My personal contribution to the "slash and burn" mentality to fix our government will be to vote for Bernie Sanders in the democrat primary.

Butus I must say that was a good post and you have surprised me your going to vote "DEM"....!!

Just remember what you have said as I have been trying to make you see what you have explained so I say remember that the rich are the one's whom screw'd things up so DON'T vote for a rich man .

Also remember that some of your laws and I think Consitution are some of the problem and will have to be addressed how you do that is up to you .

It sounds like some of you are learning to stop hearing the B/S said for the press and working out what is wedge politics and how they use it .

---

My personal contribution to the "slash and burn" mentality to fix our government will be to vote for Bernie Sanders in the democrat primary.

Butus I must say that was a good post and you have surprised me your going to vote "DEM"....!!

Just remember what you have said as I have been trying to make you see what you have explained so I say remember that the rich are the one's whom screw'd things up so DON'T vote for a rich man .

Also remember that some of your laws and I think Consitution are some of the problem and will have to be addressed how you do that is up to you .

It sounds like some of you are learning to stop hearing the B/S said for the press and working out what is wedge politics and how they use it .

Unfortunately, "Brutus" is very transparent.
When he was "Guy" and a moderator with past posts (not "..." *), he spoke exactly the same way.
Back then, he said I was a radical, but so was he and everyone else here.
Why? Simply because we think about and discuss these things more than the average person? If not that, then what?
On the basis of us all being radicals, he oft said before no longer being a moderator that we followed Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" when I'm sure a lot of us had no idea who Alinsky was. (Could it simply be that there are natural, predictable options from which we will choose at each branch in a conversation? Apparently not! No, we must be radicals! Following the subversive rules of some "demagogue" we know nothing about yet nonetheless are reading and are slaves to!)
Why is Brutus, at this moment, transparent?
Claiming he will vote for Sanders in the Dem primaries.
Of course, he doesn't want Sanders for President. Maybe, this time, he will succumb to that temptation *(* just as his older posts say "...") ... ohhh, so tempting, probably to so many ... but for him to succumb would be for him to become even more immoral (* as when his older posts turned into "...") ... and if he sinks to that immorality, he will do so in hopes to torpedo and sink any chances the Dems have of winning the Presidency in 2016. Because he hopes there are enough people, like him, who worshiped Joe McCarthy in the 50s ... all socialism is bad ... all socialists are bad (and anyone that really read Marx knows socialism does not lead to communism but vice versa and the idea was that the PEOPLE would be the STATE ... not that we have an existence proof that could actually work) ... enough people that think socialism is so bad that Sanders, if put forward as the Dem candidate, would get completely clobbered.

So, tell you what "Brutus" ... GUY ... . Why don't you just go ahead and do it? We already know how low you can sink. Want to show us you can sink further? Go ahead. Register as a Democrat. Vote for Sanders in your primary. If it backfires, don't cry to us. If it succeeds. it will be a Pyrrhic victory. You will have sunk even lower and you will know it. And it will be the result of so UN-radical a strategy as to be laughable.

(* = so far, GUY, you have failed "trust but verify". We have no reason to trust you after what you did before your self-imposed vacation after power corrupted you, because you act the same way under a new moniker.)

http://usdebtclock.org/

I miss the difference between a country's external financial assets and liabilities that is its net international investment position (NIIP) in that clock.
A positive NIIP value indicates a nation is a creditor nation, while a negative value indicates it is a debtor nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position


NIIP in % GDP for some countries
Hong Kong +284.0 %
Norway +170.9 %
Belgium +49.7 %
China +17.1 %
Russia +16.7 %
Sweden -0.3 %
India -17.1 %
UK -24.8 %
Mexico -33.3 %
US -39.7 %
Australia -55.6 %
New Zealand -65 %
Iceland -398 %

Oh Reagan. Reagan, what have you done?

Now, when you say things like, "its not a matter of just 'fixing' things in the same way you fix a flat tire or a broken computer," you infuriate me with your demonstrably inept thinking. It *really* is simple math--it just has some zeros behind each number.

