and I don't want things like Medicare Part D and using the government as an organ of a few powerful industries.

I think so much of our own political philosophy is whether we hate the straw-man of the left or the straw-man of the right more.  No?  Like, conservatives tend to despise these radical feminists who barely exist in reality, and liberals tend to hate these warmongering neocons who barely exist.  But, I think the facts tell us that if you're a moderate, Clinton will result in more of you want.  She's not a radical feminist, or a socialist, or a 1970s New Leftist.  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are waaaay closer to being legit radicals.

[whanztastic]

The difference between the straw em on both sides is that warmongering neocons controlled the foreign policy of the last Republican administration while the Democrats mostly just pay lip service to radical feminists.

Also when radical feminists get their policies enacted tens of thousands don't die.

[TJ in Oregon]

Also when radical feminists get their policies enacted tens of thousands don't die.

Yes they do, we just don't pay as much attention to them because they haven't hit the third trimester yet.

[Adam Griffin]

The great part was where Sneed criticized Trump for that and said he sounded like a Democrat.

Yes, I'm proud to say the Donald sounded like a Democrat there.  We believe in investing this country.  We believe you have to spend money to make money and we know there is a crumbling infrastructure that needs to be built back up.  America has had these generations where infrastructure took leaps, the building of the transcontinental railroad, the great dams and the TVA in the New Deal, the highway system, etc.  It's time for another.  

And, it's so illustrative that Republicans hate that idea.  They represent these vulture capitalists and old, angry Fox News watchers who will be dead in 20 or less years, so no real investment in the future.  Their vulture capitalist class sees America as a distressed asset, a takeover target for their Republican corporation.  Cut the "labor costs" IE jobs and quality of life for the people, rack up the debt, reward the CEOs and people at the top, use creative accounting, propaganda and lies to win over the media, and then get your golden parachute out when it all goes to hell.  Sneed did that with HP, Romney did that like 50 times at Bain, and Republicans want to do it to America, again.

The worst tactics of corporate America's worst, Enron, Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Phillip Morris, those are the tactics of this GOP.  They want short term rewards for the rich people and they believe in creative accounting and fraud, because that's quicker than building it honestly.  It's easier to use creative accounting to make your Q3 earnings look good, than it is to take the hit and deal with your problems.  It's easier to pretend climate change doesn't exist and sweep it under the rug, than it is to deal with it honestly.  

Or, if you don't like the leveraged buy-out and Wall Street metaphor, how about this.  Republicans want to treat the government like a pinata, break it and give all the candy inside to their friends. Screw Republicans, they're garbage.

Trump's core supporters are the Perot/Buchanan Republicans, most of whom can be classified as "paleoconservatives".  These are the Republicans who have called out the party for their corporate sell-outs on behalf of the "Cash Out America" program.  That's essentially what Bushism (as opposed to Reaganism) was; policies that allowed the investor classes to take their money and run from America without penalties.

BTW, Fiorina's comment on Trump's analysis shows that she's a complete and dangerous moron on domestic policy as well as foreign policy.

Oh, what a bunch of BS.

Face it: these guys have always went along with whatever idea coming out of conservative America that is conveyed in the strongest and loudest terms possible. They're not "paleoconservatives" or "populists": they're know-nothings and low-info voters. When Reagan was the strong man, they went along with him. When Buchanan was, they went along with him. When Bush II was, they went along with him. Now, they're going along with Trump. Perot was never a strong man - he merely had the support of know-nothings and disengaged, low-information voters because neither candidate was appealing to their cretinous tendencies in the general election (however, for that reason, it is a very apt comparison). It has nothing to do with the ideas so much as it has to do with blind partisan hatred and whoever can present the most concentrated form of messaging that taps into their raw emotions.

Trump is the best at doing such in a very long time (maybe ever), whereas low-energy losers like Buchanan never got anywhere in the end. Buchanan never had a near-majority of GOP voters in his corner.

There is arguably nobody who better embodies the vulture-capitalist, government bribing, outsource-loving elements of the Republican Party in the race today than Trump, based on who he actually is and what he has actually done - not what his chose du jour happens to be in terms of talk. Hell, he may be the best embodiment of that ever; even Romney didn't make billions off of moving capital to and fro around the world and artificially generating value in arbitrary ways back home, conflating it with wealth...only to lose it all and make billions right back again because the people to whom he owed money didn't want their own fortunes to be harmed by his utter failures spilling over into even more into their own finances (and into the collective psyche of the public, further showing the people that they're all nothing more than vultures).

