Trump's Budget Reveals The GOP's Priorities In All Their Hideous Glory

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
The saying "a budget is a moral document" has become almost a cliche, something that people repeat whenever anyone assembles a budget for the federal government. Interestingly enough, it's usually liberals who say it, while conservatives aren't particularly eager to cast their budgetary choices in the light of morality. There's a good reason for that.

But before we get to that reason, let's take a look at the budget the White House released on Monday. It should be said that this budget won't actually become law — Congress writes budgets, and Democrats and Republicans just made an agreement that will cover government spending for the next two years — but the president's budget is always a window into the administration's thinking and priorities. In this case, that window opens on an ugly place, where the world the Republican Party would like to see is laid out in all its hideous glory.

Let's take a look at just some of the highlights. The budget would do the following:
  • Spend $716 billion this year on the military
  • Spend $18 billion over two years to build a border wall
  • Cut $554 billion from Medicare over 10 years
  • Cut $250 billion from Medicaid over 10 years
  • Cut $214 billion from food stamps over 10 years
  • Cut the EPA's budget by 34 percent
  • Cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget by 14 percent, including eliminating the fund that pays for capital repairs to public housing
  • Eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funding to PBS and NPR
  • Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities
  • Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal help to poor Americans
  • Eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which ensures that poor Americans don't freeze to death in the winter
  • Cut funding for Amtrak in half
  • Eliminate ARPA-E, which does cutting-edge research on energy technology
Now tell me those aren't moral choices.

If you're looking for a silver lining, you might observe that unlike prior Republican budgets, this one does not pretend that it will be balanced in 10 years. Which might sound like some admirable candor, were it not for the fact that this one is as full of magic asterisks, fairy dust, and unicorn kisses as ever. Most importantly, it assumes that GDP growth will quickly top 3 percent then stay that high through 2024, a stretch unlike anything we've seen in decades. That allows them to say they aren't ballooning the deficit as much as they actually would.

The budget also includes items like $139 billion in savings achieved by reducing "improper payments government wide." It's almost impossible to tell what they're talking about, but it sounds a lot like what we used to call "waste, fraud, and abuse," which is shorthand for "we can reduce the budget by huge amounts without cutting anything anybody actually likes." It never seemed to work out, not because there isn't waste, fraud, and abuse in the government; there is, just as there is in any large organization, and the U.S. government is the largest organization on Earth. No, the problem has always been that it's hard to ferret out, and what we can find never amounts to anywhere near what people hope.

To get back to the question of the moral beliefs embedded in a budget like this one, that's language Republicans would prefer to avoid. They'd rather say that we have to set priorities when we have finite resources, and though we'd like to do everything, there are some things we just can't do.

The problem with this line of argument is that Republicans don't treat resources as finite when they involve programs they like. We spend nearly as much on our military as every other country in the world combined — worldwide military spending in 2016 was estimated at a little under $1.7 trillion, and this year we will be spending over $700 billion. No Republican ever says, "We'd like to spend more on the military, but as a country we just can't afford it." Their attitude is always more, more, more, and if we have to increase the deficit to do it, that's what we'll do.

Yet when it comes to domestic programs, they don their green eyeshades and say somberly, "We'd love to, but the money just isn't there." And that, of course, comes after they just passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut, most of the benefits of which went to corporations and the wealthy. So when they say "we can't afford that," what they actually mean is, "we don't want to do that at all, but we're going to pretend it's because we can't afford it."

That deception is necessary because so many of the programs Republicans want to cut are tremendously popular. Only a few of them will say outright that government shouldn't provide health insurance to people, but that's what their philosophy dictates. So every year they try to chip away at Medicare and Medicaid, mounting the occasional frontal assault only to retreat when the public gets wind of it and recoils in horror.

But look back at that list, and consider what kind of country Republicans are trying to create. It's one where everyone's on their own and everyone's out for themselves, where we don't expect much from our government apart from building bombs and building walls.

Very few Americans will slog through the budget documents, and not that many will even read detailed news articles about them; we all know it isn't the jazziest of subjects. But if you want to know what this administration and the party it represents believe, it's all there in black and white.

Source: http://theweek.com/articles/754741/trumps-budget-reveals-gops-priorities-all-hideous-glory

 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Budget undercuts Trump's focus on mental health, school safety

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is calling for a focus on mental health and school safety in response to shootings like the one that took 17 lives in Florida, but his budget would cut funding in both areas.

