Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

[Irv]

In this country we look at politics on a spectrum scale ranging from left to right. In reality that may be all we need, but I've tried considering the issues using a "compass style" form of evaluation. In other words, do we have more than two stances on our country's major issues? Do we possess 3rd and 4th ideas that solidly stand up to the stances of the left and right? If so then yes, one could lean left or right, or "up" and "down". Take gun rights as an example - You're either a card carrying NRA member or you want regulation reform. What would a third party's stance be? What lobbyists would support that stance?

Personally I believe that MOST Americans are Libertarians with either the big "L" or the small "L". "Malleable Centrist" in you will. But since there are no major news outlets identifying with this demographic, we decide which of the two existing parties best describes us. Party narratives also sway the average American voter because the average American voter is simply ignorant or uncaring. I don't mean that in an insulting way - my father never cared because he was too busy busting his ass to take a stance on transgender bathrooms and shit.

While not perfect, I think the compass is an improvement over simple left-right positioning. Political leanings are difficult to illustrate on a two-axis chart, never mind a single line. To compound things further, people want to break things down by party as if Democrats are left and Republicans are right. That's a terribly misguided assumption. The compass model's Y-axis is authoritarian to libertarian and the X-axis is purely economic.

Democrats and Republicans are so close to each other in some areas that they often don't even present two different stances on their own. What kind of stance is ending the war on drugs? It's fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which goes in the bottom right quadrant. Where are the Democrat and Republican parties on this? Authoritarian and in favor of continuing to waste our tax dollars on this failed experiment.

The Big L (not Larry Johnson) as a party has issues of their own, but I think more people could get on board with a socially liberal and fiscally conservative stance if it's clarified as, "I mind my business, you mind yours, and our peers should be the driving force of social aid and services rather than a faceless entity like the government." That sounds great in theory, but a lot of people are also assholes, whether through upbringing or jadedness. That's where the idea of helping others because you want to help tends to fall apart. Inevitably, you end up with big money assholes telling little money assholes what to do, and the people who aren't assholes are wondering what the fuck just happened.

The Libertarian party tends to avoid this problem altogether by ignoring that people are lazy and/or shitty. It also has an image problem to the point where a lot of people think the motto of the party is, "Smoke weed every day and fuck everything else." Some people who claim to be libertarians are actually anarchists, and I guess they flock to the Libertarian party because anarchists still need to congregate. Biases and creative editing aside, there was a clip on Samantha Bee's Full Frontal show showing the Libertarian convention where the candidates were asked about whether they believed people should be required to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle. Gary Johnson actually got booed for saying yes. Who the hell boos that?

I agree that a lot of people have better things to worry about than politics. I do as well. Although my comments in this thread imply that I'm pretty invested, I really don't care about politics beyond expressing my frustration with people I know who are too myopic to realize that they are either incredibly biased or incredibly obsessed with narratives that don't actually affect their lives on a daily basis. I've always believed in getting your own shit together before trying to fight for causes of others.

I also believe in researching matters before speaking out on them, so along the lines of dcapodic's thoughts, I find image memes to be an incredibly ignorant means of discourse, but also quite fitting for the slacktivism rampant on social media. It allows people to delude themselves into thinking they're enlightened. It's the cheapest way to act involved, but it's a huge disservice to people who actually want to be more informed. This year is showing me that people actually respect each other's religion far more than each other's politics, which is funny because I used to consider religion to be touchier topic of the two by far.

Consider this - Minorities really don't have major financial backers/lobbyist in DC. If they did things would be very different in the inner cities. This is the same reason why The Green party has no real power in DC. Sucks but the rich and powerful make the rules.

Ultimately, positions of power are often sought for greed and exploitation. People who have a genuine desire to aid society while still maintaining some level of dignity and self-respect generally aren't seeking to become part of the political system.

[Mr. Glass]

Irv, that really resonated with me, thanks.