Donald Trump was the original bailout.

[publicunofficial]

Trump could advocate for a stimulus and public healthcare and his followers would eat it up.

Remember: It's only socialism or "Pussy foreign policy" if Fox News tells you so.

Is that supposed to be a criticism? You lot should be happy about this.

I'll never be happy that a large amount of the electorate has no real ability to think for themselves on issues, and instead takes whatever knee-jerk position their favorite personality tells them too.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

There's nothing richer than a Republican partisan accusing Trump of anti-Muslim bigotry, all the while arguing for further Middle Eastern interventions that will kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The great part was where Sneed criticized Trump for that and said he sounded like a Democrat.

Yes, I'm proud to say the Donald sounded like a Democrat there.  We believe in investing this country.  We believe you have to spend money to make money and we know there is a crumbling infrastructure that needs to be built back up.  America has had these generations where infrastructure took leaps, the building of the transcontinental railroad, the great dams and the TVA in the New Deal, the highway system, etc.  It's time for another.  

And, it's so illustrative that Republicans hate that idea.  They represent these vulture capitalists and old, angry Fox News watchers who will be dead in 20 or less years, so no real investment in the future.  Their vulture capitalist class sees America as a distressed asset, a takeover target for their Republican corporation.  Cut the "labor costs" IE jobs and quality of life for the people, rack up the debt, reward the CEOs and people at the top, use creative accounting, propaganda and lies to win over the media, and then get your golden parachute out when it all goes to hell.  Sneed did that with HP, Romney did that like 50 times at Bain, and Republicans want to do it to America, again.

The worst tactics of corporate America's worst, Enron, Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Phillip Morris, those are the tactics of this GOP.  They want short term rewards for the rich people and they believe in creative accounting and fraud, because that's quicker than building it honestly.  It's easier to use creative accounting to make your Q3 earnings look good, than it is to take the hit and deal with your problems.  It's easier to pretend climate change doesn't exist and sweep it under the rug, than it is to deal with it honestly.  

Or, if you don't like the leveraged buy-out and Wall Street metaphor, how about this.  Republicans want to treat the government like a pinata, break it and give all the candy inside to their friends. Screw Republicans, they're garbage.

Trump's core supporters are the Perot/Buchanan Republicans, most of whom can be classified as "paleoconservatives".  These are the Republicans who have called out the party for their corporate sell-outs on behalf of the "Cash Out America" program.  That's essentially what Bushism (as opposed to Reaganism) was; policies that allowed the investor classes to take their money and run from America without penalties.

BTW, Fiorina's comment on Trump's analysis shows that she's a complete and dangerous moron on domestic policy as well as foreign policy.

Oh, what a bunch of BS.

Face it: these guys have always went along with whatever idea coming out of conservative America that is conveyed in the strongest and loudest terms possible. They're not "paleoconservatives" or "populists": they're know-nothings and low-info voters. When Reagan was the strong man, they went along with him. When Buchanan was, they went along with him. When Bush II was, they went along with him. Now, they're going along with Trump. Perot was never a strong man - he merely had the support of know-nothings and disengaged, low-information voters because neither candidate was appealing to their cretinous tendencies in the general election (however, for that reason, it is a very apt comparison). It has nothing to do with the ideas so much as it has to do with blind partisan hatred and whoever can present the most concentrated form of messaging that taps into their raw emotions.

Trump is the best at doing such in a very long time (maybe ever), whereas low-energy losers like Buchanan never got anywhere in the end. Buchanan never had a near-majority of GOP voters in his corner.

There is arguably nobody who better embodies the vulture-capitalist, government bribing, outsource-loving elements of the Republican Party in the race today than Trump, based on who he actually is and what he has actually done - not what his chose du jour happens to be in terms of talk. Hell, he may be the best embodiment of that ever; even Romney didn't make billions off of moving capital to and fro around the world and artificially generating value in arbitrary ways back home, conflating it with wealth...only to lose it all and make billions right back again because the people to whom he owed money didn't want their own fortunes to be harmed by his utter failures spilling over into even more into their own finances (and into the collective psyche of the public, further showing the people that they're all nothing more than vultures).

