spare me the crying over McCain . The Dems love Repubs ....when they are dead . The Dems absolutely trashed him during the 2008 campaign. He was every Dems favorite rogue Repub until the campaign . Then Harry Reid said that he hated McCain and that McCain did not have the temperament to be President .He was called a racist (for voting against MLK Day) and a war monger . John Lewis said that McCain was stoking hatred and compared him to George Wallace .The emperor said in a debate ;“John, you are absolutely right, presidents have to be prudent about what they say. But coming from you, who in the past have threatened extinction for North Korea and sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know how credible that is.” The emperor accused him of being ignorant of real America " “I don’t believe that Sen. McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans — I just think he doesn’t know.” The NY slimes endorsed him during the NY Repub primaries and then they ran a fake adultery story on him.
Many of the things Trump says about McCain he heard first from the Dems .
It was the Dems that said he was too old and senile
It was the Dems that said his service in Vietnam was no big deal.Gen Wesley Clarke said just because you get shot down, that doesn't qualify you to be President.
The fact is that the things the Dems say about Trump today are the very same things they said about Reagan ,the Bush's ,McCain and Romney .

so what does Trump REALLY think about wounded Soldiers ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLej...ature=emb_logo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

spare me the crying over McCain . ......................................<skip>...... ...............................<skip>............. .................................................. ................out bombing Iran, I don’t know how credible that is.” The emperor accused ..................................don’t believe that Sen. McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the .................................................e s endorsed him during the NY Repub primaries and then they ran a fake adultery story on him.

---

Tom, not a SINGLE thing you wrote about McCain has anything to do with Trump's slamming the war hero McCain. It's not about McCain's politics. It's all about Trump's disgusting characterization of McCain's service to his country - a service Trump was a draft dodger for.

If this were only about the military, it would be bad enough, but Trump also made a mockery of a severely disabled man on national and world-wide television.

Today we learned Trump hired a look-alike to Obama to practice with. Ultimately, he fired the look-alike.

Can anyone seriously maintain that Trump is not a mental case?

Wife of Jeffrey Goldberg, worked as a senior adviser to Evita and donated the max dollar amount to her 2016 campaign. She also gave $1,000 to Quid in March.

As for the unbiased reporting of Goldberg ;here are some of the articles he's written during the Trump years


Donald Trump’s Mafia Mind-Set

Listening to a legendary American mobster and hearing the president of the United States


Mattis Always Understood Trump’s Severe Defects

And his resignation means he knows that the president will never change.


The Atlantic Bears Witness to Trump’s Destructive Presidency

Editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg explains “Unthinkable,” an attempt to chronicle the most bizarre—and dangerous—moments of this presidency.


Impeachment: An Argument


He’s Getting Worse

Trump is turning the American presidency into a platform for the wholesale demonization of minorities.

The Man Who Couldn’t Take It Anymore

“I had no choice but to leave,” General James Mattis says of his decision to resign as President Trump’s secretary of defense.


James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

Am I seeing a pattern with conservatives? Unable to separate the simple nuances of reality? Political campaigns are often close and personal between candidates, debates are often personal attacks to raise profiles and lower your opponents. That's always been the nature of the beast. It's a given in our politics. Opponents often are more friends off season and off camera, remember Reagan and O'Neil? Meadows and Cummings?

My point is conservatives tend to conflate these very different behaviors in ways that distort the reality whether by accident or intentionally and the case in point is tying the call for police reform with the criminal behavior that follow. The dufus is good at stoking that difference emphasizing the criminal, and ignoring the protestors all together. Amazing he and his conservative defenders and sycophants don't address BOTH constructively, rather ignoring the issue of police brutality altogether.

Not surprising then that we have this current controversy with how he feels about the military since he has said many things that make it very easy to believe he actually said his behind the scenes disgusting comments, and not believe his denials, because he is a habitual liar, exaggerator and fountain of misinformation, and that his defenders and sycophants are quick to ignore these things. He adds to his legacy of lying, cheating, stealing and bullying every friggin day, so forget the benefit of a doubt folks, he hardly deserves it.

So go ahead and hide behind the unnamed sources, because we all know you're just waiting with knives a ready to cut whomever these sources are. We saw what was done to political opponents and whistleblowers and those IG's, AG's and Department Secretaries that don't toe the Dufus Party line that requires strict loyalty to him and only him.

Make no mistake the repubs are dead, and the dufus IS the party. Conservative need to face that reality and start defining republicanism again, instead of embracing dufusism. I know, hard to tell the difference, but for sure defending the dufus ain't republicanism...or is it?

That's not good either way!

Quote:

---

So go ahead and hide behind the unnamed sources,

---

That made me laugh. Hide behind unnamed sources? Aren't you, in fact, the very one doing that? You believe Trump said certain things because unnamed sources said he did, but you discount the actual named sources who deny the allegations and dismiss them as "sycophants". So who, in fact, is really the one hiding behind unnamed sources?

Our sources are named. Yours are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Make no mistake the repubs are dead, and the dufus IS the party. Conservative need to face that reality and start defining republicanism again, instead of embracing dufusism. I know, hard to tell the difference, but for sure defending the dufus ain't republicanism...or is it?

---

A most important point! The con man from New York has taken over what was once a Grand party. After 2020, the Republican Party will need years to recover. They have shaken hands with the devil and are about to pay dearly for it.

Quote:

---

Make no mistake the repubs are dead, and the dufus IS the party.

---

Make no mistake the Dems are dead and the All Out Crazies have taken over the party agenda .

