OT: Clinton or Bush?

[Pointgod]

Think it's important to also note what's happening to the Haitian community in Springfield too.

There’s not enough contempt for pieces of trash like JD Vance and Trump.

Read on Twitter

[DOT]

Donald Trump is a significant reason why U.S. politics is so **** right now. Everything wrong with politics, Trump has either influenced or has his hand in. This is obviously bigger than the U.S. as well but this thread is on a U.S. issue.

This takes the blame off of the GOP

Trump wouldn't be relevant without the approval of the Republicans. Not just MAGA, the "reasonable" or "moderate" Republicans who will cast their votes for him for a 3rd time in a couple months.

[Ma10]

If Trump wins the next election the I'm doubting if there are smart Americans out there!

[spree8]

This is a perfect snapshot of . . . different points of view. I think Dots post is spot on and from a scientific point of view, the students who doubt almost everything usually struggle. A middle-ground of "maybe/maybe not" is the proper approach to exploring new ideas. There's more to it than that, such as, knowing how to apply evidence and creating a base of understanding from which to work, but maybe/maybe not is the ideal starting point.

Your beliefs should go with the evidence

Starting from a place of disbelief is fine. Matter of fact, it's healthy to start off skeptical

Keeping up that disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence you're wrong is where it becomes illogical. Spree is a moon landing denier, purely because "well the government lied before, therefore they lied about this" despite the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community that yes, we did indeed go to the moon in 1969. Same thing as the anti-vaxxers, vaccines are one of if not the most important inventions in human history and they've been studied exhaustively, yet a not insignificant portion of the population is against them purely because of gut feeling and panic being spread by bad faith actors trying to make money (just look up the history of Andrew Wakefield and his bogus "study")

It's much the same as when people fall back on the "Just Asking Questions" fallacy. You can ask questions and it's fine, but denying the answers because you don't like them is where it becomes ridiculous

We should doubt everything, but if proof exists and we are shown it, there's no harm in changing your mind. That's one of the things conservatives don't get is, they tie up their pride in being right from the start, so they can't admit they were wrong and change their views, when that's literally how science works. A lot of science used to be wrong, then we found out it was wrong, so we changed our understanding.

You’re obsessed with my take on the moon landing lol. I’ve already mentioned recently on the CA Board I’m just simply not 100% on it. I believe the science proves it’s possible theoretically, but did they actually do it? I don’t know, I wasn’t there (and neither were you), I have questions and suspicions (as do millions of other people including Bill Clinton himself).

It’s convenient that the JFK Space Center pulled it off in the nick of time right before the end of the decade as JFK promised, after many failed attempts. Even Gus Grissom didn’t believe it could be done and died in the process.

Knowing the level of desperation that this government went thru to fight communism out of pure terror, you still think that they’re above faking it. It’s wild considering they wanted to use nukes on Russians before they developed the ability to hit us, and kill American civilians to get support to go to war against Cuba. So no, I don’t put anything past them, let alone faking a trip to the moon and back which hasn’t been done 50+ years, by anybody else.



You believe science is incorruptible yet CIA put SS Nazi’s in the program. That’s a great foundation for integrity.

Is it possible that they did? I said sure, in this crazy world, nothing is 100%, but I have questions and unfortunately science doesn’t answer all of them. Interestingly, it seems like without the Nazi Wernher von Braun, we wouldn’t have been able to. So yea, if we did, it’s because we beat the Soviets in getting the best mad scientist of the bunch after WWII.

[Stannis]

If Trump wins the next election the I'm doubting if there are smart Americans out there!

FWIW, he lost the popular vote by a wide margin in 2016. 66m versus 63m. 2020 was even worse when dems put somebody more likable than Hillary.

If he wins again, I wouldn't say it's because Americans are not smart. I think it's a flawed/out-dated voting system that makes a Trump win possible.

There's a couple of key issues that could favor Trump directly or indirectly.

- Gaza/Palestine issue could cost blue vote in Michigan.
- Border Crisis could flip Arizona again.

Yeah, I know Trump doesn't help either of these issues. But just saying I think there's enough voters out there to flip things.

I can safely say that Trump will lose the popular vote again, maybe even by a wider margin than last time. But I can't say he will actually lose the election. I read an analysis that said Trump could lose the popular vote by +10m votes and still win.