Donald Trump was the original bailout.

Well, maybe.  But tell me why "low information" voters should vote for folks who have such contempt for them?  Why should "low information" voters listen to, and take to heart, the ideas of someone who has nothing but contempt for them?

There is an incongruent aspect of Trump between his personal life and the beliefs of his supporters.  In this case, is he really more incongruent than any other Republican running?  Trump may put his message out in "low information" terms, but he makes more foreign policy sense than the jerks on stage that want to use a No Fly Zone to start WWIII with Russia and Iran.  The folks who end up voting for Trump will likely be satisfied with the results if he's elected, just like they were satisfied with Reagan.  To say these folks have been bamboozled by Reagan, Bush 43, et al is to say that they're stupid.  Are you willing to tell THEM that they're stupid?  If you are, ponder how deep their complaints are regarding elitists on both the right and left.

[Simfan34]

Simfan, just vote for Clinton you goof-ball. 

If we took political party politics out of it, I bet you and I would agree on most "political" issues.  We would both vote for Bloomberg over De Blasio, so to speak.  You, like me, are socially conservative in some way, but in favor of secular government and legal equality for women, gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.  You, like me, are cosmopolitan and educated, so you don't like buffoons like Trump or rubes like Huckabee.  If you could convince yourself to vote for Rubio for example, it would be by convincing yourself he just buys into that Christian right buffoonery for votes, he doesn't actually believe it. 

On economics, we probably are both somewhat libertarian, in that we want economic freedom and free markets over socialism.  We see the regulatory state and redistribution as a gloss on capitalism that makes it work, rather than an end goal in themselves.  If we were talking on a local level, with these politics of Republican fundamentalism gone, we would agree on things like ending rent regulation, NIMBYism and the overabundance of bureaucracy in city government.  But, on the national, I could never vote Republican because I believe in infrastructure, environmental regulation, medical care for the poor and progressive taxation, and I don't want things like Medicare Part D and using the government as an organ of a few powerful industries.

I think so much of our own political philosophy is whether we hate the straw-man of the left or the straw-man of the right more.  No?  Like, conservatives tend to despise these radical feminists who barely exist in reality, and liberals tend to hate these warmongering neocons who barely exist.  But, I think the facts tell us that if you're a moderate, Clinton will result in more of you want.  She's not a radical feminist, or a socialist, or a 1970s New Leftist.  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are waaaay closer to being legit radicals.

I don't think you're particularly wrong. But I am probably more socially conservative than I usually let on, even if it's less about demonizing certain groups (except for--ah!-- that particular one, and I don't "hate" or even "dislike" them as such), but view of society is decidedly traditionalist; not to mention that I fail the abortion litmus test pretty badly. However, I think that, a few exceptions, we should just ban guns altogether. Although, (largely thanks to TNF and his ilk) those exceptions are for the most part, uh, pretty classist-- e.g., in order to have a hunting rifle, you must keep it in your second home, or that you can only buy a handgun if you pay above a certain (read: large) amount of taxes. (The Dark Knight Rises may have informed that second one; people on Park Avenue need to be able to protect themselves ).

On the local level, we agree on pretty much everything, yes. On the national level I'd say the distance is considerably wider, but not vast. But I do not think you are the average liberal Democrat. The average liberal (read: educated) Democrat is likely to be far more concerned about social issues, in particular, being on the leading edge of those issues. The right has its language for those it wishes to chastise for ideological impurity-- RINO, fake conservative, liberal, and a host of more deranged epithets-- but so does the left; theirs is merely more sophisticated.

The insufficiently progressive are accused of doing bad things, or, more often, enabling bad things to happen. Whereas the right-wing claim makes only one assertion, the left-wing one actually makes two, very nebulous ones: a) that the accused's actions enabled a bad thing, and b) that the thing in question is, in fact, bad and/or is inclusive of what the accused did. For instance, the accusation that telling women not to get drunk perpetuates "rape culture," because it places responsibility on women to not get raped, which is rape apolgism makes two claims-- that preventive advice "assigns responsbility to victims", and that "assigning victims responsibility" contributes to "rape culture". (Even after this time, I cannot tell you what "rape culture" actually entails-- aside from this. That is definitely part of rape culture, whatever it is) To a degree, the strawman leftist is an actual character. And this is without throwing in sex-positivity!

