Looks like 4 more years !

[commiechew]

50953********************************************* **************************************

[Natural Lefty]

More fake news from Commiechew

For one thing, Stormy Daniels is actually a Republican. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/stormy-daniels-porn-star_n_527293.html

[commiechew]

NEWS?!

Do you really think I'm putting this up as news? It might be news, but I put it up just to make fun of you people. Get one thing straight... she's a porn star who happens to call herself republican. You refusal to recognize/admit she's a porno actress and, would rather designate her solely a republican instead? By all means do so... Live your life, it's a silly one.

[etucker1959]

NEWS?!

Do you really think I'm putting this up as news? It might be news, but I put it up just to make fun of you people. Get one thing straight... she's a porn star who happens to call herself republican. You refusal to recognize/admit she's a porno actress and, would rather designate her solely a republican instead? By all means do so... Live your life, it's a silly one.

Just to make fun of us people??? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!!!

[Natural Lefty]

A typical, nonsensical reply from Commiechew.

First, both the Parkland protesters and Stormy Daniels are current news items.

Second, I didn't say that Stormy Daniels is not a porn actress. Why wouldn't I say that she is a porn actress? She is a Republican porn actress, and it figures. They are the ones who are obsessed with $$$.

Regarding the meme itself. Hillary Clinton is not the leader of the Democratic Party. She is basically out of politics and I believe she will not run for public office again. Moreover, a lot of liberals don't think particularly well of her. There seems to be a consensus among conservatives that we do, but we don't. The Clintons have had a huge influence on conventional Democratic politics since Bill was elected, and that is what got Hillary nominated over Bernie Sanders, unfortunately. She had the Democratic politicians all lined up for her.

Regarding the Parkland students, they may have varying political views. I think that district has a Republican representative, so many of their parents are Republicans. But if they leaned Republican before, I don't think they will now, knowing that the NRA has Republicans in their pockets, or rather, that Republican politicians have NRA money in their pockets. These are just young citizens trying to do something admirable by helping to get reasonable legislation passed and help save lives. Yet, many Republicans cannot seem to keep themselves from being critical of them. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them run for office when they are old enough, but leaders of the Democratic Party? Don't be ridiculous.

[commiechew]

A typical, nonsensical reply from Commiechew.

First, both the Parkland protesters and Stormy Daniels are current news items.

Second, I didn't say that Stormy Daniels is not a porn actress. Why wouldn't I say that she is a porn actress? She is a Republican porn actress, and it figures. They are the ones who are obsessed with $$$.

Regarding the meme itself. Hillary Clinton is not the leader of the Democratic Party. She is basically out of politics and I believe she will not run for public office again. Moreover, a lot of liberals don't think particularly well of her. There seems to be a consensus among conservatives that we do, but we don't. The Clintons have had a huge influence on conventional Democratic politics since Bill was elected, and that is what got Hillary nominated over Bernie Sanders, unfortunately. She had the Democratic politicians all lined up for her.

Regarding the Parkland students, they may have varying political views. I think that district has a Republican representative, so many of their parents are Republicans. But if they leaned Republican before, I don't think they will now, knowing that the NRA has Republicans in their pockets, or rather, that Republican politicians have NRA money in their pockets. These are just young citizens trying to do something admirable by helping to get reasonable legislation passed and help save lives. Yet, many Republicans cannot seem to keep themselves from being critical of them. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them run for office when they are old enough, but leaders of the Democratic Party? Don't be ridiculous.

All your other excrement is just that... but you fools were going to ride the Hillary boat for a full 8 years! The only reason you didn't is because sound minds took control and are still in control. Don't try to tell me now that you 5 donks wouldn't have defended her and touted what a great President she shouldaa wouldaa couldaa been...

had the brains of this country not set you idiots straight.

[commiechew]

Clinton calls 2016 election 'traumatic,' admits she'd like to 'take back' some things she said
By Paulina Dedaj


Almost a year and a half since losing her bid for president, former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton still is talking about election woes, calling it a “traumatic” experience.

Speaking at Rutgers University Thursday, Clinton spoke primarily about being a woman in politics — and being targeted as a result, the problem Republicans face as a disjointed unit, the upcoming elections and her hopes that the recent events under the Trump administration would motivate people enough to vote for change.

When asked about being told to get off the public stage and “shut up,” Clinton said she was “struck” by the fact that “they never said that to any man,” citing unsourced research from “one of the young people” on her staff.

Clinton also mentioned being called “shrill” by the media, which she said never commented on her opponent’s habit of “finger waving.”

“It’s about time that women were allowed to be themselves the way men are allowed to be themselves,” she said.

The former secretary of state also said she’s regretted some things she said.

“I can do better. There are things I’ve said I’d like to take back.”

She might have been referring to remarks she made earlier this month in India where she said women face “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband” thinks they should. Critics slammed the comments as sexist.

She made similar remarks in September, seemingly blaming women in part for her loss.

Clinton agreed to do Thursday's speech for $25,000 from a university endowment, NJ.com reported.

Clinton also took the opportunity to bash the Republican Party saying it slowly was coming undone by “a very small group of powerful forces,” who could fund another candidate if one does not appeal to the “far right.” She said she was referring to groups including the National Rifle Association.

Clinton talked about the upcoming elections and the number of Republicans who have announced their retirement or that have said that they will not seek reelection.

“They’re leaving,” she said, “because they know they will be shown no understanding by the hard right and the money that funds it.”

Clinton also took jabs at the Trump administration ahead of the important 2018 midterm elections, although she mentioned Donald Trump by name only once, but alluded to him several other times.

“I really hope this is a turning point,” she said, speaking of the upcoming midterm elections.

“I’m hoping in this election, this midterm election, enough people will, maybe for the first time or maybe for the first time in a long time say, ‘Look, I was really moved by what happened at Parkland, or I’m sick we’re the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement on climate change, or I don’t like what they tried to do to healthcare’ or whatever the motivator is” to ensure enough people will go out to vote.

Clinton spoke to a crowd of just over 5,000 people.


High pitched whining; just as I said. Didn't anyone else hear it? No one wants to hear that "shrieking noise" (coming from a man or woman... you Democrats get that?). Speaking of pitches, she looks like she's setting up the box for another swing, or at least she's hoping to get called up from the farm... lol.

[Brent]

commiesucker
I have not seen one single comment on any of these messed up threads where anyone supports Hillary Clinton any longer. The only ones supporting her and dragging her along are idiots like you on the right. The GOP did a great job of demonizing her and ruining her career and it will never recover. To say anyone on here supports her for president any longer just proves what an imbecile you are.
Pay attention moron, your precious GOP is sinking and stinking to high heaven. The hypocrisy is being called out and people are sick of it on both sides of the isle. Do I believe that the DNC is better?
Well at this point in time I would have to say it is significantly better and not a threat to our country and the world like the current administration. That being said, they are still corrupt politicians as well, just not as immediately dangerous and hell bent on 'privatizing' our great country for profit as the GOP.

[Brent]

NEWS?!

Do you really think I'm putting this up as news? It might be news, but I put it up just to make fun of you people. Get one thing straight... she's a porn star who happens to call herself republican. You refusal to recognize/admit she's a porno actress and, would rather designate her solely a republican instead? By all means do so... Live your life, it's a silly one.

He's just pointing out the stupidity of your comment. To say that she's part of democratic 'leadership' when she's a republican would be typical of a 'fake news' sky is falling moronic Trump supporter trying to make a meme out of anything regardless of it not making any sense. And for an idiot like you to call someones life silly? I'm pretty sure you don't know him at all and just result to name calling from the keyboard in mom's basement out of fear. LMAO

[Natural Lefty]

Brent is correct. Hillary Clinton is still the favorite whipping girl of the right, when in fact those on the left have moved on, and many of us were never very fond of her. I thought she only got as far as she did because of Bill, and there are many better Democrats to lead us. Yes, we probably would have thought she was a decent president, but also at least speaking for myself, that we could have done a lot better. Your "high pitched" and "shrieking noise" comments speak for themselves. Would you have ever have said the same of a man, Commiechew?

[commiechew]

I know enough to get a rise out of him... and it worked too, didn't it? lol And now look, it got you too! LOL You people can't stop yourselves from defending any position that differs from yours. You need to let things go... Russia's going to be pushing buttons soon and everyone is going to worry about that. There are bigger things to watch out for besides a lame meme and the defense of a politically dead issue. He's your President, "He" not "She"... "He". His hand is thinking "Am I going to push the Red Button soon? AM I? BOOM!

High pitched screeching from a man? it comes out of you too. It's just that your vocal chords won't let you hit the high notes but, it's still shrieking... if you'd just stick to talking about fishing, no one would ever accuse you two of shrieking - I know I wouldn't.

[etucker1959]

I know enough to get a rise out of him... and it worked too, didn't it? lol And now look, it got you too! LOL You people can't stop yourselves from defending any position that differs from yours. You need to let things go... Russia's going to be pushing buttons soon and everyone is going to worry about that. There are bigger things to watch out for besides a lame meme and the defense of a politically dead issue. He's your President, "He" not "She"... "He". His hand is thinking "Am I going to push the Red Button soon? AM I? BOOM!

High pitched screeching from a man? it comes out of you too. It's just that your vocal chords won't let you hit the high notes but, it's still shrieking... if you'd just stick to talking about fishing, no one would ever accuse you two of shrieking - I know I wouldn't.

If you think by getting a rise from someone, "you" actually accomplished something for yourself or for your political affiliation. You couldn't have missed the mark more then if you were shooting backwards. I shouldn't be telling you this, because you're playing into the hands of the people you totally disagree with. But you can't help yourself, so you won't stop posting, so it won't matter what I'm about to tell you.

The people on the Left, Center or Independents need someone to bounce back their ideas. (otherwise it would not be very entertaining) If everyone would keep agreeing with each other, "what would be the fun in that??"

The best comedy teams had a straight man and a true comic. It was the job of the straight man to feed the lines to the comic or be the butt of the jokes for the comic. If that analogy is too abstract for you to comprehend. I've got another one for sure, you can understand!!!

It's the Harlem Globe trotters. For them to do their basketball magic, they do need to have a pretend team to be playing against. (the Washington Generals) They never lose to them, but are a necessary prop!!! Sorta like what's left on here arguing the Conservative side. The real strength on here arguing for the Conservative position, ran for the hills when Trump got elected. (they truly were paper tigers all along!!)

[commiechew]

If you think by getting a rise from someone, "you" actually accomplished something for yourself or for your political affiliation. You couldn't have missed the mark more then if you were shooting backwards. I shouldn't be telling you this, because you're playing into the hands of the people you totally disagree with. But you can't help yourself, so you won't stop posting, so it won't matter what I'm about to tell you.

The people on the Left, Center or Independents need someone to bounce back their ideas. (otherwise it would not be very entertaining) If everyone would keep agreeing with each other, "what would be the fun in that??"

The best comedy teams had a straight man and a true comic. It was the job of the straight man to feed the lines to the comic or be the butt of the jokes for the comic. If that analogy is too abstract for you to comprehend. I've got another one for sure, you can understand!!!

It's the Harlem Globe trotters. For them to do their basketball magic, they do need to have a pretend team to be playing against. (the Washington Generals) They never lose to them, but are a necessary prop!!! Sorta like what's left on here arguing the Conservative side. The real strength on here arguing for the Conservative position, ran for the hills when Trump got elected. (they truly were paper tigers all along!!)

Finally someone with a clear vision of the world. If the rest of the goonies on this forum only had it as well. I applaud the honesty and your willingness to help, Thank you!

[etucker1959]

Finally someone with a clear vision of the world. If the rest of the goonies on this forum only had it as well. I applaud the honesty and your willingness to help, Thank you!

3 people just fell off of their chairs and it's not the Conservatives!!!! lol

[Natural Lefty]

If you post stuff to get a rise out of people, Commiechew, that makes you a troll (look up the definition of troll), and I am not talking about fishing here.

But I am not a shrieker, just a calm and well-informed responder, which drives conservatives batty.

[commiechew]

Then there's this guy... he might run.




50955

[commiechew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szaKnOhJbow

[commiechew]

Look at the previous post video...

[etucker1959]

Then there's this guy... he might run.




50955

That's the funny part about uncle Joe. He stacks up "Best" against Trump in theoretical match ups in 2020. The logic is, "Alpha Male vs Alpha Male." (some people want an Alpha Male as President) Except Biden has a long career in politics and no major scandals. Then there is Trump, "do I need to say more!!" lol

Then there was old man Bush, "Which I personal like." Was known to pull an David Cop a feel on women.

[etucker1959]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szaKnOhJbow

Good Speech!!! Too bad he didn't live up to the rhetoric he gave!!!

[commiechew]

POLITICS

50 PERCENT: Trump Outpaces Obama In Approval Ratings


President Donald Trump’s approval rating hit 50 percent in Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll Monday, which puts him ahead of his predecessor at the same point in the presidency.

The last time Trump hit 50 percent in the Rasmussen tracking poll was February 27. At the time, he was generally within the 47-50 percent range. The President’s approval rating outpaces that of former President Barack Obama, who sat at 46 percent in Rasmussen’s tracking poll on April 2, 2010.

Trump’s approval ratings have steadily climbed in other, less-favorable polls with aggregator FiveThirtyEight putting his overall approval at 40 percent, with a 53.2 percent disapproval rating.

A recent CNN poll found that Trump’s approval rating is at an 11 month high of 42 percent. The Associate Press found similar results.



*Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.[56] In a post-election commentary entitled "Issues Mattered After All," Rasmussen Reports’ Managing Editor wrote "The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it. Controversy was the name of the media game, most of it focused on Republican Donald Trump, and many media outlets, most prominently the New York Times, and many pollsters were saying a little over a month ago that Democrat Hillary Clinton had already won. But the three daily tracking polls – the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen Reports – consistently showed a much tighter race."[57] As in 2012 (see above), a Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos,[58] who once served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, compared pre-election polling with the results from Election Day. The study ranked 14 organizations but, unlike 2012, chose to omit the results of Rasmussen Reports.[59] An American Research Group study[60] based on the method of Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy,[61] found that Rasmussen Reports had the highest accuracy among 25 pollsters in the 2016 election.

[commiechew]

Good Speech!!! Too bad he didn't live up to the rhetoric he gave!!!

We (voters) gave Obama the opportunity he never deserved.

[Brent]

POLITICS

50 PERCENT: Trump Outpaces Obama In Approval Ratings


President Donald Trump’s approval rating hit 50 percent in Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll Monday, which puts him ahead of his predecessor at the same point in the presidency.

The last time Trump hit 50 percent in the Rasmussen tracking poll was February 27. At the time, he was generally within the 47-50 percent range. The President’s approval rating outpaces that of former President Barack Obama, who sat at 46 percent in Rasmussen’s tracking poll on April 2, 2010.

Trump’s approval ratings have steadily climbed in other, less-favorable polls with aggregator FiveThirtyEight putting his overall approval at 40 percent, with a 53.2 percent disapproval rating.

A recent CNN poll found that Trump’s approval rating is at an 11 month high of 42 percent. The Associate Press found similar results.



*Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.[56] In a post-election commentary entitled "Issues Mattered After All," Rasmussen Reports’ Managing Editor wrote "The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it. Controversy was the name of the media game, most of it focused on Republican Donald Trump, and many media outlets, most prominently the New York Times, and many pollsters were saying a little over a month ago that Democrat Hillary Clinton had already won. But the three daily tracking polls – the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen Reports – consistently showed a much tighter race."[57] As in 2012 (see above), a Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos,[58] who once served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, compared pre-election polling with the results from Election Day. The study ranked 14 organizations but, unlike 2012, chose to omit the results of Rasmussen Reports.[59] An American Research Group study[60] based on the method of Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy,[61] found that Rasmussen Reports had the highest accuracy among 25 pollsters in the 2016 election.

Blah blah blah HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA. Really? Obama is not president any longer and had this same PoS congress and house willfully admitting that they would sabotage ANYTHING he tried to do, so to compare is ridiculous. Trump can't even get stuff done with these bozos and he's a republican. Not to worry, those clowns days are numbered and they know it. Now I do admit that some things Trump has done have kind of worked, but at what cost is my BIGGEST problem. Our country is being sold to the highest bidder and will be taken over by corporations if not stopped and if you're OK with that then you really are not lover of the USA. This administration is a 'yuuuuuuuge' threat to our democracy and it's only going to get worse. We will be in a war before long, it's one of the most tried and true republican methods of maintaining power and making their military contractors and themselves rich. I'd be willing to bet that you'd prefer being communist over Democrats running things. Between the Sinclair Broadcast Group and Trump trying to sabotage our media and make it a state run propaganda machine and all protections for our planet and education being destroyed by idiots (DeVoss & Pruitt) we are heading down a very dangerous slope and if you can't see it, then get out of the swamp because you're drowning in it and don't even realize it.
What you don't realize is that I'm not a Democrat, I'm an American and will always vote for whats best for the country and not party lines. Right now, the republicans are as destructive as anything I've ever seen in all my years and all of the history books I've ever read. They are a danger to our country and THATS why I can't support them.

[Brent]

We (voters) gave Obama the opportunity he never deserved.

Never deserved? Please explain. This should be interesting

[commiechew]

1. Obama's caver-in-chief leadership style
When Obama ran for president in 2008, some thought a refreshing aspect of his candidacy was his potential management style. Unlike the Bush administration, which ruled by dictates—like its war of choice in Iraq—Obama was a mediator who would bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. Obama offered a mediator's promise. It was not, "We won, we rule." Instead it was a pledge to find common ground.

Sadly, this management style has mostly failed in Washington. During Obama's first five years, many of his biggest domestic disappointments have come from negotiating with Republicans and with private interests who never had any intention of compromising or working in good faith. Perhaps the only memorable thing that former Sen. John Edwards said in his 2008 campaign was his critique of Obama’s style: "You cannot negotiate with political thugs."

But Obama's inclination to try to satisfy all factions has lead to the key disasters of his presidency. The budget battles with the House GOP—and the tactical error he made about GOP thinking—lead to the cruel federal sequester and subsequent government shutdown. His decision not to push for a public option in Obamacare and his failure to insist on cost controls for private health plans are two others.

It’s sad that being a reasonable person in today’s Washington often doesn’t work. A less charitable interpretation is that Obama just wimped out. The hard truth is that a president has to be feared and respected by his opponents, not seen as a person who is more willing to compromise than draw lines.

2. Obama's deportation of nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants
During his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama addressed immigration reform specifically, saying: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

However, Obama has deported nearly two million undocumented immigrants — more than any president in history. And a 2013 report (https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/330/) found that Immigrations Custom Enforcement detained nearly 90 percent of undocumented immigrants in 2012 and the beginning of 2013 for non-serious offenses. Deportations have become so rampant that 61 percent of immigrant Hispanics said that deportation relief is more important (https://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/) than a pathway to citizenship. In an attempt to resist the craze, undocumented activists have chained themselves to the White House demanding “Not One More." They've blocked deportation buses, interrupted Obama’s speeches and 30 even crossed the border, which resulted in five of them getting deported. At one point, 29 House Democrats sent a letter to Obama, urging him to halt deportations. And five of these lawmakers will bring immigration activists as their guests to the SOTU address.

3. Obama's coziness with, and failure to regulate or punish, the big banks
The devastating financial crisis of 2007-08 was an opportunity for a transformative leader to take on the out-of-control banking industry, which has become a dangerous oligopoly that threatens the economy and preys upon American citizens. FDR did this during the Great Depression, ensuring a thorough investigation of wrongdoing and setting up rules and regulations that kept banks in line for many decades until the deregulatory fever of the 1980s once again unleashed them.

Unfortunately, rather than bringing change, Obama has consistently surrounded himself with bank-friendly policy advisors who tend to believe that what is good for the banks is good for everyone. He has not made bringing criminal bankers to justice a priority, and his administration is clearly a revolving door for Wall Street. The biggest and most dangerous banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo—are even bigger than they were before the crisis. Scarcely a week passes without news of some new abuse committed by these institutions. Obama has failed to support obvious measures to rein in Wall Street, such as the financial transaction tax, and Dodd-Frank has been mostly defanged. Banks have enjoyed special treatment and record-breaking profits during Obama’s tenure, while ordinary Americans have struggled.

4. Obama's education "reformers" are corporate privatizers
Looking for further proof of Obama’s neoliberal, anti-progressive bona fides? Then look no further than how his administration has approached public education over the years.

From the moment the president chose Arne Duncan—who famously closed dozens of public schools (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/30/the-biggest-irony-in-chicagos-mass-closing-of-schools/) and pushed privatization of the rest during his tenure as Chicago schools CEO—to head the Department of Education, it was clear that corporate interests would play a central role in the shaping of education policy. The administration’s signature education initiative, unveiled in late 2009, was nothing less than a chip off the old, failed policy block that defined George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-decade-of-no-child-left-behind-lessons-from-a-policy-failure/2012/01/05/gIQAeb19gP_blog.html//)” agenda.

The Obama/Duncan “Race to the Top (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top)” initiative uses both carrots and sticks to lure schools to compete for $4.35 billion in federal funding; required is a willingness to commit to increasingly controversial testing and assessment—linking teacher evaluation to student performance—and an enthusiasm for shuttering low-performing schools and turning them over to charter operators to spur private investments wherever possible.

These are not small concerns. As education historian Diane Ravitch noted in 2010 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html), with Race to the Top,

“[President Obama and Secretary Duncan] are heading in the wrong direction. On their present course, they will end up demoralizing teachers, closing schools that are struggling to improve, dismantling the teaching profession, destabilizing communities, and harming public education.”

Who pays the price for these policies, none of which have actually been proven to work? The children and families of America. The neediest among us, of course, most of all.

5. Obama's call to ramp-up and embrace of our now pervasive surveillance state
In his first run for president, Obama repeatedly criticized George Bush for using post-9/11 programs to spy on American citizens. But after entering office, Obama has done nothing but ramp up all forms of surveillance, from metadata capture to wiretapping to recording phone log information of American citizens. Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's surveillance programs and capabilities shoot deep into the territory of science fiction and George Orwell's 1984. Obama's speech on the NSA and surveillance this January provided little in the way of peace of mind for any citizen concerned with maintaining a shred of privacy. Robert Scheer got to the heart of the matter (https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/no-place-hide-were-all-suspects-barack-obamas-america):


"Barack Obama’s speech on surveillance was his worst performance... in its stark betrayal of his oft-proclaimed respect for constitutional safeguards and civil liberty. His unbridled defense of the surveillance state opened the door to the new McCarthyism of Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who on Sunday talk shows were branding Edward Snowden as a possible Russian spy.

"Somewhere in law school, Obama must have learned that the whole point of our Bill of Rights, inspired by American revolutionaries like Sam Adams, a Sons of Liberty co-conspirator, was to curtail government power as the main threat to freedom. Thus was Adams’ insistence on the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, banning the warrantless searches that Obama now seeks to justify."


6. Obama's dedication to secrecy and his hypocrisy about drones
Barack Obama owes a chunk of his election success to anti-war voters who turned out during the Democratic primaries in 2008, disgusted by Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize force on Iraq. But the man who became president has sorely disappointed many of the same anti-war voters with his expansion of the deadly drone war.

Since he was elected, President Obama has launched more 390 drone strikes—eight times the number George W. Bush oversaw. Obama has escalated the drone war in Pakistan—where the majority of attacks take place—and in Somalia and Yemen. The drone strikes, meant to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban, have killed scores of civilians, disrupted tribal life, brought about huge suffering and trauma and inflamed anger at the U.S. Four Americans have been killed in drone attacks, and the whole program remains shrouded in secrecy.



In response to a growing wave of criticism, Obama gave a landmark speech last year where he vowed that transparency would increase and that drone strikes would only occur when there was a “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed. Those promises have gone unfulfilled. The U.S. has yet to release a count of the civilians and militants it has killed or offer up the full legal rationale to Congress justifying these missile strikes. Meanwhile, civilians continue to die in Pakistan and Yemen, “collateral damage” from these drone attacks. The latest example came on December 12, 2013, when a drone attack in Yemen, said to be aimed at an Al Qaeda leader, killed 12 civilians driving as part of a wedding convoy.

7. Obama's attempt to ram through the corporation-loving, people-harming Trans-Pacific Partnership in secret
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a super-secret multinational corporate scheme sometimes described as "NAFTA on steroids," is one of Obama's worst initiatives. As secretive as it is, information about the TPP has been leaking out, and the more people hear about it, the worse it sounds. Fortunately, the light of day may also help to scuttle the deal.

Wikileaks leaked the TPP Environmental Chapter [in mid-January]. The bottom line—there is no enforcement to protect the environment. The TPP is worse than President George W. Bush’s trade deals. Mainstream environmental groups are saying the TPP is unacceptable. Similarly, the leak of the Intellectual Property Chapter revealed that it created a path to patent everything imaginable, including plants and animals, to turn everything into a commodity for profit. The Obama administration was pushing it way beyond normal intellectual property law in order to increase profits for everything from pharmaceuticals to textbooks.

As Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese recently wrote for AlterNet (https://www.alternet.org/activism/growing-tide-people-pressure-making-shadowy-corporate-scheme-politically-toxic-washington): "After four years of secret negotiations with more than 600 corporate advisers, the once seemingly invincible largest trade bill in history, covering 40% of the world’s economy, looks very much like it can be defeated."

Why is the TPP looking like it can be stopped? According to Flowers and Zeese:

"One reason is its secrecy. Leaks are sinking the TPP like the Titanic. ... The refrain is always the same: profits come first. The necessities of the people and protection of the planet come last."

Ron Kirk, the former U.S. trade rep, said they were keeping it secret because the more people knew, the less they would like the TPP and it would become so unpopular it could never become law. Each leak has proven him right.

8. Obama's failure to do much about the racist drug war and discriminatory sentencing
President Obama, a former heavy pot smoker in his youth, has very slowly and finally admitted a few painful realities about the drug war, which were just as true 5 years ago when he took office as now.

Obama recently told the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all) he thinks marijuana isn't any more harmful than alcohol (actually, it’s proven that cannabis is far less harmful the booze...but this is what we call progress). He also said it is important for the new cannabis laws in Colorado and Washington to go forward "because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

But here, hypocrisy reigns supreme. Obama does not walk the walk of his talk. In 2011, drug offenders accounted for 48 percent of the federal prisoner population and 16 percent of the state prisoner population—and half of all of those people are incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes, according to the Sentencing Project (https://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Trends_in_Corrections_Fact_sheet.pdf).

Last year the U.S. Department of Justice revised the law so that mandatory minimum sentences no longer applied to the majority of nonviolent drug offenders. However, Obama has only granted clemency to 8 of the more than 100,000 prisoners still serving time for drug related crimes in the country. And he still holds the record for granting the fewest pardons of any U.S. president.

