I see your point and I do agree to an extent of what you said about competing factions and the natural conflict being good. But much of the chaos is not just from disagreeing political parties. It’s from inside his own campaign and even about things not political. And chaos on the international level with his own allies not to mention countries like NK.
I’m struggling as someone who also did not like Hillary. She lost me with too much social and moral issues and failure to speak to me about more than that. I can only swallow let’s get a female president and push for female empowerment for so long. I needed more to be persuaded. But trump has at time baffled and even disgusted me.
I see little room and feel misunderstood in today’s politics. I am either a libtard to trump supporters or a terrible human being with some more extreme liberals. I’ve never felt more disenfranchised as I don’t see any political party that I can support.
One name comes to mind. Paul Ryan. He is the definition of a spineless career politician. The man has zero convictions.
The same tired line. Has the right lost its sense of creativeness?
How can a self-professed Libertarian be for a centralized government? The whole idea of Libertarianism is no government. That is what Libertarians say in the media. Limited government? Individual rights? Who decides what is and is not allowed? Majority rule? There goes individual rights and freedoms. It is binary. Digital. It either is, or is not. All of the government, or none of it. All the rights, or none. Its a moral dilemma.
I once asked a Libertarian if thought Somalia or Afghanistan would be ideal, with a weak or ineffective central government, and he said yes. He went on to say that model would be great for the world.
Liberals stand for equality and rights. More or less what the old GOP stood for before Nixon realized “White Power (states rights)” gave them more votes. Also, what is wrong with a health system that is available for all, without regards to pre-existing conditions? Something 45 just got rid of. Hilary is too rightwing. Further so than Obama. I am guessing the ACA would have gotten repealed under her. In fact, I believe Hilary and 45 are the same person, different clothes.
I am willing to bet you are against certain social policies regarding health care, and yet you live, nay, enjoy living in an environment where the majority of governments have some sort of social safety net for their citizens. Something Libertarians despise. Why?
You are wrong. That is anarchism. Libertarians are for limited government.
Equality? You are serious? That is why their support is pretty much limited to coastal cities on each side of the country and small pockets in between? Surely, you jest! Liberals are for elitism and for special rights for special interests.
Trump did not get rid of it yet. I don`t think you read the news that much. What is wrong with the current system? Plenty. You are mandated to get coverage but there are limited programs in place because of the withdrawal of many plans in many geographical jurisdictions in the US because of financial unfeasibility. Furthermore, if you do not enrol, you have to pay an almost 1000US penalty. Libertarians hate this enforced provision. It limits choice. So you are paying hundreds of dollars for limited plan choice to choose physicians that are not your regular choices? Does not sound very good. Unless you have pre-existing conditions and were unable to get health care previously, ObamaCare sucks for a majority of middling people.
I am for strong public/private options that expand consumer choice. That is Libertarianism. France has a good socialized system combined with strong market forces such as private hospitals and private company top-ups (mutuelles). So do free market places such as Hong Kong. I am against health care systems run by lawyers (US) or countries that outlaw private hospitals (Canada, North Korea, Cuba). Most of the capitalistic world has good hybrid systems.
No I think that would be anarchy. Libertarian, although there are many shades and extremes. Are pro liberty and not necessarily anti government. A centralized government can actually be good since you do need a place to discuss issues and progress in having more freedoms. Some would argue a weak centeralize government is the perfect condition to bring in someone like a Hitler.
This I agree. I have found libertarianism to be more palatable for me. But it’s often misunderstood. It’s often confused with anarchy and some concepts sound good but I feel like not feasible when implemented.
Although I have no idea how to fix the American health care system. It’s complicated and there’s so many issues like big Pharma having Washington in their pockets and hospitals relationship with health care providers. I mean I pay many things out of pocket here and it’s still cheaper than with insurance in the US pre Obama care.