[Clyde_Style]

What is so comical about MAGAs moaning about anyone invoking Hitler in relationship to Trump is he is a White Nationalist who has openly stated he wants to be a dictator. And, no, that is not something you can pass off as a joke unless you're really dim. He said it.

One thing any human should learn by some point in their twenties is when someone tells you what they want, you better believe it.

And when they tell you what they are, don't believe it, i.e. if they must tell you they are kind instead of just being kind or say they are smart, then they are not smart.

The only book Trump kept on his night stand was Hitler's speeches. If you think that doesn't matter then maybe you deserve to live in a dictatorship.

that's quite the assertation.. source?
you are a ridiculous and silly man.

His wife verified it you lazy bum

Can’t even research the truth before you make your stupid insults

[MrDollarBills]

Again, if the United States Government were to try to off somebody they'd use Turkiye Shooter, not RamboLARP Moonbow.

He might not look like it. But he's too expensive. Even for the US Agencies.

Yeah this dude definitely has some red on his ledger

[Stannis]

Yeah this dude definitely has some red on his ledger

He only accepts payments in gold bars.

[Luv those Knicks]

Yeah, but just saying, I feel we only get to talk about politics if it involves Donald Trump. We at least get +10 pages before it's locked.

If it's anything else politically-related, it gets insta-locked. At least from my experience over the years.

I haven't paid enough attention to notice, and I only came back a few months ago, or a year ago, or well, not too long ago.

What's a subject you'd like to discuss. I personally think trans rights is interesting. It's complicated. There are sports issues, which are valid both pro and con. And hormones, especially before the age of 18 is a tricky subject. I don't come down hard on one side or the other, though I lean liberal on the topic, but I think it's interesting.

Cancel culture vs freedom of speech is another interesting subject. Bill Maher, who I used to like, just trashes liberals for cancel culture, to the point where I'm tired of hearing him and I even stopped watching his show. To me, it's not as black and white as he makes it.

Berkeley's conservative club invited Ben Shapiro to speak. Ben Shapiro, among other things, states as an absolute fact that there are only 2 sexes. He's absolutely wrong about that and him saying that could be classified as dangerous speech. Berkeley is a lot more liberal than conservative, so Ben Shapiro gets invited to speak, liberals protest, the school is caught between a rock and a hard place. They say he can't speak; he sues the school. It's a big mess.

Bill Maher stands up and says "Free Speech, let him talk, cancel culture is the problem", and I guess, but I have a hard time imagining a world where one person is kind of the spokesperson for denying that trans people should even exist, and then saying that students are wrong for protesting him. And what's lost in this whole discussion is that Ben Shapiro is wrong, probably deliberately wrong. He probably knows he's wrong and he sues for his rights to make speeches to people who love him because they aren't smart enough to know he's lying to them.

The people who protest are the problem? Really? I think, at the end of the day, that protesting entrenches both sides and what we should do instead is canvas information. Hand out flyers to everyone who walks past a sheet that says "Ben Shapiro's lies", but I have a hard time with the argument that Ben Shapiro's lies are OK, but protesting him speaking at your college is not.

Conservatives are banning books from school libraries and eliminating the teaching of things like the civil war or Native American massacres, and its liberals protesting Ben Shapiro that Bill Maher goes on and on about?

The free speech issue is interesting to me, because cancel culture is protected by free speech. Telling somebody to "shut up" is protected by free speech. Many people forget that. They think free speech means freedom from criticism. The criticism is also free speech. Being shouted down is free speech. It might not be high quality speech, but it's free speech.

- - - but, I digress. I'm down for a good (non-Trump) political conversation. Most people won't change their minds, about anything, but I think a good exchange of ideas and concepts is a plus.

[Stannis]

Spoiler:

I haven't paid enough attention to notice, and I only came back a few months ago, or a year ago, or well, not too long ago.

What's a subject you'd like to discuss. I personally think trans rights is interesting. It's complicated. There are sports issues, which are valid both pro and con. And hormones, especially before the age of 18 is a tricky subject. I don't come down hard on one side or the other, though I lean liberal on the topic, but I think it's interesting.

Cancel culture vs freedom of speech is another interesting subject. Bill Maher, who I used to like, just trashes liberals for cancel culture, to the point where I'm tired of hearing him and I even stopped watching his show. To me, it's not as black and white as he makes it.

