Would you vote for Donald Trump for President Poll (NJ.com)
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/poll_would_you_vote_for_donald_trump_for_president.html
Just puttin it out there.....I think it will be a very interesting!!
sha44ss 
great in the meadows I really don't know about Donald. He is obviously a very smart man. If I am correct, he is a self made millionaire. Perhaps that is what we need, someone with some common sense ideas for getting us out of debt and reversing this economic slump we are in. He may think more about helping the middle and lower classes in our country. He is a bit of a hot head and I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing. Also he has no political experience. So to answer your question, I don't know. But I would be very interested in reading other opinions.
Parental unit Look at that both ways made millions but lost Millions too so that = it out He is in there just to split up votes NO I will not Play the TRUMP CARD
Caged Animal He is not a self made anything. His dad started the business and gave it to him. He just grew an already successful business
Darwin 
Spring Fever He strikes me as a megalomaniac. His opinion is always the correct one. I don't think he would do well dealing with other world leaders. We don't need to alienate the friends we do have.
Andrew's Mom 
Suze 
Calico696 The main problem with electing a man like Donald Trump is that he has no filter. This may be entertaining in the same way you slow down to see the accident on the highway. I hate to think of the ramifications of someone like this working with a contentious congress or foreign leaders. He will constantly light up the media circus with his warped sense of what is good for this country. Almost everyone who is currently running for president will have some issues with their visions of what this country needs so a careful look at core values will be needed.
MK I'd vote Trump before ever voting Clinton. But if those end up being my 2 choices, America may actually be exponentially more ignorant than I already think she (the voters at large) is.
JeffersonRepub 
MeisterNJ 
just coach I used to think voting was one of my duties as an American citizen.
It's taken many years, but now I see that voting "liberal" or "conservative," Republican or Democrat.... or anything beyond some local election and thinking that "I made a difference" is to participate in a grand farce designed to divide and distract us.
Calico, Suze and a few of you out there are starting to get it.
The media and the politicians give you 10 percent truth and 90 percent spin to shape the way you think and gloss over some pretty egregious attacks on your liberty and property.
My response to all of the political drama is: "this is all bullshit and it is not worth my time....but it disturbs me to think that a lot of people, many of whom are smarter than me, are still fooled by this garbage."
jjmonth4 
5catmom Trump/Christie will never happen. Two big egos and Christie cant even run NJ Trump would have to fire him like the losers on his tv show lol
justpassinthruTrump is not a millionaire, he is a billionaire.
And Melania being first lady and Ivanka being first daughter sounds great to me!
Trump 2016!
TM
Troublemaker jjmonth - you summed it up perfectly.
DH last night: "I'd vote for Donald Duck before I voted for Donald Trump."
Rebecka I would not vote for him, but I am glad he is in there. He will make a monkey out of them all with there political talks about things they don't really don't mean.
Old Gent 
Booster90 
Bonv hes only going to take votes away from a viable conservative candidate - he wont go all the way - but he adds fun color commentaty
skippy I'm surprised by the number of yes answers on this poll.
I don't trust trump, and the last thing we need is another bush. We need a president that won't spend us into oblivion like the last two have.
PenningsLandscaping Unfortunately there is never the perfect president for this country, it is always pick the one that will do the least damage to our country.
The LAST person I would ever vote for is Hilary
Darrin Trump is a clown show. The leaders of other countries don't think much of us because of Obama, with Trump we would lose whatever credibility we have now.
Hillary and Christie are also clowns. Christie will slash Social Security if he were to get in and god knows what Hillary would do. I don't see anyone I would vote for at this point but usually as the race goes to debate, hopefully a leader will be found.
boobalaa "Trump is a clown show." To early to make up my mind. But not to early to see the mentality of the American voter.
auntiel The only good thing about this will be the debates. Watching him call his opponents losers will at least be entertaining.
As of now he would have my vote... I Agree with a lot of what he said!!!! Mabey a different perspective might work... Obama is running this country into the ground continuing where Bush left off!!! Hillary is a born Liar much like her husband and let's hope Jeb is more like his father (who got a raw deal) rather than bush jr...
Mr. Tone What scares me is that Trump will make Christie look good to the rest of the country, who are not aware of our Governor's wickedness.
Hot corner 
botheredbyuu2 Rebecka , you are on the money !
The entitlement folks and the unions will be pushing for Hillary .
Steven No, never. He is too good at spending the money of others and when deals go bad he walks away scot-free...
iJay Thats funny ijay. The first thing that came to my mind reading your post was, he fits right in with the rest of Washington with that analogy. "To big to fail".
I don't like his egotistical arrogant attitude, so I guess he does have the qualifications to run. Lol! After Obama, I'm game for any change at this point...
positive This just came to mind..when Reagan was running, many people thought he was a joke. He became one of our best presidents. So who knows, even though I'm not crazy about Trump..he might surprise me.
Denis 
Reggie Voter 
Patrick O. 
Mommyof3 
MAN Here is a little known fact, Did you know that Donald filed Bankruptcy twice so as not to pay his debts, so he is sort of a self made billionaire, dont believe me google it
doctor k 16 People said all the same things I am reading here about Trump that they did about Reagan when he was running. I remember people freaking out about his lack of political experience, his no filter mouth, the fact that people thought he was just in it for attention (you know those actors and their ego's), and that he was saying "crazy" things and had no idea about foreign affairs.
I can see Trump having a "Gorbachev, teat down this wall!" moment with China or Mexico. Also, he understands that the reason corporations are fleeing the country is because of regulation and over taxing.
Anyway...I say yes. I would vote for Trump. Can't be any worse than what we have now and I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush (shutters uncontrollably).
Heidi Oops i was wrong it was 4 times. Not sure he would be good, as a country you cant delcare your bankrupt, i dont think
Oh, positive, sorry I didn't see your post until after I wrote mine...I obviously agree!
doctor k 16...It's called reorganization and many companies do it. He did not get out of paying his debts. There are different levels of "Bankruptcy." Many companies, both large fortune 1000 down to small mom and pop businesses file to keep themselves solvent. It's actually a smart strategy. I give him credit for going through tough economic times, reorging and continuing to build. It's better than what the US is doing-- just adding more and more and more to the debt we owe China. Now that's dumb.
Heidi, call it what you want, its to reduce your debt, your not paying all of it back. If you were one of the debt holders not getting paid how would you feel. Funny when individuals do it they are frowned upon.
I just dont think if your a billionaire you should find ways not to pay your debts.
A business declaring bankruptcy is nothing new in corporate America, where bankruptcy is often sugar-coated as "restructuring debt." But it might seem alarming to everyday Americans who can't get a bank to restructure their home loans. If you want to get Donald Trump hot under the collar, accuse him of declaring bankruptcy.
Doug Heller, the executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said Trump is the "most egregious, almost comical example" of the disparity between what the average American faces when going through bankruptcy and the "ease with which the very rich can move in and out of bankruptcy
@Heidi - Bankruptcy is not new in Corporate America but most companies don't file 3x or 4x and that's what speaks to his business strategy and him. Trump has been successful at branding his name in the same way the Kardashian's have. As a matter of fact that's probably the golden ticket Trump/Kardashian.
Whatever Bonv and dk16, go ahead and vote for another Bush or Clinton, since they are so smart and squeaky clean.
Maybe it's time for a reorganization of America with someone who is hard core crazy and actually DID something with his life. As opposed to a community organizer (Obama), a person born with a silver spoon in their mouth (Bush 1, Bush 2 and now Bush 3), or a lying sack of $hit who says whatever will get her where she wants to go, who claims to be for women, while sticking by a rapist husband and takes money from Syria who stone women and don't let them drive (Hillary).
Maybe a maverick, loud mouthed, intelligent (money-wise), person who made their own money would work for a change.
I am basically looking for someone to vote for that is COMPLETELY different than what we have had for the last 40 years (other than Reagan) because every single one was a total fail - Dem or Rep - they all $ucked.
Time for something new and totally different. Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Rand Paul any one of those guys are totally NOT the status quo.
Heidi, i dont disagree with you its time for someone new, i just dont want a guy who has a strategy of filing bankruptcy.
Bonv, see what happens on this site, when you give people facts like we did they change the subject. If your gonna make comments just use facts, not go on the attack cause you maybe wrong, thanks for the backing
The "Donald" is basically an egotist who loves publicity. Not sure how smart he really is as he started his real estate business with a ten million handout from his father (who built garden apartments on Long Island after WW2) and he does have a history of bankruptcies when his deals go south. My guess is that he will go only so far with this to the point where he will have to file his financial disclosure documents. He claims to be worth 9 billion but I don't believe that for a New York minute. He will drop out before then but sure will get the publicity he craves.
Old gent, it should be a last resort, not a strategy. Why is booze legal, pot, etc. Its not suppossed to be a tool to get you out of all your debts because you cant manage, It effects all of us by the way. Trump hiring 15000 lawyers to find loopholes in the law is not the point of it, just like this kid who shot up everyone would you want him out on loopholes. Trump braggs about this
I would Bragg if beat the system also. The Government is bankrupt, and look how their bragging how much their doing for you with your money. Who puts loophole's in the laws. Lobbyist with money. Just maybe he couldn't be bought. Wouldn't that be refreshing.? Just saying.
A member of government that can't be bought. ......unheard of.....it's an oxymoron. ;)
Old gent so he beat the government? by declaring bankruptcy, im not sure but usually that means you beat your debt holders, thats not the Gov, but if beating the gov is what you want then dont complain about illegal aliens, or anything else, or people on welfare, they beat the gov to so thats awesome. So if beating the Gov is good then i guess you are not proud of your american flag
doctor k 16, If you have ever read any of my previous post you would know my faith is not in any part of Caesars world. Refer to the link below and just read Old Gents comments. Its very long otherwise.
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/686209#recent
nope wont be brought into anything with god, and the people posted on there, not so nice were they, i mean god invented baseball, i cant talk to a person like that
Dont worry old gent, im about to be attacked by the crew here very soon, i just go by facts, sorry, the Lifers will soon be calling me a jerk and comment on my spelling, its ok,
I have to strongly disagree with anyone who calls Reagan a great president. He set the ball rolling for the destruction of the middle class, the huge gap between the haves and have nots, the huge cuts to medical and psychiatric care, allowed the Christian fundamentalists to hijack the Republican Party, etc, etc. nothing good about him.
I agree that Christian fundamentalists have hijacked the Republican Party, but how is Reagan responsible for this? I'm not seeing it.
The forum is a great outlook on the world we live in, with many views expressed of whats is really in their hearts and minds. It's more educational, then any classroom or book, other than the Bible. Hang in there!!! Defend your views.
Robin Trump is 10 times better than Hillary and that isn't saying much. If you consider yourself a true American and vote for Hillary Clinton you need to look in the mirror and reconsider what kind of life you are living.
Reagan wasn't even a religious man. He mentioned God less than Obama, the Bush's, Clinton (with all their photo-ops of them with Bibles in hand, walking in and out of church with Chelsea, lol!) and the holy roller Jimmy Carter the southern baptist pseudo- pastor with the pastor father-in-law.
Reagan, like all presidents before him (even Obama) mention God in their speeches and say "God Bless America" after a speech or tragedy (name one president who didn't). To say he had anything to do with the Christian Fundamentalist is crazy. If anything the right wing Christians that I knew at the time were freaked out because he was an "actor" and that's blasphemy. They were afraid of his sincerity. It was the middle of the road moderates who got him elected the first time and the second time he won in a landslide, with both left, right and center voting for him in droves.
There was a reason for that...
need a clean slate. forget BUSH, no Clinton, enough of bad stuff.
Go TRUMP, if you can make money for yourself, lets turn around
our country and clean up this mess. You can do it, positively.
Joan
Joan Crouse +100000 Suzie! Then "Dubya" aka Bush Jr continued more tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. As for Trump.... he steals money and leaves all his investors and employees holding the bag. If Trump or Christie gets elected, get ready for the next great depression.
sallysimpson auntiel -- by the look of the economy, the high unemployment over the years, the national debt going higher and higher year after year, the manufacturing leaving the country almost entirely, out auto manufacturing basically owned by foreign countries (Ford now made in Mexico, Chevy's, Buick's, Dodge, etc., now made in China), race relations not much improved since Martin Luther King was around, value of the dollar going down, our GDP down year after year, taxes (both property and income) going higher and higher and half the world hating our guts and looking for our demise -- I don't know, but I would say we are not surviving very well. Or, maybe a better way to put it is we have not been thriving. No one on the left, right or a moderate could dispute that.
"We need a leader who is constitutionalist . Period. Not likely."
+100 Old Gent
One of Reagan's biggest supporters and vice versa was Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority ". I'm on an iPad and don't know how to link articles but there are many factual accounts of this. Whether Reagan was "religious " or not is besides the point. This was who he courted and who began to control the republicans as a result of his presidency.
Economically, Reagan's term has the privilege of being the launch off point for fiscal irresponsibility: his was the administration that got the debt train really rolling. Not exactly a stellar accomplishment IMO.
Any real candidates will talk shop and not just the same old emotion-triggering rhetoric we typically hear.
Regarding Trump, he's in it for the show. A "big name" meant to be a distraction, not worth even discussing in my view.
Justintime 
sientje smith My point is that Reagan was not a great president, my point is that his presidency allowed for a hijacking of the Republican Party which we still have by fundamentalists. Your assertion that saying he had anything to do with Christian fundamentalists is "crazy" is just plain wrong.
It's not my opinion, it is fact. Whether or not you like or I like fundamentalist Christians and think they are good for the country is opinion, not fact.
Than why is Reagan listed in the top 20 of the best presidents according to public opinion? Anyone can become mayor and governor (take a look at Clint Eastwood ), so that tells me anyone can run for president as long as they have financial backup.
My main concerns are the canidate's morals, values and common sense.
Why would anybody vote for any candidate that doesn't condemn his racist comments about Mexicans being rapists?
LeRoy Grimace Opinions are like a holes, everyone has one and they all stink....
I think people are forgetful or glamorize the Reagan years or just plain ignorant.
First of all I take full responsibility for derailing this topic by mentioning Reagan. I was just trying to give an example. I had no clue it would go this far.
Like I said on previous threads, we all have a right to our own views and we shouldn't attack nor get attacked for being oppositional.
I wouldn't feel too bad, positive.
The effect this thread would have on any election, outside of a local one, would equal the proverbial "piss in the ocean."
Any discussion involving mainstream politics is as fundamentally relevant as Kim Kardashian's ass or Bruce Jenner's gender, meaning it is for "entertainment purposes only".
Just like the garbage that passes for "news" on TV....
YES!!! It would be great to have a president who knows how to efficiently manage money. He works hard, and he gets results. He is a smart man, and he would make America STRONG again. He'd bring back our factories (jobs) and reform some of the ridiculous social programs that are crushing the working class.
TRUMP for President 2016!!!!!!
fussylady Fussylady, what are you going to do about a congress that refuses to work together on any idea that doesn't benefit the religious right or the gun lobby? He was so efficient at managing money it took two bankruptcies and untold unpaid bills to become rich, wait, with our national debt that's what we do now. I guess he can't be worse LOL, only kidding.
Trump helped to run Atlantic City into the ground. If A.C. and the way he ran his companies that caused him (a billionaire) to go bankrupt and many people lost their jobs. With that, who would doubt his ability to run the country?
Check out Realtor.com.... look at the real estate plummeting while the property taxes are 3 times as much than around here. Christie forgot about A.C. altogether and this is his state.
LoBo "Why,not ! Look at what we have to choose from! SOS !"
That's kinda' how I feel... NO WAY he can be worse than Obama has been. No way. NO WAY he can be worse than Hillary. No way. That doesn't mean I WANT the guy as president, but if I am forced to vote for the lesser of 2 evils again, he would be it. In today's political climate of party-forced-and-paid-for candidates, "why not?" is as good a reason as any, since it doesn't seem t matter who we vote for anymore.... (which is why I'm seriously considering sitting it out... maybe America needs to burn to truly wake up, to truly realize how bad things are getting, maybe America needs something drastic- like the Great Depression was, or WWII was, to finally decide the country is worth saving.)
I have been in the minority most of my life, politically. I see a few in the present generation are joining my status. We are approaching the point of being just another nondescript European nation, watching to see who the next power is going to be. Russia, or China. Those seeking the one world status are succeeding in destroying Freedom by buying out the masses.
I know most of you will Poo,Poo, this article, but they are meeting and looking for the week spots. Money IS, the root of all evil.
http://conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com/2015/06/bilderbergers-meet.html?utm_source=America%27s+Conservative+News&utm_campaign=e68fe56ca4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c28c63c891-e68fe56ca4-257130426#more
Andy Loigu I always felt the same way Old Gent.
I am noticing a shift, especially in the younger generations. I have three twenty-something kids (2 boys, 1 girl) and it has been amazing to watch the political change in them and their friends over the last few years.
My oldest (son) had a few friends over and they started talking politics. I was totally shocked (seriously) because NOT one of them liked Obama. Even the one's who admitted to voting for him said they were totally duped. I was eavesdropping because I was really interested to hear what that generation is thinking (or at least the small group of 7).
The consensus of that particular group was they all like Rand Paul, would vote for Trump if he was on the ticket against Hillary or Bernie Sanders, three of them were talking up Ben Carson. They ALL expressed dislike for Hillary and Bush!
It was quite interesting, and honestly not what I expected and not what I think I would have heard a few years ago.
Heidi, from your mouth to God's ears!!! (and to the ears of all the new voters lol)
It's really alarming how, whereas experience is necessary for most any job, for president of the United States experience seemingly is not necessary. Really?
It goes back to the writing of our Constitution, when maybe not enough thought went into what the requirements for the presidency should be, because they knew they had George Washington.
jd2 It just cracks me up to read all this stuff from people who have already made up their minds how they will vote, in an election that is still over a year away.
"It just cracks me up to read all this stuff from people who have already made up their minds how they will vote, in an election that is still over a year away."
I don't know why it would "crack you up", after all a lot of these candidates are already known quantities. We already know who they are, what they are, if they are trustworthy or not, if they're liars, what they have done, what they will say they will do, and what they will actually do.
I don't know who I'm voting FOR yet, but I certainly already know several candidates I WILL NEVER vote for.
jd2 -- I guess it depends on what you consider "experience." I consider experience real life experience, building a business, running something, managing people, understanding finance, higher-up military experience, the ability to stay cool under pressure, etc.
What kind of "experience" are you looking for in a president?
Part of the reason why Obama is such a fail (in my opinion) is because he had NO experience running anything, never managed people, never actually had a job or ran a business that he was responsible for the success or failure of it, was never in any military capacity and never dealt with money/finances.
Check out the resumes of our forefathers...they had REAL LIFE experience, and various management/business experience under their belt.
Basically, he went from college, to working for a law firm (where he was fired), to community organizing with friends of his grandparents and guys from his college days, to a short stint as a senator (where he did nothing and missed most votes for some reason) - to becoming president.
I don't think anyone should vote for anyone for president (Rep, Ind or Dem) unless they can prove that they RAN something, MANAGED something and have a good understanding of finance/money/interest/credit, etc.
Good points, Heidi.
I would add to your list experience in government, or at the very least, a good understanding of how government (and diplomacy) works. Trump is pretty hopeless in this area, IMO.
Obama, and many others before him, lacked adequate experience, agree. My point is that NO experience of any kind is required under our Constitution; that's alarming.
Forcefed4door I think that it's not specified in the Constitution because the writers assumed that the American people would vet their choices and make a decision based of the person with the most experience needed for the job, the guy who understood the issues facing the nation and knew how to manage things. Also, at the time only people who owned property could vote, it was one vote for each "family unit," so couples had to discuss each candidate and come to a conclusion as to who was best for the ENTIRE family (and the nation).
I don't think they though for one second that the people who would be voting all these years later, would be people who have no clue about anything, who vote only for who promised them free phones and food stamps, who vote party lines no matter what, and/or who would vote for someone strictly based on gender or race. They are probably all rolling around in their graves watching the sheer stupidity of the American people in general.
Now we look at other criteria (ie: is his wife first lady material, is he/she politically correct, is he/she for abortion, is he/she an LGBT supporter, is he promising me enough free stuff, do his ears stick out too far, does she have wrinkles?), that should really have no bearing on whether someone is qualified or not, when choosing the leader of our 50 states.
You may recall originally there was no direct vote for president; rather each state would appoint electors, in a manner determined by each state's legislature.
A vote by "family unit"? This is new to me.
In a parliamentary system, such as they have in Britain, only experienced leaders can become "prime minister". Winston Churchill himself complained about our system where relatively unknown individuals suddenly become president. (He was focused at the time on Woodrow Wilson.)
I like the "only experienced leaders" idea. I would also like to see "leaders" from other walks of life. Not just political leaders.
"Part of the reason why Obama is such a fail (in my opinion) is because he had NO experience running anything, never managed people, never actually had a job or ran a business that he was responsible for the success or failure of it, was never in any military capacity and never dealt with money/finances."
nailed it, abosolutely nailed it Hedi, we elected a true nube for our president and now the ones who voted for him are saying the current candidates 'lack experience'
lol, :) :) r u kidding me?
"a good understanding of how government (and diplomacy) works. Trump is pretty hopeless in this area, IMO. "
jd, you forgot to add Hillary to your complaint about lack of understanding, she has little understanding of diplomacy and government, she has no accomplishments to speak of because she has no clue how things actually work.
BrotherDog BD, I mentioned Trump because he is the focus of the thread. Obviously there are others. I am not a fan of Hillary but I wouldn't say she is light on governmental experience. Her flaws are elsewhere.
As to Trump, is he really being taken seriously? When I see him talk, I see a buffoon. Could I be that wrong?
Personally, I don't think Trump is/will be taken seriously, even by those of us who think "governmental experience" (i.e. career politicians) could actually be considered UNwanted in a candidate. I don't want any of Hillary's "governmental experience" leading our country.
If there were limits on what a candidate could raise in campaign "donations", aka bribery by lobbyists and corporations, the voting would probably go very differently. Vermont does have a limit, and probably a few other states... not sure. Too bad for Bernie Sanders. He would definitely get my vote, however, because of certain limits in certain states, the media exposure for certain candidates falls by the way side, and not as many people get to see other candidates point of view. Most people don't even know who Bernie Sanders is. As much as I would love to vote for Sanders, it would be considered a "wasted " vote, as he won't get the same exposure as the "big boys ". Money controls politics and the media, thus gaining control of most votes.
You would love to vote for the Socialist Bernie Sanders sallysimpson?!?!? OMG....
Now we know why our country is doomed.
I knew that was coming, but yes....I choose the overall care of humanity within the USA ... not just a bunch of rich, corrupted war mongers, who only care about themselves and their own families. They don't call it a Grand old Party for nothing. I'm ready so go ahead..call me a Marxist, communist, whatever..that's why we have these forums. I choose humanity over money. By the way, Heidi, if you haven't noticed the country is already doomed. So is the entire planet. Try avoiding FOX for a while.
" I choose humanity over money."
And I choose INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, what the country was largely founded on, over ALL ELSE.
Yeah sallysimpson, because the Soviet Union made out so well under Socialism. People under Socialism have it so good. No food, no freedom, told where to live, where to work, what they can make, how many children they can have, wait on line every day for hours for a loaf of bread and an onion, can be jailed for even questioning the government, etc. I am so glad people like you are looking out for humanity.
Maybe you should read about the people in Socialist Soviet Russia before you go skipping through the daises to "help" your fellow man.
Trump helped run Atlantic City into the ground? Not sure how you can make that statement. The areas surrounding the Casinos is a craphole before they arrived and still is today. Christie and every Governor before him has forgotten about AC, nothing new there.
kb2755 "The areas surrounding the Casinos is a craphole before they arrived and still is today."
So Trump did nothing for the citizens of Atlantic City and kept the millions (billions?) for himself and his company? Who woulda thunk it? ;-)
The Soviet Union was a fascist state. It was no more "socialist' in the Bernie Sanders sense than Nazi (National Socialist) Germany was. Research Scandinavia, it will give you a better idea of what Sanders et al has in mind.
Aquarius Actually, Heidi, I think you referenced a communist country, not a socialist one. Have you ever been to a communist or socialist country?
@JR - individual liberty - how's that working out for us?
"@JR - individual liberty - how's that working out for us?"
I'd like to know when we get some. It would be nice for a change! Seems we keep losing (or willingly giving up) what little we have. Talk about a negative trend.
JIT , just like every other Casino that operates there. Trying to put the blame on Trump for AC's woes is just ridiculous. The problems there are more complicated than just blaming Trump and the Casinos.
Hate to be negative, but I agree that much of our liberty and freedom is gone. Our country has changed so much, that I'm starting to lose my faith in the Constitution and it's supposed message and meaning. It doesn't seem to exist anymore.
I agree kb2755. Trump isn't at fault for AC's woes. He didn't mind profiting though...
When the Warren Court decided that the Constitution was a living document. That was the door opening for the Government take over your liberty. It was a great experiment. We are now back to slavery.The government is your master now.
Uh, oh, better watch what I say or Stalin will cart me off to the Siberian salt mines.
Is that the kind of master you're talking about?
Or, if I'm the wrong religion, I'll get sent to the death camp ...
Is that what the United States has become?
Could be time to pack up and leave if it is.
If I read the news right this week, it was a racist who killed those people for being gathered in a church, not the boogey man government.
"@JR - individual liberty - how's that working out for us?"
"I'd like to know when we get some. It would be nice for a change! Seems we keep losing (or willingly giving up) what little we have. Talk about a negative trend."
JIT's got it.
Is there anyone else, who went bankrupt a few times, leaving the investors and employees holding the bag, that is running for president?
Probably not as none of them ever ran a major business. Most are career politicians. I just disagree with your statement that Trump helped in running AC into the ground.
Rebecka -- you asked me "Have you ever been to a communist or socialist country?"
Well, Yes I have.
As I have discussed on this forum over the years, I was born in Frankfurt Germany (where almost all of my relatives reside to this day), moving to the US when I was 9.
So I get a little riled up when people talk about "Socialism" and "Socialized Medicine" like it's so great. I have had multiple relatives forced to come here for surgeries and treatments because they either could not get them anywhere in Germany or were going to have to wait for months (or in 1 case years). They also have cut off ages and things they don't deem "necessary" as treatments, depending on your age, gender, etc.
Liberals here who espouse Socialism as wonderful, would NEVER put up with that stuff! Makes no sense, other than pure naivete.
Heidi,
THE HELL YOU SAY!!!!! ;)
It's nice to have someone on the forum with ACTUAL, PERSONAL experience with the "wonders" of socialist-style government/culture.
Well, the only reason we don't have to ration medical care in some fashion is because we, as a country, are BORROWING the money to pay for much of it. I'm referring especially to medicare and medicaid.