No, its not. And why is it not? Because there are established interests that benefit largely from the way the system works as it does now. And those established interests are not going to accept someone barging in and changing everything around. Those interests will lobby, get involved in drafting the new system, etc and by the end of it you are still wasting money, on top of all the money you spend on actually changing the system.

If you were a dictator, maybe you could get something changed with relative ease, but youre not a dictator and you have to play by the rules of democracy.

When you say things like, "you never deal with solutions, you deal in options", you demonstrate to me that you are not a problem solver. If you are not a problem solver, you’ll never be an innovator. If you never innovate, well, in all honesty, it’s been my experience that you’ll probably always blame others for your failures.

You make as much sense as Yoda. Really, just stringing a bunch of words together and hoping it looks like one results in the other. No it does not logically follow that acknowledging a simple observable fact means I don't solve problems. It follows even less that this means I don't 'innovate' (whatever that means in a political context) and its just plain ridiculous to link that blaming others for my failures (what failures, I don't fail).

When you say things like, "is because Republicans have for the past 7 years been hammering on the idea that its such a big problem," you demonstrate to me that you have no clue what's happening in American politics today.

Oh I know, probably better than you.

When you say things like, "the deficit is just an imaginary problem created by the Republicans as a way to attack Obama," you demonstrate to me that you have no idea how money and currency manipulation can be used for nefarious purposes by those who control its value.

Riiiight. Well, actually I do know. But running up a debt is not currency manipulation, nor is there any sign of someone scheming in the background to destroy America.

And when you say things like, "Trump, Carson and Fiorina are promising things that are impossible or even unconstitutional," you demonstrate to me that you have never even looked at our constitution and you have no idea how the current Washington Crime Cartel is ignoring it.

Nah, you are like those Christian fundamentalists, who always quote the bible but really have no clue of whats actually in the bible or understand what it means.

If you honestly believe your constitution would let you get away with half of the nonsense any of those three clowns are promising, you seriously need to update your knowledge of what the constitution says.

You mention "facts" and "reality" but it is you who are living in some sort of academic fantasy land.

Academics only deal with facts and reality, but good of you to openly pass that off as 'fantasy'. I know where you live, Jon Stewart had a nice name for it: Bullsh** Mountain.

Many people who live here in the U.S. have forgotten what made us the envy of the world.

You are only the envy of the world in your head.

So Mnwerb, as an outsider, a person observing from across the pond, who claims to be a problem solver, what is it precisely you suggest our next president do?

Put an unconvicted felon in the white house because "we need a woman president?"

I would never advocate voting for someone on the basis of their gender.

Continue this path of failed Keynesian economics?

What Keynesian economics? There haven't been real Keynesian policies in decades. Just because the last few presidents have spend a lot of money doesn't make them Keynesian.

But if anything, yes, instituting ACTUAL Keynesian policies would not be a bad idea. Given its historical success and the abysmal failure of Friedman idea's on how to run an economy.

Add thousands of more pages to our tax code and raise taxes on the rich?

Actually, it would be better to scrap thousands of pages from the tax code because they contain a lot of loopholes for the rich and corporations to avoid paying taxes.

Hire more regulators/enforcers, write more regulations and allow them to exempt themselves from these new regulations?

Meh, I'd start with strengthening the existing regulatory agencies. Even though they exist, they are all seriously underfunded and understaffed.

Continue allowing and encouraging what's happening in the middle east?

Its not a matter of allowing. Face the fact that the US isn't all powerful and that some things can't be solved just like that. The Middle East isn't filled with puppets that you can control, they are sovereign actors who will act in ways that they deem is best for themselves and the people they represent. No amount of military posturing by you will change that.

Of course, that isn't to say you should just retreat entirely from the Middle East. The US still has a wide range of diplomatic tools at its disposal. Use them and perhaps you can influence enough people to get what you want.

Start limiting free speech again through the FCC like we were doing before 1988?

Why would I suggest thats a good idea? Thats a terrible idea.

Start making guns which "look" nasty illegal?