Berkeley's conservative club invited Ben Shapiro to speak. Ben Shapiro, among other things, states as an absolute fact that there are only 2 sexes. He's absolutely wrong about that and him saying that could be classified as dangerous speech. Berkeley is a lot more liberal than conservative, so Ben Shapiro gets invited to speak, liberals protest, the school is caught between a rock and a hard place. They say he can't speak; he sues the school. It's a big mess.

Bill Maher stands up and says "Free Speech, let him talk, cancel culture is the problem", and I guess, but I have a hard time imagining a world where one person is kind of the spokesperson for denying that trans people should even exist, and then saying that students are wrong for protesting him. And what's lost in this whole discussion is that Ben Shapiro is wrong, probably deliberately wrong. He probably knows he's wrong and he sues for his rights to make speeches to people who love him because they aren't smart enough to know he's lying to them.

The people who protest are the problem? Really? I think, at the end of the day, that protesting entrenches both sides and what we should do instead is canvas information. Hand out flyers to everyone who walks past a sheet that says "Ben Shapiro's lies", but I have a hard time with the argument that Ben Shapiro's lies are OK, but protesting him speaking at your college is not.

Conservatives are banning books from school libraries and eliminating the teaching of things like the civil war or Native American massacres, and its liberals protesting Ben Shapiro that Bill Maher goes on and on about?

The free speech issue is interesting to me, because cancel culture is protected by free speech. Telling somebody to "shut up" is protected by free speech. Many people forget that. They think free speech means freedom from criticism. The criticism is also free speech. Being shouted down is free speech. It might not be high quality speech, but it's free speech.

- - - but, I digress. I'm down for a good (non-Trump) political conversation. Most people won't change their minds, about anything, but I think a good exchange of ideas and concepts is a plus.

There's a lot I would like to talk about on here (The Gaza Conflict, Russia-Ukraine). I go on the Current Affairs board , but it's not the same as talking with Knick fans lol. And I'm pretty sure we got a lot of banned members that can't go to other sections of the board lol.

And I didn't mean to throw the mods under the bus. I'm sure they got a lot of fatigue. I know I said we only get Trump political threads. But I do remember a few "political" threads turning into Trump threads. I think that's what happened to the Covid 19 threads.

On that note, I just got Covid last week, and it was not fun.

[DOT]

What's a subject you'd like to discuss. I personally think trans rights is interesting. It's complicated. There are sports issues, which are valid both pro and con. And hormones, especially before the age of 18 is a tricky subject. I don't come down hard on one side or the other, though I lean liberal on the topic, but I think it's interesting.

I don't think it's really that complicated

The people who study gender dysphoria for a living have a treatment that works, which includes hormone therapy before adulthood. I think we should listen to the experts

And for the sports issue, there simply isn't enough data to say. We need to study the effects of transitioning on athleticism, especially seeing if going through puberty before transitioning has distinct effects compared to people who begin transition before going through puberty

So let 'em play until there's sufficient evidence to say they shouldn't. Like, there's a young woman in China right now named Zhang Ziyu who's 7 feet tall and plays basketball. That's honestly a huge advantage for her, more than any other female basketball player yet it won't be seen as unfair for her to compete in the Olympics in 4 years. Functionally, would trans women be that much more of outliers? I don't think so, but like I said, we need more data before we can evaluate.

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

[MrDollarBills]

Donald Trump is a significant reason why U.S. politics is so **** right now. Everything wrong with politics, Trump has either influenced or has his hand in. This is obviously bigger than the U.S. as well but this thread is on a U.S. issue.

This takes the blame off of the GOP

Trump wouldn't be relevant without the approval of the Republicans. Not just MAGA, the "reasonable" or "moderate" Republicans who will cast their votes for him for a 3rd time in a couple months.

This has been 50 years in the making. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, all share the blame for this sh*t as well as the rest of the dog whistling goons in the party (hello Newt you nasty piece of sh*t) that have polluted this country since the Civil Rights Act passed. Especially going back to 2009, Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the list of ass holes who opened the door for Trump and his cult is long and tiresome.

The fact that GW has been silent as a church mouse while other Republicans have condemned Trump speaks volumes. He knows what he's done. He thinks he can sit quietly and paint pictures of wounded veterans to erase his sins.

Trump is the end result of the disease. Hopefully enough sensible Americans who are tired of this hatred, division, and frankly, criminal behavior going all the way up to sedition and possible treason depending on what Diaper Don did with those documents will condemn him at the ballot box in November and send this entire hate movement packing.