Trump's latest budget would slash the major source of public funds for mental health treatment, the Medicaid program serving more than 70 million low-income and disabled people. The budget also calls for a 36 percent cut to an Education Department grant program that supports safer schools, reducing it by $25 million from the current level of $67.5 million.

However, some smaller mental health programs would get an increase.

The budget was issued Monday, before the horrific mass shooting at a South Florida high school. Spending priorities often change in response to events that galvanize national attention. In this case, advocates and policy experts said the budget numbers call into question how much value the administration places on mental health.

"Whatever small increases they are asking for is more than offset by the changes they would make to Medicaid," said Andrew Sperling, legislative advocacy director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

The budget resurrects a GOP Medicaid plan that failed in Congress last year, which calls for turning the program over to the states and limiting future federal payments. That would mean a cut of about $1.4 trillion over 10 years from projected spending. States would face hard choices over competing priorities like mental health or addiction treatment, nursing home costs or prenatal care for low-income women.

"The only area where I see the budget providing an increase is on the opioid addiction side," said Diane Rowland, a Medicaid expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "Not all people who have mental health challenges are going to be substance abusers."

On school safety, the administration wants to slash funding for national school safety initiatives by nearly $25 million in 2019, down from this year's projected funding of $67.5 million.

The administration wants school districts to use these funds on opioid addiction and prevention programs, but Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill that schools can also spend the money on violence prevention and safety.

"The department is committed to providing resources, direct support and technical assistance to schools who have suffered unthinkable tragedy," Hill said.

The department also has more than $5 million in special emergency response grants that schools can use in the aftermath of shootings and other tragedies. Hill did not address why a cut to the grant program was needed in the first place.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Thursday called on Congress to start a serious national conversation on tackling mental health issues in the aftermath of the deadly Florida high school shooting.

"One of these shootings is one too many and we have got to have an honest conversation and Congress has to lead on this, it's their job," she told conservative host Hugh Hewitt.

A senior Democratic lawmaker involved with health care as well as budget issues said leadership is supposed to come from the White House.

"If the president was serious about stopping the scourge of gun violence...he would work with Congress on common sense gun safety measures, rather than pointing to mental health services and school safety as the only solutions just days after introducing a budget that slashes those very investments," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a statement.

The future of Medicaid under Trump and a GOP Congress is one of Murray's central concerns. The program's role in mental health care was underscored by a Kaiser Foundation study that found the program accounted for 25 percent of what the nation spent in 2014, or more than $46 billion. Medicaid was only slightly behind private payments for mental health care, which accounted for 28 percent.

The administration says states will be able to run Medicaid more efficiently, without sacrificing the health and well-being of their residents. Getting Trump's Medicaid overhaul through Congress would be a tall order, since key Republican governors opposed it last year, and there doesn't seem to have been much effort to get them on board now.

Also in the mental health area, the administration is highlighting a $15-million budget request for "assertive community treatment," a new approach that seeks to keep people with serious mental health problems from being cycled through jails and emergency rooms. However, Sperling said that program had been already authorized by Congress and focuses on people with a long history of serious illness.

In budget documents, the Trump administration noted that an estimated 43 million American adults met the medical standard for having a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder that substantially interfered with or limited major life activities. Of those, 10 million people had a serious mental illness.

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/budget-undercuts-trump-focus-mental-053727242.html
 

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
Gee, it’s almost like we would’ve been better off with Hillary Clinton as president. :confuse:
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Gee, it’s almost like we would’ve been better off with Hillary Clinton as president. :confuse:
If having things only minimally less shitty is your thing, then yeah. But things would still only be "better off" for a few. At the end of the day, Hillary was still Republican lite.

The best you could say about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that cuts to social programs wouldn't be as deep. But let's not forget that Hillary championed the gutting of welfare in the 90s, and said the people who got off welfare had previously been "deadbeats." Millions would still be without healthcare because she said single payer "would never come to pass." Also, the wars would have continued, she said refugee children would be sent back, and she wanted to build a "barrier/fence" (like Trump's wall) on the US/Mexico border.

That's why I don't see her as a savior. Trump is a vile cretin who has made a mockery of the presidency, but we can't allow that to take our eyes off of policy. Many Dems in Congress have capitulated to Trump on policy and his nominees, and Hillary clearly supported a center-right agenda. Within the next three years, we have the potential to nominate and elect Democrats to Congress and the White House who will actually implement a plan that benefits the majority. Of course, that's if the DNC keeps their sticky fingers out of the process this time.
 