Do you guys think it's inherent for mankind to seek out groups/organizations/frats/clubs/etc. as a way of finding like mindedness and parity, carnal pack mentality, both, neither or other? My opinion is that it's both. Intellectual unity is the apex of these groups while pack mentality is simply following a crowd of others that look and think like you. What's dangerous is that this group membership often fails to stimulate independent thought and growth. I read a book called Among The Thugs (Bill Buford). It mapped out mob mentality among soccer hooligans. In principal it claims that a single person transforms himself into a part of another element, the mob. Once set, this individual becomes more willing to do dastardly things within the group than he ever would as an individual. Add ignorance to this and you have the basic ingredients for civil unrest (on a larger scale). This is just as apparent in inner city gangs as it is in politics. As the melting-pot society that we are, pack mentality can easily be used as a powder keg in the hands of the malicious. Trump has been a fuse for this imo.

Last, our political party system has kept this country afloat in spite of its flaws, so I support it dearly. Sanders has been the stimulating opposition that I have been looking for since finding interest in politics. Does a third and fourth party simply create other mobs, or does it inspire growth and contrast in us all?

[Irv]

Good points, Glass. I think many people seek acceptance as a means to validate their beliefs or activities. To that end, we probably all completely understand wanting to join groups where others have similar interests. I don’t think mob mentality is the goal so much as the byproduct because it satisfies the lust for revenge or redemption.

Mob mentality also seems to be the result of groups initially founded by those who were bullied or disenfranchised. A community garage sale group on Facebook isn’t a good breeding ground for mob mentality, unless you want to band against shoppers who always try to talk down your listed price of $1 for a t-shirt down to $0.25, those cheap bastards.

Anyway, once the disenfranchised gain enough prominence, they become the aggressors and the new bullies, and this can apply for either the group’s founders or its followers. When enough outcasts band together, they’re first going to want to stick it to those who wronged them. Only once the competition has been eliminated will they be so bored as to actually spend time determining their purpose.

As to whether or not more political parties will change the way people think, I would say no. All the volatile attributes you’ve pointed out in mob mentality are still present among us because people have not fundamentally changed. The movement to start a third party, or in general, a different viewpoint that critiques the behaviors of existing factions, is usually well-intentioned because it’s an outside voice that is trying to call attention to what the incumbents are doing.

However, to the new followers, it’s just an alternative faction to follow. I think people seek easy solutions because they expect someone else to do the heavy lifting as a leader, and when they join a group, they're assuming that someone is already the leader. It’s the bystander effect with membership benefits. Hence, the followers don't bring anything new to the table. They're just there to express their outrage.

Throughout this thread, I’ve made it clear that I don’t support the personas of Trillary and that I have significant disdain for both major political parties. However, I won’t claim allegiance to the other parties either because they’re still very idealistic. In the same vein though, I believe they deserve to be given a chance to prove themselves rather than have people heckle them and tell them that they're causing more harm than good because they're afraid of Trillary winning the election.

The problem at the very core is that everybody wants to talk but nobody wants to listen. People don’t listen willingly either. They just have pauses between the next opportunity for them to talk again. I will say that the two major incumbent parties are past the point of redemption though, because those people have been talking their entire lives and really need to just STFU.

I have to say the activism that Melo has led over the past several weeks is a far better approach to solving problems than what many politicians do. It’s more productive to start from a clean slate rather than trying to use preconceived biases as justification for one’s agenda. The thing that really caught my attention in Melo’s Instagram post was the part where he said, “While I don't have a solution, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't have a solution,” because that’s a level of self-awareness most people don’t have.

[washingtonparkjones]

Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed Comey on whether any of Clinton's statements rose to the level of a crime, including her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, during which she said unequivocally there were never any emails, sent or received, that were marked classified.

The result of the line of inquiry could mean a new phase in the yearlong Clinton email investigation -- whether she lied under oath before Congress.

"We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI," Comey said.

"Did she lie to the public?" Chaffetz asked.

