Slightly OT
When I see his mug shot here, I want to give him a good slap and I'm not at all a violent person. But he's so smug, and such a horrible human being, I can't help feeling this way.
share[deleted]
Gosh, do you feel that way about rap singers who talk about pu@@y and call women b^tches and "hoes"?
Interesting that the OP wants to slap the President. Verrry interesting considering if someone expressed the same desire when looking at our last President they'd be labeled a racist, bigot, hater, evil, probably in the KKK....ad nauseum.
Pres Trump IS SMUG? Did you ever get a good look at the self satisfied smug look on Pres. Obama's face the last eight years?
It's TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. Can't the left EVER lose gracefully? Your candidate can't always win.
[deleted]
NOBODY wanted to punch him?? Well since you are living in the UK , I must say that you are NOT really aware of what conservatives thought of Obama's Marxist philosophy.
Pres. Obama did a lot to divide America on racial lines, every chance that he got. But you'd have to be living here to be aware of that.
I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. But when he declared that he wanted to " radically transform America" it sent a shiver down my spine. Sure, we can always use improvements. But NO WAY was Barack Obama wiser than the men who created our Constitution. I did NOT want my country "transformed" by a Marxist. If he wanted to transform a country, he was welcome to go back to his daddy's home in Africa and transform THEM!
Truth is, I never really liked Donald Trump. But if he was the only chance to keep that criminal creep Hillary Clinton OUT of the White House, I was all for him. The woman is walking, talking evil in a pantsuit. I loathe her and all she stands for.
[deleted]
Well I would have to agree with you! We didn't have much of a choice this election! I was at a loss to decide what to do, as most voters were.
Hillary Clinton has a history of a lot more than "misdemeanors". But according to the rabid feminists in our country, her "vagina" should have trumped (no pun intended) her negatives. The woman is crooked and a self serving liar, through and through, and she rode Bill Clinton's coattails to power. She sickens me. Feminists adore her. But she used a man to get to power. So she doesn't exactly impress me.
But truthfully, Trump never thrilled me either! He always seemed like an ego-centric businessman. But I feared and loathed Hillary's left wing agenda so much, I voted for Trump.
All I can do is hope and pray that Pres. Trump has the country's best interests at heart. I have no personal power. I can't change anything. ALL I can do is hope and pray!!
[deleted]
I'll second that about there being precious little to choose from in this last US election. A giant douche or a turd sandwich, LOL! And I agree Trump is a volatile megalomaniac.
share8 people hold as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the entire population
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealth-oxfam.html?_r=0
Clearly they earned this huge disparity by hard work and prove the merits of capitalism.
[deleted]
Fortune, the BBC, even the Observer which is owned by Jared Kushner published variations of the same article.
Income inequality is a growing problem that few would dispute.
[deleted]
When you are talking about people who make 2X, 4X even 10X more than average you can say it's a function of hard work, but when you get into factors of a 1000 that theory no longer applies. When you have companies with the purchasing power of Amazon and Walmart competing with small businesses it's no longer an idealized version of capitalism but pure unadulterated predatory greed sold to us as the American Dream. I can see innovators like Gates or Musk deserving enormous amounts of wealth, or even uniquely talented artists and athletes. But most are corrupt business people and lawmakers who game the system in their favor and for the most part work no harder than the working class but use their superior resources to compete unfairly.
share"Income inequality" is hardly a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, you were either royalty, nobility or one of the countless group of peasants and landless workers. There was NO middle class.
There has ALWAYS been income inequality. But unlike what the left expects of government, politicians CANNOT create equality. Truth is , there will always be hardworking people, smart people, and people who have inherited wealth. There will also be lazy people, hardworking but unfortunate people, and people who try hard but make bad or unlucky choices.
The government cannot create equality. It can try to create a level playing field. But in the end, each person has to carry the ball and cross the finish line for himself. The intrusive government is only an impediment.
If I'm Walmart buying a box of cereal wholesale from a supplier versus a mom and pop store... who has the competitive advantage? Now multiply this times every single item in a grocery store and tell me that hard work will overcome this barrier. Apply this same principle to Amazon... who somehow managed to skirt paying sales tax for ten years while driving thousands of their competitors out of business.
