The (Semi) Official Trump Election/Inauguration thread...

[AmmoManAaron]

The noteworthy difference being that It has been implied that Trump's registry would solely to Muslims regards to whether they are citizens or not. Experts have pretty much stated that if this is applied to the citizens of a particular nation (ALL), then it would pass constitutional muster. However citing individual religions would not.

I know you are just stating facts, but I wanted to say that I agree both from a philosophical standpoint and a practical standpoint (it's pretty easy to lie and hard to be caught considering the background/situation some of these people are coming from).

 

[OakRiver]

You are a bit binary. It is not EITHER a democracy OR oligarchy. It is a range. A degree. Not an absolute.

To reduce my rights, freedoms and privileges by degree does not one day switch me from citizen to slave, but as the frog was cooked, over time those rights and privileges are lost so that I am no longer the free man I used to be. Power in the hands of a few is contrary to what our founders envisioned, yet we get closer to that every day.

I'm not in a question answering mood, however. Make your own views known. I do not enjoy socratic dialogue as I don't see you as my mentor or student.

Your tone seems very adversarial towards the end, that is not my intention. I have tried to keep an open and constructive dialogue by giving you the opportunity to make your views known, and not ascribed views to you that you may not hold.

It is curious that you believe that "Power in the hands of a few is contrary to what our founders envisioned, yet we get closer to that every day", yet you claim that that Hilary would have been a better POTUS in spite of her closer ties to the media and Wall Street.

I have at least agreed that the United States may share some characteristics of an oligarchy. To whit;
"While the United States, and many other countries across the globe, may exhibit some traits that are common in oligarchies by any objective definition the United States falls short of what would traditionally be considered an oligarchy."

So to claim that I am "a bit binary" has no basis in fact.

Your discussion thus far leads to the reasonable inference that you believe that the US is either an oligarchy, or that POTUS Trump will "stress that issue to its breaking point". What I have done is ask you to justify this opinion based on the reasonably and commonly agreed upon definitions of an oligarchy. You have thus far declined to substantiate your claims.

 

[Alpo]

I did NOT claim that HRC would have been a better POTUS. You have misread what I wrote....and now that I have reread what I wrote, I wasn't clear (I wrote that in the wee hours, mea culpa). I think both Trump and Clinton feed the oligarchs. A miserable set of choices for the citizenry.

"Would you like the strawberry oligarchy or would you prefer the vanilla oligarchy?"

I was born in 1949. So, what I observe as changes in freedoms over time are from that perspective. Corporate power is much greater than when Eisenhower cautioned about the military/industrial complex. Personal liberties have been significantly reduced based on fear (the Patriot Act). Corporations are now "people" (Citizens United). Wealth is concentrated in a smaller percentage of the citizenry than at any time in history.

So, I ask you, how can you not see these signs?

 

[Libertarian01]

You are a bit binary. It is not EITHER a democracy OR oligarchy. It is a range. A degree. Not an absolute.

To reduce my rights, freedoms and privileges by degree does not one day switch me from citizen to slave, but as the frog was cooked, over time those rights and privileges are lost so that I am no longer the free man I used to be. Power in the hands of a few is contrary to what our founders envisioned, yet we get closer to that every day.

I'm not in a question answering mood, however. Make your own views known. I do not enjoy socratic dialogue as I don't see you as my mentor or student.

Your tone seems very adversarial towards the end, that is not my intention. I have tried to keep an open and constructive dialogue by giving you the opportunity to make your views known, and not ascribed views to you that you may not hold.

It is curious that you believe that "Power in the hands of a few is contrary to what our founders envisioned, yet we get closer to that every day", yet you claim that that Hilary would have been a better POTUS in spite of her closer ties to the media and Wall Street.

I have at least agreed that the United States may share some characteristics of an oligarchy. To whit;
"While the United States, and many other countries across the globe, may exhibit some traits that are common in oligarchies by any objective definition the United States falls short of what would traditionally be considered an oligarchy."

So to claim that I am "a bit binary" has no basis in fact.

