dawei

I'm not sure I would use that definition but I'll let it stand for our conversation. If we already have centers for [let's just pick a number] 10,000 immigrants and we get 30,000... what should happen? I would think they would go to congress and let them know of the problem and their need for help. The media called it a 'manufactured crisis' for months... Now they want to call it torturous conditions. So the government was told more than 8 months ago of the problem and choose to do nothing. I would think that likely something temporary could be done but I don't have all the facts on locations, centers, etc. Thus, I don't think all the blame goes to congress but most does. You make a good distinction about the death camps. thanks. I know someone who works at Amazon and they make 3 figures out of college... but they are a big company and require lots of levels of work so I am sure some make just $10/hour. They are going to $15 minimum (if not already). I've not heard of their sweat shop conditions, quotas or bathroom breaks. But I would not be surprised if some of it is true. Seems to point back to my idea that our desire to reduce costs makes the workers pay for it in the end. Tech companies are not known for being great places to work depending on the job. I'm glad they are building in the US but such conditions should not be acceptable.

Not sure where this comes from. As one who works with data, I'd be open to reading something along this line of argument. As the population (based on last presidential vote) is more left than right, I'm not sure how one comes to a spectrum as described. I tend to hear that 98% of all media is leftist, so it seems a hard argument to say 0% representation. Maybe you mean they just don't really talk the substance of what Leftist should be talking about. I don't think this is anything new as this was the situation in previous administrations as well. Maybe you just mean that these are issues not getting attention they should be? I think 'concentration camps' is a bit extreme as detention centers were built under previous administrations due to overcrowding going on... this administration asked for a year to help deal with the problem. I think congressional help would be welcomed. The environment has been somewhat set aside but I don't expect every administration to pursue the same thing. That is going to be a function of different parties in power. Justice Ginsburg recently said that packing the court with 'left-leaning' justices would be a mistake as you need the mix and balance. I would agree and see that idea will also play out in various economic, environmental, regulatory, and other life areas. If folks don't like the mix of what gets attention, there is always going to be another time to vote. Poverty is an awful sore spot but States could choose to do some things as well. I can't recall someone explaining how to pay for it (or free education) in a way that the voting people would sufficiently agree. And while billionaires do donate lots of money, I would agree that there could likely be better uses towards the poor. I likely have limited support for what a welfare state might include because I see the problem as systemic to our way of life/culture. For example, I believe our production costs are always looking for the cheapest manufacturer and as a result we have too much produced from asian countries simply due to their suppressed wage rates. We seemingly don't want to produce too much in the US which would help jobs but raise costs. But by then not doing production in the US, we keep costs down and maybe that contributes towards thinking wages can stay down. I would support more production in the US in exchange for higher costs and wages. I read the $15 minimum wage would include those who work for tips. Now that is going to change how we spend money on a small scale. Amazon wanted to build a facility in NY but AOC helped to push them out. They will end up somewhere helping a local community with jobs but who is to blame for this part of NY which could use the jobs now not getting it? Its a hard argument that we need to help the poorer areas and then refuse jobs that would help them. This is where politics is not helping when businesses wanted to.

I agree on some level but that is what both sides try on some level. Just the DNC went further... but recall there are claims the Russian's tried to hack the RNC but just couldn't do it. I think Russia would not show their hand so easily. I think the argument that they were behind the Wikileaks info makes some sense despite WL said Russia was not the source. So far, I've taken that to mean it was not Russian who passed it along to WL. I've heard that but doesn't seem as plausible as what we're hearing about connections with other countries were possibly a part of getting eyes on the Trump campaign. Not sure what your getting at... who should they be suggesting, the DNC ? I think there would have to be both sides engaged and you seem to make the argument that Russia did not really engage with the DNC as they could of done more for them instead of against them.

