Trump is a danger to America

[PuppiesandKittens]

Crucial_Infra, I respect your post, but elrodtvt must apologize and not repeat what he did.  It's totally unacceptable.

EDITED TO ADD:

Racism is defined here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Elrodtvt's statements were racist because he attributed characteristics to me (which characteristics he dislikes) based on his allegations of what racial/ethnic group I am a part of.  Totally unacceptable.  In polite society, you apologize when you do something wrong.  Making a racist statement is wrong and requires an apology.

[nicholas]

9 hours ago, elrodvt said:

I think you make a bunch of false equivalencies there and it's ironic to bring Sanders into the discussion.  I don't agree with all his positions but he is one of the few honest and consistent politicians in the congress. Trump is simply not "normal" DC partisanship. Also, regarding DC sticking to their corners you do realize the republican party was for free trade and lower deficits 2 years ago?

I wasn't a huge Clinton fan either but at least she is a professional who makes reasonable decisions based on input from her professional staff. It wasn't really a question between her and Trump. BTW, Not voting is not an option for me. It accomplishes nothing.

The Dem leadership is so openly partisan it is disgusting. Same with the other party. Agree with that.

Would you have voted for Perot too? I disagree strongly. Despite how the lack of accountability and hidden cash has rightfully led to a deep distrust of congress I think only a very good politician can make things better. Not someone who has never worked in DC. Would you hire a star basketball player to fix a decline in profits at a fortune 500 company? 

One idea is that all contributions need to be open and not through shell companies etc. W alsoe need to be able to look at the assets of every politician and see where they came from. How is it, for example, that a guy like Paul Ryan comes to DC on a fairly low salary and ends up rich (I didn't look up Ryan but bet he did, pick almost anyone. Not Bernie though)?

...that's part of why I included Sanders in my last comment?  I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but will grant that he is much more open in his positions than most.  I was mainly trying to highlight how so many prominent politicians will say whatever they need to get elected, then go back to making sure their donors get special treatment (Sanders excluded).  I am sure there are actually some decent, reasonable politicians still in DC, but they are so overshadowed by the main players that it is easy to cast everyone in a bad light.

I agree that Clinton was a much more polished candidate, but I just could not trust her any more than I could Trump.  When the least bad candidate is still terrible, something is wrong.  Perot was before my time (I'm a late millennial and  haven't looked into what he stands for) and since I just got back from work, I will have to read up about him when I have some free time in the next few days before I could give you an answer.   To both that question and the basketball question, I will say that I only support candidates who I generally agree with, and not based on something trivial and irrelevant such as party, gender, race, celebrity status, etc.

I agree about the contributions, in fact I'd argue that campaign donations should be taken out of politics, or at least severely reduced and heavily regulated with complete transparency.  We already can usually learn of the campaign donations that a candidate has received, yet these heavily-subsidized (for lack of a better term) candidates continue getting elected.  Of course, restricting campaign donations would raise the issue that less-wealthy candidates would have a hard time gaining a foothold....there's really just no perfect solution. that I have heard of  I agree with the idea of publicizing assets as well, although I think that could open a different can of worms if the law was applied to all citizens.

9 hours ago, Crucial_Infra said:

To me, that is the ball game. If the president is believed to have committed treason, then he is a danger to the country and must be removed immediately. If you truly believe that, you must be in favor of his removal. Republicans could make Pence president within a week and we'd be 1000x safer than with this imbecile running things. Regardless of what folks think about Pence, he is not compromised like Trump obviously is. 

That is kind of an interesting point actually, imagine if Trump ended up getting impeached, Pence took over as President, then Pence ended up as the R candidate for the GOP in 2020 with Charlotte hosting the RNC???  All the other cities would probably be kicking themselves, lol.

[elrodvt]

^I totally missed your point on Bernie. My bad. I am from Burlington and have talked with him when he was walking down the street by himself. He still lives in a modest home. I hope I am not disappointed but love the guy. I just don't like some of his economic populism which strangely enough intersects with Trump babble at times (NAFTA). Perot was a very interesting case. I felt really bad at the time for his VP mate who was way in over his head.    See old guys aren't smarter but we do have some extra "historical" perspective. LOL.

I'm curious, would you go for public financing and no contributions? Plus no lobbyist pay offs and completely open sharing of income and current assets. That's my dream. I debated that very topic on my high school debate team. ;-)

But I will be dead before that happens especially after the court stacking that is occuring. It was possibly inappropriate for Obama to call out the supreme court in a state of the union. But that judgement was right up there with Dred Scott imho. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html

You just got back from work? That stinks. I hate working weekends and nights.

[elrodvt]

3 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Crucial_Infra, I respect your post, but elrodtvt must apologize and not repeat what he did.  It's totally unacceptable.

EDITED TO ADD:

Racism is defined here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Elrodtvt's statements were racist because he attributed characteristics to me (which characteristics he dislikes) based on his allegations of what racial/ethnic group I am a part of.  Totally unacceptable.  In polite society, you apologize when you do something wrong.  Making a racist statement is wrong and requires an apology.

Show me exactly what I said that was racist and explain why it is.  Please keep it in context.

You have quite the imagination. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

6 hours ago, elrodvt said:

Show me exactly what I said that was racist and explain why it is.  Please keep it in context.

You have quite the imagination. 

Wow.  Unreal.

I can’t believe that someone truly thinks that calling someone else an “extremist” for simply pointing out that the Obama administration was the first US Presidential administration not to block an anti-Israeli UN resolution that could be blocked, and then further claiming that the person must be Jewish because the person holds an “extremist”  view about Israel, is even remotely acceptable.

“I disagree with you and your views are out there.  You must be [Insert Ethnic Group Name].”

Complete unacceptable bigotry.

 

[PuppiesandKittens]

Elrodvt, you also need to look up the term “anti-Semitism”.  You can see for yourself why your statements qualify.

[Neo]

Nothing good can come of this thread. I'll be glad when we can all go back to a time when America wasn't as divided or at least a time when the majority decided to keep it to themselves.