Welcome to Dem Land

[oladub]

“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...

[aj3647]

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?

[oladub]

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.

[Pam]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on Donna Brazile's DNC Bombshell

https://youtu.be/S2PHwuIERms

[313WX]

https://youtu.be/S2PHwuIERms

I said it in another thread, but I'll say it here as well.

That's a person who really deserves to be called Madame President.

[Pam]

I said it in another thread, but I'll say it here as well.

That's a person who really deserves to be called Madame President.

Agree. I don't think I was aware of her before the Bernie campaign. She had the guts to endorse him when most of her colleagues did not. I remember her quote "I'm not afraid of the Clinton machine".

[KJ5]

Agree. I don't think I was aware of her before the Bernie campaign. She had the guts to endorse him when most of her colleagues did not. I remember her quote "I'm not afraid of the Clinton machine".

I love Tulsi but it'll be an uphill battle to get her past the neoliberal smear machine. They attack her worse than Bernie. To hear them tell it she eats dead babies at barbeques with Assad. But lies and smears aside, I support Tulsi Gabbard 100%

[Richard]

What is up with Donna Brazile,she was in the thick of it and now wants to come clean?

[313WX]

What is up with Donna Brazile,she was in the thick of it and now wants to come clean?

She's trying to sell a book. Nothing more.

[oladub]

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.

[Richard]

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.

[Pam]

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/

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.

[Richard]

^ 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.

[aj3647]

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/

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:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	191	45		3
Democratic	65	119		9

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.

[Richard]

It was presented for repeal by a republican.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security,deserve neither.

[oladub]

^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.

[aj3647]

It was presented for repeal by a republican.

Which Republican would that be? What's his name?

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.

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

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	227	7		5
Democratic	74	111		5
Independent
TOTALS	301	118		10

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.

[Richard]

^

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.

[oladub]

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.

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.

[aj3647]

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.

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.

^

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.

And what amendment was that, Richard? An amendment to REPEAL, as you claimed?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/la...rticle/2645402

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.

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."

[Richard]

^ 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.

[Richard]

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.

[oladub]

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.

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.

[Honky Tonk]

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 Democrats plus Lieberman and Sanders. Recalculating, that means the 31 yes votes and 20 nays from this bunch in 2012 works out to 62% 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.

Correct. This way people will blame the REPS, put DEMS back in office, the very people that could have avoided all this in the first place. Too much game playing and not enough concentration on people's needs, IMO.

[Zacha341]

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.