Last edited:

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
If having things only minimally less shitty is your thing, then yeah. But things would still only be "better off" for a few. At the end of the day, Hillary was still Republican lite.

The best you could say about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that cuts to social programs wouldn't be as deep. But let's not forget that Hillary championed the gutting of welfare in the 90s, and said the people who got off welfare had previously been "deadbeats." Millions would still be without healthcare because she said single payer "would never come to pass." Also, the wars would have continued, she said refugee children would be sent back, and she wanted to build a "barrier/fence" (like Trump's wall) on the US/Mexico border.

That's why I don't see her as a savior. Trump is a vile cretin who has made a mockery of the presidency, but we can't allow that to take our eyes off of policy. Many Dems in Congress have capitulated to Trump on policy and his nominees, and Hillary clearly supported a center-right agenda. Within the next three years, we have the potential to nominate and elect Democrats to Congress and the White House who will actually implement a plan that benefits the majority. Of course, that's if the DNC keeps their sticky fingers out of the process this time.
In that case, enjoy the remaining 3 years of the batsh!t crazy Trump administration. :craz:
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
In that case, enjoy the remaining 3 years of the batsh!t crazy Trump administration. :craz:
Brought to you by a party that backed an incrementalist neoliberal who ignored the working class at the same time she supported trade deals that would send their jobs overseas.

How do you feel about the Dems who've capitulated to Trump on DACA, the wall, surveillance, the military budget, and his nominees? Looks like they're the ones enjoying the Trump Administration. Every criticism I've made of Hillary and establishment Dems has come from what they've said and how they've voted. But you don't seem interested in addressing that.

As a moderate, I assume you oppose Trump's petulant, vile demeanor more than his policies. Otherwise, you'd be more upset over Hillary's positions. I honestly don't know where you stand outside of thinking Hillary should have been president. I'm a policy wonk, but you don't seem to address policies directly. And yet somehow you still think I'm a misogynist. :confuse:
 
Last edited:

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
But why is that all matters??
The same reason the Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russian government doesn’t matter at all to other people.

And you seem ignore all of BD Calhoun's discussion about actual policy...
It became apparent quite some time ago that it’s totally pointless expressing any divergent point of view (unless you enjoy wasting your time composing something that goes in one ear and out the other).
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
The same reason the Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russian government doesn’t matter at all to other people.
Except I never said it "didn't matter." My position on collusion has remained consistent. I will support that premise when and if there is conclusive evidence, and not before. In the mean time, I have said the charges of financial crimes and perjury against members of the Trump team are valid, and I've acknowledged the Russian disinformation campaign on social media. However, I've also pointed out that the CIA admitted the US also interferes in foreign elections, and that Hillary wanted to control an election in Palestine.

Funny how all of that "went in one ear and out the other."

It became apparent quite some time ago that it’s totally pointless expressing any divergent point of view (unless you enjoy wasting your time composing something that goes in one ear and out the other).
Pointless because you're not going to change my mind? This is a political debate forum, not an echo chamber. Even the most like-minded people don't agree on everything.

I gave my reasons why I believe Hillary would only be minimally better than Trump, and gave you the opportunity to refute me. Instead, you doubled down on your usual bull hockey about how I don't like "competent, ambitious, highly qualified women." Tell me exactly how that is true when every criticism of Hillary I've made has been policy related. Not to mention the fact that I've criticized Bush, Obama, and Trump for their policies as well. But thanks for proving my point. Like I said, I talk policy and you call me a misogynist.

I find that funny since I voted for Jill Stein. I'm guessing a Harvard educated doctor who's run for president twice is also a "competent, ambitious, highly qualified woman." And best of all, she doesn't support endless wars, fracking, TPP, deportation of refugee children, walls/barriers/, and actually supports a living wage, single payer, and tuition free public colleges.

I know, I know. Shame on me for actually standing by what I believe in and not voting out of fear.
 
Last edited:

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
Except I never said it "didn't matter." My position on collusion has remained consistent. I will support that premise when and if there is conclusive evidence, and not before. In the mean time, I have said the charges of financial crimes and perjury against members of the Trump team are valid, and I've acknowledged the Russian disinformation campaign on social media. However, I've also pointed out that the CIA admitted the US also interferes in foreign elections, and that Hillary wanted to control an election in Palestine.