We're probably borrowing money for social security, too, but if I've got nothing else, I'm going to collect it.
Sorry, gotta survive.
The Republicans did not want social security in the 1930s ... by the time I started voting, I thought they had changed and learned from all that.
If the GOP gives Hillary any verifiable reason to credibly say they will take away social security ... it's all over ... landslide.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/entertainment/2015/06/25/donald-trump-fires-back-threatens-to-sue-univision-for-pulling-out-miss/
Complete jackass!
Wow, Heidi knows folks in Socialist countries who had a bad time with socialized medicine so decided to come here to get some good ole capitalist care.
Germany's health care system is not a socialized system but a system where you pick your insurance, public or private. Over 10% of the country uses private insurance, generally the richer. This all started with Otto Von Bismarck so about 150 years old.
Here's another anecdote: http://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/23/put-away-hysteria-lets-have-some-perspective-unive/
So here's the question Heidi. Did they have private or public insurance? And if they were willing to spend out of pocket to get capitalistic care, could' they have just purchased equivalent care in the over 20 countries of Europe? Including Germany?
I smell something else occurring.
Meanwhile Forbes, which hates ObamaCare with a zealots passion says this about Germany: "Whether they have public or private coverage, most Germans love their care. In a recent survey by m&m Management & Marketing Consulting 84% of private insurance clients expressed satisfaction; so did 85% of those who rely on the public system. Tough to find that in America." Oops.
Also wait times in Germany seem pretty low: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html?itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&_csp_=484d3d91b843a9804bc912701c46682d
They are even lower for those with private insurance; you know the rich ones who can afford to get high-priced out-of-pocket capitalist-care in other countries.
Lastly, the myth that socialized countries means "People under Socialism have it so good. No food, no freedom, told where to live, where to work, what they can make, how many children they can have, wait on line every day for hours for a loaf of bread and an onion, can be jailed for even questioning the government, etc. I am so glad people like you are looking out for humanity" sort of flies in the face of the FACT that some of the highest quality-of-life countries in the world, higher than the US, have socialized political and economic systems.
What Heidi says about Russia may be true, what she says about her family in Germany is probably true although something has been left out, what Heidi says about the German health care system is not right and what Heidi rails about on socialism is pure bunk.
strangerdanger Mg we all thought highly of you as your original persona - why would you change? I have asked for your analysis on numerous issues and respected your opinion and well researched replies - no need to change monikers
Very nice skippy, I totally agree. He is one of the most respected posters on here. Why use a different screen name and gravatar, unless he is testing us for some reason?
The US spends 22% of the annual budget on Medicaid and Medicare. Not sure how that translates to a percentage of GDP or how many people are covered. Most of the European countries spend between 9-11% of GDP on national healthcare. Those countries are heavily taxed to support this and other programs. How much would it cost to have a single payer system in the US to cover 330 million people. I await your analysis strangerdanger. Any relation to carlosdanger aka Anthony Weiner?
eperot I haven't been back to this post for a week because at age 62 I'm still out looking for a job after 2 years of unemployment! Lost my job I planned to retire from to 'Corporate' restructure (gave all the jobs to lower wages)**Gone through all of our retirement and had to sign up for SS just to have have a 'little' income coming in .It's going to be a real struggle to stay here in NJ at our age and where all my family is.....Never had any trouble finding work in my entire life and have never seen a economy like this one >>.*Except for the Great Depression my parents and grandparents were just coming out of.....but at least they had GOD & HOPE! We have neither anymore!
There are only a 'few' posters on here that really 'get it' just like the rest of our Country! ...
OLD GENT gets the game ball for his FAITH ( God Bless you Old Gent) and for his link:
http://conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com/2015/06/bilderbergers-meet.html?utm_source=America%27s+Conservative+News&utm_campaign=e68fe56ca4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c28c63c891-e68fe56ca4-257130426#more
(Everyone needs to read the above article he posted and especially read the comment left by TPP which IS what is happening to this Country!)
Shout out to Jefferson Republic and Heidi too! Real Common sense people.
I just hope Mr Trump 'goes the distance' because he is giving us HOPE for the first time in 7 years! Anyone that does'nt see the Corruption in BOTH parties is just as Corrupt and against everything this country has ever stood for!!
Is The Donald the Perfect Candidate ? NO,,, but Donald Trump to me is the Best Candidate because he is probably the only Candidate we can TRUST! He is an American Capitalist Business Man who does Business with REpublicans AND Democrats!! It is the MARXISTS who have taken over 99% of the Democrat party and about 75% of the Republicans too > they are the Corruption that has 'bought off' our Politicians that are selling out our Country piece by piece to the Chinese, the Mexicans and the Arabs! I think Mr TRUMP with all his Billions is just what we need to BREAK the 'money paradigm' in politics!!
Mark Levin who IS one of the Best Constitutionalists says he LIKES what he has to say too!
http://www.marklevinshow.com/2015/06/16/listen-donald-trump-joins-mark-to-discuss-his-2016-r
There is not ONE politician in the Republican party that is saying anything CLOSE to what Trump said he will do for AMERICANS!! The Republican Party is dead everyone..they are in it for themselves...selling the US piece by piece to the highest bidders...Trump doesn't have to suck up to DONORS!
I'm not saying I am definitely voting for Trump...its too early... BUT he IS saying what needs to make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
People are too busy hating on Trump to actually listen to what he has to say.
Comments about his hair and his wife are what the boobs who just hate him for being wealthy keep talking about -- oh, and his bankruptcies. That's all they got.
I have a better experience than Heidi about the Socialist/Communist regimes in Europe. I grew up under a Communist regime until the Berlin Wall came down. I came to the USA in my mid-twenties. But before I came here I also lived and worked in different countries. I traveled so many European countries. I still have my family back in my home country. I love this country BUT I hate to see it going in the wrong direction. And it goes in that direction very very fast.
In the European countries, yes they have socialized health care. I wouldn't say that is the best. BUT what this country has as so-called health care is not funny anymore.
While I was growing up I was always told that my health is my biggest gift in life and it is my own responsibility to take care of it. ( I don't speak about accidents that I can't prevent.) And I try my best to do it.
In Western and Northern Europe the hospitals are really well managed. They have private and state run health care. Yes, I heard about those waiting lists but I never experienced them.
In Eastern Europe the system is similar. BUT the health care system which is run by the states are not in the best shape. At the same time they have very well run private systems. Of course not everybody can afford it but you don't have to be rich to do it. ( Just an example: last year I had a full blood test and allergy test in a private clinic for 60$. No waiting. Got the results in 24 hours.)
And just FYI under the Communist system we had food every day on our table. We never starved. My parents built their own house. The government didn't care how many children a family had. ( They even paid families to have more children ). The only country who controlled the families that way was China. ( But did anybody ever think about what could happen if China didn't do that??????? Do I agree with their methods? NO. But they HAD to do something. ).
Finally about the forum subject. Donald Trump:).... So many people call him a clown. Maybe that is true. But how about the other "contenders"?... Who is the clown? Who is the "clowner"? Who is the "clownest"?. :)
I really pay attention to the politics in this country because it is going in a very wrong way. Back in high school when we studied the history of the USA I was always amazed by the spirit of the American people. They united for so many causes... They fought for their freedom. They rebelled... They went on the street to protest....
Where is that SPIRIT now????????????
Maybe Donald Trump is a clown but at least he is not afraid to speak his mind.
iceflower And maybe because he's already spouting nonsense? Here is just a sampling of lies in his speech announcing his candidacy. I repeat, just a sampling...
From factcheck.org
◾Trump claimed that economic growth has “never” been below zero until last quarter’s drop, which is far from true. It has been below zero 42 times since 1946.
◾He said “there are no jobs” to be had. In fact, there were 5.4 million job openings recorded at the end of April, the most in 15 years.
◾He said the “real” unemployment rate is “anywhere from 18 to 20 percent” and “maybe even 21 percent.” We see no factual basis for this opinion.
◾He boasted he would have blocked new Ford plants in Mexico by threatening to impose a 35 percent tax on vehicles and parts made in Mexico and shipped to the U.S. But only Congress can impose taxes and such a tax would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
◾Trump claimed the five Taliban leaders exchanged for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “are now back on the battlefield trying to kill us.” But all five remain in Qatar, where they continue to be monitored and are subject to a travel ban, according to the State Department.
◾He also made the misleading claim that health care premium costs are going “up 29, 39, 49 and even 55 percent.” He’s talking about some proposed rate increases on the individual market that still need regulatory approval. There are also proposed rate decreases or single-digit increases that did not have to be submitted for review.
yankeefan One of the issues with Trump is his plain-speaking off-the-cuff I-don't-care-what-you-think-I-am-the-CEO manner. I keep waiting for Moe Howard to slap him as he says: "oh, a wise guy, eh." The thing is many folks tired of PC smoothed non confrontational professional politic-speak like this plain speak independent of what he actually means. That's the whole Tea Party for starters. He also speaks to the disenfranchised railing against the multitude of potential demons as the root of our problems: Mexicans, the Taliban (who are they again), the government, undocumented workers, welfare scofflaws, etc instilling hatred and promised retribution.
American loves brash, evil to blame and punishment metered out.
He can't win the election but he can raise holy heck in the primaries especially for Paul, Cruz and the other more fiery contenders.
The fact that his facts don't balance, his plans are weak, his reputation not glorious, and his promises impossible not withstanding makes him a liberal's dream candidate. We only have Bernie Sanders and he's not half as fun.
Read both sides. Read the middle. Read as much as you can and determine for yourself. Try to weed out the bias. It is your responsibility to educate and inform yourself. Don't ever rely on a single source or one side of the question. The truth is within.
"The truth is made by people by their own biases, limitations and subjective standards"- Giambattista Vico -
wow, still talking about Trump? Jindal announced yesterday... that makes 13. Trump is just a side show.
"The US spends 22% of the annual budget on Medicaid and Medicare. Not sure how that translates to a percentage of GDP or how many people are covered. Most of the European countries spend between 9-11% of GDP on national healthcare."
Easiest answer is we pay more for the same thing and spend more doing things we don't need to. To JIT's point, this is not a process problem, like our insurance infrastructure, but a problem of things just cost too much. It IS the root cause of our health system debacle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
Here's the why: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/15/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/
As an aside, remember that when discussing politicians and their views we should recall that it's estimated the government spends 35% of our GDP. Think about that - $1 dollar out of every $3 is spent by the government!
Surely even the folks who worship everything the government does must think there is something wrong with that, especially considering that the only way for the government to get the money it spends is to first take it from someone else. Put another way, we the people indirectly fund a third of GDP through mandatory taxation.
Yet what does most every politician do? They pander and tell us the government will give us more, do more for us, that they will continue to spend more, all while never mentioning the reality that we are already living under.
Does anyone really wonder why Americans are looking for someone who will just say it like it is, or why there is so much frustration about politics? It's almost like every politician truly believes that the majority of citizens are just plain stupid. I find that insulting.
There is no doubt government spending is higher than at the beginning of the 20th century. Way higher. But does that mean we are way off course or has our course change? For example, in 1900, we didn't spend too much for roads at the local, state or federal level. Would we like to change our course and save that money going forward?
Bear in mind we are talking state, local, and federal here. Also the payouts include pay-in, pay-out systems where you personally put money in while working to get it back, if you live, in your retirement years. Mandatory insurance so to speak. Social security was 33% of the 2015 budget -- large payouts did not exist before the 1950's but like I said, this is insurance you paid for to create a nest egg for old age. Likewise, medicare/health started in 1965 and is 27% of our spending; this too is a pay-in, pay-out system although running a deficit at present. Both of these mandatory insurance plans are funded by payroll taxes, you pay in to take out later. Military spending is not and it is at 16% of the budget, which is way down, funded from your income. This spending line really did not exist before WWI but now it will never go away. When you take these items out, our spending falls by over 75%.
Historically, from USgovermentspending.com "Government spending at the start of the 20th century was less than 7 percent of GDP. It vaulted to almost 30 percent of GDP by the end of World War I, and then settled down to 10 percent of GDP in the 1920s. In the 1930s spending doubled to 20 percent of GDP. Defense spending in World War II drove overall government spending over 50 percent of GDP before declining to 22 percent of GDP in the late 1940s. The 1950s began a steady spending increase to about 36 percent of GDP by 1982. In the 1990s and 2000s government spending stayed about constant at 33-35 percent of GDP, but in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008 spending has jogged up to 40 percent of GDP. "
So for the most part, steady state since the 1950's except for crisis years with the run up primarily caused by social security, Medicare/health, and military spending.
"Surely even the folks who worship everything the government does must think there is something wrong with that, especially considering that the only way for the government to get the money it spends is to first take it from someone else." So what would you do with those three programs JIT?
Here's a very nice site for a discussion of the federal budget: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Meanwhile against the world, our spending/GDP ratio is not too bad. You can see who is socialistic, militaristic, or both. Kind of cool. So on the world stage, it appears that a 33% or so ratio is the way of the world with the run-ups from 1900 due to mandatory insurance for our old age and guns, guns, guns, to protect us from today's evils.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp Cool chart is part way down.
My whole issue with the spending is we are getting far less than before, the country is not as safe and we have no promise of any kind of progress or clarity for that fact on where we are going. Donald is hitting the nerve that we all think about JOBS
HDW For all the apologists out there: What has been the overall trend in government spending?
The *trend*, regardless of what apologies you want to make for it, has been fairly clear, has it not? And if all we keep doing is making apologies and/or excuses as to why government spending is such a good thing (it certainly can be in the right circumstances) could it be that the reality of the trend will sneak up on you without your knowing?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020USp_XXs1li011mcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l_Spending_in_20th_Century
Remember too, that in order to maintain the levels of government spending our illustrious officials have had to borrow the money to do so, which is why debt to GDP is so high. When looking at the spending trend we should take into account where the money is coming from in order to maintain it and see if maybe that trend is also on not such a great trend line:
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1900_2020USp_16s2li011mcn_H0sH0lH0f_Combined_Gross_Public_Debt
If you want to look into the past for trends, perhaps it would be wise to extrapolate them to the future without the rhetoric of "what would we do without government spending" meant to obfuscate the reality of it all...
If you are obliquely talking to me, I make no apologies for pointing out the fact that our spending run-up over the decades is primarily due to major new programs like defense, social security and medicare/health accounts and that our government spending/GDP is pretty much in-line with the rest-of-world. Yet you still didn't answer the question based on this run-up.
In regards to your second tome, I agree that the debt/GDP ratio is way too high and this, not spending, is our biggest economic threat. We have been down this path before so I will reiterate. First, debt itself is not bad. Most of our debt is owed to us via a Social Security loan so we are our own debtors and creditors. Not the best thing for a house of cards but should be manageable. Second, to a degree, if some Chinese guy wants to invest in a low return so I can build a road with a high economic return, bully for them.
But a debt/GDP ratio over 100% is dangerous IMHO and we need to vigorously move it down. And yes, that means attacking spending. I have long recommended a multi-year zero-based budget with metrics tied to the debt/GDP ratio for relief if the economy rebounds. Not a Constitutional amendment (since I believe there are times for a deficit like 2008-2010) but a multi-year event to turn the corner on lowering the debt/GDP ratio.
Then the programs. It's easy to see that the three biggees are where to start. SS needs fine-tuning, re-engineering, but is still solvent. Medicare is in triage and needs a vast re-engineering to stop the overspending. We are all going to pay more, get less, but that's what it takes for these two programs. And then defense: long have I said there's much cutting that can be done here without affecting our security.
The other programs need be addressed especially for fraud and stupidity but the biggest hay to be made is in the top three programs.
Then on the revenue side, not only scrap and re-start the tax code, but frankly, get the rich to pay a bigger share returning them to the rates of the first Reagan presidency (that will sound good) and taking away the loopholes like capital gains and off-shore accounts.
Amazingly with a Republican House and Senate, I thought this would be well underway.
Meanwhile, back to your first tome. FYI, the spending/GDP ratio is an interesting view but I am pretty sure your "Think about that - $1 dollar out of every $3 is spent by the government!" is an accounting typo since GDP measures finished goods minus cost and not spending. Given the nature of taxation and government spending, not sure your analogy flies without some double counting at least. Didn't want to accounting-police you before but then you pulled the "apologists" card :>)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/recent_spending
Peruse and we can discuss later when you can get some time
NBC Dumps Trump
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/06/29/nbc-dumps-trump/29471971/
He's fired!
IrishRN http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/06/29/nbc-cuts-ties-with-donald-trump/
5000 Comments and still going and most of them in SUPPORT of TRUMP!
Fox will pick up the BEAUTY Pageant.... then they can put them to work as Anchors!!
They are not Stupid.
This was the actual link I had used when making the 1/3rd comment:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp
" FYI, the spending/GDP ratio is an interesting view but I am pretty sure your "Think about that - $1 dollar out of every $3 is spent by the government!" is an accounting typo since GDP measures finished goods minus cost and not spending. Given the nature of taxation and government spending, not sure your analogy flies without some double counting at least. Didn't want to accounting-police you before but then you pulled the "apologists" card :>)"
Regarding how GDP is calculated, I'm not sure where you got your basis above (maybe the accounting police????). Spending, specifically government spending, is one of the main "ingredients" to gdp. GDP = GDP = C + I + G + N where G is government spending.
See here for one of many references:
http://www.econguru.com/macro/economic-gdp-formula.shtml
The Donald doesn't need NBC or Univision....or MEXICO either! I can't believe people believe ""HE IS FIRED"....
Just a publicity stunt. Trump is all about his name, he gets paid for his name. Almost all of his business ventures involve him getting paid for his "name". This is not a serious candidate, although I had a good chuckle listening to some of his speech...
BUSTED, yupper you got me. There are three definitions for GDP, I did not pick the one the BEA uses, the most common form, which you indicated. You are right, no accountypo. So yes, 1 out of every 3 dollars spent is from the Government and is garnered via taxes or debt.
The three definitions are expenditure (which you used), income and output basis. All can be done in either real or nominal forms, most use real. I pulled the GDP income formula to make my mistake. My bad.
Still does not change anything else I noted, some of which I summarize here in an excerpt from an about.com article.
"Most governments try to manage economic growth. For one thing, when the economy is growing, businesses make more money, which increases tax revenue. They also hire more people, which increases income. When people feel prosperous, they reward political leaders by re-electing them.
The government can stimulate the economy through expansive fiscal policy, which is spending on government programs or tax breaks. Since politicians want to get re-elected, they use expansive fiscal policy to stimulate the economy.
Expansive fiscal policy is addictive. If the government keeps spending more and taxing less to spur economic growth, it leads to deficit spending. This works for a while, but eventually leads to higher debt levels. In time, as the debt to GDP ratio approaches 100%, it can slow economic growth. Foreign investors may stop investing funds in a country with a high debt ratio, because they are worried they won't get repaid, or that the money will be worth less. Therefore, governments should be careful with expansive fiscal policy. It should only use it when the economy is in contraction or recession. When the economy is growing, its leaders should cut back spending and raise taxes. This conservative fiscal policy will ensure that the economic growth will remain healthy."
That's why I said spending and debt in themselves are not bad, sometimes are needed (especially around 2008), but when debt/GDP cruises past 100% we've hit a danger area (perhaps we need a multi-year zero-based budget) and when the economy is becoming healthy, it might be time to both lower spending and increase revenues from targeted sectors (upper brackets).
The fact that government spending has increased dramatically since 1900 is true primarily because of new social programs like social security and medicare/health which are designed as insurance programs funded by mandatory payroll taxes. I think this increase is prudent although the programs are in need of re-engineering. Also relatively new is our rampant defense spending which I feel can be reduced dramatically without making us less secure (Obama has brought these down since 2011 however veteran expenditures continue to rise).
If we take these social programs out (since they are just insurance monies that the majority of us get back in old age), I think most would say the increase is still too much and I would agree. Even if we pull the defense budget too, the increase would be too high. However, I would use the debt/GDP as the metric to be concerned with before I would be concerned with governmentspending/GDP. To me, the fact that the government spends money is less important than what they spend the money on and how efficient they are at spending it. Like defense where they spend too much and waste a lot --- more than any other government expenditure. But no matter what they are spending it on, we have too much debt currently and we must move to not only curtail deficits but to reduce the debt/GDP levels before investors pull their funds. As I have said before, if we start today, it will take decades to fix; after WWII it took 35 years to fix before Reagan started running up a tab again to win the cold war. Since then, only Clinton make positive strides and only a few, like Bush Sr. had the gumption to raise taxes when needed.
Frankly this we-own-both-houses and still-get-nothing-done Congress should stop wasting our money repealing ObamaCare (oh we're going to die if this passes, oh wait.....), and maybe start ramming some fiscal constraint bills down Obama's throat. How about some tax reform. Talk about pandering.
Right now I'm watching Ted Cruz fight for state's rights over same-sex marriage. Hey Ted, it's over, let's move on to the 21st century.
Ollie To any politician who wants my vote:
Reassure me that Social Security and Medicare represent a covenant between the government and its citizens --- they belong to the people who have worked hard and contributed to the programs -- not to the politicians in Washington and greedy banks and insurance companies who want to use them as a cash cow.
Privatizing Social Security, so the same people who brought us the financial crash of 2008 can do the same to my hard earned future benefits?
Don't even go there.
I vote.
I agree Andy, I worked in Benefits for 23 years, its illegal for any company to borrow against their pension plan, yet the goverment borrows the whole dam thing when it comes to OUR social sec money. Kinda Hypocritical dont you think. The social sec benefit should not be touched by the government, problem is not this country would fold now if they had to pay it all back. And Privatizing it, yeah, i want Madeoff runnning it, right
totally agree, Andy- I worked 44 years - and don't want anyone - including the gov messing with my hard earned - (and contributed to) benefits - a promise is a promise
DrK: So where would you suggest we invest it or should we not invest it at all?
It's not that I don't think it's hinky, I just can't think of a better, safer, place.
FYI: Companies can not dip into their own pensions, but the pensions are invested by a fund manager in other equities, even hedge funds.
So again, my take is SS needs to be invested somewhere, you can't just let it sit idle, so the special US Bonds seem about as safe as it gets. Low risk, low reward, lower than any corporate pension fund I would gather. The only other investment would be a diversified portfolio but because of the nature and size of the funds: who gets to manage it and which companies benefit from the investment? Seems there are too many political hazards with the who gets what part of that equation although we are leaving money on the table doing so.
Here's another fun one. We are sold the bill of goods that 401Ks are better than pensions because we control the investment and can reap the benefits. This is the same line of bull that scares Andy from privatization of SS, or it should.
That's because pension fund managers outperform 401ks hands-down, on average, even with the tax breaks in the 401k. Check this out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mitchelltuchman/2013/06/04/pension-plans-beat-401k-savers-silly-heres-why/
Doesn't look like the "Donald" is going anywhere. Like him or not at least he has the backbone to stick up for what he believes. It's actually quite refreshing!
I like that Donald can say whatever HE wants because he's not relying on either the Democrat or Republican Committees money. Every other candidate has to tow the party line whether or not they even believe a word they are saying because if they tick off "their party puppeteers" they will be shut out and won't get a dime. Trump doesn't need their money (hence the statement "I'm very Rich, so I don't need them" ).
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the candidates secretly agree and would LOVE to say half the stuff Trump is saying, but would NEVER, because they need the money flowing in. That's why politics are such a joke.
Trump however is a refreshing change and love him or hate him, at least he actually speaks his OWN mind.
Quoted source:"Trump added: "I have Mexicans and South Americans working for me all over the country and believe me, they love me and I love them," Trump told Rosaforte. "I think they're great. I've had great support and I haven't heard one negative thing and frankly I don't expect to."
It wasn't "the Mexicans" that downsized and outsourced all of our jobs overseas to foreign countries. It was Trump and his billionaire and millionaire buddies like Mittens and many others.
Most of our high earning factories, industries, manufacturing and other that are currently financially flourishing overseas are filling the pockets of the greedy rich and insatiable wealthy, while the rest of us fight over crumbs, Fox News vs MSNBC & CNN, racism, class culture, and other such foolishness. This time, we are all slaves to the rich and wealthy class in this country
Well, maybe the USA should change some tax laws and keep industries in this country. That would benefit everyone. More jobs, more money to spend all helps our economy. You can complain all you want about the rich but given the chance they are the ones that create employment and opportunity. I'm so tired of people and their whining about class warfare.
"This time, we are all slaves to the rich and wealthy class in this country"
And the Government that counts you as 'THEIRS" now, since you have lost so many freedoms in the name of the greater good. It was meant for protection from other nations. Now it means protection from yourself.
"Well, maybe the USA should change some tax laws and keep industries in this country." Not that I disagree but as long as you want lower prices, those jobs aren't coming back. Not unless you are willing to pay more, lots more.
"You can complain all you want about the rich but given the chance they are the ones that create employment and opportunity" Really? Can you actually prove that? I mean was Steve Jobs rich? Bill Gates, Sheldon Adelson, Bezos, Schultz and others. None of these men started rich and together have created millions of jobs from Apple, Microsoft, Sands Casinos, Amazon, and Starbucks
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-create-jobs-2013-11
The myth is that the rich have the capital investment to start the hiring. The truth is that it takes the entire economy to really make things hum. That's why when the middle class suffers, the entire economy suffers.
The thought is that if we just remove the fiscal constraints from the rich, they will shower us with jobs and opportunities Well the constraints on the rich have never been lower and have been for over a decade. How's that working for you?
Meanwhile according to the article from 97 to 08 all the wage increases went to the top 10% while income at the bottom 90% declined. So it appears that less constraints on the rich made the rich, richer, and you poorer. Or another way to look at it ------ the rich didn't create any jobs, any good ones at least.
"I'm so tired of people and their whining about class warfare." Uh....isn't that what you just did?
Here's something more startling than Donald Trump demonstrating himself to be the arrogant, know-nothing buffoon anyone with even a partially functioning brain would recognize him to be. Since declaring that Latinos are criminal freeloader rapists and proclaiming that golf should only be the sport of the rich his ratings with Republican voters have jumped. The funny thing is, most of those voters aren't rich like Donald (well he's just as "rich" with other peoples' money as he is with his own anyway) and when idiots like Trump become policy makers their policies do anything but help most of those voters. But more importantly it essentially harkens back to Rubio's statement a few years ago that Republicans should try to stop appearing to be "the party of the stupid."
I actually wonder whether Trump is really a bigot. I see him more as a circus barker giving the crowd what it wants. And it appears that the crowd to which he's catering likes things to be kept at extremes, likes broad-based hatred, likes entertainers rather than leaders and views the only way to make themselves feel "special" or explain their own shortcomings or difficult lives, to be putting "those other people" down.
