Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Bill the Cat]

Oh but they are, they've just been conditioned to abhor the name. Take away social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and the myriad other social programs that enhance the lives of the people and then tell me how much they despise Democratic socialism.

Those aren't socialism, Jim...

[seer]

No, people want a moral government, a government that works in the best interests of all the people, in the best interests of the country at large, and not one that says to hell with those who for whatever reason fall on bad times. Plenty of republicans lost their jobs and their homes because of the Wall St. caused crash of the economy. You can bet that they weren't spouting their anti government talking points when they needed help! Power and control is only a bad thing if it is used only for self interests, such as it is with the republican party and the special interests that back them.

Are you kidding Jim, this is all about the liberals gaining and keeping power, and getting more and more people dependent on the Government. There would not be a Democratic party without dependence. And remember what was at the core of the housing crash - bad mortgages backed up by Fanny and Freddy. Wall street wouldn't have had bad mortgages to bundle in the first place. My ex wife purchased a house with no income verification thanks to Fanny Mae. And BTW Jim, I'm about $25,000 under water with my mortgage and I'm not asking for Government help. This bubble was cause by liberal policies from both sides, this is why my ex could get a mortgage with no income verification and nothing down:

The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.
http://spectator.org/articles/42211/...nancial-crisis

Name one. That again is bunk. If true then why hasn't the republican party moved to have him impeached?

I gave you a number of cases where the Supreme court slapped Obama back - your memory can't be that bad.

violated the Constitution.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/26/su...-constitution/

No, not at all. Quite the contrary. Sanders has admitted time and time again that he can not accomplish his agenda without the support of the American people. His campaign is an attempt at waking people up to the corruption of their government and to stir them to action. Conservatives pretend to be in the peoples corner when all the while they are stabbing in the back at the behest of the special interests that pay them off.

Oh stop, Sanders is just like any other politician. He knows full well most of what he promises has a snow ball's chance.

Costs always increase, its the annual rate of increase that has subsided. You also have free preventative care, colonoscopies, prostate exams, mammograms, etc etc. which cuts costs that aren't figured in to the cost savings. Besides that, their are now 20 million more people who have health care that could not previously afford it, and more signing up all the time. Its a moral issue as much as a cost issue. Would you rather have a government that allows you to get sick and die because you just can't can't afford to see a doctor?

Now that is pure bunk, yes people who get subsidies are doing better but the hard working middle class are getting screwed especially with deductibles, as a matter of fact the annul deductibles are so high that people are effectively being priced out of the market.

Oh but they are, they've just been conditioned to abhor the name. Take away social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and the myriad other social programs that enhance the lives of the people and then tell me how much they despise Democratic socialism.

Like any animal that has been conditioned to depend on its master they will get upset when you take their food away.

[JimL]

Those aren't socialism, Jim...

Well then, if you don't think so, don't focus on the word or associate with Sanders if it would make you feel better about him.

[JimL]

Are you kidding Jim, this is all about the liberals gaining and keeping power, and getting more and more people dependent on the Government. There would not be a Democratic party without dependence. And remember what was at the core of the housing crash - bad mortgages backed up by Fanny and Freddy. Wall street wouldn't have had bad mortgages to bundle in the first place. My ex wife purchased a house with no income verification thanks to Fanny Mae. And BTW Jim, I'm about $25,000 under water with my mortgage and I'm not asking for Government help. This bubble was cause by liberal policies from both sides, this is why my ex could get a mortgage with no income verification and nothing down:

No it isn't seer, thats just your propagandized mind talking. Like I said, gaining and keeping power is not a bad thing unless it is for reasons of self interest. Btw, Fanny and Freddy are part of the finacial sector, owned by billionaire investers, but they were only a small part of the cause and it wasn't because the government forced them to do it, thats another fallacy cooked up by the corrupt fat cats that supported it. AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bro's, Washington Mutual, Country Wide, they were all in on the scam and they knew what they were doing when they did it. They knew they could get away with it as well!

I gave you a number of cases where the Supreme court slapped Obama back - your memory can't be that bad.

Well name one then. And if it went to the Supreme court and the Court disagreed with Obama on its constitutionality, then whats your problem?

Oh stop, Sanders is just like any other politician. He knows full well most of what he promises has a snow ball's chance.

Apparently you keep missing the point or else you are purposely ignoring it. Sanders admits to the fact that it isn't about him, it is about the people. If they support him and want his agenda passed, then it is up to them to get off their duffs and vote. The government, the kind of government we have is up to us, unless you let the special interests and the billionaires decide for you.

Now that is pure bunk, yes people who get subsidies are doing better but the hard working middle class are getting screwed especially with deductibles, as a matter of fact the annul deductibles are so high that people are effectively being priced out of the market.

