I think everyone here already knew about the the false left-right paradigm. The surprising thing is that there are still people that think voting will solve their problems.

I thought so too, but there is a prominent figure here who admitted to be a right winger and purposely ignores what Trump says because it furthers their agenda.

Lol, shouldn't you change your username to TrumpIsRacist?

The Russia "thing" is old news.

Trump being racist isn't a conspiracy. Trump's campaign involvement with Russia is. And no, it's not old news.

Clinton and all politicians are in collusion with the Russians, Europeans and Israelis. Rich people around the world don't respect borders, they just help one another to the detriment of the rest of us.

Ok.

So you think it should be stopped right?

Yes, it's time to overthrow the government and end the entire system. If it's Trump that rallies people to do this, that's a good thing, but I fear that most anti-Trump people think that the Democrats are somehow better.

So you want to destroy our government and destabilize our nation?

Isn't that what you believe Trump has already done? The thing you don't recognize that is that Trump is a continuation of Obama, so you didn't seem to concerned when Obama was destabilizing your nation.

So you want to destroy our government and destabilize our nation?

Yes, the government is immoral and needs to be opposed.

So how do you want destroy our government or overthrow it? What's the plan?

Don't participate. Stop voting and stop paying taxes. Let the system collapse on itself.

Ok, and then what?

Live our lives without the rich people controlling us. Ending war and living in peace finally.

So you wouldn't want to rebuild our government?

No, I know what is best for me, I don't need Trump telling me.

So you don't want any form of government at all?

I'm just trying to clarify your stance to better understand you.

Correct, I'm an anarchist. I believe all services can be privatized. This will allow accountability for things as a result. Like if the cops are not protecting you or your property in the appropriate way, then you stop paying them and hire a different company.

Live our lives without the rich people controlling us

Conflicts with this.

I believe all services can be privatized.

Are you suggesting that McDonalds controls my life? I disagree, because I get a choice about whether I eat at McDonalds or if I cook at home. I don't get that choice with the cops, the fire department or the schools.

I think you just confirmed you're not serious about this conversation.

I think it more means that you are anti-Trump, not anti-government. You probably think that the Democrats are the good guys that will fix the problems in your life.

Live our lives without the rich people controlling us

Conflicts with this.

I believe all services can be privatized.

You're repeating yourself. The part you're not getting is that private services compete against one another, whereas government services are one size fit all. Accountability requires that we can leave one service provider and goto another.

Yes, I'm repeating myself because you tried to deflect and change the topic.

You are saying that the companies will compete with each other on who and how they are going to control us.

You are saying that the companies will compete with each other on who and how they are going to control us.

Which is better than no competition at all.

So you're ok with the rich and powerful controlling us, as long as they have competition between who does it.

In simple terms, yes.

However once you recognize that competition is lacking from the system, then you can realize that not only rich and powerful people can provide competing services. I could open a security company in my garage that serviced my neighborhood.

You can have moderately peaceful revolutions when the whole nation gets behind overthrowing the government. The fall of the USSR, and all the related Colour revolutions are perfect examples. One of the issues is that the US government has done a great job of dividing people into increasingly polar groups such that no one can unify the nation against them.

Bernie might have had a chance if he'd been allowed to win, and then able to resist the deep state and Wall Street. Tall order.

I don't think that's what he was suggesting.

Meh. He's talking about people overthrowing governments. It's easier done through mass protest than it is through violence. Violent coups are typically carried out by the military, or factions thereof.

Well now he's saying overthrow the government by not paying taxes and then not rebuild our government.

He's advocating for purposeful anarchy.

Never going to happen. Even before the current climate of insane partisanship, more than half the people think the government had their best interests at heart and have a basic level of trust in their institutions and the President, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Bernie would have folded like tracing paper in the wind. He made it very clear during his candidacy that he would bend right over and take it in the ass if his arm was twisted, and his voting record is lockstep with corporate Democrats.

Lol you're painfully black and white

He said yes.

He's not wrong whatsoever. We haven't been an actual constitutional republic since 1871 and the Organic Act. We are a fraudulent, bankrupted Corporation owned by London and the Vatican, being propped up by fiat funny money and run by the criminal cartels themselves, given the false veneer of respectability and authority. Time to go, the entire thing needs to be gutted and rededicated to the original precepts of the Constitution it was founded upon.

Ok.

Time to go, the entire thing needs to be gutted and rededicated to the original precepts of the Constitution it was founded upon.

So in the practical sense, what does that mean?

Read the Constitution and find out.

How about you explain what you mean instead of vague platitudes.

Why should I have to explain that our government needs to go back to a strictly constitutional form of governance without all the extra bullshit meant to destroy the political power of the people (i.e., US) that are supposed to be running it? We were a constitutional republic at one point, and now we are not. This needs to change. Very simple.

Because different people have different definitions of what that means.

If you're going by strict interpretations of the original Constitution, it's pretty simple. I don't fuck with you don't fuck with me, government should have as small a role possible to defend the country and enforce contracts and the like, no law should be passed infringing upon people's Free Will and inherent personal freedoms so long as they don't harm anybody. There's plenty of room for wiggling and to go over the minutiae, so long as the original principal and intent of the Constitution is followed.

So no regulations?

Of course there needs to be some regulations to protect the general welfare of the people, but that's less important than the actual framework and inner workings of the government itself, which is highly flawed and full of corruption that needs to be excised.

Fair enough.

The Russia "thing" is old news.

It really, really is not.

The "Russia thing" was never really news to begin with. At least not in the traditional sense of news being based on things that have actually happened.

So when a newspaper reports on Mueller's investigation or Don Jrs meeting that's not the "Russia thing"?

You should probably asking yourself why in any way you would trust Mueller, the guy who basically was the architect of the 9/11 cover-up during the Bush Administration. He is a Deep State operative, globalist and one of the worst of the swamp dwellers, and his close friendship with James Comey should have recused him from the investigation for conflicts of interest right off the bat. But we can't have that, got to continue the witch hunt! Let's ignore that it is on the surface a thinly-veiled attempt by ideologues to impeach and throw out a democratically-elected president with the help of the unelected fascists in the bureaucracy, right?

You should also be skeptical of a billionare posing as a "blue color billionare" who has a vested interest to become president so he can enrich himself and his friends. Who has as in his campaign a self admitted dirty trickster who was involved in watergate (roger stone), paul manafort who has a long record of working to promote russian interests in ukraine and america, who has filled his cabinet with lobbyists and bankers from alle the companies who created the finacial collapse of 2008, and the list goes on and on and on...

Just because I like some of Trump's policies doesn't mean I actually trust him or fully support him. Learn how to make distinctions. I can be in favor of anti-globalist policy that Trump enacts and still hate his militarism or his ass-kissing towards Israel, for example. I don't think a single person that voted for Trump even did it because they trust him, let's be serious here. Nobody's letting him watch their kids.

Why would you vote for someone you honestly didn't trust?

I was faced with that this year and for the first time ever, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, I wrote in Willie Nelson

Who said I voted for him?

fair enough

He is a Deep State operative,

so is rod rosenstein then? the guy who appointed mueller? if not, why don't you trust rod? if you think rod himself is also some shady deep state operative, do you know who appointed him? trump. is he also now a deep state operative? like what the fuck is going on?

What you're talking about is like the dictionary definition of innuendo.

At least not in the traditional sense of news being based on things that have actually happened.

What?

Nazis, Koreans, Russians, can't have them all be the Official Enemy at once buddy. Pick one.

Why does one have to be picked? Why do people think we can only have one problem at a time?

Why do you think that perceived enemies pop up out of nowhere with their panties in a bunch wanting to fuck this country up? Everything happens for a reason and all of this is manufactured to create consent for agendas that they already have in mind. That's why I kind of laugh when people think a guy like Kim Jong-un, a multi-millionaire that was raised and schooled in the very best Swiss schools money can buy, is a crazy person and doesn't know what he's doing. Those people are missing the point of the entire charade.

Out of nowhere? See this is one of the major problems I have with people like you. None of these are recent problems; they have simply become the largest "public enemy" as others disappear or lessen. ISIS is not new, and neither are their ideals. Our issues with Russia go back decade after decade. Korea has been fighting the entire world tooth and nail for a very long time as well. Being taught at a fancy school does not solve personal or metal issues, or lessen the sense of power and greed a world leader commands.

Things are not as black and white as you seem to portray them. At the end of the day, we're a huge country in an even larger and more complex world. There are hundreds of issues out there, and we're allowed to be concerned about more than one of them at a time.

You misunderstand my point. A lot of this is theater, in fact most of it is theater. I choose not to live a life where I live in constant worry of getting the shit bombed out of us by some dirt poor third world country that's going to invite suicide by attacking us, even if it doesn't even have the technological ability to strike us, like NK. But I'll tackle your points one by one:

• ISIS is just about destroyed and on its last legs, thanks to Russia, Syria, Iran and the Kurds destroying them in Syria and Iraq, along with Trump defunding ISIS through the CIA. They were always a boogeyman to begin with, just like Al-Qaeda, because they are ultimately funded by our own intelligence agencies in the first place and just a proxy front.

• Russia is not a threat to us in any real definition of the word. They're not trying to destroy the country, they haven't attacked us ever, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called for cooperation and friendship (as has Donald Trump), and both sides are fully aware that if it escalates it could destroy the entire planet if left unchecked. Neither side wants that not even the Elite, because they don't want to rule over piles of ash. Basic spycraft between nations that they all do all the time are not Declarations of War. In other words stop buying into the media propaganda trying to paint Russia as the Great Satan to American interests because it's a bunch of bullshit meant to scare the plebs into accepting increasingly Draconian laws to "protect them", just like it was during the Cold War.

• North Korea has been fighting the world "tooth and nail" by basically not accepting Rothschild and central banking influence in their country, and that's really the only reason. Well, that and they're sitting on trillions of dollars of conflict minerals, but I bet that has nothing to do with the propaganda used against them, right? I'm not defending Kim Jong on in the sense that I'm sure he's a despot and an autocratic bastard, but we have no problem with autocratic bastards so long as they work for us. Just look at Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, or Iraq during the Saddam regime in the 80s, I could go on forever. Point being the US stance towards North Korea is incredibly hypocritical and driven by greed and strategic dominance, not feels or pity or altruism towards the North Koreans themselves.

Still think I think in black and white? There's nothing wrong with having healthy concern for regimes that might go rogue and crazy, but what we're seeing is a massive propaganda effort to push Americans into wars that the are not in their interests that are only going to benefit the top 1% and the military industrial complex. It has nothing to do with our safety, and almost never does.

Multiple things can be bad at the same time.

The only people that actually think those groups are a true threat to America are brain-dead and gullible and should turn off their TVs.

can you literally not process multiple things might be happening at the same time?

First it was complaints about leakers, now it's 'old news' once the leaks get plugged. The Russia 'thing' will be done when the investigation into it concludes.

Statism is a religion.

The entire purpose of the myth of the "false left-right paradigm" is to convince people that voting won't solve their problems so they might as well let the elite keep screwing them over.

There have been actual studies that show that politicians don't represent poor people

Yes, at least partly because poor people don't believe it's possible for politicians to represent them and thus don't bother trying to get one who does.

So the way to solve exploitation is for the people being exploited to stop being exploited?

If poor people are conscious enough regarding todays system, then 1) voting would be made illegal and 2) they wouldn't need to accomplish their goals through government in the first place.

I'm not sure what "the way to solve exploitation" is, but I do think that if the people being exploited were to stop either A, rabidly supporting their own exploitation, or B, rabidly insisting that there is no difference between exploitation and non-exploitation, then that might be a good starting point.

that there is no difference between exploitation and non-exploitation

I agree. I think once people start to understand that government is exploitation, no matter which politicians are in power, then we will start to advance as a society.

that there is no difference between exploitation and non-exploitation

"Government" power isn't the problem. Right wing power is.

That's simply naive. The label they wear doesn't change the fact that they are taking our money and locking us in cages.

The right wing is committed to taking your money and locking you in a cage. The left wing is committed to doing the opposite of that. There is no evidence whatsoever against either of these statements.

The right wing is committed

What would it take to prove to you that the left wing is equally as interested in taking your money?

The left wing coming out in favor of privatized health care, lower taxes on the rich, and decreased financial regulation.

Now you're moving the goalpost.

• privatized health care = this means less tax money, not more. Government healthcare means more money being taken from you
• lower taxes on the rich = rich or poor, the issue is them taking money from people. You're not disputing that they take money at this point
• decreased financial regulation = not really part of the issue of taxation

I guess it's clear now that you like it when the government takes money from people other than yourself. I suppose you're not so much looking for fairness, as you are for your side winning.

Oooooh, okay. So your problem isn't with people being exploited, it's with the wrong people doing the exploiting.

Actually that is what I'm saying about you. You're fine with taxing people, you just want rich people taxed. Government for you are hired guns that do the things that you wouldn't feel comfortable doing yourself.

Can we agree that nobody should have money taken from them through force or threats of getting caged?

No, I don't think we can. If we did, we'd have no way to solve the problem of the rich exploiting the poor.

So you believe that the solution to the rich exploiting the poor is for the poor to exploit the rich?

So you believe that taking away someone's third private jet to pay for someone else's life-saving medical treatment is "exploitation"?

If that is how you feel, then why not do it yourself? Become Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor. You will know the exact appropriate amount that each person should have in life.

I think the thing that bugs me about your attitude is that government currently takes 50% of my income in taxes (I'm middle-class, not rich). So you think you're empowering government to exploit the rich, but the rich control government and they twist things to make them exploit me instead. So everytime you scream for more taxation on the rich, I know that hammer is coming down on me instead.

If that is how you feel, then why not do it yourself? Become Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor. You will know the exact appropriate amount that each person should have in life.

Because I can't do that on a society-wide scale. The government can.

I think the thing that bugs me about your attitude is that government currently takes 50% of my income in taxes (I'm middle-class, not rich). So you think you're empowering government to exploit the rich, but the rich control government and they twist things to make them exploit me instead. So everytime you scream for more taxation on the rich, I know that hammer is coming down on me instead.

That's because the right wing is in power. If the left wing was in power, you wouldn't have that problem. But since you refuse to admit that there's a difference, you happily let the rich get away with sucking you dry.

That's because the right wing is in power

Obama has been in office for the past 8 years. There are numerous taxes that the left wants to impose upon me that can not be shouldered solely by the rich alone (e.g. carbon taxes). Obamacare alone is leftist program and it has raised peoples expenses on the basis that it's a tax (according to the surpreme court).

you happily let the rich get away with sucking you dry.

Again Obamacare is an entirely leftist program that has hurt people. You can't blame it on the right at all. All you can do is say "it's worth the suffering".

It's all about the opium. Gotta keep the war on drugs going and the prescriptions flowing! How else can we create heroin addicts?

And natural metals. Apparently there is trillions worth of natural metals there.

Yeah lets pretend this hasn't been going on for decades before Trump. And instead pretend this was just started by trump. Your bias is showing. Obama was all over it as well. Same shit different pile I guess. Unless you have a bias.

That's quite the strawman you are attacking.

What strawman? Pretending that only Trump is a war monger? He isn't the only war monger and is only continuing the same wars started by former religious statists. But lets pretend you are unbiased and trying to rewrite history. You are just another revisionist.

Who said that only Trump is a war monger?

That strawman.

Who says he wants anything? The desire to pillage that xcountry was made long before he ever came to office. He is just another pawn in a long line of pawns.

When every single time he said that he wanted to go back to the middle east to take their oil?

Or like every time Obama actually worked on that agenda? Or like the president before time who also worked hard toward that same agenda? Since Trump is now involved everyone else gets a free ride? That is a hell of a bias you have, some big blinders.

Or like every time Obama actually worked on that agenda? Or like the president before time who also worked hard toward that same agenda

Yes.

It's funny how you're still attacking the strawman you built up instead of my own arguements or beliefs.

And natural metals. Apparently there is trillions worth of natural metals there that Trump wants

That's the comment I replied to. I didn't see any arguements. And the rare earth's have been a target for a long time. Afghanistan has the largest reserves of rare earths on the planet besides China's reserves. The US government has been drooling over it for decades.

And the rare earth's have been a target for a long time. Afghanistan has the largest reserves of rare earths on the planet besides China's reserves. The US government has been drooling over it for decades.

And so does Trump. That's all I'm saying.

Isn't that exactly the point OP is making?

How so?

He isn't denying that the presidents before Trump were puppets, but only saying that Trump is a puppet as well.

Yep

Yeah but when you love Trump a lot, reactions to any criticism of Trump turn into "But Obama! But hillary!!! But but But!!!"

And that guy was the one who said "your bias is showing?" His comment was literally and solely constructed purely out of bias.

He said it in the beginning. You completely missed him saying he is going to protect the elite like everyone BEFORE HIM. You tripled down when you should have just reread the first paragraph.

And natural metals. Apparently there is trillions worth of natural metals there that Trump wants

This is the first comment in the thread I replied too. Your comment isn't apart of this comment. Is it? The guy I replied to isn't the OP of the entire thread. I am replying to a comment.

Yep. Someone who gets it.

I agree that you also responded with a straw man. The true straw man in this post is the notion that the new troop surge indicates a pro-war agenda from Trump, which neglects the possibility that this is the best strategy to end war in that nation. As in, it may be strategically awful to cut and run right now, so he may have decided to apply pressure to restore order so that American soldiers can safely leave without ISIS taking over everything.

It's reasonable to suggest that this is not the case and that Trump is a war monger. But it's just a suggestion, not a fact. That is the straw man that everyone is dancing around in this thread, although few will be honest about it.

We have to remember that Trump became president in a war-torn world. This was somewhat true of Obama too, although his actions belied a clear strategy against the interests of the American people. Now we see how Trump's strategy plays out. Ultimately I think this slow-motion train wreck towards WWIII will be significantly reversed by 2020. But that is just my opinion.

The only true way to end war in Afghanistan is to clean house and build it up like they did to Germany and Japan after WW2. With a stable economy and lifting the country out of extreme poverty folks will not want to give it up.

Destroy their shit and then make them debt slaves?

In the long run Germany and Japan have been much better off.

Trump will pander to the people but serve the elite like "everyone" before him.

Obama played the role of 'good cop' now we have Trump playing the role of 'bad cop' and then we will get somebody to play the 'good cop' role to appease the masses once again.

Sure. It isn't like an oligarchy will function as anything other than an oligarchy, or it wouldn't be an oligarchy.

;_;

True

Its the bait and switch we call democracy. If voting changed anything it would be outlawed.

Apparently there is trillions worth of natural metals there

They've been saying that about Afghanistan for years, yet no one's broken ground on any mines. I think it's a load of shit.

That's because of the security situation. Were that resolved it would be viable to invest in the necessary infrastructure.

All you need is a private militia (maybe even one run by a few of your bestest friends) with unlimited authority under articles of war with a pretext of finishing terrorists once and for all with the blessing of the US government to protect said projects. Then you are digging for gold.

unlimited authority under articles of war

Except that's literally a war crime. I'm not saying it couldn't be obfuscated with red tape, but it's not as simple as you're making it out. Plenty of nations would have motivation to call out a war crime of that magnitude when it starts infringing on their own mineral profits.

I'm also not convinced there's enough there to be profitable. You're dealing against established competition who are not having to operate under duress, and there's no known minerals there in sufficient quantities that have particular strategic or economic value.

The private firms did just that in Iraq. They definitely can get away with it, maybe it would be more difficult now but I doubt it. I think it's safe to say there are resources to be exploited in Afghanistan but the real ROI is probably too low to make it worthwhile. The infrastructure needs to be in place to actually get to those remote areas. But that's also part of the nation building exercise - making roads etc.

It's like we only care about helping them civilize their nation because we want their precious resources. Like helping out the disabled kids of someone's parents just so you can hang out at their mansion and eat their gourmet snacks and play in the trampoline-floor room.

I don't know how seriously the US would take other countries calling them out on a war crime they purposely did in order for mass profits.

It isn't like if the US got called out for a war crime over that, suddenly there would be some kind of "problem?" Trump would laugh and turn it around, then shoot up 100 distractions so nobody mentions it again. It. Keeps. Working.

Estimates put it at 3 trillion in lithium alone.

People have been mining in the Congo for decades with less security that what's available in Afghanistan. If there were valuable minerals in the ground in there, someone would be digging them up.

Afghanistan has similar things happening, but because they have the poppy that takes a backseat. Plenty of illegal mining on an artisanal scale goes on there and gets 'taxed' by the Taliban in the same way they tax other industries there. It's the Taliban who ok'd the Chinese to press on with copper mining plans.

But nothing large scale can happen with the Taliban able to pop up anywhere to disrupt any part of operations.

In the Congo there was much more control of territory, there wasn't the threat of insurgency everywhere. And money talked, so when mining companies were able to get involved they just paid their way. No religious/idealogical threat.

There is, almost certainly, a way to profit from NOT mining something.

Wow so if those asshole Americans get their way, they are going to stabilize the country and invest in infrastructure and the economy in Afghanistan?

THE AUDACITY.

Oil...

In 2006, a U.S. Geological Survey estimated that Afghanistan has as much as 36 trillion cubic feet (1.0×1012 m3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570×106 m3) of oil and condensate reserves. According to a 2007 assessment, Afghanistan has significant amounts of undiscovered non-fuel mineral resources.

I know it's just Wikipedia

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 104231}

Yep. Every war the US has launched since Desert Storm has been about oil. It's the core of their foreign and national security policy. I like to think that the CIA really wanted the poppy fields back up and running, come on, it's always about oil.

Good thing we stopped the people who wanted to turn away from oil from running the country right!

I read several articles about the poppy trade in Afghanistan which has increased dramatically since the US invasion. Apparently the profits from it is used for funding black-ops.

One of many articles on the subject.

It's pretty well-known that opium is a big reason too. The only for certain thing we can say is money in general.

Unfortunately.

My brother served 3 times in Iraq and 3 more times in Afghanistan. He used to be Mr. Patriot, but now he is just a super depressed ex-special forces guy who suffers from all his experiences there and talks nonstop about how he can't wait to move to Finland. Now he hates the USGov absolutely. The change in him is uncanny.

Why Finland?

He made friends with several Finnish special forces guys and they spoke a lot about things there.

He hasn't moved yet. After he was officially diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression, about two months ago, he said is now receiving $10,000 a month, can no longer own a gun, and is not allowed to work. So I'm not sure what his plans are now. His big dream was to live there and open an MMA gym with his Finnish friends.

Jesus, I am really sorry. Fear of that sort of thing happening kept me out of the military and has done the same with my sons as they have reached that age

Yeah, it's unfortunate. He isn't the same guy he used be.

The world would be so much better understood of more people spent on 200 hours in a Paradox Game.

Same reason the Russians tried and were defeated there. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan. I don't understand why we just don't pay them for the oil or find it somewhere else.

The British lost their too. Say what you want about the Afghans--they are tough motherfuckers. I think the terrain breeds that kind of thing.

The military industrial complex has been gifted a nice, lucrative expansion on their key marketplace. Does it have to be any more complicated than that?

paid for by us ..the poor mong shopping at Aldi for the off brand cereal.

Same thing - why hasn't anyone (other than the Chinese) invested in extracting it if that was the big goal?

[removed]

?? I was questioning that if the invasion was all about oil, why is no one doing anything with the oil.

Sorry, I misunderstood. They have been producing oil. Production dramatically increased in 2010. Commercial production started in 2013. They have yet to start exporting oil and natural gas, but that will happen soon.

Afghan Oil Production

Another article about Afghan Oil Production

2,000 BOPD is minute (like the daily production of a single well, though a big one).

I was unable to find an article confirming China National Petroleum Corporation had actually started production.

Yeah, it's just the start of it. It's been 7 years since they got started so I believe it's only a matter of time before their output increases.

Another more recent article about why we invaded Afghanistan.

I don't know about the CNPC though.

They were the company from your link that was apparently imminently about to begin producing.

Except it hasn't been put in print quite like this: Trump Finds Reason for the U.S. to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals

The vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan was only discovered many years into the war.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=trillions+of+dollars+of+minerals+in+afghanistan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=yqScWdSALIuwjwTImoXQCA

The sold the copper up in Badakshan to either a Chinese company or their government depending on how you see things.