"That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI," Comey responded. Chaffetz then asked Comey whether the FBI investigated Clinton for perjuring herself before Congress.

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress," Comey said.

"Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?" Chaffetz asked.

"Sure do," Comey retorted.

"You'll have one," Chaffetz said, laughing. "You'll have one in the next few hours."

What do you think about this, part deux?

I think that it shows that the party of law and order blatantly corrupts the same by using it as a political tool and then deligitimizes the same by continuing to call things criminal after the legal process has determined its not. Did Chaffeetz even pause to consider whether there was a specific statement that could possibly qualify as perjury before he made the suggestion? lol. Think he cares if there's a real basis? Does anybody actually think he cares? Of course not. Its all wink wink.

This is the tactic against the Clintons from the beginning. It was a frivilous lawsuit (as in dismissed as frivilous by the Court) that was used to obtain the deposition of Bill which snowballed into the impeachment.

As an attorney nothing has concerned me more that the republican tendency to make accusation of criminality by reflex. Constantly taking things hyperbolic.

[washingtonparkjones]

Ever since Irv made this statement I research Clinton and she's actually a pretty scandalous politician. The difference between her and Trump?

Not much..

The difference is literally opposite ends of the spectrum


Give serious consideration to whether you have been conned by the shear repetition of baseless allegations.

Just because she's been accused over and over doesn't mean any of its legitimate. In fact, given the level of scrutiny that come with that repetition, the fact that there's no proof of an ethic violations or her doing anything criminal tends to indicate that she's squeaky clean.

[dcapodic]

WPJ, I never doubted that you must ba an excellent lawyer to have on your side. The above statement would be interesting if it were not for several factors:

- Why do we assume that this is al just starting recently?? This stuff has gone on for her entire public career.

Fired from Watergate Committee - As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

Note the party of her "former" boss, that kinda refutes this idea of this all just being GOP fodder also.

No need to get much deeper into this stuff, it would just be a tit for tat and go no where. TBH, I kinda give myself the edge on this one because I WANT to be able to trust that I truly know Hillary but even just since 2008 my opinion of her has gone straight into the toilet. Admittedly, it wasn't much higher then but I felt she was the better choice over someone that had virtually zero experience and was mostly considered an academic. So, how did that work out? Most people around here love POTUS OBama, so the idea of going with the change person seems like it should have some merit. Fresh blood and all that.

Gotta love when people say Trump has no experience

I try not to quote directly but this one:

As an attorney nothing has concerned me more that the republican tendency to make accusation of criminality by reflex. Constantly taking things hyperbolic.

Republican, really Wow, just wow....

[dcapodic]

Good points, Glass. I think many people seek acceptance as a means to validate their beliefs or activities. To that end, we probably all completely understand wanting to join groups where others have similar interests. I don’t think mob mentality is the goal so much as the byproduct because it satisfies the lust for revenge or redemption.

Mob mentality also seems to be the result of groups initially founded by those who were bullied or disenfranchised. A community garage sale group on Facebook isn’t a good breeding ground for mob mentality, unless you want to band against shoppers who always try to talk down your listed price of $1 for a t-shirt down to $0.25, those cheap bastards.

Anyway, once the disenfranchised gain enough prominence, they become the aggressors and the new bullies, and this can apply for either the group’s founders or its followers. When enough outcasts band together, they’re first going to want to stick it to those who wronged them. Only once the competition has been eliminated will they be so bored as to actually spend time determining their purpose.

As to whether or not more political parties will change the way people think, I would say no. All the volatile attributes you’ve pointed out in mob mentality are still present among us because people have not fundamentally changed. The movement to start a third party, or in general, a different viewpoint that critiques the behaviors of existing factions, is usually well-intentioned because it’s an outside voice that is trying to call attention to what the incumbents are doing.