The lazy poor, although of course there are some, is a myth created by the wealthy to distract from their anti competitive rigged policies that allow them to consolidate their advantage. They make the laws, control the tax structure which often results in regressive taxes that impact the poor and middle class, have purchased the media (Amazon owns the Washington Post) and have convinced the masses that they are the only ones to blame for the fact that 8 people hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the earth's population.
If an alien was observing our planet from afar, they'd scratch their heads in astonishment at how the 3.5 billion didn't rise up and crush those 8... but the genius of the system is they've convinced the masses that they've earned every penny, and those laborers working double shifts are just not working hard enough.
Well that is an interesting point, Walmart vs. mom and pop stores. When I was a kid, we had a lot of mom and pop stores, one in every neighborhood. The town I live in and the one I grew up in ( a few miles away) had lots of little stores on the main street. We had shoe stores, clothing stores, food stores,etc.
Now, we have almost nothing. The JC Penney stores in both towns left years ago. So did Woolworths, shoe stores, etc. Now the biggest store is Wal-Mart. Otherwise you have to drive 20 miles to the mall.
Truly I have no solution (nor any power) to fix these problems. I try my best to give my business to whatever local stores that we have. I just don't know how all the "little people" can make businesses come back to depressed economic areas like the one I live in.
Of course a lot of the wealthy "control the tax structure" as you said. They have the politicians in thier back pockets owing to all the contributions that they make to their campaigns.
I really don't have an argument here. Just don't know what to do except to try to do my best with a rigged system!
If you look at our country as a house... the lazy people and illegal immigrants are like termites while the wealthy are like a serial killer roaming inside. Imagine if the serial killer kept killing people while blaming all the house's problems on the termites.
This is the problem with our country right now.
[deleted]
I was born and grew up in an affluent part of Los Angeles and currently live in South Orange County and have seen equally egregious behavior in the best neighborhoods. In fact, it's the wealthiest who are most guilty of having their doctors hook them up with handicap placards from my own personal experience and many of my friends who went to private schools were date raped or harassed by the rich.
Sounds like a lot of selective attention and confirmation bias going on here.
[deleted]
I'm sorry that you were assaulted but statistics not just my personal experience bear out my comment
http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens
Also handicap permits are up 50% in one of the most affluent neighborhoods in California. Most of the poor can't afford to see doctors, let alone have relationships strong enough to hook them up with placards.
http://sfist.com/2014/11/17/san_franciscos_disable_placard_abus.php
I don't want to start an argument, I'm just curious. How can a document written over 200 years ago, by men of that time, be fully applicable to the 21st century. The highest Law in a country needs to be updated to the current needs and attitudes of the society in my view. Also, why do you think Obama was a Marxist? I'm not American, so I'm just asking out of curiosity.
shareIt's a valid point... but that's why it gets amended. Still even the amendments need updating.
For example, the second amendment was important during an era where guns were atop the weapons food chain, but for it to apply to the 21st century, individuals would need to have the rights to hold nuclear weapons, drones, rocket launchers. This is why, it seems pointless for us for citizens to have submachine guns because if we ever did want to revolt against a corrupt government... we'd need those types of weapons rather than these relatively weak ones that can kill huge amounts of people, but could do nothing against our military.
ETA: Obama and Hillary are far from Marxists... they are more like moderate Republicans.
That's my thinking, if it's amended once, surely it can be amended again to reflect current need. And I agree, your military is always going to be better equipped than the regular citizens. But you never know how those revolts are going to go.
share[deleted]
I don't think you want to start an argument by asking a fair question! No problem there.
Our Founders were quite aware of human nature and its tendency to try and take over society. They authored a document which gave very LIMITED power to government. Most of the power was to reside with the people of each individual state. Over the last hundred years or so, the power of the states and of the people has been gradually eroded, and as a result Washington DC and the Federal government wield power that the Founders never wanted nor envisioned.
The founders were "men of that time" but they were wise enough to understand human nature. They were only a generation removed from the monarchy rule of Europe. They wanted to institute a government "of the people".
