TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Kimmio, I so happy to see you are starting to use sources. Now you have to learn there are good ones and bad ones. If you have checked elelction spending for the last 30 years or so from good sources, you would have learned the real figures are way over the ones you found. And you would have learned that Obama did not get elected on pennies from Sunday Schools - or so bloggers.
The Guardian is still a good source (though not so good as it used to be). And, on this topic, the NY Times and the Wall St. Journal joins it to show that election costs (also for obama) are in the billions. And it gets worse because that's only the declared part. The owners of TV stations, for example, are extremely wealthy people with stakes in the election. It's easy for them to give 'special discount rates' for the man or woman of their choice.
And they all want Hillary. It's not an accident that she and hubby have some #200.000,000 (or more) in their private bank accounts. This comes from gifts, speaking fees, deposits offshore, etc.... And the people who give those gifts expect something more.
Right now, Hillary is riding on the biggest presidential campaign budget ever. Trump has, perhaps, 1% of what she has.
Get used to it. American 'democracy' has for many years been a sinkhole of corruption. The same has commonly been true of democracy in Canada.
And that's why it doesn't matter who wins in the U.S. If Clinton wins, it's because she and almost all the rest of her party has been bought. If Trump wins? Most of the Republicans in Congress have been bought by much the same people. There's no way Trump can win any real power.

And you keep speaking of the American obligation to spread democracy and to save people from cruel dictators. Read some history.
Over a century ago, the U.S. conquered, among others, Haiti, Cuba and The Phillipines. Until then, they were colonies of those cruel spaniards.) The Phillipines war was particularly terrible since the natives were tribal peoples who had no modern weapons.
That's also where the U.S. developed the 'waterboarding' torture. - Just about every army I have ever heard of uses torture - and always has.

The US promptly established dictatorships under notably cruel dictators in all three. When, fifty years later, Cubans dumped their dictator, the U.S. was furious at Cuba's insolence. It's dictator in Haiti lasted almost a century when Haiti revolted, and elected a leader. When they did, the U.S. said this could not be tolerated. Eventually, they overthrew the elected president and set up a hand-picked government (really a dictatorship, again.) And what they called the overthrew was a "peacekeeping" action which gutless Canada took part in.

The Phillipines were under an American dictator until the end of 1941. Then, from 1945, it was back to dictators - all of them buddies of the U.S. (The American invasion of The Phillipines was praised by Rudyard Kipling in a remarkably racist poem, The White Man's Burden. Check it out on the web.

The U.S. has supported dictatorships and murderous regimes all over the world. The U.S. doesn't fight these curses. It creates them.
We are now undergoiing climate change. Yes. We are. The oil industry wants no action on. Two of Hillary's biggest backers are the Koch brothers, the biggest oilmen in the U.S.
Gee. Do you think Hillary will come to grips with climate change? (The Koch brothers say it isn't happening. Nothing to worry about.)
 
In a system as fractured as the US system, where power is often shared between parties and stalemate is the frequent result, it's difficult sometimes to know who to blame for what. Certainly, it's arguable that during Obama's presidency the lives of African American's haven't improved measurably. Whether that's the fault of Obama or the fault of the Congress (which has been controlled by the Republicans for most of Obama's term) is an open question. One could argue that, at least symbolically, the election of a black president has given the black community a sense of pride or hope, and symbolism isn't nothing. I do think that the systemic discrimination against African Americans in the US is going to be difficult for either party or any president to overcome and it will take a long time. Simply electing a black president doesn't really change the system.


Perhaps asking whether it was the Democrat President or the Republican Congress is unfair to both. Perhaps there is enough blame to go around for all. I can recall some talking heads somewhere comment that Obama isn't really in a sense a black man at all - that is to say that at least some African-Americans don't accept him as such. I think it's fair to say that since he is the power elite at least a few black Americans tend to disown him.

revsdd said:
Probably the vast majority according to the polls. Which perhaps suggests that the Democrats aren't perceived as so bad by the African American community. It's difficult (and some would say inappropriate) for you or I as white people (and not American) to try to get into the heads of African Americans, and somewhat paternalistic to tell African Americans what a huge mistake they've been making voting for the Democrats all these years.

Regarding the polls, yes it certainly seems that way. Paternalistic to tell African-Americans that they've made a huge mistake? Yes, maybe. Not so paternalistic perhaps to share if some African Americans themselves are beginning to feel that way.

revsdd said:
No. It really wasn't "bold" to appear before an almost completely white audience in a largely white community and ask blacks to vote for him. That's called politics. "Bold" would have been to appear before the NAACP or some other African American group, make the same appeal, offer the arguments and policy proposals that he feels makes him a better choice for African Americans and then take questions. That would have been "bold." That's what he didn't do.

I did notice the overwhelming whiteness of his audience. Nevertheless, I still consider his move to be bold.
 
Oh, Jae, it's over. Trump is not going to win. And he's as crooked as the rest. We live in a thoroughly unChristian world - and that most definitely includes all the "Christian" parts of it.
And all the churches do is to sing choruses of "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam."
 
