Congressman Justin Amash does not like some Trump picks

[Y M Ionhere]

Trump is backing off on everything...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Of course he is... his promises were unrealistic... who was dumb enough to thing this would NOT HAPPEN?

He's not Hillary Clinton, and that is enough for most of the country.

Well actually that depends on how you want to define most...

"Most" people voted Democrat for House, Senate and President... that should give you pause.

Nope.

House and Senate are localized elections. It doesn't matter if lots of low information voters in urban areas of New York vote for Chuck Schumer at a rate of 70% and 52% of Indiana voters vote for Todd Young. They are separate elections and their vote totals are not added together.

Also, 34-35/50 governors will be Republican, depending on the NC outcome.

While that's true the overall point I'm making is that in sheer numbers there are more Democrats than Republicans. I'm not talking about 30 Repiblican states with little population. You are the smaller party overall. That doesn't bode well in say 5 or 10 years as older voters that voted Republican die off. The Democrats have to get back to the working class economic focus they once had. That means throwing the "progressive movement" (which I'm not a fan of) in the trash and moving rightward towards the center.

Folks who are young now aren't going to magically become Republican later. People tend to stick to their political ideas for life, that suggests eventually the Reoublicans need to tack to the left and find the center. Then they need to compromise and work with the Democrats and vice versa. But one thing at a time, let's get both parties to the center first.

I'm willing to partially get behind NS's final sentence. However, the left-right divide does make sense. If both are more centrist, the parties would not differ much. However, I do think a move to the center may help parties and candidates more relateable to more people, at least some of the time, then catering just to the more zealous fringe.

The Democrats just keep moving farther left. However, the popularity of ultra-left Bernie shows that younger voters themselves have moved that way. The reasons why are up for debate.

The Republicans focus too much on social issues and popular opinion opposes their positions. Gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization are more popular than ever and will not decline.

Personally, I wish social issues were not as big a focus and instead, political parties concentrated on economic and security issues that effect a wider group of people.
Democrats focus on labels: "Gay", "black", "immigrant", and use the labels to pander to those groups. Republicans mostly just pander to Evangelicals, who feel disenfranchised by the democrats leftward pull. I'm beginning to really respect the Libertarians, even though I disagree with many of their positions, because they don't seem to be trying really hard to pander to specific blocs.
Is it time to consider abolishing the parties and having everyone run as independents? It would require candidates to be more honest and not compromise their views to fit a party line. Or start over with new parties, or much looser party line positions? For example, right now, Democrats often have to compromise their religious beliefs and accept the parties liberal policies on abortion. Any Republican who is pro-choice would be deemed a "RINO" and dismissed by many on the right. Remove things like that from a party platform or make it a negotiable position, and lets see how many former blue voters may go red, or vice versa.
I believe adherence to social policies are messing up the parties and keeping them far to their respective side of the aisle and more divisive.

[Turkeytop]

Trump is backing off on everything...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

What? A politician flip flopping?

Oh wait, I forgot. Trump said he isn't a politician.

[Deleted User 8570]

Trump is backing off on everything...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

What? A politician flip flopping?

Oh wait, I forgot. Trump said he isn't a politician.

That makes it all ok then...

As to the post above this one I think we are largely in agreement. Socially I'm a Libertarian, social conservatives drive me up a freakin wall...

[Bryce]

Trump is backing off on everything...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Of course he is... his promises were unrealistic... who was dumb enough to thing this would NOT HAPPEN?

T Rump hasn't backed off on a thing. The reports you are reading were filtered through the ideology of The New York Times. Go read the transcripts. You'll get a different picture.

Could we at least wait until the man is inaugurated before making judgments?

[Deleted User 8570]

Trump is backing off on everything...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Of course he is... his promises were unrealistic... who was dumb enough to thing this would NOT HAPPEN?

T Rump hasn't backed off on a thing. The reports you are reading were filtered through the ideology of The New York Times. Go read the transcripts. You'll get a different picture.

Could we at least wait until the man is inaugurated before making judgments?

He opened up the possibility that Global Warming is caused by man and said he's not going to pursue Hillary on anything. That contradicts his earlier statements that global warming was a Chinese hoax and that he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary. None of that is in dispute. That's two things he declared at the top of his lungs at times in the campaign that you can forget about.

The Hillary one is a promise and reading his words you can pretty clearly see the answer is no. KellyAnne Conway said it's no. It's no.

[Bryce]

He opened up the possibility that Global Warming is caused by man and said he's not going to pursue Hillary on anything. That contradicts his earlier statements that global warming was a Chinese hoax and that he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary. None of that is in dispute. That's two things he declared at the top of his lungs at times in the campaign that you can forget about.

The Hillary one is a promise and reading his words you can pretty clearly see the answer is no. KellyAnne Conway said it's no. It's no.

1. Climate Change

I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this.

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

He's in a room full of certified leftists that worship at the ground of "Climate Change". He tells them he's keeping an open mind.

When pressed further he still doesn't commit, but finishes with the fact that he will be looking into it and "will let you know":

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

On HilLEry:

Washington bureau chief: I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked about not pursuing any investigations into Hillary Clinton. Did you mean both the email investigation and the foundation investigation — you will not pursue either one of those?