And in a truly shocking move, according to Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times (https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/linda-greenhouse/), Obama's Justice Department fought a Court recommendation to release thousands of federal inmates still serving time under the racist crack standards of pre-2010. So the full court overruled its panel, and those thousands continue to rot in jail with a law that in essence, due to its discriminatory effect, was illegal. Obama's words are empty and were well within his power, to end the corrupt and racist war on drugs, and curb its devastating effects.

9. Obama's counter productive energy policy
Calling someone “anti-science” is usually an epithet reserved for those clinging to creationism and climate denialism, and yet Obama’s embrace of an energy strategy using “all of the above” flies in the face of everything the world’s top scientists have been saying about the threats we face as a result of climate change. The scale of the accelerating climate catastrophe requires an energy policy grounded in the best science, prioritizing clean energy, and severely limiting the use and extraction of fossil fuels—not a namby-pamby “all of the above.” Not even close.

Inexcusable are the Obama administration’s embrace of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, and the continual propping up (https://www.alternet.org/environment/take-frightening-tour-down-americas-climate-change-highway-slideshow) of a dying coal industry that’s killing us along with itself. A great example, as Jeff Biggers outlines (https://www.alternet.org/environment/obama-gifts-big-coal-1-billion) on AlterNet recently, was Obama’s Department of Energy gifting Big Coal $1 billion for a ‘clean coal’ boondoggle.

Also baffling and unacceptable is Obama’s green-lighting (https://billmoyers.com/2014/01/22/how-obama-threw-the-south-under-a-bus-for-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/) of the southern leg of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, while hypocritically calling for more review of climate change impacts of the northern section. In light of the best science from the international community, the Obama administration should be figuring out how to move us away from dependence on tar sands, coal, oil and fracked gas as quickly as possible – not making them the centerpiece of his energy policy.

“An ‘all of the above’ strategy is a compromise that future generations can’t afford,” read a letter to Obama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/01/16/National-Politics/Graphics/All%20of%20the%20Above%20letter%20Jan%2016%20FINAL %20corrected.pdf)signed by a coalition of the country’s major environmental organizations. “It fails to prioritize clean energy … it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future. It threatens our health, our homes, our most sensitive public lands, our oceans and our most precious wild places.”

10. Obama's huge expansion of the number of countries where we are fighting secret wars with Special Ops
Bush was a real war monger, with his “Shock and Awe,” “Mission Accomplished,” and wars of choice. But Obama, once seen as the anti-war candidate, has him soundly beat in the number of secret wars with unconventional forces spread across the globe. After a thorough investigation, Nick Turse of Tom Dispatch recently reported the staggering fact that there are currently U.S. Special Ops in 70% of the world’s nations. “All over the planet, the Obama administration is waging a secret war (https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175790/) whose full extent has never been fully revealed,” Turse wrote.

Turse then offers an accounting of the exponential growth in Special Ops, which include Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALs and Delta Force commandos, specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, and civil affairs personnel, and much more.

“In the waning days of the Bush presidency, Special Operations forces were reportedly deployed (https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/posture2008.pdf) in about 60 countries around the world . . . In 2013, elite U.S. forces were deployed in 134 countries around the globe . . . This 123% increase during the Obama years demonstrates how, in addition to conventional wars and a CIA drone campaign (https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175551/engelhardt_assassin_in_chief), public diplomacy and extensive electronic spying (https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175713/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_you_are_our_secret/), the U.S. has engaged in still another significant and growing form of overseas power projection. Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.” Like 9/11. That’s an example of blowback.

[Brent]

1. Obama's caver-in-chief leadership style
When Obama ran for president in 2008, some thought a refreshing aspect of his candidacy was his potential management style. Unlike the Bush administration, which ruled by dictates—like its war of choice in Iraq—Obama was a mediator who would bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. Obama offered a mediator's promise. It was not, "We won, we rule." Instead it was a pledge to find common ground.

Sadly, this management style has mostly failed in Washington. During Obama's first five years, many of his biggest domestic disappointments have come from negotiating with Republicans and with private interests who never had any intention of compromising or working in good faith. Perhaps the only memorable thing that former Sen. John Edwards said in his 2008 campaign was his critique of Obama’s style: "You cannot negotiate with political thugs."

But Obama's inclination to try to satisfy all factions has lead to the key disasters of his presidency. The budget battles with the House GOP—and the tactical error he made about GOP thinking—lead to the cruel federal sequester and subsequent government shutdown. His decision not to push for a public option in Obamacare and his failure to insist on cost controls for private health plans are two others.

It’s sad that being a reasonable person in today’s Washington often doesn’t work. A less charitable interpretation is that Obama just wimped out. The hard truth is that a president has to be feared and respected by his opponents, not seen as a person who is more willing to compromise than draw lines.

2. Obama's deportation of nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants
During his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama addressed immigration reform specifically, saying: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

However, Obama has deported nearly two million undocumented immigrants — more than any president in history. And a 2013 report (https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/330/) found that Immigrations Custom Enforcement detained nearly 90 percent of undocumented immigrants in 2012 and the beginning of 2013 for non-serious offenses. Deportations have become so rampant that 61 percent of immigrant Hispanics said that deportation relief is more important (https://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/) than a pathway to citizenship. In an attempt to resist the craze, undocumented activists have chained themselves to the White House demanding “Not One More." They've blocked deportation buses, interrupted Obama’s speeches and 30 even crossed the border, which resulted in five of them getting deported. At one point, 29 House Democrats sent a letter to Obama, urging him to halt deportations. And five of these lawmakers will bring immigration activists as their guests to the SOTU address.

3. Obama's coziness with, and failure to regulate or punish, the big banks
The devastating financial crisis of 2007-08 was an opportunity for a transformative leader to take on the out-of-control banking industry, which has become a dangerous oligopoly that threatens the economy and preys upon American citizens. FDR did this during the Great Depression, ensuring a thorough investigation of wrongdoing and setting up rules and regulations that kept banks in line for many decades until the deregulatory fever of the 1980s once again unleashed them.

Unfortunately, rather than bringing change, Obama has consistently surrounded himself with bank-friendly policy advisors who tend to believe that what is good for the banks is good for everyone. He has not made bringing criminal bankers to justice a priority, and his administration is clearly a revolving door for Wall Street. The biggest and most dangerous banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo—are even bigger than they were before the crisis. Scarcely a week passes without news of some new abuse committed by these institutions. Obama has failed to support obvious measures to rein in Wall Street, such as the financial transaction tax, and Dodd-Frank has been mostly defanged. Banks have enjoyed special treatment and record-breaking profits during Obama’s tenure, while ordinary Americans have struggled.

4. Obama's education "reformers" are corporate privatizers
Looking for further proof of Obama’s neoliberal, anti-progressive bona fides? Then look no further than how his administration has approached public education over the years.

From the moment the president chose Arne Duncan—who famously closed dozens of public schools (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/30/the-biggest-irony-in-chicagos-mass-closing-of-schools/) and pushed privatization of the rest during his tenure as Chicago schools CEO—to head the Department of Education, it was clear that corporate interests would play a central role in the shaping of education policy. The administration’s signature education initiative, unveiled in late 2009, was nothing less than a chip off the old, failed policy block that defined George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-decade-of-no-child-left-behind-lessons-from-a-policy-failure/2012/01/05/gIQAeb19gP_blog.html//)” agenda.

The Obama/Duncan “Race to the Top (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top)” initiative uses both carrots and sticks to lure schools to compete for $4.35 billion in federal funding; required is a willingness to commit to increasingly controversial testing and assessment—linking teacher evaluation to student performance—and an enthusiasm for shuttering low-performing schools and turning them over to charter operators to spur private investments wherever possible.

These are not small concerns. As education historian Diane Ravitch noted in 2010 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html), with Race to the Top,

“[President Obama and Secretary Duncan] are heading in the wrong direction. On their present course, they will end up demoralizing teachers, closing schools that are struggling to improve, dismantling the teaching profession, destabilizing communities, and harming public education.”

Who pays the price for these policies, none of which have actually been proven to work? The children and families of America. The neediest among us, of course, most of all.

5. Obama's call to ramp-up and embrace of our now pervasive surveillance state
In his first run for president, Obama repeatedly criticized George Bush for using post-9/11 programs to spy on American citizens. But after entering office, Obama has done nothing but ramp up all forms of surveillance, from metadata capture to wiretapping to recording phone log information of American citizens. Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's surveillance programs and capabilities shoot deep into the territory of science fiction and George Orwell's 1984. Obama's speech on the NSA and surveillance this January provided little in the way of peace of mind for any citizen concerned with maintaining a shred of privacy. Robert Scheer got to the heart of the matter (https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/no-place-hide-were-all-suspects-barack-obamas-america):


"Barack Obama’s speech on surveillance was his worst performance... in its stark betrayal of his oft-proclaimed respect for constitutional safeguards and civil liberty. His unbridled defense of the surveillance state opened the door to the new McCarthyism of Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who on Sunday talk shows were branding Edward Snowden as a possible Russian spy.

"Somewhere in law school, Obama must have learned that the whole point of our Bill of Rights, inspired by American revolutionaries like Sam Adams, a Sons of Liberty co-conspirator, was to curtail government power as the main threat to freedom. Thus was Adams’ insistence on the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, banning the warrantless searches that Obama now seeks to justify."


6. Obama's dedication to secrecy and his hypocrisy about drones
Barack Obama owes a chunk of his election success to anti-war voters who turned out during the Democratic primaries in 2008, disgusted by Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize force on Iraq. But the man who became president has sorely disappointed many of the same anti-war voters with his expansion of the deadly drone war.

Since he was elected, President Obama has launched more 390 drone strikes—eight times the number George W. Bush oversaw. Obama has escalated the drone war in Pakistan—where the majority of attacks take place—and in Somalia and Yemen. The drone strikes, meant to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban, have killed scores of civilians, disrupted tribal life, brought about huge suffering and trauma and inflamed anger at the U.S. Four Americans have been killed in drone attacks, and the whole program remains shrouded in secrecy.



In response to a growing wave of criticism, Obama gave a landmark speech last year where he vowed that transparency would increase and that drone strikes would only occur when there was a “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed. Those promises have gone unfulfilled. The U.S. has yet to release a count of the civilians and militants it has killed or offer up the full legal rationale to Congress justifying these missile strikes. Meanwhile, civilians continue to die in Pakistan and Yemen, “collateral damage” from these drone attacks. The latest example came on December 12, 2013, when a drone attack in Yemen, said to be aimed at an Al Qaeda leader, killed 12 civilians driving as part of a wedding convoy.

7. Obama's attempt to ram through the corporation-loving, people-harming Trans-Pacific Partnership in secret
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a super-secret multinational corporate scheme sometimes described as "NAFTA on steroids," is one of Obama's worst initiatives. As secretive as it is, information about the TPP has been leaking out, and the more people hear about it, the worse it sounds. Fortunately, the light of day may also help to scuttle the deal.

Wikileaks leaked the TPP Environmental Chapter [in mid-January]. The bottom line—there is no enforcement to protect the environment. The TPP is worse than President George W. Bush’s trade deals. Mainstream environmental groups are saying the TPP is unacceptable. Similarly, the leak of the Intellectual Property Chapter revealed that it created a path to patent everything imaginable, including plants and animals, to turn everything into a commodity for profit. The Obama administration was pushing it way beyond normal intellectual property law in order to increase profits for everything from pharmaceuticals to textbooks.

As Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese recently wrote for AlterNet (https://www.alternet.org/activism/growing-tide-people-pressure-making-shadowy-corporate-scheme-politically-toxic-washington): "After four years of secret negotiations with more than 600 corporate advisers, the once seemingly invincible largest trade bill in history, covering 40% of the world’s economy, looks very much like it can be defeated."

Why is the TPP looking like it can be stopped? According to Flowers and Zeese:

"One reason is its secrecy. Leaks are sinking the TPP like the Titanic. ... The refrain is always the same: profits come first. The necessities of the people and protection of the planet come last."

Ron Kirk, the former U.S. trade rep, said they were keeping it secret because the more people knew, the less they would like the TPP and it would become so unpopular it could never become law. Each leak has proven him right.

8. Obama's failure to do much about the racist drug war and discriminatory sentencing
President Obama, a former heavy pot smoker in his youth, has very slowly and finally admitted a few painful realities about the drug war, which were just as true 5 years ago when he took office as now.

Obama recently told the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all) he thinks marijuana isn't any more harmful than alcohol (actually, it’s proven that cannabis is far less harmful the booze...but this is what we call progress). He also said it is important for the new cannabis laws in Colorado and Washington to go forward "because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

But here, hypocrisy reigns supreme. Obama does not walk the walk of his talk. In 2011, drug offenders accounted for 48 percent of the federal prisoner population and 16 percent of the state prisoner population—and half of all of those people are incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes, according to the Sentencing Project (https://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Trends_in_Corrections_Fact_sheet.pdf).

Last year the U.S. Department of Justice revised the law so that mandatory minimum sentences no longer applied to the majority of nonviolent drug offenders. However, Obama has only granted clemency to 8 of the more than 100,000 prisoners still serving time for drug related crimes in the country. And he still holds the record for granting the fewest pardons of any U.S. president.

And in a truly shocking move, according to Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times (https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/linda-greenhouse/), Obama's Justice Department fought a Court recommendation to release thousands of federal inmates still serving time under the racist crack standards of pre-2010. So the full court overruled its panel, and those thousands continue to rot in jail with a law that in essence, due to its discriminatory effect, was illegal. Obama's words are empty and were well within his power, to end the corrupt and racist war on drugs, and curb its devastating effects.