To be honest I am not convinced that Trump WANTS to win (though he certainly does not want to lose). I suspect he started this as a publicity plan and that it got out of control.

Politics is the art of the possible and Trump's public persona is that he needs to be in charge. I don't think he wants the limits that are actually part of Presidential power and authority.
 
I almost always form opinions from sources, Graeme. Sometimes I don't know where all the tidbits originally came from that shaped my opinion. I posted from two independent community sources and Slate - an alternative source, to back up my opinion. Thanks for schooling me about sources. Yes, over the last 30 years elections were heavily funded by big money donors. Including Obama - but I'd like to see evidence from you that Obama's flip from his platform position on any issue was actually bought and paid for - that he let them buy him. He didn't sign off on keystone although he was lobbied, he didn't change the estate tax, although he was lobbied, he made efforts toward some of the fair tax measures he was lobbied on but was blocked...so in which areas were rich folks able to make him sell out his integrity? And in which cases were they actually fair minded philanthropists who believed in what he was doing? That's the angle I want to look at because I believe he did start with integrity and somewhere either compromised or got screwed ...rather than having sinister intentions from the start. You make a lot of assumptions without backing them up with sources then blame me for basing my opinions on feelings...check yourself.

What I was pointing out was that the Internet changed the game somewhat for Obama. Yes, his win did have a lot to do with the effectiveness of reaching young people and minority voters. And that costs not nearly as much as traditional campaigning. Word can spread quickly and cheaply and energized young people know how to do it. Following that example Bernie was able to mobilize young voters - that's how he got so far with small donations from a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
Oh, Jae, it's over. Trump is not going to win. And he's as crooked as the rest. We live in a thoroughly unChristian world - and that most definitely includes all the "Christian" parts of it.
And all the churches do is to sing choruses of "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam."

We shall see. I'm still holding to my prediction that Trump will be the next President.
 
You do quite a bit of skilled trolling too, chansen. Like, bringing me into the discussion, baiting me for a reaction by saying I live to react - which I just did. And it wouldn't matter if I responded to a false accusation, or to a point made that I disagree with. It's all been set up as a "Kimmio reaction" so the next time I say anything, you got me. You're good.

Interestingly, I ignored jae's latest posts about Trump and Louisiana and Trump "reaching out" to blacks. It's crap.


But Jae believes it is not crap. Interesting program on CBC today about microbes affecting peoples thoughts, minds, etc.

Perhaps Jae has a bug and doesn't know it ... wee things can screw up trolling ... very progressive increase of the un conscience ...
 
To be honest I am not convinced that Trump WANTS to win (though he certainly does not want to lose). I suspect he started this as a publicity plan and that it got out of control.

Politics is the art of the possible and Trump's public persona is that he needs to be in charge. I don't think he wants the limits that are actually part of Presidential power and authority.


Control mechanisms? Could this be an incarnation of avarice?
 
kimmio - Obama didn't approve the pipeline. That was sweet of him. But he did set up a war in Syria. He did pay and equip Jihadists to fight it. He is bombing and starving the impoverished and almost defenceless people of Yemen. He did nove missile sites up to the Russian border. He has kept Iraq under a puppet government to protect the oil inidustry. And you can bet that Hillary will put an end to Obamacare.
He continues sanctions on Cuba though they were illegal from the day the U.S. first imposed them 50 years ago. He has drone bombed innocent people in more countries than we know about. He has used the Seals as murder squads - as, for example, to kill an environmentalist in Guatemala. He is currently supporting a corrupt and possibly illegal government in Brazil. He is supporting a murderous dictator in The Phillipines. His best buddy in the middle east is a dictator with one of the harshest and most murderous regimes in the world (Saudi).
Oh, I know. This was all done in secret, and he never knew aboout it.
Then you admit he had a huge campaign budget (which you had early denied -but then in the same sentence say he didn't.
Then you say he had no bad intentions at the start (in your mysterious way, you even know what he was thinking 8 years ago). Then you say he might have been compromised.

Oh, and Hitler just loved dogs. Could you tell us some tales about what a sweetheart Hitler was?

JAE - I have to presume you see some Christian principle in Trump. Can you tell us what it is?
 
kimmio - Obama didn't approve the pipeline. That was sweet of him. But he did set up a war in Syria. He did pay and equip Jihadists to fight it. He is bombing and starving the impoverished and almost defenceless people of Yemen. He did nove missile sites up to the Russian border. He has kept Iraq under a puppet government to protect the oil inidustry. And you can bet that Hillary will put an end to Obamacare.
He continues sanctions on Cuba though they were illegal from the day the U.S. first imposed them 50 years ago. He has drone bombed innocent people in more countries than we know about. He has used the Seals as murder squads - as, for example, to kill an environmentalist in Guatemala. He is currently supporting a corrupt and possibly illegal government in Brazil. He is supporting a murderous dictator in The Phillipines. His best buddy in the middle east is a dictator with one of the harshest and most murderous regimes in the world (Saudi).
Oh, I know. This was all done in secret, and he never knew aboout it.
Then you admit he had a huge campaign budget (which you had early denied -but then in the same sentence say he didn't.
Then you say he had no bad intentions at the start (in your mysterious way, you even know what he was thinking 8 years ago). Then you say he might have been compromised.