And natural metals. Apparently there is trillions worth of natural metals there that Trump wants.

Lets be real here - its what the US wNts.

Simply conflating it to Trump (which is all you do) is so frustrating to read every day. Does it always habe to be Trump all the time?

Lets be real here - its what the US wants and has wanted for almost two decades.

Ok, but Trump still wants to do it as well. He's argued over and over again that we don't take natural resources like oil from nations like Afghanistan or Iraq and that we should go back and take it. He has said that multiple times before.

Simply conflating it to Trump (which is all you do) is so frustrating to read every day. Does it always have to be Trump all the time?

And what does that mean?

The war on drugs has been propping this country up for many years. Pretty much everyone agrees our monetary system/economy are unsustainable....Unless there was a way to remove a large amount of the money they continue to print from circulation....enter drugs. They are very easy and cheap to produce. They cost many, many times their production/transportation cost because of the criminal risk involved.

Hold a monopoly on easy to produce, consumable, high demand products whose price is artificially inflated. Give said product to the populace in exchange for paper money continuously printed. Excessive paper money is removed from circulation(thus - for now- preventing massive inflation) while the populace enjoys a distracting high...

You forgot about Civil Forfeiture. Take anyone's cash for any reason as long as you say you suspected them of using the cash for drugs.

For sure. I didn't delve into it as much as could be done. Past the obvious economy angle - think jobs - police, lawyers, judges, court clerks, prisons and all that comes with it. Then think influence - do people doing illegal things tend to speak out?

This is probably the most economically illiterate statement ever

I have a terrible time trying to understand economics at an in-depth level. Could you elaborate on your point? I'd genuinely like to have a better understanding if this is way off the mark.

Well for one his statement that our monetary and economic system is unstable just isn't true. There can be bubbles (the 2008 housing crisis) but for the most part our economic system is becoming increasingly more stable, especially compared to the 1800's and early 1900's. Secondly, his statement that inflation is out of control is wrong for so many reasons. The Fed has actually been trying to increase inflation, for a few reasons that I won't get into, but has been having difficulty with it. Furthermore, paper currency is like 5% of the total money supply and the idea that the government needs to get it back to control inflation is absurd, because even if he was right about that point, the government could print less money.

As far as the government having a monopoly on drug sales he's just talking out of his ass. Even for illegal drugs

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I really need to take some econ classes, lol. Your points do seem to make sense, though.

I genuinely appreciate your input

You should! Econ classes are super educational and useful. Alternatively, consider picking up a textbook on it, and educating yourself through that. My econ textbook was one of 2 textbooks I kept from University(the other being the big blue book of algorithms).

Unfortunately I just searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find the name of the textbook :/

I heard that if you generate the supply, the demand will follow.

Yes. You also have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

There is nothing stable (or moral) about a debt based fiat money system. It benefits those closest to the money hose and craps on those the furthest from it. It is nothing short of the greatest theft of value in the history of humanity. The Fed and IMF are responsible for so much misery and suffering in the world. To hear how wonderful and stable the economy is from an obviously intelligent person while all real measures are total shit, and the ones that aren't barely break even from the 2008 crash is disheartening to day the least.

You are also telling someone that they are talking out of their ass that there are government drug monopolies, when in the same paragraph you agree there are government drug monopolies? But it's DIFFERENT because it is for a reason you think is OK, so that makes all the bad stuff go away? I'll think of your dumb ass comment next time I have to buy an epi-pen for my kid. Over $500 dollars I spent 2 months before they were "benevolent" enough to lower the cost (still multiples higher than years ago).

What is your alternative? A metal based currency that forces deflation and leads to disastrous effects for the economy and exports deflation? And I'd ask you to elaborate on "the money hose". If you have a retirement fund or a bank account you benefit from the money hose, even if you don't realize it. And as far as medicine I'm not saying that our healthcare system is perfect, but would you believe if I said without the assurance of a patent, research and development would slow down, and the Epipen that your child needs would probably not exist without patents. Government allowing a temporary monopoly is not the same as the government having complete control of all the drugs.

Money hose - those closest to the point of money creation (aka The Fed) get the most benefits, and have the greatest advantage to buy income generating assets. Those at the end of the money hose see their dollars when their value has the inflation fully priced in. This is the root cause of wealth disparity.

The solution to the Fed is to have as many competing currencies as the market will support. The Liberty Dollar got too close to market adoption, so it was killed - violating the UCC (among other things) in the process. Crypto currencies are next. They are decentralized so they will go after the exchanges by regulating the shit out of them as to make hit not worth the effort or legal risk.

401Ks are called dumb money for a reason. They were implemented to funnel all that juicy retirement money into the casino for it to be stripped by those that understand the game. HFT love that captured money. Saving for retirement sounds better though. You can tell which reason they passed it simply from the early withdrawal penalty.

You realize that the barrier to having epinephrine alternatives isn't in the actual drug, but the INJECTOR. The FDA is an artificial barrier to entry for competition, and why $500 for less than $10 of product was being charged. Monopolies are awesome if you are the monopoly.

Drug development would no slow down, investment would not cease. There is too much money to be made, especially on the cutting edge stuff. However the handful of companies currently controlling the drug market today would have to share some of that enormous pie. If you didn't know regulations equal control then I don't know what to say. Our current system prevents more effective medicines than it allows, because nobody is going to spend billions jumping through regulatory hoops to certify cannabinoids and similar items if they can't patent them. Don't even get me started on the prescription system shakedown.

Yeah, but it posits a bizarre conspiracy and this is /r/conspiracy so...

Where, exactly, do you think the money goes? Big pharma just burns it?

Yeah. I'm thinking that between banking and drugs, oil is a relatively minor factor.

Name the countries WITHOUT a Central bank?

Iran. Russia. Syria.

NK. And Afghan was just crossed off the list.

Libya as well.

Yeah. I'm thinking that between banking and drugs, oil is a relatively minor factor.

Drug money is untraceable, you don't need congress's approval to spend it

What border control agency or drug enforcement agency inspects military or intelligence transports arriving from places like Afghanistan?

I'm guessing none.

Dumb question: do our prescription opiates come from the Afghani regions that we have a military presence in?

No. Also almost none of the heroin in north america comes from the middle east or asia. There are pharmaceutical poppy fields all over the world with many in tasmania along with others in the uk and europe.

Pharma companies like Bayer have legal poppy fields, some are in Spain if I remember rignt? But yeah, I don't think illegal poppy is used to produce prescription opiates given out to legal patients.

I believe most comes from Afghanistan

people conflate the poppies in afghanistan with prescription drugs. Hydro and oxycodone are made via thebaine, which is in low quantities in the poppies grown in Afghanistan. Afghan poppies have large amounts of morphine, which is then cooked into heroin.

I'm pretty sure that a large chunk of the opiates grown for pharmaceutical use come from eastern europe, czech republic and netherlands i think.

and heroin in the US comes from mexico and south america. we don't have any south west asian or south east asian heroin in this country.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

First paragraph "Afghanistan's opium poppy production goes into more than 90% of heroin worldwide.[1] Afghanistan has been the world's greatest illicit opium producer, ahead of Burma (Myanmar), the "Golden Triangle", and Latin America since 1992, excluding the year 2001.[2] Afghanistan is the main producer of opium in the "Golden Crescent". Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001.[3]"

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 104272}

Good bot

Yes Afghanistan is the largest producer for the WORLD. but for the US the largest producer is Mexico 2nd is south America. In other words none of the Afghan dope cones to the US but it goes everywhere else.

Ah I am stoned and alas did not make that connection, however with such a high number as 90% worldwide is it so outlandish to not out rule that some, might come from afghanistan, even if that amount could be negligable its not nothing right? But now I fear I've just detracted from putting forth anything truly meaningful. Sorry!

the DEA has a "Heroin Domestic Monitor Program" report that they do every year. in this report they go around and do heroin buys in a bunch of major cities, they then analyze the heroin content of each sample and they are also able to identify where the heroin originated. either Mexican, South American, SW Asian (Golden Crescent: Afghanistan, Pakistan & Iran) and SE Asian (Golden Triangle: Burma, Thailand, Laos & Vietnam.

the most recent report I can find is from 2014. they may have stopped releasing the reports to the public, I'm not sure.

2013: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/pubs/2013%20Heroin%20Domestic%20Monitor%20Program.pdf

2014: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/pubs/hspdmp2014reports.pdf

so to get back to your point, you're right in that there probably isn't ZERO afghan (SW Asian) heroin in the US. just that it is a minuscule amount compared to Mexican and SA.

In 2013 out of 765 samples tested, there were 28 of SW Asian origin and 0 of SE Asian origin. In 2014 out of 732 samples, 16 were SW Asian and 0 were SE Asian.

back in the 80s (like 1979-1994) SW and SE asian heroin was imported to the US and made up like 50%+ of the market. check out appendix A Heroin Source Area Distribution -1977-2014 graph in the 2014 report

Wow! Thank you for the thorough, respectful, and well resourced response. This is an interesting topic for some reason, I had no idea the Dea did this.

Sorry bud. You're way off base there. No poppy fields in the Czech Republic, and Netherlands is known for tulips.

Additionally, it doesn't matter where the heroin is coming from since the raw material is sourced in Afghanistan....

No poppy fields in the Czech Republic

lol ok, whatever u say boss. https://youtu.be/IdYZj9vmfi0?t=95

Poppy, Papaver somniferum L., is an annual herb native to Southeastern Europe and western Asia. Also known as opium poppy, the species is cultivated extensively in many countries, including Iran, Turkey, Holland, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, India, Canada, and many Asian and Central and South American countries.

https://www.opioids.com/poppy.html

The poppy seeds used in baking come from all over, but our two main sources are Turkey and the Netherlands. When you buy a bottle at your local store, chances are you're getting Dutch poppy seeds, which are a familiar blue-grey.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/05/if_you_cant_grow_poppies_.html

sooooo. you're wrong.

Additionally, it doesn't matter where the heroin is coming from since the raw material is sourced in Afghanistan....

lol what? what is this even supposed to mean? what raw material? as I just showed. opium poppies will grow pretty much anywhere. and the heroin in the US comes from poppies being grown in mexico and south america. NOT AFGHANISTAN.

Thank you for the links. I'll check them out!

All about the petrodollar.

Trump declared the opiate crisis a national emergency. Wtf is wrong with this thread.

And? The US still consumes the majority of the world's opiates....

Heroin is now dirt cheap and not worth much.

It's all about the minerals.

I wasn't talking about monetary value.

Wait, 15 years ago everyone claimed it was about an oil pipeline which never happened. Now it's all about the opium, because the original conspiracy never happened.

I think it's disheartening that we live in a country where you have to sell your soul to become president. I know it's been that way for a long while, but it's getting worse. I disagree with Trump on many many things, but the thought that he is just another corporate puppet doesn't bode well for the future of our "democracy"

In 2028 we'll have candidates officially sponsored by corporations.

The idea of Mark Zuckerberg running for president sends a chill down my spine. Especially after the precedent Trump is setting by not separating himself from his companies.

I remember when FB took off he was immediately called to have meetings with the president and government officials. It was so obvious what they wanted and what he wants. President Zuckerberg isn't that impossible.

Fuck Zuck 2020.

Hahahaha

Might as well just have a company run for president

but does he even have a soul to sell?

No he's the one buying.

The Onion:

"Zuckerberg: I ran for President to learn how to care about other humans"

What political party is zuckerberg a part of lol nevermind

He's a cultural Marxist.

Trump lost his soul long ago he's been in the NYC construction world there is no way he hasn't had contact with the mob and there articles that outline some of the key points on that topic.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-alleged-mafia-connections-sydney-casino-651352

https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate

What specifically makes the Russian mafia more powerful?

more backing from oligarchs back home in mother russia

Pretty ambiguous. I was curious what rackets they control opposed to the Italians, Asians, Jews, Latinos, so on. Sounds like more russiaphobia. When my first search shows them stealing candy and skimming slots.Hardly sound like the kingpins of power in NY..

It's estimated that the group claims upwards of 9,000 members, and that it's bread and butter is the drug trade and human trafficking. Russian organized crime in general is heavily involved in the heroin trade that originates in Afghanistan: it's estimated that Russia consumes about 12% of the world's heroin, while it contains just 0.5% of the world's population.

Literally the first link when I googled Russian Mob.

Article is from 2014, so it predates the current fascination with Russia

Why? Didn't Trump say he wanted to leave Afghanistan?

He said he did want to leave as soon as it's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

How are the Russians accessing those poppy fields? What part, if any, are US troops playing in the dealing between the Afghan farmers and the Russian dealers? Does Russia have covert ops on the ground? Is one of the wealthier Russian mob bosses funding private militias on the ground there?

All of this opens up so many questions

The current fascination with Russia certainly predates 2014. Figures with so many heroin addicts that they'd go to the source. My point is these rackets are intertwined. The Russians pushed diamonds in mafia territory of South Philly, I've been there. These organizations utilize each other. It just seems funny to me that Forbes associated earnings with them, because it's in no way factual. Saying one is larger then the other is entirely dependent on made up information. So that's silly for me.

More money behind them with Russia and the Oligarchs behind them, they are the strong arm in Russia as well which is what threatens the oligarchs. They are also much more aggressive and less cautious then the Mafia. The mafia do things in a much more subtle manner these days, they've had just about 100 years to learn and grow, the Russian mob is younger, all of the younger mobs and gangs are always out to show everyone something, like MS-13, they need that fear to keep the larger predators at bay.

There is no win/win here.

I've always seen Trump as a reaction of a group of national US Elites which make most of their money based on US assets vs. vassals-of/the international Elites whose capital floats to the best profitable areas.

So from that perspective cooperating with the national mob is the only option left because everybody has at least the basic interest to protect their national assets.

Pretty much every politician in this country and every other country is owned by the mobs. The mob is literally running your governments - they are the political class. And if anything Trump is probably owned by the Five Families, the Russian mob doesn't have shit on the Italians in terms of the global power structure.

Pretty much every politician in this country and every other country is owned by the mobs. The mob is literally running your governments - they are the political class.

This. More people need to see this. What I'd like to add is that Cosa Nostra, Sinaloa, and others are working for the international financial elite class. They're the enforcers for the political class. This is why you rarely see candidates promoting real democratic policy such as ranked voting, term limits for national senators and representatives of the house, etc. (although I did see one state promote ranked voting, very exciting). I'd back that speculation up with the numerous times banks have been caught laundering money for organized crime. IMO it's pretty transparent at this point that the same people manipulating the market are controlling our politics and fighting both sides of a war on drugs via organized crime. That makes government the most organized crime of all.

Yep. You should read the posts of u/AhuwahZeus, he has done a better job than anyone I've seen connecting the various Families and Houses that run things behind the scenes when most people stop at the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who are really just the money guys and public buffer between the true Elite and the public.

Keep preaching this way. There is nothing but Gangster economics and Gangster politics in the world. The will to power insures that "Pay For Protection" is the modus operandi for all-time. Heck, you can even add Gangster religion, which operates on the same level "Pay the church because it helps protect your soul."

Every thing reduces to "pay for protection."

Every thing reduces to "pay for protection."

Yup. Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The international cartel first exploited second from the bottom and has been trying to conquer the entire pyramid ever since.

Thanks for the tip!

They still control a great deal; however, the Russian crime syndicates have taken over most of what they used to control.

Are there any good posts on this or articles?

You can't even be sure that Trump is even in control. If he would be all this CIA deep state propaganda front wouldn't have happened.

Trump has essentially ceded power to the US military with his presidency, at least for right now.

He doesn't want to be as neutral as possible.

They probably keep him in the dark or let him know that shot will go down if he says anything. — Just my opinion

Bernie would have at least been a step in the right direction. Trump is literally the incarnation of corporate greed. Democrats wanted Trump in office over Bernie because Trump is more in line with their agenda.

Trump is not even remotely in line with the Dem platform.

Not their platform, but their agenda? If it's acting as a buffer zone between the people's anger and corporate greed, then most definitely, trump is the perfect buffer

Democrats wanted Trump in office over Bernie because Trump is more in line with their agenda.

Do you have any evidence on that?

Election Day 2020: Sponsored by Coca-Cola. Quench your Thirst for Democracy today!

If you bring 12 Proofs-of-purchase, they let you vote again.

Let's make America wealthy again, sponsored by Bank of America

It's going to happen, especially after Citizens United

Pepsi would be the company that threw their hat into politics.
Coca-cola had the sense to stay out of it.

Now with new and improved Hypothetical Examples!

To be fair, without doing such stupid things, Pepsi would never be relevant. I think they got the most coverage out of that stupid as heck "protesting chill can" ad, as they did out of their last 10 media campaigns combined.

In 2028 we'll have candidates officially sponsored by corporations.

We already have that. Goldman Sachs did that last election.

are you talking about the guy with several ex goldman sachs employees on his cabinet and in other positions of prominence in his administration or the woman who would have had several ex goldman sachs employees on her cabinet and in other positions of prominence in her administration

???

Yes

I don't think many people realize that every single president will have to send people to die, and also order people killed. We are a warring society. We are a war tribe. Our National Birthday is celebrated with intimation bombs being blown up. We honor our warriors, who fight and kill. We don't honor peace. We mock it as weakness.

That's not just the US though, that's the human condition, it's our heritage and our history

Trump isn't a corporate puppet, though. He's a corporate hand. The puppet has been discarded as unnecessary.

the thought that he is just another corporate puppet doesn't bode well for the future of our "democracy"

Trump was the most obvious corporate puppet of them all. At least Clinton made an effort to try and hide it. It's almost as if Trump's game was something like "Well that guy couldn't possibly be the murderer, he's twirling around a bloody knife in public, you'd have to be stupid to murder someone and then do that"

It's a bold move cotton, let's see who's jimmies get rustled more - Trumpers, or lefties?!

Or everyone in between. It's not a dichotomy.

The new song is just like the old song.

wrong sub now for this opinion

the zealots have taken over. If its not something that smears the 'lib'ruls', they're gonna brigade it.

Only concern trolling stooges come to conspiracy to assert their opinions.

username checks out

wtf is "concern trolling" lol?

Not hip to that 4chan/incel lingo my dude :)

Guys I have opinions we should all admit too!

the irony...

That's what this post is.

Wrong. :P

8 hrs later most of the top comments are referencing the_donald and one of them insist a message of unity is part of their new narrative.. theres really no fixing the reddit collective :'/

Look at the top comments. You think they've taken over? Give me a break

How could you possibly say that when this reached all. You're literally commenting in a thread that refutes your point.

username checks out...

I've seen it happen three times in my own lifetime. Bush Jr., Obama, and now Trump.

All three promised big things and seemed like they were going to affect real change, for better or worse.

All three have changed nothing. The status quo remains. Our liberties continue to be eroded in the name of peace and security. L

Trump was complicit in dangling brown foreigners as "the problem" to rile up xenophobia in the US. It's the usual far-right playbook.

Both sides now have a chance to turn on the REAL enemies of our country... the oligarchs and their corporate cartels who have captured our "democracy" via a coup d'etat in the 1970's (since The Powell memo).

Trump was complicit in dangling brown foreigners as "the problem" to rile up xenophobia in the US. It's the usual far-right playbook from anti-intellectual demagogues (see: Bannon).

We all know Obama made the US boarder wide open per instructions from the UN on population replacement. http://archive.is/xUQas#selection-133.0-133.21 It's still going on in Europe. Your demonization of Trump for doing the right thing is ignorant and childish.

Ah yes... forgot that studying the 100% certainty of population declines across the modern industrialized world really means that Obama was a secret Muslim Brotherhood agent looking to eradicate white people and turn America into a Muslim Caliphate.

Go forth with your modern-day crusade, warrior of the light!!

really means that Obama was a secret Muslim Brotherhood agent looking to eradicate white people and turn America into a Muslim Caliphate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

True... I forgot to mention George Soros...

Not true. Obama had deported far more people than Bush could have ever dreamed of. Quit spreading misinformation

He deported more but let more in. There was even trains bringing them in.

Totally forgot about the Powell Memo. Thanks for reminding us.

I may be alone in this but I actually want American lives to get considerably worse. I want the rich to get richer and the middle class to deteriorate rapidly. We need another revolution. Most Americans agree on a lot of issues yet this isn't reflected anywhere in our media or policy (i.e. net neutrality). We outnumber the rich and we ABSOLUTELY have the power to force change but we sit back and continue to let these bullshit corporate whores to steal from us day in and day out, hoping that they will help us. Personally I'm just waiting for the people to say, "enough."

Unfortunately, this is the whole...

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

I've seen studies say that populations revolt when they get hungry enough (or even when they have to spend x% of income just on food). Our corporate state has figured out that they can just give us Food Stamps (instead of bread lines), and it's all good.

No surprise that we have record number of Americans on food stamps since the 2008 crisis. At least they won't revolt in the streets YET, but I fear we are headed that way after the next market crash.

The quote goes "No society is more than three meals away from revolution."

So long as people can safely obtain enough calories to survive they'll be pretty complacent.

Every super food market only has 3 days worth of true supply.

What happens when food stamps are worth nothing?

Time to flee the country if you can...

oh god the wall is going to be built to keep US in.

Then your borderline sociopath.

It will never happen because there are too many distractions away from poverty, like cell phone games, playstation, legalized weed, and the old favorite Alcohol.

Maybe. Maybe not though.

Both sides now have a chance to turn on the REAL enemies of our country... the oligarchs and their corporate cartels who have captured our "democracy" via a coup d'etat in the 1970's (since The Powell memo).

You know the oligarchs want mass immigration right? But it's easier to whine about muh xenophobia for you.

Anyone who sees that the US will have a declining + aging population is in support of immigration, if you cared to maintain our same level of economic activity.

I'm not on the side of oligarchs nor do I think the Deep State want to turn us into a sharia law Muslim caliphate... but either we get more immigrants or the economy will continue to flutter away ala Japan.

Anyone who sees that the US will have a declining + aging population is in support of immigration, if you cared to maintain our same level of economic activity.

But we have automation coming so we don't need immigration all that much. Some high skill but not illiterates who mow lawns.

Mass immigrstion i's a tool to keep wages low and import a vote base. Get real.

I'm not on the side of oligarchs nor do I think the Deep State want to turn us into a Spanish-speaking sharia law Muslim caliphate... but either we get more immigrants or the economy will continue to flutter away ala Japan.

So you're not on the side of the Oligarchs but you argue their vision for society?

Japan is awesome, there's more to life than GDP.

Oh god you're so lost but you think you're edgy.

But we have automation coming so we don't need immigration all that much.

Are robots going to consume too? how will you fill that gap with a population that is declining?

Mass immigrstion is a tool to keep wages low and import a vote base. Get real.

Fucking A you guys fall for this shit hook line and sinker. Xenophobes have been blaming immigrants for ages now, when it is the white executives in suits that are not giving YOU wage increases, yet they are cashing themselves out in the TRILLIONS. As an example, corporations have bought back over $4 TRILLION of their own stock in the last 5 years (aka cashing themselves out). Who is worse for workers? those greedy sociopaths, or Jose wanting to pick oranges in Florida?

Are robots going to consume too? how will you fill that gap with a population that is declining?

Do you worship the economy? Do you love making the arguments of the oligarchs for them? Do you think America is just gdp?

when it is the white executives in suits that are not giving YOU wage increases,

The same people that want mass immigration who want it to have cheap labor. Yes them.

Who is worse for workers? those greedy sociopaths hoarding the wealth, or Jose wanting to pick oranges in Florida?

Works in tandem. My taxes subsidize both while I earn less.

Funny you're ignoring the part about voting too.

Stop being an oligarch worshipper.

Do you worship the economy? Do you love making the arguments of the oligarchs for them? Do you think America is just gdp?

What America IS NOT, is a country by white people, for white people. It will be at least 40% Hispanic by 2030, just as it was x% German, x% Italian, x% African, x% Native American, x% British etc since it's very beginnings. NO ONE group is entitled to claim they represent America. We can all rally around the constitution, the bill of rights, and the enterprising spirit of America, but we have always been a blend of cultures and races. Get over it.