You were always getting screwed with deductibles. The fact remains, 20 million more and counting now have health insurance, and if we all have to pay a little more then so be it. Medicare for all would have been much better, but The ACA is the best that could be done thanks to corporate backed republican obstructionism.

Like any animal that has been conditioned to depend on its master they will get upset when you take their food away.

If they are starving due to a greedy corrupt morally bankrupt government they will get upset too.

[Joel]

I think Trump is, in many ways, fascist. He's an extreme nationalist who seeks national 'greatness' through increased and centralized government power in the hands of a powerful leader. He plays on the idea of national decline, pointing to people groups (Mexicans, Muslims) as scapegoats, with the proposed solution to put great power into the hands of one man who will take strong action. He has expressed opposition to immigration and foreign trade. He has shown a propensity for wanting to silence criticism.

[seer]

No it isn't seer, thats just your propagandized mind talking. Like I said, gaining and keeping power is not a bad thing unless it is for reasons of self interest.

No Jim, I base my opinion on experience and facts - having been a Democrat for most of my adult life, with a father who was a big wig in the state Democrat party. And the fact that the more dependent you become on a person or political party the more control they have over your life. There is no arguing against that. And let me ask you Jim, we know why Republicans like illegal immigration, for cheap labor. But why do the Democrats like illegal immigration, and do nothing to stop it? We know it is suppressing wages - I can show you 12-15 of my son's friends who have lost their good paying construction jobs to illegals who will work for less than minimum wage. Because it again fosters dependence, these young men who once were independent now, in some form or another, have to depend on Government. Never mind the illegals who now are also using social services.

Btw, Fanny and Freddy are part of the finacial sector, owned by billionaire investers, but they were only a small part of the cause and it wasn't because the government forced them to do it, thats another fallacy cooked up by the corrupt fat cats that supported it. AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bro's, Washington Mutual, Country Wide, they were all in on the scam and they knew what they were doing when they did it. They knew they could get away with it as well!

You are wrong about the Government's part in all this - the link clearly explained it. And you are right about what these companies did. Believe me I have no love for them and was completely against their bailout.

Well name one then. And if it went to the Supreme court and the Court disagreed with Obama on its constitutionality, then whats your problem?

I gave you a link, that was one and it referenced 12 more. The point is that Obama has violated the Constitution a number of times. You said that Trump would do this - but we do not know that - we do know that Obama did.

Apparently you keep missing the point or else you are purposely ignoring it. Sanders admits to the fact that it isn't about him, it is about the people. If they support him and want his agenda passed, then it is up to them to get off their duffs and vote. The government, the kind of government we have is up to us, unless you let the special interests and the billionaires decide for you.

No, first the kind of Government we have should follow the Constitution. Second here is a fact you need to deal with Jim. The Democratic party is not going to let Sanders win. The Super Delegates will make sure of that. Then you will be left with Hillary - one of the most greedy, corrupt, Wall Street connected politicians out there. At least the National Rifle Association likes Bernie:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...e-association/

You were always getting screwed with deductibles. The fact remains, 20 million more and counting now have health insurance, and if we all have to pay a little more then so be it. Medicare for all would have been much better, but The ACA is the best that could be done thanks to corporate backed republican obstructionism.

Jim, you do realize that many of these 20 million had health insurance before the ACA. And remember Jim, not one Republican voted for the ACA, the Democrats could have just as easily expanded Medicaid. So don't blame the Republicans.

[Joel]

And you are right about what these companies did. Believe me I have no love for them and was completely against their bailout.

Trump supported the bailouts and stimulus packages.

No, first the kind of Government we have should follow the Constitution.

Trump does not at all seem like someone who agrees with you on that.

[seer]

Trump supported the bailouts and stimulus packages.

Probably - he is a New Yorker after all.

Trump does not at all seem like someone who agrees with you on that.

Perhaps - but neither do the Democrats or Republicans. Trump is just a vessel for our anger. At bottom this is about sending a message to the ruling class.

[Joel]

Perhaps - but neither do the Democrats or Republicans. Trump is just a vessel for our anger. At bottom this is about sending a message to the ruling class.

But what message? If simply anti-establishment, there were any number of other options. If anti-establishment and pro-small-government constitutionalism, throwing support behind Ron (or Rand) Paul would have been a vastly better choice. Even Cruz is hated by the Republican establishment, even more than they hate Trump, and thus would be a better anti-establishment pick. But Trump was supported in particular. Thus it must send a particular message. And that seems to be: "We want fascist authoritarianism instead of a constitutional republic [see my post 65 above]. Oh, and we're racist." That's the message you are actually sending. I don't know what message you think you are sending.

