CNN has lost all credibility

[Ginger]

Fellas! I hate to break this to you, but the Clintons, Trump, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Gore....pick one.....none of them would piss on you if you were on fire...unless they REALLY needed your vote....and then ...only maybe.

The sad reality of the situation is that the kind of alpha male that can lead a country isn't going to be a very nice person. If he had a conscience, it would drive him either to madness or suicide. Since a kind and gentle POTUS is out of the question, I'll settle for an effective one. Trump seems to be that in spades. His allegiance seems to be to himself and the United States, rather than to a political party.

To date, this man is pretty much my dream POTUS. I devoutly hope that he continues on as he has started.

[Steadmund Brand]

ummm-no its not fair and not even close to being a comparable situation and you dam well know it.




huh? when who etc? please elaborate

Is it....you are the one who brought up age... if you were to have said an intern in the oval office fine... but YOU BROUGHT UP AGE

well, let us start with
Ivana Trump, Jill Harth ,Temple Taggart McDowell, Karena Virginia, Mindy McGillivray, Cathy Heller, Kristin Anderson,Jessica Leeds, Ninni Laaksonen, Cassandra Searles... I could go on... if you would like... but there is no point because I'm sure you will say it's all "fake news" which I am sure some are, no doubt...as with Clinton's accusers....some I'm sure are fake, but not all....

Look..I am just pointing out facts...not taking sides... if you read what I have said before...Do I think all these claims are true... NOT A CHANCE...but if you notice I said "there have been SEVERAL charges against Trump as well"

Steadmund Brand

[Patrick S]

ummm-no its not fair and not even close to being a comparable situation and you dam well know it.



huh? when who etc? please elaborate

Fellas! I hate to break this to you, but the Clintons, Trump, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Gore....pick one.....none of them would piss on you if you were on fire...unless they REALLY needed your vote....and then ...only maybe.

More to the point: Clinton is a dirtbag...that doesn't mean Trump isn't. Clinton was/is a sexual predator. That doesn't make Trump Mother Teresa. Who is worse? Who knows? Everyone listed above is a professional liar. They have sketchy principals, no ethics, and their ambition overpowers any empathy, compassion, or sincerity that may still exist within their hollow shells of humanity. Let's call it a tie!

I discovered long ago that when you advocate for a politician you'll usually end up being made an ass of.

[Abby Normal]

Well to be fair then.... Trump's wife is about half his age....

and there have been SEVERAL charges against Trump as well, including sexual assault and rape that he has paid off... What does that make him?

Steadmund Brand

Well to be fair then.... Trump's wife is about half his age....

ummm-no its not fair and not even close to being a comparable situation and you dam well know it.

and there have been SEVERAL charges against Trump as well, including sexual assault and rape that he has paid off...

huh? when who etc? please elaborate

[Patrick S]

A government is either socialist or it's not. The countries you've mentioned are all based on capitalist economies.

But, Harry! The Good Michael (the OP) didn't say anything about governments. What he said was this: "Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail."

The nations I listed - whether they are card carrying members of the Planet Earth Socialist Governments Club or not - preside over the most socialist economies/societies in the world and have for decades, because the list is fairly unchanged from when I was in school.

In terms of socialist nations/economies/societies, these ARE some of the most successful. And that's why we Republicans hate them so much! We used to hate China but they're too capitalist now (although still authoritarian!). We used to hate Russia back when they were the USSR but now they're rigging elections for us, so they're not so bad. Besides, they're broke, and neither socialist nor successful...so....they don't get us so riled up.

[Harry D]

Really? I guess economists around the world have it all wrong. Because they think that - from an economic perspective - those countries are some of the most socialist in the world.

Or.....maybe you're wrong. I guess we'll never know.

A government is either socialist or it's not. The countries you've mentioned are all based on capitalist economies.

[John G]

True. Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail. It's sickening how much hatred they have and I attribute some of that to them not getting out much and seeing the world. They fear the world to be honest.

Mike

Germany's deeply conservative Iron Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck, is widely regarded as creating the world's first welfare state in the 19th century, as ironic as that might seem to some. Doesn't this demonstrate that ideological definitions are no where near as clear cut as the modern Republican Party appear to believe?

[Patrick S]

None of those countries are socialist.

Really? I guess economists around the world have it all wrong. Because they think that - from an economic perspective - those countries are some of the most socialist in the world.

Or.....maybe you're wrong. I guess we'll never know.

[Steadmund Brand]

While in no way would I defend what Trump said and it was deplorable, Bill Clintons actions are much worse. Having sex with an intern half his age in the oval office and then lying about it??? yechhh!

but even much worse is the sexual abuse charges. He had to settle on a rape charge and then all the other claims. Total slimeball.

Well to be fair then.... Trump's wife is about half his age....

and there have been SEVERAL charges against Trump as well, including sexual assault and rape that he has paid off... What does that make him?

Steadmund Brand

[Harry D]

None of those countries are socialist.

[Patrick S]

True. Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail. It's sickening how much hatred they have and I attribute some of that to them not getting out much and seeing the world. They fear the world to be honest.