The oligarchs have no control over this (declining population) or its devastating effects on an economy. I don't worship it, but I know the pains that come with a deflationary retracting economy. We don't have to make it worse by gutting population levels.

The same people that want mass immigration who want it to have cheap labor. Yes them.

And yet it is no surprise that conservatives spend every breath attacking only the brown poor side. Where is the crack down on corporations that hire the illegals? your white politicians won't touch that, as it hurts their investors and oligarchs. YOU are playing their game too by supporting them.

What America IS NOT, is a country by white people, for white people.

America is a country for Americans not every single human on earth. You can't just cram a bunch of random people in for the sake of GDP and hope it will be the best. Do you think a bunch of day laborers who sneak over the border give a fuck about the constitution?

If we have immigration it should be limited, for people who will assimilate, who aren't on welfare, and with special skills.

The oligarchs have no control over this (declining population) or its devastating effects on an economy. I don't worship it, but I know the pains that come with a deflationary retracting economy. We don't have to make it worse by gutting population levels.

So we'd have less people effected by automation. Win win.

And yet it is no surprise that conservatives spend every breath attacking only the brown poor side. Where is the crack down on corporations that hire the illegals? your white politicians won't touch that, as it hurts their investors and oligarchs. YOU are playing their game too by supporting them.

Our oligarchs won't regulate themselves but they love useful idiots making their arguments for them.

Just admit you don't care about anything else but liberal identity politics. That's your focus, come out and say it.

America is a country for Americans not every single human on earth. You can't just cram a bunch of random people in for the sake of GDP and hope it will be the best. Do you think a bunch of day laborers who sneak over the border give a fuck about the constitution?

I actually DO. You will find that the majority want to keep their head down, not get in trouble, so that they can send money back to their family across the border. Are you going off of sensationalized bullshit out of Fox News or Breitbart by any chance?

Our government and culture has always been British too. Not a random mish mash.

The North (aka who ultimately won the battle) was ALWAYS a mish mash of cultures. I guess the puritans in the South did stick to the ideals of British aristocracy, with the added cherry of slave chattel labor. That, my friend, is nothing to be proud of.

If we have immigration it should be limited, for people who will assimilate, who aren't on welfare, and with special skills.

I am all for immigrants assimilating to the openness and inclusiveness of America, but they should not assimilate to the bigoted views that confederate-carrying white people are representative of the American culture.

Our oligarchs won't regulate themselves but they love useful idiots making their arguments for them.

Hate to tell you this, but on the immigration issue YOU are the useful idiot here. You are making their argument for attacking the mule (half pun intended), versus going after who is actually dangling the carrot of jobs in front of them.

Just admit you don't care about anything else but liberal identity politics. That's your focus, come out and say it.

I think those attacking poor people of color (instead of attacking the systemic economic unfairness of our corporate oligarchy) are dragging this identity politics shit forward. Blame Trump, Bannon, Breitbart, Fox News, and yes... the corporate media on the left for trying to distract us from the real enemies of our country.

I actually DO. You will find that the majority want to keep their head down, not get in trouble, so that they can send money back to their family across the border. Are you going off of sensationalized bullshit out of Fox News or Breitbart by any chance?

Again we're a country, not a weekend cash gig.

The North (aka who ultimately won the battle) was ALWAYS a mish mash of cultures. I guess the puritans in the South did stick to the ideals of British aristocracy, with the added cherry of slave chattel labor. That, my friend, is nothing to be proud of.

No it wasn't. The north was English.

I am all for immigrants assimilating to the openness and inclusiveness of America, but they should not assimilate to the bigoted views that confederate-carrying white people are representative of the American culture.

Ok but thr confederate flag is American history regardless.

I think those attacking poor people of color (instead of attacking the systemic economic unfairness of our corporate oligarchy) are dragging this identity politics shit forward. Blame Trump, Bannon, Breitbart, Fox News, and yes... the corporate media on the left for trying to distract us from the real enemies of our country.

The corporate oligarchy wants what you are pushing for and fight against commonsense immigration reform.

Again we're a country, not a weekend cash gig.

Tell that to the multinational corporations who push around our politicians and rob us of trillions in wealth. You still want to go after the pennies at the bottom of the food chain?

No it wasn't. The north was English.

And German, and Irish, and Swedish, and Italian, and from every other nation where people could get on boats and safely land here. We began as a land of opportunity for all who could hack it. The spirit remains the same today, except we have corporate cartels as owners of the plantations. They get to set the rules and the opportunities.

Ok but thr confederate flag is American history regardless.

Slavery is also American history. It belongs in the past.

The corporate oligarchy wants what you are pushing for and fight against commonsense immigration reform.

Let's DO common sense immigration reform. Let's expedite the process for legal immigration so that people don't have to resort to crossing the border illegally. Let's provide a path to naturalization for those who have been participants of our nation for decades while obeying the rules. Let's view immigrants as human beings as a starting point. Let's not fearmonger others about people of color through sensationalizing and focusing solely on the few that commit violence. etc. etc. etc.

There are only negative consequences from attempting to shut down our borders. A damn fake sense of security, and your local corporate farm won't be rushing to fill the gap with Americans who yearn to earn a few dollars per hour.

Tell that to the multinational corporations who push around our politicians and rob us of trillions in wealth. You still want to go after the pennies at the bottom of the food chain?

But you're pushing their rheotric. "We need cheap labor!" You both cry.

We began as a

English colony. You're mistaking recent immigration rhetoric for history.

Slavery is also American history. It belongs in the past.

Except for wage slavery which you support foe expanding gdp.

Let's DO common sense immigration reform.

But we don't need millions more people. That's not commonsense.

Stop being a corporate stooge.

Also see: every leader of any country ever

Obama literally avoided a fucking great depression 2.0. Was he perfect? Hell no. But don't act like his presidency wasn't a net gain for our country.

Net gain is debatable. American citizens executed on orders of the president without due process for the crime of having differing views while in another country should be fucking terrifying. Not prosecuting perjury to congress should be more than troubling. Arming the enemy that is killing American soldiers with American weapons should be cause for riots. But the media served their masters well and effectively buried the significance of these events in ways that that should also be terrifying.

You do know Trump changed that to be even worse. Obama personally signed of on all terrorist American citizen drone strikes. Trump delegated that to McMaster. So now you don't even need the presidents authority to do that.

That doesn't make Trump worse. It means Obama created the situation. This is exactly why people say both sides are the same.

It means the president was absolutely responsible as the signing authority if anything went wrong. Now the blame is passed on to another. It's a way to explain away wrongs. "Oh I never looked at that, he did that. Time to resign guy."

Thanks Obama.

Wait. What? It absolutely makes Trump worse. He removed oversight and accountability which could by why trumps using approximately 4.3x more strikes than Obama / day.

What oversight and accountability are you supposing exists when the executive already did this with impunity? Obama set the precedent. If Trump executed an American citizen abroad for ideological differences without trial, what do you suppose would happen? Do you think the public would take it? I very much doubt it. But Obama was able to convince people that the Constitution doesn't matter.

Obama literally avoided a fucking great depression 2.0.

How exactly did Obama do that?

Do you not know about the stimulus package?

How exactly did Obama do that?

Stimulus package

Dental plan

lisa needs braces

Because the media said so

I did a google search for "U.S economy before and after obama" and i came across this article. If you're the kind of person who doesn't believe anything obama does is good then this probably won't mean much to you, but I think it's a pretty good look at simply how the numbers changed from the time he was in office. Personally, I see a lot of good there and the fact that he turned an economy that was getting worse every year into one that is stabilized and actually growing is absolutely an impressive feat. I just don't understand how people can maintain that obama was a shitty president especially when you can look up the good things he's done online and he's sandwiched between George W. Bush who put us into a depression and a war and Trump who is proving to be the most retarded president we've ever had in this country.

It wasn't a net gain. We're worse off now than we were under Bush

Wrong.

maybe you are, but the country as a whole is doing better.

As a whole? No we aren't.

Rarely have I seen a triple false equivalence, but you managed to do it.

"All three made promises, and all three broke some of them, therefore they're all the same" is one of the biggest political generalizations I've ever heard.

I didn't say they were the same.

Your comment says "All three promised big things, all three changed nothing." How does that not ignore the events that happened during their terms, their personal opinions, the policies they tried to enact, their public optics, the people in their staff and Congress, and the myriad of other factors that went into each of them?

Except one huge difference. The MSM

Sounds like you are well and truly off the trump train bud, what happened that made you lose confidence in him?

I'm still well and truly on board, as much, if not more than ever..... but interested to what changed from a user who I know is legit!

WITH a big, nazi bow on top!

Downvoted. Great political thread, bad conspiracy thread.

I upvoted, but only because it's really hard to have this kind of discussion anywhere on Reddit these days. But I agree with your statement.

That doesn't make sense.

Downvoted. Nothing of your comment brought any substance to the table.

Of course you like political threads in this sub wang peng russian321.

He's got no one in his corner now that Bannon is gone, his proverbial nuts are cut off, powerless and Isolated by his Russophobes War Hawks/Oligarchy. He'll be gone by the fall. He did however Advocate for peace against other Nuclear powers. The hateful and dangerous progressive liberal left are attempting to steer the programmed Americans in the wrong direction.

He did however Advocate for peace against other Nuclear powers.

Let us not re-write history here folks. Just because Putin knows how to man-handle Trump doesn't mean Trump is a pacifist who bwants to hold hands and sing kumbaya. His erratic macho inept bullshit almost wrought chaos and destruction over the Korean peninsula, until big boy China had to step in and cool some heads.

According to bannon there was a battle within the administration and the globalists won out

Specifically, Kushner won, right?

Yes, or as Bannon says, "The Democrats"

FTFY > Yes, or as Bannon says, "The Jews"

Haha nah, although you do bring up a good point: Jews do hold an inordinate amount of power in this country

O_o totally wasnt the point i was trying to make. thats the point bannon wants to make.

Then I guess Bannon has a point. A good example is the law that could get passed that would make it illegal to boycott Israel

Who could have predicted that the dems were all powerful

Huh funny, I thought a billionaire real estate investor that specializes in luxury golf resorts across the world, and is friends with / landlord of the Saudi Royal Family, would be described as a "globalist" himself.

Billionaires don't all have the same exact goals or ideologies. Trump, Mercer and others like them are nationalists and constitutionalists that correctly point out that globalism has destroyed US sovereignty and the national sovereignty of nations all around the world. Being a person of his stature in the business world, it's only natural that Trump has rubbed elbows with just about every person on the planet that has power in some way, it's part of the business. This gives him a lot more leverage than the average politician because he's not motivated by ideological pursuits, he'll make a deal with anybody so long as it's in general good faith and not blatantly fucking his or the country's bottom line.

And that's what he ran on.

Weird, almost like he's pretty much been doing exactly what he said he was going to do LOL

But not what he's doing

Yeah and how's that working out

Can you explain how USA's sovereignty has been destroyed?

press 1 for spanish! 1 ... can you believe it?

Well, you've got a bunch of different reasons:

• The Organic Act of 1871, which changed our country from a Constitutional republic to a "democracy" under maritime law, fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and the governed through legal trickery in the edited Preamble of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, and created the vassal city-state of Washington DC, which is owned by the Crown Corporation (the City-State of London, which is in turn owned by the Vatican) as the capital of a corporate Federal government with its own laws and regulations, which is how it circumvents the Constitution as it's technically not a part of our country;

• The dollar has dropped about 98% in value since the 1900s thanks to our Congress illegally passing the Federal Reserve Act into law and selling us down the river into usury-based fractional banking slavery to foreign banking cartels;

• FDR confiscated people's gold in 1933, with Nixon performing the coup de gras on the gold standard itself to create the petrodollar;

• NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade Agreement and globalism itself completely gutted our manufacturing and industrial base and sold it to the third world which destroyed our middle class and has resulted in half the country being below the poverty line;

• Our government is basically owned by multiple other foreign entities, corporations and banks to the point where Princeton University has agreed that we are technically an oligarchy

Just a few reasons, there's plenty more.

Nationalists are just tribal leaders who support sticking with the tribe. Globalists , in the ideal, want a mocha colored human race. But today's globalists want to consolidate power in the hands of fewer people.

Exactly the problem, it destroys national cultures and their own unique identities, and we already have just about all the power consolidated in the hands of the 1% already, can't get much more concentrated than that.

Additionally, the president has unilateral power to fire everyone within the administration... If the "globalists have won", it's because Donald let them or wanted them to.

Not necessarily, he can't fire a Paul Ryan or a Mueller for example.

You mean the billionaire businessman did things that benefit the wealthy instead of the country? Shocker.

Why focus just on Trump? It's way bigger than that

You need to stop making excuses and using buzzwords and start focusing on the issues.

Huh?

All of this Alex Jones bullshit about globalists, it's just a distraction.

You're not familiar with the idea of globalism? Hm that's strange

Oh, I'm familiar and I think it's a sham. Show me one shred of evidence that isn't from a conservative propaganda website.

If you believe in this shit you're no better than the poor southern farmers who were suckered into fight for the confederacy or any other group that was conned into fighting for something based on a false belief.

Its the idea of promoting corporate interests over the interests of working class Americans and it's been happening for decades.

international trade agreements, including the Uruguay Round, the WTO Agreement, NAFTA, the current Atlantic and Pacific agreements, which are all specifically designed as investor rights agreements, not even trade agreements. Very high protection for major corporations, for big pharmaceuticals, media conglomerates, and so on, and very high barriers through intellectual property rights. Devices that allow corporations, but of course not people, to sue governments action that might potentially harm their profits. That is a particular form of globalisation designed in the interest of the designers. The designers are concentrations of private power, linked closely to state power, so in that system they are consequences of globalisation.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36636-noam-chomsky-on-globalization-inequality-and-political-alienation

The EU right now

Glad I could help

r/the_donald What do you guys think?

They're downvoting this because it makes daddy look bad

Nah. This post is just one guy's concern troll opinion. Have you not been paying attention to what Trump is up against? The president is not a tyrant. He can't just change the country over night.

I mean...he pretty much promised to do exactly that - defeating ISIS and replacing healthcare would be "so easy" - remember his 100 day plan?

Remember the republicans who voted to repeal Obamacare for 7 years who changed their minds for the last vote. His own party is against him. But yea, let's blame trump.

🙄 oh no there he goes vacationing again

You could also say he's against his own party

His own party is against him. But yea, let's blame trump.

you're not entirely wrong. However, the fact that he didn't at least offer up a plan of his own as a blueprint is his fault. You can make all the grandiose promises in the world, but if you have no roadmap of how to get from point A to point B, you're just blowing smoke. That's what the republicans have been doing for the last 7 years and it's exactly what Trump had been doing until the legislation was defeated

Voting against a bill that hurts your constituents means you're suddenly against your party? Here's a thought: what if repealing Obamacare is still a priority for them, they just recognized that the bill they were voting on was trizznash?

Jeez, this reddit user might have some insight on the two-party political system that John McCain just isn't privy to.

Trump fucked that up for you guys by saying he was going to repeal and replace. The GOP only said they wanted to repeal it until Trump came along and said he was going to make sure there is "insurance for everybody".

Trump should have had a universal health care bill ready to be signed on day 1, if his campaign promises were anything to go by.

Didn't Obama have the Repubs against him for nearly 6 of his 8 years in office, but yeah, let's keep hearing how everything was Obama's fault.

Are you trying to argue that the guy who thought health insurance cost $12/month took a legitimate interest in trying to pass substantial healthcare reform?

He was just showboating, it's in his nature, he needs attention like the needy lil bitch he is. The real fucked up thing is the amount if idiot yanks who fell for it. I still see trump supporters saying: 'I'll still support him as long as he builds that wall'. Mmm yeah just three and a half years left to raise that cash from a country that hates you... Good luck you dense cunts

Sure, maybe he really intended to do those things. And maybe he couldn't have really predicted the severity and extremity of the deep state and the power they had. Maybe he can't do the things that he wants to do.

So naive, incompetent, or lying? None of those are good qualities for a president imo.

So just because you're not sure if you'll be able to take down the greatest threat to humanity, it means that you shouldn't try?

Those aren't the principles I was taught growing up.

He's at least trying, which is a Hell of a lot more than most of us are doing.

Thing is he isn't trying at all.

His cabinet appointments and advisors did nothing to "drain the swamp". Former Goldman Sachs advisors and employees. Hiring from within his family despite lack of proof they were best qualifies for the job.

He isn't trying to take down the "deep state", if anything his appointments have shown a closeness with the most corrupted and corruptable influences, on a level that is nearly unprecedented from prior presidents.

He is trying

[Citation needed]

I PM'd you. I would've linked it here but there's too much brigading and knowing Reddit they'll probably brigade the youtube channel too.

I'm not saying the video I sent you is exactly what's going on. But he provides an interesting perspective.

Yes the people who don't agree with you are "brigading". That's the only way to explain it.

Not what I mean. I understand that my opinion is controversial, and I get that a lot of people don't agree.

I don't see how he's even attempting to tackle overpopulation, unless you're referring to his healthcare bafoonery. :-)

I'm not referring to either of those things, and I don't see how they have anything to do with what we're talking about right now.

I was making a joke. You said "the greatest threat to humanity," which, in my perception, is overpopulation. Not ISIS or Mexicans or whatever you're thinking.

Hahah. ISIS and Mexicans aren't even close to the greatest threat. And neither is overpopulation. Literally all of those things are distractions.

Ok then. Distractions from what?

Maybe he didnt understand politics since he is not a fucking politician!

How can Trump ever overcome the rigorous problems known as "a Senate Majority" and "party control over the Supreme Court"?

Wow. Trump must truly be flawless that he can't even be criticized.

Didn't think you guys were serious by calling him God. We may as well add /r/debatetrumpets to the /r/debatereligion subreddits.

How is "what he's up against" related to the statements that come out of his own mouth?

Or is he "up against" facts and that's why this is taking so long?

So sick of these Trump Cucks!

😂😂😂 sometimes I wonder if you guys actually believe this stuff, or just feel too embarrassed to admit what a dope he is.

Removed. Rule 1. Final warning.

So you would rather insult them the actually read/listen to them? Not a trump voter.

Discussion on their own platform (the_donald) is impossible because if you even mention some kind of criticism you get kicked. Outside t_d you are a commie or leftie if you criticize their Daddy

Fuck them!

I was specifically talking about the post you responded to not T_d.

Aha, i see

I was banned for joking about "Kanye 2020"

lol

So like r/politics than?

No because on t_d you get banned for not worshiping trump. On r/politics mods don't ban you for being a trump supporter, you just get downvoted because no one agrees with you

I've been lurking in t_d since the beginning, back when it was mostly satire. Ive listened to rush Limbaugh, Sean hannity, and all the other right wing radio my whole life. I live in the south, all my neighbors are conservative and my coworkers are mostly right wing. I lean left but I have some conservative views, I hate the Clintons, Bernie was too liberal for me, I understand why Trump won.

However now that we've seen him in action for more that 6 months I can honestly say the Donald Trump is an existential threat to America, and therefore the rest of the world. The sooner he is removed from office, and the more damning the evidence used to justify his ouster the better.

For those of you that want examples of what make him so dangerous, I'd say just look around, read a newspaper, look objectively at what he's done and how the people around him say he acts. If you aren't at least concerned, then you're eithet too brainwashed or too stupid to convince of his obvious flaws.

Ive listened to rush Limbaugh, Sean hannity, and all the other right wing radio my whole life.

How do you listen to those idiots without being an idiot yourself?

Know the enemy

You can say that, but I'm not sure listening to Tokyo Rose is going to help you understand why your enemy is fighting. They know it's propaganda.

Ya but it's them that dictate the agenda for the GOP. They're the pulse of American conservativism.

I don't think they are the voices of mainstream conservativeism.

As a third party voter, I gave him a chance and he has blown it spectacularly. He lined his cabinet with Wall Street insiders, just like Obama did and Hillary would have. He's made justifications for mucking around in Syria, just like Obama did and Hillary would have. And now he's parking us in Afghanistan for eternity...just like Obama did, Bush did, and Hillary would have.

I admire his intent to upset things in Washington, but the military-industrialists have shown him what side his bread is buttered on and he's playing good little bitch to them.

Hell, on day one he went straight to the CIA and gave them his infamous "please don't JFK me" speech by bribing them. Not long after that, he basically told the Pentagon it could run itself.

Trump is no great leader and he is no evil tyrant. He is a little bitch-boy who got in over his head with the deep state and now has to just settle for playing at his job and appointing who he is told to appoint...just like Obama did and Hillary would have.

Trump was our best hope for real systematic change and he didn't have the balls to follow through.

I was similarly disappointed in Bernie's cowering after the DNC threatened his wif...I mean after he changed.

If you thought that he was gonna change something after all the bullshit he pulled during the election then you deserve him.

Sentiments like this helped get him elected in the first place.

I had little hope for him changing anything.

That is...why I did not vote for him?

I read it as you where a third party voter and you voted for him because you thought he was bringing change. Did i misunderstand. o.ov

I'm not that person but I would have voted for Trump (over hilary at least) mostly because I thought that by having him in office would bring the chaos and damage necessary for the rest to step up and change to happen.

It actually may go that way yet.

You say that. But you realize this policy is actively killing people?

To make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs.

I mean really I didn't vote for trump and I despise all of those things, but I'm hoping this disaster kicks the collective asses of the american people and the country is revolutionized for the better. It may be just a dream but a man can dream.

He lined his cabinet with Wall Street insiders, just like Obama did and Hillary would have.

No, not "just like" Obama did and Hillary would have. Much, much worse than Obama did and Hillary would have.

Which is why the DNC helping his nomination is outrageous. If we can cheer for a lawyer losing his job for his support of white nationalists, why is the DNC getting a complete pass?

They aren't.

Random lawyer on the front page... Tom Perez is still Chair.

Random lawyer on the front page didn't get away with anything.

How is Tom Perez being chair a case of "the DNC getting a complete pass"? And how is he "still" the chair? He's new. The chair you guys didn't like got kicked out because you asked for it, remember?

gotta start over

He was the pied piper(from Podesta's own words). They uplifted him. The D's gave us Trump. Or is it common to broadcast an empty podium, while Bernie Sanders was giving a victory speech?

No, I mean they aren't getting a free pass.

Misunderstood, my mistake.

I'm fairly certain was the worst option of the system personified. Trump was just the second worst.

No, see, Hillary personified both the good and bad aspects of the system. Trump has all of its flaws with none of its redeeming qualities.

What good aspects did Hillary give? Incremental change, while wealth inequality is consuming the middle class, Americans with no access to healthcare(being forced to buy insurance you could'nt afford to begin with doesn;t count.)

The ability to go to bed at night knowing that tomorrow probably won't be any worse than today.

She can form coherent sentences and talk details of policy, neither of which Trump can do. Right?

Candidate Trump was a populist. Hillary was an establishment status quo. It's no mystery on why she lost.

She lost because she had no charisma. The two couldn't have been more different politically to the point that they couldn't take votes from each other. Hillary got like 70% of the votes Obama got.

That's rather near sighted. Hillary lost because people saw how Bill was a snake when he was President.

political competence

How is it worse? Its literally the same you Obama fanboy

So which cabinet post would Hillary have given to Rex Tillerson?

Make no mistake - Trump was never your best hope for "real systematic change".

He is an outsider, and is causing chaos. He is making systemic change, just not in the way he wants or realized.

Only a moron would vote for Trump. These people should be ashamed of themselves. I don't care about how well they can construct a sentence or how good of a person they are... Something is wrong if a person thought Trump was the best choice in 2016.

The silly "lesser of two evils" narrative is deeply ingrained in people. I figure some people dislike Hillary so much they voted for a wild card.

Maybe your understanding of how politics works now a days is off.

You want to live in a fantasy land of unrealistic expectations.

You will ALWAYS be mad.

Did you vote?

Yep. Not sure what that has to do with this.

Johnson is every bit the bumbling moron Trump is and his policies would be horrible for the poor and middle class. Whatever you have against Clinton, she would've been forced to implement Bernie's policies, is a steady hand on the world stage, and wouldn't embarrass us every time she visits a foreign power like trump does and Johnson would.

