ouch!.....
Printable View
Quote:
Sanders and Trump Supporters Protest Clinton Together at Book Tour Event
https://youtu.be/JcDgqjcp4wQ
Ah Washington, a place where nothing gets done and everything gets investigated. But then again, nothing will change as nothing will get done.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/11/ex...m_medium=email
From the article:
Just out of curiosity, which country were these "foreign officials" from that so many Trump aides were meeting with? The Daily Caller, for some strange reason, deliberately makes it a point not to mention which country's officials the Trump aides were having clandestine meetings with. Perhaps you know?Quote:
President Donald Trump aides who were incidentally surveilled in meetings with foreign officials,
Sweden. I bet it was Sweden.
Hmmn.....lets see, I bet it was Russia. Does that fit your narrative now???
Donald Trump when running for the office of president said he would be willing to meet with Putin to talk about common goals against Islamic Terrorism.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politi...age/index.html
Why is it that some people will pay circa $250,000 to attend Hillary's "speeches" but when they're free nobody turns up?
Why do dems love their superdelegates in their Primaries but balk at The Electoral College in the Main Event? Does their hypocrisy also come into this?
Quote:
Primary Cheater Donna Brazile Appointed To Rules Committee
https://youtu.be/AuCfmGyeAyM
Yes,classy to stand on a stage and talk like the currant president invented bigotry.
Funny how people are supporting this because of its anti Trump aspects but yet could not stand the speakers when they were in office.
None of these presidents never supported Live Aid,Farm Aid etc when they were in office,why the shift now?
When you get on stage to support those effected by disaster and use that stage to push a political agenda,it shows that they care about the impacted areas about as much as they did while in office,very little.
Didn't vote for him, but the hatred for, and disdain that Donald Trump is somehow president is increasingly quite ecumenical!!
Everyone can join in, united! The 'United States' indeed! I keep pinching myself that this is not a dream [[nightmare):
Hillary Clinton, Sanders and Trump were our major candidates? The best we could muster?! Awakening to this! No kidding!?
And the least of it all, nearly everyone wish he [[DT) would stop with the tweeting already... SMH...
Because political parties, as private institutions, can create their own set of rules as to how they want to nominate their party's representatives for office. The GOP also has super-delegates. The GOP also changed their own rules after 2012 specifically to thwart the ambitions of Ron Paul [[Rule 40).
Are these things fair? No, of course not. But to compare how political parties nominate their own candidates for office to how a general election is supposed to work in a country that is supposed to be a democracy is asinine and ignorant. There is nothing democratic about the Electoral College. Nothing. It's inherently anti-democratic. We directly elect our Senators now, whereas previously the Founding Fathers decided that they should be chosen by state legislatures. That was anti-democratic too, and we changed it for the better.
Class or Ass?
https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/geor...055154853.html
Old news from the election antics:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...sia-and-trump/
Yaaaawn.
It happened 4 years ago,a touch on the toush and waits till now.
He would have been 91,maybe he had little strength and dropped his arm to the wheelchair in a crowded space and did it accidentally.
A guy on another site was talking about his wife who worked for a company 25 years,coed breakroom with all long term employees,off houmer jokes were always told by both sides.
25 years and now she is offended and was asking her husband if she should turn the guy into personal.
I had a girl that got offended that I would not sleep with her 49 years ago,I wonder if I should call my lawyer and maybe try and get some cash out of it.
The other side of the story is unfolding. Should Mueller recuse himself as sessions did? Maybe Trump should fire him!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi...ing-1508883468
California is Dem Land; a one party state. As such, it might be considered a vision of where the Democratic Party is taking us as a nation. Victor Davis Hanson lives in California and offers this critique of California as a one party state. California now ranks 49th in infrastructure and 46th in 8th grade test scores. The 1% is thriving there while the California's middle class is escaping.
Victor Davis Hanson; Explains why California is Failing Despite Silicon Valley & all it's Wealth [[37min.)
49th in infrastructure and 46th in 8th grade test scores? Sounds like he just cherry picked the statistics that California performed the worst in. I don't typically jump to "8th grade test scores" as my first metric for measuring whether a state is well-run or not. For example, Michigan [[which last time I checked had a GOP Governor and a huge GOP majority in the state legislature) was 40th in 8th grade test scores.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/pr...MN&year=2015R3
Which state came in dead last? That would be Alabama. Which political party dominates that state again? In fact, here's the 10 lowest performers on 8th grade test scores:
Michigan, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, California, Washington DC, New Mexico, Alabama.
So if we want to quantify based on party control, I count 6 "red" states, two "blue" states [[counting DC as a "state" for comparison purposes), and two purple states where the governor's mansion and legislature are split between the Democrats and the GOP.
Is this the vision of where the GOP is taking us a nation? Just using your own metric of success here...