Me personally, I'm tired. I'm not arguing or trying to change anyone's mind about Trump, nor do I want to beef with people over him. He isn't worth the skidmarks in his pants. I'm going to vote. That's all I can do.

[MrDollarBills]

And please, for God's sake folks I beg you, please leave gay and transgender Americans alone. They have done nothing to deserve the hatred.

Treat others like you would want to be treated. It's not hard or a lot to ask.

[MrDollarBills]

Spoiler:

I haven't paid enough attention to notice, and I only came back a few months ago, or a year ago, or well, not too long ago.

What's a subject you'd like to discuss. I personally think trans rights is interesting. It's complicated. There are sports issues, which are valid both pro and con. And hormones, especially before the age of 18 is a tricky subject. I don't come down hard on one side or the other, though I lean liberal on the topic, but I think it's interesting.

Cancel culture vs freedom of speech is another interesting subject. Bill Maher, who I used to like, just trashes liberals for cancel culture, to the point where I'm tired of hearing him and I even stopped watching his show. To me, it's not as black and white as he makes it.

Berkeley's conservative club invited Ben Shapiro to speak. Ben Shapiro, among other things, states as an absolute fact that there are only 2 sexes. He's absolutely wrong about that and him saying that could be classified as dangerous speech. Berkeley is a lot more liberal than conservative, so Ben Shapiro gets invited to speak, liberals protest, the school is caught between a rock and a hard place. They say he can't speak; he sues the school. It's a big mess.

Bill Maher stands up and says "Free Speech, let him talk, cancel culture is the problem", and I guess, but I have a hard time imagining a world where one person is kind of the spokesperson for denying that trans people should even exist, and then saying that students are wrong for protesting him. And what's lost in this whole discussion is that Ben Shapiro is wrong, probably deliberately wrong. He probably knows he's wrong and he sues for his rights to make speeches to people who love him because they aren't smart enough to know he's lying to them.

The people who protest are the problem? Really? I think, at the end of the day, that protesting entrenches both sides and what we should do instead is canvas information. Hand out flyers to everyone who walks past a sheet that says "Ben Shapiro's lies", but I have a hard time with the argument that Ben Shapiro's lies are OK, but protesting him speaking at your college is not.

Conservatives are banning books from school libraries and eliminating the teaching of things like the civil war or Native American massacres, and its liberals protesting Ben Shapiro that Bill Maher goes on and on about?

The free speech issue is interesting to me, because cancel culture is protected by free speech. Telling somebody to "shut up" is protected by free speech. Many people forget that. They think free speech means freedom from criticism. The criticism is also free speech. Being shouted down is free speech. It might not be high quality speech, but it's free speech.

- - - but, I digress. I'm down for a good (non-Trump) political conversation. Most people won't change their minds, about anything, but I think a good exchange of ideas and concepts is a plus.

There's a lot I would like to talk about on here (The Gaza Conflict, Russia-Ukraine). I go on the Current Affairs board , but it's not the same as talking with Knick fans lol. And I'm pretty sure we got a lot of banned members that can't go to other sections of the board lol.

And I didn't mean to throw the mods under the bus. I'm sure they got a lot of fatigue. I know I said we only get Trump political threads. But I do remember a few "political" threads turning into Trump threads. I think that's what happened to the Covid 19 threads.

On that note, I just got Covid last week, and it was not fun.

Hope you're doing better. I had a nasty case of bronchitis that came out of nowhere that beat my ass the last 10 days.

This winter is gonna be nasty.

[MrDollarBills]

Think it's important to also note what's happening to the Haitian community in Springfield too.

Yep.

Shout out to the Black folks who are openly talking about leaning towards voting for Trump by the way, because "he" sent out those $1200 checks 4 years ago. Meanwhile this dude and the couch f*cker are saying we eat cats and dogs, and his new racist ass spokeswoman/community semen dumpster Laura Loomer saying that the White house is gonna smell like "Curry and Colla greens" if Kamala wins.

$1200 dollars.

[DOT]

$1200 dollars.

I think this was one of his actually cunning moves, he stalled the process to ensure his signature was on every check

So despite the fact that Biden did more stimulus than him and sent bigger checks to people, because Trump's name was on the first ones in big, bold letters, he gets the credit

People in general are just kinda easily swayed by cheap tricks.

[St Knick]

that's a super charitable and naive take. are you implying the govt is in fact worthy of our unquestioning trust and that they have seen the light? it's human nature; "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

LOL, and no.