So, to used this section as a discussion point: I'm not active in either level. I think folks should vote but can't blame them for not. But there should not be any games by either side to intimidate folks from voting. I also think it is in very bad taste to insult a block of voters that the candidate actually needs to win on some level. I don't mind a shift in any direction as long as it makes some sense. I personally don't see how the US would foot the bill for free education and healthcare. I could see supporting something limited like for the poorest. I wish Obamacare had first only focused on the poorest and got the insurance companies comfortable and get it working and phase in other offerings over time. In our household, my chinese wife is the commie infidel... and she loves Xi and Trump I won't mention her views on Mao

For those who don't know... Sean is the forum owner The criticism leveled here is similar to what I've said in the past... that this could be leveled to both sides. The answer isn't forcing anyone underground but to feel open to discussion. such statements sound like bullying others to silence. Like Apech, I don' like labels and never have used left vs right for myself; I don't even know several labels mentioned so far. It was amusing when several of us took the political test and found we were in the middle or even slightly left but were being labeled as 'right'. I'm not sure if that is because the shift has been further and further left and thus, center is technical 'right'.

My wife took the words out of my mouth when she asked, 'does he have Alzheimer?'

I think we need more background rather than RM editorializing insurance implications. my guess would be saving money in long run by leaving DC. I grew near DC. Left and never looked back

By saying they need to step up doesn't mean they will. It means one can point their fingers at the US all they want but in the Top 5-6 are countries whose habits may out-do any good the US can do. So I see calls for the US to go radically green as not really a great global solution. The international community will likely need to put pressure on Asia to be part of improvements. Time will tell. One child policy... this ? I would agree many bad outcomes... but Japan is naturally following as their birth rate falls to historic lows...

thanks for that video... it was short enough that I did watch it. I didn't know him nor his ideas. Maybe he tried to manipulate public opinion but not sure who he actually reached. There is a climate change thread so hesitant to write too much (maybe it gets moved if we continue)... I don't doubt climate change; it has changed before man and will after man. That life contributes to climate change should be a given too, it is inevitable part of the system. Industrialization and modernization will influence life in various ways. I don't doubt that. So influences and changes are a given. What I am personally unsure of is, whether the system can adopt and accept this in such a way that it is not purely a life driven problem of irreversible proportion. If the system alone can cause warming and cooling, then the system is already known to be irreversible. The question I am left with is: Will the system in some way try to reverse the life influences to maintain its own system equilibrium (which is sometimes in a direction of warming or cooling) or is the life influence stronger than the system. I think there are things that can be done and should be done in regards to our influences and some happen despite the rhetoric that we are not helping it... Coal comes to mind. Recently also saw that the gas emissions standards were relaxed a bit so car manufacturers don't have to hit certain levels too quickly. I'm ok with that. The US is #2 contributor of CO2 but China, India and Japan are on a faster increase over the decades. Asia really needs to step up. But they tend to make 50 year plans.

I meant they will forget the insanity they called Trump (or the deranged syndrome). I think Trump is creating a shift in a direction we should let play out and even pursue those things that are working. I suspect the RNC will try to eventually get back to their base approach but would be smart to consider what to adopt from the shift as their own on some level. They were somewhat saved from oblivion (if not just in the short run but they own where they are in the long run). I think the Dems are more so at that cross-road and the next election cycle will show where they are heading.

I agree and likely the right is using the gang of four as the 'face' of the left and that is a big characterization but a political ploy. I think Pelosi has done a decent job of trying to keep this ship from rocking too much but wonder if the timing of primaries was just bad timing to get unity underfoot. I would agree on first half and the Dems have voted the last 20 years to improve immigration reform; they just don't want it to appear like Trump did it. They should focus on the economy and well-being issues but hard to poke holes at some of the success going on. Even healthcare is a hard issue for them right now. Biden is talking Obamacare 2.0 where you can keep your doctor... that was the lie of the century and a huge black eye on the whole idea... They need something viable and digestible. I'd work on solutions for the poorest, which I think Obamacare should of started out as... and then expanded. Not sure about O and the economy; most seem better off now. Campaign finance reform. No idea what he did... but he got slapped with the largest campaign finance violation in history. That aside, maybe he did something good overall. Do you seriously think man is going to reverse nature? We've been through cooling and warming for millions of years... and it will likely cycle regardless of man. Whether it happens in 1,000 years or 5,000 years doesn't seem to much matter in some way. I think some of the above exaggerates things but I get the points. Some of the same could be said of the left... Plenty of issues on both sides. This is just a blimp in history that folks will forget in about 5-10 years. But completely agree on functional party stuff. I think both sides are trying to figure that out, whether that seems obvious or not. They need a 5-10 year plan and vision.