Oh and by the way, lost amid all of this buffoon's "I'm MOE GREEN!!!!" swagger about suing NBC and everyone else who's rightly dumping his stupid a** is the fact that NBC and the rest can now sue him----and for a WHOLE lot more than he says his pathetic claims could ever get from them. I hope they do. I hope they bankrupt the comb-over dolt. Then the twit can learn what it is to "aspire to the game of golf" like he told 95% of the American population to do---provided their daddies raise them in the lap of luxury and leave them with tens of millions to play with like Donald the "Billionaire" Dimwit's daddy did.
Trump is more an issue for the Republican Party than he is to anyone else except for Bush who might actually benefit. Beyond the fiery hairdo and rhetoric, he's not saying much different than any other hard right winger. Of course with 28 declared Republican candidates, the answer is clear: "we're gonna need a bigger clown car, better call Greyhound!"
Meanwhile on the other side of the ravine, only 15 declared Democrats with Bernie Sanders stealing the spotlight perhaps forcing Hillary to take a few steps to the left. I got that McGovern feeling......
"comb-over dolt"
OMG I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.
That was great, vous.
He IS a baffoon.
The reason that the Donald will lose is that the people he sued will not vote for him :>)
For someone you people seem to despise you're spending a lot of time and energy talking about him.
Hate to say it but he might be right...
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-shot-death-busy-san-francisco-tourist-attraction-071710472.html
Still awaiting final confirmation but this one could get good considering he is on probation from Texas and MAY be a multiple-times deportee to Mexico adding credence to the Trump allegations. Yet if that's the case, sure we can blame Mexico, but Texas probably trumps it if they missed the deportations.
Still does not excuse Trump's hate speech generalizing a large segment of our population the way he did just to fear monger to create buzz.
Remember, Trump is not a PC politician. Thats what makes him refreshing. He is picking on our ILLEGAL. population.
Thanks Old Gent. People are just so stupid that they don't get that part. I listened to Trumps speech twice and he CLEARLY was talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO BREAK THE LAW JUST TO GET HERE. But no, people have to be ridiculous and mis-characterize what he said to sound like he said ALL Mexicans are murderers and rapists.
This is why the country is in the toilet--because people hear what they think they heard, based on their own entrenched ideology, but really do not listen and comprehend anymore.
Personally, I think it's something in the food (chemicals, trans-fats?) that have dulled people's brains.
"people hear what they think they heard, based on their own entrenched ideology, but really do not listen and comprehend anymore. "
this is very true, and for a few posters on here it is a lifestyle choice they make to mis-read comments on purpose in order to take a contrary position. they do this on purpose, by choice of free will, and when they do that, they make more of statement about their own lack of character then they do about whatever issue they responding to.
it's a lie on their part to do this, because they know the comment they are responding to didn't say what they are putting in their response. but they proceed anyways, thinking that no one else will notice their created falsehoods.
well guess what? they are only fooling themselves.
"based on their own entrenched ideology, but really do not listen and comprehend anymore." - good point heidi, spot on and i completely agree with you. it's dishonest of them to do this. and the media and the PC crowd are as dishonest as the day is long. (and a few choice posters up here as well)
call them out when you see it, don't let them get away with this nonsense scott free, ever.
pmnsk There is very little critical thinking anymore. I read a lot these days, since I have time. I read an article that is so slanted as most are today in the press. I forget about it, but sure enough, it finds it's way here on the forum as fact. Then they get crucified.
Just look at all the man in the street interviews. I believe people are only concerned about themselves, not the nation. I live in a 30 apt complex. I am the only one with a Flag on my door today. Caesar has them so busy surviving , They don't have time for anything, but themselves. They surly don't have time to volunteer for anything.
No ones perfect, but I have pretty good odds going for me. I only observed life for over 85 years just trying to keep up.
I think Jon Stewart had it the best when he quoted the Donald for a proposed Trump Campaign slogan, "“I believe we have our campaign slogan. ‘Trump 2016: Somebody’s doing the raping,'”"
I know Heidi and others read it twice but they seem to have dithered out the naughty and the not so nice. He said it, he has been given umpteen times to dial it back and the best he could come up with is the quoted slogan......
What did he say? "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." Sure, maybe it's illegals, but even then not even close to the truth on oh so many levels. It's just not true.
Here's ten more tasty tidbits from Donald's self-serving, self-aggrandizing sermon.
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/06/10-quotes-from-donald-trumps-speech-that-show-hes-totally-ready-to-be-president/
Why did he say it. Note the last quote: the sly sales pitch. Donald probably doesn't have to report finances until October if he seeks the double delays the doubters normally do. His net worth is estimate anywhere from under $1B to his wild-eyed dreams of $10B that he has quoted. Truth will be closer to the $1B. Why? Part of that reason is that he probably includes the Trump brand value in his net worth, that's a forward value that one estimates like a company's "good will." When you see what the Donald is doing, think brand awareness, brand image. He is building value for personal future gains by selling what he sells best, the Trump image.
And look who is buying and look at the quote malarkey that you are consuming, lock, stock, and barrel. Did you get the book yet?
Worse almost than Trump's blatant hate-filled racism has been the response of the American public's reaction to it. Oh, yes, there's been tut-tutting and some expressions of condemnation. But if Trump had made the same comments about ANY group of Americans he would have had certain bodily parts handed to him and would have become anathema on any mainstream media outlet (except, of course, Fox).
But, hey, it's just "those" people from "down there." So why get so worked up about it, right?
My heart sometimes weep for our too-often hard hearted tribal responses to what should outrage ALL humans not just humans of a certain color or ethnicity or national origin.
The republican field is shaping up to be the most entertaining group of reality television stars ever assembled. The campaign will provide great theater, but little in the way solutions to the complex problems the United States faces. Trump will be this year's Herman Cain. He is a showman that knows he has no chance of winning, but will use this run as a way to secure another lucrative television deal. He wins and the American people lose once again. Until our elected officials seriously address the harmful influence of money in politics, our country will be continue to be represented by a group of clowns. Both parties are at fault here, but at least the democrats have shown an understanding and willingness to address the complex social issues the majority of the population is concerned about. Let the clown show begin.
Right vous, now we have the President weighing in, in his now typical arrogant fashion:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-mocks-republicans-2016-hunger-games-205356149.html
ALL politics is nothing but fiasco - that's the way of the world today - but IMO the leader of our country should never stoop to this kind of thing. I don't care what "party" he's with, it's not what leaders do. Sickening, all of it on all sides.
When will the adults show up?
I'm not sure that the headline "Obama mocks republicans" is really accurate. Reading the article, it appears he just made a light joke or two. Nothing arrogant, at least in the article.
Yes, yes, no doubt there have been other instances. I agree he should be above that.
On the other subject at hand, based on a couple of above posts it apparently is okay to call people rapists, etc, as long as they are "illegals".
Surely this is the new standard jd2, with the success of comedians determining our political views.
I'm sure that many would consider this "intellectual" discussion as well:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a36162/republican-ignorance/
If I had the time I'd track the rates of emotion-triggering news "stories" versus the intellectual ones. I don't think it would be too hard though, probably on the order of 99-1 given today's entertainment-is-everything society.
Right JIT, way too many nasty partisan pieces from both the right and left. I had noticed that Esquire one and quickly dismissed it.
and another using the term "sleepover" to imply a certain meaning
news.yahoo.com/rubio-christie-planning-sleepover-romneys-193453171--election.html
I took that word "sleepover" as a simple bit of humor, nothing more. The article itself plays it straight.
that's the point jd2-humor is used to direct people's perceptions.
As you're probably aware from previous discussions on this site, I think "humor" is distracting at best and manupulative at worst. It's used regularly to cloud discussions and to deflect from other viewpoints.
But humor makes us laugh, and I guess it's better to laugh than cry about the trends our country has been following.
When will the adults show up? There nothing to get serious about. By the time it comes for us to vote, the primaries are all settled anyway. I seldom have ever have been a winner. He with the most money wins today. The voters have been bought, and Freedom lost. This generation has no real interest in what government dose unless it affects them..There are a lot of one issue voters, not what is best for the Country. I lived at a time that was the best of times,in America. Happy 4th of July. Enjoy your hot dog.
I think "arrogant" is a bit harsh for a bit of levity unless it's JIT's own attempt at humor. Comedians have been adding value to our political view since jesters jested at court, it's always been with us. Life without humor is just not.
That said, I too took one step back when I hear Obama say "Hunger Games" since IMHO that's a bit inelegant for a President to suggest a blood-lust campaign for the opposing party outside of the Washington Press Corps joke night. Funny yes, beneath the office, probably. Likewise, the Amazing Grace solo, the rainbow Whitehouse, all a bit out there for a President.
I believe we can expect more.
Given Congress, or the lack thereof, Obama is lame duck, nothing is going to happen no matter who he smoozes or which Congressionalass he kisses. Whatever his legacy will be, already is, he's done. So I am guessing he has just decided to let his freak flag fly, enjoy his time, and do whatever he wants since there is no need to pander to anyone to sway a vote anymore.
Part of me says "so sad it has to come to this" and the other part says "let er rip Obama, heck with them if they can't take a joke." Want to see him next relaxing at Wimbledon with Michele in a funny English hat :>) Playing some more golf. Maybe a BBQ with Reverend Al, Bill Ayers, and George Soros.
So what meaning do you think "sleepover" implies JIT?
"He with the most money wins today"
Sorry Dude, you should always check before you speak.
In 2012, team red outspent team blue; team red lost. I mean they really lost. I mean they did not spend their money wisely. (pretty strange considering they are team red).
BUSTED
Old Gent- I agree with you 100%! The man/woman with the most money will win the election. So if you want to be a "winner" check out their bankroll!!!
As it looks now, we're all losers :) lol
I mean they did not spend their money wisely.
,The Red cant because they don't have a base that votes Red, no mater how much they spend but money gets their nomination. .
Conversations are not competitions, thus BUSTED has no place in civil discourse except to add the inevitable emotional component. Which was pretty much the point of the post you disagreed with.
It seems that attempts at humor indeed have no place in a JIT conversation.
Saying something is busted is not part of a competition; it's just a tagline from mythbusters used when a myth is disproven. Beyond the excitement of proving anything, there's not much emotion in it at least from the tv show's level. This time it was the myth that money alone wins all political races that was purported in the earlier submission.
And that actually was the point of the post I proved, factually, without emotion, droll to a degree, that was wrong on point.
Rather than point out the lie, the falsehood, I choose the lighter path of the mythbusters tagline to call the myth that only money wins elections: busted.
For a lesson in character, Trump could learn from this Jersey guy, a great Jerry Izenberg column that is worth reading ...
http://www.nj.com/golf/index.ssf/2015/07/donald_trump_could_learn_a_les.html
Jerry is one of the best Jerseys natives and from Rutgers.. I never fail to read his writings.
There is a very interesting lesson to be learned in Greece yesterday. Blue Greece voted much the same as Blue America would vote on that issue, and for the same reasons. I guess that's what would happen, when you stop the presses, and give the money changers a slap in the face. The birth place of democracy, in action.!!!
I wouldn't get too excited Old Gent. Unless there are major changes in banking the citizenry of any/every nation will go through a similar process if they ask too much of their leaders using the "true" democracy that you are referring to.
The real problem is debt that can never be repaid, debt made "easy" by current banking systems. We would be wise to take heed ourselves.
I am not excited but you do see my point. Debt will never be paid. Thats what bank scheming and Wall street is all about with out a Gold standard. We are just pawns in their games. I like to think they are listening to the worlds of the Lords prayer, but I don't think Caesars robbers think like that. Forgiveness is a tough road to take but necessary.
Not sure a gold standard would work today, but certainly something -anything, actually - to put restraint back into the system is needed.
Everyone loves easy money and debt until they are the ones to pay up. I'd expect more Greece situations than not in the future.
Love him or hate him it looks like the Donald has stirred things up. Exactly what I was hoping for. He has the inside the beltway pundits all in a tizzy. Not to mention the candidates from both sides of the aisle.
True Ollie. Plus, he is ahead of everyone (all what, 50 people running, lol!) except Bush. All the polls show the people like what he has to say about the economy, China, Russia and our borders.
Who would have thought?
Exactly, it is the message that is resonating with people not necessarily the messenger.
I would like to see Donald put this on the front page.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/070815-760762-no-end-in-sight-for-obama-irs-scandal-that-keeps-growing.htm
Of course I would vote for Donald Trump.
He tells it like it is as opposed to all others who just say things to be politically correct or to gain support of a specific interest group. And he can do this because......he can afford to.
All the politicians in the United States should be Independents, not Republican or Democratic. God forbid someone actually had a brain and made a decision based on what they really felt as opposed to what a 'Party' dictates.
"True Ollie. Plus, he is ahead of everyone (all what, 50 people running, lol!) except Bush. All the polls show the people like what he has to say about the economy, China, Russia and our borders. "
So was Herman Cain at one point. Polls this far away for elections are useless. If he stays in the race until the debates then we will see what the public thinks. My guess is he'll drop out before then
I do like what Donald Trump has to say, however, he needs a course in diplomacy. There are different ways to get your point across and being as blunt as he is will not cut it. I have thought he (being a businessman) would be a needed change with new thoughts. Not needing anyone to finance him, he wouldn't be in "anyone's back pocket." We have had our share of attorneys, the forever politician etc. We gave an actor a chance back in the '80s, maybe we would do well with someone who has money, runs businesses, and understands what this country was and has the potential to be again. Looking at the whole group hoping for the nomination, I am not too excited. I must say I do prefer someone who tells it like it is and doesn't dance around issues.
justwondering I'm surprised no one commented on the animal that was deported 5 times, and killed an innocent woman in SF, a safe haven city for illegals. Mind blowing if you ask me.
Philliesman surprised no one is talking about how Trump has illegals working on his buildings for cheap labor? Why can't he hire Americans to build his skyscrapers?
http://www.businessinsider.com/undocumented-immigrants-donald-trump-hotel-report-2015-7
I thought it was up to the contractor who is doing the building to ensure they have all their legal paperwork? I'm pretty sure it's all union labor. Why are they hiring illegals?
Darwin, have you ever hired a contractor to work on your home? If so, have you checked to make sure all their employees are here legally? I admit, I never have.
Wow, a crazy thing -- I was in the car with 3 other ladies from here in town last week. It was me (a pretty Conservative, right wing type), my neighbor (pretty apolitical, says she hates politics and doesn't follow much), her daughter (a 19 year old liberal Progressive type) and my sister (considers herself an "Independent").
Somehow we got on the topic of politics and to my surprise every single one of us said we would vote for Trump.
Each one had their own reason; but the main theme was we all felt that the economy needs a re-boot and Trump is they guy to do it. The other common agreement is that he would do well with foreign leaders because he knows most of them outside of politics already and has worked with them as business partners - so maybe he would have a better shot at dealing with them strongly and "making deals" that help America.
I was just shocked that we all would vote for him, being we are so different politically. Well, there's 4 votes for Trump right here in Hackettstown!
very interesting Heidi, thanks for sharing, and i agree, yes, correct, politics makes strange bedfellows, and trump crosses many defined lines, thereby pulling in support from many different corners,
good,
we need real change, and both the republicans and the democrats have sold the middle class down the river, they are tone deaf to the struggles we are facing.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if trump ends up being the next president. Im not a politics person at all, this is the first time I'm really interested to watch the debates. We got Bush, clinton, and trump pretty much what it comes down to. And I don't see anyone talking about Clinton or Bush:)
Interesting:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/07/09/gop-frontrunner-donald-trump/
(Never heard of the site before today, take it for what it's worth)
how is trump going to turn the economy around? he got his start by inheriting his father's real estate. his companies have filed for bankruptcy 4 times, and he was said to be close to filing personal bankruptcy. he's so concerned about his economic picture, he stopped running last time so that he didn't have to provide his tax returns. he's made several deals in nyc based on tax abatements. why would you think he intends to do anything other than make laws that help billionaires?
Isn't that what we have in the president we have now? Bashes the wealthy but makes them wealthier and takes their money for his campaign coffers. I don't see how he could do any worse. Or you can vote for Hillary and her shady foundation.
Well ken e, you seem to be the only one (or part of a very small majority) with that view.
Trump's no dummy. My cousin inherited over a million dollars in real estate in Brooklyn and within 2 years lost it all. Plus Trump did not "inherit" anything outright, he was part of the business at the time, already working. Plus he took that small bit and grew it into an empire. Most people can not (or do not) do that, rather they lose everything.
Ever watch the show about all the people who win the lottery (millions) and end up in worse financial shape within a year ore so, than they were before the won?
No ken e --it takes more than an inheritance to create an empire. Trump has created more jobs for the average American worker than the last 6 presidents combined.
hillary is one of the 1%'rs, she left us in the dust decades ago, has no frame of reference to identify/empathize with who we are as people.
she not only is a cold fish, but she has no accomplishments to speak of, (holding office and traveling the world are activities, not accomplishments) and she is dishonest, very dishonest
"Plus he took that small bit and grew it into an empire."
Come on Heidi... you're giving Trump too much credit.
Mark Mc. Trump should easily pull ahead and stay ahead of Bush. Who the check wants the same exact trend from last few presidents. That's what clinton and Bush would be good for...
You all realize, despite his remarks, he actually has no chance of being president right? Just turn on the TV he has about 4 percent of the people on his side, christie is higher then that. This is a debate over nothing, he has not shot
Only because most people do as the media tells them Doctor K 16.
If most people realized that yes, they do have choices other than who the media and other politicians tell them, they might feel better about voting and actually make their own choice.
But it is easier to go with the crowd, thus we'll probably always go with the flavor of the day.
Justintime, i think alot of people go with the crowd your right. But alot of us dont. I am saying the guy would never win anyway. His first public speaking he lost the spanish vote, and I have stated it before he uses Bankrupcty as a business strategy, four times and counting, and some people say thats good, its not, his creditors not being paid puts companies out of business, he is a self centered ugly jerk
Self centered isn't a good quality for a president? Have you been paying attention to who has been president for the last 6 years? Good grief. I wouldn't be so sure he lost the Spanish vote. I went through great measures to be in this country legally and now anyone can come in and have access to the benefits we have as legal citizens. The first criminal act they committed is coming here illegally.
So ollie, you think its ok for him to call mexican people, well saying they rape people. Im Irish and I find that offensive. There are alot of Mexicans here like Victor Espinoza who won the triple crown and gave the money to charities. Honestly he is just ignorant. Just cause you dont like obama is no reason to support a racist
K16 his wording wasn't the best for sure. But the meaning behind it was referencing illegal immigrants. No doubt they do not belong here. And over some time people are definitely starting to understand what he meant by that phrase. He didn't mean hey your Mexican, and your legal, but you still fall under all the nasty comments... that's what the media turned it around to be, it was a poor choice of words, but not at all hard to decipher.
I respectfully disagree and if you are to be president part of your role is to be diplomatic, im not for illegal aliens either. I see your point, but if i was a legal mexican i would be offended, alot of people trying to get here are good people looking for a chance. They do alot of jobs that lazy white people wont do.
He didn't call all Mexicans rapists. You say," he needs to be clearer in his speaking." If you feel he wasn't very clear then how do you know what he meant? You decided he said what you wanted him to say to fit your narrative.
Trump: self centered ugly jerk
White people: lazy
So are all white people lazy? That's what it seems like to me that you were saying. Or were your words not diplomatic and poorly chosen?
Im not running for president am i? so which rapists are mexican, so i understand
Doctor K16 -- Why do you keep saying "Mexicans" when Trump CLEARLY said "Illegal Mexicans." You are twisting his words and taking them out of context. And as far as your comment that Mexican's should be "offended," well I have Mexican friends and I work with 3 Mexican women who are LEGAL and spent time and money to come here legally and I have spoken to them and even THEY agree with Trump.
What you don't understand is that the LEGAL Mexican immigrants don't like the ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants any more than Trump does. My legal Mexican friends are damn angry that they keep climbing over fences, digging through tunnels, and trying to get away with coming here like that - it's embarrassing to them.
Maybe you should talk to some legal Mexican immigrants, who took the time and energy to do things right and see what THEY think about it.
Stop assuming and making up statements that are only your opinion and not based on any reality.
The Latino (Spanish) vote does not just mean Mexicans. To say he lost all support from that community is not right. I know many Hispanics who still like and may vote for him.
That's true Hot corner. I laugh when I hear someone say "Trump just lost the Hispanic vote" just because he made a comment about illegal Mexicans.
All the legal Mexicans, Cubans, Costa Ricans, Colombians, Spaniards, Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans, etc, etc, etc, he did not lose. Many of those (especially Cubans, Dominicans and Venezuelans) are pretty right wing as a group. Bush got a huge majority of the Cuban vote.
The people he supposedly "offended" can't (or should not be allowed to) vote anyway...
If trump makes it far enough he has my vote. If it's a clinton vs Bush situation I won't even bother voting... ideally there both the same thing. So no need to waste time with that.
Ok, you all win, but in the end he will never be president, and the bottom line is you cant say what he said. Its funny i remember when you all thought bush was the best thing since slice bread. I guess if that idiot can be president anyone can.
Ans someone please explain what he will do for this country, bankrupt it and start over?
He will probably give the Hispanics higher pay for doing the jobs of the lazy white people refuse to do. ;)
Doctor K16, it would be a complete wast of time to "explain" anything to you because you obviously already made up your mind, don't like Trump and like how America is going.
Trump has explained EXACTLY what he wants to do, in detail. You just either don't like it (your prerogative), or don't have the capacity to understand (most Americans) economics and debt.
Maybe you can explain to us what your candidate will do for the country? I have not heard ANY specifics from Hillary, Bush, or any other candidate -- with the exception of Rand Paul who I like as well because he is not afraid to speak his mind.
A Trump/Paul ticket would be my dream team.
Forcefed4door I always voted. If I feel there is no difference in the choices. Leave it blank. It shows the leaders how you feel. The winners laugh at those that stay home. Voting send a better message, showing you are a participant. Believe me I have done it many times.
When people say "he/she can't win" it's because they fear exactly that. And of course it plants a nice message that, if repeated enough, will become self fulfilling prophecy because, as nearly every political election validates, a great many people do vote "with the crowd".
What better way to take advantage of that peculiar human trait than to leverage it toward the outcome you want by advertising over and over again "he can't win", making it a "fact" even though it's nothing but.
Politicians do this ALL the time, wouldn't you agree?
I've only voted since Obama first ran. Didn't even know I could vote a blank. Will definitely do if it comes down to that. Thanks for advice old gent.
Similarly @Heidi it would be a waste of time to ask you to explain Trump's value since you have already made up your mind that he is part of your dream ticket and know EXACTLY what he stands for.
Furthermore, based on your comments, you seem to think that you are smarter than everyone else (at least those not supporting Trump) but since you seem to skip over or whitewash any of the genuine issues raised against Trump any further discourse would be a waste of time.
+1 on the megalomania observation. I strongly disagree with the "can't do worse" argument. America is headed in the wrong direction, and wrong-headed leadership may well serve to accelerate the process.
Hitler came to power as the people of Germany were (rightfully) disenfranchised. His sales pitch was "I understand our country's problems, and I can save us". Not trying to draw an analogy between those two men, but I am saying America must be careful who we might seek out and empower to "save us". I think we can be saved, but we may well be damned if we simply hand over the keys of the kingdom to the wrong person.
GD_Skippy Actually Trump did say all Mexicans. The exact quote is: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Perhaps he meant what you heard. He then doubled down on the statement multiple times never fine tuning or modifying like when he said: "What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” For a CNN interview where he amplified in a misdirected manner: "Asked why he used the term "rapists" to characterize Mexican immigrants, Trump pointed to recent reports that as many as 80 percent of the female immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are sexually assaulted during the trip."
When is was pointed out that these are mostly not crimes in America, Trump said: "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don. I mean, you know, somebody's doing it. Who's doing the raping? How can you say such a thing?"
I think that pretty much says most Mexicans crossing the border are rapists, multiple times. Later in the CNN interview, Trump added: ""I love the Mexican people. I've had a great relationship with Mexico and the Mexican people."
Notwithstanding the fact that Heidi knows a 3 Mexicans and independent of the latest horror in SF (where the FBI would have been only too glad to deport if CA had not screwed up), just take Trump at his oft repeated words which are not only hateful and looking to garner more hate, but wrong. As far as anyone can tell, he is wrong on the facts. What he said is just not true.
That said, obviously sealing the border and reducing illegals is a good thing. Not many would disagree. But what are we spending, what are we getting, and what do we have to spend to get more? Where Trump falls short is his approach, picking a bogyman to inflame hatred as a call to arms without a clue on what to do to make it better besides: "you're fired, I'll fix it." Perhaps good for a CEO, great for a huckster, fantastic for a barker, not so good for a President ---- IMHO.
First off, the cost --- http://theweek.com/articles/466628/what-take-secure-usmexico-border. Not sure if we are getting our bang for the buck nor how much more we need to spend versus the benefit, but there it is.
The Donald is all about brand. He cares more about the Trump brand than being President and everything he does is for the brand. In the advertising business, there is only press, there is no bad press. And now the Trump brand is morphing as he forgoes the Latino community in favor of another community. We'll see in October when he has to do what he has never done before, release his net worth, whether it goes beyond the brand.
A great synopsis on The Donald's threat.
http://personalliberty.com/heres-why-obama-and-hillary-must-stop-donald-trump-at-all-costs/
Donald Trump : jerk
White people: lazy
Bush :idiot
I just love the tolerance of the left. Name calling is their forte.
Well, Bonv, if that's what you got out of my post, then have at it. However please point out to me ONE thing you or the person your defending has specifically said they don't like about trump, other than his personality (is that how Libs pick a president, on personality and looks?) and the fact that he filed bankruptcy.
That is ALL I see on this entire forum and other blogs..Liberals:
"Trump is a rude SOB"
"Trump filed bankruptcy"
"Trump is Arrogant"
"Trump filed Bankruptcy"
Trump is a loud mouth"
"Trump filed Bankruptcy"
"Trump thinks he's hot stuff"
"Trump filed bankruptcy"
"Trump is........"
"Trump filed Bank....."
Oh, and "Trump just lost the Hispanic vote" and "Trump is a racist who thinks all Mexicans are rapists."
That's all you got.
I think that's good you noted the multiple bankruptcies which basically is Trump using the law to bail himself out. To date, he says he never declared bankruptcy which is true, his company did. Sounds like a politician, don't he. But you left out one: sue, sue, sue, sue, threaten to sue, sue.....
As far as Heidi "Trump has explained EXACTLY what he wants to do, in detail" please feel free to direct us or tell us the truth. I would love to see a plan.