And I worried after I'd had that little tiff with Spree that it could be misinterpreted.

Does the government lie - of course they do. Unquestioning trust, of course not.

And Spree made a list of examples, which is nice. I can give you a list of examples for why Babe Ruth was a terrible baseball player, but that doesn't make it so.

1) Too many strikeouts
2) Slow, can't run, can't steal bases
3) Bad fielder
4) Bat teammate
5) Unprofessional in his off-time
6) Doesn't listen to coaching
5) Overpaid.

There you have it. Babe Ruth isn't a good baseball player because . . . I made a list. Obviously, this is silly but take something like climate change, that's basically accepted as studied and verified truth, that every scientific organization and virtually every nation in the world agrees with. I've seen very long and very convincing lists about why man-made climate change is wrong, and those lists are meaningless, because one by one, every example can be explained as to why it doesn't meet the criteria of a debunk. A list doesn't prove a trend. It's not that easy.

So, I confess, I was reacting to his list, in a "come on, not this again" reaction and I should do better. I should just turn away next time.

And he's right, many times, the Government has lied. But his point seems to be that the lying is the primary thing government is . . . until he dialed it back and he said he posted that meme as a joke, but a few posts earlier, he was "challenging people's world view" . . . so I'm not sure he debated honestly.

This is my problem with his posts, in addition to just posting a list. He seems to think that the lies are so prevalent that both sides are the same. Biden lies just as much as Trump so it doesn't matter. I have a problem with that point of view because I think it's flagrantly untrue.

He liked occupy WallStreet, but he hates liberals. He thinks the all-powerful government shut down occupy WallStreet, but liberals today are telling everyone to drink the Kool-Aid and telling everyone what to do? I don't think that's a fair assessment of liberals and I KNOW a lot of liberals. I'm speaking from knowing many personally. So, we've butted heads before and it's just a thing I need to dial down.

He was right about angry bug-eyed lady though. I thought she was occupy WallStreet, but she was protesting Trump on one side of a fence, on the other, a Trump supporter and they were. It's still Ironic though because the first time "Angry feminist" appeared was on Alex Jones channel, where Jones wrote "Trump supporters shut down protestors" - that was 2016.

But today, in 2024, there's a meme of the same photo that says "Left Wing 2020s, F*ck you do what they tell you" - how does that make any sense? It's like the truth no longer means anything, and just say whatever you can about liberals, and I'm tired of that.

Call people out all you want, you know, if you must, but call them out for what they did, not what you've made up.

OK, so that's my take on that, but I don't think I've answered your post.

- - -

I have more sympathy for government than most because I think governing is hard. I think it's incredibly important to get the right people elected, who try to make good choices for the people, so I tend to be very concerned about who wins elections but less concerned about the evil in government. More concerned about the evil in individuals.

Should government go unchecked? I think if you're not specific to individuals it's a waste of time. "Government" isn't anything specific. People get voted or chosen for office and those people make choices. So "don't trust government" . . . OK, but where do you go with that? I mean, sure. It's true enough, don't blindly accept what government tells you, but if you're not talking about individual people, you're much too generalized for me. It's not interesting and it's not helpful.

So, when ask me:

"are you implying the govt is in fact worthy of our unquestioning trust?"

No. I wasn't implying that at all, and I even said government lies more than once, but I then turned it back on Spree and pointed out that lying isn't the only thing, it's not even the primary thing that government does, which seemed to be what he was implying. When I say "it's not all lies", that's not the same thing as offering unquestioning trust. I think that should be obvious.

When you say

" that they have seen the light?"

This bothers me. What does this actually mean. Lets pretend that we get Jim Carry from liar liar elected to office? Then what? Would not being able to tell a lie fix everything? Would it make the withdrawal from Afghanistan any easier? Would it make reducing inflation easier, or the national debt, or climate change, or the partisan battle going on? Would it fix the supreme court or the guns issue? Would it solve the debate on trans-rights? Elect a saint and we'd still have the same problems we have now, because the problems aren't simply fixed by "lets finally do the right thing. THAT'S Nieve. OK, maybe we avoid the Vietnam war if LBJ doesn't set up the gulf of Tonkin, and in a sense, he took responsibility for that by not choosing to run for a 2nd term, and John McCain said that Vietnam was actually good, despite it's unpopularity, because it showed the Russians we wouldn't let them do whatever they want. I don't think McCain is right, but I do think there's some room for debate and it goes beyond "how could they do the wrong thing there", or Bush's fake yellowcake report shortly after 9-11 to get votes to invade Iraq. In hindsight, a big mistake, but let me ask you this? Do you want Saddam back? Would 15 more years of Saddam have been better? I still think Bush was wrong to push so hard for the Iraq war, but there are shades of grey. There almost always are. It's not like Obama's peace keeping efforts and attempts to support regional protest supported new governments fared any better. Obama really tried, but foreign policy is hard.