However, to the new followers, it’s just an alternative faction to follow. I think people seek easy solutions because they expect someone else to do the heavy lifting as a leader, and when they join a group, they're assuming that someone is already the leader. It’s the bystander effect with membership benefits. Hence, the followers don't bring anything new to the table. They're just there to express their outrage.

Throughout this thread, I’ve made it clear that I don’t support the personas of Trillary and that I have significant disdain for both major political parties. However, I won’t claim allegiance to the other parties either because they’re still very idealistic. In the same vein though, I believe they deserve to be given a chance to prove themselves rather than have people heckle them and tell them that they're causing more harm than good because they're afraid of Trillary winning the election.

The problem at the very core is that everybody wants to talk but nobody wants to listen. People don’t listen willingly either. They just have pauses between the next opportunity for them to talk again. I will say that the two major incumbent parties are past the point of redemption though, because those people have been talking their entire lives and really need to just STFU.

I have to say the activism that Melo has led over the past several weeks is a far better approach to solving problems than what many politicians do. It’s more productive to start from a clean slate rather than trying to use preconceived biases as justification for one’s agenda. The thing that really caught my attention in Melo’s Instagram post was the part where he said, “While I don't have a solution, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't have a solution,” because that’s a level of self-awareness most people don’t have.

Well said Irv, well said. To your point, I call it "Herd mentality". Someone starts yelling, people join in, they move along, more people join with less idea of why but liking the idea of being a part, until people are onboard without realizing what the reason for the mob is in the first place. See, "10 monkeys in a cage with a ladder".

Everyone wants to be with like minded folks, its easy and safe and you hit the nail on the head, it is assumed that others will do the heavy lifting while most ride along. So, essentially it is a group made up of the ideas of a few. I am not sure that any one thing upsets me more than people in this situation that either don't realize it or in most cases, refuse to accept it.

Mob mentality usually leads to bullying tactics which is essentially what you are referring to and social media has become. Many seem to forget the basic tenants of understanding that different people have different things that drive them, are important to them and wouldn't it be nice if we understood and accepted that. How can anyone expect a deeply religious person to accept pro choice. How can anyone expect a Sandy Hook resident to not support gun control, etc. Yet, we beat people over the head to try and convince them "they are wrong".

Want proof? How often do you hear/see anyone speaking abuot the virtues of their candidate or the things about the planks in the platform that they like? Nope, it is all about ripping apart the other side. Intelligent converesations break down into name calling, etc.

Boil it down, I mean WAY down....basic respect. not sure where it went but it seems that most people just think it is easier to slap a label on someone that they don't agree with so they can move on.

Repeat until wrung out. I am liking this expression.

Personally, I find the most rewarding experience is to exchange ideas with someone I seem on opposite sides of the speactrum from. Frist off, I never assume I am right so I want them to convince me why they are. Don't tell me about my side, I already know all about that so when someone starts like that I tend to stop them and ask them to tell me about them, I want to hear their thoughts not what mine are. You know, the idea and line.....nd yea, wow you said it so well....listening today is simply a time to take breaths until you can spout off again about your own self/ideas.

[dcapodic]

To slip back to a subject that there has been a lot of back and forth on in this and other threads....it has been said that POTUS OBama has been treated more rough by the press because he is African American. I have taken the side that this is not true and posted many examples. Recently though, there is an apples to apples, oranges to oranges comparison.

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/ ... 5161d.html

Let me say first, this does not seem like much of an issue to me but I am not from Louisiana. Nor, did I rip apart George Bush when he waited 1 day and then "only" did a fly over of the areas hit by hurricane Katrina. Both POTUS OBama and Bush have done wha their job calls for, put the pieces in motion to get the affected areas help. However:

We’ve seen this story before in Louisiana, and we don’t deserve a sequel. In 2005, a fly-over by a vacationing President George W. Bush became a symbol of official neglect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The current president was among those making political hay out of Bush’s aloofness.

POTUS OBama himself as well as other peeps ripped Bush, there was a media firestorm over it....so what about now?!? Where is the media outrage.