Start by adding a new amendment to the constitution that overrules the second amendment. Failing that, start by imposing stricter background checks, no exceptions anywhere and adding a gun tax of 50%.

Do away with our electoral process?

Why would I want that?

Start taxing the Catholic Church?

Start taxing every church.

Expand funding for Planned Parenthood?

Yes, and institute better protections for them so states can't just impose rules that would basically close down every planned parenthood in their state. Also begin investigations into the extremist anti abortion movements on domestic terrorism grounds.

I could go on and mention several other suggestions.

Fix our problems. Ready? Go!

Furthermore, cut back on military spending, institute better checks on the way defense contracts are awarded, increase funding for NASA dramatically, increase funding for scientific research dramatically, impose further restrictions on polluting energy, invest and create incentives for states to invest in more green energy, spearhead an effort to turn the economy greener, split investment and consumer banks again, suspend all free trade agreements such as NAFTA, TTIP, etc, create more restrictions on lobbying in Washington, set limits to campaign funding and spending, create a new constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United ruling by the supreme court, if necessary create a constitutional amendment overturning the hobby lobby decision of the Supreme Court, create a constitutional amendment banning any and all mandatory minimum sentences, ban all private prisons, deinvest in the prison system.

Eh, yeah that would be my priorities I suppose in an ideal world. However, I'm fully aware that for most of those things I would need a majority in congress and for the constitutional amendments I think I would also need support in at least 2/3 of all the states right? So it would be an uphill battle to even get 5 of those things done.

Мишель is posting from a European Perspective and Culture.
Brutus is posting from an American Perspective and Culture.
The Foundation of their beliefs regarding Power, is diametrically opposed.
Or as they say: East is East, and West is West...

There is no such thing as an European Culture.
There are 44 countries (or is it now 46?) in Europe.
Many more languages. Only in Sweden there five native languages beside Swedish.
Finnish, Sami, Romani, Yiddish, and Meänkieli (Tornedal Finnish).
“Nowhere do cultures differ so much as inside Europe” (Fons Trompenaars 1993).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompenaars%27_model_of_national_culture_differences

BTW. Donald Trump once said he has swedish ancestors:)
That's not true.
But he would like to meet the Swedish president:):):)

Are you actually an American citizen flying a different flag in here to mask your identity? I actually agree with you on this. And the best plan I've heard is from Carly Fiorina. 3 PAGES!

Well thats nonsense. You can't reduce the tax code to just three pages. I'm all for simplifying the thing, but oversimplification is just as much a problem as over complicating the tax code.

In either case, the important part is that all the tax loopholes corporations and rich people use get closed.

Well, back to disagreeing. Over 4 Million federal employees, almost 500 federal agencies and sub-agencies. When we go into "government shutdown," our "non-essential services" lock their doors and their employees go home. Why are tax payers paying for "non-essential" services? The Donald needs to point his finger at the "non-essential" services and say, "You're Fired!" and then for all agencies and sub-agencies that are duplicating efforts of other agencies and sub-agencies, The Donald needs to point his finger at them, too, and say, "You're Fired!" I'd say that's at least HALF that need to be fired, total, to begin with. And then we could start looking at why the federal government is doing things that need to be pushed down to the states to handle, where authority and responsibility truly belongs.

No doubt you could close a few and return some of that power back to the states.

But as for 'non essential' services it just means that they are services that if they close down, won't drag the entire country down with them. You can safely close the EPA, NASA or some national park for a few days, but that doesn't mean the work they are doing isn't important or could be done better by private corporations/the states. Especially the agencies that are there to enforce existing laws, especially safety and environmental laws are to often underfunded and understaffed to do their jobs well.

If we took our gloves off, we could really hurt a lot of bad guys in the middle east.

No you couldn't. You don't know who the bad guys are and if you really took your gloves off, it would come at a massive financial, economic, political and diplomatic cost. The US war on terror only helped create MORE terror and was a massive disaster. And as I've mentioned numerous times, the US has a terrible track record when it comes to putting down guerrilla insurrections, and that wasn't because you guys kept your gloves on.