I totally understand why you protest-voted for Johnson.

I completely get it, believe me. Just thought I would leave a kind non-attacking comment for you to read, even though we don't agree on certain things.

Well, then you're a good person.

Thank you.

While Obama did intervene in Syria to a minor extent (supplies etc.) he easily could have made engaged us in a ground war in Syria or Iraq, neither of which he did. Overall, his foreign policy in Syria was too restrained if anything.

"he has blown it"

The massive Democrat amd deep state opposition and infiltration forced a deep state agenda into his administration instead of bannons

The Koch brothers owned Johnson.. that was not a protest vote lmao. They have you cornered from all sides in these shanty elections.

I love it that the Koch brothers bought out Dave Rubin then made him bring Gary Johnson on his show to shill for him.

And now he's parking us in Afghanistan for eternity.

Not a Bannon sympathiser but I fear he was the reason Trump never escalated for more occupation in Afghanistan. I knew in the back of my mind that the instant Bannon was gone, Trump would make an announcement for more boots on the ground. Lo and behold, the announcement came. Just like clockwork.

The take? Bannon was way more influential than anyone has ever thought.

Bannon is a gross person, but he was non-interventionist, even though it may be for the wrong reasons.

Currently at +3770. Yep, keep that donald 2.0 narrative alive, boys.

... and you get downvoted. I've never once seen the 2.0 sentiment downvoted and only ever seen this argument downvoted when the topic arises.

1 hour later 4691 79%, I don't think he is as wrong as you claim.

So almost 1000 upvotes in an hour. Says 83% for me, btw.

This is currently the top post in the sub. Next post believe it: Jimmy comet Instagram.

It's at 79%. According to you guys that must mean anti-pizzagaters are brigading it cause it makes "daddy James alefantis " look bad, eh?

Almost 9000 up and sitting at 79% now.

That Donald 2.0 narrative is gonna be true aaaaany day now, I'm sure of it

Not really sure where you are going with this, it is at 9205 with 76% now.

It broke 10k at 75%.

Wow, yeah that Donald 2.0 narrative is totally based in fact

The Donald is dying. Check out their top posts of all time. Of the first two pages only was made in the last three months. The rest are from on or before the election.

They may claim to have 400,000 supporters but the actions of the sub don't support that figure.

They're incapable of effectively down voting this or any other anti Trump post.

B-b-but my Donald 2.0 narrative.

I love how idiots upvoted you thinking you were somehow proving me wrong when your comment actually reinforces my point

It's on 9000 up votes now. The crowd here always jump to conspiracy when the voting isn't going exactly how they think it should.

The crowd here always jump to conspiracy when the voting isn't going exactly how they think it should.

So does that include people whining about "Donald 2.0"

Sometimes.

Sometimes? Either this sub is the "Donald 2.0" or it isn't.

I think the Donald has lost his legs a bit. The support isnt here for him as it once was.

Well hopefully you're right and it causes the cries of "Donald 2.0" to die down too cause it's getting really old.

Cause the LARPers who bitch about it every day haven't lost their legs.

I'm sure there are still people who think it is and it's possible a mod sees it like that too, but for the vast majority, the marriage is over.

What's a larper?

Many are what you would expect, many are jumping ship.

I actually wouldn't expect people naive enough to follow him in the first place to not be naive enough to leave him later on.

So it's a pleasant surprise to me.

No, your initial intuition was correct. Trump is still polling in the upper 70s among republicans. At this point I don't think any amount of facts or logic are going to sway that group, they are running on pure faith in their own version reality.

I judge him on what he does regardless of rhetoric out there. Example: all the fuss about his speeches re.Charlotte are beside the point. What policy is he implementing?

There's a whole other argument to be had here regarding whether or not his policies have been positive. But anyway, I do think his rhetoric matters. The President is one of the most influential people in the country. People on both sides pay attention to what he says.

I guarantee you that what white supremacists across the country heard when Trump said "there was violence on both sides" is "I am in support of your actions". They believe they have a friend in the White House, and it is emboldening them. By refusing to condemn them, Trump contributes to their behavior

Except that he did condemn them.

And then immediately walked back on it and said the white supremacists and the counter protesters were equivalent

What he said was factually correct. There were violent leftists and peaceful right wing protesters. And vice versa. But fuck him for telling the truth and not bawling his crocodile tears all over twitter about "muh nazis so horrible waaaaahhhhh!!"

Oh yeah? How many people did the left run over with a car again?

Good one. I'm ready to condemn all muslims now because of one muslim terrorist attack.

You didn't answer my question.

Good one.

You still didn't answer the question.

It was factually correct, but it's a statement this ignores the overall context of the situation. Racists showed up to a town with weapons and chanted Nazi slogans, and one of their members drove a vehicle into a crowd. They share the lion's share of the blame for what happened, not the counter protestors

Maybe it wasn't the right situation to speak out about it but who else is going to condemn the lefts violent protests? Every time they hurt someone or multiple someones no one in the media says a damn thing. Yes they didn't run over and kill someone with a car. Trump condemned that. If you want to argue he didn't do it hard enough or fast enough whatever I don't care about that.

There's discussion to be had about the methods some members of antifa use. But it should have been an afterthought compared to racists organizations spreading hate and committing violence. They are the most divisive and harmful force in America right now, and the continual efforts by Trump supporters to distract from and defend them is embarrassing

Harmful how? They aren't the ones systematically trying to reduce free speech by rioting anytime someone """fascist""" holds a peaceful event.

Man you really have swallowed the rhetoric. Counter protesting does not limit free speech, and isn't covered by the first amendment. Free speech only guarantees you protection from the government censoring you, not your fellow citizens telling you you're an asshole

First of all I said free speech not the first amendment so don't put arguments in my mouth. Second, they don't 'counter protest' they are always looking for a fight, blocking roads, and without permits most of the time. Why do you think the supremacists were carrying shields and weapons? Because they expected people would violently attack them. And they were right.

They had a permit in Charlottesville. And you're focusing on a select set of incidents as opposed to the larger picture. Look at Boston, there were a huge number of counter protestors there, and little to no violence

I bet you could only name a handful of actual peaceful protests by this group at most. Oh yeah Boston was a reeeeaaal peaceful protest https://youtu.be/CV7-QYz16qQ

The bigger picture is there is a growing violent faction in the United States and it isn't white supremacists. Their numbers have always been small in the modern age and everyone fucking knows what true racism is and we as a society don't want that shit. It has already been decided. The fight is over.

Antifa is the bigger problem. The media, shills, and normal idiots are legitimizing their actions good and bad (mostly bad). They think its okay to physically assault people they think are """"nazis"""" and destroy property. But whatever dudes lets virtue signal about racism and muh grandpas fought nazis on twitter some more. Good work.

9 percent of the country called Neo-Nazi views "acceptable" Another 8 percent were undecided. If you think the problems of racism and white supremecy are gone in America, you aren't paying attention. But no, let's focus on the couple cases of dudes in black masks getting violent, often in response to violence from others

Wow a (((survey))) with 1000 adults with 8% of them apparently not knowing how to answer a simple question. That's your evidence? You call me cherry picking I call you cherry picking. I think we've exausted this conversation.

Hmm you're probably right, as soon as someone uses the triple parenthesis it becomes pretty clear they aren't particularly rational and there isn't much point in debating with them

Whatever you say (((thefreeman419)))

;)

Yeah that ... or you're living in a bubble of mass-hysteria and Trump is a reasonable person who made the practical decision of listening to what his generals were telling him and acted on their advice.

It's not too hard to tell when you read reports from people within the White House staff admitting Trump isn't reading his briefings, or is making decisions purely based on spiting Obama

t. Anonymous white house official

Well if CNN prints it, it must be true. You got me!

Let me know when the National Enquirer runs the story since they are the sad fucking last pillar of American "journalism".

Trump is still polling in the upper 70s among republicans

He was in the upper 80's like a month ago, so that's bad trend for him.

Jumping ship to what exactly? I really hope the Democrats don't try to run Hillary again.

They should just for the lulz, imagine the conservative tears and the Trump meltdown

That's fucking stupid.

In another universe, you're a mod on T_D

Nope

That's just another leftist bullet point on list of denial.

"Were just killing terrorists, not nation-building. This is good." - them

As long as we keep bombing civilians we get more terrorists to kill! Win-win!

It's because we don't fight wars the way they should be anymore. Read any history book that deals with war. We will be going back every 10 years unless we kill almost all the men and boys. The boys grow up to be men and want revenge on the US for killing their fathers. They get together, form a group, and start doing attacks. It's been going on for 4 decades now.

So, let me get this straight. The problem is that we're just not killing enough children?

And it's real easy to talk so callously about slaughtering kids when you're safe and sound behind your computer screen on the opposite side of the planet. You're a fucking pussy.

I'm not. I've deployed, done my dues. Seen plenty of people die. I'm just speaking the truth and people don't like it cause it's a fucked up truth. We saw kids become soldiers, throw explosives at US soldiers. The average age of a Taliban soldier is 16. We are already killing kids, you just don't know it.

Or if we let the terrorists kill everyonr rlse theyll also stop commiting terror

Hey if don ciccio had klled the kid hed still be alive

How about you let them speak instead of speaking for them in s snarky manner?

It was a quote, so it was them speaking. I just didn't include the name.

I'm not from there, and I'm not a supporter, but I think there's a little bit more to the story. As others in this thread are saying, the Deep State is very powerful, and it's not easy to get stuff done. Despite that, there is evidence to suggest that Trump is working with the Alliance and doing what he can to take the Deep State down. So regardless of my thoughts on his policy (it doesn't really matter since the Deep State largely influences that for any president), I at least respect him for attempting to take them down.

can u elaborate on that , genuinely curious

Forgive me, but I'm getting fed up with this thread and the lack of actual discussion. I will PM you some more information.

What is Alliance?

The Alliance is basically the resistance against TPTB. They've been working behind the scenes to take down the Deep State for years. There's a whole war going on that we don't even really know about. Many of them are ex-black hats, and are working to right the wrongs that they've done and protect humanity. If you're interested in learning more, PM me. This thread clearly isn't the place to discuss this kind of thing. Too many people are buying into the medias bullshit and not willing to look at the bigger picture.

I can't even..

Hahah, feel free to downvote man. You're entitled to your own opinion and belief.

If, at any point, you decide that you want to learn more about what's actually going on, find me and PM me. I'd be happy to share. Best of luck to you brother.

Make claims and back them up

That's okay man, I'll pass. If you're interested in learning more, I've offered for anyone to PM me. Or maybe try doing a little research yourself sometime and forming your own opinion.

Were you one of those kids that posted on /b/ asking Anonymous to take down your school principal for banning baseball caps

Lol, nope. Never actually been on 4Chan before.

Lol what? Define the Deep State.

Haha, you're a long way from /r/politics my friend. It's unlikely for you to be subscribed to this subreddit and not know what the Deep State is, so I'll just assume you came from /r/all.

From Google Dictionary: a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy.

It can be used fairly interchangeably with TPTB, the Cabal, the black hats, etc. You get the picture. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Is there any weight to it?

Their existence? I would say it's pretty undeniable when you start noticing. Have you ever seen Prison Break? Shows like that are an example of how feasible and likely it really is. I would say that with a system like ours, it's almost inevitable.

There is no Trump agenda. That's why he can say all Americans should have healthcare, and then demand to sign a bill that guts it.

The entire Trump agenda is to look scary and make everyone think Americans are nuts so don't fuck with us.

Look, just because you don't like his policies doesn't mean he has none. Obama's ACA needs to be gutted because it's an unaffordable mess.

And yes, he believes in brandishing military strength across the globe, preferably to intimidate rather than actually fight. That has always been his platform, whether you agree or not.

Brandish military strength while also pulling the rug out from NATO by going soft on Article 5.

You can say he does anything, because on any given issue he'll contradict himself.

I used to buy Trump's bullshit, but I realized in time that he's deliberately vague so that people read whatever they want into it. I thought he was a secret democrat, for instance.

What made me see it's all snake oil was when he said "women who get abortions should be punished as criminals". It takes two seconds to see how stupid that is, most obvious being the statistical certainty of a miscarriage being prosecuted as a crime -- punishing an innocent woman for a tragedy cannot be good policy.

This was an argument that was addressed literally 200 years ago. You could only arrive to DJT's conclusion if you were talking out of your ass.

It's no coincidence that it was the first statement he actually walked back.

Regarding Article 5, his aim is the same as expressed in his speech this week. He wants allied nations to pull help in the effort, so the US doesn't have to do everything. He's been successful in this, and NATO allies have upped their military spending in accordance with the budgetary expectations of their membership. And Trump has now committed to Article 5. He did the same regarding China and North Korea. And now the same with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

What, exactly, makes you think a New York billionaire has literally any interest in dismantling the institution that allows him to be rich and powerful?

Now you're asking the right kind of questions!

I obviously can't say for sure, seeing as I don't know him in person. But there are actually a lot of reasons someone in his position might.

For starters, a lot of people go a long time down one path before their conscience or guilt catches up to them. Maybe he learned about all of the human trafficking and fucked up shit that was going on and wanted to do something about it. Maybe he was sick of the way he was seeing this country run. It's possible he even gives a shit about other people more than himself and his money (I'm not saying this is the case.) Maybe he's been working for the Resistance for a long time. Or maybe he has his own ulterior motives.

Whether or not we know why he's doing it yet, what there is a lot of evidence for is that he's trying. So we should at least acknowledge that.

before their conscience or guilt catches up to them

Fucking LOL

It's possible he even gives a shit about other people more than himself and his money

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

what there is a lot of evidence for is that he's trying

Like what!? I don't see any evidence that he's doing anything other than whatever the fuck he wants cause he's a old, rich, narcissistic shit bag (plenty of evidence of that from literally is his entire life before politics) who is slowly losing his wits before our eyes.

The most powerful person in the world is going to war against dnc/globalist/deep state MSM. That's one very telling proof that he is up against something. And MSM is literally trying to start a civil war by supporting antifa, creating false narratives that Trump is supporting nazis/kkk. And the sheeps who believe every narrative that msm spits out will fight on one side, and the ones who sees through the lies will stand on the other.

He's not at war with anything except competency.

He's not at war with anybody. He's an incompetent narcissist.

You don't need the media to see what a baffoon and an asshole he is, you just have to pay attention to him. The 'other' side of this imaginary war may well be true, I don't have an opinion on that (globalist/deep state shit). But Trump isn't fighting anything, he's a fucking moron.

I do not think it would be a stretch to suppose that Trump has a chip on his shoulder about banks.

My friend had a clubfoot, I used to put a buncha thumbtacks in it.

Yes of course the 'institution' is the only thing that makes billionaires billionaires and by god lets just judge his whole personality based on his amount of money. If we start doing that let me get out my black american crime rate chart.

I'm sure you're itching to do that.

lol

Who/What is the 'Deep State' exactly?

Excellent question, thanks for asking. Google Dictionary has a pretty cut and dry definition.

Deep State: a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy.

They are TPTB, essentially.

How do they control things, though? Threat of assassination if you don't go along?

If your talking in regards to the POTUS, possibly. I'm sure they have all sorts of tactics, but I believe that, along with threat to his family is one of them.

Agreed he's taking a wrong turn here...

BUT

He did kill TPP and the Paris climate accord. Pretty happy about both of those and definitely anti-globalist. We'll see if it lasts with Bannon gone.

Bannon is going to build a conservative TV channel I think. The US desperately need one.

Fox?

Except for maybe Tucker and Hannity, not really

Semi-conservative. Tucker and Hannity are there. Many of the rest are not.

Jesus lord Fox News isn't far right enough for you people?

"Tonight on Alex Jones Live, why Muslims are being banned from attending Nazi conservative spirit rallies."

How dare you mention positive things he's done!

Who says those are positives?

When you don't believe in climate change, you don't need a climate deal. QED

No, you don't have to not believe in climate change to recognize the the Paris Accord was a terribly ineffective idea and made literally no sense to stay in except to look good.

How so? Setting a global goal and allowing participants some flexibility in their methods of obtaining that goal seems to make literally some sense.

There was less reason to leave than there was to stay in. It's like if a bunch of friends agree to lose weight and you say you're not even going to try.

Not like that at all. More like a salesman asking you to renew your subscription to an ineffective weight loss program when you could save all of that money and spend it on a healthier diet/lifestyle yourself.

But countries have no obligation to pay, and there are no legal repercussions set up if they don't follow the agreement, so your analogy isn't accurate. https://youtu.be/6GMkuPiIZ2k

The brilliant minds of /r/conspiracy, obviously

Any sane person. The climate accord was a joke, a literal money making scheme. It was costly, ineffective, and a huge waste of taxpayer money. The payoff is not even close to the cost. Especially when the cost includes hundreds of thousands of jobs.

There's a lot of information on the internet, I would recommend maybe researching things for yourself sometimes, rather than following the circlejerk. Good luck!

Seems like you're the one that's partaking in the circlejerk. The research I've done has made me believe it would be a net positive for the world.

Spend billions of dollars to make no difference in the climate! (by their own estimates)

HOW CAN YOU OPPOSE THAT???

to make no difference in the climate! (by their own estimates)

Source?

Still better than the alternatives....

He's listening to his generals and taking their advice on military matters.

As opposed to firing generals who disagree (like shinseki who said we'd need 4x more troops to stabilize iraq during the bush invasion).

Well so far Trump hasn't been the best at keeping his staff so

Which is what I expected. Trump isn't running a internship, if you can't get results get the fuck out. He'll do this until he gets the right mix. He doesn't care if it looks bad politically, he doesn't care if John Oliver will make fun of him for it, he will do it until the right people show up for work.

It's almost hilarious but mostly just sad that you think he has any shred of competence at what he is doing.

Contrast that to people like you who view everything he does as an act explained by stupidity and incompetence. Keep telling yourself he became the most powerful man in the world despite being completely incompetent at everything he does. Reality disagrees with you.

Keep telling yourself he became the most powerful man in the world despite being completely incompetent at everything he does.

He won the presidency because we have millions or people in this country who are fucking retarded and bought in to this conman's simple bullshit answers to complicated questions and empty promises or grandeur. I'll give him credit for being able to take advantage of that opportunity within American voters. But he has no idea how to run this country and if you think he does, you're a fucking idiot.

Millions of people you disagree with must be brainwashed and/or retarded. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Anything to keep you from questioning your beliefs.

Are millions of people retarded for being right-leaning or conservative? No, just different opinions and/or values than me.

Are millions of people brainwashed and/or retarded for buying into Donald Fucking Trump? Yes. Mind-numbingly stupid.

Your refusal/inability to see things from the other side isn't doing you (or Trumps' critics) any favors. You really have no idea why he won, do you?

Obviously not all those who voted for him did so because they hate mexicans or muslims or whatever, that's an unfair characterization. I can absolutely understand why people are frustrated with the status quo, why they feel establishment politicians don't represent them, etc. That doesn't give them a free pass for allowing themselves to be fooled by such a transparent con-man. And I really don't see any excuse for not realizing what a piece of shit he is by now.

I can absolutely understand why people are frustrated with the status quo, why they feel establishment politicians don't represent them, etc.

That's actually a very accurate observation, good on you.

That doesn't give them a free pass for allowing themselves to be fooled

What other choice did they have, exactly? Clinton was probably the most status-quo establishment candidate of all time, and everyone knows 3rd parties don't have any chance. They weren't fooled - at worst, they chose the lesser of two evils. At best they chose someone who they believed would shake things up for the establishment. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Trump hasn't delivered on his promise to shake up the establishment/status-quo. I feel like I'm getting exactly what I voted for, and I could give a fuck how polite Trump is to the shithead elite that have fucked us with a polite smile for decades at least.

They weren't fooled - at worst, they chose the lesser of two evils.

Hillary is a shitty person but policy wise she just would have been Obama 2.0, which is better than what we have now.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Trump hasn't delivered on his promise to shake up the establishment/status-quo

Seems to me like he's largely followed republican party lines on most issues and been a friend to the business elite while not really doing shit for average people whatsoever. All while continuing his extremely divisive, hyperbolic, and lie-fueled rhetoric. He's lowered the bar for politics more than ever, done a shit job of diplomacy turning us into a laughing stock around the world, emboldened the worst parts of the "alt-right", lowered the bar for critical thinking and just in general has been exactly the Demagogue he was from the beginning. We're more divided than ever, meanwhile the people he appointed to power continue to chip away at protections for average citizens for the benefit of the rich. He IS the elite and he's continuing to enable them to fuck us and people think he's different because he talks out his ass about "bringing jobs back" and openly scapegoats minorities.

Some shake-up that is...

Lots of people felt betrayed by Obama. The establishment's obvious hatred for Trump is all the evidence I need that he's not one of them. The focus on the "alt-right" is just the media having hissy-fits; these people were the same before Trump became elected and they are not numerous or powerful at all. If anything, it was the democrats' identity politics that "emboldened" this small swathe; identity politics that became their clearest when nobody could criticize Obama for anything without being called a "racist bigot."

The right and left hate each other, does that mean that there are only establishment on one side? He's not an establishment politician, but he's still an out of touch billionaire who filled his cabinet with elites who will fuck over the American people for the interests of the rich. He's spent his whole life preying on average or poorer people without giving a shit, don't know why that would change now.

nobody could criticize Obama for anything without being called a "racist bigot."

People on the left go too far with identity politics sometimes, and people on the right focus too hard on the extreme ends of that. People also had good reason to bring up racism with Obama.. with all the insisting he was born in Kenya and comparing Michelle to a gorilla and bullshit like that.

it was the democrats' identity politics that "emboldened" this small swathe

Funny because they are all out there with MAGA hats and really started coming out of the woodwork during and after his campaign.

The media over-represents them, because they (the media) are establishment trying to win back their power by pushing a false narrative. They've been caught doing this many times. Left and Right common people hate each other, but left and right elites are buddy-buddy. Not so with trump - the elite from both sides began attacking him the second they thought he had a chance.

Sure many of the elite publicly don't support him because they want to distance themselves from the man, but most are probably giddy at the prospects of having a cabinet full of bankers and industry elites, able to form self-serving policy easier than ever at the expense of common people. More tax breaks for the rich, fewer consumer protections, same old shit as every establishment Republican. He's no champion of the common man.

If what you're saying comes to pass, then it wouldn't have mattered one way or the other who they voted for - unless you are claiming that the democrats don't do the exact same thing. They had nothing to lose. I don't think you can fault them for taking the chance. I also think it's too early to tell, but I like what I've seen so far.

I have a pretty good standard for competency: if you have towers with your name on them and you have won the presidency of the United States, you are allowed to criticize the competency of other people with self-named towers and who have won the presidency of the United States.

Do you have towers with your name on it and have you won the presidency of the United States? No? Then your brain is lying to you when it says it can accurately gauge the competency of someone who has done those things. But the hallucinations make you feel good, why question them?

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Truly fucking stupid, congratulations. As if having towers with your name on it makes you fit to be president. Literally listen to the man talk, read his conversations with other world leaders.

I didn't say it makes him qualified, although in the context of his career it does.

I said that it makes you not qualified to speak on his competency because that's objectively true.

I don't think you know what objectively means.

He's fired literally every important person in 7 months. He's not getting results because he has no shown any leadership and he blames everyone below him.

Good. If they're in important roles they better do important things otherwise someone truly important should take their place. Unionized government employees don't get this, but it's how the corporate world works.

otherwise someone truly important should take their place

Like Spicer being replaced by Scaramuchi?

He didn't replace spicer, spicer was working as press sec and comm director part time. He didnt like him so he quit. And guess what they fired moochi too because he wasnt right for the job either.

So why did they hire him in the first place?

Initially he was good at spinning things but he wouldn't shut the fuck up outside of work.

I don't understand, so he was a normal guy before the job? Or did they just not vet him or look into him beforehand? I find it hard to believe a guy who gets fired before he even starts was a good guy before the job.

The Mooch was his way of firing Preibus

A good leader doesn't "wait for the right person to come along" ffs.

What does that mean? He's not waiting. He's trying different people out. He can't do it all himself.