Mike

Which socialist nations do Republicans hate and wish failure upon? Denmark? Man. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Old Billy Shakes was balls on when he said there was something rotten there! And that something is socialism! When I go to the secret conservative Republican meetings, they're railing against Denmark, man. All the time! Like.....for hours on end!

Oh! Oh! Finland? You bet! Drives 'em crazy how happy the Fins are! We'll be lucky if they don't introduce some neurotoxin into their water just to take 'em down a peg or two!

The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada? Jesus! Don't get me started on those four! What a bunch of troublemakers! Me and my neo-con, alt-right bastard buddies wish nothing but horrible things upon them, their children, and all future generations! Why? Two words: Social. Ism.

We haven't really gotten around to Ireland, Belgium, and New Zealand yet. But, I know it's only a matter of time! The unmitigated gall of THOSE three! Let me tell YOU! We won't forget about them, no siree-bob!

[Svensson]

Anyways, didn't I mention ”Happy Easter" to everyone?

[Abby Normal]

I didn't claim the 4% unemployment rate was incorrect, but I can see how my wording made it look that way. The current unemployment rate is way wrong but the 1990's rate was probably roughly correct. My point about the unemployment rate under Clinton was that it was due to Republican Congress as much, if not more, than President Clinton.

There was no budget surplus. The US government debt went up every year under Clinton. It's just certain debts are not included in the yearly Federal Deficit accounts. It was an accounting trick. Having said all that under Clinton and a right wing Congress the US budget deficit did vastly improve. The deficit was far less than under most modern Presidents. I think we can both agree on this.

I am unsure of the workplace rules on sleeping with an intern. Perhaps I was wrong to say most mid level managers would get sacked for doing so. However, I think many mid level managers would be sacked for such an act. Im fairly certain it's not a great career move for either party. The risk of being sacked for such an act must be fairly high.

You call what Trump said as a description of sexual assault. It's not, or at least it's complicated. Trump specifically said they "let" him do it, it's consensual; just as Lewinsky "let" Clinton do whatever he did to her. What both men did and described runs huge risks. Depending on how well each man judges the "come on signals" both acts could end up with either man imprisoned, or having a fantastic sexual experience.

While in no way would I defend what Trump said and it was deplorable, Bill Clintons actions are much worse. Having sex with an intern half his age in the oval office and then lying about it??? yechhh!

but even much worse is the sexual abuse charges. He had to settle on a rape charge and then all the other claims. Total slimeball.

[The Good Michael]

Republicans would love Germany to fail (however you would measure "failure") or at least take some cheap pot-shots like they owe NATO money (they don't) or they manipulate their currency to hurt the US economy (they don't and they can;t, even if they wanted to).

True. Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail. It's sickening how much hatred they have and I attribute some of that to them not getting out much and seeing the world. They fear the world to be honest.

Mike

[jason_c]

I am absolutely willing to give congress some credit in this if the process to get there can show that they had a positive influence on the outcome..

The problem is, you have basically killed off any such discussion by claiming that there was no budget surplus and that the unemployment rate of 4% was not correct.

This leads me to the wider problem that for any rational discussion, certain facts, and the authority on the facts need to be agreed on. If there is no consensus on that on such basic principles, then there is no point to discuss anything at all.

And this is probably the sad state of american politics now. We used to be warned not to discuss politics in places like China, Vietnam, Turkey or South Africa (Apartheid days). Now it seems that we can add the US to that list as well. It's just too toxic.




Not a good example. There is nothing that would stop a president or a manager to have a relationship with anyone on his staff. you are probably confusing this with a Teacher/Pupil relationship.

I'm also not defending Clinton for lying under oath but we need to keep things in perspective:

One lied under oath about a consensual relationship.
Another described his Sexual Assault MO in a secret Audio tape.

I didn't claim the 4% unemployment rate was incorrect, but I can see how my wording made it look that way. The current unemployment rate is way wrong but the 1990's rate was probably roughly correct. My point about the unemployment rate under Clinton was that it was due to Republican Congress as much, if not more, than President Clinton.

There was no budget surplus. The US government debt went up every year under Clinton. It's just certain debts are not included in the yearly Federal Deficit accounts. It was an accounting trick. Having said all that under Clinton and a right wing Congress the US budget deficit did vastly improve. The deficit was far less than under most modern Presidents. I think we can both agree on this.

I am unsure of the workplace rules on sleeping with an intern. Perhaps I was wrong to say most mid level managers would get sacked for doing so. However, I think many mid level managers would be sacked for such an act. Im fairly certain it's not a great career move for either party. The risk of being sacked for such an act must be fairly high.

You call what Trump said as a description of sexual assault. It's not, or at least it's complicated. Trump specifically said they "let" him do it, it's consensual; just as Lewinsky "let" Clinton do whatever he did to her. What both men did and described runs huge risks. Depending on how well each man judges the "come on signals" both acts could end up with either man imprisoned, or having a fantastic sexual experience.