“I hope the rest of the world does their part in providing a forceful opposition." "We are linking up with other similar-minded people all over the world." -Gov. Gerry Brown
aj, "California is the place ye otta be" as Jeb Clampett used to say. Here is a solid Democratic state beholden to globalism. You criticize economic nationalists and here is Gerry Brown looking for foreign support to topple Trump and as you would put it, "the Breitbart crowd flipped the fuck out at the notion of Trump supporting the legalization of the DREAMers". Imagine that, some Americans who are interested in their own tax levels and their own children's futures. As this website's apologist for deep state policies, albeit with the Democratic twist like Victor Davis Hanson mentioned, California's corporatist single party state should be to your liking. Victor Davis Hanson made a marvelous point about the Democrats' need to keep Latin voters down, he used the word 'tribal', so they don't get uppity and politically independent like Italian Americans did. Your globalist buddies don't pursue the American middle class. They sacrifice the US middle class. That's why they are leaving California. It's no fun being a sacrificial offering. Dems look for support from foreign sources both for cheap labor and political support. What's in the news this week but Hillary and Obama colluding with Russian oligarchs and their hypocrisy and lies.
Those southern states you mentioned used to vote Democrat. Under Republicans some are coming out of their hole, e.g. N. Carolina, Virginia, the City of Atlanta. Collectively, they are closing the gap. Meanwhile, CA went from a purple state with the best public schools in the country to 46th place among 8th graders since going blue. Your list also included Michigan ravaged by the loss of auto factories and foreign car purchases by liberals. Washington, D.C. which has higher per student spending than any state and votes Democratic, the State that gave us the Clintons, and New Mexico which has some similarities with California demographics but without Silicon Valley billionaires. Is this the vision of where you are taking us? Just using your own metric of success here...
Funny how you have a bunch of bullshit excuses for when Republican-run states end up at the bottom of every list. When it's third-world states like Mississippi or Alabama or West Virginia at the bottom, it's because they voted Democratic 50 fucking years ago. Or when it's Michigan at the bottom, it's because liberals buy foreign cars. Odd how you seem incapable of parsing any blame whatsoever onto the conservatives that run those states. But when it's California coming in 46th on 8th grade test scores, it's magically 110% the fault of Jerry Brown. Fucking rank hypocrisy at its worst. Everything that goes wrong in a blue state is 100% the fault of the Democrats whereas everything that goes wrong in a red state, in your hypocritical eyes, is also somehow the fault of the Democrats. Fucking pathetic.
It's OK though, for as much as you hate California, those blue states like California will continue to subsidize the leech red states with their federal tax dollars, as they have always done.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-s...ernment-2015-7
https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/
Without federal tax dollars from those rich liberal states, third world shitholes like Alabama and Mississippi would fall apart. Take a look at the map and notice which states pay more in federal taxes than they receive back in federal funding and which states take more than they contribute. What color are they usually? Which states are most reliant on federal dollars to sustain their budget, and which political party are most of them run by?
aj, I must have rattled you. You claimed I wrote something that I didn't write. I didn't blame California's problems exclusively on Gerry Brown. You wrote, quoting me, "But when it's California coming in 46th on 8th grade test scores, it's magically 110% the fault of Jerry Brown." What I actually wrote about California included, "Meanwhile, CA went from a purple state with the best public schools in the country to 46th place among 8th graders since going blue." I didn't blame California's reading scores exclusively on Gerry Brown. California turned blue somewhere around the Pete Wilson era. California did not destroy its public school system overnight. However, at the beginning of my comment, I did quote Gerry Brown encouraging international support to help him fight the elected President of the United States in trying to make the point that many Democrats, including Hillary, are Quislings enlisting foreign powers to fight the American middle class.
If you want to talk about leeching states, how about including Washington, D.C. which leads all states in per capita gun violence, spends more per capita on its public school students, and its students still compare poorly. Since the Civil War, the deep south had voted Democratic until 1980. There is a difference between the collapse of California schools and the lingering poverty in parts of the deep south. When Republicans fell from power in California, its public schools were top rated. Since California became solid blue, California's schools have gone to near the bottom of state rankings. After Democrats ran the deep south from after the Civil War until about 1980, public schools there were already at the bottom. As previously noted, some states and urban areas in confederacy states have moved forward recently while California schools have declined.
Your Tax Foundation link's map shows "Federal Aid as a Percentage of State General Revenue". To some extent it is meaningless in this context because some states choose not to spend as much as others and/or have less graft and corruption. That would increase federal revenue as a percentage. Also, federal spending goes to things like missile silos and air force bases in low population Republican northern tier states.
I've got an idea. Stop federal payments over some humane timeframe on any program the federal government is not delegated by the Constitution to operate. In time, the poor huddled masses in places like Mississippi will migrate to other states now relying on illegal non-citizen labor. Americans from poverty pockets like Mississippi will have jobs, their jobs will pay more because of supply/demand dynamics after illegal non-citizens are deported, and taxpayers will be better off. The option is for Democrats to continue operating California as a hacienda economy with an elite 1%, campesino labor, and an escaping middle class.
