Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
Honestly all these issues everyone is talking about goes to a deeper problem facing the United States. What it all comes down to is Americanism, the Constitution, and the belief in a free society, where all are equal, and how these ideals face challenges in the 21st century.
As an example, Fox News and CNN are free to publish stories as they see fit, as is any American, but we can clearly see that media is definitely bias, spins things in whichever way benefits their beliefs, and thus infringes on the free thought of Americans as a whole. Facebook and twitter are free to exist as companies, yet they, as they have admitted, do in fact censor American citizens however they choose.
Americans have the right to bear arms, but it can infringe on the right of others to live, but simultaneously, not allowing Americans to bear arms denies them the right to resist tyranny.
What has happened with all these issues is exactly what Russia/China have been planning and accomplishing since the end of WW2.
It's clear that Russia/Chinas goal was to try and convince and trick Americans into believing that there is weaknesses in our political, societal, and cultural systems.
It seems that their efforts have far succeed their initial goals. They have gone beyond tricking us, and have actually shown us the limit to which many of our beliefs and principles can go.
Can anyone on this forum truly say that regardless of the outcome of the next Presidential election, that it will be fair or unaltered? Not affected by foreign powers? Not affected by illegal voting? Not affected by vote changes by machine or human?
The biggest issue facing America is not healthcare, or guns, or taxes, or immigration, or whatever other same issues we have been talking about for the past 150 years.
The biggest issue facing America, is how do we continue to exist and fight for our rights, our freedoms, when there are so many factors playing against that which made us strong in the past?
How do we strive to be the best when a country like China thinks in plans 100s of years ahead, and can micromanage their populace, can do scientific research that might be inhumane, and unethical, but advances their society in some way. Or with Russia who similarly controls their populace?
To me it seems that American politics has come crashing down, and I don't see for how much longer the current system we have in place will last. I will always fight for the freedoms and rights given to us, but I think a complete revamping is needed. We should of course remain a Republic, but we need to adapt to the 21st century challenges of foreign powers, AI, scientific advances, and societal changes.
While everyone might have an opinion on Trump, without him I don't think these issues would have been raised.
The cat is out of the bag, Trump can win, Warren can win, but America has already been changed forever.
As an example, Fox News and CNN are free to publish stories as they see fit, as is any American, but we can clearly see that media is definitely bias, spins things in whichever way benefits their beliefs, and thus infringes on the free thought of Americans as a whole. Facebook and twitter are free to exist as companies, yet they, as they have admitted, do in fact censor American citizens however they choose.
Americans have the right to bear arms, but it can infringe on the right of others to live, but simultaneously, not allowing Americans to bear arms denies them the right to resist tyranny.
What has happened with all these issues is exactly what Russia/China have been planning and accomplishing since the end of WW2.
It's clear that Russia/Chinas goal was to try and convince and trick Americans into believing that there is weaknesses in our political, societal, and cultural systems.
It seems that their efforts have far succeed their initial goals. They have gone beyond tricking us, and have actually shown us the limit to which many of our beliefs and principles can go.
Can anyone on this forum truly say that regardless of the outcome of the next Presidential election, that it will be fair or unaltered? Not affected by foreign powers? Not affected by illegal voting? Not affected by vote changes by machine or human?
The biggest issue facing America is not healthcare, or guns, or taxes, or immigration, or whatever other same issues we have been talking about for the past 150 years.
The biggest issue facing America, is how do we continue to exist and fight for our rights, our freedoms, when there are so many factors playing against that which made us strong in the past?
How do we strive to be the best when a country like China thinks in plans 100s of years ahead, and can micromanage their populace, can do scientific research that might be inhumane, and unethical, but advances their society in some way. Or with Russia who similarly controls their populace?
To me it seems that American politics has come crashing down, and I don't see for how much longer the current system we have in place will last. I will always fight for the freedoms and rights given to us, but I think a complete revamping is needed. We should of course remain a Republic, but we need to adapt to the 21st century challenges of foreign powers, AI, scientific advances, and societal changes.