I would agree, and have heard even pundits say this. But as I don't follow strict political ideology, I just read what others say about such things. Not sure the first part is really true. They were a sinking ship 6-8 years ago and looking like they would drift away further... Now it the Dems scrambling to show their soul. I think that is always going to be the ebb and flow of party survival and identity. The second part also seems a little off. Morality is on both sides. It is maybe how one attempts to interject that into their position of power or is it just rhetoric. I think the left is in overdrive while the right can afford to bit (or wag) their tongue. I think it reverses when the opposite party is in power. We'll likely see the right appear in moral over-drive at some time in the future.

Your interpretations continue to be rather colorful, inaccurate hyperbole. Exactly where is the 'resoundingly sing the glories' part ? This may be the problem when one only views one side of a coin without seeing the other side and the environment the coin sits in. Is the coin in your pocket, on a sidewalk, on a road, in a machine. If one cannot see the entire breath of the context, then one is picking and choosing the discrete observations they have. This has been repeatedly pointed out but seemingly ignored. Maybe I'll put it this way: One reason that some ignore Trump [let's say the history, tweets, slurs, missteps, shoddy cabinet] is because that is a very small piece of the entire context of what is going on. Those in outrage mode only see this above and can't see the rest; this is the morality of his person. Those with strong opinions on Trump as slurring racist stuff realize it is maybe going around with others but due to his position he should not while others are ok; this is the morality of his position. Those who dislike his decision making are not used to a different tact and can't accept someone doing something they would not do; this is the morality of his power. Those who can see both sides, see the historical context of defying the person, position, and power see it began in 2016 and has only grown stronger. There is actually no real basis for it except emotional instability, from what i can see. Because nobody in their right mind would get emotional over something someone tweets, slurs, or does just because he is a big mouth, business conniving New Yorker. To get emotional over one person and not see the Millions in meltdown in their defiance is to ignore the greater context. Add in career politicians + Intelligence who purposely (and secretly) attempt to stop an administration. Add in a previous administration who appears to have played a role in looking into an opposing candidate (that is watergate). Add in making up Russian collusion, setting up campaign staff using international friendlies and claiming crimes that are completely shown false after 2 years (I won't mention the money wasted). Add in, Diane Feinstein had a chinese spy as a driver for 20 years; they immediately went to her when they found out. Why didn't they go to Trump when they first suspected staff as 'possibly' working with Russia? There is a civil and political hoax and hoodwink that went contagious to the masses in an attempt by one administration/career politicans/intelligence to try and effect another opposing candidacy... This seems to have much more plausibility than Russian Collusion because we KNOW several facts. There is a basis for suspecting foul play. Please explain where was the basis for foul play in Russian Collusion? All this context is still not complete... There could be so much more detail added in. So, in the midst of all this... one guy is the focus and problem ? Now that is a funny way to be neutral. For the record: I'm not picking on anyone here... but I think the big picture is mostly lost on the most. So... if we want to play, pin the tail on the donkey/ass... we can do that the rest of our lives. Let's pin it on Trump and then work our way through the house, senate, politicians, and intelligence community. We'll need several years to do it. And in the end realize: They are all pretty much doing the same thing...