Quote:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on Donna Brazile's DNC Bombshell
https://youtu.be/S2PHwuIERms
What is up with Donna Brazile,she was in the thick of it and now wants to come clean?
This is the Donna Brazile Politico article laying out Hillary's takeover of the DNC. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ks-2016-215774
Donna Brazille was also said to be afraid of catching whatever Seth Rich had. If so, it made sense to be more public. Snopes says that claims about Hillary referencing Brazile as "a brain dead buffalo" aren't true or at least its first appearance was without "citations, source information, audio, video, or any other proof". On the other hand, Brazile hasn't denied them.
Donna Brazile also criticized President Obama for putting the Democratic Party $24M in debt. Party stalwarts like Kamala Harris, the Huffington Post are now criticizing Brazile instead of refuting Brazile's claims in her Politico article while Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard are siding with Brazile.
But let's not put Donna Brazile on a pedestal for being a Democratic Party whistle blower. After all, she leaked CNN questions to Hillary before a debate.
I was watching an interview where she was supposed to have been one of the engineers of the whole Bernie fiasco but now trying to gain his supporters.
I stabbed you in the back but now let's put that aside and show me the love.Disgusting.
While everyone on TV was spending days discussing the latest dumb and/or offensive thing the President may or may not have said, this story got no coverage:
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/11/...n-section-702/
Quote:
With bipartisan backing, the House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday that would renew one of the government’s most sweeping surveillance authorities for six years with minimal changes.
The measure, which passed 256-164, reauthorized Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was set to expire later this month.
The law was first passed in 2008 to legalize President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. It allows the National Security Agency to collect Americans’ communications with people overseas, as long as the NSA is “targeting” the foreigners involved.
^ I watched that live and the Michigan representative put up a good fight,kudos.I was surprised that it was not amended.Not a good thing for Americans no matter how it gets spun.
Hi Pam, just curious why you felt the need to put this in the "Welcome to Dem World" thread when the vote breakdown by party was as follows:
Looks like it passed with 4:1 support from Republicans while Democrats opposed it by nearly a 2:1 margin. And despite Trump's contradictory tweets on the subject, this legislation was also officially supported and backed by the White House.
It was presented for repeal by a republican.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security,deserve neither.
^aj, You will be happy to know that I oppose this legislation and already wrote my Democratic Congressman a thank you note but it wasn't just Bush. Democrats are more united against this now that Trump is President it seems.
- September 12, 2012: The House of Representatives voted, 301 to 118, to extend the FISA Amendments Act for five years, after the act was to expire at the end of 2012.
- December 28, 2012: By a vote of 73 to 23, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the FISA Amendments Act for five years until December 31, 2017
- December 30, 2012: President Barack Obama signed the bill into law.
Which Republican would that be? What's his name?
Perhaps a little more, but not much.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml
H R 5949 YEA-AND-NAY 12-Sep-2012 5:12 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years
So there's the 2012 vote breakdown by party [[which you conveniently neglected to give in your raw numbers). What I see is 95% of Republicans voted in favor of it and ~60% of Democrats voting against it or abstaining. So it's not quite the 2:1 margin for Democrats as in the most recent vote, but those numbers are pretty close and consistent. 60% of House Democrats did not vote for it in 2012 and 66% of Democrats did not vote for it in 2018.
^
On Thursday, the House failed to pass an amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Justin Amash, R.-Mich.,
I figured sense he was from your state that you would have known.
My point was that "Democrats are more united against this now that Trump is President it seems." You are correct that there wasn't much of a change in the way House Democrats voted in 2012 vs. 2018, What you conveniently neglected to mention in your rollout of numbers were two things: 1.) Democrats in the Senate voted 39-20 [[66%) in favor of extending spying on Americans in 2012. In 2017, Senate Democrats voted 21-26 [[44.7%) in favor of spying on Americans making my point. 2.) President Obama also voted to extend Bush's spying on Americans. "This legislation was also officially supported and backed by the [[Obama) White House" . I'm two for three.
Democrats are in "resistance" mode. Whatever Trump is for, Democrats oppose whatever their history. If Trump lowers the taxes of 80% of Americans, Democrats oppose that and blame Russians. If America attains its lowest unemployment level in 47 year, Democrats oppose that and talk about sex. Next stop, shut down the government if Trump won't prioritize illegal non-citizens and profiteering employers over working Americans. This is getting serious. Time to break out your pussy hat.
There were only 53 Democrats [[and I'm counting two independents in that number to be generous) in the Senate in December 2012 when the Senate voted on the FISA reauthorization, not 59 as you falsely claim, so your math is a tad bit off. Also, the President doesn't cast a "vote" on anything, that's not how our system of government works. Furthermore, since Obama didn't cast a "vote" in 2018 [[not 2017) on the FISA reauthorization and it can be safely assumed that Obama probably still supports the essence of FISA, that's not proof of an "anti-Trump" effect since Obama's position has remain unchanged despite Trump being President.
