I have believed that democratic principles have been eroding for quite some time. Trump is not the first, and certainly won't be the last

freeman3 wrote:Kind of self-evident...like the sun coming up in the morning.

Hillary lost--and that's a win for America, even if we have to deal with Trump.

rickyp wrote:fate

He won.

Clinton lost.

Everyone lost when Trump won.

My 401K didn't.

fate

My 401K didn't.

You must be a big fan of Obama then, since most of your investment growth would have been in his years..

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jon ... t-10-years

rickyp wrote:fate

My 401K didn't.

You must be a big fan of Obama then, since most of your investment growth would have been in his years..

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jon ... t-10-years

Not true and irrelevant.

Percentage-wise, over a short period of time, I've done very well thanks.

You said "everyone lost." No, not even close. Hillary Clinton is, despite your irrational exuberance, not "everyone."

We'll see how the Dow looks in 4 years...it's a little early. What I don't understand is how dumb some of his statements regarding trade and NATO were on his last trip. Obviously, he has some very smart people around him...but apparently he ignores them.

freeman3 wrote:We'll see how the Dow looks in 4 years...it's a little early. What I don't understand is how dumb some of his statements regarding trade and NATO were on his last trip. Obviously, he has some very smart people around him...but apparently he ignores them.

There's a lot of stupidity running around.

For example, when a CNN anchor is asked about "veniality" (maybe Sununu meant "venality"? In any event, he clearly meant evidence of a crime) concerning Trump and Russia, she whiffs--after spending half an hour "investigating" the Russia/Trump connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTUD003UyCQ

Go to the 6 minute mark and tell me she doesn't get owned.

An article from the Atlantic on whether Trump will destroy the presidency. That headline sounds biased but the writer makes a balanced appraisal of the effect that President Trumpis is having on the presidency, on our institutions, on presidential norms but also how he has impacted norms of those in opposition to him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... cy/537921/

freeman3 wrote:An article from the Atlantic on whether Trump will destroy the presidency. That headline sounds biased but the writer makes a balanced appraisal of the effect that President Trumpis is having on the presidency, on our institutions, on presidential norms but also how he has impacted norms of those in opposition to him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... cy/537921/

Opening . . . comparing him to Tony Soprano . . . oh yes, practically screams "Balanced!"

FDR . . . controversial? He did try to pack the court! He bent and mutilated the Constitution on a multitude of occasions, but he's a blessed saint of the Left, so . . .

Trump’s initial executive order on immigration—a temporary ban on entry for people from seven Muslim-majority countries that were not obvious sources of terrorist activity inside the United States—was widely seen as his first step toward authoritarianism.

Sorry, but that's swill. "Widely seen" must mean "all my liberal buddies and I agree." Oh, and he just got a stay of the 9th Circuit and the case will be in the USSC this fall. I would not count on him losing, unless the Supreme Court wants to rewrite the Constitution.

Sorry, that was only "balanced" because it didn't call for Trump to be hung.

The guy just about alleged there is a deep state against Trump. He took shots at both sides. As for his claim that Trump's travel ban was seen as a first step towards authoritarianism...He balanced that with criticism of lower courts for paying too little attention to Trump's proffered national security concerns. The guy worked for the Bush Administration. So he called Trump out on his authoritarian tendencies...you don't think he does?

weird ... I'm listening to GWB on the radio and he sounds like an elder statesmen.

I know. It is weird. He has to be thanking his lucky stars that someone as bad as Trump came along to make him look good by comparison...

freeman3 wrote:I know. It is weird. He has to be thanking his lucky stars that someone as bad as Trump came along to make him look good by comparison...

Nah, that was a lead-pipe cinch 6 months into the Obama Administration.

That said, watching General Kelly today, I thought, "Why can't we get a man like that as President?"

Having just read a good-sized bio of US Grant, I am again disappointed in the quality of candidates we get 150 years later. Grant never wanted to be POTUS. However, I think he might have put his wife (whom he loved dearly) on ice to get rid of Andrew Johnson.

We need genuinely patriotic and able candidates. They've been in scarce supply.

(Before anyone gets "triggered," by "patriotic" I simply mean someone who puts country before self)

Grant was a great general...not a great president.

That said, it does seem like we're not getting great presidents. Maybe its the enormous scrutiny that comes with public life nowadays weeding out good candidates and also the necessity of coming across well on TV overriding more important characteristics, as well. It's really put hard to exactly pinpoint what it is though. Of course, the Republican candidates have been godawful recently

freeman3 wrote:Grant was a great general...not a great president.

I wouldn't argue he was a "great President," but I would argue he was a good one in difficult times.

An aside: I had no idea the Dominican Republic was ever considered/pushed for statehood until I read this book. Very interesting.

That said, it does seem like we're not getting great presidents. Maybe its the enormous scrutiny that comes with public life nowadays weeding out good candidates and also the necessity of coming across well on TV overriding more important characteristics, as well. It's really put hard to exactly pinpoint what it is though. Of course, the Republican candidates have been godawful recently

In Grant's day, campaigning for oneself was considered bad form. Wouldn't that be grand?

I think TV is a major issue. And, I think the parties, candidly, are too corrupt to give us good candidates.

One more sidenote: Grant was the most popular man in the US for 4 election cycles. He nearly received the GOP nomination in 1880 without pursuing it.