If "trying people out" is his strategy, as if this was some sort of Little League team, then that further supports the notion that we are dealing with a total amateur. Real leaders are better judges of moral and ethical character, or at least don't have a literal revolving door of cabinet members in the first 6 months. That's called throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Bar none the weirdest behavior out of this election is seeing so, so many people who don't matter, who have never mattered, and who have never had even the tiniest shred of authority brazenly commenting on competency and leadership when they so clearly know nothing of either.

Did you just recently discover the internet?

Oh okay, you really think history is going to say Trump made some huge difference in Afghanistan? By doing the same thing Bush and Obama did?

We'll see

Is like talking to someone in an abusive relationship. I'm sorry they're hurting you, it's time to let them go.

Or Mattis who told Obama that ISIS would seize the power-vacuum in Iraq.

Don't subscribe to that sub because it's full of cringy dipshits, but I did vote for the guy and wouldn't take it back.

It's disappointing, as are many of the things he's done and said since he took office. I won't pretend to be an expert in middle eastern politics and know the best course of action, but his comments about military action being on the table for Venezuela is what bothers me even more. Leave these fucking places alone, man. Campaigned on focusing on domestic problems and not doing shit like that. Frustrating.

As I said, I don't know enough to say that us leaving Afghanistan tomorrow is a good choice, but put a plan in place for us to leave. Something sustainable.

So tired of the constant bullshit from every level of American (worldwide) politics and media.

Why do you still support Trump? It should be obvious by now that he doesn't care about you.

I wouldn't say I "support" him. I said I don't regret my vote. I think in 15 years, looking back, the country will look more like I want it to than if I had voted Clinton or 3rd party.

Is he a piece of shit? Yes. More of a piece of shit than Hillary? I would say yes.

So much if it comes down to the Supreme Court though. Getting Gorsuch in there (though in reality Obama should have been able to appoint, but that's another argument) is huge. Maybe we will get another conservative justice, not sure. But Clinton being able to appoint 3 liberal justices I think would have been far too much.

I actually don't like any party having huge majorities. If I had my way we'd have a conservative Supreme Court, non-super majority in one house and maybe the presidency, maybe not.

Lot of random thoughts in there, and not written very well. Pretty tired right now, so forgive it.

America will never leave communist countries alone. They know that the second their influence doesn't crush a communist nation, communist support in America will reach the levels it was in its glory days. America will continue to intervene in communist nations economically or militarily, assassinate their leaders and replace them with puppets, and wage a propaganda war.

We think OP didn't even watch the speech. He specifically said "we are not nation building, we are killing terrorists".

This will be over by Christmas, you can laugh at me if I'm wrong.

Lol well fuck Trump said all those troops going overseas aren't going to be nation building but everything Trump is doing us what's been done in the past so what's the difference. Oh right, he lies right to your face

R/askthe_donald

/r/AskThe_Donald. For future reference, subreddit links only work with a lower case 'R' on desktop.

^{Capital Corrector Bot v1.0 | Information | Contact | Song of the day | How to remove}

Fine then! =P

That's literally just another Trump support website. The people posting the questions are Trump supporters, asking other Trump supporters what they feel about things, when TD forbids discussion on a certain topic. You're not even allowed to say not-nice things about the president in there.

He's doing great and people are overreaching with what they think he was going to be about.

Abandoning Iraqi too early, forsaking the blood-sacrifice of our children waging war, and enabling ISIS to grow in strength in the greatest military blunder in American history.

The only reason Al-Qaeda had any power at all is because we abandoned Afghanistan in the 70's.

A President that listens to his military leaders?
Well fuck, too bad Obama didn't listen to General Mattis when the told him exactly what would happen in Iraq if they withdrew and instead Obama fired him for "speaking truth to power".

I am not thrilled with the cost and prospects of nation-building because morons like Hillary or W. or Obama go at haphazardly and with no competency in execution nor any commitment to success.

So while I fear Trump will fail as all other before him, let us hope he finds some success for the sake the future world.

Sorry dude. The reason alqaeda has power is because the cia trained and armed them in the 1980s. I agree, we shouldnt have pulled out of afganistan prematurely. We also shouldnt still be there since 2002 protecting poppy fields. Get in, get out, let it be their problem

80's yes not 70's ... but if we leave again with the nation in shambles we'll just be back again in a couple of decades.

Those countries need dictatorships. Everything was peaceful pre1980 before the usa and ussr got involved and toppled the ayatolla, Sadddam, and qaddafi, amongst others. democracy isnt for everyone

The biggest talking point that's coming out of TD lately is A) "everybody talk about ANTIFA" and B) "The media is trying to divide and conquer us, can't we all just get along?"

It's B) especially that should be a huge sign the Trump administration is failing. People don't start saying "Can't we all just get along?" when they've spent their entire political lives fighting the identity politics fight, unless their particular side just started losing big time.

What's happening, is that the Trump administration, and their supporters, are being divided and conquered. People who are okay with his comments about the Virginia riots, and people who aren't. People who are okay with his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, and people who aren't. People who believe it's not his fault that Obamacare is still here and the Wall isn't, and people who don't. There's only so much you can do to keep all his supporters united under His name.

Meanwhile, the rest of us, both left and right, both DNC and GOP politicians, both CNN and Fox News, everyone is out there condemning him, uniting in their distrust of the Trump administration. I haven't seen America this united since before the election.

The biggest talking point that's coming out of TD lately is A) "everybody talk about ANTIFA"

As somebody who was on the streets resisting neo-Nazis in Europe in the 90's, it both amuses and terrifies me to see people in Europe get their idea of what "Antifa" is from the American alt-right dominated internet bubble. It's like hearing little walking Stormfront agitators. It affects everyone, from every ideological stripe. I would say another American round of leftist activist demonization was a resounding success, after PETA and BLM. I'm sure that last sentence alone will trigger another round, but it's a definite pattern: framing the discussion and image perception of activist groups by either outright demonization (PETA is literally Hitler) or equating (Both sides are equally bad) is something straight out of the American propaganda kitchen and the internet's wide, international reach through social media, blogs, "alternative news" and so on can only be described as wildly successful. Americans now control public sentiment about activist groups in Europe. Rather than knocking on their neighbor's door and asking about it, I see people's opinions being formed and shaped by the internet, then spread around over beers in the bar. It has little relation to reality, downto completely erroneous pronunciation of acronyms betraying baseline ignorance.

I strongly disagree! As a cousin to one of the former top people in ANTIFA i know they did as much if not more violent crimes, hit jobs, shake ups and in general violent behaveour as white pride in our country.

I agree that the perseption of these groups may be missunderstood and that the have good intentions. But its completely wrong to day that they do not have violet part or have made calls for violet actions. These establisments are fundamentally un-democratic. They like the other extreme group on the far rightdo not want democracy, they want their ideas to rule in what average people would consider a turanical way.

That being said i truely do believe that they mean well and want to correct problems in our society through their tyranicle rules.

My cousin and a couple of antifa friends were some of the most violet people i have met. So i think the correct messagde is to say fuck both sides of the extremes.

Sorry for the errors in spelling i am shit at spelling in english and have a lovely day 😊

Left right paradigm? You cant categorize trump under a black or white blanket. Everybody has pros and cons. The real fight here is adhering to the constitution, and making sure everybody is given equal protection under the law as an american, whether they are antifa or nazis. As long as people dont infringe on each others rights, they are free to say whatever the hell they want.

Dude who subs to r/The_donald here. I think it doesn't matter who's President. It's still the powers that be who run things. He's just the salesman. I also believe that in a more conservative society because liberals like positive change (So does everyone one in their right mind) but I don't want a fast liked lighting radical change. Just like like most businesses, growing to big and fast can make your business implode. And that's what it looks like what's happening now. IMHO

As a life long New Yorker, that has seen Donald coming up in the world in the news for building parts of NY, in films and hearing folks using the phrase "Who do you think you are, Donald Trump?!", whenever you spend money frivolously. I think it sets a true example that anyone can become president. It doesn't matter who you are. As long as you know how to play the game of life and win. Skies the limit and you can truly change the world. One way or another. We can use our free will all we want, but what's meant to be, will be. In my eyes.

Situation is very complicated much more than we would know. He is not Ron Paul alot of people want Trump to be Paul, it isn't happening. He ran on bringing jobs back to USA and reducing illegal immigration, stepping away from globalist plans. There was some promise of locking her up but I didn't expect that anytime soon. Everyone wanted a purge of all the wikileaks exposing criminals but if that was public as soon as he took office the left would have a real motivation to escalate the impeach / remove. In terms of Afghanistan I say he should have a shot at ending cant complain that we don't at least try it a different way. He did say no rebuilding just exterminating.

Truthfully I think he got in way over his head and didn't realize the president cannot snap his fingers and people agree with him like in the business world. In my opinion he found out that insider Republicans and dems are actually playing on the same team artificially campaigning bullshit year after year only for the status quo to move in again. He's the biggest threat that either party can imagine and he can only do so much when both sides want to stifle him. I will give him his 4 years or 8 years of support then I'm leaving the Republican party to be an independent. I hate Republican party as much as Democrat party now and I only support trump as far as politicians go.

The only upvoted comments, are people mocking them. I am glad you asked this question with no snark.

No. This conspiracy sub has turned to shit, with people openly believing the left right paradigm and trusting the govt without being skeptical. Scary times

I agree. The propaganda campaign has really been out of control. There is some good discourse here though. Just harder to find is all.

I thought this sub was the_donald

Trump has a lot more enemies who are my enemies than anybody else I can remember, both political parties in particular.

That's good enough for me. Not perfect, but I'll take what I can get. I'm not some deluded self-important clown who thinks this is the equivalent of a "revolution" lol.

I'm still a Trump supporter. I'm willing to voice my opinion over Skype or somewhere we can talk on a rational way. PM me of interested.

"It matters not who wears the crown, only that it has your obedience."

Absolutism of the State wins over all parties.

Devls Advocate: Even if Trump wanted to change all these things, is he capable? These are deep systems that have been around a long time. Maybe he's trying and failing? or maybe he realized it's impossible to change on his own and has decided to tweet away his 4 years.

no, he doesn't seem like he puts much effort into things.

Or maybe he's a big fucking idiot?

Just looking at his actions, what would make you think he is a good candidate for president?

Absolutely nothing.

Trump just wanted to make a name for himself and make money, it was never about helping anyone out but himself.

He's doing good so far. We don't know what he has planned yet.

By absolutely no metric is trump doing "good."

How is he doing good?

He's done nothing of what he promised. He has hurt the environment, no changes to immigration, half the country hates him and people are leaving his administration in masses.

Trump will not survive another year.

In literally no way is he doing "good." He has so far failed by virtually every metric.

You forget your /s?

Stocks up, deportation up, immigration down, companies coming back to the States, ISIS on the run, not plastering our military plans all over MSM, holding countries accountable for their own security

Stocks have been trending upward since Obama, same with immigration trending down

That was with different articles, hit pieces, opinionated garbage. Right after Trump's inauguration the stock market shot up compared to a barely rising closes. Obama was on a good track with our finances, Trump is a business man and knows who to get to make it work better for us.

I'm guessing you don't follow the market then.

Trump is a business man that managed to bankrupt a casino.

How many businesses has he made money on? He also became the President. How many businesses total has he has a hand in and it makes or made money? You ever wasted money on something you regret? Should your employer fire you?

The presidency has absolutely nothing to do with his alleged business skills, I think you'll agree with that. Not that he doesn't make money off it but that's beside the point.

I didn't go bankrupt four or five times, so no, my employer is pretty happy with me. I also don't go out telling people I'm the greatest business man ever while I went bankrupt four or five times. This is about Trump, so my business skills are also completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The market shot up because the republicans got all three branches and they thought they would get a ton of tax breaks. Now that they realize the Republicans can't get anything passed, they've gone back to the steady climb they already had under Obama.

It had nothing to do with trump. Neither he nor the republican congress have made any noteworthy changes that would have affected the markets as a whole. Disbanding a regulation here or there won't do shit to the overall market. Oh now water bottle manufacturers can sell water bottles at national parks?! BUY BUY BUY

Lol. Resist no matter what. Trump is President.

... for now

Lol, I can safely disregard pretty much anyone's opinion when they think Donald Trump is an idiot because that shows me that they really don't understand that he's a fantastic showman, incredibly smart, and knows exactly what he's doing. It's triggered people like you that don't see the larger game being played.

You are right he isn't an idiot. He's just a bad hombre.

Every fucking recent President in the US was worse than him when it comes to their body counts, kicking the agenda can further down the road, and their wars for profit, at least so far. Go ahead, contest that.

Hmm, I thought I was agreeing with you but your confrontational nature won't allow it so here we go...Sure, trump hasn't started a war in his first few months...good for him. He has managed to antagonize the majority of our allies and enemies. Not to mention his rhetoric is pretty much the most bigoted since the pre Civil Rights era. Plus LOL on him not pushing agendas... he is serving the conservative power bloc as much as anyone before him. Just look at the Skinny Bill... a terribly written plan put forward because of exclusively conservative interests. The man couldn't even get it passed with the senate majority... already worse than Obama in regards to implementing change. I won't expect you to change your mind tho. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into

Trump has gone out of his way to avoid war since he's been President. The same cannot be said for virtually all the rest of them. Yeah his rhetoric is childish and churlish towards some of them, but his plainspoken take-no-shit demeanor is exactly why a lot of people voted for him, especially after having Obama who was perceived as a very weak, ineffectual President that just tried to placate everybody.

Provide evidence that Trump is a bigot or racist. The majority of the country agrees with his stances on illegal immigration, and he's not reinstituting slavery or Jim Crow laws for fuck sake. Looks more to me like he's just unencumbered by political correctness, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

How is he pushing the conservative agenda? They've done almost NOTHING since they took power, and a large majority of them oppose Trump and his policies and work hand-in-hand with the Democrats to obstruct his agenda. What exactly is he supposed to do when his own appointments can't get confirmed due to blatant manipulation of the rules and obstructionists being in charge of the vetting process? This is further proof to support the notion that the vast majority of the mainstream Republican Party hates Donald Trump with a bloody passion. Just because there's an R next to his name doesn't mean they're on board with anything he's doing, they rode him into the election because he literally embarrassed and chumped out all of their frontrunners, and they had no choice but to support him because their constituents would have thrown them out of office if they didn't at least pretend to. Hence why you're seeing the Republican Party getting sued by their own constituents because they're not getting on board with the voters' intent to support Trump and his agenda.

Trump is pretty much doing the best he can with the tools he's got, and in that regard he's hardly been the worst President ever and has in fact affected some positive change here in there. I can be objective and call him out when he actually fucks up and support him when he does something right.

wow, it's fascinating to see someone so deep into the cult. trump's job as president is to rally his party to execute on his ideas. healthcare? look at how much effort obama put with a larger majority. that's leadership. trump's twitter tantrums? absolutely childish and incompetent.

Wow it's fascinating to see somebody who can't make simple distinctions and lumps everybody either into Us or Trump Supporter. Absolutism, you people snort it like it's a fucking drug. Fuck your bicameral views, I like ideas on every side of the spectrum no matter who they come from. There's things I like about Trump and things I don't like about Trump, simple as that.

what ideas about white supremacy and nazis do you like? no, seriously. you wear this holier-than-thou both-sides-are-the-same naive nihilism on your sleeve don't you? i called you a cultist because from your responses, i could genuinely not see objectivity with regards to trump criticism. nowhere did i lump you into any crowd, trump supporters or otherwise. frankly, that's irrelevant here. what is relevant is serious logical thoughtful discourse, which i found thoroughly lacking when i come across comments such as this. i gave you a quick rebuttal: trump's major failure and you can see obama as easy contrast, is his thorough incompetence in dealing with healthcare.

I mean left vs right you dunce. I don't support any sort of hateful ideology.

No, there's no holier-than-thou anything. I'm a centrist and I see both sides as equally as possible and make my own determinations. You don't know anything about me. I can tell you how Trump is a Zionist and kisses Israel's ass too much, I can talk about how Trump's basically lining his cabinet and the government full of rich fucks that don't give a fuck about his agenda or the American people, I can talk about how Trump should shut his mouth more often and not post on Twitter as much because it looks bad and makes us look bad, but there's already three thousand other fucking accounts right on this sub that do the very same thing in every single thread (even in those that have nothing to do with him), and I like him more than I dislike him. That's not being naive, that's me having a fucking opinion based on my own evidence and experiences, and you can kiss my ass.

You really read that entire comment and didn't see any sort of thoughtful discourse? Or is it that you saw me saying good things about Trump and saw red and just had to come in and set me straight? Imma go with the latter.

cool.

and I like him more than I dislike him. That's not being naive, that's me having a fucking opinion based on my own evidence and experiences, and you can kiss my ass.

this pretty much sums up my point.

You really read that entire comment and didn't see any sort of thoughtful discourse?

nope, really. and it's pretty funny that you insult me and then claim that i see red.

What things do you like about Hillary Clinton?

The fact that she's already dead or dying soon? She is incredibly evil and has a lot of blood on her hands.

So you just lies and don't really like ideas from all sides.

LMFAO Clinton is a fucking neocon and politically to the right of Donald Trump, who is a moderate Centrist, so what are you even talking about?

If you think

I think you're a bigot, nothing more.

Nice lazy generalization because you can't actually argue a point. We're all done here.

I like ideas on every side of the spectrum no matter who they come from

What things do you like about Hillary Clinton?

The fact that she's already dead or dying soon

So you just lied and don't really like ideas from all sides.

If you think any of our politicians are an accurate representation of the left vs right political spectrum, you don't understand politics in America.

I think you're a [a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions], nothing more.

you can't actually argue a point

QED

LOL just ignore that entire paragraph that gives it context because you're such an absolutist you can't see more than two views - yours and everyone else.

Why don't you add your important context, then? Let us all know how context saves your comment from not being a lie. Go ahead.

Yes and no.

Trump is fantastic at playing the masses. He is extremely good at getting people to follow him and was able to use social media almost to perfection. There is no doubt that people will study how a complete buffoon was able to become president.

Having said that, if you were to actually study his words and actions you'd immediately realize how much he lies and deflects. The guy will never take responsibility for his own actions and constantly blames everyone. He has created a huge rift between the right and left to the point that many of his supporters would be willing to take up arms if they felt slighted. You say this makes him smart, to me it looks like an incompetent idiot who doesn't understand the ramifications of his actions.

Trump got to be president because he lied and said everything that his supporters wanted to hear. No one cared if anything he said was true or not, but people were happy to hear someone say America first or that he would bring jobs. None of this has happened and his first month's have been a disaster but people are still happy that they were able to get their "own" president who they think actually cared about them.

Trump isn't that smart, but he has one great quality and that is no shame. He doesn't give a fuck if you hate him as last as he has power. And due to it he has constantly lied and projected, and his base ate it up.

He panders and that's it, that's his one move.

Is it me who is wrong or everyone else?

No, it's everyone else who is wrong.

Yeah, because the voting systems in this sub aren't completely and regularly manipulated by brigades and outside provocateurs or anything, and I haven't been singled out by certain posters in this sub for attacks either. /SARC. Nothing in my comment was inherently divisive other than pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of both sides, and that people do themselves a disservice to think that Trump is just an idiot when these people got to where they are precisely because they knew what they were doing, or have people around them that are even smarter.

Yes, because when I see the hundreds of paid cocksuckers shilling up every thread I definitely just go with the flow. I mean if it's the popular opinion it must be correct, right?

Tl;dr: He's doing retarded stuff cause 7D backgammon.

At least half of his public persona is an act, why don't you people see this

Did you read his leaked phone conversations with other world leaders? It's not an act. Maybe he was once somewhat intelligent, but he's sure as hell not anymore.

the larger game being played

LOL you people are so dense. He could shit his pants on tv and you'd think it was "4d chess" or whatever.

I think it's the people that see and take everything at face value and think there's nothing else behind what they're doing are the ones who are really fooling themselves, but good on you. You can point to a ton of different instances where Trump will act like an asshole or say something that seems outlandish and then a couple days later he's proven correct. The point is you can also make obvious inferences at his success in life and figure out quickly that he's really not an idiot or he wouldn't be where he is.

The point is you can also make obvious inferences at his success in life and figure out quickly that he's really not an idiot or he wouldn't be where he is.

But you can't, his age is clearly catching up to him. He does not behave or communicate the same way as he used to. It's clear as day, he's not the same. If you think it's calculated, you're wrong.

I agree it's an act - it's an act for folks with zero critical thinking skills. He fed you shit, and you licked your lips and thanked him for it.

Hillary's not in jail, there's no funding for a wall, he did not declare China to be a currency manipulator, he's increasing our Middle East intervention, he had a total failure of leadership on Trumpcare - and he can't even find enough people to work for him these days.

I wouldn't say he's an idiot, I would say he's far under-equipped to be effective. The proof of that is his lack of follow-through on his promises that have made almost no progress.

Hillary's not in jail Things take time. Also, this. No funding for a wall Yeah, there is. China currency manipulator Probably because he realized that it would be a monumentally stupid idea considering how much of our Treasury bonds they own. And last I heard, [China is back on his shit list](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/beijing-is-back-on-trumps-bad-side Middle East This is flat-out untrue. We have almost no presence in Syria right now, Iraq is getting better, ISIS has been virtually destroyed thanks to joint cooperation between us, Russia, Syria and Iran, and we are attempting to broker a deal to reduce tensions in Libya. Last I checked we don't have any more wars coming up, so what are you even talking about? Healthcare His own party screwed him on this and nobody wanted any of the bills to pass in the first place because they're awful. It was the Republicans that refused to work with the Democrats for a bipartisan bill, that has nothing to do with Trump. And on the positive side of things, the failure of those bills buried Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Appointments Being blocked all the time by opposition Democrats and Republicans by abusing the rules so he can't get his appointments in.

I wouldn't say he's an idiot either, I think it's a bit more accurate to say that the entire establishment will do anything they can to destroy him, refuses to work with him, and is not giving him an inch to enact any of his agenda. He may be the President, but they don't really have all that much power in the first place, and when you have almost the entirety of every branch of government literally sworn to destroy him, how exactly is he supposed to do his job?

Regarding Hillary Clinton:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1345/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-hillary-cli/

Is it really that surprising to understand that Congress does not want investigate Hillary because she will basically bring them all down if she goes down? She's not "too big for jail" in the sense that she certainly deserves to go no matter how rich or powerful she is, but in the sense that the establishment does not want somebody of her stature going down because of what they are going to reveal to get out of it, you can bet your ass the last thing they want to do is pursue this. The fact that she's going after a plea deal may not be satisfactory to some, but it means things are happening even if we're not privy to the dealings.

Trump doesn't want Hillary Clinton investigated.

I have no Illusions about the fact that Trump is most certainly not clean, but I'm pretty sure he's not a pedophile at least.

Well, if that's all it takes for you to get behind someone that's swell.

Well, I'm not as much of an absolutist dogmatic idiot as you are, so I can make distinctions and find things I like in several different areas and not fully support any one ideology. "Only Sith deal in absolutes."

Again, and with the added Star Wars quote even more so, that's swell.

He's shooting himself in the foot repeatedly. Trump's worst enemy is Trump.

No disagreement there, but there are lots of other factors as to why he hasn't been completely successful in his endeavors too.

I think up until this point we assumed a base level of competency.

The President has a very large amount of power. He can unilaterally in many instances set our foreign policy. Yet here he is, rolling back on his promises.

On the rest, the President tends to use his bully pulpit of rally his party, and his sill sin negotiation to get a few votes from the other side. He was simply unable to do so, and instead of addressing his leadership deficiencies, he blames the minority party.

Calling him names isn't helping nothing go back to r politics

Wow, how calm and reasonable

Yeah, a big fucking idiot who won the most intense US presidential race in living memory against record setting amounts of external funding and opposition in both parties.

Your comment is essentially spam. The vote manipulation on this thread is very impressive. Yeah, yeah, spare me, you think people just agree with you and the voting honestly reflects the opinions of real people in this community. You think I'm annoying for bringing up vote manipulation. I know what I am seeing. Don't both complaining.

Here, have some more vote manipulation.

Trump was an incompetent and deeply flawed human before he ran, so his presidency is just a reflection of that. The Corporate cartels and the military industrial complex are running circles around him.