And what amendment was that, Richard? An amendment to REPEAL, as you claimed?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/la...rticle/2645402
Amash offered an amendment to REFORM certain specific elements of FISA, not REPEAL it as you falsely claimed. Words have definitions and those definitions matter. He did not try to repeal FISA. No Republican did. That's what those of us in the real world like to refer to as a "lie."Quote:
The House Rules Committee has signaled it could allow debate and vote on an amendment authored by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., that aims to make significant reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA allows intelligence officials to spy on communications of non-citizens outside of the United States, but members of both parties are hoping to put new restraints in place rather than just renew the program again.
^ One really needs to be in the real world before they can actually refer to it.
What do you think they do? Go there with a #2 pencil with an ereaser and just write over something.Before you can change or reform anything you have to remove what is already written or repeal it.
All the word semantics in the world will not change that.
Seems like Mr Shumer has upset the egg basket.
Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia told colleagues on Tuesday that he intended to run for re-election this year after all, ending an anxiety-making flirtation with retirement and easing Democratic fears that the most conservative Democrat in the Senate was about to effectively hand his seat to a Republican.
New York times ,but does not let me catch a link to post?
Manchin Will Seek Re-election but Sends Democrats a Stern Warning
In an interview, Mr. Manchin said he repeatedly expressed his frustration to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, and other colleagues, telling them that “this place sucks,” before finally signaling Tuesday morning to Mr. Schumer’s aides that he would file his re-election paperwork before West Virginia’s deadline on Friday.
When Democrats could have made a difference in 2012, they didn't with even Obama signing an extension of FISA into law.
aj, I went back and checked. You are right that there were 51 Democrats plus Lieberman and Sanders. Recalculating, that means the 31 yes votes and 20 nays from this bunch in 2012 works out to 61% not 66% as I previously wrote. My point still stands that Democrats voted much more for extending FISA in 2012 [[61%) than in 2018 [[44.7%) Also, Obama did not veto Congress' extension and signed the extension of FISA? Would that work for you? Again, "My point was that "Democrats are more united against this now that Trump is President". They were. What's your point? That Obama was always a bit of a dictator like Bush was? I would agree. That's why we are in a mess with Democrats threatening to shut down government services to American citizens. Had Obama run DACA legislation through Congress, it would be law. Instead, he unconstitutionally passed it with his dictator pen as an executive order making it possible for Trump to erase it with an executive order of his own.
DACA is loaded with politics and not all are children. So you love Trump if you do NOT want to put illegals ahead of US citizens? That's it? Nice and Tidy. Sigh...... There's an agenda here for that question to be so tethered in partisan politics. What successful country doesn't not prioritize existing citizens first? Are we really that self-loathing.
Nope those yelling the loudest for unquestioned immigration are privileged, millionaires on both sides of the isle. Including the elite of the far left. They know what is best for us all, you know.
To some extent this about power building ala votes [[duh) ala importing votes informing those already here to basically go to the back of line. After all 'you've had your 'privilege and stole this country!' so goes the politic.
But where do I fit in here? I've stole nothing. Glad I don't live in California.
31/53 = 58%, not 61%. That's twice now you messed up basic math, the first being when you claimed there were 59 Democrats instead of 53. It's OK, math is hard, much like how the English language is hard for Richard.
But hey, there you go, the percentage of House Democrats opposing FICA remains largely unchanged and the percentage of Senate Democrats supporting it dropped from 58% to 44%. So clearly that's proof of a HUGE anti-Trump effect. 14 whole percentage points in one chamber of Congress! WOW! I would point out that many of the Democrats who voted for it in 2012 were "Blue Dogs" or red state Democrats who are no longer in Congress. Just to name a few: Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad, Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson, Jim Webb, Jay Rockefeller, etc. So, just consider this strange possibility, do you think that 14% point swing in the Senate might have something to do with the fact that the composition of Senate Democrats in 2018 is different than it was in 2012 and maybe not just reflexive hatred of Trump? If it was all about Trump, shouldn't there have been almost no Democratic votes at all? We've seen plenty of party line votes already, such as the tax bill, so pointing to a 14% drop in support among Democrats in one chamber isn't really indicative of anything since if they voted based on hatred of Trump, there would have been 0 votes in support.
Also, if Obama signing the FISA reauthorization in 2012 makes him a "dictator" according to you, what does that make Trump? You know he also signed the FISA reauthorization last week. I mean, surely you will apply your political standards equally and not judge Obama and Trump differently for doing quite literally the exact same thing.
