Anyone in the US worried about a Trump presidency?

[filledeplage]

Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.

Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.    

His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match. 

Emily - when you are a newscaster and report - you do so neutrally.  The Clinton Foundation was in the center of a firestorm concerning "quid pro quo" access in return for large contributions. 

It matters not what their mission is.  So, George as a former Clinton administration employee should not have been involved in any programming where a bias could be called into question. I saw that interview (I forget with whom) and thought that George was acting like a prosecutor and not an interviewer.  It came out later that he had made a large donation to the foundation.  I happen to believe that there are all of 501's that should be subject to more scrutiny.  They are not. 

That firestorm, like most, was a lot of sound and fury told by idiots that signified nothing other than we have a bunch of alarmists paying for alarmist media.
If your standard is that no journalist with a bias should report, we will have no journalists.
Sometimes I think we're shifting from two parties with policy differences to an alarmist party and an anti-alarmist party, neither of which has any intention of changing any policies.
It's depressing.

Emily - this year has been a catharsis for business-as-usual.  Refreshing.  Alarmists?  I don't think so.  O'Reilly is Trump's friend, socially but handled him well and was able to question without showing the bias, even disclosing that they sat at ball games with vanilla milk shakes.  

It is not an alarmist party.  It is a population that is unhappy with the business-as-usual rhetoric while the country is desperately unsafe.  It has everyone rattled.  It is unheard of that a socialist-democrat would rise to the level of Sanders, with students as foot soldiers.  The Dems have marginalized their moderates and some are outraged.  They are unwelcome in their own house.    

[Emily]

Trump says he's against immigration and bringing in refugees, so "he's a racist" or "he's a hate monger."  I'm not saying that giant corporations aren't part of the problem, but let's be honest, this country can't even take care of its own right now. 

There are record levels of wealth in the United States right now. Last summer, reports showed that "U.S. households saw their total net worth rise to a record level of $84.9 trillion" from $80.3 trillion the year before. At the same time, as was reported, "most people in the U.S. have actually seen both their income and net worth decline." The US economic structure essentially operates as a nanny state for the elite high upper class. Its function is to take care primarily of them. It's not that the country can't take care of its own right now, it's that it simply doesn't care about doing so. There is in fact more than enough wealth generated in the US to easily take care of US citizens and help refugees. That Trump (along with just about everybody in political power) refuses to acknowledge this point is not surprising but it is telling. He in fact is a great supporter of the kind of system that actively does not care about taking care of its own.

Hooray! CSM is here! Yes, the US certainly can 'take care of its own;' it just chooses not to. Apparently someone convinced the population that it's the government that's paying them less while they work more, rather than their employers.

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

The money going from any individual to benefit illegal aliens is a drop-in-the-bucket. You might be able to buy one more album a year if not for that. In terms of government spending, the money going to welfare benefits for Trump and his peers and for wag-the-dog military actions, on the other hand, would be able to afford people significant lifestyle improvements. There used to be actual organizing and pressure for corporations to pay better and give better benefits and more vacation time, etc. Now organized labor is villainized; corporate salaries, bonuses, benefits and vacation time is more heavily skewed toward the executives than they've been for a century; and everyone's distracted from that by panic over issues that don't really effect their daily lives and well-being at all. The late 20th century bigwigs did a really good job training the public to focus on their non-problems instead of their problems.

[KDS]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

[Emily]

Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.

Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.    

His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match. 

Emily - when you are a newscaster and report - you do so neutrally.  The Clinton Foundation was in the center of a firestorm concerning "quid pro quo" access in return for large contributions. 

It matters not what their mission is.  So, George as a former Clinton administration employee should not have been involved in any programming where a bias could be called into question. I saw that interview (I forget with whom) and thought that George was acting like a prosecutor and not an interviewer.  It came out later that he had made a large donation to the foundation.  I happen to believe that there are all of 501's that should be subject to more scrutiny.  They are not. 