9. Obama's counter productive energy policy
Calling someone “anti-science” is usually an epithet reserved for those clinging to creationism and climate denialism, and yet Obama’s embrace of an energy strategy using “all of the above” flies in the face of everything the world’s top scientists have been saying about the threats we face as a result of climate change. The scale of the accelerating climate catastrophe requires an energy policy grounded in the best science, prioritizing clean energy, and severely limiting the use and extraction of fossil fuels—not a namby-pamby “all of the above.” Not even close.

Inexcusable are the Obama administration’s embrace of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, and the continual propping up (https://www.alternet.org/environment/take-frightening-tour-down-americas-climate-change-highway-slideshow) of a dying coal industry that’s killing us along with itself. A great example, as Jeff Biggers outlines (https://www.alternet.org/environment/obama-gifts-big-coal-1-billion) on AlterNet recently, was Obama’s Department of Energy gifting Big Coal $1 billion for a ‘clean coal’ boondoggle.

Also baffling and unacceptable is Obama’s green-lighting (https://billmoyers.com/2014/01/22/how-obama-threw-the-south-under-a-bus-for-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/) of the southern leg of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, while hypocritically calling for more review of climate change impacts of the northern section. In light of the best science from the international community, the Obama administration should be figuring out how to move us away from dependence on tar sands, coal, oil and fracked gas as quickly as possible – not making them the centerpiece of his energy policy.

“An ‘all of the above’ strategy is a compromise that future generations can’t afford,” read a letter to Obama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/01/16/National-Politics/Graphics/All%20of%20the%20Above%20letter%20Jan%2016%20FINAL %20corrected.pdf)signed by a coalition of the country’s major environmental organizations. “It fails to prioritize clean energy … it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future. It threatens our health, our homes, our most sensitive public lands, our oceans and our most precious wild places.”

10. Obama's huge expansion of the number of countries where we are fighting secret wars with Special Ops
Bush was a real war monger, with his “Shock and Awe,” “Mission Accomplished,” and wars of choice. But Obama, once seen as the anti-war candidate, has him soundly beat in the number of secret wars with unconventional forces spread across the globe. After a thorough investigation, Nick Turse of Tom Dispatch recently reported the staggering fact that there are currently U.S. Special Ops in 70% of the world’s nations. “All over the planet, the Obama administration is waging a secret war (https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175790/) whose full extent has never been fully revealed,” Turse wrote.

Turse then offers an accounting of the exponential growth in Special Ops, which include Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALs and Delta Force commandos, specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, and civil affairs personnel, and much more.

“In the waning days of the Bush presidency, Special Operations forces were reportedly deployed (https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/posture2008.pdf) in about 60 countries around the world . . . In 2013, elite U.S. forces were deployed in 134 countries around the globe . . . This 123% increase during the Obama years demonstrates how, in addition to conventional wars and a CIA drone campaign (https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175551/engelhardt_assassin_in_chief), public diplomacy and extensive electronic spying (https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175713/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_you_are_our_secret/), the U.S. has engaged in still another significant and growing form of overseas power projection. Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.” Like 9/11. That’s an example of blowback.



Not that I don't agree with some of that, but I don't agree with most.
Would you mind stating your sources for this article because it looks slightly biased, not too bad, but biased none the less.
And besides that, it still doesn't change the current threat to our entire planet by the current administration and definitely doesn't make me anything but more determined to clean house. At least one thing I never felt from Obama was the threat to our country from within.

[commiechew]

Not that I don't agree with some of that, but I don't agree with most.
Would you mind stating your sources for this article because it looks slightly biased, not too bad, but biased none the less.
And besides that, it still doesn't change the current threat to our entire planet by the current administration and definitely doesn't make me anything but more determined to clean house. At least one thing I never felt from Obama was the threat to our country from within.

Yeah, sources? State where you don't agree. Don't try to defame/discredit my sources, unless you can actually refute the claims... then go for it! (besides, it's not that hard to find sources, really? you need help with that? What, are you over 50 or something like that?).

[Natural Lefty]

Apparently, Commiechew has gone liberal. Every one of those 10 points about Obama (which I don't necessarily agree with) are ones I have heard from the more disaffected, cynical leaning liberals among us. Take the first one for example (which I do agree with) which states that Republicans never had any intention of negotiating in good faith with Obama. And it just goes on from there.

[Natural Lefty]

By the way, Trump's approval rating is about 40%, not 50% according to weighted averages of polls. Rasmussen polls are particularly biased in favor of Republicans.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[commiechew]

By the way, Trump's approval rating is about 40%, not 50% according to weighted averages of polls. Rasmussen polls are particularly biased in favor of Republicans.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo




Biased? maybe but fairly accurate.

Don't care to acknowledge this little tidbit?






*Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.



so, your weighted average just might be using biased polling information.

[Brent]

Biased? maybe but fairly accurate.

Don't care to acknowledge this little tidbit?






*Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.



so, your weighted average just might be using biased polling information.


I already acknowledged, but anyone can find a biased report that makes every single president we've ever had look bad.
But doesn't that poll play against your Trump claim?
We all know how accurate that poll was for the election don't we.
And besides that, Hillary needs to be a nobody to the Democrats now. She had her chance and partly blew it and partly had it stolen, but I don't care for her either and only voted for her as the less of two bad choices. With what's been going on, I was correct. For all her BS, I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?

[commiechew]

I already acknowledged, but anyone can find a biased report that makes every single president we've ever had look bad.
But doesn't that poll play against your Trump claim?
We all know how accurate that poll was for the election don't we.
And besides that, Hillary needs to be a nobody to the Democrats now. She had her chance and partly blew it and partly had it stolen, but I don't care for her either and only voted for her as the less of two bad choices. With what's been going on, I was correct. For all her BS, I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?


I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?

Now this is what I call some real SHRIEKING!

Just think, if you replaced the Donalds name with the Hillary name in every news items of the day for the past year, and vice versa, you think you'd be CHEERING instead of SHRIEKING?

What do you think?

lmk... better, let us know...

[commiechew]

Californians would benefit from Cox’s conservative leadership (That's John Cox who is now within striking distance of being elected governor of the infamously liberal state in November).

The state is ranked worst for individual income taxes and 48th overall by the Tax Foundation’s 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index (https://taxfoundation.org/publications/state-business-tax-climate-index/).
Cox would work to cut state taxes so that Californians would see more take-home pay and small businesses would be more able to grow, succeed, expand and create more jobs.

This includes the hugely unpopular gasoline tax that the Democratic California Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown imposed on drivers last year.
The expensive welfare and government dependency programs that California’s liberal leadership has embraced and enacted over the years have also made it the “poverty capital of America,” as Kerry Jackson wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html)

[Brent]

Californians would benefit from Cox’s conservative leadership (That's John Cox who is now within striking distance of being elected governor of the infamously liberal state in November).

The state is ranked worst for individual income taxes and 48th overall by the Tax Foundation’s 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index (https://taxfoundation.org/publications/state-business-tax-climate-index/).
Cox would work to cut state taxes so that Californians would see more take-home pay and small businesses would be more able to grow, succeed, expand and create more jobs.

This includes the hugely unpopular gasoline tax that the Democratic California Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown imposed on drivers last year.
The expensive welfare and government dependency programs that California’s liberal leadership has embraced and enacted over the years have also made it the “poverty capital of America,” as Kerry Jackson wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html)

Yea, Just like Arnie did right?
.

[Brent]

Now this is what I call some real SHRIEKING!

Just think, if you replaced the Donalds name with the Hillary name in every news items of the day for the past year, and vice versa, you think you'd be CHEERING instead of SHRIEKING?

What do you think?

lmk... better, let us know...

WTH are you talking about as usual dolt? I hate Hillary and if she did this stupid crap I would have the same opinion. Unlike you, I don't blindly support an idiot just because I don't like the other party. As for you, stupid is as stupid does moron.
I'm for the USA not a damn party and what's being done with the support of morons like you is a danger to our country. Answer this. Would you rather be communist or have a completely Democrat run government? Don't laugh, this may be a real question if the country keeps getting ripped apart from the inside. A Dictatorship would be more likely than communism, so you OK with Don and his revolving crew of yesmen running everything from here on out?

[commiechew]

Ease up there cowgirl... Take a breath.

Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?
By Peggy Grande

California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.

In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative. Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction? Can their numbers be revived? And can they thrive here once again?

While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.

The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law. And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws. This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit. Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.

California has always been the tip of the spear. Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.

A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status. These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs. It’s not. It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California. Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.


Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.



For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t. In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee. (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.) And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one. With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority.

But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time. Nor has democracy. With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party. So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump. Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology? And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?

Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.

For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.

When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.” That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities. Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle. Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.

Just putting a few things up and asking a couple of questions... Why would that anger some to the point of blowing their head gasket? Too much compression? You might need a valve adjustment? I would say, "Open yourself up to some possibilities, try something different. Nothing changes unless a change is made..."

[etucker1959]

Ease up there cowgirl... Take a breath.

Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?
By Peggy Grande

California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.

In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative. Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction? Can their numbers be revived? And can they thrive here once again?

While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.

The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law. And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws. This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit. Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.

California has always been the tip of the spear. Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.

A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status. These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs. It’s not. It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California. Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.


Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.



For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t. In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee. (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.) And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one. With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority.

But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time. Nor has democracy. With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party. So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump. Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology? And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?

Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.

For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.

When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.” That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities. Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle. Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.

Just putting a few things up and asking a couple of questions... Why would that anger some to the point of blowing their head gasket? Too much compression? You might need a valve adjustment? I would say, "Open yourself up to some possibilities, try something different. Nothing changes unless a change is made..."

That reminds me of that Winston Churchill joke, about Democracy being the 2nd worst kind of government. Instead of Democracy let's insert Liberalism. I'll do the joke now, being a Liberal is having the 2nd worst political beliefs. What is the number one worst political beliefs?? Being a Conservative!!! My point is, "I don't agree with all the tree huger stuff the enviro's are doing to the state." (which the Liberals support) But what would happen if the Conservatives took over??? I fear something like the drinking water wouldn't be safe to drink. Or they would really get us in an economic mess, or in another state budget disaster!!! Just like Trump is doing on an National Level!!

If you don't believe that, what happened to the Big Conservatives on this board, "After" Trump got elected President??? They ran for the Hills, when it was going to be proven that Conservationism was even worse then what Obama was doing!!!

[commiechew]

When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America We Can Resist the Headlong March into Economic Tyranny
Richard M. Ebeling
by Richard M. Ebeling


Seventy years ago, on May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court said no to economic fascism in America. The trend toward bigger and ever-more intrusive government, unfortunately, was not stopped, but the case nonetheless was a significant event that at that time prevented the institutionalizing of a Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.


In a unanimous decision the nine members of the Supreme Court said there were constitutional limits beyond which the federal government could not go in claiming the right to regulate the economic affairs of the citizenry. It was a glorious day in American judicial history, and is worth remembering.


When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in the autumn of 1932 he did so on a Democratic Party platform that many a classical liberal might have gladly supported and even voted for. The platform said that the federal government was far too big, taxed and spent far too much, and intruded in the affairs of the states to too great an extent. It said government spending had to be cut, taxes reduced, and the federal budget balanced. It called for free trade and a solid gold-backed currency.


But as soon as Roosevelt took office in March 1933 he instituted a series of programs and policies that turned all those promises upside down. In the first four years of FDR’s New Deal, taxes were increased, government spending reached heights never seen before in U.S. history, and the federal budget bled red with deficits.The bureaucracy ballooned; public-works projects increasingly dotted the land; and the heavy hand of government was all over industry and agriculture. The United States was taken off the gold standard, with the American people compelled to turn in their gold com and built lion to the government for paper money under the threat of confiscation and imprisonment.


In June 1933 Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), after which FDR created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Modeled on Mussolini’s fascist economic system, it forced virtually all American industry, manufacturing, and retail business into cartels possessing the power to set prices and wages, and to dictate the levels of production. Within a few months over 200 separate pricing and production codes were imposed on the various branches of American business. The symbol of the NRA was a Blue Eagle that had lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial gear in the other. Every business in the country was asked to have a Blue Eagle sign in its window that declared, “We Do Our Part,” meaning it followed the pricing and production codes. Citizen committees were formed to spy on local merchants and report if they dared to sell at lower prices.


Propaganda rallies in support of the NRA were held across the country. During halftime at football games cheerleaders would form the shape of the Blue Eagle. Government-sponsored parades featured Hollywood stars supporting the NRA. At one of these parades the famous singer Al Jolson was filmed being asked what he thought of the NRA; he replied, “NRA? NRA? Why it’s better than my wedding night!” Film shorts produced by Hollywood in support of the NRA were shown in theaters around the country; in one of them child star Shirley Temple danced and sang the praises of big-government regulation of the American economy.


The NRA codes were soon joined by similar controls over farming with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Farmers were given subsidies and government-guaranteed price supports, with Washington determining what crops could be grown and what livestock could be raised. Government ordered some crops to be plowed under and some livestock slaughtered, all in the name of centrally planned farm production and pricing.


Much of the urban youth of America were rounded up and sent off to national forests for regimentation and mock military-style drilling as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The Works Progress Administration (WPA) created make-work projects for thousands of able-bodied men, all at taxpayers’ expense. Since unemployed artists were “workers” too, they were set to work in government buildings across the land. Even today, in some o f the post offices dating from the 1930s, one can see murals depicting happy factory workers and farm hands in a style similar to those produced in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.