While everyone might have an opinion on Trump, without him I don't think these issues would have been raised.
The cat is out of the bag, Trump can win, Warren can win, but America has already been changed forever.
Last edited:
This thread needs to stop with all the talking points. Most of you are just talking past each other anyway. The diehards won't change their minds. 25% of each side are diehards.
The other 50% are open to discussion of the issues at hand. I vote based on the issues not just party affiliation. I truly liked Howard Schultz. I can live with a Tulsi Gabbard. I do not like Donald Trump even though I agree with him on 90% of the issues.
I don't dislike Warren personally, but I don't agree with Warren on 90% of the issues.
The other 50% are open to discussion of the issues at hand. I vote based on the issues not just party affiliation. I truly liked Howard Schultz. I can live with a Tulsi Gabbard. I do not like Donald Trump even though I agree with him on 90% of the issues.
I don't dislike Warren personally, but I don't agree with Warren on 90% of the issues.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It’s an interesting point you raise. The extreme polarization along party lines has led to a system where total paralysis exists in the US unless one party has the WH, SCOTUS, and an almost-supermajority in the senate. We are rapidly approaching a point where if we have another 2008, I wonder if enough people could come together to even pass a necessary, country-saving bailout / TARP etc. If not, I suspect in the future our system may become a parliamentary one where one party has an absolute mandate to do as they please until their agenda is completed or until they’re thrown out like bums.
Maybe mikkel can translate TrumpLie-ese for me and tell me what the right wing conspiracy theory is regarding Biden and China...
www.gq.com
Trump Blurts Out an Impeachable Offense on the White House Lawn
In the midst of a trade war with China, President Trump wants President Xi to look into the family of a 2020 presidential frontrunner.
Exactly correct. Change needs to happen, we have to fix things now.
I think history is often key in forging forward, so here are some quotes we should all think on.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison
We as a country have never faced so much foreign influence. We cannot forget that to live in such a free society, we must be willing to accept that some rights will come at the cost of life, but as such we are able to maintain the beacon of liberty, because without liberty there is NO life.
For the Trek fans
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably."
I think this quote is self explanatory in this day and age. We have to tread carefully. Every idea is worth listening to, and every idea is worth evaluating.
They weren't "driven" to the Democratic Party; they're naturally drawn to it, because they come from redistributionist cultures. The solution would have been hard immigration restriction from the very beginning - not idiotic cave-ins like Reagan's amnesty.
Here's something to chew on: it's not conservative to embrace a tsunami of immigration that transforms the entire country's culture in the span of a couple of decades. Immigration can be beneficial, but it's fair to expect that it occur at a pace that allows assimilation of the immigrants to their new country's values (and not the other way around). Of course, the Republican leadership is not conservative. They're corporatists, just like the leaders of the Democrats and, increasingly, the Democratic rank-and-file.
I'm sure we can trust Warren's position - until the next op-ed in the WaPo or NYT on foreign policy comes out. Then we'll know how she really feels. Until the following op-ed comes out - then we'll really know (I promise!!).
Kinda like Trump's positions on healthcare and taxes.
My 2 personal favorite Trump lies on video
Trump: I Believe In Raising Taxes on the Wealthy, "Including Myself"
During his town hall event Thursday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said that if he became president, he would advocate raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, including himself. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC: Do you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy? DONALD TRUMP...
This was a big fear when this country was founded, that the Republic would be corrupted by "commerce." It has and will continue to do so until we change it. The question is how do have a free Republic that is not influenced by commerce, but still allows a free market.
Kinda like Trump's positions on healthcare and taxes.
My 2 personal favorite Trump lies on video
Trump: I Believe In Raising Taxes on the Wealthy, "Including Myself"
During his town hall event Thursday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said that if he became president, he would advocate raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, including himself. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC: Do you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy? DONALD TRUMP...www.realclearpolitics.com
You can keep linking this video over and over and over in this forum, but you continue to deflect from addressing the issues raised by other posters.
There is no doubt that Trump has many negatives, but the fact is that the same is true for almost all the mainstream democratic candidates.
