Trump II

[laughingbear]

Trump not only enables esoteric fascist intellectuals to spread their poison and be on the administration.

Trump is a fascist!

Of course he is:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

[laughingbear]

Short and crisp!

Prof. Stephen Eric Bronner - http://www.polisci.rutgers.edu/cb-profile/userprofile/Ebronner on Trump and fascism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZnlFp1cthw

Yes, and Trump is building an "internal empire" responsive to wealthy and special interests exclusively.

[Schewe]

One thing I'm curious about is whether the left would be as up in arms if, say, Rubio had been elected and was doing much the same things as Trump is attempting to do, but with a more PC face on it?  What say you all?  Would you have just said, "Aw shucks, we lost, we'll win next time." ??

I did end up voting for Hillary in the general but Bernie in the Illinois primary. If there had been almost ANYBODY else running instead or Trump I would have seriously considered voting republican. The exception were Ben Carson, Rubio and Cruz.

I could have seen Jeb as a contender (depending on the VP pick). But my real favorite (if not Bernie) would have been Ohio Gov. John Kasich. I could seriously have voted for him because of all the other GOP candidates was the one guy that came across as the only adult in the room. He's been great for Ohio and would have been an excellent choice for president if the GOP didn't screw the pooch and let Trump beat way too many weak candidates. Image a peaceful transition from Obama to Kasich and how different that would have been than the last 3 weeks of disaster...

But my ire about Trump is that he's a rude, entitled, spoiled, boorish, insensitive, small minded, narcissistic, dishonest, mean-spirited, misogynistic, bombastic, racist, xenophobic, dangerous, embarrassing, unqualified, disresepctful fraud that simply should not be President–and except for the involvement of the Russians, the FBI and a flawed candidate would not be President of the United States of America.

The fact that he's leading the USA down a dangerous path in a dangerous time scares the shit out of me. I don't want the doomsday clock to click down to midnight and that is far more likely with Trump than Hillary, Kasich, Sanders or even your friend Marco.

If you are wondering about the string of words I used to describe Trump (which I honestly believe each one to be accurate), there's a whole web site dedicated to collecting words to describe Donald Trump (I kid you not). Go to Describe Donald Trump in one word. The site says "23,685 words submitted by 535,020 people."

Just something for leftwing progressives to mull over for the next 2 years...(or less–I really don't think Trump will finish out his term for a variety of reasons :~)

[Schewe]

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer on February 12, 2017, 08:35:35 PM
...democratic socialism

Oxymoron.

Are you guys talking about democratic socialism or being a social democrat? Maybe we need to learn some stuff, try this: Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist.

And while we often call ourselves a democracy, we are actually a republic. See this explanation: UNITED STATES: REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY?. Remember the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (ok, technically, we are a constitutional federal republic)

[Schewe]

One more post for the nite...this time a letter to America from The Boss, Bruce Springsteen.

A Letter of Apology From Bruce Springsteen for Letting Trump Win

He starts:
My name is Bruce Springsteen, and one day soon, when the windows of your mosques are smashed and the synagogues lie in ashes, when the skies are gray with dust and the sea has risen to wash away the roads, when the stars and stripes of our flag stand for discrimination and fear, I will wonder, could I have made a difference?

I have had to look at myself in the mirror. More importantly, I have had to look at my children, and consider, uncomfortably, the world they will inherit. And I wonder.

Could I have made a difference? Did I do everything I could have done?

Asking myself this same question, my answer is no...I could have done more. Would it have made a difference? I don't know but I will now try harder in the 2018 midterm elections. That's what I need to do...do what I can.

It's an unexpected good read from a real American...Yeah, ok, he's a rock star but he's also an American story teller...he says:
I’ve spent my life trying to tell a story about Americans that tried to do good when the easier route would have been to do bad, or do nothing; about an America where everyman was King, an America which was defined by its working men and women, not its oligarchs; an America where your children can look at you and say, just with their eyes, “Will our lives be as free as yours, daddy? Will we have the same rights and choices as you, will we have clean air to breathe? Daddy, will we have the ability to look the rich in the eye and say, ‘You may have more than us, but you do not have more rights than us.’

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If Trump is such a jerk, how come he won?

The simple answer, because he was the 'best' that the Republican party had to offer for those who wanted to choose a Republican candidate.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

C'mon, Bart. That's only part of the reason. Trump was also considered to be a less flawed candidate, with more to offer, than his rival, Hillary Clinton. 

[Otto Phocus]

The fact that these two candidates represented what the parties thought were the best of the best of the best, was one of the more depressing aspects of this election.

For the first time in our history, we had two candidates who were, at the same time, worse then the other.  Quite the political paradox.

Sometimes I wonder if either party had just picked a random person, it would have been a better choice.

[Rob C]

The fact that these two candidates represented what the parties thought were the best of the best of the best, was one of the more depressing aspects of this election.

For the first time in our history, we had two candidates who were, at the same time, worse then the other.  Quite the political paradox.

Sometimes I wonder if either party had just picked a random person, it would have been a better choice.