This headlong march into economic fascism was brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The catalyst was a legal case known as the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Schechter, a slaughterhouse that sold chickens to kosher markets in New York City, was accused of violating the “fair competition” codes under the NRA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, with the nine justices laying down their unanimous decision on May 27, 1935.


Three hundred people packed the court that day to hear the decision, with prominent members of Congress and the executive branch in the audience. The justices declared that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, since the defendant purchased and sold all the chickens it marketed within the boundaries of the State of New York. Therefore, the federal government lacked the power to regulate the company’s production and prices. In addition, the justices stated that the NRA’s power to impose codes constituted arbitrary and discretionary control inconsistent with the limited and enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution.


AAA Rejected


This was soon followed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the AAA in January 1936, when the justices insisted that the federal government lacked the authority to tax food processors to pay for the farmers’ subsidies and price supports. Furthermore, since farming was generally a local and state activity, the federal government did not have the power to regulate it under the interstate-commerce clause.


Franklin Roosevelt was furious that what he called those “nine old men” should attempt to keep America in the “horse and buggy era” when this great nation needed a more powerful central government to manage economic affairs in the “modern age.” FDR’s response was his famous “court packing” scheme, in which he asked Congress to give him the power to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to tilt the balance in favor of the “enlightened” and “progressive” policies o f the New Deal. But this blatant power grab by the executive branch ended up being too much even for many of the Democrats in Congress, and Roosevelt failed in this attempt to assert naked presidential authority over another branch o f the federal government.


Shortly after the Supreme Court declared both the NRA and AAA unconstitutional, David Lawrence, founder and long-time editor of U.S. News and World Report, published a book titled Nine Honest Men (1936). He praised the justices for their devotion to the bedrock principles of the Constitution, and their defense of the traditional American ideals of individual liberty, private property, and the rule of law — even in the face of the emotional appeal of government to “do something” during an economic crisis.


Since that landmark decision 70 years ago against the imposition of economic fascism in America, the U.S. government has continued to grow in power over the American citizenry. But it should be remembered that men of courage, integrity, and principle can stand up to Big Brother and resist the headlong march into economic tyranny.

[commiechew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trAyp5XXQgo

[Brent]

When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America We Can Resist the Headlong March into Economic Tyranny
Richard M. Ebeling
by Richard M. Ebeling


Seventy years ago, on May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court said no to economic fascism in America. The trend toward bigger and ever-more intrusive government, unfortunately, was not stopped, but the case nonetheless was a significant event that at that time prevented the institutionalizing of a Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.


In a unanimous decision the nine members of the Supreme Court said there were constitutional limits beyond which the federal government could not go in claiming the right to regulate the economic affairs of the citizenry. It was a glorious day in American judicial history, and is worth remembering.


When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in the autumn of 1932 he did so on a Democratic Party platform that many a classical liberal might have gladly supported and even voted for. The platform said that the federal government was far too big, taxed and spent far too much, and intruded in the affairs of the states to too great an extent. It said government spending had to be cut, taxes reduced, and the federal budget balanced. It called for free trade and a solid gold-backed currency.


But as soon as Roosevelt took office in March 1933 he instituted a series of programs and policies that turned all those promises upside down. In the first four years of FDR’s New Deal, taxes were increased, government spending reached heights never seen before in U.S. history, and the federal budget bled red with deficits.The bureaucracy ballooned; public-works projects increasingly dotted the land; and the heavy hand of government was all over industry and agriculture. The United States was taken off the gold standard, with the American people compelled to turn in their gold com and built lion to the government for paper money under the threat of confiscation and imprisonment.


In June 1933 Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), after which FDR created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Modeled on Mussolini’s fascist economic system, it forced virtually all American industry, manufacturing, and retail business into cartels possessing the power to set prices and wages, and to dictate the levels of production. Within a few months over 200 separate pricing and production codes were imposed on the various branches of American business. The symbol of the NRA was a Blue Eagle that had lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial gear in the other. Every business in the country was asked to have a Blue Eagle sign in its window that declared, “We Do Our Part,” meaning it followed the pricing and production codes. Citizen committees were formed to spy on local merchants and report if they dared to sell at lower prices.


Propaganda rallies in support of the NRA were held across the country. During halftime at football games cheerleaders would form the shape of the Blue Eagle. Government-sponsored parades featured Hollywood stars supporting the NRA. At one of these parades the famous singer Al Jolson was filmed being asked what he thought of the NRA; he replied, “NRA? NRA? Why it’s better than my wedding night!” Film shorts produced by Hollywood in support of the NRA were shown in theaters around the country; in one of them child star Shirley Temple danced and sang the praises of big-government regulation of the American economy.


The NRA codes were soon joined by similar controls over farming with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Farmers were given subsidies and government-guaranteed price supports, with Washington determining what crops could be grown and what livestock could be raised. Government ordered some crops to be plowed under and some livestock slaughtered, all in the name of centrally planned farm production and pricing.


Much of the urban youth of America were rounded up and sent off to national forests for regimentation and mock military-style drilling as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The Works Progress Administration (WPA) created make-work projects for thousands of able-bodied men, all at taxpayers’ expense. Since unemployed artists were “workers” too, they were set to work in government buildings across the land. Even today, in some o f the post offices dating from the 1930s, one can see murals depicting happy factory workers and farm hands in a style similar to those produced in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.


This headlong march into economic fascism was brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The catalyst was a legal case known as the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Schechter, a slaughterhouse that sold chickens to kosher markets in New York City, was accused of violating the “fair competition” codes under the NRA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, with the nine justices laying down their unanimous decision on May 27, 1935.


Three hundred people packed the court that day to hear the decision, with prominent members of Congress and the executive branch in the audience. The justices declared that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, since the defendant purchased and sold all the chickens it marketed within the boundaries of the State of New York. Therefore, the federal government lacked the power to regulate the company’s production and prices. In addition, the justices stated that the NRA’s power to impose codes constituted arbitrary and discretionary control inconsistent with the limited and enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution.


AAA Rejected


This was soon followed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the AAA in January 1936, when the justices insisted that the federal government lacked the authority to tax food processors to pay for the farmers’ subsidies and price supports. Furthermore, since farming was generally a local and state activity, the federal government did not have the power to regulate it under the interstate-commerce clause.


Franklin Roosevelt was furious that what he called those “nine old men” should attempt to keep America in the “horse and buggy era” when this great nation needed a more powerful central government to manage economic affairs in the “modern age.” FDR’s response was his famous “court packing” scheme, in which he asked Congress to give him the power to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to tilt the balance in favor of the “enlightened” and “progressive” policies o f the New Deal. But this blatant power grab by the executive branch ended up being too much even for many of the Democrats in Congress, and Roosevelt failed in this attempt to assert naked presidential authority over another branch o f the federal government.


Shortly after the Supreme Court declared both the NRA and AAA unconstitutional, David Lawrence, founder and long-time editor of U.S. News and World Report, published a book titled Nine Honest Men (1936). He praised the justices for their devotion to the bedrock principles of the Constitution, and their defense of the traditional American ideals of individual liberty, private property, and the rule of law — even in the face of the emotional appeal of government to “do something” during an economic crisis.


Since that landmark decision 70 years ago against the imposition of economic fascism in America, the U.S. government has continued to grow in power over the American citizenry. But it should be remembered that men of courage, integrity, and principle can stand up to Big Brother and resist the headlong march into economic tyranny.

Very nice.
Now continue what happened after that into and after WW2 and beyond please.
You can't take a small slice of history/time and apply it to everything. The world is much much different now.
Besides. Wouldn't selling out our government and country to the highest bidder/corporation for profit be economic and social tyranny?

[commiechew]

Whaahhhh...???

Duhhhh !

Did you read the article? ...guess not.

[commiechew]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/12/13-california-cities-now-fighting-states-sanctuary-law



3 More California Cities Vote to Opt Out of State's Sanctuary Law

Newport Beach council votes 7-0 against law.



The Newport Beach city council voted unanimously earlier this week to challenge California's sanctuary law, joining a dozen other cities that are not interested in complying with the sanctuary policies.

It's the third city in the past two days to take such action, joining about a dozen others in recent weeks.

"It's a tool in the toolbox for our police to help keep criminals off the street," Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter said of the vote against the law.

He said the issue is not about opposition to immigrants - as critics allege - but about keeping "illegal alien criminals" from re-entering the community.

The sanctuary law is heavily supported by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and State Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).

Peotter also said that Brown is sending National Guard troops to the border for reasons other than to prevent illegal immigration.

"You listen to Jerry Brown, and he's sending [troops] there for other reasons. Not for immigration purposes," he said. "In either event, the troops end up being at the border."

"So it's a matter of, whose spin do you want to listen to?" he added, arguing that the state is controlled by two-thirds Democrats.

Peotter said the state did not listen to the city's concerns about the law before it passed and now the city is joining the lawsuit against the state by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"We want to be a law and order city and a law and order state. We want to comply with federal law and state law. They put us into a situation where we have to choose and we don't like it," he added.

[Brent]

I'm not sure how bad the illegal rapist crime is in Newport and how many go there for 'sanctuary', but hey whatever.
They better be careful or there will be nobody to wash their cars, clean their houses, landscape their mansions or raise their kids (nanny) etc....lol

[etucker1959]

I'm not sure how bad the illegal rapist crime is in Newport and how many go there for 'sanctuary', but hey whatever.
They better be careful or there will be nobody to wash their cars, clean their houses, landscape their mansions or raise their kids (nanny) etc....lol

As in most Conservative ideas when they are played out. The results are usually disastrous!!!

[commiechew]

I'm not sure how bad the illegal rapist crime is in Newport and how many go there for 'sanctuary', but hey whatever.
They better be careful or there will be nobody to wash their cars, clean their houses, landscape their mansions or raise their kids (nanny) etc....lol


As in most Conservative ideas when they are played out. The results are usually disastrous!!!

A little bit of racist thought oozing from the behinds of the left... typical, once they get their dander up passed that certain high pitched squeal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs

[etucker1959]

As in most Conservative ideas when they are played out. The results are usually disastrous!!!

I'll defend my position a little bit.

How's that tax cut working out? Senate Corker said today, after he saw the CBO report on the deficit. It's the worse thing he ever voted for!!!

In the state of Kansas they tried the perfect Conservative economic plan. Cut tax's and wait for the economy to be stimulated so much, "It'll pay for itself." You can guess what the results were??? Total economic disaster!!!

One of the Southern states passed a tough law to get rid of those "no good illegal aliens!!!" Guess what happened to farm labor??? Total disaster!!!

I could go on, but "I hope you get the point!!"

[commiechew]

I'll defend my position a little bit.

How's that tax cut working out? Senate Corker said today, after he saw the CBO report on the deficit. It's the worse thing he ever voted for!!!

In the state of Kansas they tried the perfect Conservative economic plan. Cut tax's and wait for the economy to be stimulated so much, "It'll pay for itself." You can guess what the results were??? Total economic disaster!!!

One of the Southern states passed a tough law to get rid of those "no good illegal aliens!!!" Guess what happened to farm labor??? Total disaster!!!

I could go on, but "I hope you get the point!!"


Oh, that's what you were trying to convey? I thought you were just agreeing that all illegal aliens pick our fruit, wash Newport Beach Owner's cars, clean rich people's houses, take care of everyone else's children and last but not least... mow other people's lawns. But, I see that's clearly a misconception of where you two were trying to steer this post... or


One of the Southern states passed a tough law to get rid of those "no good illegal aliens!!!" Guess what happened to farm labor??? Total disaster!!!

Maybe not?

I guess that aspect of "farm labor" is a reality we just have to accept. We'll just overlook the illegal rapist crime, after all every race has "illegal" rapist crime. LOL

[commiechew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u4Vlgr2iHs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXZAMEYjBw

[steelhead]

Spouting off liberal talking points again like a tool. If you travel outside of California you'll see whites working at McDonald's, busting tables, working at laundromats and yes even landscaping! If you go outside of your bubble of Southern California you'll actually see that a good part of Northern California also has white people working service jobs MORON. LOL!


I'm not sure how bad the illegal rapist crime is in Newport and how many go there for 'sanctuary', but hey whatever.
They better be careful or there will be nobody to wash their cars, clean their houses, landscape their mansions or raise their kids (nanny) etc....lol

[steelhead]

WOW tucker, only passed a few months and it's already a total disaster, I wonder how long it took for the news media to jump on the total disaster of Obamacare, was it months after? Wait, they're still trying to prop it up but I think they've finally come around to realizing it was a total disaster and have given up on it knowing that the new tax law essentially killed it by doing away with the individual mandate. Tax cut is working fine for me, just saw 300 extra a month in my paycheck. What? you will tell me I'll pay for it in the long run?? Why don't you give me the trifecta at Los Alamitos and let's make some real money!

[etucker1959]

WOW tucker, only passed a few months and it's already a total disaster, I wonder how long it took for the news media to jump on the total disaster of Obamacare, was it months after? Wait, they're still trying to prop it up but I think they've finally come around to realizing it was a total disaster and have given up on it knowing that the new tax law essentially killed it by doing away with the individual mandate. Tax cut is working fine for me, just saw 300 extra a month in my paycheck. What? you will tell me I'll pay for it in the long run?? Why don't you give me the trifecta at Los Alamitos and let's make some real money!

Where were you "last Weekend" with that request??? I bet just 2 races on Friday night at Los Alamitos and hit the Super on both of them for $90 and $70 for a $1 dollar bet. (I didn't handicap them either) Odds and Probability is how I pick them. The same way I make some political & economic predictions. lol

[Brent]

Spouting off liberal talking points again like a tool. If you travel outside of California you'll see whites working at McDonald's, busting tables, working at laundromats and yes even landscaping! If you go outside of your bubble of Southern California you'll actually see that a good part of Northern California also has white people working service jobs MORON. LOL!