TRUMP: Yeah, look, you know we’ll have people that do things but my inclination would be, for whatever power I have on the matter, is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam. Let’s go forward. And you know, you could also make the case that some good work was done in the foundation and they could have made mistakes, etc. etc. I think it’s time, I think it’s time for people to say let’s go and solve some of the problems that we have, which are massive problems and, you know, I do think that they’ve gone through a lot. I think losing is going through a lot. It was a tough, it was a very tough evening for her. I think losing is going through a lot. So, for whatever it’s worth, my, my attitude is strongly we have to go forward, we have so many different problems to solve, I don’t think we have to delve back in the past. I also think that would be a very divisive, well I think it would be very divisive, you know I’m talking about bringing together, and then they go into all sorts of stuff, I think it would be very, very divisive for the country.

"We'll have people that do things." Like the FBI and AG.

He can be the good guy, try to bring the country together and let the the departments that do that sort of thing be the "bad guy".

Again, there was no commitment of action on either topic. He held his cards close to the vest while trying to be cordial with a bunch of lefty's with an agenda.

[Deleted User 8570]

He opened up the possibility that Global Warming is caused by man and said he's not going to pursue Hillary on anything. That contradicts his earlier statements that global warming was a Chinese hoax and that he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary. None of that is in dispute. That's two things he declared at the top of his lungs at times in the campaign that you can forget about.

The Hillary one is a promise and reading his words you can pretty clearly see the answer is no. KellyAnne Conway said it's no. It's no.

1. Climate Change

I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this.

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

He's in a room full of certified leftists that worship at the ground of "Climate Change". He tells them he's keeping an open mind.

When pressed further he still doesn't commit, but finishes with the fact that he will be looking into it and "will let you know":

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

On HilLEry:

Washington bureau chief: I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked about not pursuing any investigations into Hillary Clinton. Did you mean both the email investigation and the foundation investigation — you will not pursue either one of those?

TRUMP: Yeah, look, you know we’ll have people that do things but my inclination would be, for whatever power I have on the matter, is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam. Let’s go forward. And you know, you could also make the case that some good work was done in the foundation and they could have made mistakes, etc. etc. I think it’s time, I think it’s time for people to say let’s go and solve some of the problems that we have, which are massive problems and, you know, I do think that they’ve gone through a lot. I think losing is going through a lot. It was a tough, it was a very tough evening for her. I think losing is going through a lot. So, for whatever it’s worth, my, my attitude is strongly we have to go forward, we have so many different problems to solve, I don’t think we have to delve back in the past. I also think that would be a very divisive, well I think it would be very divisive, you know I’m talking about bringing together, and then they go into all sorts of stuff, I think it would be very, very divisive for the country.

"We'll have people that do things." Like the FBI and AG.

He can be the good guy, try to bring the country together and let the the departments that do that sort of thing be the "bad guy".

Again, there was no commitment of action on either topic. He held his cards close to the vest while trying to be cordial with a bunch of lefty's with an agenda.

The AP, a pretty damn good source of actual journalism put out this comparison of past statements vs. those made recently... there is a definite difference. He pivoted:

Trump changes his tune on climate change, jailing Clinton
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Yesterday
President-elect Donald Trump changed his tune on several topics — among them climate change and prosecuting Hillary Clinton — in statements Tuesday to The New York Times and on Twitter. What he's said in the past and what he's saying now:

CLIMATE CHANGE

Then: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." — 2012 tweet. "Global warming is an expensive hoax!" — January 2014 tweet.

Now: "I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much." — On the link between human activity and climate change. "I'm looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it." — On whether he will withdraw from climate change accords.

PROSECUTING CLINTON

Then: "If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception." — Oct. 9 debate.

Now: "It's just not something that I feel very strongly about. ... I think it would be very, very divisive for the country." — On pursuing criminal charges against the Clintons.

BEN CARSON

Then: Citing anecdotes about violent behavior in Carson's memoir, Trump compares him to a child molester. "It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper. ... That's a big problem because you don't cure that ... as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people." — Nov. 12, 2015, CNN interview.

Now: "I am seriously considering Dr. Ben Carson as the head of HUD. I've gotten to know him well — he's a greatly talented person who loves people!" — Nov. 22 tweet.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Then: "He will go down as one of the worst presidents in the history of our country." — July 27 interview with NBC.

Now: Recalling their Oval Office meeting, "I really liked him a lot."

LIBEL LAWS

Then: "We ought to open up the libel laws, and I'm going to do that." — Feb. 27 interview on Fox News.

Now: Says someone told him, "You know, you might be sued a lot more." ''I said, 'You know, I hadn't thought of that.'"

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Then: "No paper is more corrupt than the failing New York Times. The good news is it is failing, it won't be around too much longer. But they are really, really bad people." — Oct. 14 rally.

Now: "I have great respect for the New York Times. I have tremendous respect." But he adds: "I think I've been treated very rough."

No changes in there at all...

[Bryce]

The AP, a pretty damn good source of actual journalism put out this comparison of past statements vs. those made recently... there is a definite difference. He pivoted:

Duh, the AP was simply reporting/regurgitating the information reported by the N.Y. Times.

They didn't have an interview.

[Deleted User 8570]

The AP, a pretty damn good source of actual journalism put out this comparison of past statements vs. those made recently... there is a definite difference. He pivoted:

Duh, the AP was simply reporting/regurgitating the information reported by the N.Y. Times.

They didn't have an interview.

No but then again at least they compared those statements to his previous ones... you don't want to admit he's softened his stances on those issues and you only quoted what was said to the NYT... c'mon man, I know you are better than that. Even his freaking campaign manager said there will be no pursuit of charges for Hillary.