Funny how all of that "went in one ear and out the other."

Pointless because you're not going to change my mind? This is a political debate forum, not an echo chamber. Even the most like-minded people don't agree on everything.

I gave my reasons why I believe Hillary would only be minimally better than Trump, and gave you the opportunity to refute me. Instead, you doubled down on your usual bull hockey about how I don't like "competent, ambitious, highly qualified women." Tell me exactly how that is true when every criticism of Hillary I've made has been policy related? Not to mention the fact that I've criticized Bush, Obama, and Trump for their policies as well. But thanks for proving my point. Like I said, I talk policy and you call me a misogynist.

I find that funny since I voted for Jill Stein. I'm guessing a Harvard educated doctor who's run for president twice is also a "competent, ambitious, highly qualified woman." And best of all, she doesn't support endless wars, fracking, TPP, deportation of refugee children, walls/barriers/, and actually supports a living wage, single payer, and tuition free public colleges.

I know, I know. Shame on me for actually standing by what I believe in and not voting out of fear.
It hasn’t escaped my attention that nearly every post you make is specifically geared to justify any and every atrocity committed to screw Hillary Clinton out of the presidency. Frankly, I’m convinced you primarily just want a sounding board for your continuous b!tchfest (or more accurately, a punching bag to vent your frustrations on). Sorry, but I’m neither interested in filling that role nor willing to devote the incredible amount of time it would require. Not to mention the useless expenditure of energy.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
It hasn’t escaped my attention that nearly every post you make is specifically geared to justify any and every atrocity committed to screw Hillary Clinton out of the presidency.
Putting things into perspective, such as pointing out the miniscule amount paid for disinformation ads on social media and the fact that many of those ads came out after the election is not justifying Hillary being "screwed" out of the presidency. I just happen to find that premise exaggerated. Not to mention that certain Hillary supporters such as yourself focus all of your attention on Russia, but get pissed when people point out her policy positions and the fact that she didn't campaign in the swing states. Sorry, but some of you need a reality check.

In spite of my feelings about Hillary, I've also criticized the antiquated electoral college and have said several times how dumb it is for the winner of the popular vote to lose the election. However, I do find it interesting in the age of Russia hysteria that nobody wants to discuss the CIA's admittance to interfering in foreign elections, nor Hillary supporting it.

But she can clearly do no wrong in your eyes. The candidate I backed was royally screwed by the DNC, and you've never batted an eye at that.

Frankly, I’m convinced you primarily just want a sounding board for your continuous b!tchfest (or more accurately, a punching bag to vent your frustrations on). Sorry, but I’m neither interested in filling that role nor willing to devote the incredible amount of time it would require. Not to mention the useless expenditure of energy.
Continuous bitchfest? That sounds more like what you do when I reject the notion that Hillary would have been anything other than minimally better than Trump.

Your premise is horseshit. This thread was specifically about Trump's budget until you posted your passive aggressive comment about how Hillary would have been a better president.

I don't believe for a second you posted that and didn't expect a response like the one I gave. You know where I stand. You turned the topic of conversation towards Hillary, and yet you get offended when it goes in a direction you don't like. I fail to see how I'm using you as a "punching bag." What do you think you're doing when you try to shame me for my vote, twist my positions, and call me a misogynist? You've also called me a "knee jerk reactionary," yet you twist what I say into "anything to keep that miserable bitch Hillary out of office."

It just goes to show this is all projection on your part. But I'm sure I won't hear anymore from you since you don't have the time or energy.:laughs:
 
Last edited:

SueEllenRules!

Banned
LV
0
 
Putting things into perspective, such as pointing out the miniscule amount paid for disinformation ads on social media and the fact that many of those ads came out after the election is not "justifying" Hillary being "screwed" out of the presidency. I just happen to find that premise exaggerated. Not to mention that certain Hillary supporters such as yourself focus all of your attention on Russia, but get pissed when people point out her policy positions and the fact that she didn't campaign in the swing states. Sorry, but some of you need a reality check.

In spite of my feelings about Hillary, I've also criticized the antiquated electoral college and have said several times how dumb it is for the winner of the popular vote to lose the election. However, I do find it interesting in the age of Russia hysteria that nobody wants to discuss the CIA's admittance to interfering in foreign elections, nor Hillary supporting it.