You can say that this kind of leftist is simply reflective of living in a "liberal college bubble", but let's be honest, as far as my generation is concerned, this is what left-wing or progressive politics entails. Sure, not everyone is some kind of activist, but ask the average person here what they think and they probably won't disagree with the radicals in any fundamental way. Throw in intersectionality, and everything is now about oppression, and no one wants to support oppression. Corporations are, of course, still evil, but now they're agents of white male cisgender oppression, too. You'd be surprised how many people, who aren't particularly activist or radical, will talk in these terms. I've talked to friends who've graduated and, I can tell you, their hasn't been any kind of political transformation. Again, you hold a much more sensible view on these sorts of issues, but, from what I've seen, it's not typical of my "progressive" peers. I may have pooh-poohed Bacon King when he said that "we're living in the tumblr generation" but I've realized that he's essentially right. This, in my context, is the mainstream.

Ultimately, though, I can't accept the fundamental principles of modern liberalism: that anything is "moral" (if that word is ever used) as long as people consent to it, and no one, therefore, can object to it; that if people believe in something, we must accept their belief without judgement (unless it's right-wing); that agency, and thus real responsibility, ultimately lies with those with "privilege"; that this extends to the realm of foreign policy; and we all have a basic, inherent, right to live meaningful, emotionally fulfilling lives, which society has an obligation to guarantee. I agree with none of this. My views are predicated on the centrality of authority, morality, and tradition, and a society that respects all three. They're not really consistent with the principles of either party-- I may not support "big government" but I certainly believe in a strong state-- but they are fundamentally conservative. The funny thing is that the second fundamental belief is pretty much this--

They're not "paleoconservatives" or "populists": they're know-nothings and low-info voters.

And yet here you all are, liberal Democrats, while I'm the Republican.

Goodness, this post was way too long. I have a paper to write!

[bedstuy]

Simfan, just vote for Clinton you goof-ball. 

If we took political party politics out of it, I bet you and I would agree on most "political" issues.  We would both vote for Bloomberg over De Blasio, so to speak.  You, like me, are socially conservative in some way, but in favor of secular government and legal equality for women, gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.  You, like me, are cosmopolitan and educated, so you don't like buffoons like Trump or rubes like Huckabee.  If you could convince yourself to vote for Rubio for example, it would be by convincing yourself he just buys into that Christian right buffoonery for votes, he doesn't actually believe it. 

On economics, we probably are both somewhat libertarian, in that we want economic freedom and free markets over socialism.  We see the regulatory state and redistribution as a gloss on capitalism that makes it work, rather than an end goal in themselves.  If we were talking on a local level, with these politics of Republican fundamentalism gone, we would agree on things like ending rent regulation, NIMBYism and the overabundance of bureaucracy in city government.  But, on the national, I could never vote Republican because I believe in infrastructure, environmental regulation, medical care for the poor and progressive taxation, and I don't want things like Medicare Part D and using the government as an organ of a few powerful industries.

I think so much of our own political philosophy is whether we hate the straw-man of the left or the straw-man of the right more.  No?  Like, conservatives tend to despise these radical feminists who barely exist in reality, and liberals tend to hate these warmongering neocons who barely exist.  But, I think the facts tell us that if you're a moderate, Clinton will result in more of you want.  She's not a radical feminist, or a socialist, or a 1970s New Leftist.  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are waaaay closer to being legit radicals.

I don't think you're particularly wrong. But I am probably more socially conservative than I usually let on, even if it's less about demonizing certain groups (except for--ah!-- that particular one, and I don't "hate" or even "dislike" them as such), but view of society is decidedly traditionalist; not to mention that I fail the abortion litmus test pretty badly. However, I think that, a few exceptions, we should just ban guns altogether. Although, (largely thanks to TNF and his ilk) those exceptions are for the most part, uh, pretty classist-- e.g., in order to have a hunting rifle, you must keep it in your second home, or that you can only buy a handgun if you pay above a certain (read: large) amount of taxes. (The Dark Knight Rises may have informed that second one; people on Park Avenue need to be able to protect themselves ).

