Danny Bateman

I think they're both lofty ideals but fundamentally different, depending on your perspective. Lord, a conservative, claims his party wants to see all people from the same lens and achieve a colorblind society where no one is judged on the merits of their skin color. Van, a liberal, is trying to make a point that that's not how his party sees things, that's not how Dr. King wanted things (this was later seen between an interaction between himself and Don Lemon-- Lemon brought this up), and that doesn't appear to be how Trump himself sees things. I tend to agree with the latter sentiment, and the fact that the majority of people of color side with Democrats is rather telling as to which view of America is more accurate. My problem with Lord in this whole exchange is it feels like he's deflecting Van's entire argument. He falls back on history, points out the KKK came from the Democrats, and states that liberals try to divide people by race. This is a microcosm of Trump's entire campaign. Van was presenting problems he has with Trump's actions in the present day, supported with past actions. Lord deflects and evades by pointing the finger. It seems irresponsible to me to derail an important discussion about the current dynamics of race relations in this country in an attempt to cast blame.

I wouldn't worry. He can just build a wall around Washington D.C. And never leave it. That way if anything bad happens it will be done by a White person. Whites only account for 38% of the actual population of Washington DC. https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-washington-dc Kick the 62% out out. "Either we've got a country [of white people] or we don't. Either we've got borders [for people of color] are we don't." What I hear every time he talks about his wall.

I think at that point he had something that had set Van off and he was trying to remain civil. Odd thing to say, though.

I know that CNN and other news networks sometimes become white noise if you listen to them for any extended period of time. But this was from yesterday, and for me, this was one of those gripping moments in television where I could honestly not look away. That's probably even more rare with network news stations. I thought that this was a pretty epic showdown. It represents American bipartisanship at its core, as they're both looking at the exact same set of events and have reached entirely different conclusions. To me, their views are pretty monolithic, in that they represent some very pointed, ingrained, perhaps even subconscious fundamental beliefs about the way the world works and the way our political system interprets it. Lord, on the left, is a former Reagan administration employee and a current Trump supporter. Van Jones is a former Obama administration employee and currently neutral liberal. Not going to offer up my view on the exchange just yet, but I think it's worth everyone's time. What do you think? Who do you agree with more?

Are any of the things you like about Trump related in any way, shape, or form to his political acumen? Well yes. I'm also scared about his political stances as well. Mostly by his demeanor. Likes 2nd Amendment Israel Ally Stopping Outsourcing Supports Police Disdain for Fed DOE and IRS Dislike Surveillance policy Flexing Military Muscle (Only like if it's needed) Bullheadedness/betrayal toward those who disagree with him. ---- My hatred for the surveillance such as Patriot Act stuff and all that just gives me the creeps. Especially with new tech around the corner and microchipping becoming a more and more believable thing among human beings with regard to ID, records, bank accounts, etc... That alone makes me fear so much that I don't want him as president. But Hilary is gonna staunchly go after the 2nd amendment....so I'm not sure what's worse. Hillary is going to continue President Obama's 2nd amendment agenda which has been to strengthen the background check system and make more common sense gun laws to make sure that we keep the guns out of the hands of people who legitimately probably shouldn't have them, like the mentally unstable or violent offenders. The assault weapons ban is probably a wedge issues for a lot of people. Personally, I've no need for assault weapons, so I really don't care too much about that. I could see how others would view it as infringing upon the 2nd amendment. He stood on the stage the other night and said clearly he doesn't want to favor either Israel or Palestine to try to be a power broker in dealing with them. Then he said he was 100% pro-Israel. So basically, he's once again trying to adopt all stances and none at all, at the same time.

It would appear that Trevor Noah over at the Daily Show agrees with you, Zoogs. https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/705104338792873984 https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/705104700690055170 https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/705104826745659399 My goodness, the talk show hosts are certainly going off on him lately.

Romney set to dress down Trump tomorrow in speech Not sure that this does much for anyone, but man, what a trainwreck this has turned into. 0 to 100 real fast.

Yes dorkface. ☐ rekt ☐ not rekt ☑ Tyrannosaurus rekt Formatting that is impressive.

I in no way want any part of becoming Russia, and I'd think that most Americans would agree. It's a short walk from accepting "protection" from authoritarian candidates when they assume power to them becoming fiercely protective to the point of corruption to protect that position of power. The easiest example would be Putin executing media members who criticize him. Some people may laugh off Trump joking about the subject as just "Trump being Trump," but personally I find it detestable and a bit frightening. The attitudes he's advocating people adopting against the media are not really funny: That's just ONE aspect in which his platform is potentially dangerous. I'd hope that people can connect the dots between electing authoritarian strongmen and winding up in a situation like Russia. Sadly, I don't think Trump's base has the intelligence or the foresight to do so. The parallels between Trump and Putin are a bit eerie. They both love themselves so much that once they seize power, people dare not tell them they're wrong for fear of retaliation. Basically, I don't know that people that support authoritarianism and such candidates have the foresight to understand the future ramifications of electing such a leader. Wouldn't it be the pot calling the kettle black if the same people who lost their collective sh*t over the NSA phone tapping to combat terrorism would be just fine with it under the guise of President Trump?