[seer]

But what message? If simply anti-establishment, there were any number of other options. If anti-establishment and pro-small-government constitutionalism, throwing support behind Ron (or Rand) Paul would have been a vastly better choice. Even Cruz is hated by the Republican establishment, even more than they hate Trump, and thus would be a better anti-establishment pick. But Trump was supported in particular. Thus it must send a particular message. And that seems to be: "We want fascist authoritarianism instead of a constitutional republic [see my post 65 above]. Oh, and we're racist." That's the message you are actually sending. I don't know what message you think you are sending.

Trump is neither a fascist authoritarian nor are his followers racist. Cruz would be OK, my first choice was Walker. The fact is Trump is just resonating with a lot of the base that Paul did not connect with. They see strength in Trump - believe me, I'm more than a little amazed, but I'm not against him either. Listen I know you take issue with this but I want these borders closed as much as possible, and I want all these trade deals revisited. And I could personally care less if another Muslim ever immigrates to the US. That is not racist, though it may be bigoted.

[seanD]

College students feel "threatened" and "traumatized" for seeing chalk markings supporting Trump on college campus grounds...

[Yttrium]

College students feel "threatened" and "traumatized" for seeing chalk markings supporting Trump on college campus grounds...

They're still using chalk at some colleges??!

*is traumatized*

[JimL]

No Jim, I base my opinion on experience and facts - having been a Democrat for most of my adult life, with a father who was a big wig in the state Democrat party. And the fact that the more dependent you become on a person or political party the more control they have over your life. There is no arguing against that.

No seer, like I said, you have fallen for the right wing propaganda. The government has no more control over those who are dependent upon and benifit from government assistance. If you think so, if you think it is something more than propaganda, then spell it out.

And let me ask you Jim, we know why Republicans like illegal immigration, for cheap labor. But why do the Democrats like illegal immigration, and do nothing to stop it? We know it is suppressing wages - I can show you 12-15 of my son's friends who have lost their good paying construction jobs to illegals who will work for less than minimum wage. Because it again fosters dependence, these young men who once were independent now, in some form or another, have to depend on Government. Never mind the illegals who now are also using social services

.
You've got to be kidding right? Its republicans that refuse to do comprehensive immigration reform, not the democrats. Republicans just huff and puff about building a wall, rounding up and deporting 11 million immigrants knowing all the while its just a canard to placate the ignorant. Republicans, like you said, do not want immigration reform, because its not in the interests of their corporate sponsers.

You are wrong about the Government's part in all this - the link clearly explained it. And you are right about what these companies did. Believe me I have no love for them and was completely against their bailout.

Yeah, the government played a part, they played the part of deregulation, a favorite policy of the republican party. The banks did what they did, because their motive is profit and it wasn't against the law. What was the republicans response to that situation? Well, on their own they did nothing about it, they proposed nothing, but when the Democrats, specifically Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, tried to rectify the situation by law so that it could not be done again, what did the republicans do? They tried to dismantle it.

I gave you a link, that was one and it referenced 12 more. The point is that Obama has violated the Constitution a number of times. You said that Trump would do this - but we do not know that - we do know that Obama did.

The Constitution is a matter of interpretation and if it is thought to be violated it can be challenged in court. Republicans challenged the constitutionality of the ACA as well. They lost!

No, first the kind of Government we have should follow the Constitution.

First of all the Constitution is not writ in stone and unlike the bible, it was not meant to be. We are not govererned by the founding fathers and if we choose to we are free to amend the Constitution. Second it is up to the courts to decide whether or not a law is in violation of it.

Second here is a fact you need to deal with Jim. The Democratic party is not going to let Sanders win. The Super Delegates will make sure of that.

Wrong. Its up to the canidates to win enough delegates in the primary process in which case the super delegates have no say in the matter. I think that you'd better worry more about the republican parties shannanigans in the electoral process than the democrats.

Then you will be left with Hillary - one of the most greedy, corrupt, Wall Street connected politicians out there. At least the National Rifle Association likes Bernie:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...e-association/

Yes, Hillary, unlike Sanders, is establishment and plays the game she feels she needs to play in order to win. But what are you going to do, if Sanders doesn't win she is still the best alternative as far as progressive liberals are concerned.

Jim, you do realize that many of these 20 million had health insurance before the ACA.

No, they didn't seer. 20 million more means 20 million more.

And remember Jim, not one Republican voted for the ACA, the Democrats could have just as easily expanded Medicaid. So don't blame the Republicans.

Of course not one republican voted for it, when have they ever tried to reform the broken health care system? Besides they wouldn't get their campaign donations from their special interests backers had they done the morally right thing.