Amending a bill and repealing it are NOT the same thing, even if they are in your head.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repeal
That's why last year the Republicans made it a point to distinguish between REPEALING Obamacare or REPEALING and REPLACING Obamacare, whereas the Democrats wanted to AMEND it. See the difference? Some Republicans just wanted it to go away entirely and not replace it with anything [[repeal). Some wanted it to go away entirely and then replace it with something brand new and completely different [[repeal and replace). Democrats wanted to keep it and make changes to it so it would function better [[amend). I literally can't dumb this down any further for you so your brain can comprehend it. Changing a law is not "repealing" it, nor do you have to "repeal" a law in order to change it. Don't get mad at me because you don't understand the English language, that's on you.Quote:
: to rescind or annul by authoritative act; especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment
aj, There were 31 Democratic yes votes and 20 Democratic nays. Two Democrats sat it out just like McCain isn't presently voting. 31 plus 20 equals 51, not 53. 31/51=60.78 which rounds off to 61%. But even 58% if you want to include two Senators who abstained or weren't there is still a bigger number than the 44.7% Democratic senate vote in 2012 and still makes my point. 61% is 13 percent larger that 48%. 61 is also 27% larger than 48 which is probably a more useful way of comparing the two percentages. It's a 27% ratio increase from one election to the next.
There is a big difference in Obama writing an unconstitutional executive order in violation of Article 1, Section 1 and Article 1, Section 8 which delegates naturalization legislation to Congress, not the President, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" after saying he had no authority to do so at least 22 times before he did it. Trump instead used an executive order to clean up Obama's unconstitutional order; sort of like emptying the trash. I previously wrote that I sent my Democratic representative a thank you note for voting against the FISA extension. However, unlike Obama's DACA unconstitutional executive order, FISA was passed by Congress and extended twice by Congress. Bush, Obama, and Trump all seem to have violated the Fourth Amendment in their support of spying on Americans.
^ because people are so obsessed with DACA which was scheduled for a vote February 8 or so anyways,Russian collusion and everything else,the real issues are flying under the wire and little by little we are being chipped away at.
Some would view that as mission accomplished.
Jimmy Dore show:
"Democrats Already Fighting Progressives In Primaries"
https://youtu.be/ynug4CLOTp0
If you are following California politics,the democrats are eating each other for breakfast,with the party trying to force those candidates that they choose.
This is crazy it does not matter who you are or what party you support,everybody has the right to run and let the voters decide the outcome,they are killing the whole multi party aspect and trying to force candidates on people.
They are going to end up pissing everybody off and go to a one party system,then we are all screwed,it will not matter what side of the fence we lean,the decision will be made for us.
I guess you are referring to the California state Democratic convention where Diane Feinstein didn't get endorsed by the delegates? That's a good thing. Progressive Democrats are making inroads there.
A couple of videos from the convention.
https://youtu.be/sLOw368tsHU
https://youtu.be/N-WBWOuChMo
Dems eating each other for breakfast, conventions and what not? Hah. You best watch where you step, step into, or step over. Trust and believe Gov. Brown, Pelosi and Feinstein never walk the major cities of Calli.
They're part of the grand royal enclosure poli-tricking and pandering.
In the meantime California is starting to come apart. Not sure what they are progressing to -- umm, Los Angeles is not.
How can a place with 58,000 homeless people continue to function?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...htmlstory.html
Homelessness has surged in the US under supply side economics because of numerous reasons, primarily the neocon/neoliberal penchant for privatizing everything and the giant transfer of wealth from the working classes to the wealthy [[the reverse of the Lincoln Republican ethic that made labor primary to capital). And yes, most sitting Democrats are in that camp as well, which is why Progressives are actively trying to win back the party from the corporatists that rule it.
Jimmy dore show -https://youtu.be/qy90KsMAdfEQuote:
Obama’s lack-luster response to torture helped make Trump’s appointment possible
Jimmy Dore show:
https://youtu.be/k2hXRrGORdkQuote:
HIllary Trashes American Voters While In India
She's coming off more and more pressed and bitter in serving, summing up Americans NOT supporting her run so poorly.
Not surprised - just lets many further know why they did not/ could not cast a vote her way.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04...duran-caravan/
Quote:
It was the second time in seven-and-a-half years that Hillary had helped install an authoritarian, racist, oligarchic and right-wing government in the Americas. In the spring of 2009, she had used her position as Barack Obama’s first Secretary of State to help the right-wing Honduran military and business class overthrow the democratically elected government of Honduras’s then president Manuel Zelaya.
^^^ Hilarious link! She also carelessly called Putin Hitler! And to think she assumed the vote of all women? Why not? After all women all think alike unless their men are brainwashing them into deplorable status!
And some of the ones who say 'she lost, get over it' are still the ones who keep bringing her up. Again, and again, and...
I was over the Clintons way before she lost. [[But understanding the alternative, I still voted for her in the general, of course.)
Caring is much better than not caring. And we must know and learn from history. But in the context of our present and future which require our attention more. Can we move on?
Congratulations: Clinton lost. Are you happy with what we have now instead? What should happen next?
^^^ Not happy; but then again my happiness ain't rooted in politicians per se. Too bad that our choices had/ have devolved to such.