I think Obama was more honest than not. I think Biden was more honest than not. I think Clinton was a bit more underhanded, but he generally had good intensions for the country. I think even Trump has good intentions for the country, but I think he's a lying, vindictive, cruel, self-serving scumbag who caters to the powerful far right when he ran on the promise that he'd stand against the rich and wall-street, but he's done nothing but serve them. I also think he's an ignoramus. Utterly incompetent and he's done things that are bad for America, because he thought it would improve his election chances. That's the absolutely worst type of person that could be elected.

So, when you ask me "have they seen the light?", I have a few answers. What good would it do if they did? What dark secrets do you think would be uncovered if they had? OK, maybe the NSA never spies on foreign countries and that was embarrassing. Edward Snowden did embarrass the US government, and we even spied on allies, and that's a mess, but that's only a small part of what goes on in the government. Would I have liked it better if Obama (I think it was Obama at the time) had told the NSA, shut it down. Yes, that would have been a better choice from my perspective, but I don't think that one decision means it's all lies. I still think Obama had the best intentions for the people in the USA most of the time. I still think he was generally fair, a good diplomat, and interested in raising the standard of living for the lower half, not just trickle down, and that's much harder, but I think it's a better approach.

That's why I didn't really care if it was Hillary or Bernie because I knew that congress would block both of their ideas and it wouldn't make much difference. I never understood democrats who were so heartbroken and outraged when Hillary won. Were they not watching what congress did, blocking Obama for 8 years? Bernie would make some pretty speeches from the Oval office I'm sure, but he's less savvy than Obama. Do you really think he'd change much? If you want the kinds of changes Bernie was promising, you'd need 60 Bernie's in the senate and a majority in the house and then you could get Bernie's ideas written into law, but one Bernie in the oval office, come on. Not much changes. Maybe the foreign policy is different, but domestically, economically? Not a big difference. That's why I was fine with either one, and oh boy did some of my liberal acquaintances curse at me for that one. I was a centrist, not a liberal. hmm. OK. You heard me say I was fine with Bernie, right? I'm a tax the rich, ban guns, pro-choice, pro-environment and former hippie, but I'm a centrist because I didn't bang the drum for Bernie.

And don't get me started on Edward Snowden because . . . OK, he exposed something he believed was wrong but he also put US citizens who were overseas lives at risk and gave up some US tactical advantages to other nations. He made it easier for Russia to invade Crimea and parts of the Ukraine because they had access to US spy satellite information.

to quote morgan freeman

Seen the light? Now let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means.

when you say:

"it's human nature; "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

I heard that in school too, but you're missing something. Obama got told "No" a LOT. Biden got told "No" a Lot.

Have you read Machiavelli? "The Prince". How to rule? There's a lot of cut-throat stuff in there, but one of the things Machiavelli says that applies today is "don't surround yourself with yes-men. If you're going to lead, have people who will challenge and disagree with you around you".

Obama made 100 promises to win the election, then when he got into office, the republicans delayed Al Sharpton for months, so he never had the 60 votes. Then he had it for about 8 weeks, then Ted Kennedy dies and a rare republican victory in Massachusetts happened. Also, some of those 60 votes were centrist democrats or independents. Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain against Obama and he was one of the 60 senators in Obama's so called "filibuster proof" senate. Lieberman played spoiler to Obama's healthcare plan, basically gutting it before it even made it to his desk. Mitch McConnell played spoiler to Obama every way he could. Obama was told no a hell of a lot more than he was told yes. How much power do you think he really had?

Trump was also told no, early in office, many times.

Trump to congress "Give me money to build a wall" Congress "No, not unless you give us something really good back, like full amnesty to the dreamers would have done it" - Trump wouldn't do that. He didn't care as much that the wall was built, he cared that he'd look bad if he compromised, so he never got this wall, his primary promise, because congress said no.