Clyde mentioned the only one you ever won (well technically twice from the same enemy) and the US acted like Nazis back then, putting people in concentration camps and then starving them. That was possible back in the early 1900's because it were the early 1900's and you did it on the Philippines. The world has changed, try putting people in camps like that and directly murdering 200.000 civilians and see how quick the US becomes an international pariah state. The only people you would be doing a favor there are the Russians and the Chinese, by making them look good in comparison.

Our military has been in degredation mode for several years now.

Yes, you cut back a little from that 700 billion a year. I'm quite sure that you would still outspend everyone else if you only spend like 400 billion a year. Also, a lot of cost could be cut if you guys were more selective on who you award contracts, given that a lot of those military contracts go to people who charge outrageous sums of money for stuff that isn't that expensive. Streamline military spending and that would save a lot of money already.

Ben Carson wants to fix both of these since the current administration has tried to destroy both of these.

Actually thats not the fault of the current administration, given that its congress that passes the budget and it was congress that has decided to cut back on these things. Then again, it should be no surprise that congress likes the cut money on science when there are congress members in the bloody SCIENCE committee that seem to believe wind is a finite resource.

Ya, right. The world runs on petroleum for the time being. We need to free up burning fossil fuels for the time being. Otherwise, we'll probably piss away our *real* chance of surviving a post petroleum based world economy.

And it will keep running on petroleum as long as you don't bother to invest in alternatives. The more you invest in that now, the lower your costs will be in the future and the better it will be for the economy right now. Investing in a green economy is literally a win for everyone except oil and energy companies that have invested a lot in fracking. But really, as you said, why reward failure? Why give state support to companies that aren't going with their time, that only survive because the government spends massive amounts of money on keeping their heads above water. Why should tax payers pay for the profits of these oil companies and all some handle the costs that come with their existence?

Looks like you are *all* for centralizing all power and control into the hands of the Washington Crime Syndicate and it looks like you are *all* for not encouraging citizens to follow the law. I'm more for the following list of constitutional amendments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Amendments

That is the dumbest list of constitutional amendments I've ever seen in my life. And not just dumb, but dangerous. Such amendments would literally destroy the United States as a viable concept within a few years.

And I'm very much for encouraging citizens to follow the law. I'm not for wasting billions of tax dollars on a bloated prison system that is the largest prison system in the world (25% of the worlds prison population is American), and that only benefits a few large prison corporations and no one else. Why don't you ask yourself how 'the land of the free' has more prisoners than anyone else in the world? All that money could be spend on better things.

The thing that most people are unaware of, such as yourself, is the fact that our federal government hasn't been following the rules at an accelerated pace. If the federal government had been following the rules (and the intent of the founders) all along, we would not be facing the issues we have today.

Oh nonsense. The Federal government follows the rules just fine, its just that YOU don't like what those rules are, so you come up with this elaborate fantasy of how the actual rules are not really rules and how your made up rules are the rules the government should follow.

Мишель is posting from a European Perspective and Culture.

Brutus is posting from an American Perspective and Culture.

The Foundation of their beliefs regarding Power, is diametrically opposed.

Or as they say: East is East, and West is West...

There is virtually no difference between European and American thinking when it comes to government and power. You just claim there is a difference based on some made up ideas about how Europeans supposedly think about power.

The fact is, all American ideas about governance and power are based on European ideas. Sure, they were the first to use them, while the rest of Europe still had kings and emperors, but Europe has long since caught up. The foundational ideas of government are now virtually the same.

(There are no Superior Humans).

Clyde, how can you say that and still
end up living next door to Canada?

---

This thread has started from a discussion about Donald Trump to a America vs Europe discussion.
Rather silly really.
I know that the US people call themself "Americans" but from a European view people from Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Panama, Dominican Republic, Haiti... are also americans.
Do they share the same culture and political views as the US?

Mnwerb(RAC: 2), what you don't understand (or refuse to believe) is a basic difference in what we are disagreeing about.