Practically speaking though, it's hard to find the pefect candidate to represent all 300+ML US POP. Even more fun to castigate whole segments of voters names or ascribing them certain status.
Most vote/ voted in an attempt to get some of what they wanted and avoid what they do/ did not want.
Still this last election put forth ghastly options.
I bring her up because there are still people who refuse to believe anything bad about her and are trying to rewrite history. And she is still out there blaming everyone but herself for her loss. I don't like Trump but Hillary was not better. What should happen next is I hope we can get some better people in Congress this year. After that I don't know. I would like Bernie to run again but since the real election crimes of 2016
still haven't been investigated, [[The DNC not Russia)I fear they will just cheat him again.
We can't move on until the Dems. clean house and root out corruption and they haven't shown they are interested in that. New parties might be the future.
I know you don't like Trump, Pam, and there's nothing wrong with that, but Trump ultimately SUCCEEDS when the whole world is pitted against him, whereas Bernie stumbled and failed before he got to first base. Leaders don't allow themselves to be "cheated".[[he should have colluded with the Russians).
It's the difference between a Leader and a "manager". We've had 30 years of Clintons, Bushes and obamas giving away our advantages to UN. We don't need a Bernie to accelerate it and shuffle us into the third world of Socialism.
I don't think I posted this yet. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bill to improve election integrity:
https://youtu.be/oOV4QWz7BIw
I saw this headline earlier today and I thought it was from the Onion:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/dnc...an-government/
Hasn't enough time been wasted investigating this nonsense?Quote:
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with WikiLeaks and the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Where's the investigation of the real fraud from the 2016 Dem primaries?
I think the upper echelon of the DNC has resumed the role of the American Socialist Party and is a clear and present danger to this country and should be treated as such.
They are the last ones to be referring to democracy even though we are a republic.
The kicker is the conservative democrats have support of the country and have been winning,but even if they win they are still beholden to the DNC so unless there is a purge they will stay throttled,which in turn stifles the very democracy that they claim to support.
The republicans have been on the defensive at a great cost to the taxpayer with the DNC chasing porn stars for salvation,they called Clintons mistress a whore but now have no problem embracing a porn star.
I also think it is time to take the gloves off and go on the offensive but the thing is that the DNC has nothing else to do,but what they are doing,while the currant administration has a country to run.They should be dealt with no different then any other group that interferes with the running of the country.
Al Gore pioneered the idea of trying to litigate a victory by cherry picking a few Democratic counties to recount in Florida. This is nothing new. The day before the DNC announced its suit, Rosenstein said that Trump was not a target in the Mueller probe. Maybe this lawsuit is designed to pick up where Mueller leaves off and dump it on the laps of a deep blue Manhattan jury. Although it seems like these Dems are being petulant poor losers, the strategy of incessant investigations and litigation keeps Trump off balance and less able to govern. Maybe that is all there is to the strategy. The part I most dislike is attacking Wikileaks for the audacity of telling the truth. It puts a chill on freedom of speech and punishes Wikileaks with legal expenses. No one expected the DNC to be responsible for computer security or consider that Russia and other entities might hack its computers.
I stopped reading after this sentence. These people are most definitely NOT socialists. Remember Hillary and Obama getting the big bucks for speeches to Goldman Sachs etc.?Quote:
I think the upper echelon of the DNC has resumed the role of the American Socialist Party and is a clear and present danger to this country and should be treated as such.
that is how it works Pam,the ones at the top have the money while everybody else starves.
Highly unlikely that you will ever see a socialist dictator riding around in a Ford pinto.
Should I make a note to stop reading your future posts when I see a word that I disagree with? Interesting line of thought.
Just to weigh in on the topic of proportionality of wealth, I've seen no system [[including the grand socialist regimes) where the rulers on high exempt themselves from great wealth and access.
While at the same time extolling how others wealth [[below them) need to be redistributed so as to make all the things 'equal'!
I don't care if you read my posts or not. That's your choice.
But you really need to learn what socialism is. The Democratic leadership aren't socialists. They don't even claim to be.
Nancy Pelosi says "We're capitalists":
https://youtu.be/BBrk2Vz2ASk
She said "We're capitalist" then she continued with "however"
Look up the rest outside of YouTube.
She has been in public service over 40 years,but has a net worth of $196 million dollars standing on a soap box talking about income inequality.
She is the fourth richest Californian in congress,she is a capitalist when it comes to her money but a socialist when it comes to spending everybody else's money.
Do you think she would give up 100 million of her own money to help the homeless in her state and suffer the indignity of living on the remaining 96 million.
She cannot even solve the homeless in her own state where she has been in the position for over 40 years but yet has an answer to solve the homeless problem in America?
What happened to Bernie? Did you abandon him momentarily in order to defend the ones that threw him under the train when the socialist aspect was raised in a negetive way?
You have been on the attack the democrats road until the common thread of socialism appears,what is it?