My God! That would be as bad as jury duty but last longer!

Rob

[kers]

and the winner is....

[mecrox]

The fact that these two candidates represented what the parties thought were the best of the best of the best, was one of the more depressing aspects of this election.

For the first time in our history, we had two candidates who were, at the same time, worse then the other.  Quite the political paradox.

Sometimes I wonder if either party had just picked a random person, it would have been a better choice.

Alternatively, employ the Athenian system of ostracism. Every few years, hold a vote with a slate of those who are deemed to have become a wee bit too powerful. Exile the losers for ten years.

It seems that what the US really has now is a kind of oligarchy since, realistically, the only people who can become president are a very select few who can provide or obtain access to the billion or so dollars it costs to win a successful campaign. The age of mass communication is proving a problem for democracies because the costs involved in so communicating are so huge that they concentrate power and money in undesirable ways.

I guess one could hold a vote to deal with the billion dollar problem too. Offer billionaires the choice of having their fortune capped at say $100 million if they elect to avoid exile or $200 million if they prefer to be exiled. The funds obtained from these fellows are put back into infrastructure spending. I'm sure that the Wall Street bankster set might find ways of making, say, Greenland or Liberia comfortable for a decade or two.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Oxymoron.

You come up with another throw away line and still have not answered my question.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not explicitly, but you seem to be defending the accusation as reasonable.

Yes, I understand how it can be seen as "guilty by association," i.e., attacking the flawed logic of one side can be seen as defending the other, though it wasn't my intention.

My approach is different and is based on the adage: "Great minds discuss ideas/concepts; average minds discuss events/things; small minds discuss people." I am not interested in defending/discussing Trump. I am interested in debating concepts (any similarity with the "great minds" is purely accidental )

I am debating the concept that it is possible, without a very thorough investigation, to claim either way: that there were three million illegal votes or that there was none. We simply can not possibly know either way.

I do know, however, there was a dead guy in Chicago who "voted" 11 times. In other words, it is possible to cheat. I do not believe that amounts to three million.

But there is something else.

In recent case of illegal voting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/11/republican-green-card-holder-who-voted-illegally-in-texas-gets-8-years-in-prison/?utm_term=.4ec3028295f9), it became clear that it only takes one self-declaring tick on the voter application to get the voting card:

On her voter application, Ortega was faced with only two options — to mark herself as a ‘citizen’ or a ‘noncitizen’

In 2015, Ortega applied to vote in Tarrant County, indicating on the form that she was not a citizen; her application was rejected... However, five months later, she filled out another form and claimed the second time that she was a citizen... 

Apparently, it is all it takes for all legal residents, but non-citizens, to vote if they decide so. All H1b, Green-card and other legal visa holders. And how about illegal residents who are here on someone else's social security number?

Does all that amount to three million? Possibly, but not likely. But claiming it is practically non-existent, as measured by those who are caught doing so, is equally ridiculous. It would take NSA capabilities of cross-referencing legal residents lists with voter registration lists or similar to smoke out all the cases. None of which would tackle illegal residents with fake SSNs. Or dead people voting. It would take another massive cross-referencing efforts.

Ok, I promised not to discuss personalities, but didn't Obama, in a video-taped interview, encourage illegal aliens to get out and vote, specifically saying no one is going to cross-check it against their status (video available on YouTube)?

[Rand47]

. . . or even your friend Marco.

Interesting... I just picked Rubio out of a hat. I found Kasich the most credible candidate from either side. I was reasonably sure from the inane level of "debate" that he had zero chance of being nominated.  He made too much sense.  Bernie Sanders seems a nice man, but his ideology was not grounded in any kind of practical reality that I could detect.  It was good to see young people excited about his candidacy, though. If he'd had a tad more substance to his proposals/positions, he might well have gotten the nomination. 

Appreciate your response. 

Rand

[Alan Goldhammer]

I do know, however, there was a dead guy in Chicago who "voted" 11 times.

Did you file a complaint with the bureau of elections?  Is there some documentation on the this incident that you can link to?

Apparently, it is all it takes for all legal residents, but non-citizens, to vote if they decide so. All H1b, Green-card and other legal visa holders. And how about illegal residents who are here on someone else's social security number?

No, this is a fault of the states where these non-eligible voters are attempting to register.  I'm not sure what the requirements might be as they vary from state to state.  The states that I am aware of require a driver's license, a link to your Social Security Number, and date of birth.  If those states are not doing their due diligence by appropriate cross checking then it's the state's fault and nobody else.  the fact that we do not have national standards for voting which should be the primary right of all citizens is shameful but that's the way it is.  All of what you describe is can easily be checked.


[quote}Does all that amount to three million? Possibly, but not likely. But claiming it is practically non-existent, as measured by those who are caught doing so, is equally ridiculous. It would take NSA capabilities of cross-referencing legal residents lists with voter registration lists or similar to smoke out all the cases. None of which would tackle illegal residents with fake SSNs. Or dead people voting. It would take another massive cross-referencing efforts.[/quote]
So I guess you are saying that all the Secretaries of State (most of whom were republican) that affirmed there was no massive fraud in this past election are lying to us?  the rest of you statements are just BS.  This would not be a massive undertaking at all unless the voter rolls were not computerized.