But she can clearly do no wrong in your eyes. The candidate I backed was royally screwed by the DNC, and you've never batted an eye at that.
And there’s the crux of the problem: your candidate of choice didn’t get the Democratic nomination and you’re absolutely determined to relentlessly punish Hillary Clinton for that. Never mind the fact that Bernie Sanders had never been a member of the Democratic Party his entire life except the brief period it was politically expedient, i.e. from 2015-2016 when he was running for president. Let’s also ignore the fact that Hillary won 3.7 million more votes than Sanders in the primary (a margin of 12 percentage points), a victory far more decisive than Obama’s over Hillary in 2008. Yet, somehow this adds up to Bernie getting ‘royally screwed by the DNC.’ :re:

Hillary, on the other hand, actually won the popular vote in the general election by 3 million, but lost the electoral vote by a total of just 77,000 in 3 states. A loss immersed in interference by a hostile foreign power and almost certain collusion with the Trump campaign. And you’ve never batted an eye at that. Treason? What treason? I don’t see any treason. But, of course, even if there was, that miserable b!tch Hillary had it coming.

Complete horseshit.
Actually, I think I hit the nail square on the head.

This thread was specifically about Trump's budget until you posted your passive aggressive comment about how Hillary would have been a better president.
Why should you have the right to complain about Trump’s budget when there was one way and one way only to prevent a Trump presidency and you failed to take it? The only ones with a real right to b!tch about the current situation are those who made an effort to stop Trump and voted for the sole candidate who was actually qualified.

I don't believe for a second you posted that and didn't expect a response like the one I gave.
Well, you were waiting with bated breath so why not indulge you occasionally? And I don’t believe for a second that at least half of the threads you’ve posted since the election weren’t intended solely to agitate those of us who supported Hillary Clinton. I’m seeing Fifty Shades of McGarrett and he isn’t even here.

You know where I stand. You turned the topic of conversation towards Hillary, so don't get offended when it goes in a direction you don't like. I fail to see how I'm using you as a "punching bag." What do you think you're doing when you try to shame me for my vote, twist my positions, and call me a misogynist? You've also called me a "knee jerk reactionary," yet you're the one who says things like "anything to keep that miserable bitch Hillary out of office."
I’m an expert at Hillary-hater-to-English translations.

It just goes to show this is all projection on your part. But I'm sure I won't hear anymore from you since you don't have the time or energy.:laughs:
You miss having a troll around so badly, you’ve decided to assume his identity? You should seriously consider getting help before it’s too late.
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
And there’s the crux of the problem: your candidate of choice didn’t get the Democratic nomination and you’re absolutely determined to relentlessly punish Hillary Clinton for that. Never mind the fact that Bernie Sanders had never been a member of the Democratic Party his entire life except the brief period it was politically expedient, i.e. from 2015-2016 when he was running for president. Let’s also ignore the fact that Hillary won 3.7 million more votes than Sanders in the primary (a margin of 12 percentage points), a victory far more decisive than Obama’s over Hillary in 2008. Yet, somehow this adds up to Bernie getting ‘royally screwed by the DNC.’ :re:
How am I punishing Hillary? Because I don't like her shitty neocon positions and couldn't bring myself to vote for her?

Of course Bernie ran as a Democrat. It's the only chance a candidate has of getting elected in our rigged two party system. He also caucuses with the Democrats. If Bernie had lost to Hillary without DNC interference, I wouldn't have complained. I obviously would have been disappointed, but I would have accepted it. However, it's harder to accept when you find out they were trying to bury the debates, attack his religion, attack his appeal with minorities, all the while Hillary admitted she held both "public and private" positions on the issues.

Donna Brazile was caught leaking debate questions to Hillary, and ended up admitting the primaries were rigged. She said Hillary raised money for and invested in the DNC in exchange for controlling the party's finances, strategy, and staff hiring decisions. All this from an organization Debbie Wasserman Schultz swore was neutral. This resulted in a lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed, but not before a DNC lawyer admitted in open court that the DNC is not obligated to run unbiased primaries.

In the case of the DNC, we don't have to speculate if they colluded against Bernie because they're open about it. And thus proving they're every bit as corrupt as the GOP.
Hillary, on the other hand, actually won the popular vote in the general election by 3 million, but lost the electoral vote by a total of just 77,000 in 3 states. A loss immersed in interference by a hostile foreign power and almost certain collusion with the Trump campaign. And you’ve never batted an eye at that. Treason? What treason? I don’t see any treason. But, of course, even if there was, that miserable b!tch Hillary had it coming.
There you go again with your hyperbolic reaction. I know she won the popular vote by three million votes. Funny how you conveniently didn't address the fact that I called the electoral college antiquated and said the winner of the popular vote should be president. In this case, that obviously was Hillary. And yet you go on about how I believe she "had it coming."