I still support Bernie. Bernie is a democratic socialist and admits it. The big name Democrats are not. They are corrupt corporate tools.
They take money from Goldman Sachs and the like and do their bidding. Bernie does not. You are right Pelosi doesn't care about helping the homeless only making herself rich. I am not defending people like her. I am just pointing out they are not socialists.
^ that is kinda the point of a discussion,learning about opposing views,it is different then twitter where one drops a comment and moves on.
I do not agree with Mr. Sanders or his views but I believe there needs to be a balance and he plays a part in that balance,the one thing I do not do is show the distain towards his supporters like some show to those that they do not agree with.
Weather I agree with him or not he has the right to push his agenda just like anybody else,when we talk about democracy and what was done to him that was more of a threat to democracy then he was.
Anyways here is another opinion about his supporters,although polling seems to be something to be taken with a grain of salt anymore.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/15/...re-socialists/
In other news, Hillary is still a crook:
https://youtu.be/JbtOvrG5eoc
Quote:
The DNC and DCCC have paid Hillary Clinton's super PAC, 'Onward Together,' a combined $1.6 million dollars for "list acquisition," and a “generic committee list rental," respectively. Why, exactly, is money that could be going to state parties being funneled to the super PAC of a two-time presidential loser?
As a victim of Goldman Sachs back during the Recession, I can agree on one thing, the central banks get a Federal pass at every gamble they do.
Invent a new market, lose billions, and claim "We are too big to lose"
They still get their million dollar bonuses, everybody else has to work into their 70's and it just replicates itself.
Yep, Pelosi is a 'mixed-economy' person - to her favor of course [[a sprinkling of socialism here, 1/8 teaspoon of capitalism over there). That's what they do; she's not alone her thinking/ ideology.
Socialism to a large extent spends the money of capitalism!
California's reaping what they've sown ala far left policies. And yet she talks of solving America's ills. Even the dems, liberals and hard left are starting to see thru her 'rich-on-high' rhetoric and are booing her speeches. To her chagrin...
For one they think she's old and not quite progressive enough. Bye Pelosi, retire now, before the heckling really gets LOUD.
She should know how disruptive it can get since she champions such!!
Then there is Maxine Waters living in a 4.5 million dollar mansion calling out impeachment for Russian connections while being an honorary member of the Workers world party.
Which is ...
The Workers World Party is reportedly a militant left-wing group that sympathizes with many enemies of the U.S., including North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. It also supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and is a fan of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/26/maxine-waters-touts-trump-connections-to-russia-but-has-some-of-her-own
^^^ 4.5 ML? Shucks I thought only the far right lived lavishly.
Say it ain't so...:eek:...
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/...evi-tillemann/
Quote:
The secretly taped audio recording, released here for the first time, reveals how senior Democratic officials have worked to crush competitive primaries and steer political resources, money, and other support to hand-picked candidates in key races across the country, long before the party publicly announces a preference.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/04...ing-primaries/
Quote:
So to recap, the leadership of the Democratic party is no longer attempting to hide the fact that it deliberately stacks its own primaries against progressive candidates, and yet still has the gall to act like they’re the smart adults in the room who know how to win general elections. These are the same people who think telling the public “screw primaries, you’ll vote how we say” is sheer strategic brilliance. The same people who lost over a thousand seats under Obama.
Jimmy Dore-Quote:
Harvard Gives Hillary Medal For Absolutely Nothing
https://youtu.be/tiUC5nAlMic
^^^ It wont be the first time [[award/ medal for doing nothing). But at least everyone can 'feel' good and know that equality abounds...:rolleyes:...
At least among the elite, newly appointed. Or long on the tooth!
Intolerance seems to be gaining traction in Dem Land with unhinged Democrats [[not all Democrats are unhinged) feeling the need to be personally rude. There have been a couple of incidents involving Trump officials who get an earful in restaurants. Yesterday, a teacher from the Sidwell Friends School, annual tuition $40,800, where the Obama daughters were sent, scolded EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt while he was eating in a restaurant. White House press Secretary Sarah Huckabee was similarly entertained by demonstrators. Dem Senator Hassan's intern received only a slap on the wrist for yelling "F... Y.." at President Trump. Rudeness is becoming more and more the norm.
Meanwhile, Antifa has become the unofficial brown shirt Democratic thug unit holding up traffic and even tolerated by authorities in deep blue spaces like Portland, OR. Verbal rudeness can be tolerated to a point but when rudeness is allowed to spill over into violence by the right or left, we are in something approaching fascist territory.
Republican Senator Rand Paul has been in the news three times lately as the recipient of over the edge Democrats excesses-
-Yesterday, a Democratic activist from Berkely, CA was arrested for threatening to go after Rand Paul's family with an axe to spill out the guts of his children.
-Rand Paul's neighbor attacked Rand Paul and broke his ribs. He only received a 30 day sentence for doing so.
-Rand Paul was on the practice squad of a baseball team that was attacked by a gunman who shot a Republican Congressman and two others.