What is your solution to the political turmoil in America? Do you really think we can just continue on with the current political system we have in place?
Elect a moderate?
The issue I have is that Trump supporters think he is somehow special and above politicians and really tells things like they are sticks to his word.
Clearly not
Answer me this, if this so-called liberalism is so bad—why it that just 9-10 liberal states makeup over 2/3 of the country’s GDP? Or that the top 50 universities in the nation, without exception, are in either democratic states or cities? Or that the exclusive hubs for both technology and innovation are D cites or states? That the central points for both finance and market capitalization are D states or cites? That D states and cities have both the youngest and most diverse populations? That in terms of income and wages, D states and cites lead the nation? That they are also the most insured and healthiest? And finally, you ever see folks go to Topeka, Lubbock or Fresno for a long awaited vacation —spoiler alert—no. No, they head to San Francisco, NYC, Seattle....think about why is that?
D
deleted162650
Look at what the uber liberal policies have done to the once great/beautiful city of San Francisco. They got a little tooooo tolerant.
What moderate? Does such a thing really exist?
People have had the blind fold taken off, we see what most politicians are, and the ones who are actually good won't get the support of the parties. The thing is people might see things for what they are, but they will still vote for who the party puts in front of them.
That second point might be partially correct, but I can tell you that a big piece that is missing from that is the fact that most politicians, and right now democrats, are painting a picture that they are incorruptible, and the solution is to elect them. The problem is just like i said in the previous post, which is that they are just as corrupt. The difference is that Trump doesn't have a filter, he doesn't pretend to be something he is not, or at least he doesn't try to hide who he is. The same is definitely not true of other politicians.
And you couldn't give me a little more thought on a possible solution? I truly am interested in what you and others think could be done.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It is certainly not perfect, but I much prefer that to say Wichita....
I just literally provided you two examples of Trump's bald face lies on the campaign regarding two major issues.
I'd argue he's much worse than the average politician in terms of the lying and farther away from the solution than just sticking with the status quo
Beyond that, I do think we need someone moderate.... Like a McCain who can bridge gaps and try to find common ground. We almost had immigration reform in 2013 until boenhner killed it in the house
Wichita is actually surprisingly nice
So much money and success the houses have become too expensive. A travesty.
True, unless you bought something back in the day. Both W and D did residency at UCSF (d actually went to med school as well). So, I know the city very very well.
You misunderstand. Yes he lies, but who he presents himself to be through his actions, how his words are coarse, are exactly who Trump is, an often vulgar, politically incorrect, impulsive person.
Let's compare that to almost any other politician, who most certainly is tippy toeing around issues, instead of showing the people who they really are, and what they are about.
People like Trump because he is not politically correct.
I don't follow any of the candidates that well, but why aren't people like Tulsi or Andrew Yang receiving more limelight? Someone like Andrew Yang would probably win from what I hear.
Last edited:
Yang is probably the smartest of the bunch and is ahead of the trends on things like AI, Ubi etc. But he also understands the folly of wacky leftist proposals like a wealth tax. He probably is just too smart and won't connect with the average voter though.
Andrew Yang says the wealth tax proposals from Sanders and Warren could be a 'disaster in practice'
"I understand the spirit of it and the intent of it. But I agree that it would be somewhere between problematic and a disaster in practice," Yang told CNBC's John Harwood.
He likes to joke around that he's the exact opposite of Trump and I can't disagree.
I think when AI gets really good enough for full self driving including big rigs, that's when you'll see a real populist revolt on the streets from all the unemployed delivery drivers and truckers. Can't say ubi is the worst idea in the world
He would literally take the entire democratic vote, and the moderates, and probably some of Trumps base. I don't see a reason why he's not already the front runner, other than the fact that the democrats are purposefully leaving him behind.Yang is probably the smartest of the bunch and is ahead of the trends on things like AI, Ubi etc. But he also understands the folly of wacky leftist proposals like a wealth tax. He probably is just too smart and won't connect with the average voter though.