On the local level, we agree on pretty much everything, yes. On the national level I'd say the distance is considerably wider, but not vast. But I do not think you are the average liberal Democrat. The average liberal (read: educated) Democrat is likely to be far more concerned about social issues, in particular, being on the leading edge of those issues. The right has its language for those it wishes to chastise for ideological impurity-- RINO, fake conservative, liberal, and a host of more deranged epithets-- but so does the left; theirs is merely more sophisticated.

The insufficiently progressive are accused of doing bad things, or, more often, enabling bad things to happen. Whereas the right-wing claim makes only one assertion, the left-wing one actually makes two, very nebulous ones: a) that the accused's actions enabled a bad thing, and b) that the thing in question is, in fact, bad and/or is inclusive of what the accused did. For instance, the accusation that telling women not to get drunk perpetuates "rape culture," because it places responsibility on women to not get raped, which is rape apolgism makes two claims-- that preventive advice "assigns responsbility to victims", and that "assigning victims responsibility" contributes to "rape culture". (Even after this time, I cannot tell you what "rape culture" actually entails-- aside from this. That is definitely part of rape culture, whatever it is) To a degree, the strawman leftist is an actual character. And this is without throwing in sex-positivity!

You can say that this kind of leftist is simply reflective of living in a "liberal college bubble", but let's be honest, as far as my generation is concerned, this is what left-wing or progressive politics entails. Sure, not everyone is some kind of activist, but ask the average person here what they think and they probably won't disagree with the radicals in any fundamental way. Throw in intersectionality, and everything is now about oppression, and no one wants to support oppression. Corporations are, of course, still evil, but now they're agents of white male cisgender oppression, too. You'd be surprised how many people, who aren't particularly activist or radical, will talk in these terms. I've talked to friends who've graduated and, I can tell you, their hasn't been any kind of political transformation. Again, you hold a much more sensible view on these sorts of issues, but, from what I've seen, it's not typical of my "progressive" peers. I may have pooh-poohed Bacon King when he said that "we're living in the tumblr generation" but I've realized that he's essentially right. This, in my context, is the mainstream.

Ultimately, though, I can't accept the fundamental principles of modern liberalism: that anything is "moral" (if that word is ever used) as long as people consent to it, and no one, therefore, can object to it; that if people believe in something, we must accept their belief without judgement (unless it's right-wing); that agency, and thus real responsibility, ultimately lies with those with "privilege"; that this extends to the realm of foreign policy; and we all have a basic, inherent, right to live meaningful, emotionally fulfilling lives, which society has an obligation to guarantee. I agree with none of this. My views are predicated on the centrality of authority, morality, and tradition, and a society that respects all three. They're not really consistent with the principles of either party-- I may not support "big government" but I certainly believe in a strong state-- but they are fundamentally conservative. The funny thing is that the second fundamental belief is pretty much this--

They're not "paleoconservatives" or "populists": they're know-nothings and low-info voters.

And yet here you all are, liberal Democrats, while I'm the Republican.

Goodness, this post was way too long. I have a paper to write!

You're pro-gay marriage and pro-choice though?  Right?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Simfan is a "High Tory", he has no place in the Democratic Party.

That said, he's mistaken to believe that bedstuy is "on the right" of the Democratic Party; he really isn't. His positions are reflective of The New Republic or Center For Ametican Progress or any "mainstream" liberal think-tank or publication.

[Simfan34]

You're pro-gay marriage and pro-choice though?  Right?

If you were to ask me if I support gay marriage, I would say yes. I'll leave it at that.

But no, I am not "pro-choice". I am very much anti-abortion. Very much so. While I've never been sufficiently bothered to go to the March for Life, I'm very firm on this-- and my opinion has little to do with religion. The only exception I can confidently say I recognize is for the life of the mother. I probably could stomach incest, but the case of rape is very hard for me to rationalize, coming from a position of there being a life involved. Rape is terrible, yes... but does that mean the child has to die? What did the child do to deserve death? Of course I never talk about abortion in real life-- I've literally only ever talked about it with two, maybe three people outside certain political circles, and one of them was my father-- but I genuinely despise the way pro-choice people frame it about "women's bodies" and "women's rights", which completely ignores why actual people oppose abortion-- the woman is not the only one involved!