Here's what Trump said "To Make American Great Again" when he announced (excerpted from Huffington)
"Sell junk to Saudi Arabia, since the goods we send them are blown up anyway;
Repeal Obamacare “and replace it with something that benefits everybody”;
“Turn off that spigot” of sending money to China (in the form of debt payments) by taxing them “until they behave properly”;
Renegotiate our foreign trade deals;
Call up the head of the Ford Motor Company and tell them they are going to be taxed at 35 percent for every car coming from Mexico until they decide to nix their plant in Mexico City;
End President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration;
End border crossings from Mexico because some of those border-crossers are “rapists”;
To do that, build a “great, great wall” on the U.S.-Mexico border;
Have Mexico pay for that wall;
Don’t appoint a secretary of state who rides bikes and breaks his leg;
Avoid riding bikes himself;
Work hard on the Islamic State problem;
Stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons;
Find the General Patton or General MacArthur from within the U.S. armed forces to “make it really work” in the Middle East;
Rebuild the country's infrastructure -- “nobody can do that like me";
Create jobs -- “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created”;
Save Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security “without cuts”;
Protect the Second Amendment;
Take the brand of the United States “and make it great again.”
Most of these are conclusions, not plans. Here's his website, no plan there..... : https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
As far as the others, here's Hillary's website with, oh no, a plan.... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-fights/
Here's Ron Paul's, oh no, a plan.... https://www.randpaul.com/issues
So where is the Trump plan beyond hyperbole, hate-speak, and rhetoric?
This whole hate Trump sounds so familiar. Let me think now........not so long ago. Hmmmmm. The name calling, the mocking, the degrading, the insults, the hatefulness. All of it being downright despicable. Oh, now I remember who it was Sarah Palin.
I really think the left feels threatened by him. Otherwise they wouldn't keep talking about him. I wish they spent half as much time on Hillary.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/02/3676891/mexican-laborer-donald-trump-rapists/
Be sure to read the paragraphs of statistics below the translated video. Especially you, Heidi.
No Heidi I dont get it at all, please explain how it works, it would help us all
I can tell you george w's plan, start a war get the oil you need for dads companies and take care of yourself, do i have that right? or are not allowed to attack him? we are not allowed to tell the truth. If my opinions are not the same as yours tough shit, i dont think trump is a good guy, he will never win, he uses bankruptcy as a business strategy and you glance over that like its nothing, that takes away from all of us and cause higher interest rates on loans etc, Heidi maybe you dont get it, you want to attack me go ahead, I assure you despite my spelling I am highly intelligent, People on the left are disliked by people on the right, and vice versa, Im on neither side, show me a good candidate and I will vote for him, for example Fatboy christie has let his own state go to shit, and yet people think he would be a good president Really, People still defend bush to this day, in your mind do you think he did a good job on 9/11 and flying the bin laden family out that day, it just so happens thats where i worked and i got out by two minutes and the then the building went down, so i have some ill feelings about it cause i live with PTSD to this day.
Why do you have to keep up the name calling? Now it's fatboy Christie. (by the way NJ was in a deep mess long before Christie became governor)This is where you lose your credibility. It's juvenile.
Peace Out!!
"I tell you what" (cue King Of The Hill lol), IDK how serious Trump is, and I still doubt he can get the GOP nomination, and if he doesn't and runs independent I still don't think he can win running independent, but.... I like what the guy has to say. And I'd vote for Trump before voting for another damned GOP ringer RINO like Jeb Bush.
As I previously stated, NO WAY could Trump do a worse job on this country than has been done to it over the last 7 years (and, to some extent, the last 15 years).
Ok fine he is skinny. and the old argument of its been like this for a long time doesnt hold water, thats why he is there to fix it.
Break time from relaxation --- what a fine day! Why is HL (HackettstonwLeFT) going looney..... Can't blame the heat.
First, in DrK's defense, on the numbers, Christie has consistently failed NJ economically. He has given away federal support (known as jobs), raised taxes on the middle while lowering the top, bottom tier of all states in job production, missed revenue projections time after time, and I can go on......
But in the fat department, he has done very well and looks great.
"I can tell you george w's plan, start a war get the oil you need for dads companies and take care of yourself, do i have that right?" No, I don't think you can conspiracy theory that one much less prove it. And take care of himself? The guy is a pariah hiding out on the ranch while busy painting worse than paint-by-numbers art. If that's taking care of yourself......
Meanwhile the right lambasting over political candidate name calling and being picked on is laughable. For being picked on, can you say Swiftwater? ObamaCare, Dukakis in the tank? Obama birth certificate, Obama the Muslim, Obama the Bill Ayers terrorist. etc. etc. etc. Just review HLife for plenty of it.
Besides Trump himself is a name calling expert having dropped more than a few name-bombs already in his short time in the race.
Please enjoy the day; I going back to the sunshine.
In general, it seems most on this thread think the situation we are in, is almost un fixable with out a lot pain, except,.Doctor K 16
Historically speaking name calling in presidential campaigns goes all the way back to 1776. Maybe The Donald feels nostalgic for the old days so he is trying to bring the name calling back to the level it was in earlier times. They got really nasty starting with the founding fathers Jefferson and Adams. Maybe we should celebrate that it's actually more civil than it used to be.
RAD 
Well I certainly can't vote for someone who wears his pants up to his chest. Just can't do it.
I really don't give a rat's ass if Trump, Rand Paul, Hillary, another Bush or any "surprise" candidate wins.
It was a nice day today. Why fight over a candidate in a system that doesn't give a rat's ass about you, excepting your submission to their will and the resources your labor provides?
Yep, it was a nice day and the presidency is a joke.
Some people are finally getting it!
I wish people had as much passion about the local elections as they do about this. From a day to day perspective they have great impact but no one votes.
CraftBeerBob well look at oue own govenor. How can you blame people when our state is chaotic enough....
Thinking more local then our Governor. 8-10 % for local elections is horrendous.
Ollie you tell me to grow up, i think trump started the name calling, is that funny, so he can do it, but not me. interesting, ok sorry again,
I was speaking about the people who are on this forum. I don't remember seeing Donald Trump on here.
The crazy thing is that the alternatives to voting for Trump each has their own significant problems. Voting for Trump may not be that crazy...
@Ollie isn't it just the same as being name calling if you are going to go around and say "how old are you"? I have not heard that one since I was in junior high.
Speaking of the name calling I do not believe that the left is doing all the name calling either.
im congused i thought we were talking about trump, so he calls mexicans things i wont repeat, but i cant call him a jerk, im confused, i didnt call him a molester, or theif or bad people
It's about having a civil conversation on this board without the name calling. Hope this clears up your confusion.
cupcake, enough trump was the one who said all these racist remarks, i had nothing to do wiith it, because i think thats wrong, and so should everybody makes me normal
Racism is taught. You are not born with it. Hate can not be legislated out of existence. The world is full of it and causes most wars. Satan is very busy. Love is taught also by you know who.
@Doctor I meant in generalize term. Name calling should be stopped by our political leaders. I didnt directly call upon you that you should stop. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
@Old gent Hate is cause by miaunderstandings and confusion of other cultures. Relgion has nothing to do with it logically speaking. If one does good to another is just plain respect and moral standards.
"I don't consider anything trump said to be racist at all."
That's because he said all Mexican immigrants are rapists, not racists.
OMG. I guess Doctor K16 is one of those that think if he says something over and over and over and over and over and over again enough times in a different way everyone will start to believe his fantasy.
Trump June 16: “When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-epic-statement-on-mexico-2015-7#ixzz3fiHbrVyx
We were hiking and birding on trails in the canyons at Fort Huachuca AZ around 2005 and 2007. This is an army base (drone surveillance and intelligence I think) and required us to provide documentation (passport) and evidence of car insurance prior to them granting permission for entry. On a number of trails in the canyons we found what appeared to be "camps" with water bottles and empty tuna fish cans in Spanish. This also happened in other areas in the mountains south of Tucson. I always said hola when I passed the "hikers" on the trails. BTW I sent an email to the WH (Bush ) and asked what was going on. sort of didn't expect a Reply and never got one. We were never bothered by the hikers but I had heard that was not everyone's experience.
So, Trump DID NOT "call all mexicans rapists." Thanks.
He's right on all the other info- the border guards, where these people are coming from (all of latin america), I've been reading about ti for years.
Hell, if Trump would actually secure the borders, that alone is worth a vote.
If a criminal can be deported 4 or 5 times, coming back the last time illegally and killing a citizen of this country, there most certainly is a problem at our border with Mexico. If we want to let people in, we should get to decide which ones.
Not said the politically correct way for sure, but there is a problem. As for losing the Latino vote, that is close to insignificant. It's the female vote politicians need to worry about :)
maja Thank you...now we have this cleared up once and for all!!!
Now maybe, just maybe Doctor K16 and the others playing the "rape" card will finally go crawl back under their rock.
I wouldn't mind hearing their ideas and issues with Trump -- AS LONG AS they talk about what they don't like about his POLICIES and stop repeating BS over and over that is not true just to end any debate or conversation about the issues.
That's funny Heidi. You do the same thing that you complain about others doing, and then you insult them on top of it!
Trump is a clown. He's just needs the big red nose and big floppy shoes. Far from being a concern for the left, he's probably an asset, dividing the conservative voters and pushing the stronger R candidates into positions that will be less popular with independent voters. I hope he sticks around for a while.
Gadfly "If a criminal can be deported 4 or 5 times, coming back the last time illegally and killing a citizen of this country, there most certainly is a problem at our border with Mexico."
For MANY years now. Not just Obama, but Bush before him. Frankly, I don't remember what the specifics were on Clinton's watch re: the border crisis.
Yes Trump didn't call ALL Mexicans rapists. He just called the 11miilion that have come to the U.S. rapists, criminals, and drug dealers. But he assumes some of those 11million are good people. Good luck getting the Latino vote.
Trump didn't call ALL Mexicans rapists, just the "Illegal" ones, any legal immigrant knows the difference. It's too bad the illegals' vote count more than American citizens.
"AS LONG AS they talk about " - Yelling, and condition on when the ears are open? At a time when fiscal constraint is required, an on going strategy running up debt only to expect a judge to lower it is BS? Frankly "that's all you got" should be all that's required. Trump has proposed policies that are illegal under today's trade agreements. I do not expect the agreements will be instantly nullified without contesting the policies. By both sides of the aisles.
As for his statements, he did say in the same breath that other Mexicans were OK. But he only talks about one nationality when he must believe there are no problems with anyone from Canada, Guatemala, Colombia, Australia, or any number of other countries. He also implied the government of Mexico was behind immigration ("they send" not "they come") as well as no one on Earth could get the government to pay for a wall, but he could. As well as only he could build if for practically nothing, which means he would be illegally giving himself government contracts. When you realize that Trump really doesn't have the money he says he does (his debts outweigh his assets that he over values), you have trouble accepting his statement none of this matters to him because he has more money that the rest of the world.
It's not that he says people are smart. Its that people realize he's calling them dumb in the process, and see through the charade. The Donald won't stand up to when his tax returns are released and they show he says he lost money and doesn't owe tax.
GC The election is rigged any way who ever is good for the upper class rich political figures that's who will win. There gonna $hit on the middle class till we are a third world country. We need some one who really wants to fix the us not do it for the money and power. It's all a joke
On a different tangent.... did anyone hear that he was thinking of having Oprah be his vice president. All i can think is her giving away cars.... or her favorite things...
Wow, playing the rape card, think about what you said, there are alot of ignorant rednecks on this site, im sorry but you cant say what he said and think you will be president, so i wont argue anymore and its cause he has no chance, funny thing is you people think he would hele you.
Yes i agree with the fence, and stopping illegal aliens, then the rest of us can work right? do all those jobs that mexicans do. Right, Go to the farms and work 12 hour grueling days.
I don't agree with a fence. Ridiculous idea.
Remove the reasons why people want to enter illegally, problem solved.
If the right candidate says the right things, they won't NEED any "particular" vote (like the "latino vote"), because they will get AMERICANS votes- including ones who have given up on voting.
I'm still not convinced that is possible any longer, we may have driven off the cliff already, the next several years will tell the tale.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/12/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-wrecking-ball/index.html
If it's Lindsey Graham vs Trump I would take Trump in a heartbeat.
DoctorK16 I agree with you. People do not understand how fast we wouls be in woeld war three. the only reason why hes rich is because he cheats the system...
Trump playing the bully, yelling names, calling folks stupid, and reaching out to the angry frustrated voter won't work once someone steps up to the bully. Ask Chris. But bully for him, destroy Republican chances, works for me.
"Remove the reasons why people want to enter illegally, problem solved." Hits the nail on the head unlike The Donald who just wants to hit someone. Unless The Donald is right and all Mexicans are coming here to rape, the other main reason is money so that that away. A secure employment verification system, employer penalties, removing any benefits at the state level, and ending any Federal prosecutorial discretion would limit the money leaving only the rapists.
At the same time, open up immigration for those that help our economy taking the jobs we don't want or can't fill. Complete the "been here five years and working" amnesty plan and allow immigration for select workers fixing the H2B work permit plan while limiting the unskilled laborer immigration. Sure that makes the illegal, legal, but at some level we need these workers to make our economy work. But limit new immigration for either skilled or unskilled to JUST the workers we can prove the economy needs and we don't have.
Having a secure employment verification system is cheaper than a fence and allowing immigration only to truly serve the economy (versus lowering costs) is cheaper than a fence. The result would be illegals who don't work: sounds like criminals.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/One-Minute-Debate-3-Views/2012/0924/3-views-on-how-US-should-combat-illegal-immigration/Tighten-up-Eliminate-incentives-for-illegal-immigration.-Improve-detection-and-removal
I am being entertain with all seriousness shown over the Donald who has no chance of winning. So far, the only one with a plan for this mess we are in is Paul, and he has no chance. The others on all sides are just kicking the can down the road. The United States are not very United. With big money ruling both parties, my one vote has less meaning. The chances of me ever, living to see a solution are very slim. It's more likely to take a big boom. It looks like a another blank spot on the presidential line for me so far. I am still praying for you all.
And yet here we are two weeks later still talking about him. I wish people would be so concerned about Hillary. But it does looks like Bernie is getting more people to his rallies than her. A little competition is always a good thing.
Bernie gives me a McGovern feeling, oh oh that McGovern feeling......
I actually like Jeb Bush, might be prudent at this time.
Trump has hit a nerve that resonates with the American people. The public is tired of the same old lip service regarding illegal immigration. By a wide majority Democrats and Republicans support secure borders. The laws are there enforce the laws: no sanctuary cities (how can that be legal?), huge penalties for employers who hire illegals and immediate deportation versus protracted. The laws are being ignored by public officials to the detriment of legal Americans that not what the United States is about.
60% of this problem would disappear overnight if the the Treasury disallowed remittances to Mexico under $2,000 dollars. The Mexican economy is substantial dependent on these funds for there economy. Cutting off this flow of capitol would compel Mexico to not only enforce are mutual border but also it's southern border which it doesn't. Instead Mexico has the benefit of the funds coming from the United States, makes money off those passing through Mexico to the United States and is having a significant percentage of it's least advantage citizens educated, taken care of in emergency rooms and provide social programs at zero cost to it's government.
towniejim I'd like to see the all arrogance ticket - Trump and Christie. They both say whatever they feel and are not apologetic afterward.
They could run against a Sanders and Warren ticket.
towniejim, I can tell you why NYC is a sanctuary city. The police rely on witnesses to capture criminals. If illegals witness a crime, but fear deportation, they will neither report crime, nor will they volunteer as witnesses. There would be more crime and less convictions. I don't know if they do or don't turn over convicted criminals to be deported. Not a perfect world.
The big proponents of the sanctuary cities use the "they will be apt to volunteer as witnesses on crimes knowing they won't be deported" as the main reason for adopting the policy. My cousin is a Detective in the NYC Police department and he says that's a bunch of hogwash. He says on very rare occasion he can get an illegal to be a witness to a crime. Most times they pull the Sgt. Schultz, I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.
kb is quite correct, the statement: "they will be apt to volunteer as witnesses on crimes knowing they won't be deported" , is a false argument with nothing to back it up. everyone repeats it so often that it becomes the truth . . . . . this is wrong as any rank and file cop will tell you.
fact is the illegals are already breaking the law by entering the country and remaining here illegally.
we need to deal with this problem.
You know, we have debated Trump enough already, but arent we really trying to just figure out who the best of the worst is. I mean face it, are any of these people gonna make a serious impact for us? Assuming there are no filthy rich people here, the rest of us are somewhere in the middle class. Ollie, your right, Hillary doesnt care, but most of these people are gonna take care of themselves and there rich buddies.
Trump never worked a day in his life!!!
http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune%3A_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick
Cliff R hillary is a 1%'r, she really doesn't care, doc k 16 is right about this
and Hillary Clinton is a cold angry person who is dishonest, can't we make better choices?
Bottom line is this country is f'd. My only hope is a state secedes. Not going to happen in my lifetime but hopefully my kids. It's the only thing I can think that will be a way hard working, law abiding people will make it.
"hillary is a 1%'r, she really doesn't care, doc k 16 is right about this. and Hillary Clinton is a cold angry person who is dishonest, can't we make better choices?"
Gee, you can replace hilliary with The Donald and it still works, perhaps even better!
i would why not.how much worse can it get.this country is going down.maybe things could change with him hes a scammer but hes done well.look at what we have now he hasnt done so great we need a change
matt OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE. think about it. Clinton is probably our best bet. she actually knows from prior experience of what goes on.
maja? You're narrative is non-nonsensical. What you're basically saying is that illegals won't report crime if the laws change? Yet they will if it stays the same because they won't be deported. Since New York is a sanctuary city and won't enforce the laws on the book how can they be deported. And fear of deportation hasn't stopped the river flowing over the border has it?
How can any of us here in the United States not abide by the laws, we'd have total chaos. Yet somehow the politicians are allowing illegals to work here, be educated here and export money from the United States with no consequences. Imagine if any American tried to enter another country illegally got a job, enrolled kids in school and send all the money.
Would it happen of course not. There is no gray area on this subject. Legal immigration is beneficial illegal immigration isn't. It can be presented any number of ways, however, that is the essence of the discussion.
beachbum This sanctuary city thing is just mind boggling. Everything from police releasing to save costs because Fed won't foot the bill to Fed inefficiency in picking illegals up to outright trying to attract illegals.
I am really confused as to why any city would do this or how any politician could benefit from catering this this vote.
Who benefits?
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-sanctuary-spat/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/11/sanctuary-cities-not-changing-san-francisco-shooting/29979357/
What's Trump's plan for this? Call them stupid?
"Thats not the only issue. There needs a total reboot for this country."
"OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE. think about it. Clinton is probably our best bet. she actually knows from prior experience of what goes on."
How these two statements can be made by the same person (Cupcake) is mind-boggling. It's also demonstrative of the level of understanding of our voting block, and why the country is doomed.
I too almost choked on that statement JR. She knows exactly what goes on and how to get away with it. She is very skilled in the political deceitfulness.
That this thread has 379 posts means it is already too late.
Seems like the argument involves either which "choice" selected by one of the two biggest legalized crime families in the country would be the lesser evil (or the greatest thing since sliced bread for those of you who just love the taste of mass-mind Kool-Aid.)
Or, perhaps, you are being a good sheeple and indulging on the class/race warfare that your "experienced" elected officials engineered via their laws...you know - where some races may get preferential treatment, illegal aliens qualify for all sorts of programs and an education paid for by YOU, and the dumbass rallying over the latest distraction (confederate flag) while your stalwart Republicans get paid-off enough to let a really stinky trade bill pass.
Yep, we're doomed....and "they" is us, because the sheeple continue to play their game.
If I vote, I'm writing in my cat again.
Explain using research how Hilary is "the answer" and will "totally reboot" the country, lol.
How old are you? How long have you been following politics?
My age is insignificant. My wisdom is old. And its not how long but the knowledge I have and the ins i have in politics that matter more than the media
And I present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the future of America. Now let us pray in mourning of the death of the greatest country in the world....
cupcake said: "Thats not the only issue. There needs a total reboot for this country."
"OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE. think about it. Clinton is probably our best bet. she actually knows from prior experience of what goes on."
then JR said: "How these two statements can be made by the same person (Cupcake) is mind-boggling. It's also demonstrative of the level of understanding of our voting block, and why the country is doomed."
+1 JR, spot on, i agree with you.
jjmonth - what's the cat's name? can we get posters made up?
hillary would be (and has been) bad for the United States, she is a liar and she is an angry vindictive woman. She was hell on wheels as first lady, cruelly taking out rival staff members at the knee. She has no idea how things are run, she has zero leadership qualities. She has not been honest about her role in Bengazhi or her email server. Just showing up as Sec. of State is an activity, it is not an accomplishment. Holding office is not an accomplishment, it's only an activity. Traveling the world in a jet plane is an activity, it is not an accomplishment. She has no accomplishments she can quote, none at all. She has no idea how things are run. She has no idea how to run things. Also she is old and tired. She wears out easily. That's not a good choice for president.
the cat could do better, what's the cats name?
I agree that Hillary needs to promote her accomplishments of which there are many versus Trump's two trick pony: I made money in development growing my daddy's business and then leveraged my self-aggrandizing-brag-brand into CEO reality shows and golf tourney's. Whippee, I'm a genius, look at me.
Of course, when Hillary makes money, I think someone here on HL put her in the 1%, that's stealing.
A Hillary accomplishment 30-foot view from addictinginfo.com
“First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College.
Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School.
Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
Former civil litigation attorney.
Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
Former First Lady of Arkansas. Former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree.
First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate.
Elected by the… State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. Former US Secretary of State.
GRAMMY Award Winner.
Author.
Self proclaimed Pantsuit Aficionado.
Married to a man named Bill, who plays the saxophone.”
Against The Donald's list of public service I think this looks pretty good.
In these jobs there are many accomplishments including working on behalf of veterans, children, and women. Against Donald Trump's legacy of leveraging his Daddy's money well, Hillary's accomplishments for America trump Donald's any day of the week. For accomplishments during each of these positions, you just need to google Hillary Clinton accomplishments; not going to take the space to list.
Hillary was not a stellar Secy of State, there are no landmark accomplishments. Much of what she did was repair the Bush legacy but you don't get credit for being friendly. She took little risks and got little reward. But, beyond your weird conspirator fascination with Benghazi, she did little wrong either. John Kerry has beat her record hands down already.
As far as being a Senator, I am pretty sure Hillary's accomplishments exceed any Republican running for President and, of course, Donald has none.
Donald has zero accomplishments as a public servant. As a businessman, he has many combined with many stellar losses surrounded by many shady deals like bail-outs, hand-outs, and subsidies. He ain't clean for sure.
That said, my issues with Hillary echo BDog's feelings for her style like her handling personnel, decision making, work ethic and her defense of allegations. I applaud how she focuses, digs in, and never stops but if it just makes you lose peripheral vision and then get run down, that's no good either. IMHO, she also has a real issue with pulling the decision trigger too soon and then not reviewing a decision in the light of new information. A little Margaret Thatcher or Ron Reagan in that regard. And her Benghazi, mail server, etc. defenses have not been well orchestrated to remove the appearance of wrong doing.
Of course Donald is way over the top in regard decision making and frankly is mad-dog crazy when it comes to being right. Perhaps good as CEO but of less value as the chief public servant in America. Unless you agree 100% with his principals, since he will be guided by those and not necessarily the facts, it's gonna be a long 4-8 years. His defenses of allegations are deplorable, mean-spirited and petty. Perhaps fine for a HL discussion, but not exactly Presidential.
So I am not gung-ho for either of these candidates but would take Hillary as the lesser of those two evils.
That's what gets me to take a longer look at Jeb Bush.
I'm just wondering how the trump vs clinton debates are gonna go once he becomes the primary... I think he'll clean house with a much better performance and surprisingly better ideas. And most likely gonna catch attention of people who would have never thought to vote for him.
stranger danger thank u for making valid points. the sad issue ia those who love the media and rely on the information given and watch fox news religiousluly.My point with knowing outside knowledge aka ive actually know more than most people on here. But its my personal decision. and thats it you go vote for the tea party wackos or you can vote for someone who knows stuff.
those 4 americans were sacrificed for political expediency Tina, she has blood on her hands
hillary has never come clean about what happened in Benghazi.
BD- the cat's name is 'Tater.
Tater the Cat is my write-in candidate of choice in 2016.
thanks JJ; Tater would be a much better choice than Hillary . . . . . .. . (and probably better than the donald)
hey! in my house, cats are people too, ( i think they are in GC's house as well?)
ok, street campaign, word of mouth, limited signage: "Tater for President!!" , let's get some radio air play going,
"the sad issue ia those who love the media and rely on the information given and watch fox news religiousluly.My point with knowing outside knowledge aka ive actually know more than most people on here. But its my personal decision. and thats it you go vote for the tea party wackos or you can vote for someone who knows stuff."
..."or you can vote for someone who 'knows stuff' ".......
Your "method" for choosing a president inspires great confidence, lol
I will admit. I confident I'm an intelligent person. And secondly I'm not saying she is the best. But she is better than the ones posted. I would vote for Obama again. If they would allow it. And to the whole blood on hands deal. If you look at every president..... you can say the same thing.
even the libs know Hillary is damaged goods:
Hah!… MSNBC LAUGHS OUT LOUD at Hillary Clinton’s Bizarre Robotic Response to Question on Iran Deal (VIDEO)
Even the folks at MSNBC are amused by Hillary Clinton’s odd robotic delivery and plastic smile.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/hah-msnbc-laughs-out-loud-at-hillary-clintons-bizarre-robotic-response-to-question-on-iran-deal-video/
Funny how a thread on Donald Trump results in a "here's why Hillary is bad" serenade.
Guess that's because he has no plans to talk about besides a series of one-liners.
Trump brags about the insane amount of money he's worth, and then he expects people who are struggling to find work and make ends meet ... to place their future in his hands?
Like he's going to do anything to help them?
Whoever wants to become President could start by fixing the roads and bridges ... we all pay a "hidden tax" every time we have to repair our cars because of damage done by substandard roads ...
and fixing those roads is employment for people who need it. It's an investment, not some 'welfare giveaway program.'
Pyc If it really winds up coming down to Hillary and The Donald, I think Tater has a real shot at this thing....
ianimal If I was Hillary I would be concerned about Jim Webb. No one is talking about him but he's out there.
The Jim Webb who wrote those great songs for Glen Campbell in the late 60s?
Yeah, I'd vote for him. LOL
“Hillary has never come clean about what happened in Benghazi.” says BroDog.