This is a straight apples to apples comparison and if anything, the optics of the current situation seem worse. Bush was on vaca also but fly over the next day. All we see are pics of POTUS OBama playing gold and now the news that he did take time out to atten a Clinton fundrasier.

And if the president can interrupt his vacation for a swanky fundraiser for fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, as he did on Monday, then surely he can make time to show up for a catastrophe that’s displaced thousands.

So, to the people that continue to say that the media is still conservatively biased (I am not sure what country you are living in) and to the peeps that have said the media is rougher on OBama, something I have never seen or understood, why is it that there is no media coverage, no firestorm and virutally no mention of this?!? This article is from the "Advocate" of Baton Rouge, LA.

Do you still believe that the media is conservatively biased and that POTUS OBama is treated rougher than Bush, for whatever reason? If so, I would like to hear what your thoughts are about this?

[Mr. Glass]

Just sitting here wondering (a day after the Commander in Chief broadcast). If Trump does not win the election, what in the name of Hindenburg will his concessions speech be like? Will he even give one? He strikes me as someone who will try to show grace, but will fail miserably in doing so.

Looking forward to this more than turkey day!

[shakespeare]

It's time...

[shakespeare]

Live Fact Check: Trump And Clinton Debate For The First Time. http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346 ... ial-debate

[CommonSense]

That was hilarious. Scary, but hilarious.

[StevoStarks]

[dcapodic]

Why the sad face?

Even after all we have learned about Hillary since the election and the fact that EVERYTHING was set for her to win and she still lost has to mean something....right?!?

[StevoStarks]

I don’t like Hillary, but it’s a reminder of who is in office. DCap, you can throw me all of the stats of how much better our country is doing, but the fact is, to me, I hate who Donald Trump is as a person. I don’t respect people like that. He’s a terrible human being.

[dcapodic]

I don’t like Hillary, but it’s a reminder of who is in office. DCap, you can throw me all of the stats of how much better our country is doing, but the fact is, to me, I hate who Donald Trump is as a person. I don’t respect people like that. He’s a terrible human being.

Never have been able to respond to this. Sorry you feel this way but use it as motivation. Research your locals elections and get out and vote.

I am a results guy when it comes to politics. In person, the quality of the person matters the utmost to me but not many of those types around in politics. Then, even when there are they get painted as trash anyway.

All you need to know about our political environment is the fact that a guy like Trey Gowdy is leaving it. Yea, he is conservative by nature but even if you don't agree with his politics, you should agree and want this type of person help run our country. It disgusts me that he is so turned off by the whole scene that he feels like he needs to pack it in to do good. You can't lose people like this and expect to have the kind of people you desire in power. This actually discourages me

[dcapodic]

Let me tell you all you need to know about the state of the Democrat party and the image they are portraying. As mentioned before, I live in Connecticut. Yesterday, we had the primaries for Gov and other offices. As a registered Democrat, I got to choose between 2 candidates to represent the Democratic party as Gov of my fair state. So, you expect these two people to be fine, upstanding examples of the political party that they represent. Let me introduce you to one of them, Joe Ganim:

On March 19, 2003, Ganim was convicted of 16 federal counts: one count each of racketeering, extortion, racketeering conspiracy, and bribery; two counts of bribery conspiracy; eight counts of mail fraud, and two counts of filing a false tax return.[26][27] Ganim was acquitted on six other counts.[27] Ganim surrendered his law license upon conviction.[26] The charges arose from Ganim's "role in a six-year scheme to shake down city contractors for more than $500,000 in cash, meals, clothing, wine and home renovations."[27] In April 2003, two weeks after being convicted, Ganim resigned from office.[28] He was replaced by councilman John M. Fabrizi.[28]