You still have not answered my question !

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I am debating the concept that it is possible, without a very thorough investigation, to claim either way: that there were three million illegal votes or that there was none. We simply can not possibly know either way.

So  a more interesting discussion might be how to replace what is a potentially broken system, with something better. Of course, it would help to know how large that need actually is (which is why Trumps claim won't be objectively investigated, not in his interest), besides the fact that improvements are always useful.

I have difficulty understanding why the system is not replaced by something better. In my country, with an election coming up next month, each citizen (thus legal) age of 18+ gets a single voter card (with hologram and all) sent home (yes one does need to have a known residence), and thus can cast 1 vote when handing over that card to the members of the voting station (and there are checklists at the allowed voting stations in one's town) who hand you the relevant ballot paper to fill in. Lots of checks and balances are involved, and also provisions for lost cards and travel situations.

Is it 100% secure, probably not, but pretty damn close. The group of people who do not go and vote is almost infinitely larger anyway, and could have a much larger influence on the outcome than an odd incident here or there, which then would probably get magnified anyway as if fraud would be rampant by (usually) the loser's side.

But, back to the topic, we'll have to wait and see if Trump feels the need to proof this, yet another, unbelievable claim. I'm not holding my breath. His tax returns would be much more important for democracy, to establish his vulnerability to foreign influence (like China). There must be a reason he's not sharing, unlike those who preceded him.

Cheers,
Bart

[Otto Phocus]

Apparently, it is all it takes for all legal residents, but non-citizens, to vote if they decide so. All H1b, Green-card and other legal visa holders. And how about illegal residents who are here on someone else's social security number?

No, that is all someone has to do to register to vote.  Anyone, at any time, in any place can submit a voter registration form.  Requesting registration is not the same as voting.  The fact that this person was able to actually vote is squarely the fault of the registrar's office not the election officers.  The registrar's office is the office that certifies and approves voter registration requests. 

Once the registrar approves the application, there is nothing I can do as an election officer to "catch" an illegal voter. If I or another voter challenges a voter.  All I can do is call the registrar's office to verify the eligibility of the challenged voter.  If the registrar's office tells me they are eligible to vote, I must let them vote.

What is needed is a more robust voter registration verification system. That is one of the reasons I am completely against same day voter registration.

[Peter McLennan]

...The problem is socialism does not work...

I suggest you investigate the situation of the citizens of Norway, a socialist nation with one the highest standards of living in the world and best part of a trillion dollars in cash in the bank. (as opposed to the debt status of nearly all capitalist nations)

[pegelli]

My approach is different and is based on the adage: "Great minds discuss ideas/concepts; average minds discuss events/things; small minds discuss people." I am not interested in defending/discussing Trump. I am interested in debating concepts (any similarity with the "great minds" is purely accidental )

Reminds me on a joke I heard a long time ago (slightly adapted for today's times).

A man talking proudly at the bar with some friends saying that he leaves all the small decisions to his wife but that all important decisions in their household are made solely by him.

So his friends ask what are these small decisions your wife is taking. He responds: well it's where the kids go to school, what car we drive and when to get a new one, when our house needs maintenance or repainting, when and where we take our vacation etc.

So then they ask what the big decisions in the household are that are his responsibility: he says, it's the decision on our position vs. Trump, global warming, North Korea, Putin, China etc.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I have difficulty understanding why the system is not replaced by something better. In my country, with an election coming up next month, each citizen (thus legal) age of 18+ gets a single voter card (with hologram and all) sent home (yes one does need to have a known residence), and thus can cast 1 vote when handing over that card to the members of the voting station (and there are checklists at the allowed voting stations in one's town) who hand you the relevant ballot paper to fill in. Lots of checks and balances are involved, and also provisions for lost cards and travel situations.

Is it 100% secure, probably not, but pretty damn close. The group of people who do not go and vote is almost infinitely larger anyway, and could have a much larger influence on the outcome than an odd incident here or there, which then would probably get magnified anyway as if fraud would be rampant by (usually) the loser's side.

Bart, the only thing that is established in the US is the date of voting for Presidential election and the mid-term elections.  The manner of voting (paper ballot, electronic registering device, mind reading) as well as what type of early voting if any are left up to the individual states and localities.  This is why we had the disaster back in 2000 when poorly designed ballots in Southeastern Florida resulted in a lot of wrong votes or votes that were improperly registered as the paper punches used to mark the candidate were not fully punched through because the senior citizens who were voting didn't have enough hand strength.  We used to have paper punch voting in my Maryland county and I can tell you that you had to give the punch lever a good push.  The whole thing is crazy but this country hates the idea of national ID cards believing it is the first step towards authoritarian control (as if our current President isn't that first step).  It could be linked to Social Security Numbers which are unique to each person.