Look idiot. I absolutely agree that there are fewer immigrants doing the trivial jobs in rural areas and just maybe that's because racism is still prevalent there and they choose not to live there. If you claim BS, you will only prove my comments to be true. My wife and adopted daughter are black and I too like you 'used' to believe that racism is a thing of the past until traveling all over the US with them and BELIEVE ME, racism is alive and well thanks to people like you that choose to deny it and keep your head in the orange sand you freaking dolt!
It's true that there's around 30% of Americans that will not pull their head out of the orange sand until this administration blows it off their shoulders and that's coming.
You can try to cover your racism by stating 'patriotism', but we all know where you're coming from and you cannot hide that.
Immigration does need to be controlled and the laws upheld, but in a humane and civil manner, not like this Duarte wannabe wants to do. With current technology a wall is the stupidest idea yet.
Be smarter not angrier and paranoid. Hate and paranoia makes our country weak.

[steelhead]

spouting off a bunch of liberal talking points you tool and your first calling card is to scream "racism"....Yeah they're afraid of racism so they don't live there where did you get that novel idea in that cavernous brainless nog of yours? Who said racism no longer existed, did I ever say that? You run your mouth off online but in the real world I see you as a powerless government leech that likes to point fingers and make excuses for your shortcomings. You look at color and you prescribe to identity politics and make generalizations through your nonsensical commentary. Yeah you're a genius with 70 iq and you think you've got it figured out with current technology, how's that current technology working out and why don't you elaborate on what those are? There's an open border policy going back to the Reagan years and accelerated under Obama and there's no end in sight. You're better of speaking for yourself instead of "us" or Americans because you don't represent any of my ideas and millions of others.

[Brent]

spouting off a bunch of liberal talking points you tool and your first calling card is to scream "racism"....Yeah they're afraid of racism so they don't live there where did you get that novel idea in that cavernous brainless nog of yours? Who said racism no longer existed, did I ever say that? You run your mouth off online but in the real world I see you as a powerless government leech that likes to point fingers and make excuses for your shortcomings. You look at color and you prescribe to identity politics and make generalizations through your nonsensical commentary. Yeah you're a genius with 70 iq and you think you've got it figured out with current technology, how's that current technology working out and why don't you elaborate on what those are? There's an open border policy going back to the Reagan years and accelerated under Obama and there's no end in sight. You're better of speaking for yourself instead of "us" or Americans because you don't represent any of my ideas and millions of others.

Not true platehead. I've agreed with you on a couple of things, just maybe not as strongly. You speak as if you have any idea who I really am. Just because you don't agree with me on this comments section on a fishing site doesn't mean jack $%#^. So, what now are you going to kick my butt?
You just keep saying the same stupid crap and denying reality. To try to argue with a person like you is a waste of time. No matter what you're shown, you will never admit you're wrong or that anyone else has the right to their opinion.
And besides that, I do agree with a bit of what you say and post, but that's not good enough to be a brainwashed Trumpanzee like you. Me smart, you stupid.
I'm guessing yur a smart geniueusss like feller....huh dare platehead?
Be careful with IQ comments window licker. Not your strong point.
Because I choose to not copy and paste articles doesn't mean that I don't read and comprehend what's going on, much unlike you.
Your leech assessment is hilarious fool. I pay more in taxes than you probably make every year. Your 'liberals are all worthless lazy low IQ position is one of the stupider things you've ever said.
Much like all Trump supporters are racist.
Bye the way, I agree with you on the open border policy too bonehead.
You're already making me type to much, so bye for now.

[steelhead]

And according to the world of Brenty, HIS reality is the only true reality, true to form Brenty boy you sound like a condescending A@# hole that you are. I don't play internet tough guy keyboard warrior like you Brenty and if you start by already claiming a moral high ground and thinking you have all the answers than you have no argument. The whole I'm right and you're wrong argument again Brenty? If you are suggesting there is a free debate this is not it, the point is you liberals were crying fascism by the conservatives when Trump got elected but you were too blind to see you were fascist. The country was going in a different direction from the past 8 years and you couldn't stand it and you had to throw a hissy fit. Have fun doing it the next 8 years.


Your taxes are more than my salary.. Ha Ha Ha. yeah sure you do Brent. If you'll remember the liberal media is the one that started the narrative of all Trump supporters were low IQ, welfare recipients only to get EGG on their face when the exit polls on election night showed Trump voters were college educated and beyond as reported on the Clinton News network.



Not true platehead. I've agreed with you on a couple of things, just maybe not as strongly. You speak as if you have any idea who I really am. Just because you don't agree with me on this comments section on a fishing site doesn't mean jack $%#^. So, what now are you going to kick my butt?
You just keep saying the same stupid crap and denying reality. To try to argue with a person like you is a waste of time. No matter what you're shown, you will never admit you're wrong or that anyone else has the right to their opinion.
And besides that, I do agree with a bit of what you say and post, but that's not good enough to be a brainwashed Trumpanzee like you. Me smart, you stupid.
I'm guessing yur a smart geniueusss like feller....huh dare platehead?
Be careful with IQ comments window licker. Not your strong point.
Because I choose to not copy and paste articles doesn't mean that I don't read and comprehend what's going on, much unlike you.
Your leech assessment is hilarious fool. I pay more in taxes than you probably make every year. Your 'liberals are all worthless lazy low IQ position is one of the stupider things you've ever said.
Much like all Trump supporters are racist.
Bye the way, I agree with you on the open border policy too bonehead.
You're already making me type to much, so bye for now.

[Brent]

And according to the world of Brenty, HIS reality is the only true reality, true to form Brenty boy you sound like a condescending A@# hole that you are. I don't play internet tough guy keyboard warrior like you Brenty and if you start by already claiming a moral high ground and thinking you have all the answers than you have no argument. The whole I'm right and you're wrong argument again Brenty? If you are suggesting there is a free debate this is not it, the point is you liberals were crying fascism by the conservatives when Trump got elected but you were too blind to see you were fascist. The country was going in a different direction from the past 8 years and you couldn't stand it and you had to throw a hissy fit. Have fun doing it the next 8 years.


Your taxes are more than my salary.. Ha Ha Ha. yeah sure you do Brent. If you'll remember the liberal media is the one that started the narrative of all Trump supporters were low IQ, welfare recipients only to get EGG on their face when the exit polls on election night showed Trump voters were college educated and beyond as reported on the Clinton News network.

Here's where I'm at with you. Blah blah blah pffffffft (fart) blah blah blah Pffffft blah blah blah Pfffft etc etc etc etc
A Trump supporter calling someone that doesn't buy that crap a fascist is rich.
Trying to reason with a donkey is just that, trying to reason with a donkey
I tried to find common ground and got insulted. Why would I expect any different. I'm (the enemy) right?
Stupid is as stupid does.

[Natural Lefty]

Steelhead was left on the fire too long and turned into the kettle who called the pot black, just like the rest of his Trump supporting allies.

It's a proven demographic fact, by the way, from polls, that Trump supporters are overwhelmingly low education, white voters, mostly male. Don't try to claim otherwise, Steelhead.

By the way, here is the definition of fascism. "
fas·cism.
.

[ˈfaSHˌizəm]







NOUN
.


an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." That doesn't look at all like what liberals support to me.

[steelhead]

Brenty's gone mad, well that didn't take long. Not another copy from google or webster Lefty, anyone can do that. I'm pointing out Brenty's remark of him being right and I being wrong and at the same time trying to suggest that it was ever objective discussion . It's a proven fact Lefty? Where did you get that FACT from the lefty media outlet? The liberals are all about free speech and expression until it doesn't agree with them and then it's balls to the wall protest, or in thecase of liberals it's mosty the women and a few emasculated men like you guys and then I don't know what to call it anymore, but definitely not balls to wall. It seems it's not that hard to fool you liberals at all, if the Clinton News Network runs it enough time and repeats it enough times you'll buy in it and it looks like the CNN reference to Clinton news riled you up so let me guess you voted for her?

[Brent]

Brenty's gone mad, well that didn't take long. Not another copy from google or webster Lefty, anyone can do that. I'm pointing out Brenty's remark of him being right and I being wrong and at the same time trying to suggest that it was ever objective discussion . It's a proven fact Lefty? Where did you get that FACT from the lefty media outlet? The liberals are all about free speech and expression until it doesn't agree with them and then it's balls to the wall protest, or in thecase of liberals it's mosty the women and a few emasculated men like you guys and then I don't know what to call it anymore, but definitely not balls to wall. It seems it's not that hard to fool you liberals at all, if the Clinton News Network runs it enough time and repeats it enough times you'll buy in it and it looks like the CNN reference to Clinton news riled you up so let me guess you voted for her?

Pfffffffffffffffffffft!

[etucker1959]

And according to the world of Brenty, HIS reality is the only true reality, true to form Brenty boy you sound like a condescending A@# hole that you are. I don't play internet tough guy keyboard warrior like you Brenty and if you start by already claiming a moral high ground and thinking you have all the answers than you have no argument. The whole I'm right and you're wrong argument again Brenty? If you are suggesting there is a free debate this is not it, the point is you liberals were crying fascism by the conservatives when Trump got elected but you were too blind to see you were fascist. The country was going in a different direction from the past 8 years and you couldn't stand it and you had to throw a hissy fit. Have fun doing it the next 8 years.


Your taxes are more than my salary.. Ha Ha Ha. yeah sure you do Brent. If you'll remember the liberal media is the one that started the narrative of all Trump supporters were low IQ, welfare recipients only to get EGG on their face when the exit polls on election night showed Trump voters were college educated and beyond as reported on the Clinton News network.

That's an interesting point you say about the exit polls make up of "who" voted for Trump. (higher educated people) For argument sake I'll agree with you. Now their saying, Trump supporters are mostly white males with little higher education.

Why I say that's an interesting point is, "the higher educated people" who voted for Trump. Have now according to the latest polls, "have abandoned Trump" and left mostly white male uneducated supporters.

[Natural Lefty]

I think Pew Research is considered pretty impartial and respectable. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

[steelhead]

Yeah, I also remember the comment one of you made about CNN being one of the honest bastions of journalism last year. It is hilarious the untruths reported by liberal leaning media outlets and groups touting non partisanship.


I think Pew Research is considered pretty impartial and respectable. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

[steelhead]

I don't have time to parse every single FAKE story on FAKE news but I'm having fun debating you all so let me see if I can find FAKE news and point out the fake news "tell" in the story; apparently your fake news discriminators are not working and need to be recalibrated.



That's an interesting point you say about the exit polls make up of "who" voted for Trump. (higher educated people) For argument sake I'll agree with you. Now their saying, Trump supporters are mostly white males with little higher education.

Why I say that's an interesting point is, "the higher educated people" who voted for Trump. Have now according to the latest polls, "have abandoned Trump" and left mostly white male uneducated supporters.

[steelhead]

Remember the Arsenio Hall show in the 1990's with his segment called "Things that make you go hmmm?"" I haven't heard much as a peep about the Prison riots that killed 7 and injured 17 in South Carolina by MSM have you?? Yet when some guys got kicked out of a starbucks for not purchasing coffee it was wall to wall coverage....and.... debate.

[etucker1959]

Yeah, I also remember the comment one of you made about CNN being one of the honest bastions of journalism last year. It is hilarious the untruths reported by liberal leaning media outlets and groups touting non partisanship.

I won't even try to defend CNN, but I would defend MSNBC with my last breath. However, the biggest Fake News (aka liar) is Donald Trump himself!! Some people are keeping track and have Trump with over an 1,000's lies in a little over a year as President.

[Natural Lefty]

Trump is the ultimate kettle calling the pot black with his "fake news" claims anytime something is reported that he doesn't agree with.

Meanwhile, Steelhead digs an even deeper hole for himself by implying that avowedly neutral Pew Research Center is a left wing organization. Pew Research Center has been around as long as I can remember, and it is pretty much the standard for good, unbiased polling research.

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Pew-Research-Centers-surveys-a-reliable-source

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/3sv9a0/is_pew_research_a_reliable_source_of_information/

I wasn't the person who made the comment about CNN, by the way. I don't even watch cable television.

[steelhead]

How long something has been established does not make it the final say in anything. Have you heard of the disclaimer past performance does not guarantee future success??
Apply that same principle to the FBI, PEW, CBO, and pretty much all the major news outlets out there. Politics over the years and especially the last 8 years has taken a hold of these institutions that we knew to be fairly neutral and politicized them. The FBI was supposed to be non partisan, I would hardly call what happened the past 8 years non partisan with the bumblinbg of investigations by partisan hacks in the FBI.
Let's start with an exoneration letter before any interviews of the players were involved and let's have that guy that cleared the of any wrong doing take on the Trump collusion investigation while we're at it to make it seem really fair. The same guy that hates Trump and works behind the scenes with other anti trumpers to sabotage his presidency Let's bring on democrat prosecutors who all supported HRC, yeah there's nothing suspicious there. Seem fair to you?? So now we're on to stories about a porn star and the DNC is suing Russia... LOL what a mess



You mean Msnbc with their sources close to Trump like this one?
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-may-throw-children-under-114040732.html

A bunch of fake news tv jockeys blowing hot air that's all.







Trump is the ultimate kettle calling the pot black with his "fake news" claims anytime something is reported that he doesn't agree with.