I get so tired of the redundant repetitive waste of time and money just because it still just not feel right. If you repeat it enough, it will be true. "Oh what a feeling"
After 7 GOP-led reports generated, the last taking two-years of research into account, $14M of taxpayer money spent, 13 congressional hearings, 50 briefings, and over 25,000 pages of documents, the GOP concludes no deliberate wrongdoing by the Administration. Now another 300 Clinton State Department emails regarding Benghazi released, no smoking gun. So let's spend Another $3.2M minimum (the .2M so you believe they really worked the estimate) to be spent on the 8th GOP-led report which will undoubtedly be released at a pertinent time to affect the Presidential election.
If Hillary’s dirty on this one, then after 7 times at bat, the GOP is proven to be massively incompetent. If they whiff at bat, it proves once again the GOP is obsessed to the level of lunacy. What's the point? They can't even fire her anymore no matter what the study reveals. No matter what, the BrotherDogs of the world still vote guilty, and the rest of us will go with the conclusions of Report 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.
The 8th report will change absolutely nothing no matter what the outcome.
Can't we just waste our $.3.3M with trying to reach 100 ObamaCare repeals?
Or maybe another witch hunt into the birth certificate?
Or looking for the Bill Ayers connection.
Quit recommending further waste of the taxpayer's dollar BrotherDog, we have more important things to accomplish, let's get to something with potential value. You've wasted enough of our time and money.
Ollie, Jim Webb is the best I've seen so far, but I don't think he's even officially thrown his hat in the ring, has he?
I like Trump, he tells it like it is without worrying about being PC. I may not agree with everything he says, but I won't count him out yet. Waiting to see what the future holds for "The Donald".
outsider andy, that would be a good start,, the roads suck and it would take 20 years to fix them, so lots of jobs, welfare though is dead, its not what people think it is, if your single you get 200 bucks a month and married you get 400 a month and you are required to go to work programs to try and get a job, thats not enough to live on by any stretch, and get food stamps but tht aint paying bills. People are under the impression that welfare pays out some great money, it doesnt
it doesnt, and sadly after i lost everrything i had from being in the wtc on 9/11 i had to collect it, i went from VP to TP, but on my feet now andd i paid all of it back, all like 2400 for a year
"If it really winds up coming down to Hillary and The Donald, I think Tater has a real shot at this thing...."
+1 ianimal, agreed
hillary has never come clean about her role in benghazi and now she has wiped her own email server and scrubbed her email messages. really doesn't pass the smell test does it? no wonder a majority of americans don't trust her. she is untrustworthy.
Honestly, lets face it whose trust worthy these days. We all are liars. Don't kid yourself if you think your perfect. You have no idea what she did or had done. No one is perfect. But to think that you are saying Donald should or could wrong... How! He is just a rich man who has fought the system ... clearly... do you want that as a president...
If we're looking for someone who is perfect to be President,
he/she isn't out there, unless somehow I can be persuaded to run LOL o:
The only people who have never made a mistake, are the people who never tried to do anything.
Thanks.
Now, I need to do a lot of fund raising and book a hotel room in Iowa.
I could tell Christie, "Go take care of Jersey, the job you were elected to do.
I got this."
Oh, gotta have a slogan ... "A kinder and gentler Christie"
Maybe I'll meet Shoeless Joe at that baseball field (-;
Well, that didn't last long. So long, Donald.
From US Today article:
"Trump on Saturday shot back, saying “(McCain’s) a war hero because he got captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
McCain, a U.S Navy pilot, was a prisoner of war for nearly 6 years in Vietnam after being shot down flying a mission.”
The same McCain, who a few months prior to his capture, likely shared culpability for causing massive destruction on the Forrestal while simultaneously running from the work that needed to be done to save the ship? That McCain?
Personally, I think Trump's a boisterous windbag. I would however like to hear from Carly Fiorina who used to be head of Hewlitt-Packard. I had respect for her as head of the company and some of the business decisions she made. It would be interesting to me to hear more about what her plan for America is. I'll have to look up her site now.
Phil D. @doctor O think its because they know they do not have any good valid good points of their arguements
This it the Star >edger Pol as now. This says something.
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination?
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. 85.71% (21,768 votes)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 9.96% (2,529 votes)
Neither. 3.22% (818 votes)
I don't know. 1.11% (281 votes)
Total Votes: 25,396
Trump is a nut - very amusing but can't see him as a viable candidate- enjoyable in any regard
cupcake, i do i think you nailed it, its funny cause so many comments here saying they would vote for him, where did they go?
Was the poll registered Democrats only?
I'd have to change my registration to vote in a Democratic primary.
If someone asked me a poll question about the Democratic primary, my choice would be meaningless.
I studied polling in college ... I realize 1971 is a long, long, time ago, but what I learned still applies ... you have to put together scientific samplings that accurately represent the demographics of the larger population.
These internet polls where somebody can get on and click the same thing 1,000 times don't cut it.
The poll was just readers of the Ledger online. Not scientific, newspaper polls don't let you vote twice. Thats a lot of votes for any newspaper poll, and its still going on..
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317.html
this is a good man?
He is a good man, but a war mongering Senator like Cheney. Perhaps Prison taught him that.
@fussylady..... you can also be frank and stupid. And thats what he is. He is just loud. He has NO EXPERIENCE POLITICALLY TO RUN IN OFFICE. all the other canidates at least have some understanding.
I see a strange dichotomy in folks defending Confederates as brave soldiers while approving the guy bashing one of the bravest men the Vietnam War produced.
Or is it?
And JIT shame on you for once again weasel-wording your condemnation of John McCain. How dare you say "likely shared culpability." Why don't you stand on the line for anything except your disdain of me? "Likely?" Not bloody likely if you had just bothered to look: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccains-plane-crashes/
I am sorry for being harsh. I do not agree with John McCain on most issues especially his hawkish stands. But I do honor the man's bravery, sacrifice, and service during and after the war and have a real issue for those who don't. JFGI.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccains-plane-crashes/
Think you should call that one back.
lol HH/mg/sd, I did say "likely" did I not? Doesn't "likely" infer a non-absolute? For as much as you hate strict word definitions (you've agreed in the past that the word "is" can mean many different things, especially when used by government officials who, like some here, also try to spin everything their way), I think you should get yourself a dictionary and take this definition at face value.
I know all about the uncertainty behind that incident, just as I know about all the uncertainty of everything else related to McCain. But I'll ask you, why didn't you look at the counter evidence and pour over all of the details why the official report gives McCain a pass? Lord knows there is a lot of it out there, if only you would look, in which other people *directly* involved have a different story. There were other people on the ship you know, some of whom say that McCain was a weasel who chickened out and didn't do his job to the best of his ability. If you had read those accounts, you might have understood what I meant. Other than initially disposing of ordinance below decks, reports are the he just watched others try to save his ship. Then, while the ship was still on fire, he boarded a helicopter and left for shore leave or some such thing. Regardless the actual reason, he didn't really seem to care about saving the ship and, unsurprisingly, selfishly removed himself from the situation.
McCain is an ahole, plain and simple, and has always hidden behind power and prestige. Feel free to defend him if you like but at least source all of the counter evidence that shows him for what he is.
all i can say is from the get go i said look at the facts about this guy and many of you laughed, well im laughing now
Non-absolute is your middle name as I indicated; however I commend your finding a backbone to call McCain a name.
How about linking some of these other stellar reports of his malfeasance, dereliction of duty and cowardice that seems to be missing from the official record?
It does, JIT. More specifically, it implies an unsubstantiated attack on a decorated US veteran, made for political gain.
HH/mg/sd, the links are so numerous you're being obtuse for asking me to provide them. Go back to your previous moniker and find them - I guarantee it won't be hard.
Gadfly, unsubstantiated is in the eye of the beholder. You quite willingly take as gospel an approved version of events (events that I didn't even dispute!) yet fall short and fail to look at the other information that was left out of the official story. Fact is, many eye witnesses told a different tale. Certainly some are outright wrong, some due to poor memories, but when there are enough statements that conflict with the official story either you are suggesting there is a mass conspiracy to thwart McCain or he really is a selfish loser who took advantage of his misfortune and used his circumstances to get into the position of power he's in. I believe the latter.
Jeeze, JIT, I don't think either one of us made a definitive statement on what happened there. Looks like you doing the same thing to me that you just complained about. Physician, heal thyself.
My point here is that Trump has sunk to a level un-presidential; John McCain is a Vietnam hero. I am not a supporter of Senator McCain nor a supporter of that war. I have supported a number of his non-military stands. I do thank and support all who sacrificed in the service to my country and feel that Trump does not.
So I looked and none of your accusations hold muster against the official report. Most can not be substantiated. The origin of many of these unsubstantiated allegations are from one man who is a profound liar who makes his dime dishing conspiracy theories, many of which are fabricated. He is a proven liar.
There is little doubt that McCain thwarted authority, is smart but not studious, was kinda small but a feisty fighter, liked chasing the women but seems respectful, and not only ranked low academically but ranked over 100 demerits a year at Annapolis. I think that makes him a rascal or what most would call an all American boy.
There is no doubt he benefitted from his family legacy, there is little proof that he ever sought preferential treatment and some proof that, at times, he denied it. He turned down early release due to legacy. There in also no doubt that he volunteered, requested dangerous assignments, and was promoted based on skill.
Yes, he went beyond name, rank, and serial number while tortured in prison. He has said as much. And perhaps he was not tortured as badly as others due to family legacy, but I do not hold this against him, would you? Frankly, if he told them everything he knew, if he did radio and tv, well if the military was compromised, it's their own fault for being stupid enough to believe POWs would not give up information after capture. I would gather it was war-101 by then to compensate strategically for information potentially gleaned from prisoners if not to actually capitalize on it.
Sure I would love to know everything in the record and expect it will change the John McCain story. But I do not think it will change significantly and not to the extent this known liar has fabricated. At the same time, as long as these boys are living, I don't need to know every bad thing that might have happened and am fine with the current official record until the last one departs this mortal coil. I know from my own research in genealogy that the truth often differs from the myth but in most cases there is little value to the rush to judgment in that the myth is close enough and the truth merely humanizes the players.
Let's close with John Sydney McCain III's nicknames, often telling you a lot about the main:
Congress calls him the "White Tornado" for his hair and his work ethic.
High School classmates called him "Punk" or "McNasty" not for being mean but for being rebellious.
Annapolis classmates used “John Wayne McCain” because of his good looks and rabble rousing. One said he was the last man you wanted to go on shore leave with (if you get my meaning).
The Vietcong used "The Crown Prince" due to family legacy and "Songbird" due to his giving information up.
I don't see anything the Trump or JIT accuse him off IMHO.
Would you consider poop wrapped in newspaper different from poop wrapped in a flag?
IMO poop is still poop, and trying to say it's not poop because it has associations to the flag isn't right.
BTW, to be clear I feel about Trump the same way I do McCain.
I was going to vote for McCain in 2008, but then they put Sarah Palin on the ticket.
Like Hall and Oates, my response was "I can't go for that, no - o-o, NO CAN DO."
I commend McCain for his service to our great country but I too disagree with much of his current views. Interestingly, many years ago I strongly respected him for calling out AIPAC; telling it like it is -- that if people cannot start a dialogue that is critical about Israel without being called an anti-semite something is wrong. Like others, he had to eventually recant...
Wow, JIT deploys an attempt at humor....
Way to go except would love to see a defense of your "facts" which I say smell since lodged by a known fabricator. Mine fall prey to the military's report on his service and biographical accounts well-documented, but at this point are the record.
So let's see if you can polish your turd.
It was a semi-serious question, left unanswered of course...
Besides, polishing turds is for professionals who specialize in that kind of thing. Can't help you there, not that you need the help lol ;-)
I've often heard the expression,
if you try to put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig.
"Way to go except would love to see a defense of your "facts" which I say smell since lodged by a known fabricator."
Wait - what? Lodged by a known fabricator? Since I intentionally didn't provide any links (there are too many to choose from with a simple search) about my disdain of McCain, I want to be clear and ask if your comment was directed squarely at me? And if not, which linked "facts" are you concerned about?
So if I am not misreading, which I hope I am because that would be a new low even for you, I will not only ask but demand that you supply a single fabrication that I've posted over the course of the past 8ish years I've been on this site. Just one. You may not like my opinions or my base views on things, but there is NO way that any of what I've posted has been fabricated.
Now have I posted mistaken information? You betcha, and every time it's been brought to my attention I've acknowledged it, but since lying is not in *my* nature I can assure you that truthfulness is always the best course of action.
Jit, I believe he was referring to the person who was telling different stories about what happened and has been proven to be a liar, not you.
RAS I seem to have reached a rather different view of Trump's remarks about McCain. I don't like or dislike or support either, so it's not a matter of "taking sides." All I really got from Trump's comments is that he didn't believe McCain was a "hero," based on his known records--something with which I, and many others, would agree. That's not the same as saying McCain was a coward, or that he didn't fight for his country, or that he didn't end up suffering for his country. People make sacrifices, every single day, to help others. And millions of people have suffered and/or died, fighting for this country. But to me, and to others, that doesn't make someone a "hero." A hero is something else, something more--someone who takes risks and makes selfless sacrifices and demonstrates phenomenal courage far beyond the capabilities of most men and women. And, in his rather blunt, often crude, way, that was all that I felt Trump was really expressing about McCain--that he hadn't truly done anything to have earned the title of "Hero."
JerseyWolf JIT,
Earlier you posted that McCain "likely shared culpability for causing massive destruction on the Forrestal while simultaneously running from the work that needed to be done to save the ship?"
Can you provide a source? I've read a few things online, but nothing that seems very credible. Care to share?
Here's a start Gadfly. There are many sources, and of course quite a few are completely bogus, but the primary ones are based on the work of Mary Hershberger. I'd suggest starting here and following links:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20081017.html
+1 JerseyWolf, for saying what many people feel but few have the courage to say. My father, a WWII vet, agrees with you. (and we aren't just talking about McCain)
trump in his blunt, inarticulate style may actually be on to something. Stuff like this should give one pause to examine McCain's record more closely:
"In addition to following McCain’s misleading narrative of the Zuni rocket accident to the letter, Freeman published an uncredited hand-drawn sketch purporting to show the Forrestal deck just before the fire. In that sketch, the plane in which White died is stripped of White’s name, even though Freeman printed the names of the other pilots near McCain’s plane and told their stories. The only place that White’s name appears is at the back of the book in a list of those who died. In the narrative of “Sailors to the End,” Fred White’s name is conspicuous by its absence.
After erasing White, Freeman’s sketch presents an incorrect line between the original position of the Zuni rocket and McCain’s plane, instead of showing the actual line that the rocket took in striking White’s plane. This sketch alone will cause the unwary reader to believe there is visual evidence to support the claim that the Zuni rocket hit McCain’s plane, not that of White, the pilot lost on the Forrestal and now airbrushed out of history, at least in Freeman’s book.
McCain wrote a glowing blurb for Freeman’s book, drawing and all, calling it a “riveting account.” The presence of his enthusiastic blurb on the book cover raises another issue: Freeman relied heavily on interviews of survivors who were close to the Forrestal events but he never quotes McCain directly or mentions having requested an interview with him. Because his book pushes McCain’s misleading and unsubstantiated account, Freeman should make public whether McCain, or people around him, played a role in the genesis of “Sailors to the End.”"
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/20081007_investigating_john_mccains_tragedy_at_sea
there is actual film from the aircraft carrier that shows the deck fire that day that the zuni rocket started. the hand drawing has been edited to change that direction that the rocket took, and the hand drawing eliminates the name of McCain's Captain (White) who died 3 days after the on deck accident from horrifically painful and devastating burns Captain White suffered.
personally i believe that anybody who was imprisoned as a POW for five years is to be respected. But there are a lot of questions that can be legitimately asked of McCain's service record before he was shot down.
Funny most of the people who want to put boots on the ground in every country they feel are anti-US are the same people that could never bring themselves to serve. They always had a excuse of why they couldn't when I went to the draft board and told them I wanted a deferment because I was allergic to being shot at they just said so long send us a postcard guess I didn't have a rich enough family to get me out like most of them
I change my mind i would vote him, he is intertaining, and the republicans will lose all the kickbacks in the future, cause he dont care, I friggin love it
Without taking positions on any one particular issue... all I have to say is it's nice to see someone who isn't afraid to be UN-politically correct.
People in this country gets way too butt-hurt, way too easily anymore. What are we? British?
Can't dump the trump lol. I knew nothing about McCain and now am learning the reason why so many discredit him. He's bringing a lot of things up that I'm sure a lot of people didn't know about. And it's McCain's fault for taking the jab at trump. "Crazies"
BD, while you are investigating McCain's military record, and because I know you love to be balanced and fair, let me save you some time...no need to investigate Trump's record. There is none. Unless maybe you'd like to check out the reason for his deferments. That would likely be interesting.
No, of course I was not naming you are a liar JIT; go a few posts up and you can see (unless you "make your dime dishing conspiracy theories."
I went though the Mary Hershberger (MH) research, she seems solid enough. There is no one that I can find criticizing her work as a historian although this piece is timed for the 2008 election and one can't help but wonder about MH's political leanings.
She concentrates on the Forrestal incident and not his POW days. In terms of the incident, MH reports on mostly he said, she said as to a difference in the facts the truth being clear as any series of eyewitness reports of a massive disaster of this type. Most, if not all, of her evidence is not collaborated or second sourced. Certainly a missile misfired, hit White's plane. But no one is even 100% sure what plane it came from so as to whether McCain is right about it clipping his plane is unproven, nor is the fact that it didn't as MH says, but sounds close enough either way for me. Whether one bomb, two bombs whatever hit the deck thereafter, they were going to explode anyway. They were reported as dangerous and subject to explosion and the Commanding Officer requested replacement. Whether any of the falling bomb(s) came from McCain's plane is another who cares IMHO except MH conjectures that if they did, then McCain had to hit two switches to make that happen. First, this kind of flies in the face of him being chicken and getting the heck out of there. The bombs were known to be thin-skinned and prone to explosion, would a chicken run or risk dropping a exploding bomb? Second, one bomb most certainly fell from another plane, did that pilot flip two switches also?
The other aspects: McCain not helping the fire fighters but instead going below deck, tossing some bombs over, and then heading to sick bay, again there's some he said, she said, but no matter what, he did help at least for awhile. Not sure what the other guys so close to the initial fire and explosion were doing either.
Then there's the telling episode in the sick bay where either McCain's view he doesn't know the dying boy or MH's eyewitness report that McCain not only knew him but he didn't die for there days. Not sure what to make of this one without further collaboration but this one seems a bit stranger as to the wide difference of reports by McCain and MH's source.
And then McCain's disappearance from the ship just seems to smell like privilege, plain and simple.
Now that's balanced with McCain's request for transfer to the carrier Oriskany. Some say it's because he wanted to outrun his reputation for crashes and bad behavior. I ask you, how would he out run that? Others say it's because he couldn't face the Forrestal crew. So he opted to immediately return to flying missions instead of months of repair and r&r?
So to say McCain embellished his war stories, I buy it. Patten and Macarthur did it too. To say he remembered the truth in a better electable package, I buy that. Eisenhower did it too. To say he's a reckless, rebellious, kid, I buy that, said as much. But to say McCain "is a selfish loser who took advantage of his misfortune and used his circumstances to get into the position of power he's in," I don't think Mary Hershberger's story does it. If it did, she wrote the Forrestal piece in 2008 timed for the eletion; where's the rest of McCain's misdeeds to create a Hershberger book? Not enough meat?
Instead she moved on to her rah rah piece on Jane Fonda. Hmmmm, seeing a picture here?
I just don't see the questions raised in her Forrestal piece significantly smearing McCain's lifetime of duty, sacrifice and service to the country.
Let's see, if I get his comments in correct context and all, then Louis Zamparini is no hero either, since after all, even though he spent a longer time at sea than anyone had before and being an Olympian in the 1936 Olympics which made him singled out for heavier torture than most and he remained "Unbroken", he isn't a War Hero, because he was "captured".
Well I am glad that a source I referenced gets your approval HH/mg/sd. Does this clarify why I get upset (far too easily these days it seems) when discussions seem to always be closed-minded, made infinitely worse when posters start name calling each other?
My initial comment about McCain was just that - a comment and never intended to build a case for or against him. IMO - opinion - he has, with exceptions of course, conducted himself in a way that, again IMO, makes him look very selfish and yes, a loser. And again, IMO, what some call rebelous can be viewed as immature arrogance.
Perhaps if you posted the link initially instead of basically saying "do you're own work, I did mine," the discussion would conclude a bit faster. As far as close-minded, being upset.....whatever, although I am sure you are not talking about me but just throwing it out as a generality about other posters. I mean after I supported your source, you would never stoop to baiting me by calling me "closed minded," would you?
As to your initial comments: "The same McCain, who a few months prior to his capture, likely shared culpability for causing massive destruction on the Forrestal while simultaneously running from the work that needed to be done to save the ship? That McCain?" no, I still take issue with it even with your un-collaborated eyewitness accounts reported by a liberal author writing at election time and never taking the research any farther. 1. no, he did not "likely share culpability" for the Forrestal disaster; there is no proof. 2. After a missile either hit or came inches from his plane, ruptured a gas tank next to him, massive fire and explosions, he slides down the nose of his plane across the gas nozzle to escape, he did not run from the work but went below to throw bombs overboard. Where's the danger, fighting the fire or destroy the bombs that were highly unstable to the point of the Commander demanding immediate replacement? That's what you said, and 1 and 2 are what your source said.
Immature --- sure, young John McCain was immature; even his leaving the Forrestal is immature although after that if I could have left, I would. He must have been pretty shaken. But he did help in the immediate aftermath at least for a bit; we can discuss was the duration befitting a man who must have been in some level of shock.
Arrogant --- perhaps, yet aren't many great Americans starting with our Founding Fathers? If arrogance is wrong and humility is the measure of an good American, I think much of the country is in trouble.
That was young John McCain. I think 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton matures a man mightily, his refusal for early release is an example unless you see that as some sort of maneuver to take over the Senate. And if we are to judge a man based on a misspent youth, some immaturity, and rebellion, many a good man will be deemed insufficient.
Did young John put people at risk, perhaps, but he did not hurt anyone. Heck, he probably put his buddies at risk on every shore leave. Did he profit from his legacy; absolutely but there is no evidence he ever sought or asked for preference.
So sure, this source seems good, however the data seems single-sourced and not collaborated. But you alluded to many other aspects with the general admission to "search the net' where all sorts of liars and fabricators have been leading the charge to reduce John McCain to far less than the hero he is. But IMHO, I do not agree with your opinion, based on the facts I see and that you have presented.
I still don't support much of John McCain's agenda especially his hawkishness.
Trump could go swimming in the ocean and the sharks would not attack him.
Professional courtesy LOL
http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot&play=true
When are you going on tour, Andy?
I commend John McCain for his service to the country but what has he done for us since being a senator? This is a case for exactly why we need term limits. I'm tired of career politicians.
I blame McCain for Sarah Palin. That's enough to irreparably tarnish any one's legacy.
Yeah, SD, I also don't find MH's writing to be very compelling. Most of her criticisms amount to MCCain not accurately (according to her) representing the facts of the Forrestal tragedy.
So imagine you're a young John McCain sitting in your A-4 Skyhawks waiting to take off. Suddenly, you feel the jolt of an explosion and a flash as the deck under your jet is engulfed in flame. You escape the cockpit, crawl across fueling equipment and leap over a burning pool of jet fuel. To relatively safety. Your fellow airman next to you is not as fortunate. He's on fire and you rush to help put him out, but a 1000 lb explodes nearby, knocking you 15 feet backward and killing several nearby crewman. Three months later you're shot down and captured by the VC, and tortured and held for 5 1/2 years.
Over thirty years later, do you think you're going to remember exactly how that accident occured? That is, if you even knew to begin with. The damn bomb explodes in a pool of fire about a minute after MCCain leaps over said fire,and MH is damning him for not knowing which aircraft the bomb fell from?! How would he even know for sure?
It's not unusual for victims of simple car accidents to be confused about details of the wreck. Why? Because car accidents happen quickly and they are traumatic. How is this not the same situation but much more intense?
It also seems that MH conviently treats both the official report and MCCain's testimony as either gospel truth or fatally flawed, depending on which is most convient for her narrative. A good example is MH's analysis of McCain's statement that the bomb fell from his own aircraft.
McCain is not my favorite politician, but I do have a certain amount of respect for him. Not for his service record, which I think is admirable, but because he seems to me to have a lot of integrity. It's a shame that he sullied his presidential campaign with his choice of a running mate.
Lol I keep wondering how this conversation would have went if the name was changed, if the number of words used not in defense but in offense would have been the same.
My dislike of McCain actually has nothing to do with wartime events from decades past, all that does is provide the context for subsequent actions. His actions over the years I've been paying attention are enough on their own for me to have negative feelings toward him, his early life just validating those feelings. And, lol Gadfly, it's mostly due to his *lack* of integrity IMO.
Actually I have no love for McCain's political agenda and a complete disdain for his hawkish stances. I just object to someone saying he is not a hero of the Vietnam War. Lack of integrity in his political life -- not IMHO. Change the name and the song remains the same.
Gadfly - What integrity has McCain showed? I have watched him for years in the senate and quite frankly have seen the opposite.
Whether or not he is a "war hero" is a debatable discussion, but I have watched him flip-flop on issues, be wishy-washy in interviews, play it safe in the senate and basically do not much over the years.
If someone could enlighten me on what exactly I missed that McCain has done that was bold, innovative or made any real improvement in the lives of the American people his entire career I would be interested in hearing about it.
Did I ever once use the word hero, either negatively or positively? Don't assume I don't know how to discern true heroism from just being a plain old jerk.
We are the sum of our lives and McCain is no different.
Did you personally use the word hero or did you just link things that used the word hero. We are the sum of our links and you are no different.
Did you besmirch the very activities contributing to McCain's being a hero; absolutely.
Jerk and hero are not mutually exclusive. I think you can be both, sometimes simultaneously.
"We are the sum of our lives and McCain is no different." Wow, so much for second chances and personal growth. You are a hard judge of character and based on my misspent youth, I'm out. I wonder how many HLers would fall beneath your bar. You know George Washington chopped down his Dad's tree and threw money away.....:>)
"I wonder how many HLers would fall beneath your bar."
What, do you have a case of "bar envy" now? ;-)
I am really shocked at how you are defending a big bad war mongering republican. Didn't think that was your style. Guys a jerk, just the way it is.
Or is this a case of blind patriotism where you have no problem giving someone a pass for the simple reason they served in the military? If so, like I said early poop wrapped in a flag is still poop, even more so when, like McCain, they use the symbolism of that wrapper for personal gain. Super-sized poop in that case!
Yes, I give anyone who is in the military a big pass and a big applause.
I also give folks a second, third and sometimes fourth chance.