Andrew Yang says the wealth tax proposals from Sanders and Warren could be a 'disaster in practice'
"I understand the spirit of it and the intent of it. But I agree that it would be somewhere between problematic and a disaster in practice," Yang told CNBC's John Harwood.www.cnbc.com
He likes to joke around that he's the exact opposite of Trump and I can't disagree.
I think when AI gets really good enough for full self driving including big rigs, that's when you'll see a real populist revolt on the streets from all the unemployed delivery drivers and truckers. Can't say ubi is the worst idea in the world
No surprise, it's a bigger city than I realized when I visited (400k).
I wonder what the line is population wise when cities go from Democrat to Republican.
I mentioned it earlier, Yang's main plan, a $1000/month welfare check, excludes illegal immigrants. Because Yang is targeting illegal immigrants as less deserving than poor white Americans, his plan will be considered racist at best, and white supremacist at worst.
If his plan includes illegal immigrants because of this, it will never pass, and his entire platform is gone. Unelectable.
I think he was referring to the huge homeless population, the open-air drug use and the poo problem.
In all seriousness though Kansas shouldn’t be held up as some beacon to strive toward. The policy decisions of the last decade have been a failed experiment in conservative economics. It is only due to the repeal of such policies that the state has rebounded.
D
deleted162650
Not the problem I was referring to. But hey, perhaps you like the doorstep of your $3000/mo. studio apartment covered in bum sh** every morning?
Not at all. Clearly SF has major problems, restrictive zoning and geography have not helped.
Btw, there's an app and a map for that
This Map Shows San Francisco Is Covered in Human Poop
Here's a poop map of San Francisco.
'SnapCrap' app invites SF residents to report feces on sidewalks
Sean Miller is the brains behind the app and told NBC Bay Area he was inspired to start...
www.sfchronicle.com
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted162650
Not at all. Clearly SF has major problems, restrictive zoning and geography have not helped.
Btw, there's an app and a map for that
This Map Shows San Francisco Is Covered in Human Poop
Here's a poop map of San Francisco.www.thrillist.com
'SnapCrap' app invites SF residents to report feces on sidewalks
Sean Miller is the brains behind the app and told NBC Bay Area he was inspired to start...
Maybe they should hire Giuliani to clean up SF the way he did NYC???
Not sure he still has the sharp mind to do something like that anymore. He's been embarrassing himself quite a bit the last week
Rudy is a shell of himself. At this point, it would be a fairly lofty goal for him to be an incoherent, bumbling, clown car of a pillock git. For all his previous accomplishments, which are plentiful, every appearance his makes on TV/cable he is an utter embarrassment for both him and the R party...
I'm not sure how the GDP argument has any merit whatsoever. Those liberal states with booming cities also have enormous QOL- and wealth-divides between the "wealthy" and poor. Have you ever lives in NYC, LA, SF, etc.? Sure, they work out great for the people who live DINK or well-paid professional lives, but the QOL for the blue-collar workers is comparatively terrible. Red states/areas tend to be equalizers in this respect. Hence why the populist in me finds those areas attractive (besides the fact that I prefer fresh air).
There are a number of reasons why academics lean liberal, but you should understand that this is a 20th- and 21st-century phenomenon. It's mostly because academics are soft, and liberalism is a modern version of chest-puffing... without actually having the pecs to puff out. Science and data do not support what we consider "liberalism" (I'd argue that environmentalism is fundamentally conservative). People who lean "liberal" tend to be relatively divorced from what might be considered the raw realities of life.
"Youngest and most diverse populations" - there's a lot to break down here. Young people are not as wise as older people, so, while we would all like to retain our physical youth, the opinions and preferences of young people shouldn't be of great consideration.
As income and wages go... your list of vaunted paradises doesn't seem to match up at all with lists like this one - and that's even with a bias toward metro areas. The Q isn't how much you're grossing on income - the Q is what the value of your income is.
Regarding insurance and health: you do have a point on this, though a number of the demographics that tend to be "gimmes" for left-wing politicians also happen to enjoy worse health and insurance coverage stats. So, it's not exactly cut and dry.