That firestorm, like most, was a lot of sound and fury told by idiots that signified nothing other than we have a bunch of alarmists paying for alarmist media.
If your standard is that no journalist with a bias should report, we will have no journalists.
Sometimes I think we're shifting from two parties with policy differences to an alarmist party and an anti-alarmist party, neither of which has any intention of changing any policies.
It's depressing.

Emily - this year has been a catharsis for business-as-usual.  Refreshing.  Alarmists?  I don't think so.  O'Reilly is Trump's friend, socially but handled him well and was able to question without showing the bias, even disclosing that they sat at ball games with vanilla milk shakes.  

It is not an alarmist party.  It is a population that is unhappy with the business-as-usual rhetoric while the country is desperately unsafe.  It has everyone rattled.  It is unheard of that a socialist-democrat would rise to the level of Sanders, with students as foot soldiers.  The Dems have marginalized their moderates and some are outraged.  They are unwelcome in their own house.    

The alarmists are alarmed at the wrong things. They are tools to distract the population away from how little freedom and opportunity they actually have.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

[KDS]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

Your stance on both immigration and the refugees. 

[Emily]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

KDS, what do you think motivates political violence, generally speaking?

[filledeplage]

Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.

Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.    

His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match. 

Emily - when you are a newscaster and report - you do so neutrally.  The Clinton Foundation was in the center of a firestorm concerning "quid pro quo" access in return for large contributions. 

It matters not what their mission is.  So, George as a former Clinton administration employee should not have been involved in any programming where a bias could be called into question. I saw that interview (I forget with whom) and thought that George was acting like a prosecutor and not an interviewer.  It came out later that he had made a large donation to the foundation.  I happen to believe that there are all of 501's that should be subject to more scrutiny.  They are not. 

That firestorm, like most, was a lot of sound and fury told by idiots that signified nothing other than we have a bunch of alarmists paying for alarmist media.
If your standard is that no journalist with a bias should report, we will have no journalists.
Sometimes I think we're shifting from two parties with policy differences to an alarmist party and an anti-alarmist party, neither of which has any intention of changing any policies.
It's depressing.

Emily - this year has been a catharsis for business-as-usual.  Refreshing.  Alarmists?  I don't think so.  O'Reilly is Trump's friend, socially but handled him well and was able to question without showing the bias, even disclosing that they sat at ball games with vanilla milk shakes.  

It is not an alarmist party.  It is a population that is unhappy with the business-as-usual rhetoric while the country is desperately unsafe.  It has everyone rattled.  It is unheard of that a socialist-democrat would rise to the level of Sanders, with students as foot soldiers.  The Dems have marginalized their moderates and some are outraged.  They are unwelcome in their own house.    

The alarmists are alarmed at the wrong things. They are tools to distract the population away from how little freedom and opportunity they actually have.

Emily - no one has taken more freedom then the Dems.  Nor, looted the treasury as they have.  We are in serious debt. 

I disagree with Trump's position on Eminent Domain.  And, for many, that could be a deal breaker. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts.  

I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

Your stance on both immigration and the refugees.  

But I'm unclear. 250,000 Syrians have already died in the civil war, which is on order of about 156 per day. As heinous and as horrific as the Paris attacks were, the scale of violence since the refugees have begun to enter countries has quite simply not been anywhere near the devastation that is ongoing in Syria. I'm assuming you don't disagree with that.

And indeed it's pretty well established that ISIS is actively counting on refugees being blocked entrance because it helps immensely with their recruitment.

Also I noted that the US now generates over 4 trillion dollars in wealth every year and that these numbers are only going up. You don't think trillions a year is enough to help US citizens and maybe others who need some help too?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Emily - no one has taken more freedom then the Dems.  Nor, looted the treasury as they have.  We are in serious debt. 

It was actually the Reagan Administration who  oversaw the country plunge into debt after being the world's largest creditor.

[KDS]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

Your stance on both immigration and the refugees. 

But I'm unclear. 250,000 Syrians have already died in the civil war, which is on order of about 156 per day. As heinous and as horrific as the Paris attacks were, the scale of violence since the refugees have begun to enter countries has quite simply not been anywhere near the devastation that is ongoing in Syria. I'm assuming you don't disagree with that.

