Americans feel we are going in the wrong direction, why?

conservatives are just to gullible and uneducated, they will believe anything a raging white man will tell them

 

I've already pointed out that your conditions have been met.

So, now you're just going back on your deal!!

Why are you discussing this when you can't back up what you promise?

 

Under our "Hope and Change!" president ObamaCare is crashing and burning before the nation's eyes while citizens are being FORCED to purchase health care plans whether they want to or not. Under Obama the middle-east is on the verge of general warfare. Under Obama, Russia and the United States are once again sliding into Cold War posturing and it's looking like the same thing is happening between the U.S. and China. Under Obama the national economy is still a total crap pile. So yes, the nation feels that things are . . . bad.

No wonder Obama spent FIVE HUNDRED MILLION taxpayers' dollars on public relations in order to generate totally false polling returns making it look like he is sitting on a 60% approval rating. Money well spent, eh?

 

The effects of the immigration policy is exactly what the WSers and bankers want. Why? I don't really know, but our policy is based on what they want.
We would need no wall, not much of anything if we only enforced our laws and fined businesses who hire them.
But, it would nearly bankrupt some industries. Farming is one. So I doubt there will be any significant change to immigration.

As for healthcare, I think it should off load companies. I've never understood why it was part of a compensation package. But one needs a job just to be able get affordable insurance today.
In the end, I think a medicare type system is where we'll end up.

 

We are in this mess because when the restraints were taken off of the robber baron class, they became parasites upon the US, restructured our economic model to only benefit themselves, taking away the American dream and the ability of our people to prosper in the greatest numbers by their work. Slave labor wages that could be used over seas by change in policy, opening up the borders to cheap labor, open borders free trade was the device that our gov't allowed them to use. Afterall the creation of the largest middle class in world history did not happen with the current economic model, for FDR would not allow it. Corporations and banks were told to expect a reasonable profit, instead of maxing it out. This is what expanded the middle class and created the American dream. Then a change in philosophy was allowed to dictate economic policy and law. Friedman said the only responsibility of a corporation including banking was to max out profits and social responsibility no longer mattered. This change gives us the America of today.

The voters could have stopped it long ago when Perot tried to tell us what that giant sucking sound would be. But we have people voting with low IQs, far too many of them and a democratic republic will be sold out by politicians if too many low IQ voters, vote. For these voters do not understand enough in order to vote intelligently. So we have Hillary, an open borders free trader, war mongering neocon and the low IQ voters do not understand that open borders free trade and deregulating the robber barons created most of our problems today. And being low IQ voters they are supporting Clinton. And we cannot take their right to vote away and so we are at the mercy of far too many low IQ voters.

 

That seems too dismissive of the other side. Perhaps some are that way but I suspect there is an equal amount on the left as well. I think moderates tend to be the most educated. Gullibility is taken advantage of on both sides. Moderates can usually see through the personalities (especially the unauthentic ones like Hillary) and make the proper choice.

 

Thank you for providing a number of reasons why we should have unity in Washington, not the least of which is national security. Russia is moving a task force into the Med, including their only aircraft carrier. This no time to have a divided government, thereby weakening the Commander-in-Chief.

In addition, we need a united government to handle the health care problems and stimulate the economy while getting our troops out of the Mideast. Trying to stabilize that region for Iran's benefit (both Iraq and Syria are allies of Iran) is a costly fool's errand we don't need.

 

You are quite the pessimist, and I am really tired of people like you and Trump denigrating our country. That said, I recommend you vote a straight Republican ticket.

 

It certainly sounds like you agree with my main argument. It is long past time that we have a unified government. We've experienced stagnation in Washington for six years. I urge everyone to vote a straight ticket. If we end up with another divided government, we deserve every consequence of our actions.

 

No. Unification is NOT what we should want - AT ALL.

Unification implies that we all have the same opinion. That isn't Democracy. That isn't representation.

All we would end up with is one party using some central planning group of theirs to set policy and dictate that to its minions - who fear for their political lives if the don't agree, like is the case today.


What we need is for each congressman to focus on representing their constituents while negotiating and COMPROMISING - which is why there exists a congress rather than a dictator.

 

We have a representative form of government, and, of course, it is a democracy. If there is unity in Washington, that doesn't mean we all have the same opinion. It simply means the majority of the people decided on their own who will represent them .If those representatives screw up, we, the voters, fire them. Obamacare is a prime example. Democrats lost control of the House in 2010. They lost the Senate in 2014.