Since you mentioned my RAC, know that it is because the computer I used to run Seti on currently has had a broken harddisk (which is now fixed) and a heat issue (not fixed). I can't run a program this taxing on my hardware if it causes temperatures to spike up to 90 degrees celcius. I don't want to melt my CPU and GPU.

You believe smart people should rule over dumb people. You believe if dumb people vote for and get what they want, that's always going to be a good thing.

You do realize that those two statements are mutually exclusive? I can't be against 'dumb' people voting and be in favor of 'dumb' people voting. Furthermore, I have never argued that 'dumb' people shouldn't vote, you have been arguing that line for some time now.

This country was started based on the idea that smart people, if allowed to gain power over others, will eventually become evil (Clyde has mentioned this time and time again) unless they are forcefully held back from becoming evil.

Yeah mate, thats the principle on which European governments are founded on as well.

In the beginning, Europe had this annoying king who kept saying we couldn't do anything without his permission. Then we started a country that completely shifted power away from one person and focused on giving as much freedom as possible to the individual. Europe slowly shifted towards *allowing* some individual freedom and we slowly shifted back towards centralizing power and control.

Yeah no, we got rid of the monarchs or reduced them to ceremonial roles. We don't have 'some' individual freedom, we got ALL of it. Okay, its more difficult to carry a gun around, I grant you that, but otherwise my freedoms are not substantially different from the freedoms that you enjoy.

Alright, I admit, there is one major difference in thinking between America and Europe when it comes to government. Americans are a lot more paranoid about their government than Europeans are. Americans operate under the assumption that government is out there to kill them, Europeans think their government is out there to serve them (even though most are cynical about the governments ability to actually serve them). But it is a mistake to think this is some ancient fundamental difference between Europe and the United States. In the 50's, 60's and 70's Americans by and large thought the same way as Europeans about their government. It was only after Reagan that this changed and it was Reagan that popularized the idea that the government was the enemy (government isn't the solution, its the problem).

And you continue to demonstrate you have no clue about 1) our military (I served for three decades) and their mentality 2) the current dynamic between our executive branch and our legislative branch and 3) what laws our current government is and has been ignoring for several decades.

I don't need to serve in your military to know you guys suck at combating guerrilla's, a simple military history book will tell you as much. And I have read those. And I've studied American military doctrine, which relies exclusively on firepower to get every job done. Full spectrum warfare, MOOTW, for all of that the US military relies on firepower, even when it gets consistently demonstrated that this is an insufficient method to achieve the strategic objectives.

I don't need to serve in your military to know you guys suck at combating guerrilla's, a simple military history book will tell you as much. And I have read those. And I've studied American military doctrine, which relies exclusively on firepower to get every job done. Full spectrum warfare, MOOTW, for all of that the US military relies on firepower, even when it gets consistently demonstrated that this is an insufficient method to achieve the strategic objectives.

To us unfamilary with american acronyms.
MOOTW stands for Military Operations Other Than War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_other_than_war

Perhaps Donald Trump know better how to handle the situation in the Middle East...
His knowledge of geopolitical issues are none!

You don't *think* you need to serve to understand. I was in Baghdad for Christmas of 2004. *BIG* difference between Vietnam and Iraq. We kicked their @55 in their urban environment.

Not really. In Vietnam US forces also kicked the Vietcong's @55. Vietcong casualties were far higher than US casualties. Yet the US lost. Same as in Iraq. Despite the US military superiority on the tactical level, it failed to achieve its strategic goals. When the US was forced to leave Iraq it left a failed state unable to maintain itself and it had unwittingly helped create IS. All in all, its more than fair to say the US left a giant mess in the region.

This is the problem of the US military. Its unable to think on the strategic level, its high command consistently confuses the tactical and operational level with the strategic level, thinking that if you got tactical and operational superiority you also got strategic superiority. This is patently false as the US army continues to demonstrate by consistently failing to win these types of war. Again, winning battles does not mean you win wars. Therefor, it doesn't matter if you take of your gloves. At best that would get you a tactical advantage that you don't need as you already have tactical superiority. You need a strategic advantage and that is something you will definitely lose when you take of your gloves.