Then he's still a failure then, right? His whole pitch was that these are deep systems and he's the only guy tough enough to break 'em up, and he can't. I personally think he's been basically a phony from the jump (if not an intentional attempt to discredit anti-establishment politics), but even giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions you can only come to the conclusion that he's weak and failed.

Why is it so hard for people to understand this. You can't just do whatever you want when you become president. The deep state is very involved and influential. It's difficult to know who to trust, and how to get away with getting shit done.

I didn't vote for him, and I don't necessarily even support his policies, but I do believe he's working with the Alliance to take down the Deep State. And he's making more progress than the MSM (owned by said Deep State) would have you believe.

But he said he "was the only person" who could do those things.

Been saying the same thing since back when I was calling the "appointed court jester" while Hillary was delivered the election with a bow-tie, doesn't matter which side of the designated elite makes office they will still be powered same lobbying megaindustries that have controlled this world for decades if not centuries.

Trump is just one man. There is little or nothing that he can do to change a huge powerful entrenched system. Even as President. (I do not like Trump).

Funny how you Trump supporters claimed Obama was a dictator running the entire universe on his own.

As I stated above, I am not a Trump supporter.

What a crock of shit. Can't wait until a real republican gets elected in 2020 and actually passes legislation that helps hard working Americans

But didn't he say that he was the only person that could actually make a difference?

I think he did. He is rich so he did not need the globalists' money like the Clintons did. So, he was more insulated. But, compared to the entire system, he is very poor and weak.

Lol, the downvotes

I think the real conspiracy that the far left and the far right folks are missing is that deepening divisions weaken the United States as a whole. Society will suffer as the rich get richer and the media carves deeper lacerations in America to get more clicks and views. Whether you think it's a foreign power or the wealthy elite (like Trump or Soros) or just fanatics with a grudge doesn't matter. This country is worse for these divisions and we should blame all those who profit from it, not just the ones with whom we agree.

Both sides are paid to set up these things and then idiots are like yeah lets go protest even tho we have no idea what its about but i like to virtue signal bc im a good person even tho i support some of the most evil ppl in the world yeah!

The media are busy making everyone in the US hate each other to distract them from the fact that they really should be hating the rich.

Absolutely, unfortunately.

You hate small businesses?

I own two small businesses, and I feel just as ripped off by rich people as anyone else. By rich I'm talking about the 1%ers, not the upper middle class.

And fighting poverty is laudable, but fighting economic inequality is much more important. Inequality sucks the life out of economies and makes almost everyone poorer.

You're wrong, fighting poverty is much easier than fighting a fake news story about how the 1% is controlling our economy.

I know this will sound really douchy, but... Being just 1% is not exactly what you think it is.

Most 1% people live near big cities. Most big cities have a very high cost of living. A 1% household income will buy you the life of a much lower taxes bracket just 100 miles away.

Case in point: My family was just over the threshold of 1% from around 2008-2013 (the company my immigrant dad built primarily worked with Eastern European clients who not affected much by the '08 crisis. We lived in a somewhat nice but small house on Long Island, on about 1/8 of an acre. We drove three modest Japanese cars (Honda, Toyota, and Subaru). The only thing that was really different was that I was able to go to college without taking on loans. However, I was really lucky to receive extremely generous academic scholarships. Otherwise, I probably would have had to take some loans.

My girlfriend's family lives in a house that's roughly twice the size on a property that's roughly eight times larger in Connecticut. Her parents' joint income was maybe a quarter of what my family's was.

The 1% isn't as rich as most people think, when you take living expenses into account. The really rich people are those who are consistently clearing a million in annual cash income, or higher. This is much, much smaller than just 1%.

oh, life still sucks when you're in the top 1%?

maybe they should start wondering what it's like for the bottom 99%

I see what you're saying, but in America, the vast majority of people in major cities can't afford a car or land. Don't take what you have for granted.

Oh, believe me, I don't. I grew up dirt poor and my parents ended up filing for bankruptcy a few years back - my dad's business went under in a pretty dramatic way, when the Ukraine crisis heated up.

I've just always been annoyed that the 1% has been called the source of all evil, ever since occupy wall street. In the same way that the majority of major cities are quite poor, the majority of the 1% lives the life style of the 25% in the rest of the country. Not to say it's a brutally hard life, but it's not a life of extraordinary luxury; it's just very comfortable, and not much more.

Must be the same way it grinds my gears lol. Grew up bringing home school lunches to heat up on the kerosene heater and give to my brother and slept on more floors than I can count. The necessity of most amenities just escapes me.

Can't speak about other communities, but the top 1% has been an enemy of minorities and impoverished since way before occupy wall street. I mean like hundreds of years. The disparity has just increased since. Nothing personal against you or your family, but there's just typically a disconnect in lifestyles and experiences.

The real issue are the .01%

Watch this, it's 4 years old now but things have only gotten worse.

Most people don't have a clue how rich the super rich are

Thanks making this comment, rather than tearing me a new one for the fact that my parents made good money at one time. I think you got the point that I was making.

It's just another division the tip top people want us all fighting about.

Your parents certainly have an easier time than most Americans (as do mine) but they worked for it, and used the money to get you an education (as did mine) instead of using money to buy lawmakers and control industries and hurt other people to profit while talking about how much better they are than everyone else (not that every super rich person does this of course) but that is what the inequality has lead to for the worst people in society who lack empathy

Oh poor you, only getting to drive THREE "modest" brand new modern cars and owning a fucking house in fucking Long Island. Oh my you poor baby how did you survive?? And you almost had to take out student loans? Oh man oh man your life is so hard!

You're right, you're just like the rest of us! I mean, we can't afford a home or a single used piece of shit car and have to decide between paying rent or eating for the week and have to take out massive loans to get an education just to have our jobs handed to Richie Rich trust fund babies like yourself because of your mommy and daddy's money and connections, but like we're on the same level right?

You've really opened my eyes about the 1%! You're not totally detached from reality at all!

I hope you choke on that cash. You're a fucking moron if you think your life is at all modest or has anything on common with the normal people of this country.

THREE "modest" brand new modern cars

No one said they were new. And yes, three Japanese cars, with fabric seats, no extras, and each costing ~$18-24 grand is comparatively modest. Claiming otherwise supports my point; I don't know if you realize just how rich people get. A girlfriend I had I high school bitched me out for driving a "shitty Honda" instead of "at least an Audi".

owning a fucking house in on fucking Long Island

It was a 1,400 sq ft ranch with four people living in it. When we first moved in, my two grandmothers lived there too. That house cost an arm and a leg. Part of my point was that making comparatively high income would have been much harder if we weren't living on Long Island. But living on Long Island meant our money didn't go as far it would in other places.

Rich trust fund babies like yourself because of your mommy and daddy's money and connections, but like we're on the same level right?

I don't really appreciate you jumping to these conclusions. My family immigrated from Russia in the 90's. My dad moved here with $300 cash. He worked as a bus driver by day and a taxi driver by night, living with four roommates in an attic apartment in Brooklyn, back when it wasn't advisable for white people to walk around outside after sunset. After a year he saved enough money to bring the rest of my family over. We lived in a barrio on Long Island, in a three family home. My upstairs neighbors were junkies and waking up to gunshots wasn't exactly a rarity. At the time, my dad started his business and we were splitting $30 grand between six people. Eventually, my dad made enough money to move into a the aforementioned ranch. My parents have no money that they didn't earn themselves by staying up until two in the morning, night after night for two decades. All the connections they might have had live across an ocean, in a country where my dad had a price on his head, thanks to altercations with the local mob.

I hope you choke on that cash. You're a fucking moron if you think your life is at all modest or has anything on common with the normal people of this country.

Notice how I said '08-'13. In 2013, the political situation in Ukraine went to shit. My dad's business, which relied on a 60-40 split of Russian and Ukrainian clients went under in just a year. My family went from being in the 1% to having a negative net worth. My parents now live in a $40ish grand home in upstate NY and are below the poverty line. At this point in my life, the only money I have access to comes from my paycheck. I'm not starving, but you'd have to be a moron to call me rich. I drive the sake Honda I drove ten years ago. I've had several moments where I've had to choose between paying for gas and food. Believe me, I'm not as clueless as you're trying to make me out to be.

I understand why you'd write up a comment like the one I'm responding to. But hating me for having the privilege of living a great life for 5-7 years and ignoring my underlying argument won't make your life any better.

no, an 18-24 grand fucking car - and three of them at that - is not fucking modest. Do you know what real people spend on cars? They don't. They have to take the bus because they can't afford a piece of shit 3k used car from 15 years ago.

Boo hoo your parents had to work to get it - generations work themselves to death here and never get to even own a house or a car or ever get any kind of freedom. we're born, we work, we die sick. that's that the life of the average american is. I'm sick of rich people fucking whining about inconsequential bullshit. If you think money's so bad sell one of your 3 fucking cars. hell, sell 2 or all of them. sell your house and fucking rent. Come on down and live with the rest of us.

Your family owns 3 cars, a house in Long Island, and your college was paid for in full. Let me tell you, that is n o t how most people live in this country.

My point wasn't that most people had my family's lifestyle. My was that my family's lifestyle was:

• Not unimaginable for most Americans.

• Attainable for much, much less money in other parts of the country.

But just for the record, a 1,400 sq ft ranch on Long Island isn't exactly luxury. No, it's not a run down double wide, but it's frankly somewhat unimpressive to a huge chunk of the population.

Having your tuition paid off and buying a ranch on Long Island isn't really common. Part of your lifestyle is where you live, you think its the same everywhere in the country? Quality of life is a thing. The cheaper it is, the lower that gets generally speaking.

buying a ranch on Long Island isn't really common

Well, it can't be common by definition. Long Island is comparatively tiny. But you do realize a ranch, in this context, is a small single story home, right?

Quality of life is a thing. The cheaper it is, the lower that gets generally speaking.

Generally speaking yes. But there are plenty of exceptions. Like I said, there are plenty of areas, within just a 60 or so mile radius of where I grew up, where the location isn't any worse but your money goes way further.

I think it's a pretty intuitive concept. No?

Compare living in San Fran on a 100k salary to living in Boston on the same salary. Neither city is better or worse than the other. But 100k will take you way further in Boston than in San Francisco.

I get what you're saying, I do, and you're right that cost of live varies a lot in the US. I just don't agree your lifestyle is as easily attainable as you think.

You own two businesses? It's very likely that you are the 1%

that's what he said

Average household income for a 1% is 1.2 million a year.

Small business owners are lucky to clear a 100k from a business. The bulk do less.

Average 1% income is not the lower bar for being in the 1% and is a misleading statistic to use.

If you dont like the look of the average 1 percenter, the lower bound a few years ago was 465k individual AGI. (Of course AGI is usually much lower than your actual income at that level). Still far out of all but a tiny percentage of small business owners.

That's fair.

Also note that that's income, the 1% usually refers to wealth although bootlickers like to try and shift the conversation back to income to try and make it seem like it's not so bad.

Nope. Sadly not even close.

Not in wealth, which is generally what is meant by the 1%

I think you know that is not who OP is talking about. They are nowhere in the same league as the Mnuchins, Tillersons, Cheneys, Bushs, Chlintons, Waltons, Soroses, Kochs, etc.

Agree with everything you mentioned. Just be sure to realize when the left says rich they mean anyone with seven figures. Which is ridiculous.

when the left says rich they usually mean anyone with seven figures.

Seven figures is rich by anyone's definition, and they should IMO face higher marginal tax rates to incentivise either charitable donations or reinvestment into their company in the form of better equipment, or higher employee compensation.

Then anyone close to making a million would stop and be comfortable with a lower amount. Meaning a less productive and effective economy.

i mean if our taxes weren't progressive, then yeah. But since our taxes our progressive your strawman is fighting a losing battle.

What strawman? You mean simple economic laws about supply and demand?

"I don't want that extra million if I am only going to be able to keep 660K!"

Yet historically that hasn't been the case. People don't just stop increasing their wealth because they are angry at the prospect of paying more taxes. The way marginal tax rates are structured, there's always incentive to make more money as the higher tax rates are only applied to amounts made over a certain tax bracket.

It's not that simple

Thanks for explaining my point why raising taxes on the rich is not a simple solution to more revenue.

I agree it's not necessarily a simple solution, but at least as of 2012, most economists think we're on the lower side of the curve

Five years can make a hell of a difference.

True; I can't find any good recent data

Small business owners aren't rich, they're upper middle class, maybe even true middle class by historic standards. I think he's referring to big bank execs, board members of defense contractors, people named Rothschild. There's a difference between successful small business owners and moneyed power.

The left assumes anyone with a million bucks is upper class.

Because that's true.

That point of view is extremely toxic then. You must dislike any successful person including doctors, professors, and any successful small business owners.

A million bucks doesn't automatically turn a person into upper class.

Considering you think the average small business owner is a millionaire, your opinions on socioeconomic classes are irrelevant.

hell even the average doctor lol

maybe 10 years after they paid off their last student loan, if they lived extremely modestly.

And professors too. If he thinks they're millionaires, he's an idiot.

oh shit, i had read that as "professionals" and decided to let it slide. yeah, he's an idiot.

In CA alone there are thousands of "million dollar a year" restaurants. Meaning they bring in over a million dollars in sales. After a few years those owners can easily save near a million. Same goes for professors in prestigious schools, after writing multiple textbooks the royalties become very high. Same goes for real estate agents, car salesmen, and the local plumping company. Saving seven figures is very practical over two decades in some professions, and they do not associate​ themselves with the upper class. That is my point.

Yeah, you have zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Look up the average salary for professors and small business owners.

I mean, a million dollars is about 20 times the average household income, so I don't see why it isn't.

Correctly identifying someone's class doesn't mean you dislike them.

Why are you intentionally derailing the discussion and trying to cause further division?

You're literally arguing about dividing people based on how successful they are, and I'm the one being divisive? Projection much?

The rich manipulate the poor into fighting each other so the rich can stay rich. This is a fact.

Your argument when anyone points this out is that this is somehow the left attacking "hard working" Americans. Why are you lying?

Correct, but those people are billionaires. One million dollars does not make someone rich.

I'm not one of the ones downvoting all your shit, but consider this:

1 million dollars would allow me to pay off my mortgage, student loans, both cars, and have more than half left over. No debt and living expenses covered for years.

To me it sounds like anyone who has/makes that kind of money but lives somewhere so expensive that they have to live modestly has fallen for some sort of scam. Just move, lol.

Over two decades, one million dollars worth of savings does not automatically make someone rich.

When people say someone makes seven figures they aren't talking about 20 years cumulative in savings, mate.

By definition, having one million dollars (in assets, let alone cash) puts you in the top 5%. Almost all classifications consider this to be upper class. If you make a seven figures income, that puts you in the top 1%. Undeniably upper class.

If you think professors are making seven figure incomes, you're a moron.

Over two decades, if you're a professor or restaurant owner and don't have a few hundred thousand saved (close to 1 million) you're a moron and terrible investor in yourself.

You still haven't looked up the average salary, have you? If they're lucky, they'll maintain upper middle class status. You spazzing out about how the left attacks people like professors, small business owners, and doctors is so unfounded I have to think you're purposefully trolling.

A dentist can save up a few hundred thousand within a decade, the assistant can save half a million within a decade.

One million dollars over a twenty year period doesn't automatically make someone rich.

You're talking about retirement funds. Nobody is attacking people because they've saved up for retirement. And many dentists are wealthy, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm saying you can have a million dollars in savings and still be middle class.

"Just be sure to realize when the left says rich they usually mean anyone with seven figures. Which is ridiculously ignorant of hard working Americans."

You're the one projecting and being divisive here

How can one million make someone rich? Are you this ignorant to successful people? You realize some professors and restaurant owners make millions correct? The rich you are fighting make billions.

There are rich, and there are super rich.

You realize there are people making 10k a year, yes?

What do you call a person making 1000 times more than you?

Rich.

Those of us on the left want there to be tax brackets that separate the rich from the super rich. The right wants to treat everyone the same up there, to benefit the super rich.

It should be an upside down pyramid. 0.01% pay the most not the poor pay the most

Like things were after the new deal with 90% rates on the tippy top

Looks like it was 79% on anyone who made over 5 million which turned out to be just Rockefeller (he was only one to make over 5 mill) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

http://imgur.com/abrnGUV

yeah they made the bracket just for him since he controlled so much i believe

Seems it was later that there was a 94% bracket after WW2

top rates coming out of World War II, which the Eisenhower Administration left in place into the 1960s. During the war, the top “marginal rate” was 94%, but 94% of what? Then as now, income tax rates moved up at distinct break points. In this made-up example, consider a 15% rate up to $25,000, 21% from $25,000 to $50,000, and 25% over $50,000. Those making $50,001 or more won’t pay a quarter of their total income, but rather 15% of the first $25,000, 21% of the next $25,000, and 25% of everything above $50K. That’s why the system is called progressive - the percentage rate progresses upward with income, but the higher percentage applies only to new (marginal) income above each break point. In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation).

That would be better I would think, but that is never going to happen without getting campaign contributions banned that's my biggest issue and would think things would start falling into place for everyone after that. No more big bribes for politics to rig the game for the mega rich=louder voice for the smaller guys. I hope I live to see the day a progressive tax plan is at least attempted.

You think this world rewards hard work? Tell that to everyone living paycheck to paycheck while working a full time job.

We are all poor compared to the 0.10% who own 90% of the worlds assets. We should hall the elite rich into the streets and behead them and their families and see how quickly their Swiss/Offshore bank accounts are opened up. If this started happening 1/10th as frequently as car bombs happen, we would start seeing things change.

Of course the flipside view is that you could divide up all wealth perfectly, mathematically equal among everyone, and within 5 years you'd have poor people and rich people.

Leftists: The rich are a problem in our society.

Reactionary: The middle class are a problem in our society?? Why do you hate oridnary hard working people?

Every time.

I do like the fact that this is sort of an admission that the rich are indefensible, they have to pretend you weren't talking about the rich to rebuke the point.

Pretend? I'm explaining how being rich isn't some automatic club which everyone thinks and behaves the same. But continue hatting on successful people who make a lot of money. They are not the "rich" to hate on.

Almost like there can be differing variation of wealth and living conditions. But continue placing millions of people into an arbitrary category you cannot define.

That's exactly what you're doing, you know fully well we mean the ultra-rich elite, the bourgeoisie. It's nothing but deliberate obtuseness.

Leftists actually use different terms to refer to labourers and capitalists, they don't see a well off plumber or doctor as a problem. Of course, you'd know that if you actually knew anything about leftists and weren't just regurgitating right wing narratives about the left.

From what I saw on this thread, just making a million dollars in savings makes someone rich and a problem.

All the guy said was that the rich are the problem and you immediately twisted that into meaning small business owners.

I'm giving an example of how making a million dollars in savings doesn't make you rich. They were wrong by your own admission.

Who ever said it does?

I think you've forgotten not only my point but also the point you originally replied to and your own point. You may use "the rich" to mean moderately well off members of the middle class and small business owners, most other people mean the wealthiest of the wealthy.

All I'm trying to say is that you can accumulate a lot of money and still live in the middle class.

Okay? Nobody disagreed with you at any point, you're the one who started talking about small business owners and well-off plumbers.

If you think the "super" rich are the problem then you're in agreement with leftists.

Most people did in this thread. Apparently being successful and a hard worker doesn't exist to normal people.

I can't see any comments like that, even the guy you replied to said he was talking about the really rich and is a small business owner himself.

Keep scrolling. There were at least two people who said that saving a million bucks automatically makes someone filthy rich.

The lefts only job is to hate rich though?

...Yeah like all those lefty tech CEOs, actors, and billionaire philanthropists...

Welcome to the future.

The left is middle class, upper middle class and even part of the 1%

Because this brings them views, thus, money.

This might be the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

Conflict makes more news to cover. The bigger the conflict, the more view, the more money they make is a hard concept for you to accept? Please, you clearly aren't fit for a sub called conspiracy, it's barely conspiracy, it's just basic economics.

Oh, wait, did it insult you because you've been indoctrinated by CNN? There you go, you've proved the fanatic part.

Kiddo, you post on t_d, your clearly pushing some sort of retarded agenda. Just because you stupid little cunts have meetings to try and "take out dem Libtards" doesn't mean the other side is too. You're the fanatic, and it's hilarious that you can't see it.

Also, have any of you doofy lil bastards heard "The boy who cried wolf"? It might help explain why no-one believes your bullshit.

Are you talking about the leftist that cried racism, sexism to everyone that disagrees with them.

If you're getting called a racist or a sexist frequently enough to get mad about it, you're probably a racist or a sexist.

Thanks for redefining what racism and sexism is. So, if you just tell someone they are a racist multiple times and they get mad, they must be a racist/sexist.

Oh, look at the silly little thing try and twist words.

The boy that cried racism, thanks for proving my point.

I didn't cry racism or sexism at all, in any of this comment chain. Fuck, I didn't even mention it until you did.

When everyone around you says you smell like shit, it's time to check your shoe and maybe shower.

Especially when the Middle class owns almost no Stock, they ain't seeing "gainz" unless they bought a house years ago. Other than that were all fighting for the rotten apples at the bottom of this shit barrell.

The middle class owns tons of stock. Their 401ks are very important. Especially the boomers retiring right now, it makes sense financially to only pull money out of your 401k in good years than bad years.

(It used to be in the 60's range and now has dropped to 50's range. So half of Americans do not own stock, this is the information i'm referring to.)[http://www.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-matching-record-low.aspx]

This is just Americans admitting they have money in the stock market. A lot of people are stupid af and don't realize their 401ks are stocks invested in the stock market.

This is meta and its from CNN but this is what I saw a few weeks back

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

CNN is a narrative network. It's not news nor information.

so? that doesnt every thing they say is false. the article simply confirms or a the very least corroborates the experiences alot of people here are having.

That's true. It also doesn't mean people have jack shit in their 401ks. If you make $35,000.00, you aren't getting much at all out of your 401k.

Most people who wouldn't even know that their 401k is actual stock market investments are probably too stupid to contribute to one. But again, most people aren't contributing to 401k's because prices of everything have inflated beyond sustainability while wages have not risen/shared the same inflation. Someone making $50k/year in the 90's was WAY better off than someone making $50k in 2017.

I mean thats basic inflation... but it sounds worse when you put it to a real world situation. I'm 28 and make as much as my dad did when I was a kid in the early 90's.

I live by myself and was lucky enough to afford a small house a few years ago, I barely scrape by and drive a 10 year old car (putting 4% in my 401k). I don't drink and I can't remember the last time I "went out" with my friends.

In the 90's on roughly the same salary my dad supported 2 kids and my mom and still had enough left over for a 3000+ sq ft house with a ski boat, new truck and a minivan.

This pretty much nails what I was trying to get across. My parents bought the home we lived in for 20+ years in the early nineties for ~140k, they sold it last year for over $350k. I'm pretty sure it was under 3,000 sq. ft too. A 1995 chevy tahoe was $29k MSRP for 4 door and 4 wheel drive, a 2018 base model tahoe with 4wd starts at $51k MSRP, granted there are electronics and far better safety features, a car almost doubling in price while incomes have remained stagnant is just one of the many reasons people are saying 'millenials are ruining X and Y, millenials aren't saving, millenials aren't spending enough, etc.'

I think this is true mainly in very expensive areas. The cost of living isn't generally THAT much higher. The killer is student loan costs

Im pretty sure someone making 30k a year in the nineties had it better than someone making 50k a year now.

No need to be pretty sure, when you can be actually sure.

This calculator is awesome! Saving.

Yeah, but I also want to point towards personal responsibility here. I personally just started investing in stock in the past 2 years. I had thought about doing it years ago and didn't wanna use my spending money on it. If I had it is likely that I would be fairly upper class. Most of us don't manage money well and then want to blame it on people that do. Don't get me wrong by the way I know that some of these conspiracies are right but a lot of the "1%" haven't been there long and wont be there long. Hating people just because they are better with their money isn't much better than hating someone because of their skin color. I do think that a lot of politicians are abusing their positions to stay in the 1% and really think we should ban together to remove those that we think are doing this. I also think that elected officials should have to post all revenue from the moment they get into office until they die in public forum so that it can be monitored by citizens for wrongful payment.