The criticism is all personal and not policy. So your laughing about who he is and the way you see him interact in dealings. You've made no mention of what he has actually done in regards to policy... Even Don Lemon, a CNN anti-Trumper said that you have to give Trump credit as the only president who has seriously tried to keep his campaign promises. That is not the description of a con man. I get what you mean by it though... and in his world of business transactions, it is a kind of dog eat dog way. He has used some of that in his interactions on the political level. Surprisingly it is successful more than some might of thought, and at times ill timed and badly carried out. But that is his method of achieving policy outcomes. Another thing to consider: He rarely throws the first punch. If you lined up all his comments across two years, who started each battle? That would be a very neutral, no horse or dog idea to consider. So many people have pointed this out without anyone really caring. Recently I posted: AOC said: "Why do people think they can mess with Bronx women without getting roasted?" But when another New Yorker acts that way... he is racist ? Folks don't seem to accept someone who is not like them, and does things they would not do, and say things you would not say... that is Politics at large and New Yorker's for sure. Welcome to the colorful world of the US

Kamal Harris told Trump to 'go back to where he came from'... So we add Kamal Harris to the racist ranks? Oh, She was already called out for playing race cards against Biden... Then her campaign got livid over suggestions that her mother as Indian and father as Jamaican makes her not an African American as she has purportedly trying to portray herself over her lifetime. The subtlety seems to be she is black... just as you can be black latino. Folks were called racist for even asking "is this true?" It seems anyone who says anything against anyone can be called racist nowadays... it is thrown around so much it has lost its real meaning. And a thousand more examples could be given. Time to loosen up the wax in the ears and let folks be who they are. IF we treated everyone equally like that, then where would be the problem...

I don't think it has to do with deliverance but correction. And I would not use 'leadership' because it gets twisted into a moral imperative when some just see it for policy issues. To talk about 'benefiting the country' is premature. There should not be an expectation of any president for quick fixes. What we should hope for is no quick failures that thoroughly disturb markets and lifestyles... think Obamacare... a selective fix with disastrous implications to the rest. Again, I say wait 50 years. I personally don't care if my quality of life has improved because that is again a short-term view for the most part. My mental outlook is not dependent on a president's personal life or past. I didn't care about the past of any president... nor what they did during their tenure (Clinton). I don't care about the past of the hundreds of congressmen, senators, etc that have done the same if not worse. That is a 'wash' to me; both sides will have this and that will never end. So it will always be a non-issue to me, and that seems fair to all politicians on both sides if I treat them all equally that way. In case an extreme example gets put to me.. likely if Epstein were to try to run for office, I'd likely not be comfortable with that... but you'd never see me protesting. That's a waste of time for me. If I had a chance to vote, I know how I would vote. Should he have a second term? I tend to think so in order to continue some of the changes but there are a few big ones that I think the left will completely sink if in place. I think if folks allowed it to play out and see where it goes, there are some chances for something better than what we've seen in the last 40 years. I have never felt any president should stop what they are doing as I think we have to give them the benefit of letting their idea play out over a few years. We can see later whether that worked out or need to try something else.

I hear you... but let's realize that any system needs to be systematic with checks and controls. I think parts of what you say would work in the sense that: If you give them no reason to hide (ie: let them work), they will feel less the need to hide. The real challenge is in enforcement in the end: Who oversees it all to ensure compliance? e-Verify will be used by those who have legals; employers will give I-9s to legals. So there would need to be a way to regulate businesses from hiring undocumented and we should ensure they are paying taxes (and not loving off the state). I would be for something sensible but enforcement is the problem, IMO. Let's take a hypothetical on 'no wall'. Let's say 11 million come across the border... oh crap, that is reality in terms of 11 million illegals in the US. Did you know that only 7 states have a population larger than 11 million ? 11 million makes up the 12 smallest states/district... then it is the next 6 states to pass 11 million again. So two sets of that is almost half the US. When does the 'no wall' close ?

Memories are very short... Obama period has pictures of overcrowding and stories of illegal's dying... nobody cared. They put folks in cages and they greatly expanded the ability to keep folks cuz it was needed... They deported how many ? Biden is ducking left and right on this issue now... but Now the left care about illegals? No, this is nothing about caring. This is folks nature showing its worse side: Pretending to care is a smoke screen to continue the revolt. Real and True caring would be meeting to pass a bill to fix the problems their own laws created.