Same sex rights have been spearheaded by the left. Recreational drug liberalization, again, spearheaded by the left. Fighting against fiscal inequalities, the left. Maintaining equal access to ballots, is again, the left. The modern DNC must be separated from the term “the left” since it is right of center party, where outsiders are not allowed. That is where I think you get the “elitist” bit from.
45 removed the employer mandate, individual subsidies (tax benefit to individuals to offset costs of plans), and the pre-existing condition mandate. Effectively killing the ACA. Good for him. It is now 45 care. His problem now.
The libertarians I have known are all for no government. A shunning of the federalism and a return to republicanism and agrarian ideals of Jefferson. I believe Pol Pot attempted that. With American help. Libertarianism is setup to fail. Either have all the government, or none. All the rights, or none. All the laws, or none. Even the Cato institute kind of agrees with that. They even agree that allowing private stewardship of the US people is a disaster for individual rights. The problem is, even within the confines of a government, even a limited government, you have to give up some individual liberty. You cannot live 100% free in a society with more than one person. Now, which right are you going to let go of? Take the 2nd amendment. A cause championed by more or less those on the political right, event he libertarians. After every mass shooting there is an uproar about guns. Ultimately, some NRA nut is going to spout some meme about “Your dead child has no bearing on my right to bear arms.” So much for live and let live, huh?
I remember the whole flap over the individual mandate and how everyone was pissed at that. “I don’t like the guvment tellin me wut ta do” was all the rage. Hey, if the “guvment” told you to get a gun, would you say no to that? Maybe the guvment should have said “eat food” and “drink water” to all those people who hate being told what to do. After a month or so, problem solved.
I think it’s fair to ask, is it Trump who is scaring you, or the MSM who look to portray Trump in the worst possible light that is scaring you?
The situation in Syria, from where I sit is improving. ISIS is just about driven out from all their strongholds. Of course there are many hot spots globally, but these are not the creation of Donald Trump, the Israeli and Palestinian conflict for example, has existed for my entire lifetime.
North Korean nuclear proliferation, not a new issue, nor is Iran seeking nuclear capability and lets not forget, with such a capability you are a hairs width away from arming some ISIS/Taliban/AlQuida type organization with the means to carry out an attack with a nuclear weapon.
The MSM just want to portray everything Trump does in the most negative light and there have been things he has said and done that deserve criticism. But it wasn’t Trump who decided to build islands in the South China sea, nor did he decide to invade Ukraine, nor was it his idea to play geo politics and destabilize an entire region playing regime change.
At the heart of all this were dumb decisions being made over oil and gas because that was seen as leverage against Russia by people who don’t know how to think outside of the box. At least with a Secretary of State like Rex Tillerson, you have someone who understands the dynamics. How much have the MSM been talking about Wilbur Ross? There are some very smart people who just happen to be ruffling the feathers of the establishment getting good work done, Trumps tweets about little Rocket man are just a distraction.
I’m not ignorant to the fact that the media doesn’t like him. But how much longer is that going to be the excuse, it isn’t like this is something new. He’s the president of the US, he’s going to get criticized under a microscope and he’s done a really poor job of handling it. It only weakens his own position when you continue to do things you have to know will get ripped apart. It isn’t like he’s doing himself any favors by say not going on random twitter rants and acting pretty immaturely sometimes.
And I mentioned not all of his moves are bad or illogical, just not political. He’s not the god emperor. He needs the publics backing in a sense that even his own party members in congress have a hard time backing him at many points along with his own staff trying to salvage his PR mess.
And I did mentioned certain things are improving, but there are still way to many things that I just can’t get behind with him.
But on the the main question. I don’t think I’m wrong in that I’ve never seen the level of die hard supporters when compared to bush and Obama.
We are talking about Donald Trump, of course he tries to take credit for anything and everything. Much to JB’s amazement, there are people who voted for Donald Trump that don’t even like the guy, they are not blindly oblivious to the fact he pushes his way into beauty pageants dressing rooms or has in the past been a sleaze groping inappropriately or kissing women when his advances were not welcome.