Ganim faced a possible sentence of up to 126 years, $500,000 in restitution, and $4 million in fines.[27] Federal prosecutors asked for a sentence of ten years and one month, while the defense asked for a sentence of no more than three years and ten months.[29] Testimonials seeking leniency were filed with the court on Ganim's behalf, including one from Cardinal Edward M. Egan of New York.[29] On July 1, 2003, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton sentenced Ganim to nine years in prison and about $300,000 in fines and restitution, in addition to $175,000 that he had previously stipulated that he owed.[29] Judge Arterton said that Ganim's crimes were "stuff that cynicism is made of" and determined by clear and convincing evidence that Ganim had "lied to the jury when he denied any knowledge of fee-splitting deals and other incriminating evidence."[29] Ganim appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Ganim's convictions in December 2007.[30]

I am still not sure why I don't change my political affiliation after all of these years. It is a bit embarrassing being a registered Democrat these days, especially in Connecticut. I try not to think that just by being registered as a Dem that I am tacitly agreeing with decisions such as this but they are making it harder and harder by doing this kind of stuff.

Fortunately, he lost the primary. Imagine if he had won and the rest of the country got to see/hear about the latest Dem representative for Gov in Connecticut. It is embarrassing enough just living here these days, we don't need that also.

[gradyandrew]

dc, you don't see any connection between your affiliation with the democratic party and your support of this sorry ass basketball franchise? for better or worse, you, liike the rest of us are a good loyal person, loyal to the point that it actually works against your own self interest. I'm sure we woulld all be happier as Golden state fans, if we could only learn to forgive ourselves the sin of changing sides.

in terms of political parties, the first time it really hit me was during a Gore/ Bush debate when both were arguing about the amount by which we should increase military spending. Hey, read the Constitution! It's pretty clear that a standing federal army is unconstitutional "Congress shall provide a Navy. Congress shall make no army appropriations in excess of two years." Yet this, and most of the supposed law of the land is ignored. And why- because, despite going to school for 16 years, we are never required to actually read it.

I've been in China for 16 years now. It's depressing going back to America because life is pretty much how I left it. Here, you can see positive material progress every day, everywhere. Most US public investment is swallowed by the military producing weapon systems that will probably be obsolete by the time they finally enter service. That and a tax system that gives the wealthiest a free ride. In 1936, FDR proposed an income tax of 100% on income over 100,00 (about a million in today's money). That's a little overboard, but why not 50, or 75%? If you're pulling down that much, I'm pretty deaf to any of your complaints.

The two parties, now more than ever, are just two tribes, bought and paid for by the elite to make sure that the have nots never unite against those that do. And Ganim is the perfect candidate for that system, someone who is obviously corrupt and will turn off enough voters to the keep them out of the voting booths.

Cynical as all that sounds, I can vouch that it absolutely sucks living under a totalitarian regime. The freedom to write "Trump is a pussy grabbing asshole." should never be taken for granted. I don't even feel free enough to remark to my students how much President Xi resembles Winnie the Pooh. My son actually had to sit through a class about how socially irresponsible Peppa Pig is. If America could only get its head out of its ass, we'd still be the envy of the world.

Sadly, I don't think it will ever happen. 2008 was the year it could have, but BHO for whatever reason rejected an economic policy that would actually hold wall street accountable or any healthcare reform that didnt insure an even bigger payout to big pharma, insurance companies, and doctors. A dream defered, a big fucking dream defered.

[dcapodic]

I don’t like Hillary, but it’s a reminder of who is in office. DCap, you can throw me all of the stats of how much better our country is doing, but the fact is, to me, I hate who Donald Trump is as a person. I don’t respect people like that. He’s a terrible human being.

Thought of you today....go vote!

[dcapodic]

dc, you don't see any connection between your affiliation with the democratic party and your support of this sorry ass basketball franchise? for better or worse, you, liike the rest of us are a good loyal person, loyal to the point that it actually works against your own self interest. I'm sure we woulld all be happier as Golden state fans, if we could only learn to forgive ourselves the sin of changing sides.

in terms of political parties, the first time it really hit me was during a Gore/ Bush debate when both were arguing about the amount by which we should increase military spending. Hey, read the Constitution! It's pretty clear that a standing federal army is unconstitutional "Congress shall provide a Navy. Congress shall make no army appropriations in excess of two years." Yet this, and most of the supposed law of the land is ignored. And why- because, despite going to school for 16 years, we are never required to actually read it.