Trump to Jeff Sessions "Head up the Russia investigations because you're my guy and you can keep me informed and we can dial it down" - Sessions said no. That would have been a gross conflict of interest and sessions knew that. Sessions correctly recused himself, effectively saying "No way, Donnie, not a chance". Trump never forgave sessions for that, or so I've read.

Trump to James Comey, after Comey helped him beat Hillary. (I'm paraphrasing with this one), but Trump said "You're my guy, right? You work for me". Comey reportedly said nothing during their first meeting, but he left very disturbed. Some time later, Trump fired Comey and Comey wrote a book about Trump. I don't think either guy came out looking good on this one.

As time went on, Trump surrounded himself with more and more "yes" men. Bill Barr was (in my opinion) an absolute scoundrel who'd do anything short of breaking the law to help Trump. Even Barr, in time, grew to think Trump was a terrible politician and a terrible person.

Trump to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. "Find me 12,000 votes" and we all know how that worked out.

The US constitution was set up with checks and balances. Politicians are told no a lot. FDR wanted to expand the supreme court. He was told to pound sand. His own party wouldn't back him on that venture, though there's no specific reference to any one person telling FDR those words. FDR had more power than any president since but even he couldn't do everything he wanted. He was met with resistance and told no more than once.

Does power corrupt? Well, sure. This is the full quote in a letter moralist Lord Acton sent to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men"

though he didn't come up with the idea, it had been around for some time. It's not a very surprising idea.

This is the question that I think is worth asking, given that US politicians are limited by their fellow politicians. Corruption requires teamwork. This happens more at the state level than the national level, because there's less visibility. Less media coverage. There's some, but less.

Do I think Obama became corrupt when he became president? Hard no from me.

Do I think Biden became corrupt when he became president? Again, hard no. I don't see it. Do you?

Do I think Trump became corrupt when he became president? I think Trump was already corrupt. That's who he was going in. Though I think the throne in his case, may have corrupted him more.

But if you think I'm wrong. If you think Obama became corrupt when he got the seat of power, give me some examples. I already mentioned what I think was his error with the NSA, so . . . maybe on that one. It's possible he didn't even know. Maybe that's thin, but it's possible.

See, the difference between Spree and Me, is Spree wants to say "both sides are corrupt and I'm sorry if that upsets your world view". I want details. I want specifics. I'm willing to be wrong, and I invite counter arguments. I'm willing to dig deep into why I said the things I said and why I believe what I believe.

But no, I don't think we should blindly accept government. I do think, often, the libertarian point of view, the "fear big government", the "The statist government is biggest problem we have", misses the point. We need government if we're going to solve climate change or avoid price gouging. Address things like recession or inflation. We need government for anti-terrorism and national defense, and that doesn't make everything government does right but "fear big government" feels like a lack of understanding to me.

Elect good people. That's where my attention is at. And try to dial back the partisan war a little. That too. I don't fear big government. I fear people who vote far right almost universally, because they fear big government. That doesn't feel like a legitimate solution to a problem they don't even understand . . . but that's just me. They passion of many far-right voters, and their scale in numbers scare me more than government does, at least, so far. Maybe if our government becomes a dictatorship that will change, but for now, the voters and the hot tempers in the USA scare me more than the government.

All of that said, I'm open to correction.

too long?

Yes LOL.
I respect you're thoroughness and thoughtfulness, though. I'll marinate on this for a bit and get back soon enough.

[dakomish23]

Think it's important to also note what's happening to the Haitian community in Springfield too.

Yep.

Shout out to the Black folks who are openly talking about leaning towards voting for Trump by the way, because "he" sent out those $1200 checks 4 years ago. Meanwhile this dude and the couch f*cker are saying we eat cats and dogs, and his new racist ass spokeswoman/community semen dumpster Laura Loomer saying that the White house is gonna smell like "Curry and Colla greens" if Kamala wins.

$1200 dollars.

the American Rescue Plan gave a larger stimulus check & a child tax credit.

[HarthorneWingo]

Can’t nobody shoot straight? Bunch of clowns.

These losers practice their shooting in Call of Duty lobbies and end up realizing that bullets don't work that way in real life.

They also find out that they can't respawn once they got shot by people who know how to use a firearm. Let me tell you from experience, bullets burn like hellfire once they make contact and your only thoughts at that point is whether or not this is the end

Okay. I completely believe you. But now I have to hear more about this you badass.