But it’s been past policies and to be honest what was being proposed in the future that turned people off. I mean, Hillary Clintons proposal for Syria was to impose a now fly zone, how stupid do you have to be not to realize this is an escalation of the conflict?
I will level with you, since you speak from the heart and don’t play the partisan tit for tat. The middle east mess isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing, they both share blame. Even arming Libya and Syria can’t just be blamed on Obama and Clinton, they would have needed congressional oversight from the gang of eight, which is bi-partisan to have go ahead with that.
THIS is what I believe most people miss, the geo-politics for the past couple of decades, has been bi-partisan. Call them what you will, Globalists, the establishment, whatever, their goal is not the same goal as Donald trump who represents a nationalist approach.
I don’t remember Bush and Clinton (the rapist) having any groupies, but Obama’s presidency was 8 years of countless fans, groupies and supporters cheering him all the way no matter what. Not to mention the mainstream media, but that’s a lost cause. If Obama increased taxes by 35% in order to fund the creation of gulags to be used to transfer the prisoners from Guantanamo, many people would have argued:“Not having gulags is racist”.
Right, well Im not going to put myself in the position of being a Trump apologist, he’s said and done things worthy of criticism.
But by constantly referencing the left and right, or if his own party is or is not on board with him, I think you fundamentally miss the issue. Economically and Geo-politically, there is no distinction between the left and right. Some call them the UniParty, doesn’t matter who you vote for you are going to get a globalist pushing an agenda for more corporate oversight, more far reaching trade deals like the TPPA and yes even more immigration and yes, some people argue these are all good things. There is even a good case to be made for that argument.
Donald trump represents a step back, which is fine IMO. Because the case has not been made to the public that this is in the interests of the people and I believe there should be an open on honest discussion about some very real and far reaching policy initiatives, which frankly it would seem the UniParty thinks it’s beneath them to have this conversation with the people.
I don’t think I’ve referenced left or right or even considered myself on either side. I believe I said I find myself not being able to connect and agree with either side these days. But I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m simply saying two things about him in this particular conversation with you. I will admit he isn’t a completely incompetent president, I don’t agree with him on many policies but he isn’t helping his cause by the way he goes about things. And 2nd you and I seem to both agree that outside of being the president, his personal character is questionable to put it lightly.
That’s good advertisement, though. All the media outlets and newspapers that followed any of the several retarded narratives, from “Trump is a fascist” to “Russia hacked the elections in favor of Trump” and all the tax nonsense, clearly target the same audience in the hopes of attracting clicks, views and maybe subscriptions.
The majority of people who voted for the God Emperor tend to ignore that sort of stuff, which is why they voted for him.
Also, as Bill quite brilliantly taught us, impeachment isn’t worth much.
Now you seem to be speaking like ALL media that is not positive towards 45 is simply MSM propaganda and/or fake news. This is not a good narrative to take. But, information has to be discredited somewhere somehow, no?
The media has not scared me about him. HE has scared me and his supporters do as well. His naked and blatant attacks on the media and the US Constitution, is what scares me. He has a massive ego and is writing checks with his mouth, that others will have to cash -whether they can or cannot, or do not want to. That is how he ran his businesses, and that is how they failed.
It is mentioned he is running the US like a CEO runs a corporation, and his supporters like this and welcome this, and state this is how it should be done. But, this is not how our constitution says it should be. So, times have changed and the constitution is outdated? OK, fair. But, then we have to revisit the 2nd amendment and see if it is outdated as well.
To add to this, 45s mouthpieces, or speechwriters, at Breitbart have this goal of destroying the 240 year old nation and replacing it with a new republic based on far right ideologies. I have a problem with this. This nonsense was defeated before, and it will be again. The south will not rise again, and soon 45 et al will be relegated to the back pages of history.
Did I say that? If that was implied it was in error. I said Pol Pot took his country, kicking and screaming, back some agrarian paradise that failed horribly. I did not intend to say he was libertarian.