And indeed it's pretty well established that ISIS is actively counting on refugees being blocked entrance because it helps immensely with their recruitment.

Also I noted that the US generated over 4 trillion dollars in wealth every year and that these numbers are only going up. You don't think trillions a year is enough to help US citizens and maybe others who need some help too?

My concerns with the refugees have little to do with money.  I don't think it's wroth the risk having them here.  

I'm not saying the economic system in the US is perfect.  But, under our current system, I don't think any non-citizen should receive benefits while citizens are living on the streets.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

My concerns with the refugees have little to do with money.  I don't think it's wroth the risk having them here.  

Again, the risk of danger is far greater by blocking their entrance. But the real risk of danger comes from the West's ongoing policy of de-stabilizing that part of the world. If one is concerned about safety then in my view those should be the priorities, rather than letting about 5000 people die every month.

I'm not saying the economic system in the US is perfect.  But, under our current system, I don't think any non-citizen should receive benefits while citizens are living on the streets.  

Under our current system, no non-citizen would ever receive benefits at the expense of the majority of the US citizens because the point of the system is to only care for the slim minority of elites at the expense of everyone else.

[filledeplage]

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

No.

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

Your stance on both immigration and the refugees. 

But I'm unclear. 250,000 Syrians have already died in the civil war, which is on order of about 156 per day. As heinous and as horrific as the Paris attacks were, the scale of violence since the refugees have begun to enter countries has quite simply not been anywhere near the devastation that is ongoing in Syria. I'm assuming you don't disagree with that.

And indeed it's pretty well established that ISIS is actively counting on refugees being blocked entrance because it helps immensely with their recruitment.

Also I noted that the US generated over 4 trillion dollars in wealth every year and that these numbers are only going up. You don't think trillions a year is enough to help US citizens and maybe others who need some help too?

My concerns with the refugees have little to do with money.  I don't think it's wroth the risk having them here.  

I'm not saying the economic system in the US is perfect.  But, under our current system, I don't think any non-citizen should receive benefits while citizens are living on the streets.  

Particularly, veterans and their families.

[Emily]

Emily - no one has taken more freedom then the Dems.  Nor, looted the treasury as they have.  We are in serious debt. 

I disagree with Trump's position on Eminent Domain.  And, for many, that could be a deal breaker. 

No one has taken more freedom than large corporations.

[the captain]

Sticking to the thread topic, surprise, surprise...

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/03/donald-trump-says-ted-cruz-stole-victory-in-iowa-caucuses/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Emily]

I'm not saying the economic system in the US is perfect.  But, under our current system, I don't think any non-citizen should receive benefits while citizens are living on the streets.  

This to me is analogous to saying, "My boss gets paid $2 million/yr; I only get paid $10/hr; so I object to other people being paid $5/hr." The problem is not the people being paid $5/hr.

[Emily]

Sticking to the thread topic, surprise, surprise...

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/03/donald-trump-says-ted-cruz-stole-victory-in-iowa-caucuses/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

He's so ridiculous at all times.

[Alex]

Emily - no one has taken more freedom then the Dems.  Nor, looted the treasury as they have.  We are in serious debt. 

It was actually the Reagan Administration who  oversaw the country plunge into debt after being the world's largest creditor.

GW Bush didn't really do much good on that front either.

[JK]

Whatever happened to the esteemed OP? I know the internet defies all logic but ZU got off to such a good start... 

[the captain]

I wonder what spurred the OP's interest in his or her username. (And I bemoan the destruction by ISIS of historical artifacts in the city of which she was queen. To bring it all back home, I fear that a Trump presidency would result in more of the same in that respect, to say nothing of Cruz's [moronic] "carpet-bombing" of the region.)

[JK]

I wonder what spurred the OP's interest in his or her username. (And I bemoan the destruction by ISIS of historical artifacts in the city of which she was queen.)

As a friend told me, pity this poster's namesake can't come back and give these zombies what for...