I defend his service to our country and his heroism and forgive him his flaws or youth, arrogance, and being a rascally rabbit especially since he has grown. That's been the crux of what we have been talking about, not his policies.
No, I think his policies are mostly bunk, although some have been OK in McCain-the-later-years. His choice of Palin was short-sighted and politically/PC inspired, he obviously did not vet the dog. And he suffers from what a lot of them do as they age, that wackiness where suddenly they just seem to go off the reservation.
Used to call Ron Paul, crazy Ron Paul because of that and his age, but Ran seems to have "aged" young because he has it too. I could get behind Ran for 90% of what he is about, but then there's that 10% of wang-dang-doodle crazy thought that just blows my mind.
And my bar is HUGE thank you very much. You noted how McCain slid right under. You know us liberals....and a one and a two and a
"The rich got to give a little, as we tax a little
And let your poor bankbook break a little
That's the story of, that's the glory of liberal
You've got to entitle a little, social program a little
And let the debt roll up a big little
That's the story of, that's the glory of liberal
As long as there's the two of you to pass that spending bill
You've got the world and all the arms
And when the world is through with you
They've got useless paper in their arms
Liberals got to win a little, never lose a little
And grow immigration in those blue states a little
That's the story of, that's the glory of liberal"
(a liberal parody)
I might not like the exact words Trump is using but I love that he's not backing down. The poor main stream media doesn't know what to do as well as all the beltway pundits. I could careless what McCain thinks. He's done nothing for us. Meanwhile the country is going to the crapper.
"Or is this a case of blind patriotism where you have no problem giving someone a pass for the simple reason they served in the military?"
I'm "giving the guy a pass" bc I find the reports that he acted dishonorably on the Forrestal do not seem credible, and lion share of evidence indicates that he behaved in an exemplary manner. By the way, I don't think that refusing to bash a man's military service based upon scant evidence is giving him a pass.
A lot of poor people, black people, Democrats, Progressive/Liberals, Muslims, Socialists and many in the media don't like Obama either. It's not just the right that can tell he's a boob. Basically, anyone who is willing to really admit he sucks has been. The rest just are afraid of appearing "racist."
Funny though you can bash and belittle Allen West (black man), Condolisa Rice (black woman), Herman Cain (black man) all you want because they are Conservatives.
I guess black lives only matter if your a Liberal...otherwise bash away!
"I went to the Wharton School of Business. I'm, like, a really smart person."
The Donald started out being kicked out of his private school, Kew-Forest School, in Queens for bad behavior. Hs father was on the governing board. Next stop, the New York Military Academy were he fulfilled his military service and actually did well.
Next, two years at Fordham University, then two years at Univ of Pennsylvania where he took undergrad courses at Wharton studying economics. He did not attend Wharton's famed MBA program.
Trump interviewed for Penn with his older brother's admission office former classmate friend. Touted as an academic marvel first in class, he graduated without honors of any kind.
Donald Trump military record: except for military school, none except for both student and medical deferments (he can't recall which foot had the bone spur)
Donald Trump public service experience: none, never held any public office
Donald Trump government service: none, never volunteered, worked or managed any governmental agency, local, state, or federal.
Donald Trump as philanthropist: the $10B man gave $3.7M from 1990 to 2009 ranking him as one of the most miserly amongst millionaires. Trump foundation gave $6.7M out over two decades. He may be the least charitable billionaire on the face of the planet.
Donald Trump as billionaire: Today he quotes $10B but really can't prove it. August of 2004, he quotes $4B then recants to $2B. In 2005, $6B while his advertising quoted $9.5B. Last month at announcement, $8.7B, today $10B. He says the Trump brand name is valued at $3.3B, two years ago he quoted $4B --- name must be slipping, but apparently he made it up in volume :>)
Forbes says $4.1B with a brand worth $300M.
Trump as businessman: did well managing Dad's company and creating Trump brand and has leveraged Trump brand across other developer's work and into his second life as a television reality host. Trump really does not develop anymore, he basically invests his name with other developers and commodities like steaks, neckties and bottled water.
Donald Trump on global warming: "it's a hoax."
Donald Trump on ISIS: I have a plan but can't tell you because they'll know.
Donald Trump on immigration: Illegal Mexicans are rapists, I will build a great wall and send Mexico a bill for anyone sneaking through.
Donald Trump political contributions: both parties and even Hillary Clinton
Every President has either held public office, held the highest military command and/or served non-elected public positions. Donald Trump has done nothing ever for the public good, even his attempts at charity are paltry. He has zero experience and zero proven desire to provide service in the public good. And the first job he wants is President.
Donald Trump's qualifications are that he gets things done, he can make things happen. Mussolini supposedly made the trains run on time. But he really didn't. This myth was created, nourished and spread by a flashy huckster with the incredible talent for showmanship, sound bytes, advertising, and using the media to create a buzz and brand image by picking on others. Not that Donald is Il Duce, hopefully never will.
Here's what's keeping me from supporting Trump in the GOP Primary ...
I just have this feeling that if I ever got to meet the man and spend a few minutes with him, he'd say ... I've made millions of dollars, what's wrong with you?
I'm afraid that's the way he is ... just full of himself ... does not really care about you and me.
I'd like to see him prove me wrong --- I never have wanted to see any president --- of any party --- fail. When they do, we all suffer.
It's not like rooting against the Yankees or Patriots ... those outcomes don't really impact our lives... unless we're foolish enough to bet on the games.
He's definitely full of himself but I think her truly cares about our country. I love Carly Fiorina. Wish she was getting more media attention.
Strangerdanger, it's not that I do or don't support Trump, but I think that Trump's greatest qualification--and the one that people are valuing enough to keep him in the Presidential race, is that he is NOT a politician or another cog in the gunked-up Government Works. I don't think he's popular because he is wealthy, or charismatic, or a good speaker, or that he even has any good ideas. He's popular because many Americans know that the government is broken, and they know it's not going to be fixed by the usual government stooges. The American people want real change, and that's the one thing that Trump offers, more than any other Presidential candidate, thus far.
+1 JerseyWolf. AND TO ADD:
He's saying the things millions of Americans are thinking and feeling, that none of the candidates have the balls to say, afraid they'll hurt their chances of winning. Trump has no fear. He's not pandering to any voting block because he doesn't have to. Because he doesn't need the money. Because he is not, and (from what we know) has no plans to be- a career politician. In that way, he is very much like the earliest representatives of this once-great country.
Christie also told us he's not a "career politician." How's that one working out?
Arnold "PUMP YOU UP" the action-actor and bodybuilder over there in California wasn't a career politician, he promised he wouldn't deal in "girly-man economics" and how did his governorship of California work out?
I'm curious to see what kind of an hourly wage and benefits Trump pays "his Mexicans."
Andy,that's why Christie isn't doing well and Arnold is gone. We're tired of it. I', sure Trump pays his "Mexican's" the same rate as the democrats. Good grief.
No. He is a clown. Bobby Jindal is my guy. Leadership is what we need. We are so desperate for leadership.
Singlemaleinnj Andy, Christie SAID he wasn't a politician, and yet he had been in politics for more than a decade, before becoming Governor.
And "Ahnold" was a bodybuilder and actor, so while he wasn't a politician, he also had no significant qualifications to be a government leader--he was elected because of popularity, charisma, and family ties, but he had no real idea what he was doing.
For all of his faults, it's hard to deny that Trump is, at least, successful in business. And while he has some pretty strange ideas and views, he is also clearly aware of, and willing to address, some of the major issue facing the nation (like illegal immigration).
"Yes, I give anyone who is in the military a big pass and a big applause.
I also give folks a second, third and sometimes fourth chance.
I defend his service to our country and his heroism and forgive him his flaws or youth, arrogance, and being a rascally rabbit especially since he has grown. That's been the crux of what we have been talking about, not his policies."
Hmm, I do believe your least favored politician also served in the military (dare I say most hated politician?). He too was a loser, in more ways than McCain, I agree, but still, he has the honorable discharge paperwork to prove it. I can't recall you *ever* giving him a pass; on the contrary, for years (and years and years) his name was synonymous with placing blame for all manner of our country's ailments (in many ways, rightfully so). And your most favored, most praised politician who could do no wrong? Hmm, being a draft dodger doesn't exactly make you want to forgive him his sins. Talk about setting the bar low!
As for additional chances, of course. No one is perfect. But when those chances just continue the original course, well, I think those chances have been spent unwisely. Sorry, McCain is still pretty low on my scaling system.
All in all, this line of thinking is irrelevant and I think you're just trying to save a little face by deflecting and using the military emotion card, and frankly I don't care for the insinuation that somehow you are more patriotic than me because I have high moral standards. Believe it or not, it is possible to be appreciative and grateful to those who serve(d) in the military while still maintaining adequate reasoning ability. IMO giving "free passes" doesn't cut it.
ˆˆ . . . . . . what JR said, yep to that, the statement is legit;
why is trumps message resonating?
(declining avg wages perhaps? the inability to find a new job at comparable salary to the one you were 'downsized' from so the company could replace you with a lower paid replacement?)
yeah, maybe that's part of the reason Trumps blunt, inarticulate message is resonating with middle america
U think?
+ 1 for Trump.
The powers to be would never have this vote with out Trump.
House passed a bill meant to punish so-called sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds.
The vote was 241-179, with only about a half-dozen members of each party crossing the aisle.
So he was at the border yesterday. I heard he backtracked that there should be a wall all along the border. I guess Mexico is not going to pay for it either.
So maybe he'll tone it down and get real, if he can.
JIT I think you are lost. First, I defended McCain's military service as heroic, you did not. That was it. Then I went back to Trump which is the topic after all and his lack of experience to be President, of which one of many aspects, is military. Not just solely military nor is military a mandatory prerequisite. That's it.
As to Clinton and Bush, who cares, red herring, but both records have controversy, George's shady service was lip service at best except for learning to fly and Clinton was one smart dodger, but nothing illegal. All of this is all moot since it is only one aspect of pre-Presidential experience qualifications and neither of these guys have anything to do with Trump......yet.
Again, yes I defend McCain as a military hero and bless him for his service to our country. I take umbrage with anyone saying elsewise. I forgive his youthful transgressions and while I might disagree with his politics, I see no smoking gun lower the integrity meter in his career post youth beyond petty politics and innuendo.
"IMO giving "free passes" doesn't cut it." I hope I never insinuated that you were less patriotic than anyone, I just said you're a harsh judge of character. We just disagreed on the facts surrounding McCain's military service.
Meanwhile, back to Trump.
Jersey Wolf is exactly right that Trump's appeal is being an outsider willing to plainly speak his mind extemporaneously. Successful in business, absolutely although one might judge the quality of that business and the multitude of failures and skeletons along the path. Rags to riches, not at all, it's a riches to somewhat richer story. Still a success in math terms.
I listed his qualifications above which are paltry beyond the brand, the illusion, and the mouth.
What makes me think bad choice is that fact that his first and only foray into public service is to be President. If business and plain speaking are our guidelines, aren't there better choices? Just saying. If he was going for mayor or governor I would have far less issues. But President?
More important is what is he saying. These are frustrating times; Great Recession followed by slow growth economy, huge debt, dysfunctional congress, too big to fail corporations, failures of leadership abound. But all Trump does is play to the frustrated mob, picking bogymen, calling names, and fanning the flames of hatred. There's a problem, let's blame that guy and hate him. This group of people have caused us harm, they are evil. The guy has a different idea, he's stupid. I can fix everything because I am rich, smart and successful. I can't tell you how, but I am successful, smart, and rich. Well the guy would keeps telling you that is not the guy for me.
Especially when he grossly exaggerates much of it (see qualifying list above).
I get it though. Folks are fed up, they want a new path away from politics. Hope and Change did not provide that. The other candidates are insiders. But being an outsider should not be the only qualifier. Oh yeah, and to be rich, smart, and successful.
The thing is Trump the businessman today is nothing more than brand. For the most part, he does not build things, he does not develop things, he does not make things, he brands things with his name. That's why he has less risk, less failures, it's the developer that went bankrupt, it's the producer that failed, it's the builder that's shaky. So everything he is doing right now, whether he wins or not, builds that brand image. He is inflating his personal asset to be able fly the Trump-brand for decades to come. And what's underneath? Hot air.
It's all good for The Donald.
Nicole1021 
Franklin love it my man comes out to speak to your the best, follwed by twisted sister where not gonna take it, figgin awesome
Then why are they starting to mock him and call him "irrelevant?"
Most of my friends and family are Democrats or Liberal leaning (to my frustration) and in conversations with them of late, I find that Trump is FINALLY making them actually THINK about the illegal immigrant problem, the economy, ObozoCare, Hillary's deleted emails, what a jerk most Washington politicians are, etc, etc, etc.
If nothing else, I think he is finally waking up some Liberals to how their policies are really not working as they had planned and he is bursting their little Pollyanna bubble - just a bit - I hear it in their comments.
Anyone who would call it ObozoCare is not being objective.
It is RomneyCare, just watered down by a cranky congress.
I'll keep an open mind about Trump, I take my vote in the GOP primary seriously; he's got a year to show me what he wants to accomplish, but most importantly, HOW.
If he doesn't win, the voters will be sending him a message that says ...
YOU'RE FIRED.
"Anyone who would call it ObozoCare is not being objective.
It is RomneyCare, just watered down by a cranky congress."
Which also sucks. Objective enough for you?
But if Trump can stop illegal immigration, who will pick the produce to fill the buffets and restaurants at his resorts, casinos and golf courses?
No, that's an opinion JR. Perhaps you can illuminate us as to the reasons for your opinion of RomneyCare.
There is no being objective or (the opposite) impartial when you think something is a total fail. I call it ObozoCare because the few people I know that signed up for it hate it. Most of the doctors I know don't take it (including my gyno here in town - big sign "we do not accept the Affordable Care Act") and the deductibles are ridiculous.
I would love one person who has it to tell me they love it. Maybe there are but nobody I know who actually has it, has ever stood up for it, saying they like it. Nobody.
I'd rather work to improve it, than discard it.
Healthcare should not be a privilege for wealthy people only.
Pardon my idealism.
By the way, there are a lot of people "on the fence" like me -- I guess the number is in the millions. We won't be persuaded by phrases like "it sucks" ... you're going to need our votes.
You might want to try reading "How to win friends and influence people'' by Dale Carnegie.
Heidi - "There is no being objective". Sure there is. Opinions can be based on many things including logic, experiences, emotions, and any combination of those things.
If you want someone who is glad to have ACA it would be my brother. He has been struggling with putting together 4-5 different community college jobs because they will not give enough courses to warrant health care. With ACA he has coverage for the first time in over 15 years which is important for him with Type 1 diabetes, a thyroid condition and a heart valve replacement. With that history companies denied him instantly until ACA came around.
As much as he is glad to get coverage, he is more happy about getting my sister-in-law covered. She has lupus and has also been denied coverage, to the point where even a fibroid over 40 lbs was left untreated because it was supposed to be non-critical. With coverage she now has gotten cataracts done and will be getting a hip replacement.
"Healthcare should not be a privilege for wealthy people only."
It's not a privilege for wealthy people- they EARN MONEY and PAY FOR IT. That is not the definition of privilege.
I'll let this Bruce Hornsby song speak for me, and if you don't get it, you don't get it.
Not worth my time and trouble to argue with you.
The way it is -- Bruce Hornsby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlRQjzltaMQ
Friend finally can afford healthcare. 2 years ago she was in and out of the hospital. As a result she had to file for bankruptcy
Now she has coverage and is able to get medical care and meds...:this has been a huge help for her...,..
I'm so naive, I've voted for 65 years and thought candidates were people of Honor,Integrity and all that good stuff.Apparently that does not exist in a "Boomer" culture as per the results of the past 40 years !!
Oldtimer Heidi wrote:
There is no being objective or (the opposite) impartial when you think something is a total fail. I call it ObozoCare because the few people I know that signed up for it hate it. Most of the doctors I know don't take it (including my gyno here in town - big sign "we do not accept the Affordable Care Act") and the deductibles are ridiculous.
I would love one person who has it to tell me they love it. Maybe there are but nobody I know who actually has it, has ever stood up for it, saying they like it. Nobody.
______________________________________________________________
When you say, "the few people I know that signed up for it, hate it", and "most doctors I know don't take it", what exactly is the "it" that you're referring to? From the context of the rest of your post you seem to be referring to Obamacare (aka the ACA). Is that right?
Also, "objective" is not the opposite of "impartial".
Bruce Hornsby?? THAT's who you're getting your political views from?? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
No wonder the country is in the state it's in.
Yeah everybody has a "friend" who loves ObozoCare. Sure, ask your "friend" how much they pay every month and what their deductible is, then get back to me.
It should be enough to tell you, Heidi, that this woman can now afford care, follow up on issues from her hospitalization, and appropriate prescriptions. Before she she went to the hospital as an emergency case - partly covered by temporary medicaid - and then socked with bills she could never pay in her entire life. As I said previously, she was forced into bankruptcy.............Isn't that enough information for you. She is not the only one who finally has coverage - She is the working poor.
JerryG There's TWO sides to every story....
I was an Obamacare supporter- but Obamacare has hurt my family:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/10/im-an-obama-supporter-but-obamacare-has-hurt-my-family/
5catmom excellent point coverage was meant for people like her. but no one understands the facts of health coverage they just bitch and moan, so the argument you will get is why should we pay for her health care, we already were, before obamacare it was in your rates called the uncompensated care fund, How do i know this i ran employee benefits for 20 years at prudential, now this person has coverage and can get the care they need, if they have no coverage the only place they can go is the ER cause they will be treated, so in the previous days your child has a 105 fever so a trip to the doctor which may cost 200 now cost 2000, thats why he changed it, these poor people can go to a doctor and it drives down the uncompensated cared fund. I know some of you wont get this but its true
There is also that third option that very, very few people consider. Sure, the health-care system was messed up, before the ACA. And sure, some hard-working people object to paying for health insurance for poor people (both before and after the ACA0. And sure, some people who didn't have insurance now have it, under the ACA.
But what about the possibility that the health-care system was messed up and needed to be fixed, BUT that the provisions of the ACA were not the best way to do it?
So, Heidi, you want ONE example of someone who likes the Affordable Care Act. Then you get several, but they're not examples. Make up your mind.
I have self-employed friends who have called the Affordable Care Act a "game-changer." In a good way. But I guess they don't count as examples either because I'm not willing to send you notarized affidavits.
there is no one provision to fix it, thats the hard truth, but the point of aca was never that your cost would go down, but that it would go up less then it could have, health care rates were trending at about 12% prior to ACA, they will have to be measured after a few years of ACA to see if trend is down
Jersey wolf,
There are indeed major problems with the healthcare system that the ACA did not address. It wasn't intended to fix all of the problems, and surely more work needs to be done. However, that doesn't mean that the ACA wasn't a big step forward in resolving any important problems including the number of uninsured and under insured, denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime coverage limits and more.
Heidi,
First, I want to add to your list of ACA success stories. I have two friends that were uninsured prior to the ACA that now have coverage. They are very happy. I have had coverage through my employer for many years. The ACA caused my premiums to go down for the first time ever. I'm happy with it.
Lastly, your previous statements about the ACA demonstrate that you know very little about what it actually is. ("Most doctors I know don't take it.") I think you should learn a little more and try to keep an open mind.
Gadfly, I agree that doing something is often better than doing nothing. However, in the case of the ACA, I believe that, in order to properly address the problems, the government would essentially have to re-do much of what was done, which will only cause more chaos and cost more money.
I realize that everyone has their opinions about the ACA, but the biggest failure, as I see it, is that it is not a nationalized system. It's a jumbled conglomerate of 50 different systems, none of which work exactly the same, and each with a different--and costly--administrative hierarchy. This especially causes chaos, when a citizen moves from one state to another. It also didn't properly address the problems with expensive lawsuits over healthcare, as the companies will now sue each other even more, as more people are insured.
Unfortunately, in order to create a more nationalized system, at this point, the existing ACA would have to be essentially reversed and re-engineered from the start.
Sometimes, doing something is better than doing nothing. But most of the time, it's best to do things right, the first time.
Yes. JerseyWolf -- It is best to do it right the first time.
Thousands upon thousands of people have been adversely affected by Obama's "50 employees or less" rule
People are now paying thousands of dollars for health care when they were previously covered by their employee --- people have lost jobs because of this -- and spouses & children who were covered through their job have now lost health coverage and have to pay out of pocket. (if they can afford it)
Good job, Obama. I guess you have no problem screwing the middle class -small business- hard working American.
Well...my point is that I have not had ONE person (in the first person) sat that THEY like the ACA (ObozoCare to me). Everyone is STILL talking about their "friend" or "neighbor" who "loves" Obamacare. If it's so great WHY have I not heard or read ONE SINGLE actual person (not a friend of a friend who's life was saved by Obamacare, lol!) tell me their own experience with it? Not one.
I have talked to many people with it and not one of them like it. The deductibles are super high and the cost per month is high. Keep in mind there was a honeymoon period where the first round has been subsidized -- I can't wait to hear what everyone's "friends" have to say when they actually have to start paying the real cost for it it 2016.
That just means the people in your circle don't like it. Or are afraid to tell you they do.
I know people in Maryland who like it, do they count? Oh yeah, it works a little bit differently in Maryland. It is not uniform for every state.
Jeff missed the message in the Bruce Hornsby song. Oh well, we can't all be enlightened ... I was a GOP loyalist when I was young, too. ... even went to the White House with my dad ... to a big shindig put on by the Republican National Committee because he gave them money .... not just 20s either. We were Spiro Agnew's invited guests ... Nov. 12, 1971 ... OH YEAH.
'
Good posts, nice to see success stories. Sort sounds like Social Security all over again.
Heidi, you need to get out more :>) I posted actual deductibles with the NJ ACA and $0 is a choice.
DRK16: not a clue what you mean re: the uncompensated fund.
ACA was always about insuring Americans to avoid family fiscal destruction just because someone got sick. We can argue the name Affordable, but rates have been increasing at a lower rate of inflation.
J-Wolf: a national insurance plan negates state's rights but is an idea. I think the transparency of the ACA might arrive at the same end result over time, market-driven.
Heidi: subsidized thus far and ending in 2016? Not sure what you are talking about or where you got this.
JR gets the "best post" award. Even though hitting below the belt re: using a WP story ::>), and the fact the story itself answered the question when the aggrieved themselves noted their insurance was more affordable, the issue remains. In CA, somehow the insurance exchange limits the doctors and hospitals that can be used. Worse yet ---- the directory of available doctors was broken, didn't work, and might not be fixed by 2016.
I don't understand the whole problem and it is CA, might not be the entire nation or even any other state. But in CA, to reduce cost/prices, ACA insurers limit doctors and hospitals. Worse yet, you can have an approved hospital, denied DR or vice-versa making seeing the DR of your choice and the hospital of your choice a nightmare. This is a chicken-egg thing; the hospital/DR did not accept the prices the insurer was willing to pay for services, so is the insurer cheap or is the DR/Hospital cheap --- don't know, does anyone? Not sure whether any CA ACA choices include unrestricted access, just don't know, does anyone? And not sure if it is getting better for 2016, don't think so, again does anyone know? And don't know how widespread the problem is, certainly CA, but not sure how many other states.
In general, for new insurance subscribers, this should not be a crushing blow, it is what it is. But for those whose plans were dropped (you can keep your plan, remember), like those in the WP article, they feel and are screwed. So, to me, there are two problems: first people lost their plans, that was wrong. Second, CA may be setting up a system of haves and have nots if approved hospitals/DRs offer a lower quality than those who are not approved. That's criminal.
But the real problem is Congress. Since the ACA passed their entire time has been spent in repeal and zero time has been spent fixing problems. B. Boxer in Politico was quoted as saying "“The House has voted 55 times. The Supreme Court said it’s fine. (twice says SD) We’re reaching 20 million Americans who now have health care,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Friday. Repeal “would hurt too many people, it would create chaos.”
There are problems with the ACA needing investigation and perhaps mitigation
- the CA problem noted by JR
- the 50-person rule including escape by multi-location conglomerates
- the 40-hour rule
- increased competition (NJ has only 6 players on its exchange) and used of most economic order/price model (confusing, I covered this elsewhere, will lower prices, NJ does not use)
After 5 years of wasting time and money with attempted ACA repeal, there are real problems that need to be investigated and potentially addressed to help the ACA be better. The problem is not so much the ACA as it is a non-productive wasteful Congress. Fix, not repeal should be our mantra.
Good post JR, spot on.
Andy, I'm not a GOP fan. Believe it or not.
Secondly, again- getting your "enlightenment" from pop music is no way to go through life, son.
Still waiting for ONE person who actually HAS Obamacare to say something themselves so I can ask them some questions about their experience.
All I know is my Ob/Gyn, my primary care doc AND my neurologist ALL have signs posted at their reception areas stating that they "do not participate in the Affordable Care Act." And the only 3 people that I have ever found who actually was on ObozoCare said they hated it.
Say what you want, but all I would like is to have ONE person (not a friend of a friend - the ACTUAL PERSON) who is on it to speak up.
The fact that no one has voiced a personal opinion does not necessarily make an opinion. The total uninsured market stood at about 15% before the ACA. Through the ACA, about 5% have signed up.
So in the scheme of things, 5 out of an average of 100 HLers might apply to your scrutiny.
The fact that you believe your three but know nothing except this and what your DRs say speaks volumes.
Again, as far as the DRs refusing service, there is no ObamaCare to turn down, there is just insurance. Now, NJ ranks lowest in accepting new Medicare patients and the ACA has created a huge pool of new Medicare patients in NJ. NJs medicare program, designated NJ FamilyCare has always had a low doctor participation rate. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA but the ACA has created new Medicare customers to be refused. Why does NJ have the lowest medicare participation rate in the US? High prices? The ACA? NO. NJ Medicaid physician reimbursement rates are the lowest in the country. Its a state thing. Its a Christie thing, Don't believe me? Well he actually found money. Guess where he found it? From the state charity care fund for hospital reimbursement for treatment of uninsured patients. Wanna guess why there's extra money in that fund??????
Christie put $72M next years budget to fund additional Medicare doctor and hospital reimbursements.
For private insurance, which includes the ACA plans, NJ DR participation is 89%, a full 5% above the national average. That means Heidi's examples are in the last 10% and generally because they won't accept the payment levels from these insurance plans that 90% of NJ doctors do. For NJ doctors to refuse private insurance plans from the exchange they would have to refuse over hundreds of plans from 6 providers, some of the majors I listed above.