I'll stop here, but I am certainly not "pro-choice". I definitely fail that litmus test, as I said before, in that wall of text. However, I (usually) don't vote for candidates based on their position on abortion; if there was no Roe v. Wade and there could be real change, that might be different, since there's relatively little that can be done it usually takes a backseat, despite how strongly I feel.

Simfan is a "High Tory", he has no place in the Democratic Party.

That said, he's mistaken to believe that bedstuy is "on the right" of the Democratic Party; he really isn't. His positions are reflective of The New Republic or Center For American Progress or any "mainstream" liberal think-tank or publication.

I've read a lot of what he says about crime, policing, cultural issues with black people, gentrification, "urban" issues and such; I usually agree with him on these, and I don't really feel like my positions mirror those of the Center for American Progress as much as they do the Manhattan Institute.

Also you're probably spot on about me, though I'm probably less skeptical of the market economy than the term suggests, even if I'm big on communitarianism.

[courts]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

I agree with him because he's right.

Trump is only touting the Democratic Party line in so far as he is talking about reality. If you still think that reality has a known liberal bias, then go back to 2005.

As a Democrat, this rhetoric is terrifying to me because for the first time, Trump is revealing how he will defeat Hillary Clinton.

Oh my Gosh, you are 100% right. Can you imagine that showdown? How Hillary did the convenient popular thing and Trump takes brash realistic politically incorrect stands. That's a winning strategy. I mean, everything he does is a winning strategy, but that's how you overcome it all

^^
even if he has no idea what the nuclear triad is he still showed he had more common sense and knowledge of basic human psychology than anyone else running. even when he loses, he wins.

[afleitch]

Let's also be 100% serious for a moment.

It won't be very long, once this strange Christmas silly-season obsession with Muslims, before the GOP turn their focus on gay Americans yet again. If one of these Republican zealots becomes President, myself and my husband want it to be Trump. Because there are two (Carson and Cruz) legit, for the first time, not just evangelical but Christian dominionists who have a shot at this thing. And that scares the sh-t out of us.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

afleitch, I'm pretty sure President Trump will nuke Scotland for the SNP's disrespect though.

[Simfan34]

afleitch, I'm pretty sure President Trump will nuke Scotland for the SNP's disrespect though.

Hopefully hits he the Trident submarine base for the sweet, sweet irony. Again, while Trump is awful, the referendum and the whole SNP thing have been so off-putting that I kind of resent the place now, and sort of wish something bad would happen to them.

Exactly. Ugh. I hated [the Scottish Referendum] the first time around, and I hate it now. I can hardly bear to hear such outlandish fairy tales and populist "progressive" claptrap a second time. The referendum filled me with such bile and rancor that I now have a strong distaste for anything to do with Scotland. (Indeed, I just chucked a fawning book about William Wallace into the trash today.)

The again, I am someone who thinks American independence was illegal, wrong, and a Bad Idea in general, and has thought so since kindergarten (although it may have been second grade) so feel free to disregard my comments as the ramblings of a reactionary mildly detached from rational thought.

[Cruzcrew]

He's got a point here

[afleitch]

afleitch, I'm pretty sure President Trump will nuke Scotland for the SNP's disrespect though.

Hopefully hits he the Trident submarine base for the sweet, sweet irony. Again, while Trump is awful, the referendum and the whole SNP thing have been so off-putting that I kind of resent the place now, and sort of wish something bad would happen to them.

Exactly. Ugh. I hated [the Scottish Referendum] the first time around, and I hate it now. I can hardly bear to hear such outlandish fairy tales and populist "progressive" claptrap a second time. The referendum filled me with such bile and rancor that I now have a strong distaste for anything to do with Scotland. (Indeed, I just chucked a fawning book about William Wallace into the trash today.)

The again, I am someone who thinks American independence was illegal, wrong, and a Bad Idea in general, and has thought so since kindergarten (although it may have been second grade) so feel free to disregard my comments as the ramblings of a reactionary mildly detached from rational thought.