No, what I believe is she campaigned like the electoral college doesn't exist when it does. I don't believe you can support TPP while ignoring the swing states and expect to win.

Do you really think Hillary's loss comes down to a campaign of disinformation, even when the votes she lost by came specifically from the working class? I've always contended that no government should interfere in our elections, but I can't fathom that Russian ads which took both a pro and anti Trump stance is the primary reason she lost. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said "This information warfare by the Russians didn’t affect the outcome of the presidential election." I suppose he too thought "that miserable b!tch Hillary had it coming."

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why it's okay for Hillary and the CIA to support interfering in foreign elections. But as with my policy critiques, I'm sure you'll just gloss over it.

As for treason, I never said it didn't happen. I just don't scream at the top of my lungs that it did happen like you do. I wait for the evidence to be presented, and then I decide. So far, I do believe Trump has clearly tried to obstruct the investigation and undermine it, and the members of Trump's team charged with perjury and financial crimes are clearly guilty based on the facts. If the same irrefutable proof is revealed that Trump colluded with Russia, I'll accept it. In the mean time, an article from Bloomberg stated that "The indictment cites no instances of Russians coordinating directly with the Trump campaign." Sorry if you don't like that I wait until all of the facts come in before deciding someone's guilt.
Actually, I think I hit the nail square on the head.
Of course you do. You can't accept it when somebody presents ideas you disagree with, so you have try to twist their words and make them look like a villain.

Why should you have the right to complain about Trump’s budget when there was one way and one way only to prevent a Trump presidency and you failed to take it? The only ones with a real right to b!tch about the current situation are those who made an effort to stop Trump and voted for the sole candidate who was actually qualified.
You love to use that word "qualified," but you never actually address her support for the policies I've mentioned. You're trying to shame me because I didn't vote for a candidate who supported the wars under Bush and Obama, supported the Patriot Act, supported the gutting of welfare and called former welfare recipients "deadbeats," supported a healthcare system that left millions uninsured and refused to support single payer, supported fracking, supported NAFTA and TPP, called black youth accused of crimes "super predators," supported DOMA, said refugee children would be sent back, supported a barrier/fence on the US/Mexico border (similar to Trump's wall), etc. As per usual, it goes in one ear and out the other.

I'm sorry, but I find those positions absolutely despicable. Neither Clinton nor Trump were deserving of the White House IMO, and I refuse to vote out of fear. You put a candidate who is principled and supports an agenda I can get behind on the ballot, and that's who I'll vote for. Moderates love to shake their finger at voters instead of their bought neoliberal candidate.

To suggest I don't have the right to criticize Trump because I voted my conscience is also ridiculous, but not surprising coming from you. It's laughable that you think Hillary would have been our savior, and you obviously hate petulance and vile behavior more than bad policies. Hillary simply put a kinder face on shitty policies. Trump's cuts to social programs and healthcare are deeper and affect more people, but let's not pretend that Hillary didn't also support cuts to welfare in the past. She also continued to support the ACA, which left 28 million people uninsured. I'm literally being chastised for not supporting a politician who would have screwed the poor simply because she wouldn't have screwed as many.

Moderates give us minimally less shitty policies while pushing the GOP further right. That's why they need to be purged from the party like the cancer that they are. I've yet to see you wag your finger at the spineless Democrats who've capitulated to Trump on policy and his nominees. But like I said, I suspect you oppose bad manners more than bad policies.

Well, you were waiting with bated breath so why not indulge you occasionally? And I don’t believe for a second that at least half of the threads you’ve posted since the election weren’t intended solely to agitate those of us who supported Hillary Clinton. I’m seeing Fifty Shades of McGarrett and he isn’t even here.
Thanks for equating criticism of Hillary with attacks on your sexuality and employment status. That's obviously the conclusion a rational person would form.

I'm sure you were just looking to indulge me. I don't suppose you were looking to start an argument because you're tired of seeing posts that contradict your view of Hillary and establishment Dems. Nah, couldn't be that. I'm not trying to agitate anybody, I just don't believe all Dems are good simply because Trump's evil. Life's more complicated than that. I post articles criticizing both sides because I believe both sides are deserving of criticism. Oddly enough, you picked a thread focused on Trump to "indulge" my criticism of Hillary.