I wonder how this more normalized fascist like Dem behavior will effect voter behavior. [[Again, repeat, "many Democrats are not unhinged".)
Are your feelings hurt? Sorry.
Where is your empathy for the countless humanitarian lifelines that the Republicans continue to cut? Plenty of money for tax cuts to the top 1%, but wait - Medicare and Medicaid need to be hemmed because we can't afford their bloated budgets. Huge federal tax cuts to corporations who used the cash influx to buy back stock and NOT invest in their labor forces. Now that that's out of the way - we have to put planned parenthood on the chopping block - it's too expensive.
How about the senseless and unwarranted dismantling of financial protections and regulations that led to hundreds of thousands of people losing their life savings? The Right is at it again trying to toss us all down the same well. Who needs financial protections against too-big-to-fail corporate titans when the taxpayers can just bail them out? Did we not learn out lesson when this happened LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ecb9ef5bae3a
I can come up with countless other ways the 'Pubs continue their venomous war on the middle and lower class, but let's focus on the fact that Sara Huckabee can't enjoy her ice cream in peace, or that Ajit Pai - the face of selling out the American people - can't walk to his car without being heckled. I bet they wish they could just sit 50 miles up in a tower and pass this legislation without having to confront their constituents... ever.
What your alluding to/ranting about is everyday American taxpayers finding their voice. The conservative supreme court said that corporations are people too [[while shockingly not holding them to the same criminal accountability as your everyday taxpayer). And those corporations are finding that they have a pretty big voice when it comes the direction of our country. Well - this is the middle class [[and under) finding their voice. If the Supreme Court and the GOP want to silence it over and over - you'll just be seeing more and more of these interactions [[less the horrific shooting you so purposefully assigned to the left).
Lmao,it took you this long to find your voice? Where was it at before,hidden in the sock drawer?
No voice when the previous administration was giving billions to musk while people were getting kicked out of thier house,but that was overlooked because of hope and change which brought on desperation and little change.
People whine about big corporations but yet provide fluff service when they are bringing jobs and investment to their city.
Not happy about corporate America?start your own and show them how it should be.Be the example.
The current president has been in office for two years but it is his fault that the country has been screwed up for the last 30,if you are just finding your voice now,you are part of the problem and not a part of the solution and are looking for somebody else to place blame on instead of excepting personal responsibility.
Everyday taxpayers are still going about thier business of daily life,when it comes to election time they vote in office those who they believe will create change,that is thier voice,they do not need to find it and they never lost it.
Those who need to find thier voice have bigger personal issues then thier voice.
My post was about the recent behavior of Democrats including violence. Everyday taxpayers have found their voice in Donald Trump who lowered their taxes and in doing so reduced unemployment to 3.8% For the third time I'll ask, your cliches aside, "When was the last time a Democratic President presided over 3.8% unemployment?"
"If the Supreme Court and the GOP want to silence it over and over - you'll just be seeing more and more of these interactions." -TkSshreve
Why, because Democrats don't believe in elections or like little children can't wait until November or are otherwise revealing their hand? Creepy. It sounds to me like you are an apologist for recent Democratic violence. I'm not.
By the way, under Obama, the 1% increased their share of national wealth at a faster rate than they did under Bush. By the way, speaking of "too-big-to-fail corporate titans", under Obama, the 1% increased their share of national wealth at a faster rate than they did under Bush. Didn't Senators Obama and Clinton both vote to bail out those too-big-to-fail banks?
You can ask me that question for a first time if you want to, but if you want to act like you've been waiting for me to answer your loaded question, you may be sitting there for a bit. I believe it was addressed before, and quite succinctly in my opinion.
The current unemployment rate is by far a terrible indicator of how Trump has been performing as a president. In fact, any trend in jobs should be attributed to the cyclical pattern of our economy. One that Obama rescued from those corporate vultures whom "guess who" allowed to prey upon the middle class.
I just pointed out that Senator Obama voted to bail out those "corporate vulture" banks and was better for the 1% than even Bush. If you want to claim that "The current unemployment rate is by far a terrible indicator of how Trump has been performing as a president.", good luck with that. When his tax cut passed, all the naysayers were telling us that the the end was nigh.
If "any trend in jobs should be attributed to the cyclical pattern of our economy", then why did Obama assign the average family of four an extra $120,000 in federal debt?" I'm sort of with you on this one.
I forget which Democratic president you cited in a previous post as being the last Democratic president under whom national unemployment fell to 3.8%.
Post #194 you are still responding to had to do with my observation that Democrats are getting ruder and even more violent. We are straying from that point.
They are showing patterns of Democrats being forced out for financial reasons from blue states to the cheaper red states,I guess the question is while forming purple states are the Dem going to turn the red states into a mirror of what they left or by mingling with republicans are they going to end up leaning that way.
Are states like Arizona and Texas in a better spot now with a large influx of blue moving in then they were 10/20 years ago?