Your last Q is silly. Not only is the premise flawed (there are plenty of people who prefer to go for vacations to natural settings), but there tend to be more "activities" and attractions in large cities, practically by definition. Are you from a large city? Because, having lived in both large cities and small towns, I've learned that the assumption on the part of urbanites that the yokels are dreaming of excursions to the gaudy lights, garbage bags, and off-off-off-Broadway shows of the cities is simply hubris.
Those who can - do. Those who can't - teach.
Total GDP in a liberal city is irrelevant? And you're bringing up arguments about wealth inequality that usually belong to Bernie and Warren?
You can't argue on a national level that a rising tide (rising overall GDP) lifts all boats (trickles down), and that wealth inequality isn't a problem, and then try to use the exact opposite of that argument as a criticism of liberal cities. Unless, you know, you're trying to be a hypocrite.
It's also laughable that you say red states/areas are the equalizers when it comes to blue collar folks even though red states are exactly the places that have systematically destroyed unions, benefits and pension, and minimum wage with their right to work nonsense. Meanwhile, the big cities (for better or worse) are the places leading the charge for a $15 MW and better benefits
Last edited:
One, I have lived in all of the above cites, over a decade each in NYC and SF, and in fact own homes in both NYC and San Francisco. You are absolutely wrong about first generation folks in larger metropolitan areas suffering, as most have much better overall second generation outcomes -I suggest a tutorial for you on one of the leading labor economist on this very issue: see—Amazon product ASIN 0544028058
My point to youth is more towards a growing and sustainable tax base and where jobs are located. Conversely, it reflects switching demographic trends and regional brain drain—which is basically a R problem.
As for academia and the cultivation of scholarship it is not just esoteric and erudite liberal pursuits, but has a direction nexus and intersectionality with both commerce and economic productivity. Look at the most educated areas of the country, DC, Boston, Bay Area, they all lean D and they all are leaders in economic productivity.
The bigger picture I am painting, is that for all the ills of Democratic Party and there are more than a few, one of the of the basic objectives of political ideology is how it builds and cultivates a society. Clearly, in that regard, from jobs to education to innovation to culture and how we provide opportunities to our next generation, Ds have been more productive to creating a platform for many of these societal elements.
Reminds me of that scene in Back to School when Rodney Dangerfield is duking it out with the professor.
While you are big on pithy platitudes, if you are looking for facts, your assertions don’t really hold water, the ten most visited cities in the US and not a R among them....see:The Most Visited Cities In The US
???
When have I argued that GDP is my primary political consideration, or that wealth inequality isn't a problem? And I don't care if those arguments "usually belong to Bernie and Warren." I vote based on issues, not based on people. You'll find (if you care to look) that there's substantial crossover between Sanders and Trump voters WRT economic issues.
And you missed the point about equalizers. My point is that in less-dense areas, the QOL differences between solid blue-collar workers and the professional classes aren't nearly as stark as they are in NYC, where you have $200/entree restaurants 50 feet from subway stops filled with people who have to commute to and from the outer boroughs every day because they've been priced out of Manhattan.
I acknowledge that demographic and migratory trends are disadvantageous to Republicans and conservatives (note that the two aren't synonymous). There are solutions to this, but they require a degree of open-mindedness on the part of left-wingers, which appears to be an idea that's DOA, considering the harassment showered on people with conservative ideas in the academic sphere. Espouse left-wing politics in a med school or law school application essay/interview, and you'll be courted, but do the same with positive conservative politics, and your app will be thrown in the trash. I've seen it firsthand. The Left, through an (admittedly) excellently thought-out long-term strategy, controls the levers for economic success, and the path to a stable upper-middle-class lifestyle practically forces one to adopt so-called "progressive" positions. Either that or shut up and keep your head down while left-wing politics are given free reign on the campus, which amounts to the same thing - enforced advancement of liberalism.