Meanwhile, Steelhead digs an even deeper hole for himself by implying that avowedly neutral Pew Research Center is a left wing organization. Pew Research Center has been around as long as I can remember, and it is pretty much the standard for good, unbiased polling research.

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Pew-Research-Centers-surveys-a-reliable-source

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/3sv9a0/is_pew_research_a_reliable_source_of_information/

I wasn't the person who made the comment about CNN, by the way. I don't even watch cable television.

[etucker1959]

How long something has been established does not make it the final say in anything. Have you heard of the disclaimer past performance does not guarantee future success??
Apply that same principle to the FBI, PEW, CBO, and pretty much all the major news outlets out there. Politics over the years and especially the last 8 years has taken a hold of these institutions that we knew to be fairly neutral and politicized them. The FBI was supposed to be non partisan, I would hardly call what happened the past 8 years non partisan with the bumblinbg of investigations by partisan hacks in the FBI.
Let's start with an exoneration letter before any interviews of the players were involved and let's have that guy that cleared the of any wrong doing take on the Trump collusion investigation while we're at it to make it seem really fair. The same guy that hates Trump and works behind the scenes with other anti trumpers to sabotage his presidency Let's bring on democrat prosecutors who all supported HRC, yeah there's nothing suspicious there. Seem fair to you?? So now we're on to stories about a porn star and the DNC is suing Russia... LOL what a mess



You mean Msnbc with their sources close to Trump like this one?
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-may-throw-children-under-114040732.html

A bunch of fake news tv jockeys blowing hot air that's all.

With the amount of lies Trump tells himself, why is it an honest mistake made by a News organization. Is given 100 times more ump then it dissevers???

Let me get in the pulpit and quote the Bible to prove my point in a different way. Why is it Conservatives see the speck in the eyes of legitimate News organizations. Yet ignore the log that is in Trumps eyes????

[Natural Lefty]

Yes, organizations of longstanding may have biases, but even recent reviews of Pew Research Center tend to praise it for accuracy and impartiality.

Now, let's go to another line of research, which is analyzing actual voting patterns in different counties by variables such as average education level, average income and percentage of white voters. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight did this in his article entitled Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump, with similar results to that of the Pew Research Center. You didn't think I would go to the mound throwing only fastballs did you?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

[steelhead]

You mean this Silver the one that gave Trump a whopping 15% chance of winning the election? Trying to make the connection between education level and Trump supporters makes me think you were a HRC supporter so no wonder the outrage at Trump's presidency. I do recall a "deplorable" comment the almost President made.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-silver-theres-still-15-175346480.html


Yes, organizations of longstanding may have biases, but even recent reviews of Pew Research Center tend to praise it for accuracy and impartiality.

Now, let's go to another line of research, which is analyzing actual voting patterns in different counties by variables such as average education level, average income and percentage of white voters. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight did this in his article entitled Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump, with similar results to that of the Pew Research Center. You didn't think I would go to the mound throwing only fastballs did you?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

[DarkShadow]

TTrying to make the connection between education level and Trump supporters makes me think you were a HRC supporter so no wonder the outrage at Trump's presidency. I do recall a "deplorable" comment the almost President made.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-silver-theres-still-15-175346480.html

Speaking of recalling comments:

""I love the poorly educated," Trump famously said (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/24/donald-trump-wins-nevada-caucuses-sot.cnn) after winning the Nevada Caucuses in February, 2016."

Steelplate, why do you think he would say he loves the poorly educated?

[etucker1959]

You mean this Silver the one that gave Trump a whopping 15% chance of winning the election? Trying to make the connection between education level and Trump supporters makes me think you were a HRC supporter so no wonder the outrage at Trump's presidency. I do recall a "deplorable" comment the almost President made.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-silver-theres-still-15-175346480.html

Long shots do come in sometimes. But how would you predict the dumb stunt Comey did right before the election. Trump did lose the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. I think it time to get rid of the Electoral College!!!

[Natural Lefty]

Yes, Silver correctly predicted the outcome of every state in the 2008 and 2012 elections, I think. The vote in this election was within the margin of error, percentage-wise, but the distribution of the votes threw several states narrowly to Trump and gave him the election due to the Electoral College. His math really was pretty close overall though. I agree that we should get rid of the Electoral College, Eric, and also, add some reasonable qualifications in order for a person to become president.

I am most definitely not a fan of the Clintons, either one of them, but I did prefer Hillary over the alternative.

[Natural Lefty]

By the way, Ivana Trump doesn't think that Donald Trump should run for re-election. That would definitely squelch any possibility of four more years.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ivana-trump-doesnt-think-donald-should-run-for-re-election/ar-AAweGXi

[commiechew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trAyp5XXQgo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pzs2Hqw62g

[steelhead]

What dumb stunt, are you saying Comey actually tried to help Trump? That's a good one Tucker. Trump won despite the establishment doing everything they can to stop him, Comey did him no favor, remember Comey has gone on record to say that he thought Clinton was oging to win and did not want any air of uncertainty about the investigation to delegitimize her presidency so he cleared her of all wrong doing and the 10 days before the election only to pop the GOP balloon again with a few days to go saying that there was nothing new and she was cleared for the umpteenth time. You're on the popular vote again? Do you want to rewrite the electoral process?? California has NO voter ID law and anybody applying for a driver's license can check a box to register to vote and have ballots sent home for absentee.
Yeah there's no potential for fraud there. Want to buy a bridge in havasu?


Long shots do come in sometimes. But how would you predict the dumb stunt Comey did right before the election. Trump did lose the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. I think it time to get rid of the Electoral College!!!

[steelhead]

Pure comedy, so now he should listen to his EX wife on whether to run or not. You guys are comedians like Jimmy Kimmel but he gets paid for dumb jokes.


By the way, Ivana Trump doesn't think that Donald Trump should run for re-election. That would definitely squelch any possibility of four more years.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ivana-trump-doesnt-think-donald-should-run-for-re-election/ar-AAweGXi

[steelhead]

Generalization as usual, you guys love to generalize and put people into boxes, thus the identity politics. Are there uneducated Trump voters, you bet but look at the lot of you lumping groups together and finger pointing. Look at Lefty's comment generalizing Trump supporters as poorly educated, condescending much?
[QUOTE=DarkShadow;795613]Speaking of recalling comments:

""I love the poorly educated," Trump famously said (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/24/donald-trump-wins-nevada-caucuses-sot.cnn) after winning the Nevada Caucuses in February, 2016."

Steelplate, why do you think he would say he loves the poorly educated?[/QUOTE

[etucker1959]

What dumb stunt, are you saying Comey actually tried to help Trump? That's a good one Tucker. Trump won despite the establishment doing everything they can to stop him, Comey did him no favor, remember Comey has gone on record to say that he thought Clinton was oging to win and did not want any air of uncertainty about the investigation to delegitimize her presidency so he cleared her of all wrong doing and the 10 days before the election only to pop the GOP balloon again with a few days to go saying that there was nothing new and she was cleared for the umpteenth time. You're on the popular vote again? Do you want to rewrite the electoral process?? California has NO voter ID law and anybody applying for a driver's license can check a box to register to vote and have ballots sent home for absentee.
Yeah there's no potential for fraud there. Want to buy a bridge in havasu?

It's not like there has been no research on impersonation voter fraud. What was it??? 1 Billion votes check over a number of years and they found 32 cases of voter fraud. Not like that is a major problem. Just saw today in Congress, the whistle blower of that research group headed by Bannon. When asked if they went after ways to discourage would be Democrats from voting. The answer was "Heck yes!!" That's what the real reason is for Voter ID laws. To make it harder for Democrats to vote!!!

[Natural Lefty]

I was not generalizing, Steelhead. I was citing research on the demographics of who tended to vote for Trump.

I think the ex-wife is relevant, given that Trump has 2 of them plus numerous sex scandals, and yet he is apparently a family values guy according to Christian conservatives. Ivana probably knows a lot more about Trump's suitability as president than most of us do.

[DarkShadow]

Generalization as usual, you guys love to generalize and put people into boxes, thus the identity politics. Are there uneducated Trump voters, you bet but look at the lot of you lumping groups together and finger pointing. Look at Lefty's comment generalizing Trump supporters as poorly educated, condescending much?


Steelplate, why do you think he would say he loves the poorly educated?

Steelplate,

Generalization? Nice straw man, but you care to actually answer the question at hand?

Why do you think Trump says he loves the poorly educated?

[steelhead]

There you go again with the straw man reference and quagmire's non sequitor, typical linear inside the box thinking. Hillary Clinton made a "deplorable" remark insulting everyone who supported or would vote for Trump.

Donald Trump made a statement about loving the poorly educated but take in the full context of his speech.
"We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated." This amounts to him saying he has universal appeal.

Did you also literally believe that DT was colluding with the Russians when this was a soundbite from the liberal media? That was how it was portrayed

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 (Clinton) emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

Yet here's the never to be president Hillary with this comment
When asked after an appearance in Nevada if she tried to wipe the server.
“What, like with a cloth or something?


The point being a double standard and misdirection by the liberal media when the democrats step in dog SH@# and a blow it out of proportion and misrepresent to make the GOP look bad.

[DarkShadow]

Donald Trump made a statement about loving the poorly educated but take in the full context of his speech.
"We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated." This amounts to him saying he has universal appeal.

And of course, you ignore that statistics that Lefty brought up, simply because it tears down your argument. Sure, you can say he got 'universal appeal,' but what does analysis show in regards to the poorly educated? Was it 50% down the line for both candidates? Oh that's right, you dismissed that research as poppycock.


Did you also literally believe that DT was colluding with the Russians when this was a soundbite from the liberal media? That was how it was portrayed.

No, I didn't think he was colluding just because of a soundbite. :Wink:

It'll be more than a soundbite, methinks, that'll make me confirm the collusion.

But thanks for assuming that I believe he colluded with Russian because the liberal media chose to pick out a soundbite.

[Natural Lefty]

If Trump really had "universal appeal," he would have majority support from every demographic. As it is, he has majority support from very few of the many possible demographic categories.

[DarkShadow]

If Trump really had "universal appeal," he would have majority support from every demographic.

But cmon, Trump said he did. So, he did.

Nevermind statistics. Cuz whenever I say stats are 'fake news,' then they're fake news.

[steelhead]

So you generalized that Trump supporters were low IQ due to statistics, OK, kind of like you taking the polling data and thinking Hillary was going to win by a landslide too. Trends, statistics, researcers are genius when they're right. Remember the research that said 97% chance of a Hillary win, how did that work out for you. You took a word out of the full context and pointed out that Trump was insulting his followers? Thanks for proving my point, liberal playbook nitpick one word and make it a platform issue while being hypocrites. It's not wiretapping, definitely not wiretapping just surveillance! LOL. Remember Obama adamantly declaring that and picking his words carefully as to allow himself and his cronies an out when it all came to light.


Is it 50% lower educated? I don't know but I ain't making generalizations like you because there are uninformed voters on both sides of the aisle... or do you think YOU have all ther answers and any body that doesn't agree with you is wrong because that's what it it comes across as. Freedom of speech until it doesn't agree with the liberal agenda.


And of course, you ignore that statistics that Lefty brought up, simply because it tears down your argument. Sure, you can say he got 'universal appeal,' but what does analysis show in regards to the poorly educated? Was it 50% down the line for both candidates? Oh that's right, you dismissed that research as poppycock.



No, I didn't think he was colluding just because of a soundbite. :Wink:

It'll be more than a soundbite, methinks, that'll make me confirm the collusion.

But thanks for assuming that I believe he colluded with Russian because the liberal media chose to pick out a soundbite.

[steelhead]

YES i know you favor a popular vote so that two states that have no voter ID can essentially decide the fate of the other 48 states. California is a blue state and is currently run by a 2/3 majority, why would they do anything to jeopardize that majority so they will do everything they can to keep the status quo which means no voter ID and making it as easy as possible for non citizens to vote with no repercussions. This is a sanctuary state, they will not lift a finger to help enforce any federal laws/violations so the idea of them cooperating to help prosecute for violating federal voting laws is ZERO.


If Trump really had "universal appeal," he would have majority support from every demographic. As it is, he has majority support from very few of the many possible demographic categories.

[DarkShadow]

So you generalized that Trump supporters were low IQ due to statistics,

No, the stats speak for themselves. That's the point of statistics.

Of course, when the stats don't back up your banter, then of course you're going to dismiss them.



Hillary, Obama, wire tapping, liberals, blah blah

Obama? Hillary?

I thought we were talking about Trump here.

Isn't the title of the thread, "Looks like 4 more years?" What is up with bringing Hillary and Obama all the time? Wire tapping? Surveillance? Move on Steelplate, that's old news.

[etucker1959]

YES i know you favor a popular vote so that two states that have no voter ID can essentially decide the fate of the other 48 states. California is a blue state and is currently run by a 2/3 majority, why would they do anything to jeopardize that majority so they will do everything they can to keep the status quo which means no voter ID and making it as easy as possible for non citizens to vote with no repercussions. This is a sanctuary state, they will not lift a finger to help enforce any federal laws/violations so the idea of them cooperating to help prosecute for violating federal voting laws is ZERO.

There is a straw man if I ever heard of one. California let's hundreds of thousands of illegal votes being cast to insure a Liberal agenda goes through!!! Too much Hannity rot's your brain.