I would give you that it is not phony which means not genuine. It is your opinion. I just think his point is that your refrain of being a neutral observer comes laced with incomplete picture, regardless of not having a dog in the fight. For example, I would argue that your point of " displays habitually the hallmarks of someone unfit for office" describes most of congress. There is a failure to do their job and have decided to use their position to just intentional 'not play ball'. Although politicians are regionally voted in, they do some very unseemly unpopular things from a national point of view. That's a bit of an awkward situation but it is likely the most reasonable way to attempt to represent states. Your comments are laced with optimist critic... "all thats wrong will finally be put right"... Who is saying that? Your interpretation seems again, inaccurate. Every administration tries to 'fix' what they see as broken but some things are more systemic to human psychology than politics; some are more indicative of emotion than rationality. Europe likely goes through these 'reminders' in a more uncivil and upheaval way (has seen in the last few years), so it is nothing to new except to the US to face the mirror. So Obama is then an abject failure? His division, lies, and failures of policy lead to a red carpet of Trumpism. I think history will have more fodder as more is revealed too. Division is almost always a given. The difference seems to me to be the emotional health of the side one takes. And what we see is a very unhealthy side in the left (not 100% but as a matter of the point of division). The left turned their back before the election, during and after, and ever since. Add in congress and the media. Trump did not divide the country as these people were ALREADY on the left and have been most of their life. If they were left all their life, then what changed ? Trump being president ? Please... their emotional instability raised its head when faced with something they are not comfortable with. Instead of taking a rational approach to discuss the disagreements, to talk about how to improve things, they decided a revolt was easier. The left united in revolt. That is an intentional and willful division to destabilize and weaken the US. They are not traitors but I would say it is a picture of malcontent gone in an ugly direction. So, intentional revolts, turning one's back in unity for two years, make up stories and lies, playing the victim for two years is not a funny way of going about it either ? Again, you can focus on ONE who seems unfit and then ignore the millions who are irrational... the congress who is ignoring their job. This is not to say that Trump+Admin has been a bed of roses. Tons of missteps, slurs, cabinet picks that were shoddy, etc. But imagine an underbelly of those within the political realm+intelligence who have their mind set against the incoming administration. Any why ? Because their candidate lost ? My wife was talking to a friend who said she hated Trump. My wife asked why... she could not come up with a single reason. When pressed what she actually knew about Trump, she said she knew nothing... This reminds me of 5 year old children in protests holding signs degrading their president... Who in the world would force a child to do that? That seems rather cruel on some level to put into a child's mind your own hatred for something and about something they cannot have any concept of... yet, they will go around school with this idea that Trump is evil, etc. That's where the left has taken it. Nobody seems to care about the actions like this and the effect it has on future generations to be able to be a neutral observer.

(DEC 2015) (APRIL 2017) How well did LG actually know Trump in 2015 vs 2017, and based on what? One would have to ask LG... but it seems his tune changed after seeing policy level issues. Many people changed their tune about Trump. I might not look to politicians, Hollywood and media as a neutral source though. That's how one man characterizes another person. It's not so much right vs wrong but simply his interpretation of a very openly minded speaking person... which may be speaking he is not accustomed to... not sure. I was thinking today about why some use the characterizations they do about what another is doing... and it seemed to me it is possible that it is not the speaker who is actually doing it but the listener deciding that the speaker is doing it. Like, why does CNN now suddenly want to say Trump is racist because he is saying this to folks 'of color'... when did 'of color' suddenly because the new word of the day? Because AOC used it against Pelosi... and now the media, instead of jumping on AOC for using the 'race card' (as a few did do), they realize they can use the phrase against anyone White saying anything negative to someone 'of color'. This type of stuff happens x 1,000,000... and it is just games being played. Here was one that seems rather crazy for the blow-up the media and left screamed about: So a person of color called out Kamala Harris's ethnicity roots as potentially insincere representation of what she seems to want to say she is (?). Don Jr retweeted it and said, "Is this true? wow" ... but by the nights end, he pulled the tweet due to the backlash. Bernie Sander's saying, "Donald Trump Jr. is a racist too". And the 2020 candidates followed suit with the outlandish yelling and screaming about it all. So now, anyone who says anything against a person 'of color', even if just a question, is a racist... that is where the left has taken such things... Wildly irrational in my mind. I will add.. that the one person I like on the left did not say anything (from what I can find) about Don Jr... but she did slam Kamal Harris for falsely accusing Biden of being a racist. That seemed much more rational overall. The problem with the candidates that I see is that they think the more irrational you yell and scream and make a hisy fit, the more likely folks will remember you and hopefully vote for you. The rational ones are going to get trampled on.