They are your missiles! We can't use them. I see lorries driving the missiles through the city in the wee small hours. If Trump wants to destroy the missiles in mid-air, thereby destroying themselves in the process then I'm all for it

For what it's worth, despite the crap America has had to put the rest of us all through, and my American husband and I personally, with one branch of it's government in the hands of a party whose only defining ideology is to be either contrary or conspiratorial in it's outlook, I don't resent America. I'm luckily not detached from rational thought.

[Gustaf]

US GDP is about 17 trillion. 4 trillion over 15 years comes out to something like 1.5% of GDP. Yeah, that would totally have dramatically changed the US economy.

[Torie]

Let's also be 100% serious for a moment.

It won't be very long, once this strange Christmas silly-season obsession with Muslims, before the GOP turn their focus on gay Americans yet again. If one of these Republican zealots becomes President, myself and my husband want it to be Trump. Because there are two (Carson and Cruz) legit, for the first time, not just evangelical but Christian dominionists who have a shot at this thing. And that scares the sh-t out of us.

No POTUS is going to have the power to reverse SSM. I doubt any would even push for that. No Justice will be confirmed who would seem likely vote to reverse the SCOTUS decision either.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Honestly, the Republicans as a party scare and anger me. Even the "realist" ones who are close to Clinton on a lot of issues. I think the whole party has gone off the deep end. Huckabee straight up said, "yeah, I'd be okay with bringing slavery back" and was still allowed on the stage! As a party, the only things they seem to be about are fear, hate, bigotry and letting the rich do whatever they want.

Time to send another round of job applications to Canadian companies.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You're pro-gay marriage and pro-choice though?  Right?

If you were to ask me if I support gay marriage, I would say yes. I'll leave it at that.


But no, I am not "pro-choice". I am very much anti-abortion. Very much so. While I've never been sufficiently bothered to go to the March for Life, I'm very firm on this-- and my opinion has little to do with religion. The only exception I can confidently say I recognize is for the life of the mother. I probably could stomach incest, but the case of rape is very hard for me to rationalize, coming from a position of there being a life involved. Rape is terrible, yes... but does that mean the child has to die? What did the child do to deserve death? Of course I never talk about abortion in real life-- I've literally only ever talked about it with two, maybe three people outside certain political circles, and one of them was my father-- but I genuinely despise the way pro-choice people frame it about "women's bodies" and "women's rights", which completely ignores why actual people oppose abortion-- the woman is not the only one involved!

I'll stop here, but I am certainly not "pro-choice". I definitely fail that litmus test, as I said before, in that wall of text. However, I (usually) don't vote for candidates based on their position on abortion; if there was no Roe v. Wade and there could be real change, that might be different, since there's relatively little that can be done it usually takes a backseat, despite how strongly I feel.

Simfan is a "High Tory", he has no place in the Democratic Party.

That said, he's mistaken to believe that bedstuy is "on the right" of the Democratic Party; he really isn't. His positions are reflective of The New Republic or Center For American Progress or any "mainstream" liberal think-tank or publication.

I've read a lot of what he says about crime, policing, cultural issues with black people, gentrification, "urban" issues and such; I usually agree with him on these, and I don't really feel like my positions mirror those of the Center for American Progress as much as they do the Manhattan Institute.

Also you're probably spot on about me, though I'm probably less skeptical of the market economy than the term suggests, even if I'm big on communitarianism.

Simfan34 strikes me very much as a Republican in the Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) mold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Smith_(New_Jersey_politician)

[Simfan34]

US GDP is about 17 trillion. 4 trillion over 15 years comes out to something like 1.5% of GDP. Yeah, that would totally have dramatically changed the US economy.

I'm genuinely surprised that I haven't seen any attempted fact-checking of this figure from the usual fact-checking outlets. Odd.

[ProudModerate2]

US GDP is about 17 trillion. 4 trillion over 15 years comes out to something like 1.5% of GDP. Yeah, that would totally have dramatically changed the US economy.

I'm genuinely surprised that I haven't seen any attempted fact-checking of this figure from the usual fact-checking outlets. Odd.

First off, the figure should not be compared to GDP. It can be understood better, if compared to the federal government outlays per year.
The federal government does not spend 17 trillion per year.

The numbers in this discussion, were described in a way as to explain how the fed gov could have spent the money (outlays), to help rebuild the decaying infrastructure throughout the nation.
And not necessarily as a comparison as to how the money could have been spent to help boost the economy in general (GDP).