Quote:

---

Conservative need to face that reality and start defining republicanism again, instead of embracing dufusism. I know, hard to tell the difference

---

Liberals need to face that reality and start defining what it is to be a Democrat again, instead of embracing radical progressive socialism. I know, hard to tell the difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

instead of embracing radical progressive socialism. I know, hard to tell the difference

---

Do you know what socialism is?

Reading this thread I released you are all out of your minds, each side thinks the other insane and there is a rational explanation for this, you have driven each other mad with your incessant bickering

Quote:

---

Do you know what socialism is?

---

of course I do

so I assume you are going to now ask me what I think socialism is . Ok
Socialism is an anti-capitalist movement that developed in the 19 century .It demands economic equality guaranteed and enforced by the state . It envisons a society where the means of production ,distribution and labor are owned and/or highly regulated by the state .

From that premise 2 thoughts emerged . 1. Democratic Socialism . It is a gradual Fabian like movement to gradually transform society to their goals . 2. A more radical revolutionary means to abolish existing institutions to hasten the move to a full socialist state . Marxism takes it a step further and abolishes the state . Fascism puts the illusion of capitalism into a state control of the economy . Fascism and Marxism are socialism by definition .
Socialism has been a failure .So it's proponents white washed it and relabeled it 'progressivism' . I would like to thank your bible 'The Atlantic' for in many words ,pointing out that socialism and progressivism is a distinction without a difference .
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...essive/593095/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so I assume you are going to now ask me what I think socialism is .

---

Ha ha - right on! Yup, exactly what I was going to ask.

Quote:

---

Fascism puts the illusion of capitalism into a state control of the economy

---

I might quibble here. But let's stay with socialism.

Quote:

---

I would like to thank your bible 'The Atlantic'

---

The Atlantic my Bible? LOL - if you only knew.

Ok, thank you.

Would you describe specifically why you consider the Democratic Party "socialistic"? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I haven't characterized your opinion correctly re the Party, please change it.

In any case, please be as specific and detailed as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so I assume you are going to now ask me what I think socialism is . Ok
Socialism is an anti-capitalist movement that developed in the 19 century .It demands economic equality guaranteed and enforced by the state . It envisons a society where the means of production ,distribution and labor are owned and/or highly regulated by the state .

From that premise 2 thoughts emerged . 1. Democratic Socialism . It is a gradual Fabian like movement to gradually transform society to their goals . 2. A more radical revolutionary means to abolish existing institutions to hasten the move to a full socialist state . Marxism takes it a step further and abolishes the state . Fascism puts the illusion of capitalism into a state control of the economy . Fascism and Marxism are socialism by definition .
Socialism has been a failure .So it's proponents white washed it and relabeled it 'progressivism' . I would like to thank your bible 'The Atlantic' for in many words ,pointing out that socialism and progressivism is a distinction without a difference .
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...essive/593095/

---

I think those are false premises that fails to take into account who implements and how rules and regulations are implemented. That is what defines any system. Implementation has always been my peeve against repubs even as somethings make sense (ID'S), but the shenanigans behind the implementation is atrocious (Closing urban DMV's and moving them to rural locations without transportation, and with limited days and hours of service.).

Capitalism-The philosophy that money is GOD, and profits come before people.

partly right capitalism is the private ownership of property and the means of production . It is a name created by socialists to misbrand it the way you have . A better name for it would be economic individualism (Adam Smith's definition) . The pursuit of self interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate ; the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. Yes profits are a key motivator .But that is by providing goods and services that others want ;but can't or don't want to do themselves .Adam Smith said “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” I may want the steak the butcher provides . But I don't know the first thing about raising cattle ,or slaughtering them to make the steak .So I am willing to pay the butcher for the service . It is win win. Those exchanges happen frequently in a free market "capitalist " economy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Would you describe specifically why you consider the Democratic Party "socialistic"? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I haven't characterized your opinion correctly re the Party, please change it.

In any case, please be as specific and detailed as possible.

---

No answer to my question posted above?

give me time . I also have a life to live .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

give me time . I also have a life to live .

---

OK ..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I may want the steak the butcher provides . But I don't know the first thing about raising cattle ,or slaughtering them to make the steak .So I am willing to pay the butcher for the service . It is win win. Those exchanges happen frequently in a free market "capitalist " economy .

---

But that butcher works for a huge conglomerate such as Walmart or Whole Foods or Trader Joe's or Wegman's that buys those sides of beef. He cuts out those steaks for you and gets paid by the particular conglomerate he works for. You pay the conglomerate, not the butcher.

Did you watch the debates (or the video I posted) when Trump crept around on the stage, shadowing Hillary? I was screaming at her to turn around and punch him in his fat gut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

partly right capitalism is the private ownership of property and the means of production . It is a name created by socialists to misbrand it the way you have . A better name for it would be economic individualism (Adam Smith's definition) . The pursuit of self interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate ; the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. Yes profits are a key motivator .But that is by providing goods and services that others want ;but can't or don't want to do themselves .Adam Smith said “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” I may want the steak the butcher provides . But I don't know the first thing about raising cattle ,or slaughtering them to make the steak .So I am willing to pay the butcher for the service . It is win win. Those exchanges happen frequently in a free market "capitalist " economy .

---

Nice spin Tom. Just enough truth to SOUND logical. Just like the justification for Reaganomics (AKA Trickle down and supply side) was the job creation. The problem was the application of who decided the value of labor and we both know rich guys pay peanuts to workers and are take more than the lions share of profit.

The result is plants move overseas for cheap labor, and the rich guys get a tax break out of it for creating a ghost town. Look around your own country bud.