Originally Posted by Guest

Your name must be on the voter rolls (registration) in order to vote - no matter what state.

You tell the person your name, address and date of birth and they hand you a ballot and you take the ballot to the booth and vote.

If you do not get a ballot, how do you vote? Don't step on yours - oh, too late.

Duhhh! You are so naive. But, keep repeating yourself until you believe what you are saying.

I'm

We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.

I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things?

In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious.

But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.

Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five.

But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that.

Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.

In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against the Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.

What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.

You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

And a country really can’t continue this way.

In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.

Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.

Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.

I don’t know if the protected see how serious this moment is, or their role in it.

We all need to pull ourselves up from the abyss created by our angry politicians and neighbors. Try first to understand, then to accept other opinions.

Originally Posted by Guest

We all need to pull ourselves up from the abyss created by our angry politicians and neighbors. Try first to understand, then to accept other opinions.

Originally Posted by Guest

We all need to pull ourselves up from the abyss created by our angry politicians and neighbors. Try first to understand, then to accept other opinions.

Listen to "other opinions" but I won't accept lazy @zz socialist views/opinions. Angery? No, very disappointed in lazy spoiled liberals, that think that socialism is going to make their lives better. Hasn't happened since the creation of the idea, so I doubt anyone here can make it a viable Utopia. Hard work and fair trade is the only answer. Self reliance makes a mature and strong nation. Not reliance upon the government nanny. Liberals are too needy and I have no use for them. I believe in NO WORK, NO EAT.

Originally Posted by Guest

Listen to "other opinions" but I won't accept lazy @zz socialist views/opinions. Angery? No, very disappointed in lazy spoiled liberals, that think that socialism is going to make their lives better. Hasn't happened since the creation of the idea, so I doubt anyone here can make it a viable Utopia. Hard work and fair trade is the only answer. Self reliance makes a mature and strong nation. Not reliance upon the government nanny. Liberals are too needy and I have no use for them. I believe in NO WORK, NO EAT.

Just when did liberals become socialists? The Bern may have won in NH but not in SC. He couldn't carry the African American vote and he is the Socialist.

If you believe in NO WORK, NO EAT where are you working these days assuming you live in TV and/or you are retired. If you are 65 or older are you accepting those SOCIAL SECURITY Checks? Are you enrolled in Medicare? I am sure you learned way back when that both of those programs are Socialist.....

Most liberals I know are NOT dipping into welfare/food stamps or any other social program. I am beginning to think that LIBERAL is now a code word for minorities.

How civil of you! Now don't lie about SS/Medicare and don't say it isn't a socialist program you know better than that!

Originally Posted by Guest

Just when did liberals become socialists? The Bern may have won in NH but not in SC. He couldn't carry the African American vote and he is the Socialist.

If you believe in NO WORK, NO EAT where are you working these days assuming you live in TV and/or you are retired. If you are 65 or older are you accepting those SOCIAL SECURITY Checks? Are you enrolled in Medicare? I am sure you learned way back when that both of those programs are Socialist.....

Most liberals I know are NOT dipping into welfare/food stamps or any other social program. I am beginning to think that LIBERAL is now a code word for minorities.

How civil of you! Now don't lie about SS/Medicare and don't say it isn't a socialist program you know better than that!

Exactly how Clinton plays them!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

Exactly how Clinton plays them!!!

Noticed the questions were not answered? To embarrassing?

Originally Posted by Guest

Exactly how Clinton plays them!!!

I believe the post you responded to was in response to this post

Listen to "other opinions" but I won't accept lazy @zz socialist views/opinions. Angery? No, very disappointed in lazy spoiled liberals, that think that socialism is going to make their lives better. Hasn't happened since the creation of the idea, so I doubt anyone here can make it a viable Utopia. Hard work and fair trade is the only answer. Self reliance makes a mature and strong nation. Not reliance upon the government nanny. Liberals are too needy and I have no use for them. I believe in NO WORK, NO EAT.

Nothing here about Clinton.......This is the general BS about minorities sucking the rest of us dry!

What would Jesus due for the poor!

Originally Posted by Guest

Just when did liberals become socialists? The Bern may have won in NH but not in SC. He couldn't carry the African American vote and he is the Socialist.

If you believe in NO WORK, NO EAT where are you working these days assuming you live in TV and/or you are retired. If you are 65 or older are you accepting those SOCIAL SECURITY Checks? Are you enrolled in Medicare? I am sure you learned way back when that both of those programs are Socialist.....

Most liberals I know are NOT dipping into welfare/food stamps or any other social program. I am beginning to think that LIBERAL is now a code word for minorities.

How civil of you! Now don't lie about SS/Medicare and don't say it isn't a socialist program you know better than that!

How about another example of Socialism? The military!

You guys got drafted against your will - or some did enlist - and you got all your food, clothing, and housing. After you got out of the military, you get free medical care for the rest of your life.

Originally Posted by Guest

Noticed the questions were not answered? To embarrassing?

Your stupid and naive questions were not answered because I was not on here since I last posted. I went out with my wife.

Yes, liberals are socialists now. Unless you didn't even watch your own liberal debates, you would know that Hillary was trying to out socialist Bernie. Go ahead and tell me what the difference between today's Democrat party and Socialism. Debbie Whatshername couldn't, even after being asked on different occasions.

Regarding Social Security. That is my money that was forcibly taken from me. So, it is my money. I have never used Medicare. I paid for it my whole working life and have not used it. I have private Insurance that covers everything I need. I pay near a thousand bucks a month for it. Medicare is cr@p and doesn't cover anything but hospitalization, unless you have Medicare B, C, D for other options. And you have to pay for those after you retire.