 

I think you missed the point.

Unification means that opinion of congressmen and president are the same. But, the USA is NOT in agreement, and the way democracy works is that we choose our representation to be those who actually represent us. Did I have to say that?

The problem we face is that congress is not doing their job. Congress exists to negotiate and compromise. We are not getting that. Instead, we have representatives who are torpedoed by their own party if they negotiate and compromise!!

Suggesting that we let our representation all be alike and spend the day rubber stamping policy from party central is NOT why we have a congress.

If a congressman refuses to negotiate and compromise, they should be voted out.

 

The Faux News crowd has proven themselves quite gullible. They drift from one fake scandal to the next, because they know the GOP is a dying political party that has nothing to offer. After 20 years of Hate Radio and Faux News, they're convinced America is a terrible place. They yearn to return to the days of Father Knows Best, and Leave it to Beaver. Their current champion is a game show host who borders on the psychopathic....

 

Unification simply means the executive branch and the legislative branch are of the same party. Ergo, they are more likely to agree on important matters than if the opposite is true. It certainly does not mean that the President and the Congress will always be of the same opinion.

Your second statement reinforces my argument. The fact of the matter is the Republican Congress is unwilling to allow the Democratic President to accomplish anything. There is no compromise or negotiation. Congress simply refuses to cooperate with the President. Case in point, Obama chose a moderate to replace Justice Scalia. The Republican Senate won't even consider the Obama appointee. This has to end. We have had six years of stagnation in Washington.

"Suggesting that we let our representation all be alike and spend the day rubber stamping policy from party central is NOT why we have a congress." That statement is ludicrous and you know it.

Why do you favor weakening our Commander-in-Chief in the face of foreign threats? Russia is getting very bold. She is interfering with our election, and she has moved a taks force into the Med which includes her lone aircraft carrier. This is not the time to weaken our defenses.

- - - Updated - - -

Time to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

 

They aren't there to agree with each other.

We have congress in order for a wider range of concerns gets addressed as well as possible through a process of negotiation and compromise.

The ultimate version of your direction is to delete the legislative branch.

You point to the dysfunction related to our courts. But, the answer to that is not to have an all Republican congress and executive - it's to elect congressmen that know what their job is, and have the fundamental respect for our nation that leads them to doing their job.


If you want to oppose Russia, I would point out that you need to campaign against Putin's featherweight buddy, Trump.

 

Amen to this.

 

Believe me, I have been.

 

"Today, our congressmen, can’t agree on the most basic decisions necessary to keep this country running: the size of an operating budget; repairing our vital infrastructure; considering, reviewing, and appointing federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. Instead, our congresspeople, while in D.C. (for 2 or 3 days a week) seem only to seek photo ops in order to push their own agenda; trash talk the opposition; talk only to members of their own parties; vote pay raises for themselves; then, they dash back home before anyone can ask, AGAIN, why they never get anything done. We have a sick, overly partisan, dysfunctional, government. And all of this is seriously damaging the country. Then, of course, there is the money their corporate owners throw around...."

The reader is reminded the F.F. never envisioned political parties. That said, the above para is all the more reason to vote a straight ticket. The reason our representatives are partisan is that they are frustrated that nothing is getting done and an urgent desire not to make the President of the opposite party look good. All that is solved with unity in Washington.

 

Of course, in no way am I suggesting or implying that we abolish the legislative branch. That is ludicrous. I am suggesting that an unified government is necessary to resolve the many problems our nation faces and combined front against our enemies. I mentioned the inability of our government to appoint a ninth justice. I could add the foibles over the years in passing a budget. In October 2013 the federal government shutdown because of partisan differences.

According to you, all this is perfectly okay, including disunity in the face of our enemies. The latter has been true for six years. In the meantime ISIS and Russia have made steady gains. For the first time in memory Russia has sent a task force which includes their lone aircraft carrier into the Med.

Vote a straight ticket. Don't disable your own government.

 

According to me, you fail in guessing at what I think is "perfectly OK". You should just read my posts for that.

When we have an actual threat we come together in nearly total unity STRONGLY. Look at 911, which was horrible, but not an existential threat.

Right now, our external threats are focused far more on others, not on us.

Suggesting this election is about homeland security is nonsense. The top two issues are economy and immigration.

Neither party is going to stop Russia or China from moving their fleets in international waters. And, neither party has suggested that would be either important or possible.