Chances are Heidi's noble doctors are refusing new Medicare patients with are mostly ACA enrollees but post the ObamaCare sign because it shows their political agenda, is trendy and gives them someone to blame. I mean WTHeck is ObamaCare anyway? It's insurance for goodness sakes and it's not called ObamaCare. Imagine if these DRs refusing new Medicare patients instead correctly posted "Won't take Medicare because ChristieCaresNOT can't belly up to the bar."
Nonetheless if Heidi outs these doctors, I would be glad to find out whether it's just ACA Medicare (or all new Medicare) or the entire ACA hundreds of plans and a half dozen major providers. Just waiting for Heidi to list the doctors who actually refuse Obamacare so I can ask them some questions about their experience.
http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_doctors_least_willing_to_accept_medicaid_patien.html
http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_doctors_least_willing_to_accept_medicaid_patien.html
its ok strangerdanger i did this stuff for 20 years, basically prior to aca we were paying for people who had no coverage, built into the rates of your insurance was uncompensated care, meaning everytime someone went to the er and could not pay cause they had no coverage there is a portion of the rates that we pay that was for uncompensated care, and its alot, Make sense?
Heidi, I was uninsured, prior to the ACA. After the ACA was passed, I applied for coverage, here in New Jersey. I qualified for 100% free coverage (including dental and optical coverage), with no co-pay for services or prescriptions. I have since had basic medical, dental, and optical checkups, as well as extensive dental work and new eyeglasses, all free of charge.
I am (as with most insurance coverage) limited to a list of care providers I can see (except for emergency services at hospitals). And I did find that some providers immediately dropped my insurance plan, shortly after the ACA was passed. However, there are always at least some providers in the general area--my doctor and dentist are both about a 5-minute ride from my home.
So, for me, you could say that the ACA was a "success," and I'm sure that many other uninsured people would claim the same thing--I have received thousands of dollars worth of free medical care, because of it. And yet, as a citizen, looking at the ACA from a neutral, outside point of view, I still believe that the ACA--as it was written and as it currently functions--is detrimental for the nation, overall. And I believe that the ACA did little, if anything, to address the bloated bureaucracy that is the American health-care system or to address the often-unnecessary rising costs of medical care to the nation.
So, for people like JerseyWolf, it was a success. But what about those people who did NOT "get to keep their doctor" as promised, who did NOT "get to keep their healthcare plan" as promised, what about the small businesses that cannot comply with the ACA due to lack of enough funds? Not to mention all the huge companies that were given WAIVERS (like McDonalds, I believe).... the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
And if we're going to use the logic of "if it helps JUST ONE person".... well then, I have a CCW debate for you.....
JerseyWolf, so you received thousands of dollars of free medical care, good for you but someone is paying for that. Wonder who?
Good grief. I lost my dental coverage and my health plan is more expensive with a higher deductible and less coverage. I'm thrilled to death that I'm paying for JerseyWolf to have better coverage than me. So much for trying to be self employed and taking care of myself.
kb, somebody is certainly paying. That's the nature of insurance. I haven't been in car accident that my insurance had to pay for since about 1991 (and that was a minor collision with a deer), and yet I still have to pay car insurance. Some people chain smoke for 50 years, and then run up a lot of medical bills for lung-cancer treatment, while others strive to lead a healthy life. Some couples have 5 children, costing their insurance company a small fortune in medical bills, while other couples have no kids. And then you have stories like that guy who recently tried to take a photo of a rattlesnake, only to get bitten and end up with $150K in medical bills for the anti-venom treatment. Ultimately, with health insurance, some people are going to "win," and others are going to "lose."
As for the fact that some people receive entirely free medical care? I think that's just like any other "welfare" argument--does the nation, as a whole, wish to provide necessary assistance to those in need who cannot afford it? I think, to that, the nation, as a whole, agrees that it is a good idea--otherwise, there would be no such forms of "public assistance." (The question of who, exactly, is "in need," however, is often debatable--such as with the issue of providing free medical care to illegal aliens.)
However, despite all of that, I still believe that the ACA was the wrong way to fix the existing problems. It's like your friend needing another $50, to pay his rent, this month. But instead of just giving him the money, to be a good friend and help him out, you give somebody $150, and he gives your friend $50.
Ollie - If you are self employed that you didn't lose dental, you chose not to have it on your own. That's not unusual because most people go through periods where they need nothing and it makes no sense. And then they sign up for two years and get all their work done. That has been the case for 20 or more years, nothing to do with ACA. So has been the upwards shift of deductibles, cost, formulary multi-tier drug coverage, and pre-approvals. If you are self employed you've been playing the yearly game of decisions of which options to give up that the insurance companies have manipulated their prices. Been there and done that one. Is it really that some one else now has the same rate as you, or that they no longer subsidize us?
All dental insurance is a joke and is not worth debating, even if you work for a large company the most your gonna get in coverage in a year might be 2000 bucks, and you have to pay premiums all year, your better off just paying your dental expenses and claiming it on your taxes. Period
I am not sure it's like that at all JWolf, but I can't understand your analogy.
DrK --- yet Christie found $72M in the uninsured insurance charity fund so it sounds to me like less people are using the fund. A lot less. Tens of millions less. A whole lot less.
JR, there have been a number of success stories here and some failures. With over 20 million more Americans covered, insurance price increases dramatically slowing, and an actual pent-up demand for needed medical care, I think there's some success here. There are unaddressed problems too; it would be nice to address them. Once again, the best you can come up with is to say it stinks but you have no solution except more guns. Brilliant.
Fact is with 20 million new subscribers and millions of new added under-26 year olds good luck just saying it stinks and let's do away with it. Good luck with just doing away with it. Even The Donald is quoted as saying:
"He pledged to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "without cutting it to the bone" by "making the country rich again." He vowed to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better, although he didn't provide any details"
"I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare."
(from ontheissues.org)
Now he does not have a clue how to do this beyond "making America rich again" but, by gum, he's gonna do it cuz he's smart, rich, and successful. Then again, he does not have a clue on any plans. Perhaps its just that he does not have a clue except for a list of issues and to demean, belittle and foul-mouth anyone who disagrees or even raises a question. Makes one wonder how far he would punish dissenters if he sits at the top of our power structure.
You have to give me credit for getting back on topic though :>)
Thank you JerseyWolf for your perspective - that's what I have been looking for for the past year. I just hope in 2016 when the subsidies cease you are not caught paying a lot for that coverage.
"All dental insurance is a joke and is not worth debating, even if you work for a large company the most your gonna get in coverage in a year might be 2000 bucks, and you have to pay premiums all year, your better off just paying your dental expenses and claiming it on your taxes. Period"
With all the work I had done in 2014... I wholeheartedly DISAGREE. Get 1 implant and you come close to blowing through that $2000 pretty quick.
JR, I think that all comes down to the ol' "insurance is like gambling" analogy. You're betting that you will need the insurance, so you will "win." The insurance company is better that, even if you need some insurance, enough other people won't, and they will be able to gain money by investing your premiums, so they will "win."
If you have always had healthy teeth and take good care of them, and if you can't find inexpensive dental insurance, then it might be a good "bet," to go without it. Or if, like me, you have always had softer-than-normal tooth enamel, and broke two teeth in little-league baseball, and were born with two baby teeth that had no permanent teeth underneath them, and had your wisdom teeth grow in sideways, then insurance can be a good "bet."
Dental coverage is a big joke unless you don't have it. So let's get back to the "Donald" which was what the original post was about. I'm looking forward to the first debate. Could be like nothing we have never seen before.
Ollie, I think that a lot of people are looking forward to a Trump debate--particularly the comedians and late-night talk-show hosts. Because no matter what the candidates have to say, it's sure to be entertaining and memorable!
"It was in response to you saying the privilege of health care should be earned by people who do work."
yo Andy, that's not what I said. Your primary confusion is that you seem to think healthcare is a privilege, or a right.... it is not. You could certainly attempt to change the constitution, if you think your side has the numbers....
BTW- I haven't watched MSM- including Fox- in a long time now.... probably 2 years.
Yo, Jeff, the song was about people not getting jobs because they are black.
It was in response to you saying the privilege of health care should be earned by people who do work.
Not everybody who wants work gets that opportunity ... some are denied due to their race, others due to their age .... some work but at places that don't provide healthcare coverage --- they certainly need ObamaCare.
I know someone who lost her job and healthcare after being at the same place 30 years. Wasn't fair.
Anyway, getting back to Mr. Trump it is nice to hear him say he'll "get the jobs back" that have been outsourced overseas over the years.
I'd like to know how he plans to do it .... if he promotes the old "trickle down" economics, he's no better than the rest of that pack.
We need to invest in a lot more training and re-training to get people working.
Seems like higher education is becoming for wealthy folks only.
By the way, there are lots of meaningful lyrics in songs that deliver a powerful message. They tell the story of where we have been, where we are, and where we are going. Stop watching all the crap on FOX NEWS and get enlightened with some music, young man.
JerseyWolf, my comment about dental insurance was meant to convey that is it NOT a "joke", whatever that was even supposed to mean.
"Makes me wonder how far he would punish disenters if he sits at the top of our power structure", does Barack Obama fit that description?
If we deny people healthcare because of their economic standing, we can't call ourselves a civilized country.
We're no better than the feudal fiefdoms of 600 years ago.
I'll share an anecdote, and I don't blame Obama for it, it is the greedy pigs who
run the insurance companies.
My doctor advised me to get a colonoscopy since my last one was in 2007. I scheduled one, but then my guardian angel told me to check with my insurance company ... they won't cover it until 2017... so much for cancer prevention.
Some greedy pig decided that --- not my doctor.
Jersey Wolf,
One of my relatives is on medicaid. We can't find any dentists that accept it. Does your dentist take medicaid? That's one of the problems with the ACA. If your income is very low they automatically put you on medicaid. Try to find a provider, it's next to impossible. If anyone knows of a dentist in the area that takes medicaid please let me know.
Indy2 Andy, not sure what insurance company you have but you should be able to get one every 5 years and sooner if the Doctor recommends it.
Andy, it sounds like getting a colonoscopy is a real pain in the . . . ahh, never mind. That one was too easy.
all ya did was make my point jersey wolf, cause after the plan pays the 2000 thats it, so if you have 8000 in expenses your done, so you pay premium all year for 2000 in coverage thanks for making my point
Not every dental plan costs the same, or covers the same procedures, or has the same limits. Also, some procedures can be put off until the next calendar year.
Obviously, it would make no sense to pay $2,000 a year in premiums, if the maximum coverage you will receive is $2,000. But if you paid $500 a year, and you maxed out your services for two years, you will already have saved $3,000. So, yes, some dental plans are advantageous for some people. They must be, or nobody would ever have them.
Hey man, its just my thoughts, i only ran employee benefits for Prudential for 20 years so on this topic i kinda know what im doing, on the rest of the topics i dont
if your employer offers a flexible savings account your much better off using that for dental and remember 2000 is alot and is prob the best plan you will seee, just trust me on this one and since most major expenses are only covered at 50 percent you would need 4000 in expenses to get your 2k
Doctor K16 - that is exactly why I decided not to purchase dental insurance - (no it's not a benefit for retirees)............The value of the plan was barely worth the premium.........so I have paid for 3 visits a year to the dentist, and three to the periodontist..........Substantially more than the plan would have covered after premiums.....
jjad "since most major expenses are only covered at 50 percent you would need 4000 in expenses to get your 2k"
Doctor K16... you may have run employee benefits for your company for 20 years or whatever, but you're not well-informed across the board regarding dental plans, apparently, because everything you have stated here "as fact" does NOT apply to mine.
I didnt say every plan was like that, if you have a great plan congrats, but dont tell me i dont know about dental, i negotiated contracts for our employees 25000 of them, so what is your plan jefferson republic that its so good please enlighten me
Andy,
No one is "denying" anyone anything. It's like most things in this world- if you want it, you have to buy it. I know capitalism is a dirty word around here... especially with those of you who think the Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government healthcare"... but healthcare has never been denied to anyone. I agree the healthcare industry is a wreck, it's costs are prohibitive and ridiculous, and something needs to be done. I just think Obamacare isn't it. I've already seen enough of it's "performance" to prove to me it's not the solution.
Ironically, most of those same people who think healthcare is a privilege or right despite it's NOT being in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights are the same people who have no problem infringing the rights' of others across the board. One right in particular.
And please, don't insult our intelligence by starting the whole "general welfare" argument....
http://lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
and jefferson republic why does it bother you so much that someone states there job, its just the truth what i did, again generally plans cover 2000 max if your employer is giving you unlimited benefits then god bless you, im just saying in my 20 years as an EXPERT, i have never seen that
Then maybe you're not the expert you think you are... What "bothers" me is when someone makes a blanket statement like "all dental insurance is a joke", stated as fact when it's not, yeah that bothers me. Thanks for sharing your experience/expertise and all, but apparently it is not truth across the board.
Just like Obamacare being a "good" thing also isn't truth across the board.
And even it "doing more good than bad" is HIGHLY debatable.
My family never a dental insurance that covered more than $2K per person - plans offered by huge corporations, medium size companies and practically mom-and-pop shops (25 years span). Just recently my daughter had to select a dental plan, company offered 5 plans, none was more than $2K, actually 4 have coverage $1000-1500. She selected the one with lowest premium (practically to cover basic procedures). If needed - she will have expensive procedures done next year and get a better dental plan. When you have insurance and doctor participates in a plan, he/she have a set price for procedures and can't charge super-high price. It affects your out-of pocket amount.
If someone participates in "cafeteria" plans - the amount you put in it is deducted from your earned income and in a case of losing a job, your unemployment benefits amount will be decreased because it's based on your taxed income.
Lena Jersey Wolf,
Which dentist accepts your plan? I am trying to find a provider who will accept a medicaid patient. Please let me know. We have been looking for a year and a half and have found none.
Indy2 - here is a list of dentists accepting medicaid: http://www.medicaiddentistry.com/newjersey.html
Indy, it depends on the individual provider and plan you have chosen. You will have to look up providers, for your specific plan.
I've been going to Rand Dental, on 206 in Flanders. I rather like them, so far--unlike some prior dentists I've experienced. If it's not too far, for you, you could always look them up and give them a call, and ask if they accept your plan.
Pardon my idealism, I'd like to see the world getting better and see people pulling together.
God keeps us here on this planet until we get it right.
I pick and choose what I am "liberal" about --- if Trump really has a solid plan to improve the healthcare system, and it separates him from that pack of Jackals that passes for Republicans these days, then do your due diligence, Donald, and bring it forward.
I'll vote for you if it is worthy of being taken seriously. You've got several months before the primaries. You have our attention, so do something.
"God keeps us here on this planet until we get it right."
You don't ACTUALLY read the bible, do you? lol
"For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we rejoice when we are weak but you are strong. What we pray for is your improvement."
2 Corinthians 13: 8-9
"Finally, brothers, rejoice. Mend your ways, encourage one another, agree with one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you."
2 Corinthians 13: 11-12
Um Andy, when Apostle Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, he was speaking directly to the people or Corinth while he was there on an aprox 18 month mission trip. The "mission" was to get the people of Corinth to stop following false doctrines, stop treating each other poorly and to teach them how to properly follow God's law (as they were not at the time, but they thought they were).
The "truth" Paul was speaking of was God's word because they were making things up as they went. Kind of like many so-called Christians are doing now. They were "interpreting" the Word to fit their wishes and not following the word as it was written because they though their way was better.
Yeah.
Oh, I've also read Revelation and made reference to it in an earlier post on the Iran thread.
I agree that people use biblical quotations to suit their own agendas all the time.
So my question is, you have a problem with people being encouraged to get along and share the love of God?
Is that outdated? What's your point?
My point is this:
You said something along the lines of "God keeps us here until we get it right". That is false. Humankind will never get it right. HENCE CHRIST'S RETURN.
FWIW, Christian tho I am, I never use bible verses to try to support my political views.
Get it right does not mean sinless. Did I say sinless?
I do believe that God does not take people until they are "ready."
You're just being argumentative. If I agreed with your politics, you would not be so mean spirited.
May the God of love and peace be with you.
"If we deny people healthcare because of their economic standing, we can't call ourselves a civilized country."
Add a check box to your tax returns authorizing a voluntary charitable contribution and see how many people do this - that will tell you how "civilized" we really are.
I'm an Orioles fan, I wear orange-colored glasses.
I'll leave the Rose-colored glasses to you, in hopes that Pete finally gets into the Hall of Fame.
Yes, the "serious" issues of the day LOL
Can someone please tell where and when anyone was ever denied healthcare? Insurance or not I believe any emergency room on our country would provide care.
But many people have gone into bankruptcy because they could not pay the bills.
Also, when bills don't get paid, the servicing hospital suffers financially.
Many hospitals do a good job of raising money for charity care (children's hospitals benefit from a national telethon), but considering the astronomic cost of care, it probably does not come close to meeting their expenses.
I'm sure if someone at the regional medical center actually has enough time in their day to read what goes on at HL, they could give us an accurate report on this.
Yes, ER rooms take all comers for the most part. As Andy says, if you don't have insurance but have assets they will tried to get paid. Your house, your car, they are just a creditor at that point. And not what you an I pay with insurance. Not at a copay rate, not at the insurance lobbied for rate. That would be just a fraction of what you would pay at ER without insurance. Like 40-60%. You would pay the highest rate which if for something minor will include all those ER surrounds as well.
Or put it this way. Chris Christie found $75M in this years state budget from the normal funding used to help defray these walk-in situations to keep the hospitals whole. Apparently that's how many more people in NJ are on insurance and not hitting the ERs and defaulting on the bill. $75M worth.
Thank you Obama.
So I guess ACA isn't working as promised. Well, back to Trump, for which this post originally started. It's been over a month and he's still the man on top. I must say I'm enjoying the media try and figure him out.
"But many people have gone into bankruptcy because they could not pay the bills."
Exactly. That's why some people don't go to a doctor or ER at all - they simply don't want to be a burden for their families. If you don't have a health insurance of any type, it's a choice - to make your family homeless or get a treatment. Even with health insurance medical expenses can drain your family finances completely. And if you are sick and you are a health insurance provider - the second you tell your employer you are undergoing a serious treatment that can make you miss work days, you can lose your job and health insurance in a blink of eye.
I'm hoping someone in the Trump camp has found this thread --- The Donald didn't make millions by having things slip by him, right.
By the way, Donald, I enjoyed going to those USFL games in the 80s. Went to the last one ever played, at Giants Stadium, when the Baltimore Stars beat the Oakland Invaders in the 1985 championship game.
What did you do with the three bucks the USFL got in that verdict in your case against the NFL? You couldn't just stay a spring-early summer league?
The Stars never got to defend their championship.
Boy it looks like the Dems are scrod this election. Emailgate getting serious. Sanders looks like McGovern. Biden and Kerry starting to look leading edge........
I just pray you conservatives make the right choice and don't shoot yourselves in the foot again. Hint: it ain't Trump.
Well, Bill Clinton won twice with all kinds of controversy and scandal and baggage. In the end, people will vote for the person who they feel will make their lives better.
It's like rooting for a football team ... if your player isn't in jail and is allowed to play ... go get 'em. Yay, team ... (I'm a Ravens fan (-;
I got a kick out of this Paul Mulshine column (he's more conservative than most columnists) about The Donald...
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/lets_get_donald_trumpto_negotiate_that_tarns-hudso.html
There is a real political revolution going on. I hope we wind up with a two party system again. We haven't had one in quite a while.
Well, we do have one ... a Democrat president and Republican congress and senate... it seems the public wants to have it divided, so one will protect us from the other LOL
Not really. They have just been dividing up the spoils among themselves for years. There is nothing conservative about the Republican leadership.
The Republican leadership is conservative but not as right-wing as some here would like. They have some actual responsibilities to help govern the country.
Depends on your vantage point Old Gent :>)
Hillary is not Bill and she rides no coattails there either. One example is Bill was not only a slicker snake than Trump in escaping the noose, Bill always smacked em good with that reptilian tail as he left the room. Where's Ken Starr, Newt, and all the others that launched the attacks and probes. All in a ditch by the side of the road. It was a beautiful thing to behold.
Hillary is just one continual slow slide into scandal.
And yet still better than Trump's sideshow barker act.
It wasn't that long ago that the Republicans were holding up unemployment benefits, demanding cuts be made elsewhere to fund them.
Sounds pretty conservative to me.
With so much government spending simply being payment of years-old debt, which keeps on acquiring added interest, it really is a challenge to find line items to cut ... that is, when senators and congressmen don't want to touch their local pork .... they just want cuts from someone else's pork ....
and the beat goes on.
How many times have Republican stopped spending bills not counting the shutdown show. Things like the bridge to no where. They play the homey game as well as the Democrats. The military industrial funding." Dividing up the spoils" No Constitutional leadership. Follow the money buying votes is where we are at. We are a have and have not nation. There is nothing special about the nation. IMHO.
Man, add a pickup, shotgun, hound dog and a woman leaving and we gots da blues!
Well I woke up this morning
and Boehner's bridge goes no where's
ISIS got my pickup
And my hound dog sits and glares
My woman she done government shut down me when the spending bill went dry
And without my military industrial complex funding, I'm so lonely I could cry
I got those Republican buying votes stop spending homey constitutional follow the money and divide up the spoils leadership blues.....
Interesting interview in Forbes...Trump on how he'll fix Health Care-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/07/31/donald-trump-hates-obamacare-so-i-asked-him-how-hed-replace-it/
" It was a beautiful thing to behold."
So being a manipulative &#$!^& is to be held in high regard? Guess that explains a lot about the current political state of the union and why I feel like odd man out by questioning the status quo. Gotta stop doing that and just be another slick #$@^#$% so I can fit in with the rest of society ;-)
I did not use the word manipulative but rather slippery snake aka Teflon. Like Reagan was Teflon.
Nonetheless I am not sure in the context of the Starr or Newt affairs that manipulative really holds unless Clinton out manipulated his manipulators.
Starr, appointed to continue Whitewater expanded his scope to include Lewinsky, Foster, and Jones essentially using taxpayer money to investigate marital dalliances. Cost to US taxpayers was over $40M. That's some manipulation to spend that kind of dough without much result.
Newt pushed The Contract With America and then closed the government for a few weeks costing the economy $24B and knocking down the GDP by a point or so.
Newt ended up in Congressional reprimand for tax shenanigans and Starr resigned in disgrace. Both men essentially fell off the face of the national stage. That was the beauty of a Clinton retaliation; one could never really pinpoint that he did anything, but yet there it was. And yes, I found it a beautiful thing.
Trump on the other hand is weirdly attracting conservatives with his New York big mouth bad guy outside-the-main-stream style, screaming about the already known litany of problems and offering precious little in terms of solutions. Funny how the right just loves a New York attitude now. He too seeks retaliation against even questioners and dissenters. His most favorite weapon is the law suit, most often frivolous which he most liberally applies to no avail. But it makes good sound byte. Must have a fleet of lawyers for protection. His second weapon is his big mouth name calling in a Christie-esque bully boy style favoring idiot and stupid as his front line defense. Pretty easy to pinpoint these attacks and I imagine the glow will fade for supporters as it usually does for bullies.
Everyone to some degree, even you JIT, manipulates to some extent and I expect you felt that Clinton is a "manipulative &#$!^&" "slick #$@^#$% " long before this. But if you "feel like odd man out by questioning the status quo" I think you are riding a bit of a high horse. Almost every HLer has questioned the status quo at some point here.
And if you think Trump is questioning the status quo, remember that Trump is the status quo. He is questioning current politicians yet unfortunately without a clue of what to do. The emperor has little in the way of plans.
I worked in the emergency medicine field and in hospitals for over twenty-five years. It is against federal law to refuse to see a patient who presents at an Emergency Department requesting care. They must be screened, examined by a healthcare professional (RN or MD/DO) and emergent problems treated regardless of ability to pay. They can be referred to an alternate provider such as a hospital clinic for non-emergent issues; however in practicality it's easier once examined to treat on the spot and then refer for follow-up (suture removal, things like that).
This does not mean that afterwards the hospital won't come after you seeking to have the bill paid - it just means they have to take care of you REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY.
The crisis in this country is actually all about providing HEALTH CARE to all, but the politicians have bastardized that into a crisis about health INSURANCE. You can have universal access to healthcare, particularly preventative care, without our politicians getting involved in recreating the (insurance) wheel.
HH/mg/sd, that was an awfully long post to reply to a simple comment about how *I* feel about snake oil salesmen. As I said, you can praise snake men all you want, but frankly I think it's ridiculous that you put that much effort trying to spin what I say to justify your lower standards.
But alas, lower standards *are* required in today's society where, according to the government and their apologists who insist that the 40% of US GDP currently spent on entitlement programs, people simply cannot do anything for themselves and must be taken care of. I'm sorry, but I look around me and do NOT see 4 out of 10 people as blathering idiots who can't get by in life without being given assistance. Since that's not the case, isn't it prudent to ask WHY so much money is forcibly redistributed? At 40% of GDP, you don't think that something is SERIOUSLY wrong? Like maybe there are too many people, liberals with both an R and D affiliation, who continually want the government to do more and more for them? This isn't rocket science!
Ah, never mind. The real problem we have in this country is mindset, and that will only change with pain, and of course electing the snake oil salesmen of the world can only help us down that path. Might as well accelerate the process then - Hilarity or The Donald, either will do!
Interesting article in Forbes (hardly a left wing rag) on How the ACA is positively impacting Hospital's bottom line...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/08/02/as-obamacare-takes-hold-unpaid-hospital-bills-vanish/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
Ah, you were speaking in a generalized versus a specific sense. Hard to tell whether to discuss the nits or take it to the ethereal level.
Nice change of topic though again to entitlements as proof of lower societal standards, except for some like you.
Let's just keep it short: no, you are wrong on the math to say 40% of the GDP is from entitlement programs. Wrong number.
Yup, you're right. I misread the page I was looking at (the charts follow one another on the page) - entitlements are about 40% of federal spending, not GDP - they are about 17% of GDP. Thanks for the catch.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending
So now we'll deal with the 17% GDP and 2 out of 10 people being "blathering idiots who can't get by in life without being given assistance." Instead of chopping bodies, we'll use 17 out of 100 are idiots.
Of those 17, 6.4 are receiving social security. This is a pay-in, get back insurance system that they contributed to, that floats our debt, and gives them a security blanket in old age. The fund is currently solvent and has cured many problems occurring before we had SS. They are not living on the dole.
Of those 17, 3.5 are receiving Medicare, again pay-in, get back insurance unfortunately that is running a deficit so some of the 3.5 are on the dole, some are not. And this one is getting worse by the day.
Of those 17, 3.8 are receiving Medicaid, they are on the dole but we would pay for them anyway if they couldn't pay.
Of those 17, 2.6 are receiving welfare, they are on the dole but it times out, is pretty harsh and is not really living.