You forgot the sagging neck... unless he simply tucked it under the shirt Anyways, he looks better and with a little sun. Maybe I'm not following up that is 'fake' Joe ? Trump could stand to lose some weight... and likely easily could if he put the midnight cheeseburgers down

RR has two nagging issues with me... although I do feel he has somehow missed the downhill moguls for the most part: 1. His comment on wearing a wire is divided on whether he was serious or not. I have tended to say he was not... 2. Why would Comey keep saying that he knew if he was fired a special council would be appointed... RR appointed that... So was there friendly backdoor chatter that we still don't know about. he's done a good job of CYA so far.

You may need to give examples but I see this as a real challenge on some level... meaning, folks join an administration to further its goals (dare we say campaign promises which are normally empty and rarely really kept or meant in the first place). And you have traditional politicians who don't want to rock the boat because they only know one size boat and how to survive on it. I think a very apt idea is: If you can't support the program, you should leave. That may be unfair to career politicians... but if you are remaining, then a neutral person would work in any administration to further their departments missions, and not be leakers, naysayers, etc. Maybe that sounds like an ideal political world but I think the current environment is a kind of test of it.

I think the 2016 election showed symptoms of what was going on around the US... and likely not just the immediate past... but lots of folks feed up on politics/politicians/division/false promises and failed attempts at hope, etc. I think Trump was voted in as a disruption to all of this; a reset, a reboot, a re-alignment of lost issues over decades of bad decision making domestically and abroad. Anyone paying attention to life in general for the last 40 years has heard the name Trump and knows what he is generally like and about. In fact, many who now malign him used to be friendly with him. Did he change or did folks change? Seems an easy call. Folks showed themselves generally fake in the end and would likely suggest that Trumps front and center assault style in business was simply moved from real estate mongol to WH menace ? That still mis-understands the outcomes we see. People have turned their back; congress has turned its back; media has turned its back... Why ? Just because of One person ? No... because he has revealed the weakness in getting comfortable in disastrous deals; he has up-ended the train wreck of policies that got us into bad trade deals as well. He has called BS on 40 years of domestic and foreign policy that everyone was just sipping pool side drinks from... thinking that as long as I can just sit and sip, this is the 'good life'... Trump woke up the fantasy that folks in the US have slumbered through in a dream like state. Now that they are awake, instead of seeing re-building and re-fashioning, they can only see the walls come tumbling down. The walls of the imaginary comfort called political blindness of the people. This is a reboot going on. Long over due. Wait 50 years and there will be a lot said about this... how the US re-invented themselves in the modern era of global influence without losing their roots. That's my opinion.

that is one of the most non-neutral things I've ever read... your going to guarantee 100% across the world that there is no love for someone such as you say... I might venture to say, parenting reveals unconditional love in a way that may be hard for others to comprehend. And children learn that too... when thinking of their parents (despite their flaws). Love can look beyond opinion at times. Being able to see it on both sides is neutral. Seeing the scales of One vs One million is hard to also not see objectively. So I find it humorous when the million can pounce on the One but the Million don't see the irony in their meltdown.