We live in a capitalist country with some socialist programs. Granted. That does not make Socialism a good thing. It means that our country can survive with some form of socialist programs. Unless you are totally uninformed, which seems to be the case for a lot of liberal trolls, you will know that our socialist programs are not viable. They are failing. Social Security is failing. Medicare is failing. They are getting too expensive. You can not give to those that don't contribute, without sacrificing and leaching from those that donate forcibly. Socialism fails in every country, including ours. And do not give me an example of Denmark as successful. It isn't. Every country that has socialism, has to increase their taxes for EVERYONE in order to keep above water. Greece is an example of a prominent failure in socialism.

So, yes you can have a bit of socialism and survive for a very short time, but not in the long term. Our country tried it and failed disastrously at the very beginning. Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact?

Yes, I consider today's liberals to be socialists. If you don't, then explain how and why you disagree. You are good at throwing questions out and then demanding someone to answer them. You answer questions, if you want to be treated with respect. You think you are so witty by throwing out cr@p when you know someone is not there to answer, so you can look like you won your argument. All you did was make a snarky comment and left the forum. Childish.

Originally Posted by Guest

How about another example of Socialism? The military!

You guys got drafted against your will - or some did enlist - and you got all your food, clothing, and housing. After you got out of the military, you get free medical care for the rest of your life.

This forum never ceases to be amazing.
Just when one thinks they have heard the most off the wall, BS sayings or arguments or positions....along comes one that pales them all and takes the crown of off the wall BS!

Originally Posted by Guest

This forum never ceases to be amazing.
Just when one thinks they have heard the most off the wall, BS sayings or arguments or positions....along comes one that pales them all and takes the crown of off the wall BS!

You got that right.....

Originally Posted by Guest

Noticed the questions were not answered? To embarrassing?

No....too stupid to consider.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your stupid and naive questions were not answered because I was not on here since I last posted. I went out with my wife.

Yes, liberals are socialists now. Unless you didn't even watch your own liberal debates, you would know that Hillary was trying to out socialist Bernie. Go ahead and tell me what the difference between today's Democrat party and Socialism. Debbie Whatshername couldn't, even after being asked on different occasions.

Regarding Social Security. That is my money that was forcibly taken from me. So, it is my money. I have never used Medicare. I paid for it my whole working life and have not used it. I have private Insurance that covers everything I need. I pay near a thousand bucks a month for it. Medicare is cr@p and doesn't cover anything but hospitalization, unless you have Medicare B, C, D for other options. And you have to pay for those after you retire.

We live in a capitalist country with some socialist programs. Granted. That does not make Socialism a good thing. It means that our country can survive with some form of socialist programs. Unless you are totally uninformed, which seems to be the case for a lot of liberal trolls, you will know that our socialist programs are not viable. They are failing. Social Security is failing. Medicare is failing. They are getting too expensive. You can not give to those that don't contribute, without sacrificing and leaching from those that donate forcibly. Socialism fails in every country, including ours. And do not give me an example of Denmark as successful. It isn't. Every country that has socialism, has to increase their taxes for EVERYONE in order to keep above water. Greece is an example of a prominent failure in socialism.

So, yes you can have a bit of socialism and survive for a very short time, but not in the long term. Our country tried it and failed disastrously at the very beginning. Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact?

Yes, I consider today's liberals to be socialists. If you don't, then explain how and why you disagree. You are good at throwing questions out and then demanding someone to answer them. You answer questions, if you want to be treated with respect. You think you are so witty by throwing out cr@p when you know someone is not there to answer, so you can look like you won your argument. All you did was make a snarky comment and left the forum. Childish.

If you are not using Medicare for a portion of health insurance, then you are a fool. Sure Medicare only covers 80%, but you can get a supplemental plan that covers the rest for around $500. per month for a family of two.

You have spouted this they took my money before for social security, and Medicare. The money that they took is a tax. That tax went to pay for people that were collecting at the time. They could cut these programs, and we would continue to collect until the unused money that is sitting in the national debt is gone. You do know what a tax is don't you?

The problem with Republicans is that there are no moderates any more. EVERYONE that isn't a conservative, or far right is a liberal. The last thing that most Republicans on this board want to give anyone that doesn't agree with them is respect. Name calling is the name of the game. You try to tag all liberals, which is everyone that doesn't agree with you, as welfare mom, dead beat dad, illegal immigrants, deadbeat or a freeloader. You know everyone that isn't a God fearing Republican doesn't deserve to be here in the US. The 80's and 90's saw a lot of the give away programs done away with. What is left doesn't amount to a pi$$ hole in the snow!

If you don't think that bigotry exists in the Republican party, you are kidding yourself. The attack on minorities rights, voting rights in particular, is there for anyone with their eyes wide open to see. The conversation of voter ids on this board will always go around in circles with neither party giving an inch. Republicans here will cry they are crying racism again. If the shoes fits!

If you don't contribute to social security, you don't collect. See the next post for the backup for this statement. Changes have to be made in social security to keep it going into 2030's. They will be made in the future. Social programs can only survive for a short period of time. What do you consider a short period of time?

You don't think unchecked capitalism ran a mock in the early 2000's, then how do you explain The Great Recession? Banks leading money to people that couldn't make their first payment. Then packaging these loans, and selling them with the AAA rating to financial institutions that believed the rating agencies. Dodd/Frank tried to prevent this from happening the future, and Republicans did what they could to under mind Dodd/Frank.

If Clinton, or Trump get elected president, things are going to get worse.

Why does everything on this board have to result in argument? A civil discussion here is totally not acceptable.