I’m an expert at Hillary-hater-to-English translations.

You miss having a troll around so badly, you’ve decided to assume his identity? You should seriously consider getting help before it’s too late.
You're an expert at gaslighting people, twisting their words due to your selective reading, and accusing them of being something they're not.

Like claiming I'm a misogynist, you're now trying to claim that I'm a troll. Your admiration of Hillary is so fragile that you have to make up insults against her critics.

I'd advise you to get help before it's too late, but it's clearly too late already. By the way, congratulations on finding the time and energy to reply. Hope it didn't wear you out.
:rolling:
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
8
 
Awards
21
Some folks detest Hillary excessively while some folks revere Hillary excessively.

Some folks are stronger on actual policy while some folks think like hysterical SJWs.

Not everyone has my delicate sense of balance.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
I have a strong hatred for many Democrats and Republicans, so there's balance in that.

As much as I vent my frustrations, it all feels futile. At the end of the day, we always end up with either neoliberals or neocons who cater to their donors and the war machine. Yes, I'm holding on to the notion that progressives will one day rise to power, but the two corporate parties have such a stronghold on the system that it's hard to imagine that happening.

Hillary, Trump, I would have been unhappy either way. It was only a matter of degree for me.
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
8
 
Awards
21
As much as I vent my frustrations, it all feels futile. At the end of the day, we always end up with either neoliberals or neocons who cater to their donors and the war machine. Yes, I'm holding on to the notion that progressives will one day rise to power, but the two corporate parties have such a stronghold on the system that it's hard to imagine that happening.
Yes, it's hard not to sound like an Oliver Stone movie, but the military industrial complex still runs the show, the federal gov't and the mainstream media. And even leftists who start out to be sincere, like I'm convinced Obama initially was, are quickly cowed and kept in line. (Doomed reporter Michael Hastings described Obama as "naïve" and very intimidated by the Pentagon once Barack began dealing with them following his election -- which caused some of Obama's team to quit early on as they saw his prospective military policies quickly and completely change).
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
This thread makes for some interesting reading. I don't deny that I detest much of what Hillary and establishment Democrats stand for, but I always substantiate my opinion with facts. I've connected polices Hillary and the Democrats have supported to policies supported by Bush, Trump, and other members of the GOP. I've exposed divisive rhetoric Hillary's used to describe blacks, the poor, millennials, and disenfranchised progressives. And I've also exposed how Hillary laundered money through the DNC in order to control its operations. My opposition to Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman. Not only did I vote for a woman, I'm also equally as hard on establishment Democrats in Congress.

I find it interesting that I have a reputation for not being as hard on Trump. Not only have many of my threads (including this one) been specifically about his policies, my main criticism of Democrats are their concessions to him. If I oppose Democrats who plunge us into endless wars, cut entitlements, and are in the pockets of big oil, big pharma, and Wall Street, it should stand to reason that I oppose Trump and the GOP on the same grounds. That said, Republicans don't hide who they are. They actively embrace religious fundamentalists and the rich. Democrats also do the bidding of the rich, but give lip service to progressives.

I can accept different points of view. I can even accept people who have a favorable view of Hillary. What I can't accept is someone making a comment about how Hillary would have been a better president, and then telling me I'm a troll and misogynist when I disagree. Especially when my criticisms remain in the realm of policy and rhetoric, rather than personal attacks. We're all entitled to our opinions, but if you're going to express them, at least have the courage of your convictions to back them up. I certainly do. If someone thinks I'm being too hard on Hillary, I'm willing to hear why they think that. But blanket statements about someone being "less flawed" or " ambitious, competent and qualified" aren't rebuttals.

I get that Trump is an ignorant, vile scumbag who makes a mockery of our justice system. His lack of subtlety makes him easy to hate, and thus makes almost everybody else look better in comparison. Unfortunately, many Dems (including Hillary) play ball with conservatives and support many of the same draconian policies. I'm of the opinion that we can't allow vile rhetoric and belligerent tweets overshadow neocon policy positions from the so-called left. That's why I call out Dems who capitulate to Trump and support a neoliberal agenda.

As a progressive, I think it would be great to see a woman president in my lifetime. However, support for the policies I believe in is more important to me than making history.
 
Last edited:
Top