Your discussion thus far leads to the reasonable inference that you believe that the US is either an oligarchy, or that POTUS Trump will "stress that issue to its breaking point". What I have done is ask you to justify this opinion based on the reasonably and commonly agreed upon definitions of an oligarchy. You have thus far declined to substantiate your claims.

I could be totally wrong here but at first glance it looks like you two are trying to be reasonable.

With that in mind you have perhaps hit the limit of the written word when discussing a topic that can get emotional. By just writing you fail to perceive facial expressions, voice tone, body language, and an instant response/counter response to comments by the other. There are many subliminal methods of communicating face-to-face that get left out of a written exchange.

I do love this forum and some others, but the written word does have its limitations.

Not wanting to start anything, just an observation.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[OakRiver]

I did NOT claim that HRC would have been a better POTUS. You have misread what I wrote....and now that I have reread what I wrote, I wasn't clear (I wrote that in the wee hours, mea culpa). I think both Trump and Clinton feed the oligarchs. A miserable set of choices for the citizenry.

"Would you like the strawberry oligarchy or would you prefer the vanilla oligarchy?"

I would say that your words as written, evidently not as intended were not mis-read; "And that I think Hillary was a better answer."
If both candidates "feed the oligarchs" claiming one as a better answer is a strange position to take as in effect you are acquiescing to the reduction of your rights, freedoms and privileges by degree.

So are you saying that we are becoming an oligarchy, or that we are already an oligarchy?

 

[Alpo]

I've been clear. I think I'll take Libertarian's cautionary remarks and leave the discussion at this point.

 

[actaeon277]

Setting your attempts at declarative pejorative-rich statements aside for the moment, that was your first remark after the Brandeis image, I believe. How do you define a government comprised of these attributes? (Feel free to Google wealth distribution, wage history or other economic data as necessary. Don't forget the effects of Citizens United and the restrictions to liberty imposed by the Patriot Act [along with the NSA's disregard of even those limitations]).

I'll take the liberty in assuming 2 things: That Trump is different in a major way (but being a billionaire and hiring billionaires to run the government might stress that issue to its breaking point)

And that I think Hillary was a better answer.

Last line.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, I know. I tried to clarify in my second to last remark above. What I was saying, at 2 a.m., was that both HRC and Trump are part of that elite moneyed class who rub shoulders with the rich and famous. The likelihood is that if you follow the money and the bedfellows who have money, you'll find their perspective of America and its citizens overshadowed by the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

 

[actaeon277]

Why Liberals Oppose Ben Carson - WSJ

 

[OakRiver]

I've been clear. I think I'll take Libertarian's cautionary remarks and leave the discussion at this point.

Then in that case I'll wish you a good day

 

[bwframe]

Donald Trump: We're Still Trying to Drain the Swamp

 

[JollyMon]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Donald Trump: We're Still Trying to Drain the Swamp

When 6 of his picks are billionaires (one of which bailed out his casinos), his kids sitting on meetings, his former campaign manager opening a consulting firm in one of his buildings, and his sons being linked to a pay of access event, it's fair to ask, "what does 'drain the swamp' actually mean?".

 

[Kutnupe14]

All disgusting people who should prosecuted to the fullest. However, I think we all know they are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[T.Lex]

What are their INGO screen names?

 

[bwframe]

Obama: Fox, Limbaugh created 'character named Barack Obama' | Washington Examiner

 

[printcraft]

Obama: Fox, Limbaugh created 'character named Barack Obama' | Washington Examiner

LOL

Barry Soetoro could not be reached for comment.

 

[ghitch75]

Obama: Fox, Limbaugh created 'character named Barack Obama' | Washington Examiner

he is a ****in' winnie ass......

 

[KG1]

LOL

Barry Soetoro could not be reached for comment.

Excellent observation. Barry Soetoro was the first to create the character.

 

[Bennettjh]

Obama: Fox, Limbaugh created 'character named Barack Obama' | Washington Examiner

Fox and Limbaugh huh? Why not throw Bush in.