In fact, if you are interested in that you would certainly NOT vote for Trump, who has been exceptionally easy on Trump with the connections in his own campaign, his touting Putin as a real leader, as promoting Russian cyber crime, as totally forgetting what Russia has been doing in Eastern Europe, as ignoring their influence in Syria, as suggesting he would fire our generals for not agreeing with him, etc., etc. Picking a foreign policy IDIOT is not in the interests of American security, as our military has stated. These are areas where Clinton is well known to be strong.


And, back on topic, promoting the idea of one party in order to rubber stamp policy (instead of promoting representation of constituencies of voters followed by policy debate and compromise) is absolutely unAmerican.

 

"In fact, if you are interested in that you would certainly NOT vote for Trump, who has been exceptionally easy on Trump with the connections in his own campaign, his touting Putin as a real leader, as promoting Russian cyber crime, as totally forgetting what Russia has been doing in Eastern Europe, as ignoring their influence in Syria, as suggesting he would fire our generals for not agreeing with him, etc., etc. Picking a foreign policy IDIOT is not in the interests of American security, as our military has stated. These are areas where Clinton is well known to be strong."

I strongly agree with that statement. I strongly disagree with your last statement. You espoused great ideals, and I wish you were right. But we live in the real world. In times past the two parties could negotiate and compromise. I wish a return to that practice, but the fact remains that the two parties have not been able to compromise since Obama took office. During the Bush era, his second administration, Democrats would not work with the Republican President. Indeed, they wanted to impeach him.

That is why Americans feel we are going in the wrong direction. We elect our representatives from the President on down to solve the many problems that beset our nation. For the past twelve years our representatives have proven incapable of working out solutions to our problems.

So there is your fantasy of everyone working together in Washington. Then there is the real world. There is a way out of this mess we are in. Vote a straight ticket. If we end up with a President of one party and either house of Congress with another party, the partisan difference we have now will become more acute as we proceed to dig ourselves deeper in the hole, literally speaking.

My solution, stop digging.

 

You are suggesting that the failure of congress to allow our congressmen to represent us means we must vote for congressmen who don't represent us.

Does that make ANY SENSE whatsoever?

Obviously not.

What it means is that we need to campaign against those who are causing our congress to fail.

 

Fox said today the most reliable poll in terms of picking the next President is the ABC/Washington Post poll. The momentum seems to be swinging back to Hillary. The ABC poll had Trump ahead by one point two days ago. Today Hillary is ahead by three points.

The Real Clear average has Hillary up by 2.4 points. That figure does not have a plus or minus factor because it is an average of all polls. Hillary is up by 2.4, period. Tossing out the L.A. Times poll which has a weird tracking system, there is not one poll in the Real Clear polls that has Trump ahead.

And that is the National Average. The more important polls are the individual states. That is where Hillary has a real advantage. Trump can win all the states leaning Republican, all the toss-up states, and he will still lose the election. A lot of attention is being given to Florida and N. Carolina. Hillary doesn't need either to win the election.

 

The fib that leftists are telling that Fox News supports Trump is hilarious. They have been against his campaign from the get-go because he directly threatens RINO status-quo existence which in turn threatens Fox News, the home of the RINO. So Fox talking about the infallibility of the ABC/Washington Post poll ignores the fact that all three organizations WANT Trump to lose.

 

He is going to lose. The New York Times reports, But even if he wins Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, Utah, North Carolina, Florida and New Hampshire, he's still short of a victory.

He's not assured to win any of those states, to be clear — although he's a clear favorite in Iowa and Utah at this point. He has trailed in more live interview polls of North Carolina and Florida than he has led, although the national race has tightened since many were taken.

But he would still need to win one of the following states: Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, or perhaps New Mexico or Minnesota.

Of all of these states, the only one where Mr. Trump has really been close in the polls is Nevada.



- - - Updated - - -

Trump's path to victory is so remote that some conservative pundits for weeks now have been theorizing that many Trump supporters are concerned about admitting that they intend to vote for Trump. Subsequently, the pundits say, the polls are all wrong. Trump has far more support than the polls show, so the story goes. This does not speak well of Trump. If by some monstrous quirk of nature this is true, then these voters are ashamed of their support for Trump.

There are, of course, serious doubts that any of this is true. Every responsible pollster has ridiculed the idea. It is simply smoke and mirrors on the part of some conservative pundits who seem unable to accept reality. Trump is going to lose.