Oh, and Hitler just loved dogs. Could you tell us some tales about what a sweetheart Hitler was?

JAE - I have to presume you see some Christian principle in Trump. Can you tell us what it is?

There's a tough one for a soft Christian ... a wilting stoic? Kind 'a like Eros in a cold spot?
 
Super PACS - I don't understand them but are they not lobby groups that buy ads and such rather than giving directly to a candidate? Anyway yes, I went looking and found Obama had a large campaign budget. He also had a successful internet campaign if you're willing to acknowledge the millenials and minority increase in voters for Obama who were recruited that way.

I think Obama thought he could make change and found himself headlong in the quicksand that is Washington. For a number of reasons, not the least of which was the smear campaign over the resentment that he was black. Powerful people, including Trump, began his character assassination right from the start by going as low as to question where he was born and continue the conspiracy after Obama, like no one before him, went to great lengths to prove his citizenship. Flat out racism I am sure impeded his ability to get good things done and caused him be maligned by those who hated the very idea of a black president and decided he was not valid - and I wonder if you might follow that lead to find out where Obama was screwed into making compromises he may never have wanted to make? Are you willing to start there instead of the opposite angle? Or is that just a half baked notion - that Obama started with integrity and good intentions? You are being prosecutor, judge and jury of Obama with no direct evidence. I am trying to defend him with just as little evidence. I suspect Obama is not the villain in chief you make him out to be, entirely.

Bernie would've found himself in the same quicksand. So would Jill Stein or Gary Johnson if they hypothetically ever got close to the Whitehouse.
 
Last edited:
Oh. Perhaps. Yes, perhaps is not ENTIRELY a villain in chief.
As I said, Hitler loved dogs. Nero was a violinist. Henry VIII was a devout Anglican.
I think it's important to emphasize the good side of people. Don't you?
 
Oh. Perhaps. Yes, perhaps is not ENTIRELY a villain in chief.
As I said, Hitler loved dogs. Nero was a violinist. Henry VIII was a devout Anglican.
I think it's important to emphasize the good side of people. Don't you?
Hitler had a plan for his Aryan nation, his "perfect race". Do you believe Obama had a sinister plan going in? I don't. I just don't. If you can find evidence, show me.
 
Oh. Perhaps. Yes, perhaps is not ENTIRELY a villain in chief.
As I said, Hitler loved dogs. Nero was a violinist. Henry VIII was a devout Anglican.
I think it's important to emphasize the good side of people. Don't you?

Absolutely. I believe we are all created in the image of God. We should be able to see some good in everyone. If we can't, perhaps that tells us something about our vision.
 
Jae; Okay. tell me the good side of Hitlery (and Nero and Henry Viii). And if we see good in all people, how come we accept the idea of most of them going to hell?

Kimmio - You need evidence of a sinister plan? Drones aren't good enough? equipping ISIS isn't good enough? The murder of that woman in Guatemala by special ops isn't good enough? Fostering a war in Syria with massive deaths and millions of refugees isn't good enough? Accepting contributions (bribes) from billionaires isn't good enough? Continuing sanctions on Cuba isn't good enough? Bombing and starving the people of Yemen isn't good enough? He continued exactly the policies of Bush - right from the start. He must have been seduced right after taking the oath of office.
 

I can recall some talking heads somewhere comment that Obama isn't really in a sense a black man at all - that is to say that at least some African-Americans don't accept him as such. I think it's fair to say that since he is the power elite at least a few black Americans tend to disown him.

Thinking back to before Obama was elected I remember some African American people/groups arguing that Obama had been isolated from the black American experience because he wasn't a descendant of slaves. There seemed to be a sense that, lacking the family baggage that slavery left behind, Obama was, in a way, privileged. Of course, whites generally didn't make that distinction and to white people Obama was just a black president.
 
re nationalized health care - the U.S. doesn't have it. Never did. All health care is private. Even Obama care is private. The government in no way operates it. All it does is give away huge profits to insurance companies to provde the world's most expensive health insurance. EVen at that, it's not likely to survive long. The major insurance companies are breaking out of it. Big business sees it as an intrusion on its right to control everything.
 
Jae; Okay. tell me the good side of Hitlery (and Nero and Henry Viii). And if we see good in all people, how come we accept the idea of most of them going to hell?

Tell you the good side Graeme? You yourself wrote, "Hitler loved dogs. Nero was a violinist. Henry VIII was a devout Anglican."

As for people going to Hell, I do not know how many will go there. You suggest, "most," which may be the case. The Bible doesn't tell us. What it does say is that salvation is available to one and all.
 
Back
Top