If I had it is likely that I would be fairly upper class.

Maybe.. maybe not. I think the honest calculation is to determine how much money you could've put into a few indexed funds and see how it would've done. While you're compounding interest, don't forget to compound inflation.

Most of us don't manage money well and then want to blame it on people that do.

That seems a little off to me.. some people tend to blame the wealthy, but the "wealthy" are not a homogeneous group either. Plus, there's more to ending up successful than how much money your parents had, they connections they can use to influence your life can be absolutely tremendous as well. People see unfairness in this system, and wrongly attribute it to the whole, but it's not as if it's not a completely invalid observation.

Hating people just because they are better with their money isn't much better than hating someone because of their skin color. I do think that a lot of politicians are abusing their positions to stay in the 1% and really think we should ban together to remove those that we think are doing this.

Historically social action vs. money plays out in a very common pattern, and it's not usually to the social activists benefit. Wars do the best at inverting wealth, but no one is eager for that.

I also think that elected officials should have to post all revenue from the moment they get into office until they die in public forum so that it can be monitored by citizens for wrongful payment.

It's so much deeper than that. Say your a Senator, and you're on a committee that works with the Food and Drug Administration, so you're in a position to see new and important drugs just before they enter the consumer pipeline. So.. you tell your money manager to buy a bunch of stock in that particular company before it hits the market. Instant windfall.

To assume that most politicians are wealthy because they take bribes is insane. The FBI would be eating them for lunch, no -- these people are much more intelligent and insidious than that. The campaign donations are just icing on the cake, preventing them from having to spend any of their "own" money on their own re-election; why would they misappropriate that money?

I honestly think the only change you can make is to introduce a real substantive third-party into the current federal system. It will be ugly, and it will slow the government down even more.. but it will frustrate the efforts of those who so easily manipulate the machine currently.

Well the "bribes" usually take place as cushy jobs after they get out or jobs for relatives or speaking fees. There are tons of ways to skirt this without actually breaking the laws as they are currently set up. As for another party into the federal system? I assume you mean another branch or are you talking about another party like republican/democrat. If it is another party I doubt that would make much difference. If it is a watchdog branch so to speak that sounds nice but it all comes back to who watches the watchers and more levels doesn't necessarily make it less faulty. I think more concrete laws on lobbying, donations, and clarity of financials from elected government officials would be the fastest and best way to approach the situation although even that would take an act of congress so to speak :D

The rent is killing everyone I know. Income is stagnant and rents never stop going up.

When the revolution comes, the landlords will be first against the wall.

House mortgages were typically affordable at max 3 times a persons income. Now they are the real "deathgrip". Why? Foreign investment from the people who profit from slave wage labor/automation.

They start overpaying for tons of real estate in other countries.

In Las Vegas you cannot believe the amount of houses that sit dark waiting to be "rented" for 3-4K per month.

Instead they are inhabited by squatters & destroyed inside.

I make a 74k net salary, and I truly believe this.

Never understood all the griping about taxes until I made enough to see it disappear.

Disclaimer that I don't post here often. I'm a millenial software engineer who just started work at 100k gross annual salary. My student debt obligation is around the same. It's somewhat frightening because I'm drowning in debt and yet I'm within the top 10% of earners in the US.

The scariest part is that there are a lot of people who aren't landing jobs like this and also have serious debt obligations. Probably not as bad as mine, but that's going to really fuck people trying to enter the middle class who are trying to marry and buy a home. There's a reason why millenials are getting married later, buying homes later, and "killing" a lot of past times the previous generations had more time to enjoy.

As a fellow 100k team member, pay down the debt ASAP. I was laid off in '08, and luckily I had very little CC debt, a low rate on my mortgage and two paid for cars.

But damn, I would have been screwed if I had your level of debt.

Also, the best way not to get laid off and something not everyone learns, but... Just because you are out of school doesn't mean you can stop learning. Stay on top of all the new languages, there are going to be a ton of your peers that will never learn the new stuff and it will give you a huge competitive advantage for you.

Yup, add in the that millennials are working long hours, have more expected of them, deal with more traffic, and have constant electronic distractions, and you have a recipe for the smart and successful to get burnt out.

Dat traffic ugg. Its so bad elon musks underground roads sound like the only thing worth doing and I used to think it was the most cloud in the sky idea ever.

Seriously. The tunnel boring machines of today are more than capable. There are massive tunnel networks across the country, mostly between the Appalachians and the Rockies, that are known as Deep Underground Military Bases and were built by tunnel boring machines that literally melt the excavated rock and reform it as the walls of the tunnel.

But let's be real, TPTB don't want it to be easier for us to travel or for our commutes to be less stressful.

How long did it take you to get to 100k? What platform is it?

Or, they had a medical condition, needed surgery with some recovery time, had to 'borrow' from the 401k, take a huge tax hit on that, stop contributing to stay above water because disability during recovery is only 50-60% of pay, etc. The costs associated with any medical hit are way beyond just copays and what they consider tax deductible- which is also a joke.

Which is why we need a real healthcare system in America. Obamacare didn't solve any of the stupid high prices.

Because it was hamstrung from the beginning by a republican Congress.

Oh fuck off with that bullshit. Democrats are sell outs for their corporate interests, and the insurance lobbyists made damn well sure any policy going into effect wouldn't actually solve anything and lose them money. Obama never intended to actually fix healthcare just like the Republicans in power now. Quit pretending other people ruined a great idea; it was shit to start with. Single payer is the only way to reduce healthcare spending in this country, and everything else is to get the people to shut up about it.

Lol whatever, both parties are to blame for this shitty system. Doesn't matter who has majority, the congress is supposed to do what's best for the American people, not play games and pick sides.

Sure it did! It kept prices low and allowed people to keep their doctors!

/s

Only 54% of Americans have money invested in the market, either through individual stocks, mutual funds or retirement plans like a 401(k), according to a Gallup survey in April.

No. When that 38% goes up there will be another crash because the rich need to sell to someone. Right now it's staying even because there are too many rich people who have too much to lose. They need "retail" investors who don't know any better. And there are a lot less of them right now.

The 2008 crisis was the rich getting out (of everything as time went on) and they could do that through a variety of means that 401k holders typically don't know about or understand. These days they have to be a lot more careful because stinging their fellow rich men invites retaliation.

So they are waiting and hoping that this great stock market will eventually win back the gullible, someone they can finally sell to enmasse. Meanwhile they're lobbying for lower taxes on this eventual profit.

My theory, drawn from over 5 decades of observation and tracking.

Nah. You are just delusional.

A lot of people are stupid af and don't realize their 401ks are stocks invested in the stock market.

Yes, but they would be equally stupid in 2007 as they would be in 2016.

1929

401k's are a cute carrot to dangle in front of the middle class.

What, you mean you don't buy into the notion that it's okay for your young years to be miserable slavery to the grind so that you can finally have some money to live off when you're too old and frail to properly enjoy the freedom you "earned"? Assuming you even live that long?

I mean, I don't think saving for retirement is a bad idea, but I've always been confused by the notion of enduring financial woe and pinching pennies during the years you're young and healthy enough to fully appreciate things like traveling and adventuring, for the sake of having the freedom to do those things later when you're too old to enjoy those things anymore. It just doesn't quite make sense to me.

i just mean that 401ks are just tax free bonus lanes for executives and high level employees. 4% matching is nice if you make >=$250k, but matching at $12/hr will never allow low level employees to retire. or pay for medical bills, much less travel anywhere. Maybe travel somewhere you can live off $1/day lol

Sme jobs I guess. Personally my insurance plus HSA covers all medical bills I have. I don't see my 401k as a retirement fund tbh. I've managed to accrue about a year's worth of pay in it and it's nice to have there making money off itself at 10% interest compounding.

Not having to worry about being homeless for any other reason than complete market collapse is worth a lot.

You are saving 'rainy day' money in a tax-deffered account with literally all the down sides; if you wanted money 'making compound interest' you should be using a brokerage account and a mutual fund, not a damn 401k.

You do know the day you need any of that money, your paying taxes + 20% fees on top of that, so you're literally losing 60% of your 'just in case money' by using it? Saying you use your 401k as a glorified savings account is extremely ignorant and dangerous to other people who may listen to you (no offense), as its the completely wrong approach to a 401k.

If they want a retirement vehicle which is also a rainy day fund then Roth IRA and mutual or index funds.

He said he'd have 10k in cash (aka emergency savings) if it wasn't for those specific emergencies. Sounds like he's a pretty decent saver but yes he should be putting money aside in tax free accounts (Roth or portfolio based life insurance with an established mutual company)

I don't think you're really earning 10% compound interest on a money market fund in a 401(k) plan. There might be some kind of misunderstanding. Maybe you think the default investment fund is a money market fund?

She's making 10% on stocks not money market, you're damn right. Money market less than 1%

I want to save but rent prices suck a lot of my income. Do you own a home?

So, you're saying a 401k doesn't make sense unless you earn more than $250k?

No, I'm saying they were designed by people who make lots of money for people who make lots of money

http://time.com/money/3947029/401k-tax-break-rich/

Crunch some numbers and get back to me.

Your comment doesn't mention that with very few exceptions, the maximum annual contribution to a 401k by an employee is $18k. It's not an insignificant amount of money but it's not like CEO's are putting half their salary into it.

if you are making 12/hr mid career you are quite possibly mentally handicapped. Fast food chains start at 10-12

Not were I live. I made 14.75 in maintenance / engineering assistance while people working fast food make at best 8 dollars a hour

I don't disagree - if you're making $12/hr you're fucked. However, there is a large percentage of the population (estimates from US Census bureau say around 13.5%) not making much more than $12/hr.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

Either way, without a good job, education, etc - there's a good chance you're going to work until the day you drop dead - and we're modernizing ourselves out of millions of jobs every year.

Let's just move that retirement age to like 95 maybe?

I put in 15% every check so I can fuck that. Gotta learn to live below your means

Lol, there's a big difference between your 12$/hour and >=250k.

The people with decent jobs making 70-150k are all saving into a 401k and all appreciate the tax advantages it affords them.

Please. Im a financial advisor/planner. I work with people in their late 20s making 70k a year with over 700k saved in their 401ks because they've been with a company for 10 years and took advantage of the 4-6% match from the beginning. They're living just like all the other late 20s people I meet with making the same amount they just know how to budget their money and will be retiring at 50 of 75. You're trying to tell me that saving 5%-20% of your income anywhere less than 250k is going to make or break you? Get real

Hahaha. youre in your early 20s. i hope life pops by and kicks you in your smug face a few times.

or the market crashes and eats your money.

either way, for most people, life doesnt always go as planned.

Life is sometimes a lot longer than you think.

That sounds horrible

Depends on what class and race you are. On average the poor are living to enjoy less of their retirment (aka Social Security), and Blacks on average won't live to see retirement.

Similarly, I don't understand why wealthy parents wait until they die to hand over inheritances to their children, rather than helping their children with said money when they need help buying houses, laying off student loan debt, etc.

Yeah like my fiance's stingy parents. They see him struggling with student debt after heavily encouraging him to go to grad school and they don't lift a finger. Instead I'm the one taking care of him 🙄

Similarly, I don't understand why wealthy parents wait until they die to hand over inheritances to their children, rather than helping their children with said money when they need help buying houses, laying off student loan debt, etc.

Similarly, I don't understand why wealthy parents wait until they die to hand over inheritances to their children, rather than helping their children with said money when they need help buying houses, laying off student loan debt, etc.

We are all wage slaves.

I'd rather have a 401k than a pension. I can diversify my 401k and roll it over to a new job if I'd like, and not be fucked if the company goes under after 30 years of contributions.

What middle class? Everyone thinks they are middle class or upper. It's bullshit.

Nice Shit analogy.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Like apples at the bottom of the shit barrel, Randy.

My Trump supporting sister in law goes on about how great Trump is because the stock market is doing well. Then I ask her how much stock she owns. None. Also, the stock market has hit an all time high the last 30 of 54 months. These are market forces at work. Yeah there was a surge when Trump landed in office, but that surge has stalled. Anyways, it's a good point that the middle class is not reaping the benefits of these gainz.

With interest rates at 0 or negative, there's no way for anyone with any money to grow it without going through Wall Street.

When my dad invested my college fund, he used CDs that he purchased at a bank. They were based on US treasury bonds with a 5% interest rate, give or take. Today that option is not available. There are no banking instruments that will outpace inflation. It's essentially graft for stock brokers.

And when you buy stocks your playing the rich man game, exactly what they want.

Portfolio based life insurance with one of the 3 major mutual companies (Mass mutual, northwestern mutual, New York Life)

Well it is not only the media, i think people in alt-right and far left nuts are helping out

Or people are more interested in clicking on an article about someone on the "other side" that they hate. Whether or not the media is willingly dividing the country, there's obviously an aspect to it where people want to read/watch what they're putting out.

The media has access to stats like clicks views retweets trends etc. just like advertisers has access. The media can instantly see what people read/watch. It's like breadcrumb trails to get people to fall right into the trap. Emotion is the easiest thing to bring them in, especially with race, gender, identity or trump. The media will spin any story they can into one of those topics, even when it's not relevant. Then they keep pushing it and pushing it. Until one day it's chaos and the consequences of outraging people for money ends up exploding.

I guess, but ultimately it comes down to "stop paying attention to clickbait". All I'm pointing out is that, to an extent, it goes both ways. People want to hear what they're being told, whether or not it's abusive/wrong of the media to exploit those desires.

It's more than clickbait

It's that I want to turn on ESPN and watch sports highlights and analysis but instead they show all the players that kneeled down. And then they bring someone on to share their opinion on it. Next thing I know they spent 7 minutes of a 22 minute NFL show on the kneeling.

It's shoving this kind of shit in everyone's faces to get a reaction

It's not being able to do anything without some sort of political message or divide being brought into it. At times when it's completely irrelevant and I want to just relax and enjoy something.

It's constant manipulation for reactions because reactions equal #'s and $.

Amen

everytime i see a millennial vs. boomer article, i think, "this is Wallstreet still deflecting their role in wrecking our economy"

And who wrote that article?

It must have been a boomer...

Not a lot of boomers writing articles anymore. Writing is done by people who work for nothing.

Boomer and former writer. Writing for nothing is nothing new.

So you're a 70+ year old senior citizen who apparently plays Diablo 3 and reddits etc...? Interesting. You are at most a Generation X:er (born after 1960s). Boomers are 1940-1959.

Well Bannon's out of the white-house and he was the only one fighting this fight.

This! But the real enemy is Israeli Zionists. Our congress is about to pass a bill that makes it illegal to disparage Israel. Israel owns us and control's our politics.

I don't want to upvote this comment but people should be questioning that bill.

Honestly fuck Israel.

AMEN!!!

Holy shit is Reddit and /r/conspiracy in particular coming back to sanity or is this just because it reached /r/all?

No, we should be hating ignorant, not the rich. Poor ignorant people are just as bad as rich ignorant people.

I can't even blame the media. It's the populace. The media presents information in a way everyone can digest it which is a very low bar.

The media most certainly deserves blame. The 4th estate is supposed to speak truth to power. The media created "post truth" not the populace.

The Media spoken truth. It's the people's perception of being right or being correct. Fuck getting the facts correct people just want to be right.

I'm sorry, but when it comes out that the 17 agencies is a lie from a campaign then the fact checkers double down on the lie and say it never mattered anyway - you get a fair picture of what they see as "truth". Then you get well respected publications' editorial staff publicly advocating the dissemination of propaganda it only gets clearer still.

If at this point you still believe the media has any commitment to the truth you should be criticizing yourself instead of blaming the entire populace. Most of them know better than you what is going on.

It's not that I believe the media. The media can start being 100 percent truthful right now but it wouldn't matter because people can't handle the truth and need to be spoon fed.

It would be a huge change, people would see that they were betrayed and lied to in a completely unethical manner.

Almost like Bernie was right and Trump is a conman.

No refunds!

Because Bernie wasn't a conman?...

Nope. Straight up thief.

Except Bernie endorsed Hillary straight away when he knew his bid was done.

Almost like Bernie knew Trump was a conman.

Except remember all the bad things he said about Hillary pre-nomination? He acted as if none of that mattered and fell in line like her lapdog afterward.

As does every single politician. It's why our two party system is so fucked. All of them know if you don't win you endorse because it keeps the power consolidated between the 2 parties.

They were opponents during the primary; after Bernie lost they were no longer opponents. Bernie gave much worse condemnations of Trump than Hillary.

I don't see why it's surprising that he would support a shitty Democrat over a shitty Republican. Bernie's ideals align with Democrats much more than Republicans.

Bernie's a loser and was a pawn. He was just used so Hillary had somebody to rig the election against

Maybe, like he's said countless times, he viewed Trump as more of a threat to the country?

Deep state pumped Trump 24/7 to divert attn from the massively popular old socialist.

They turned on Trump the minute Bernie conceded to a fixed "democratic" primary/caucus season.

They wanted to elect their identity politics candidate Goldman grandma Clinton. It was too difficult to fake support for her.

Trump is the conman for doing what he said he was going to do, Bernie isn't a conman for selling out.

Although newspapers take sides, they are as much part of the establishment as anyone else. They are there to make money. Ignoring Trump or any news that is just theory as non-news, means no sales. No sales means New York Times falls into a small town paper, or in terms of online status, less advertising, and less traffic. Its a double edged sword for knowing what to do to make the change, versus blaming the other side to keep sales going and people arguing.

This is how white supremacy started.

How exactly?

In short, rich white people didn't want poor white people and poor black people banding together for economic justice, so the concept of white supremacy was introduced. White supremacy exists ri keep poor people poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-wealthy-americans-divided-and-conquered-the-poor-to-create-the-concept-of-race/2016/04/19/2cab6e38-0643-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html

No one is making these assholes become nazis.

Shhhhh... The first rule of class warfare is to not talk about class warfare.

I am Jack's depleted Health Savings Account.

We can talk about it all we want as long as it's framed as the dirty ungrateful lazy fuckin poors unfairly demanding handouts from our benevolent job creators who deserve exponentially greater compensation becausee their labor somehow inexplicably provides that much more value

fake edit: also with the unspoken understanding that no, you may not question how that added value is provided because you wouldn't understand the answer anyway so just shut the fuck up and be thankful you even have a job at all you stupid poor

When i realize that this is what the management at my last job believed, I became Mr. BY-THE-BOOK and quit working extra days to help them out and killing myself. Fuck 'em.

This is a comment that bears repeating, that's a brilliantly concise and accurate description.

Excellent thinking! Have you ever considered a career in corporate news? The USA has both kinds of news now; far-right corporate-approved news and center-right corporate-approved news.

Hahaha 8)

Shhhhh... The first rule of class warfare is you don't talk about class warfare.

If you really want to get into the "fringe" grievances of the "left" is most of the rich are white people oppression people of all races.

If this country thought for a moment a black man ruled everything and the illumanti, blacks would be warred upon. But it's other whites protecting the slave owning whites.

No, the media should be showing us the truth, hating ANYONE is for the mentally weak.

the media should be showing us the truth

totally agree there

hating ANYONE is for the mentally weak.

mostly agree. some people are deserving of it though. saying you shouldn't hate anyone is a bit to Judeo-Christian for me. hate is totally rational under certain circumstances.

Iv met a few 1%s and all of them have been amazeing people, they have donated more money in a year then ill probably make in a decade. 'The Rich' is a horrible term to use when applying hate. Your calling for hard working people who have made their mony over many years. 1% is still way to large of a percentage maybe .1% the billionaires. Yes you earn a lot to be in the 1% some cities $650k annually up to $1.5m to make the minimum amount for 1% status. These are hard working Americans that deserve the wealth earned. $1.5m annually is pocket change compared to the billionaires. I am not a rich man, I dont own a home. I have no problems with 'the rich' I have a problem with billionaires controleing our country holding its people as slaves. Don't blindly hate people, look at there actions in life and not just what others say.

Very true.

We should be hating, huh

We have to hate SOMEONE

Careful there... There's nothing wrong with being rich. Its getting rich via profiting off of others loss that's the distasteful bit. There are plenty of "rich" people out there who give tons back to their employees and/or communities. Class warfare is the last thing we need right now. I mean true class warfare. That's how you end up like Venezuela.

Eh. The comment was poorly worded, and at the time in a piffling thread in a nondescript post. Had I known it would have ended being one of my all time highest upvoted comment I might have expanded a bit further. Then again, if I had, it probably wouldn't have been so upvoted. But that's Reddit.

What I meant to say was that the richest of the rich are running roughshod over the economy, so if people are pissed off that their lives are shit, then they should stop looking to the MSM to find out who to blame. The MSM is controlled by rich people, so you will never learn from them how much they've stolen from the middling classes via lobbying and the unlimited "free speech" they can exercise through their corporations thanks to Citizens United.

Basically, the lives of everyday Americans have gotten harder and harder for decades, not because of gays, or immigrants, or neo-nazis, or muslims, or Vladimir Putin, but because the richest Americans have scrupulously, bit by bit, over a period of decades, bent the system in their favour.

Couldn't agree more, then.

We need to focus on straight fact based reporting news outlets, though I don't know what you guys suggest. AP, Reuters? Take the talking heads and biased analysis out of the news and just focus purely on what is actually happening. The confusion and conflict come from the "entertainment" aspect of media analysis.

The real problem IMO is two fold:

• no one wants to pay for news anymore
• there are too few news organization competing

If people still thought paying for news was reasonable, then they would be paying for real news instead of that which is filtered through both the passive editorial power of advertisers, and the active editorial power of the the corporate conglomerate owners.

Between the multifaceted interests of paying advertisers and conglomerate owners, what ends up on the website is so thoroughly filtered, biased, and spun that is no longer resembles news in the traditional sense.

Trump voters from my area actively voting against their own interests openly. People living in bad situations talking about they like Trump because he's a businessman and they don't want hand outs. It's really ridiculous.

Hate the rich ? Maybe the cons but not a guy that made it legit.

The wealthy right wing politicians have done a magnificent job of convincing their fan base that they're there to help them become rich and the only thing stopping them is the left.

You shouldn't hate rich successful people you should hate the rich people who inherit positions of societal power and keep it in their family for generations aka he bankers

The media are busy making everyone in the US hate each other to distract them from the fact that they really should be hating the ruling class

FTFY. There are plenty of rich people who aren't fueling this fire and aren't harming anyone. There are plenty in the ruling class that are not rich.

The ruling class is the rich.

The ruling class isn't necessarily "the rich"; however they are "old money" they've had wealth for generations, like the Vanderbilt family. Most of you retards will never be smart enough to be rich so you can't tell the difference between old money and new money. There are families that are still spending great-great-great-great grandpa who came over on the Mayflower's money. They run shit. Politics are dictated by business not what will benefit society as a whole. Politicians serve bankers and investors. We are just the cogs in the Machine, if we break down, they replace us with a cog hats made in China^tm

It's new money too but naturally old money is a lot wealthier and more discreet, it's not like it's some sort of nasty conspiracy where becoming ultra wealthy lets you into some secret club, it's the simple fact that in the system we live under money = power and people will use their power to benefit themselves and the things that benefit the mega rich and big business almost always hurt the working class.

Politicians serve bankers and investors.

This 100%, they're basically just there to convert money into political power.

I think we are all to blame for trends in media coverage, because we are the ones reading, clicking, and watching the divisive stories. A solution to this dilemma begins with each of us looking inward and detaching from our own biases and tribal instincts.

This is due to how much tracking and stats the media has access to. Just like google can guess who you are an Amazon can guess what you buy before you buy it...the media has near instant results to find out what stories are generating clicks and views. What stories get reactions. They spin stories into being a Trump issue or race issue at times just because they want to bring up those emotions and get those views. It's a sick social experiment that is gonna have terrible consequences in the end.

Yea because all rich people should be hated...makes a lot of sense.

I think you're right. Except the far right and far left aren't missing a damn thing. I think they're writing the script!

The coming robot/AI automation revolution will only make this divide deepen.