Can you expand on this trouble you see coming? What can we do to avoid it? -SNIP- Today, obviously, our Nation has turned its back on the western world and some of its leaders actually embracing warmly the enemies of democracy and freedom (Islam) and Christianity and goodness. -SNIP- First off, thanks for sharing your opinion in here 84. Hope we see more of you in this forum. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it's a little unfair to throw the entire religion of Islam under the bus that's being driven by a small percentage of radical Jihadists. Other Muslims are good, peace-loving people. With roles reversed, that'd be like saying all Christians are hateful bigots because Westboro baptists are. I'm usually no conservative apologist, but I'm proud of Sasse for having the integrity to publicly make this stand.

Again think of how he has responded to anyone who has questioned him. In the last CNN debate he attached the conservative talk show guy (I can't remember his name) who was asking. He smeared is low ratings into his face because he didn't like the question being asked. He did the same wt the Hispanic lady who asked questions. Trump distains everyone who does not agree wt him. That was Hugh Hewitt that he barbed, by the way. The question was regarding his tax returns, which he had told Hewitt last year on his show he'd release. Hewitt asked why he hadn't. I'm going to beat this dead horse some more, but in my unprofessional opinion, Trump has a serious case of Narcissistic personality disorder, or at least his persona does. This basically means that he has a very inflated sense of self, a need to regularly stroke his ego, be the center of attention and/or have a sense of entitlement, and cannot empathize easily with others. Relevant symptoms regarding retaliatory behavior: Emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem Antagonism, characterized by: a. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert; self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescending toward others. Any time anyone needles him or brings up a topic he feel slights him in any way, he will lash out as a way to preserve his own belief that anything he espouses is best, and he knows better than the other person. I cannot stress enough that these behavior problems are pathological (caused by an illness), and that pathological behavior of this nature from the president would be very dangerous.

On the same day Trump himself asked a protester "Are you from Mexico?" and his supporters ripped Bernie signs away from protesters as well. You can debate bringing opposite party signs in for a protest. But Trump is an ass, and he's enabling uncivil behavior from his supporters that poorly reflects on our country. Here's one you might like: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/us/midwest-trump-school-chants/index.html?eref=rss_latest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uu7Kzje-VU

He's done great things to shape the focus of the Democrats as a whole. I think it's a good thing for the party and Hillary (in the event that she were to win the nomination) that he ran. He brought to light ideas that would've been otherwise left in the dark. Reddit is a magnet for those Berniebros. They're very narrow minded and tend to work en masse to try to push Bernie's platform on people. They tend to not see the forest through the trees and seem somewhat politically naive, on the whole.

Funny you mention those two outlets. I've recently begun using the site Reddit much more often than I used to. It's a great outlet for news and generally interesting facts and things to help pass time.{ But /r/politics (the way that the site labels "subreddits," or the equivalent of the different forums on Huskerboard) has gone nuts upvoting (Reddit operates on a karma system where you can upvote or downvote a piece to either raise or drop its position in the subreddit's queue) stories from the likes of Breitbart, RT, and other rather nefarious media outlets. That particular sub, though you'd imagine it to be a good place to discuss politics in general, has turned into a gigantic Bernie Sanders hivemind. It is poorly moderated, and they upvote anti-Clinton or Pro-Bernie stories like hotcakes in order to get them to the front page of Reddit (constantly being turned over with the most upvoted stories). It's pretty funny how we can be so blind to bias sometimes when it's convenient for our chosen narrative.

Trump and his team trying to argue that the earphone is faulty is so pathetic. Tapper asked him about Duke and the KKK TWICE-- he clarified the question to Trump. Trump heard him just fine. He's addressed Duke in the past-- he definitely knows who he is. So, we're left with two options: 1) Trump doesn't feel like turning down the KKK's endorsement on live television-- which speaks to either his narcissism to not turn away ANY support or he had a deer in the headlights moment with that question -or- 2) He's a liar and he's simply trying to scrape up any argument he can to make it seem like he A) couldn't hear the question or B) doesn't know who Duke is or what the KKK is= Either way, it reads poorly for him. Either he doesn't know for SURE he's not a KKK sympathizer, or he's an idiot and doesn't know what they are. He's a liar, and this pattern of him trying to make claims in the moment that are so easily debunked by anyone with internet access is going to sink his campaign. EXAMPLE: I can sit here and draw up an attack ad on this clown. It's mind boggling.