I've been in China for 16 years now. It's depressing going back to America because life is pretty much how I left it. Here, you can see positive material progress every day, everywhere. Most US public investment is swallowed by the military producing weapon systems that will probably be obsolete by the time they finally enter service. That and a tax system that gives the wealthiest a free ride. In 1936, FDR proposed an income tax of 100% on income over 100,00 (about a million in today's money). That's a little overboard, but why not 50, or 75%? If you're pulling down that much, I'm pretty deaf to any of your complaints.

The two parties, now more than ever, are just two tribes, bought and paid for by the elite to make sure that the have nots never unite against those that do. And Ganim is the perfect candidate for that system, someone who is obviously corrupt and will turn off enough voters to the keep them out of the voting booths.

Cynical as all that sounds, I can vouch that it absolutely sucks living under a totalitarian regime. The freedom to write "Trump is a pussy grabbing asshole." should never be taken for granted. I don't even feel free enough to remark to my students how much President Xi resembles Winnie the Pooh. My son actually had to sit through a class about how socially irresponsible Peppa Pig is. If America could only get its head out of its ass, we'd still be the envy of the world.

Sadly, I don't think it will ever happen. 2008 was the year it could have, but BHO for whatever reason rejected an economic policy that would actually hold wall street accountable or any healthcare reform that didnt insure an even bigger payout to big pharma, insurance companies, and doctors. A dream defered, a big fucking dream defered.

Sorry grady, I don't think I saw this response earlier.

Cynical as all that sounds, I can vouch that it absolutely sucks living under a totalitarian regime. The freedom to write "Trump is a pussy grabbing asshole." should never be taken for granted. I don't even feel free enough to remark to my students how much President Xi resembles Winnie the Pooh. My son actually had to sit through a class about how socially irresponsible Peppa Pig is. If America could only get its head out of its ass, we'd still be the envy of the world.

I think the thing most often taken for granted in the US is our freedom, especially by the younger peeps. Certianly, many do not and your words should ring loudly to anyone that hasn't experienced not having the freedom to lawfully do as you please. I don't have a lot of time to really take in what you hve written here and commnet oo specifically but I would mention 2 things:

1. I believe that the US is the envy of the rest of the world today. This may be the main reason we need to really look intenrally at our own selves and understand that our sovereignty may be the main factor holding the wold together today. I hate to be so high level and general but remember if not for the US, we may all be speaking German today. I remind my other European friends of this often when they try and highbrow the EU to me. Today, what keeps China in check....only the US. As it has continued to grow, it reminds me a bit of Amazon (or vice versa)....eventually it will become so big and so rich that it will dominate the world by its shear size. This is all happening at a time when peeps in the US are worried about what bathrooms to use and whether we should build a wall or not.

2. It seems like a natural rite of passage that as a young, college aged person you look at and potentially embrace socialistic program and ideals as you look to oyurself being a better person and a more global cicitzen. Then, as you mature into the wolrd socierty, you realize that the resst of the world does not play by these rules that many of the socialistic thinging people in the US play by. Socialism in the rest of the wolrd is about Government control and these countries are not bound by a true and tested constitiution written to prevent the very ideals of this kind of society. Can it work, sure. Give me a nice homogenous, relatively small slice of humanity and everyone will kumbaya and their wolrd will be a pleasant place. This is not the US and if people just thought a second about that it seems pretty obvious.

Peppa pig....my grandaughter loved that, she would be so upset knowing she is so socially irresponsible

I would find it fascinating to hear more about your experiences in China. My younger daughter speaks Mandarin and is looking at a minor in either the language itself or some type of Asian Studies.