My robot never complains about OT, doesn't argue, and can do 3 jobs at the same time. Why do I need you pleb?

To buy your shit

Program the robots to need cigarettes, booze and junk food and give the money to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World

"The Midas Plague" (originally published in Galaxy in 1954). In a world of cheap energy, robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind. The lower-class "poor" must spend their lives in frantic consumption, trying to keep up with the robots' extravagant production, while the upper-class "rich" can live lives of simplicity. Property crime is nonexistent, and the government Ration Board enforces the use of ration stamps to ensure that everyone consumes their quotas. The story deals with Morey Fry, who marries a woman from a higher-class family. Raised in a home with only five rooms she is unused to a life of forced consumption in their mansion of 26 rooms, nine automobiles, and five robots, causing arguments. Trained as an engineer, Morey modifies his robots to enjoy helping to consume his family's quota. He fears punishment when his idea is discovered, but the Ration Board—which has been looking for a way to abolish itself—quickly implements Morey's idea across the world.

Why we need UBI. And you make it seem like we need 10 people to make a profit, with robots, AI, Automation, I would only need to sell to 1 person to make a profit.

I dont think you understand, in the future, humans will be like cattle. Most folks who get paychecks max out instead of saving for later. Its always a now purchase. I wouldnt worry about poor folks like myself not buying shit, you underestimate dumb folks like myself.

I agree that we need a UBI eventually. And im probably poorer than you. I was attempting to point out that with out the 99% buying shit, there is no economy

Robots can suck dick now so no plebs necessary

Oh no it won't. That will be when everyone realizes they've been fighting for the Iron Throne but the fuckin White Walkers are here to kill everyone and it will be too goddam late because we don't have dragons.

Luckily GenX knows how to google (because they grew up using card catalogs in libraries) how to hack these robots. Millennials are fucked because they can't use google without shitting themselves in fear (based on users on Reddit).

Knowing the sub I'm in, I have to preface my comment with this. Just because I'm not addressing Obama, or specific things from the left doesn't mean they don't exist and that I, or others, don't recognize them. It's just not the topic of this comment, so leave the strawman wastes of comments please.

That being said, this reminds me of the noam Chomsky quote about how there's really just 1 party, the business party. And that party has two offshoots, Republican and Democrat. The rich will always have self interest, that is truly not a partisan issue. I think the real difference comes from how they go about it. TO ME, it really feels like the Republican side of the business party does this through some really vile abuses and more in your face while being completely remorseless about said tactics and outright lies. AGAIN, I'm not saying the left doesn't do fucked up shit, lie and work in self interest. Up until the last year or so (and including the obstruction and questionable criticisms from the R house/Congress during Obama's terms) I'd have said both sides are equally shitty. But now, especially with Trump at the head who is either too stupid or too incompetent to monitor what he says and how he says it, and with the lack of backlash from the GOP, it seems very obvious that one side is more beholding to the business and political elite. Perhaps this seems this way because our government is mostly Republican right now so we just see it more than dems, but nonetheless it seems to be the reality of the situation.

Regardless of what side you're on, personally, idc about labeled sides, politically I think we should all be trying to get to the best outcome for every citizen, not to punish those you disagree with or to self enrich, but regardless of side, I think everyone can agree we need to get money the fuck out of politics. This shits been going on for as long as government has existed, but fucking citizens United gave it an unlimited gateway without the need for discrepancy. This was probably a ramble, hopefully it made sense.

Makes complete sense and is also what my father and uncle always said. The US Gov is comprised of two sides of the same coin. The are self-serving and have no interest in the people.

Yup! The Chomsky quote goes further to discuss how both sides, with the help of the media, pay so much attention, airtime and tribute to surface issues so that they can paint differences between the parties when in reality there are very few (until Trump, I honestly feel like he's a new factor, and not in a good way. I feel like he brings out the worst in both sides as he's extremely divisive with actual divisive beliefs (racism, calling for violence, refusing to compromise, etc. Etc.). Up until now, and even now, it just gets shadowed by whatever tweet Trump sends out, but both parties 'hot topic issues' aren't really meaningful (in terms of nation strength compared to other countries). Like we constantly get the debate on abortion, gay rights, personal lives and shit like that. Now obviously those affect hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people in the US, and they are certainly issues to be addressed. But c'mon, those have very little impact on a huge majority of Americans, in other words those aren't country-health defining policies. Abortion/gay rights won't budge the GDP or increase employment. They're just used to divide the parties because they're some of the only real 'yes or no' (right or left) policy questions. All a facade to divide and rally. Focus on the non issues so you don't see how handle the real issues. (Again, not saying gay rights and abortion or whatever aren't issues, they are.. they just won't get us out of a recession or help strengthen our country comparatively to other first world countries)

/rant

Thanks for that.

Listening to Chomsky is just as bad as reading Chomsky—I always find myself falling asleep either way.

I completely feel that. It took me like 2 years to get all the way through Manufacturing Consent because, like everything Chomsky says, or writes, is just so godamn dense. I mean what he has to say is borderline genius and pretty damned ironclad to dispute, but it's both of those things BECAUSE of how dense and info heavy they are. I feel like if he had the charisma/ability to make the information accessible to the public (as in, like you said, people who aren't masochistic could actually read or listen to him) like say Bill Nye was with science for kids, or Dawkins for undergrads, he could really enact some change in this country. Unfortunately we're in the depths of a severe anti-intellectual paradigm shift, and he's just not charismatic so his ideas stay limited to those willing to suffer through his lectures/thesis' and those who aren't willing, reject or ignore or don't even know of his existence.

So true. Some of the greatest writers intentionally simplify the language they use to be more direct and easier to understand—more digestible.

I still have yet to finish Manufacturing Consent... zZzzZz

I'm like 99% sure he figured out a way to write so that when you read it in your head you like phonetically simulate those white noise machines people use to go to sleep... And pass out. That's the only book I've ever been reading while on the train where i pass the fuck out after legit like 2 pages. Brutal

Brutal! Indeed.

Maybe that's because what he is saying in uninteresting not genius and in fact toxic to liberty.

Did you forget to add the /s at the end?

Thank you for putting that recognition in of both sides, I've been trying to tell that to people for years.

Republican side of the business party does this through some really vile abuses and more in your face while being completely remorseless about said tactics and outright lies.

That's what the spinsters would have you believe.
They have a vision for US federal government to be a social steering power and the Republicans don't want that so they vilify anything the Republicans (or anyone else) does to limit the power of the federal government.
Republicans obviously steer money towards their interest when in power but you're always going to have that regardless of party, even with any new party that gain powers.

This shits been going on for as long as government has existed, but fucking citizens United gave it an unlimited gateway without the need for discrepancy.

This is false and is predicated on the US citizen being a mindless drone that votes the way the TV tells them to. Trump spent way less on his campaign than Hillary and quite often Democrats spend more than Republicans.

Jesus Christ. Did you not even read what I said? Did you just get to the word Republican and lose your shit? First fucking paragraph. THE FIRST. obviously I didn't fucking mention those things about Obama and alternate views on the same opinion, because like I said... it's not the topic of my post. I could sit here, literally, for the rest of my life typing out every single thing I disagree, don't like, see as a problem, about one side while equally addressing the equivalent issues on the other side and I wouldn't even cover half of them. This whole cyclical bullshit you're spinning is so pointless. I was commenting on the climate of the government today. Right now. Not 5 years ago. Not 2 years ago. Not 50 years ago. Right now. But good point, something I wasn't remotely talking about, even addressing or acknowledging because it wasn't directly related to the topic, does exist. Well done!

And to your second "point". That I'm just parroting what the tv says. Please. PLEASE, send me one link to a major media news network citing Chomsky and making the argument that both sides are dirty, corrupt, and beholding to political and financial elites and that citizens United was part of That. Also, I haven't had cable in 12 years so I'd be pretty fucking amazed to find out I'm parroting tv talking points, if I am, shit maybe I should be a news host. Is it really so mind blowing to you that someone who has different opinions than you, might just not be some imbecile who just takes what he hears and regurgitates it without thinking and without forming his own opinions on their own? Do you have that low of an opinion of yourself? Do you think that you just parrot what you hear? Because if not, then do you think just maybe, you're not the only person on this planet that can think for themselves and base opinions off of facts, statistics, expert opinions, or whatever you use to form opinions? And that maybe, just maybe, that that someone else, who is fortunate enough to be as wise, intelligent, learned, and informed as almighty you, might simply just have a different life experience than you and subsequently have a different opinion than you?

I ask these questions because I'm genuinely interested in people like you who see their opposite political party as enemies. Or maybe just as idiots who can't think for themselves. Considering the climate politically right now, especially with the general left skewe on Reddit, my post was pretty damn neutral. I mean, shit, I even addressed that I might be viewing things with a bias since right now the majority of government is Republican. Because seemingly (idk you, so I could be wrong. Maybe just caught you in a bad time or something. Idk) you can't seem to fathom the possibility you might be wrong (again... since apparently I have to spoon feed this to you, I'm not saying you ARE wrong. Just that as humans, you are human right? As humans we possess the chance of being wrong about anything. It's just a fact that exists and extends to everyone) or even might just not be 100% correct, but at least I gave the possibility credence. All I ask is this; what do you want to be the outcome of Trump, or even just government in general, or actually, just in complete general terms, for the future of OUR country, what would you like to see? (Generally) do you want to see it improve or get worse? If your ideal future for America is for it to improve, which I expect it is, do you think the best result/chance for that to happen is to villainize, oppose, attack, and write off anyone who has different opinions than you? Or would it probably be beneficial to the chances of improvement to instead work with them, since you, we, us, want the same thing. We all want America to be great, continue being great, and be greater, so why fight each other, hear and see where I'm coming from and work with it. If you actually look at what we both said, they're not dissimilar, just literally different topics. I agree with most of what you said, as you did mine seeing as how the parts you tried to attack were legit generalizations and oversimplifications for the sake of brevity.

So please, just answer that; if every true American wants what's best for this country, you and I included, why resent and fight each other? This is all I ask In this fucking rambling novel I just wrote

Eh. Who do you think owns Silicon Valley and the media? Left-leaners. What do you think establishment right-leaners own? Guns and oil. The left wants to completely undermine the right's economics (e.g. less war, more gun control, renewables are good and climate change is real). The right wants to undermine the left's economics (e.g. climate change is a hoax, trans culture in media is poisoning our children, free liberal arts college degrees will never work, we need to bring industry back).

When the "republicans" are out of power, do you really think the "Democrats" will improve things? Your personal information will be owned by every company and used against you, your primetime TV shows will continue pushing the idea that feelings are more important than freedoms, and climate-change-based regulations will make it nearly impossible for anyone other than the rich to start a business or own a home.

'member Dodd-Frank? 'member how it was supposed to ruin the Big Banks? 'member how, in actuality, it forced many small- and medium-sized banks to go out of business because they couldn't afford to keep up with regulatory hurdles and requirements? I 'member.

Dude. Holy shit. I just got like 4 comments saying the same unrelated bullshit. My whole point was that both sides are fucking garbage and corrupt. I even said in the end of my op that I'm probably seeing with a bias right now because there's just simply more republicans in office. I.e, more chance of them doing or saying something controversial. Just like how it would be with democrats. My whole fucking post was about how both sides are garbage but you still try to spin it like I'm some liberal parrot pushing some agenda. None of what you just said had anything to do with my op. My first paragraph I literally say that just because I don't mention something, doesn't mean I dont know it exists, or don't think it's a problem, I just simply didnt mention it because it wasn't directly related to the topic I was responding to. And what's the response? To do exactly that. How in the fuck is anyone supposed to discuss politics, the future of OUR country or shit, discuss, anything, if you use lack of evidence as evidence. I mean what the hell am I supposed to say to get any form of constructive dialogue going here if me addressing the fact that I'm talking about one specific facet related to the mentioned quote in relation to the political climate right now, doesn't mean that there aren't other problems, issues, disagreements or concerns out there on the opposite side, and I even give credence to the possibility of bias due to the governmental demographic right now?

I said it in my last response and I'll say it again here. Do you think that you're wrong? No? Good, you shouldn't. Me neither. Now, what do you want to see for the future of America? Do you want to see it crumble In ashes of another civil war or whatever, or do you want to see it be great, continue to be great and continually increase in prosperity? Yeah, 2nd choice, me too. We want the same thing. Every true American, wants the same thing; to better America. So stop trying to attack and tear down every opposing opinion you see, especially in the manner you did of just bringing up completely unrelated topics as if my lack of addressing their existence is proof of incompetence, and converse with your fellow Americans. Work with them. It's literally the only way this corrupt system of government has any chance of changing for the better. I'm not right about a lot of things I'm sure, and neither are you, because we're both humans. So let's not act like we're infallible and use what each other knows to work to our shared goal.

Using your logic:

I was not disagreeing with your OP, but I wanted to say a bunch of stuff that implies that I do disagree.

LOL, you say "I'm sure democrats do a bunch too", but then go on to take down Republicans. You even say "it seems very obvious that one side is more beholding [sic] to the business and political elite."

My response was to say that's wrong. They are both BEHOLDEN to the same power players.

That was my point. The part specific to republicans was followed up by an addendum that I may be seeing them as worse because of a majority bias. I'm not sure what other way I can express my belief while still giving benefit of the doubt to the opposing view and the possibility, and even plausibility that I could be wrong or not fully objective.

Up until the last year or so (and including the obstruction and questionable criticisms from the R house/Congress during Obama's terms) I'd have said both sides are equally shitty. But now, especially with Trump at the head who is either too stupid or too incompetent to monitor what he says and how he says it, and with the lack of backlash from the GOP, it seems very obvious that one side is more beholding to the business and political elite. Perhaps this seems this way because our government is mostly Republican right now so we just see it more than dems, but nonetheless it seems to be the reality of the situation.

This is what "bothered" me for lack of a better word. I just don't see how anything changed in this last year. Both sides have proven they are scumbags who refuse to listen to each other. You thought the Republicans were more beholden to money. I was simply adding that both sides are equally beholden, just to different parts of the money system.

Good chat!

I mean yeah, that's kind of my whole point. Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but we're both arguing the same point. I suppose a better way to phrase would be to say 'while both sides serve the same masters, it's become obvious that one does so without hiding behind a facade of social welfare or some general public benefactor, while the other attempts to do so discretely. Kind of semantics really, but the point remains the same which we both seem to agree on. I imagine it'd be hard to not agree with it, pretty damned general lol

The way I look at it, is yes the Democrats are driven towards some of the same goals (power, money etc), but they're at least willing to throw the populace a bone on the way to those ends. They're willing to take care of the people in exchange for the power and money and authority. Republicans... they want it all, and they want to fuck you in the process.

So yes, they're both "equally shitty" except for the way that one of them is way more shitty.

So, the same sort of reform can fix the problems that both parties suffer from (money in politics). But that doesn't really mean that everything else is equal.

Obviously the broad statements aren't aimed at you or refuting your post at all, just furthering it with my own opinion.

Honestly I think republicans are worse, straight up. But I also acknowledge I'm coming at this with multiple biases, and am nowhere near an expert on any of this. If someone shows me a point of view that says otherwise I will gladly accept it and work it into my beliefs. The problem is, look at the response I got to my OP.

I literally started off saying that just because I'm not addressing the existence of shitty things the left does, doesn't meant I don't see them, recognize them or think they should be addressed. It's just not related directly to the topic of my post. That's all. I then even go to say that I'm probably coming at this with a bias because it's easier to see Republican flaws when the majority of government is Republican.

And what are the response? Bringing up shit Obama did, bringing up shit Hillary did (did we forget she isn't, and wasn't ever fucking president? Why is she being talked about, I certainly didn't mention anything even loosely related to her) and trying to prove that democrats are actually worse than republicans and therefore I'm wrong. Like, literally a neutral stance that both sides sucks draws attacks. I don't get it. Nobody even addressed what I said, they just bring up past tense opposites.

Hey if you want to read deeper into this notion - read The Philosophy of Fascism by Mario Palmieri from 1936. It's hard to read with a partisan attitude because its so easy to see how it embodies "the Other Side" no matter which side you're on.

But now, especially with Trump at the head who is either too stupid or too incompetent to monitor what he says and how he says

You almost got it. Trump is the American Empire in raw form. Difficult to digest, isn't it? Obama made the same shit go down easier with his sugar tongue. And that's what people want - someone to convincingly lie to them that everything done in their name is "good."

What are you talking about? My whole post was about how both sides are the same, but just due to the government being predominantly Republican right now it comes off as worse right this second. So you're point is that... both sides are the same but they talk differently? Yeah.. good point..

This comment, yes.

The Republicans are definitely more beholden to business interests in regards to the transparency with which they appease the oligarchs that rule this planet. Democrats are just far better at concealing their business interests with half truths and emotionally charged "social justice" rhetoric, which appeals to the youth demographic. Republicans on the other hand don't conceal themselves with optics, and I believe there is a reason for that. The Business party wants us to fight each other over the conversation they are literally moderating, and the Republicans are being intentionally painted as representing the "bad" ideology (conservatism) so that the progressive "pro-government" end of the force fed political spectrum will ultimately prevail and allow the government to manifest itself as the seat of their monopoly. It's every Capitalist's wet dream.

Thank you!! Exactly. Finally someone actually fucking read what I said and didnt just immediately jump to "no you're wrong democrats are worse!" Like this shit is exactly what the 'business' party wants from the populace. Stagnated ideals not focused on progress, but on opposition and constant distraction. They both go about it differently, but they both play the role. This was the dialogue I wanted to start... unfortunately I got a bunch of "but Obama did X".

Not sure if that's due to shilling, or if their strategy is really working well on this sub, of all places.

It is a bit ironic really. More so sad and disheartening though. What could possibly be more bipartisan/neutral than saying we both want what's best for this country? If that can't spark some form of constructive dialogue, idk what can. It's hard to not be apathetic when this really seems to be the new norm; animosity and hatred towards anyone with a differing opinion. I mean shit, at it's absolute most fundamental level, this is exactly how civil wars start (in extreme early stages). 2 different opinions who see the only thing stopping their opinion/belief from becoming reality is the opposing opinion, while both are relentlessly unwilling to compromise or admit fault/wrongness.

Get money out of politics. Meanwhile trump is making it so more money flows through politics. Somehow his supporters don't have the education to realize this.

Man, I mean it's refreshing this reply wasn't another "but Obama did x", but it's still beside the point I was making. Trump is a symptom of our disgustingly corrupt government. He's the most obvious depiction of it that we've had, 100%, but generally speaking both parties are guilty of self enriching and lopsided policies to the general public and this dynamic of Republican obvious corruption and democratic discrete corruption is all part of the system and part of the problem. Placing all blame or even majority of blame on one side wasn't what I was trying to do or the point I was trying to make. It was that the system of our government is now designed to divide the population against each other. To essentially split the collective manpower of the general populace in half. It's a paradigm and the only conceivable way to alter it is to work together and not see each other as enemies. We're all Americans. We all want the same thing; to perpetuate America's prosperity and health for as long as possible. We're not each other's enemies, the political and business elites essentially are. And they reach across both parties.

Well, what do people expect when there is no actual "left" in the states? You have the right (Dems) and the bat shit insane right (GOP) when comparing them to any other "normal" political spectrum in the world. Of course they will be the same thing, because both are right leaning, if not full right parties already.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think it's a little off of what my initial point was. The problem, at it's fundamental level is not one party or the other. It's the system in which they're both in servitude of; as I colloquially said before, the business class. As long as any politician, left or right, is beholding to the political/financial/business elite over the general public, we will continually, and indefinitely face problems economically, socially and politically. The system of government from top to bottom (exceptions to every rule obviously, but apparently I have to mention this in this sub) is designed, maintained and operating in a fashion that predicates politicians to forsake their constituents for the elites they're beholding to. A politicians job, almost by definition, is to get re-elected. Since we now have given money a voice, and there are several people/groups that have more money than people in the US (oversimplification) they have more power over the 're election of a good majority of politicians than we do. And With the general populace divided and focused on each other, the elite nearly has free reign over what they want. All that is needed for this is a divided but placated populace, and enough distraction and scapegoating (often of the opposing party to further the divide while also occupying time) to give the elite and politicians enough breathing room to sabotage and self enrich by essentially buying key politicians and their votes.

I've said this several times, but I don't think anyone, Republican, or democrat will disagree. A true American, is someone who (again, oversimplification and generalizing) wants America to continually improve, to grow it's prosperity, and to be the best country in the world. Every single true American wants that. They might want to go about it in different ways, but we all want the same thing. Do you know the only group who doesn't want That? It's not your opposing party, it's the entire government system (with a few exceptions obviously). We need to stop fighting, and hating each other and instead work together. We all want the same thing, 99% of us aren't experts or even arguably informed enough to have the strong opinions that we do, but as long as we share the goal of bettering America, there's no conflict, just differing opinions on how to reach the same goal.

Ahh, so everything is the fault of the right?

The correlation would be everything is the virtue of the right.

If there is no left, then why do we need it if it contributes nothing at all?

Do you think before you speak/type or do you just say the most eloquent bullshit that pops into your scrambled brain?

There is a left, and it manifests itself the same way the left always inevitably does. "Liberty" is the moniker, coercion and ostracism is the weapon. It makes perfect sense and the left is doing what they -ALWAYS- do.

And now, people like you are attempting to claim there is no left when it gets too far out of control.

But simple logic can project this outcome every time.

I don't even live in the US I am a neutral 3rd part with zero stake in the whole thing. Yes the left exists with people and though processes, but it sure as fuck doesn't exist as something with any political power or voting presence. Anyone who legitimately believes that there is an actual left political party in the US with any semblance of power is the one with the scrambled brain. American politics are shifted so far right its not even a debate topic at this point in time.

I never said anything was the entire fault of the right, or that the left is useless and should be thrown in the trash. You really should read what I posted and take it as a neutral post instead of projecting your feelings onto it and trying to demonize me for them.

I disagree. And I would add not being in the US makes no difference to your neutrality or knowledge. Certainly no authority.

The left is the the left no matter where you live, and they are everywhere. Things mutate and you have to follow the pattern.

But you did say everything is the fault of the right. It is absolutely implied by your statement. You're caught up in sentimentality and have no gauge on the truth. You have it construed in your head that the left is virtuous, and until you detect virtue, there can be no left. And if you detect virtue, then you will confirm the left. And that is a black philosophy.

I will not take it as a neutral post because it is absolute horse shit, and that is me being polite about it. You think you're neutral, but you are not. You are just completely enveloped in some delusion that ignores reality.

The actual fuck are you on about lmfao.

You have it construed in your head that the left is virtuous

God no, the left is made up of average people just like the right is, virtue has zero to do with it. Where are you getting any of this shit from anyways? You are projecting a whole lot of horse shit onto me because you disagreed with a comment I made because "reasons". Please provide anything to back up any of these accusations otherwise stop spouting this laughable BS.

Fuck, your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that I am left leaning in the first place, or that I think the right is inherently a bad or evil thing, like come on you can do better then that.

My entire argument is that the US does not have a "true" (whatever the fuck that means is up to you I guess, but I am assuming a global "middle" that includes places like AU/Nz, the Nordics, EU, Canada etc,) left. This is not good or bad, this just is, the right has done as many good things for the US as it has bad because that's all there has been for a long time. Like jesus fuck, not every viewpoint has to be evil or against you, that train of though is what causes shit like the nazis in the first place.

No, my entire argument is predicated on the fact that you declared implicitly that the right is to blame for all things bad. That is inarguable in the content of your statement because you said absolutely that the left doesn't exist. What is arguable is why you would think such a stupid thing. And, given my experiences of the last 20 years, I readily believe that people ARE that stupid.

And if you read my last post you would see that i also explicitly stated that the right is also to belame for all of the GOOD things that has happened in the stats as well. Also I said that the left doesnt exist in a way that gives it any real political power. Not that it doesnt exist at all. There is a difference.

Like fuck, read the entire thing without cherry picking please.

If you truly want to get money out of politics, you have to give serious consideration to sortition as a basis for our legislature.

I had to look that up, actually was unaware that that system was a thing. Sounds like not a bad idea, at the very least an improvement on our current system. Thanks for showing me That!