I have never watched that show...is it any good? Never been a John Oliver guy either. Not that I dislike him, just never watched his show. He earned a fan after that, though. The media covers him because it gets ratings. A TON of the liberal media are pretty obviously anti-Trump if you watch them for a while'. They just can't be too overt about it, so as to appear to maintain objectivity. A couple of the ladies on CNN are less concerned with objectivity, and I applaud them for it. Oliver, likewise, has no such preoccupations. He absolutely called a spade a spade, in a way no one has thus far. Trump got owned.

I'd certainly posit that we've reached such a partisan age in US politics that many of us are prone to immediately reject opposite party ideology as incorrect or ludicrous without critically examining it. I know I certainly am guilty of this at times. It's very much ingrained in our affiliation at this point. Independents may be less prone to this by not choosing a side, but even they may get very set in their opinions about certain ideologies eventually. I think the point is it's important to continue to revisit our long-held beliefs periodically. Dont accept something as gospel just because your side does, or because it's been that way forever. Both are logical fallacies. Cool study. Good find Knapp.

The Donald has already proven he has a complete disregard for anything factual. I've been shouting the Politifact stat from the mountaintops to anyone I talk politics with, and I feel like too many people just let it roll off them. Objectively, factually, to any Drumpf supporter: He's a bullshitter. He lies to your face about most everything, and you're too stupid to realize it, or you just don't care. I'd rather not have people who don't care about facts select our next President. Regarding the libel bit, he wants to effectively silence opinions critical off him. That is quite obviously fascist, very Putin-esque, and completely at odds with the First Amendment and New York Times Co v. Sullivan. Ironically, that case covers libel AND defamation (slander), spoken word, so if Trump messed with it, he'd be opening his current persona up for incoming lawsuits, due to the sheer number of legally provable false statements he makes to try to defame people. Hope he wins the nom. I want to see him go down in flames on the biggest stage. Even so, part of me feels like he's just dicking with America and doesn't want to win.

I'm just going to leave this here... John Oliver gives Drumpf a taste of his own medicine

It's going to be trumpeted as a possibility if you've got a presidential candidate advocating for a ban on all Muslims and the killing of families of terrorists. It certainly brings the possibility to the forefront.

It'll never cease to amaze me that people see the word "billion" and ignore all other variables involved, such as baseline wealth. As far as I recall I don't think I've said I think what he did is easy. But I don't think his wealth shows that he's savvy or proves that he understands the economy for the middle class. I think not a small proportion of the population, given that they had the ambition to be filthy rich, could have done what he did given that they started off with the amount of $ that less than 400 people had in 1980. Trump got a "small loan" of $1 million and gained control of his father's company in 1971. This is probably where Rubio gets the $200 million dollar figure for what he was given. The latest figure has his current net worth somewhere between $4-4.5 billion. The Forbes 400 said $4.1 billion in their latest list, and in '82 estimated him worth $200 million. Of course, Donald likes to brag using exaggerated numbers-- in '82 he claimed he was worth "more than $500 million" and of course, no he says he's worth north of $10 billion. But we know he's full of crap, right? But, to your point, he's done a fairly mediocre job managing his money. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If he'd simply taken his fortune of $500 million in '82 and invested it in UNmanaged stock index funds (e.g., doesn't need actively managed, just reinvest the interest you make back into funds), he'd be worth $20 billion today. That's twice his claimed net worth and 5x the objective net worth. Basically, Donald would've been much better off doing next to nothing with his money than actively using it. Hemingway may be right about the executive experience bit, but I'd argue he's actually done a pretty shoddy job as an executive, and very basic numbers seem to back that up.

I know we're in the Repub thread, but even in here, this wall nonsense is just that... nonsense. Here are a few articles you should look over regarding the viability of such a wall: A description of Trump's wall from an engineer with good desriptions Here's why Trump doesn't fundamentally understand the implications or expedience of his immigration policy Trump's flawed view on economics as a whole The last two are particularly in step with my own personal thinking. I'm by no means an economist, but even I can tell when Trump talks about "losing to China, losing to Mexico, etc.," he's just totally wrong about the way trade with those country's work. I asked another person here and got no response. Tell me how Trump gets this wall built? Slapping an embargo on Mexico or imposing massive tariffs on them is going to be very harmful to OUR economy, despite the trade deficit he cites with them. Furthermore, there's no legitimate way to force Mexico to pay for the billions and billions of dollars it will take to build this wall. We've already had MULTIPLE Mexican presidents tell Trump to pound sand. So please, tell me where Trump gets the actual support to do this? He's acting like when he takes office, he's going to be able to do a lot of things unilaterally that he isn't actually going to be able to do. You've got a bunch of employees trying to tell a multi-billionaire that he doesn't understand finance... That's about as ridiculous as a bunch of employees trying to tell people that a man known as the mentor to the millionaires wrote a book that's full of sh**ty financial advice.... Ad hominem isn't exactly a strong counterargument.