So while the Left used to advocate on behalf of the poor, the poor are now a punch line to the Left's late-night comedians/news anchors. "They took err jerbs!!" cackle the left-wingers, even as anesthesiologists worry about CRNAs, rad oncs demand a tightening of the labor market, (a few) radiologists fret about AI, and FM/primary care docs discuss the expansion of PA and NP autonomy.
Can I ask
Can I ask how old you are—and I’m not being facetious? I am a longtime partner at fairly large law firm and I can tell you that most of my colleagues and good friends are conservative. This is equally true of many of my colleagues at other firms, so where you got this notion that the left controls such circles is just entirely wrong and I’ve been practicing for over 30 years. Same with my wife’s medical group where she is a partner, I would safely say that there is an equal distribution of the right and left. As for the academy, I formerly taught at the college of Eli (look it up) and while it was certainly progressive, there was no shortage of academics with conservative leanings and opinions.
Can I ask how old you are—and I’m not being facetious? I am a longtime partner at fairly large law firm and I can tell you that most of my colleagues and good friends are conservative. This is equally true of many of my colleagues at other firms, so where you got this notion that the left controls such circles is just entirely wrong and I’ve been practicing for over 30 years. Same with my wife’s medical group where she is a partner, I would safely say that there is an equal distribution of the right and left. As for the academy, I formerly taught at the college of Eli (look it up) and while it was certainly progressive, there was no shortage of academics with conservative leanings and opinions.
No one said GDP was your primary anything. It was brought up in relation to the point that part of what makes liberal metros great is their high overall productivity, and you essentially pupu'ed that their high GDP has any relevance at all because wealth inequality is an issue. That is a really dumb argument, because the counterfactual is that liberal metros could conceivably have really poor economic output, and then you could be spouting off something silly about how conservative management would've created better economic conditions.
As far as Trump and Bernie both having some appeal to economic populists, look at Trump"s campaign rhetoric to appeal to that demographic vs who actually benefited from his garbage tax bill. Now, to make matters worse he is going to devastate manufacturing with his trade war. The only economic populists who still believe in his message are extremely low information voters.
As far as your criticism of Manhattan, it's no secret that as a city becomes wildly successful, the cost of living goes up. It's crazy that the average income in Manhattan is less than 100k when the average apartment is over 1.2 mil- unfortunately, that's sometimes the nature of capitalism. However, with your complaints you are essentially making a socialist argument for state price controls in regard to real estate, rent, food, and utilities. Most of the mayors in these areas are aware of the inequality and are trying to enact regulations which help ease this burden. As someone who just moved from Manhattan after finishing fellowship a couple years ago, I don't necessarily disagree with you or the unintentionally socialist point you're making, but give it a rest with all your talk about soft liberals and their ideology if you're going to whine about the fact that some places are expensive and some people have a lot more money than others.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Given what you've written in the last few posts, I can confidently say that I'm not as old as you, which is material; the Left has become far more deeply entrenched in the academy since you attended law school, though law has been a "liberal" profession for a while. And firms don't control the field - at least, they don't control entry into it. To be clear, when I say "conservative", I don't mean support for low tax rates. You can speak to your experiences, and I will speak to mine, from college to med school to residency (and soon fellowship, though that's much more work-related, and politics become less important as one finishes training).
I think that most people who read this will relate better to my POV on the academic environment.
Except for the fact that I has a faculty position in the last five years...
If $1000 per month, free healthcare, increased wages, and total debt relief are the punch line, please please please make me the joke.
QOL and economic division details are relevant - perhaps especially relevant in your former home of Manhattan, where Wall Street is a large GDP driver. Now, I know that we all love savvy investment strategies in anesthesiology and radiology, but I can't say that I have a lot of love for the finance types and their daily work mindset. And don't argue based on a hypothetical; it's weak and impotent.
Not going to defend Trump on that. My suspicion is that he went along with that to mollify the corporatists in his party, and I didn't approve of it.
Did I make a "socialist" argument for state price controls? I pointed out a reality - how you view it is up to you. I don't mind that some people are making 50k/day. I'm pointing out a phenomenon that's been understood for generations: when you have massive wealth divisions in close proximity, it's a recipe for societal instability.
- Status