[steelhead]

Yes the straw man reference again because that's all you got. If you don't believe there's a liberal agenda then you must have been born yesterday but I thought you're much older than that. Jerry Brown is trying to stop a repeal of the GAS TAX even though there is a groundswell movement with hundreds of thousands of signatures collected to overturn their blatant abuse of power. Don't you remember the 2/3 majority in the legislature allowing them to pass whatever laws they want without checking with the citizens who pay them? If you think California is such a great state how about you pay for all the gas tax since you are so willing to fill their retirement coffers?
How many of the democrat voters will volunteer to do that, I bet a very small percentage.


There is a straw man if I ever heard of one. California let's hundreds of thousands of illegal votes being cast to insure a Liberal agenda goes through!!! Too much Hannity rot's your brain.

[steelhead]

I see you've cut and paste and taken things out of context as usual, please cite the comments where I strung those words together in that order. So now you're reduced to making up things that I did not write. Nothing but a mindless troll that pastes bits and pieces of words together all the while misrepresenting the truth. We've discussed a wide range of topics if you can't keep up don't try.



No, the stats speak for themselves. That's the point of statistics.

Of course, when the stats don't back up your banter, then of course you're going to dismiss them.




Obama? Hillary?



I thought we were talking about Trump here.

Isn't the title of the thread, "Looks like 4 more years?" What is up with bringing Hillary and Obama all the time? Wire tapping? Surveillance? Move on Steelplate, that's old news.

[etucker1959]

Yes the straw man reference again because that's all you got. If you don't believe there's a liberal agenda then you must have been born yesterday but I thought you're much older than that. Jerry Brown is trying to stop a repeal of the GAS TAX even though there is a groundswell movement with hundreds of thousands of signatures collected to overturn their blatant abuse of power. Don't you remember the 2/3 majority in the legislature allowing them to pass whatever laws they want without checking with the citizens who pay them? If you think California is such a great state how about you pay for all the gas tax since you are so willing to fill their retirement coffers?
How many of the democrat voters will volunteer to do that, I bet a very small percentage.

Is that all you got??? I don't think anyone ever asked me that before!!! (I've got more tricks up my sleeve then Houdini) lol When it comes to Voter ID laws, if it really was an "Huge" problem. Don't you think every Conservative would cite that legitimate source who proved Voter ID laws were necessary??? They don't because it doesn't exist!!! I don't count the National Inquire, the Globe tabloid or Sean Hannity as an legitimate source.

When it comes to the State Gasoline tax increase. Jerry Brown had a little bit of bad luck on his timing of when it was to take effect. Gasoline prices had been falling for about 2 years prior to the Gas tax increase launch date. At the same time the new tax took effect, the international price of oil took a sharp price increase. So the price of Gas looks pretty expensive again. (but it wasn't all the new state Gasoline tax price increase that made it go up that much.) So who do you think is suppose to pay for our badly needed road repairs??? If I gave you Trumps answer, "you would die laughing!!" Just to show you how stupid Trump really is and the people who believe him really are. (I'll give you their chant) Who is going to pay for our road repairs?????? Mexico is going to pay for it!!!! That has the same likely hood of happening as Mexico paying for Trumps wall!!!!

You are mistaken, if you think the Gas tax goes for other things besides motoring needs. Motoring needs is a broad term, but the money doesn't go for welfare or some unrelated projects. If you believe it does??? As an FNN colleague, I urge you to stop listening to the people who tell you differently!!! lol

[Natural Lefty]

There were no voter ID laws until 1950, and that was only in 1 state. Most voter ID laws are recent, and there are still quite a few states with none. Thus, if noncitizen voters were such a problem, it would have been a much worse problem before. The fact is that voting fraud is rarer than four leaf clovers when people investigate it. The real reason for voter ID laws is to discourage likely liberal voters from voting, which is why only Republican majority state legislatures enact them. Anybody can google all of this on Wikipedia or a lot of other sites.

[steelhead]

There were no voter ID laws until 1950, and that was only in 1 state. Most voter ID laws are recent, and there are still quite a few states with none. Thus, if noncitizen voters were such a problem, it would have been a much worse problem before. The fact is that voting fraud is rarer than four leaf clovers when people investigate it. The real reason for voter ID laws is to discourage likely liberal voters from voting, which is why only Republican majority state legislatures enact them. Anybody can google all of this on Wikipedia or a lot of other sites.

There were LESS illegal immigrants 60 years ago and you're saying it would have been a worse problem before? There's an unofficial number of 11 million See my post titled BWAHHHAAAHA . You lefties are full of contradiction with your liberal conspiracies, first it's the Republican voting base that's uneducated and poor that are Trump voters and yet the main argument for NOT having voting laws is because it disenfranchises democratic voters who don't have the means of getting a picture ID. Another jump the shark statement stating that the majority of those NOT having ID's are democrat voters?? What fake statistics are you pulling and out of where to support this bogus claim? Boy that's not new there you libs will twist and change the story to fit your non logical argument. What a joke

[steelhead]

I'll play, there's millions of illegal immigrants in California. I challenge you to find ONE cited story or documentation of one case of illegal voting.
You won't see it reported because there is NO interest to enforce it. It works against your left agenda. It doesn't mean it exist. Or let's play the loony liberal argument that's been taking place the last year and a half. According to the media everything in the Steele Dossier has NOT been disproven yet. So can you prove that the illegal voting hasn't happened? Same logic right?



Is that all you got??? I don't think anyone ever asked me that before!!! (I've got more tricks up my sleeve then Houdini) lol When it comes to Voter ID laws, if it really was an "Huge" problem. Don't you think every Conservative would cite that legitimate source who proved Voter ID laws were necessary??? They don't because it doesn't exist!!! I don't count the National Inquire, the Globe tabloid or Sean Hannity as an legitimate source.

When it comes to the State Gasoline tax increase. Jerry Brown had a little bit of bad luck on his timing of when it was to take effect. Gasoline prices had been falling for about 2 years prior to the Gas tax increase launch date. At the same time the new tax took effect, the international price of oil took a sharp price increase. So the price of Gas looks pretty expensive again. (but it wasn't all the new state Gasoline tax price increase that made it go up that much.) So who do you think is suppose to pay for our badly needed road repairs??? If I gave you Trumps answer, "you would die laughing!!" Just to show you how stupid Trump really is and the people who believe him really are. (I'll give you their chant) Who is going to pay for our road repairs?????? Mexico is going to pay for it!!!! That has the same likely hood of happening as Mexico paying for Trumps wall!!!!

You are mistaken, if you think the Gas tax goes for other things besides motoring needs. Motoring needs is a broad term, but the money doesn't go for welfare or some unrelated projects. If you believe it does??? As an FNN colleague, I urge you to stop listening to the people who tell you differently!!! lol

[steelhead]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, or as you quoted so eloquently on here last year... and I paraphrase. I don't know how the state does it but it works!! The fact that it is afloat is not because of good leadership but it's because of the tax payers who break their back paying into the system despite the efforts of their leaders to @#$# it up!! This is one of the worse states when it comes to the k-12 education school system and has one of the highest rates of poverty and yet you liberals love to tout how the state contributes more into the federal coffers than it gets back. You don't remember the gas tax that was supposed to go into infrastructure years ago and now they're coming back with their hands out again but do a little research and you'll find that revenue collected was misappropriated into other pots. Gas in other states are UNDER $3 and the roads are fine.


Is that all you got??? I don't think anyone ever asked me that before!!! (I've got more tricks up my sleeve then Houdini) lol When it comes to Voter ID laws, if it really was an "Huge" problem. Don't you think every Conservative would cite that legitimate source who proved Voter ID laws were necessary??? They don't because it doesn't exist!!! I don't count the National Inquire, the Globe tabloid or Sean Hannity as an legitimate source.

When it comes to the State Gasoline tax increase. Jerry Brown had a little bit of bad luck on his timing of when it was to take effect. Gasoline prices had been falling for about 2 years prior to the Gas tax increase launch date. At the same time the new tax took effect, the international price of oil took a sharp price increase. So the price of Gas looks pretty expensive again. (but it wasn't all the new state Gasoline tax price increase that made it go up that much.) So who do you think is suppose to pay for our badly needed road repairs??? If I gave you Trumps answer, "you would die laughing!!" Just to show you how stupid Trump really is and the people who believe him really are. (I'll give you their chant) Who is going to pay for our road repairs?????? Mexico is going to pay for it!!!! That has the same likely hood of happening as Mexico paying for Trumps wall!!!!

You are mistaken, if you think the Gas tax goes for other things besides motoring needs. Motoring needs is a broad term, but the money doesn't go for welfare or some unrelated projects. If you believe it does??? As an FNN colleague, I urge you to stop listening to the people who tell you differently!!! lol

[etucker1959]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, or as you quoted so eloquently on here last year... and I paraphrase. I don't know how the state does it but it works!! The fact that it is afloat is not because of good leadership but it's because of the tax payers who break their back paying into the system despite the efforts of their leaders to @#$# it up!! This is one of the worse states when it comes to the k-12 education school system and has one of the highest rates of poverty and yet you liberals love to tout how the state contributes more into the federal coffers than it gets back. You don't remember the gas tax that was supposed to go into infrastructure years ago and now they're coming back with their hands out again but do a little research and you'll find that revenue collected was misappropriated into other pots. Gas in other states are UNDER $3 and the roads are fine.

The roads might be in fair shape in other states, but do they have 40 million people driving on them??? Think of all the cars California has as compared to other states.:Rolls Eyes: More cars cause a lot more use on the roads and California has many many more Freeways and roads that need more and more maintenance!!!

Speaking of Freeways, do you know why they are called Freeways????:Rolls Eyes: Because they are FREE FREE FREE!!!! Back east they have tons of toll way's!!! Guess what a toll way does to the people who drive on them??? They have to pay money to use it!!! (they still pay gas tax's too!!!) Do you want me to get into the Federal Gas tax???? Don't you think CA contributes more then their share to that??? I think I made my point about other states roads aren't fine and California doesn't need to copy their model!!!

[steelhead]

The roads are back in the rural parts of California as well where you don't have the amount of traffic you see here in LA so that doesn't explain anything and also the roads in the Paficic Northwest are subject to freezing temperature, rain and snow so environmental impacts that would cause more stress yet they are fine, see how the 5FWY looks noticeably in better shape when you cross into OR and WA? they are FREE until they are not, ever heard of OCTA's 405 project or how about the 71 or 133 or 91 , 241 tolls. The 405 project is going to charge people a premium to travel the tolls and depending on peak hours will charge more so they are not FREE.

The roads might be in fair shape in other states, but do they have 40 million people driving on them??? Think of all the cars California has as compared to other states.:Rolls Eyes: More cars cause a lot more use on the roads and California has many many more Freeways and roads that need more and more maintenance!!!

Speaking of Freeways, do you know why they are called Freeways????:Rolls Eyes: Because they are FREE FREE FREE!!!! Back east they have tons of toll way's!!! Guess what a toll way does to the people who drive on them??? They have to pay money to use it!!! (they still pay gas tax's too!!!) Do you want me to get into the Federal Gas tax???? Don't you think CA contributes more then their share to that??? I think I made my point about other states roads aren't fine and California doesn't need to copy their model!!!

[Natural Lefty]

You are confusing apples and oranges here, Steelhead. First, voter ID laws have nothing to do with Trump. They are the idea of Republican state legislators.

Second, these laws have been found to be discriminatory, at least by some courts. That means they discriminate against minority people. It appears to be the intent of this legislation to make if more difficult for non white people to vote. White people mostly favor Republicans, while nonwhite people overwhelmingly favor Democrats. Thus, it is an attempt to help Republicans win elections.

It so happens that less educated white people tended to vote for Trump. It has not been true of all Republicans that they have appealed to less educated voters, but it is consistent that they have appealed to white voters, who are more likely to have the required ID. Thus, this issue is about race, not education level. It may have something to do with income level because minorities are more often poor and also less likely to have ID. Also, legal immigrants may feel intimidated and afraid to vote if asked for ID.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-voter-id-laws-discriminate-study/517218/

Regarding the problem getting worse, well, even Kobach the vote suppressor behind Crosscheck could only find 20 something cases of voter fraud, and not all of these were illegal immigrants or Democrats.

[steelhead]

The idea that voter ID laws would discriminate against minorities is pure conjecture as are your other points indicating that democrat voters would be the ones most impacted by having a voter ID law, what "statistics" point to more democrats NOT having id compared to republican voters? So now less educated whites are trump voters but they are NOT impacted by the voter ID laws but educated minorities who happen to NOT have ID but are impacted by ID laws. So the minority democratic voters are more educated but yet they don't have ID, wouldn't you associate education with higher income levels and yet the cry from liberals is getting an ID causes financial stress on these voters. Right Yes let's cherry pick what narratives support your leftist agenda.


You are confusing apples and oranges here, Steelhead. First, voter ID laws have nothing to do with Trump. They are the idea of Republican state legislators.

Second, these laws have been found to be discriminatory, at least by some courts. That means they discriminate against minority people. It appears to be the intent of this legislation to make if more difficult for non white people to vote. White people mostly favor Republicans, while nonwhite people overwhelmingly favor Democrats. Thus, it is an attempt to help Republicans win elections.

It so happens that less educated white people tended to vote for Trump. It has not been true of all Republicans that they have appealed to less educated voters, but it is consistent that they have appealed to white voters, who are more likely to have the required ID. Thus, this issue is about race, not education level. It may have something to do with income level because minorities are more often poor and also less likely to have ID. Also, legal immigrants may feel intimidated and afraid to vote if asked for ID.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-voter-id-laws-discriminate-study/517218/

Regarding the problem getting worse, well, even Kobach the vote suppressor behind Crosscheck could only find 20 something cases of voter fraud, and not all of these were illegal immigrants or Democrats.