Our former Pres Obama as a Marxist? You only need to read some of his speeches, some of his thoughts or his book "Dreams of My Father." He came across as someone who held disdain for the free market capitalist system. He wanted to "remake" America. Institution "Obamacare" and having the government in charge of health care is at the core of a government run country. Sure, everyone deserves access to health care. But the government being in charge of MY HEALTH is not the way I want to live! Anyone with any common sense would think that way too. Once the government controls your health care, it controls your LIFE! America USED to be based on the idea of freedom. If you allow someone to control you because it says it will PAY for you, well kiss your freedom goodbye!
As for that second ammendment, I never wanted the government to decide if or when I can defend myself( even though I don't own any guns). My problem is that I get VERY pee'd off when Hillary Clinton and many liberal Hollywood celebrities are so pro- gun control while THEY live behind walled, gated communities and have paid for, gun carrying security! What a bunch of freaking hypocrites. THEIR security is paramount for themselves and their familes! But for us, the great unwashed rabble, we can just do without because we are TOO STUPID, according to their "brllliant" minds, to know how to handle guns!
Okay. I say let's get rid of the 2nd Ammendment when and IF Hillary Clinton gives up HER armed security detail. Hypocrites!
Anyway, serious questions, I enjoy discussing the topic. No need to think you've started an argument, lol. Ask me more if you don't understand what I meant. I always enjoy talking about these issues.
I have to say, the communists were in a very similar position as your Founding Fathers. They wanted to get rid of the rule of the monarchy and give power to the people too. Though the way they went about it was very different ( this is said in jest of course :) )
It seems to me you're afraid that Obama was going to institute something similar to the Socialist regimes. But having universal/affordable health care doesn't lead to that. The UK has it, and they're not a Marxist society. To me a goverment is more invested in keeping people healthy, than a private company. Which, just by virtue of being a bussiness, cares mostly about profit. And I don't think people's health should be treated as a business. Why should some suit in an office have a say in my health, just because I don't meet some margin of profit. But Health care is such a complex thing, and I don't know enough about the various systems to say more. But I don't think him implementing affordable health care is in anyway Marxist.
I live in a country with strict gun laws. You really need a reason for owning a gun to be issued a license. And even then you have to pass a psych evaluation and a bunch of other stuff to be issued one. I have to say I don't feel any less safe for not having one, and I live in "dangerous" Eastern Europe.
I understand that it's your constitutional right to own one. But some regulation isn't a bad thing. I don't see the need for someone to have an arsenal in their home. Or not to have something in place to prevent mentally unstable people from getting a gun. After all voting is a right, but if you're a prisoner that right is suspended. And rich people are always going to be better protected than poor people, no matter what. You also have to ask yourself, what's the motivation behind Businesses or the NRA or whoever for opposing gun control. It can't be just because they love their constitutional rights so much.
In conclusion, I don't feel that you need to worry about any Marxism being implemented in the States. I don't see mass collectivisation or nationalization taking place there. It's just not in your culture. More social reforms don't necessarily equate communism. And more government control isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's moderate and in the right place.
I agree with everything you said, Mina.
shareThis is a well stated argument !
And let's not forget that despicable Hillary has a reputation for being extremely abusive to her security detail. This goes all the way back to the governor's mansion in Arkansas. She's the epitome of an emasculating misandrist.
Catbookss and I don't usually agree on politics. I don't want to slap the man. I like some of the things he's done. But usually if his got his mouth open, he's lying, so I can't stand to hear him talk.
Would I like to slap rap singers for their disrespect for women? No, I'd like five minutes with them -- them being gagged and tied up -- and me explaining that women don't deserve to be treated like that. Then I'd ask them if they talk to their mothers like that, or their sisters like that, and if they do, why they haven't been bludgeoned with a cast iron frying pan in their sleep?
Obama should have been treated like any other Democrat in office -- folks should have made it clear they were attacking the policies, and that policies HAVE no color.
One of my favorite memes is a picture of the President and the caption, "Obama, now in Vanilla!" Yes, they are BOTH smug, and it's not palatable in either one.
No, it's not TDS -- it's having the same standards right across the board. BTW, I voted for Cruz, the real conservative. I just couldn't stomach voting for a lifelong liberal who'd changed his coat and expected everyone to believe he was the real deal. He isn't. He throws the conservative base some red meat now and then, but he's still a big government liberal.
BTW, chalking everything up to TDS is just intellectually lazy.