I just don't see 17 blathering idiots in entitlements nor do I see 17 people who live on assistance nor do I see a massive redistribution certainly not in social security and a good portion of Medicare. There is a mandate for folks to put money away for those purposes but without said mandate, our society would have many more problems than the mandate causes.
Pay-in, get back huh?
It would be great if we each funded our own SS and Medicare to the tune of net zero, but that's not true, even accounting for inflation and collecting interest, is it? You tend to always forget about that. If it were true, pray tell how both the SS and Medicare funds are on continual decline? Someone needs to pay more - a lot more - to make your statements even remotely true.
None of that matters anyway, because I'm realizing that the GDP/Entitlement ratio is completely erroneous due to the 1%/99% income disparity and it's effect on GDP. Considering that, the picture is much worse for us lowly peons.
Our economic system is completely out of balance, and it won't ever be fixed by immoral redistribution of wealth at the point of a government gun. We need structural changes, not divisive Robin Hood tactics.
While I agree on structural changes, income disparity and how it affects the GDP, and the plight of the peon, redistribution should never be assumed to be something to fix the economic balance. Wouldn't work. All taxes are redistribution by definition, pitching in for the common good like building a road, defending the country and safety netting the needy. Don't see economic fixes there but I do see economic value to a good road or a national defense.
SS is a pay-in, get back insurance system that has been solvent so far and it's been a long time. It's insurance so of course some get more, some get less. Live long and prosper. And no one needs to pay a whole lot more to re-engineer this for solvency in the future but they will pay more, and get less. It's the nature of insurance if you are living longer than you will pay more, get less.
Medicare is the same except due to the high medical inflation rate combined with longer life spans and cure rates, it's broken, runs a deficits and needs to be re-engineered for solvency. Paying deficits off from the general fund is bad form and indeed redistribution. The fix will call for higher inputs and lesser returns, a combination.
Medicaid is an entitlement redistribution to the needy but we would paid via higher insurance rates due to free ER room coverage so I guess it's the lesser of evils.
You start from a hard line that all redistribution is immoral yet usually fall back to select "except fors." I start from some redistribution is necessary for the common good, some is downright good for everyone, and many times it advantages the entire economy and national health.
But SS and Medicare and other programs are as much redistribution as any insurance plan. It's just that one is under pressure and one is under water and both require re-engineering. That happens in all insurance programs.
Coincidentally, I got this timely newsletter discussing this exact subject in my inbox this morning:
http://pgpf.org/issues/2015/08/email-newsletter-ss-medicare-trustees-open-mind-socialsecurity80-benefits-vs-taxes
IMO the Peter G Peterson foundation is non-partisan and approaches thing is a generally sensible manner.
Seems spot on and a certain myopic view that they constructed based on the trustee's report, but it is not a conclusion that the trustee's reported. It's a construct if a) nothing happens and b) all effects of doing nothing are taken from benefits. Won't ever happen but it's a view. Truth will be as I said, higher payments, less benefits, no change to current partakers and those close to partaking.
I misspoke earlier though; Medicare is indeed funded partly from the general fund and has been since the beginning in 1966. Bonehead liberals can't manage a ledger. Therefore it is a partial redistribution and getting worse. Today it's 40% tax funded, 60% subscriber/other. In 1970 it was 25/75% ratio. Therefore it also contributes to the deficit and is getting worse. I don't see use of the general fund being stopped, I just hope they have the marbles to cap it somehow.
Social Security also adds to taxes and the deficit, a minor amount, but yet it does. One, if we need cash to make payments sometimes we use revenues rather than cash the T-bills. There's a cost there. Second, interest payments on the T-bills are taxpayer costs. Again minor, not sure if we're winning or losing on this one, but it does exist.
Still don't agree but certainly leaning more in your direction whatever that is.
Does everyone have enough popcorn for Thursday night's debate? should be entertaining to say the least.
This is the first debate that might not put me to sleep! I am actually looking foreword to it. Got my bottle of wine, popcorn and and my blanket all ready. Gonna settle in and watch the fireworks!!
Based on the Trump no-show in NH where the candidates basically bumbled around, it looks to me like it's Trumps to loose. Not sure if any of his competition is ready. No excuse since they have all had the time. IMHO, will require four things:
1. ability to be glib, natural and plain-speaking, that's a tough one against Trump
2. ability to deftly defend from Trump attack professionally, simply, without looking peevish or let it go, should be able to preplan since "stupid" will be the attack
3. get him on the facts, the ability to really plain-speak, sound byte Trump factual errors to the point of unraveling him on the facts --- this is where they can really score points. He is void on the facts.
4. and most important --- draw Trump out on his actual plans or lack thereof like "what do you mean you don't have a plan"......but nicely.
Frankly, none of them look to be up to the job so looks to me like Trump's to lose. Also have to leave his lack of public service out of it since it only leads to Trump's capabilities and he has had plenty of real time practice fending off his business failures, leave out his lies about net worth, and even his educational resume lies although that's a good one if he goes down that path.
You know what's amazing about people who like candidates like this idiot, they can't even tell you why they like him. "He'll make America great" they say. Interesting...how?. "He'll send all the illegals home"....really? All 11 million of them. How?.....And what baffles me the most is that these same people, all the Yee Haw, Gun toting, Anti Women, Anti Gay, Anti women's rights people are so uneducated that they don't realize that if someone like this clown did win (BTW never gonna happen because fortunately there are more educated people in America who know better) the first people who would be out of a job, have no healthcare, and be standing in the Welfare lines (that they don't agree with either because conservatives are against that type of thing) is going to be them....
Yeah vous, like all the "edumicated" people that gave us Obama?? Yeah, real smart bunch you are.
"Yee Haw, Gun toting, Anti Women, Anti Gay, Anti women's rights people "
Who??? Never met one.
And what exactly are "women's rights" anyway? Sounds incredibly gender-biased to me.
I think I have only responded once on this thread and my answer was " No" to the OP's question. After watching last night's debate, my answer is with out a doubt, absolutely,
No! The man did himself in.
I have to comment on the quality of questions asked. I thought they were outstanding
for a first round. I hope they will run the debate again this weekend. It is the only one in my life I have ever wanted to listen to again. There were many surprising, well thoughout responses from everyone but one. I look forward to the Democratic debate and hope it is handled as well.
****VOTE FOR TRUMP!!****
He will save America! God bless the Teachers, Police Officer and Firefighters! Give them all raises that they deserve! And please put in the pension payments Gov. Christie Cream! If this fat, piece of blubber governor had any respect, he would step out of the presidential race!
Well, wasn't that special. Who would think FOX would dump on Trump? In the first minutes they helped orthodox Republicans, women, and latino's make up their minds. And then they asked the tough questions to others like: "Marco Rubio, do you like puppies?"
Thought Chris Christie did OK, not stellar, but good answer on Social Security. Thought it funny he claimed victory with 200,000 new jobs for NJ in his tenure; Kasich quoted over 300,000 a few minutes later..... Jeb was OK, but not a debater yet. Walker now is better known and may eclipse Jeb.
Trump-pets probably continued their love affair post debate but they should have noticed:
- If he loses the primary, Trump will consider running as an independent probably losing the election for conservatives. Willing to hold that wedge as a bargaining chip.
- Trump continues to demeans groups and individuals claiming he doesn't have time to be politically correct
- Trump calls for single-payer Canadian/European health plan
- Trump will somehow cover all Americans for HealthCare
- Trump calls for national purchase of insurance
- Trump couldn't make ACity work so he claimed bankruptcy and ran
- Trump gonna make Mexico build the wall
- Trump has the proof that all Mexicans are rapists; the boarder police he met said so
- Trump will not offer any pathway to current immigrants, all 11 million
- Trump donated to Pelosi and Clinton and gets favors in return when he calls
- He donated to Hillary to make sure she would come to his kid's wedding
- Trump never goes bankrupt, only his companies do so he can profit through legal shenanigans, not good work
When you take this apart, you can see that Trump just can't make time to be nice and feels better when he calls people names to be divisive, fuel hatred and create scapegoats. He is not a gentleman. And yet that's a main sore point with Obama, isn't it.
Trump favors a health care plan more hated by Americans than ObamaCare. Worse yet he plans to make health insurance a national purchase basically negating state's rights in this process.
His wall is ridiculous. Making Mexico do it implausible. What he plans to do with 11m immigrants is anybody's guess; hope makes Mexico pay for it.
Bottom line: can you imagine a Trump Presidency and freedom for all? What's the higher priority in that world: Trump desires or the Constitution, Trump wants or The Bill of Rights, Trump Federal or Non Trump State's Rights? What I see is a world where Trump gets what Trump wants where nothing would stand in the way of the most powerful man in the world. Look to the plans: I think this is a "be careful what you ask for" scenario.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination, we better get used to saying President Clinton again.
Agust Maybe Agust.
But I did hear something interesting on the radio this morning. BBC Worldwide channel no less.
If Clinton crashed and burned, there is really no one at this time to be a viable Democratic candidate.
That would virtually assure a Republican president.
I would give a 50% chance to her crashing and burning. Why do you think she is so quiet lately?
TM
Viable, there's a number. Able to win, that's a different story. But Jim Webb is very viable as is Martin O'Malley, and many, not me, feel Bernie Sanders is too. And Biden and Warren in the wings..... (please don't go Joe :>)
Best line of the night had to go to Scott Walker when talking about the Russian and Chinese hacking of US government servers... paraphrasing:
"It's pretty sad that China and Russia know what is in Hillary Clinton's emails but the US Congress doesn't".
Huckabee's seeming attack on Trump with the Hillary punchline was pretty good, too.
I haven't seen a stage with that much bad hair since glam metal went out of style. Between Trump's combover, Rand Paul's perm and whatever the hell was going on on top of Christie's head (was he trying to recreate the waves spawned by Sandy?), it was very distracting. Throw in Rubio's ears and Cruz's constipation face and you've got yourself quite the motley crew. Or Motley Crue, if you prefer...
The hair in the glam metal 80's (even on the GUYS) was MUCH better than the hair last night!!!
I KNOW..... I USED to have it, lol.
The people who paint all conservatives with a broad brush as "Yee Haw, Gun toting, Anti Women, Anti Gay" are as "racist" as anyone who paints any ethnic group with a broad brush. There is no difference.
Rich >>If Clinton crashed and burned, there is really no one at this time to be a viable Democratic candidate.
That would virtually assure a Republican president.<<
I think that both parties secretly agree that it's the Republican's turn to be prez.
This whole presidential election drama is a grand farce. Whoever is elected will continue to toe the line and bring us to an ultimate end game. They will then reset the game and the majority of us will suffer at the benefit of a few.
This thread is pretty damned long.
Seems like a lot of us here are arguing, name-calling and otherwise lending credibility to this very sick game....just like they want you to.
Ian, I wouldn't say I was a "god", but the CHICKS DUG ME :) (and our whole band)
It could be worse than that jjmonth4: The master of defying our Constitution says
'theoretically' he could win a third term......
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-says-he-could-win-theoretical-third-term
Really, Donald? Your daughter can't be too proud of you for this comment:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-kelly-comment/index.html
Until yesterday, I viewed Trump mainly as a source of amusement, with his rantings and outlandish statements as those of a big-mouthed buffoon and egocentric narcissist and that his appeal would never go beyond a certain class of voter. No more. The statements he made yesterday regarding Megyn Kelly were beyond the pale and reveal that this man is truly a sick minded individual. Fox News should never mention his name again let alone give him further publicity. His continued presence in the national spotlight is no longer merely a joke but a danger.
I agree Maja and Cynic. How or why anyone would even consider voting for this sick, egotistical, loud mouthed, crude man is beyond me. I hope those who are still supporters and have not watched the debate, will tune in tonight at 9:00 on the Fox Business Channel or CNN this sfternoon and listen to the latest nonsense going on.
I'm not saying I agree with Trump's comments--especially if he wants to be President and represent the country. But the fact is, Kelly's a pompous, annoying snot, and she started right off by attacking Trump. I can't say as I really blame the guy, for calling her out about it. The truth is, I rather respect him for it--I just think the manner of his attack was crude.
True Spring Fever. This man is constantly throwing a temper tantrum - he attacks, threatens to sue or sues anyone who he perceives has slighted him.
This can't possibly be the way we want ourselves represented to the rest of the world........... and btw if he were a student, he would have been suspended for bullying - at the least and probably sent for counseling.
Donald is doing just what I expected of him. He is a boss with out a PR person. He just doesn't care.The good is he is making them talk about items the rest would never bring up and saying things that many people want said. He got the most talking time, didn't he. Don't worry, he will fade away.
I personally prefer to see the "knife" coming than have it stuck in my back, like the majority of our political representatives do.
@5catmom..Oh you mean the way Bill Clinton **represented us** to the world...he 'literally' had someone on her knees'!!
Trump is EXPOSING the lefts weapon of political correctness that they use to stop talking about the real issues>ISIS is chopping off heads, criminals surging through our borders, 100M people on government assistance, young black men burning down Baltimore, white guys shooting up movie theaters, lslamic nut jobs murdering our service men, jobs being sent overseas, 18T in debt, Iran revving up to destroy Israel, unborn bodies being chopped up like junk yard cars, Russia and China hacking our computers, Obama playing golf, America kids being brainwashed in school, the American experience falling off the cliff, and a socialist keeps rising in the polls > LAWS 'unenforceable' and its all due to Liberals War on America!
If Megyn Kelly wants to play with the Big Boys...she better be able to take it like the Big Boys! She made her way up through ' male chauvinist' Bill O'Reilly and didn't flinch.. But...Women libbers want 'equal rights' until they've been treated or talked to like a man... then they throw out their wiley 'trump' card of ' war on women' ....Hypocrisy much?
This is a HIT JOB on Trump by the ' Establishment' on Fox News (Rupert Murdoch/ Karl Rove) to take down Trump and protect Jeb Bush who is their golden pick for the GOP Nomination!
HEAR Mark Levin 's expose on Fox News Hit on Donald Trump!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=297&v=XD-Th9jzrDM
There is no other candidate that is NOT beholding to Special Interests! Donald Trump is ALL Americans (Dem/ Rep/& Independants) Hope to STOP the Corruption of the Two Party Paradigm in DC!
2016 is our last chance to turn this Country around!
I don't think Megyn had blood coming out of anywhere (yet). I think she had a bad case of PMS that night. I usually like watching her, but 10 minutes inot the debate my friend turned to me and asked "what the hell is wrong with Megyn tonight, she seems pissed and angry!"
Funny that Trump made the comment about blood, because my reply to my friend (which I thought was funny at the time) was she sounds like me when I have PMS. We both laughed (as my husband almost nodded his head of his shoulders in agreement about me, not Megyn, lol).
Guess I'm a crude bastard too. Oh well.
From what I've heard and read, Trump was "admiring" Scott Walker. He may very well be your "chosen" candidate, Republicans.
I didn't watch the debate and really don't care who ends up "winning"...outside of my curiosity to see if this will be so.
I'll bet Trump is lovin' the limelight, though... and the American public's handlers are lovin' the drama they created.
I missed the first debate on Thursday with Carly Fiorina who has had a lot of positive press time. That debate is also on today ( Saturday ) at 5:00 on a Fox station, not sure which one.
http://iotwreport.com/megyn-bimbo-kelly-on-stern/#9i61VQHip0mOM0Qu.01
So much for Megyn Kelly's 'Faux' News Debate Outrage!!
She dished it ...I hope she can take it!
"Trump is EXPOSING the lefts weapon of political correctness"
Yeah, it's a flippin nightmare that political correctness is.
I remember once just getting clobbered by the big stick of politeness.
So much better to talk like a man, to take it like a man, o treat everyone like a man. You know, a man's man. A real man. A manly man.
You know sha44ss, there is such a thing as a gentleman.
Reagan was a gentleman. Trump is no gentleman. Not even close.
I thought the Megyn Kelly question was annoying and irrelevant. Because of Trump's post debate response, it accidentally became the most relevant question of the debate. I've always believed the Latino matters little. Not large enough yet. It's the female vote that is needed.Trump is not going to get it in the primaries. The old dinosaur can't win. Honest is good, but flat out mean reflects poor character. You can't fix that by election day.
It is so disheartening to see how many men drool over him and seem to love some facet of his disgusting personality. I feel like they are all butt hurt babies. I feel very sorry for their mothers, wives and daughters. It really is very sad.
Dont know if he said these things but if he did he is not to bright. I was taught not to talk about women that way, or anybody for that matter. If he didnt say it then good for him, but he probably did. Childish. In fact we know he said it about Rosie, and say what you want thats messed up.
>> Reagan was a gentleman. Trump is no gentleman. Not even close.<<
Yup, Reagan had that certain "je ne sais quoi"." I voted for him, twice.
But, to me, history has shown that he laid...or reinforced... the groundwork for a lot of bad policy. Amping-up the drug war imprisoned more people and created a monster in Mexico, our soft re-entry into overt military intervention (Grenada) set the stage for much greater evil.
We spend money which is created out of thin air and backed by "our American influence" to start and fight wars that use....and destroy....people and families on both sides to no end other than to serve the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower ostensibly warned us about.
Yes Heidi and incredible to say the least. Rude. Disrespectful to all women and demeaning.
> Reagan was a gentleman. Trump is no gentleman. Not even close.<<
In this Dog eat Dog $#iT world we live in anymore we don't need a Gentlemen!
We need a BULLDOG! ...We need a person who can cut through the PC CRAP....(not defined as 'politeness' strangerdanger(mrg)....PC crap is what the Establishment> Elitists/Statists/ Communists/ use to TRY and control the people! like... Just what is happening with the Donald Trump take down by Fox News.....WHY does he have to be a 'gentleman'? after Megyn Kelly just called him out for his Rift with Rosie O'Donnell where he called her a Fat Slob(which she is) and then painted it with a broad brush towards ALL women! which it is NOT! Then she takes a segment ( on the knees' comment) from the apprentice (which Fox had to do 'opposition research' to get on him) and takes it completely out of context.....and blasts him with it in front of 25 million viewers which HIS RATINGS brought to the debate!! .....I never would have thought it of Fox!.......They used to be truly Fair & Balanced! WHERE IS BILL O'REILLY in all this? He was nowhere to be found in this Fiasco.....must have wanted to have nothing to do with it....Bill can be a blowhard sometimes and I didn't agree with him on everything but he always tried to show both sides!! Goes to show how 'desperately fearful the ESTABLISHMENT who are pushing BUSH or RUBIO are of losing their power. If there is anything GOOD that came of this it is exposing the RINO's for who they truly are!!
People are sick of being controlled! People are sick of having to choose from the lesser of the two Evils controlled by a 'shadow government'! MONEY TALKS and the POLITICIANS DO THE WALK!! NONE of the other Candidates can ever be there OWN person! They will have to pay back whoever their DONORS are! That in itself is why TRUMP is resonating with the people! He is appealing to Conservatives, Democrats/ Independants/ Whites/ Blacks/ and Latino's! He
I don't care if Donald Trump is a 'male chauvinist'! Womens Libber movement have 'woosified' & pussified' our boys for too long! Women & Men have 'no respect' for each other anymore ! Boys growing up without Fathers, and Mothers degrading their men have caused the gay & lesbian movement~! God's law says the wife/ woman is to 'submit' ( respect) to her husband/man...and vice versa! We have lost ALL respect for each other and for everything!
I hope Mr. TRUMP Goes ALL the way even if he has to go 'Independant' because I really think the two party paradigm needs to implode! This Country is too far gone to FIX! We need to start over!
Here is a very good piece on Donald Trumps Appeal!
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/07/whats-the-secret-to-donald-trumps-appeal-nationalism/
Here's what looks to me like a very good analysis of what happened between Fox News and Trump:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly
Note how the author describes the internal tension at Fox between the three things that it is:
1) a ratings-obsessed cable network
2) an actual journalistic outlet
3) one of the most important institutional actors in the Republican Party
For point 1 above they helped build Trump up, then with points two and three they tore him down.
I believe I said before . The media is about making money. Fox out foxed a lot of people, making it the only show in town.
Read it......Believe there is inside turmoil and they are putting a hit on Trump but won't put any real stock into their predictions for Trump because it is a liberals viewpoint! (Ezra Klein)
"It employs hacks like Steve Doocy and Sean Hannity but also hosts people like Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, and Chris Wallace who, while they might be conservative, pride themselves on actually being journalists"
He has it Backwards....Steve Doocy & Sean Hannity ARE Conservatives... and Bret Baier Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace are the hacks that just proved they are Establishment shills!
Fox will be going down after this one! They will be the new msnbc.....Will get my news online from Drudge....Maybe TRUMP will invest in Drudge and make some REAL NEWS!
I pray we are smarter than to nominate this man. He's a great business man, has said some really great things that no one else has had the guts to say, and needed saying. However, he is not presidential material. PLEASE REMEMBER that Obama was NOT reelected by the Democrats who voted for him. (he got many less votes from them the second time around ) .............he was elected by the REPUBLICANS who refused to go to the polls and vote for Romney because they had a bad opinion of him. I would never not vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who he/she is..............to do so is just to vote for the Democrat running.
Karen Miller 5catmom - You have learned your lesson well grasshopper...
A round of 108 Buddhist chants for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPszteX0z7k
5catmom - You have learned your lesson well, as CG said . It's far to early to get worked up about. Sit back and follow the money.
"...Boys growing up without Fathers, and Mothers degrading their men have caused the gay & lesbian movement..."
Dear God...SMH
I will now join 5catmom in sitting on my hands.
maybe a few of us should meet in the lounge for an evening of sitting on hands together- our own or others
"Boys growing up without Fathers, and Mothers degrading their men have caused the gay & lesbian movement~! God's law says the wife/ woman is to 'submit' ( respect) to her husband/man...and vice versa!"
My God's law says that morons should be stoned in the street. Hey, not me, just the way my church interprets the bible. You gotta problem with that, take it up with the big guy upstairs.
5catmom... trying to join you in meditation, tongue biting, sitting on hands.. however, sadly, I think that the reason for trumps popularity among some is very clear when reading this thread..
5catmom...and everyone else sitting on their hands...
Don't forget to remove your hands from under you for at least ten minutes out of every hour, or else the lack of circulation might cause long term vascular and nerve damage.
Just a friendly public service announcement...as I slide my hands back underneath my butt, too.
Funny if any of you called your mom a fat slob who bleeds what do you think would have happened? In my household my father would have kicked my butt
While sitting on you hands, Think of this. When all is said and done. 50% will be happy and 50% will not be happy. Since the Constitution has been usurped. Think of how you are going to survive the new regime, and what adjustments have to be made to survive.
Regardless of who wins, only 1% should truly be happy... the rest of us are being screwed whether we want to admit it or not.
One thing he said which is so true is Jeb raised 100 million and he said those people give him money cause they want something from him ie corruption, so true, he then said no one gives me money cause I have my own, maybe just maybe if he were president a dent could be put in corruption, Im sure Jeb's friends have something to do with OIL, dont ya think?
"Old Gent, please tell us how the Constitution has been usurped."
Well, the really, really obvious one has something to do with limited federal government and states rights.
President Obama himself said so. He admitted things he did were unconstitutional just to get his way.
I have watched what is going on for a long time. Many things he said before being elected were unconstitutional, he changed his mind on after being elected.
This is just on example I found.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-admits-to-violating-the-constitution/
hmm.. not sure I will rise to open that particular can of worms, your perspective is appreciated - as are all thank you Old Gent
Many times he violated the constitution; many times. It's been watched for a long, long time. Yet, he said he changed the law once re: deportation, and in context it doesn't mean what you think.
Or one might wonder what's wrong that Obama can continually, repeatedly, over a long period of time violate the Constitution over and over and over and yet a Republican House and Senate can't figure out what to do about it. Old Gent can't do it; JIT can't do it even thought they have spot-on proof. All they can do is bay at the moon.
So where's the weakest link?
You just gots to put your sha44ss on and be a bulldog, not 'woosified' & pussified'. You don't need to be no polite gentlemen, you have to gut that PC Jedi-mind-control stuff to beat those Elitists/Statists/Communists, RHINOs, Rosie O'Donnell, and Megyn Kelly to bring those people to their knees (for what I do not know, but it will be impolite I dare say). Be impolite and unapologetic, that's how you bring Conservatives, Democrats/ Independants/ Whites/ Blacks/ and Latino's together!
I think old gent found one; just one, and that's a slight pull on context but think OG got one. And sha44ss has personally proven why we need more gentile people, not bulldogs and bullies. In a world where the like of sha44ss lament the sometimes divisive actions of our current President, they rally around someone who is many times worse, consistently divisive, racist and prejudiced often stepping well over the line of decent behavior. Sooner or later, Republicans will finally stand up to Trump as the bully he is and he will fade away.
Otherwise bring him on. Even Hillary will eviscerate him and if he goes independent, even Sanders can win. Turn up the volume.
Thank you Old Gent...I admit I was afraid you'd be trotting out Mr Trump's wild accusation in the past that President Obama was not a natural-born citizen.
SD,
"Or one might wonder what's wrong that Obama can continually, repeatedly, over a long period of time violate the Constitution over and over and over and yet a Republican House and Senate can't figure out"
Because Bush did a major job on the constitution also. ( The Patriot act) He opened the door for Obama
I am sitting in the lounge with a Diet Pepsi reading my Bible about Caesar turning Jesus over to the MOB for a ruling, and the murder won. Luke 412
Complaints about violations of the Constitution remind me of something I read recently.
President Thomas Jefferson was informed that he had an opportunity to purchase a huge tract of land (later called the Louisiana Purchase). He felt he did not have the power to make that purchase, and so planned to propose a constitutional amendment that would make it proper.
But suddenly time was of the essence; no time for an amendment to pass. Basically he then said, the heck with it (my words), it may not be constitutional, but this deal is too good to pass up!
I think, as with most things in life, it's less about what rules you broke, and more about why you broke them and what you accomplished. If you break in the front door of someone's house and drag their children outside, it's a serious crime. If you drive by a house on fire, stop, call 911, bang on the door and get no response, hear children screaming, kick in the door, and run into the flames to rescue the kids, you're called a hero.
Then you have something like Obama using executive authority to allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country. There were existing laws, approved by Congress, the Senate, and a former President, regarding how the nation wants to deal with illegal aliens. There was no imminent deadline (such as with there hypothetically was, with the Louisiana Purchase)--most of the affected illegal aliens have been in the US for years. And though Obama had publicly whined, many times, that Congress wasn't doing anything to reform the immigration laws, never once did I see or hear that Obama had presented a thoroughly researched, detailed plan to Congress regarding exactly how the laws should be amended, and why it would benefit the nation as a whole, and demonstrating that the amendments would represent the desires of the majority of American citizens.
Instead, President Obama just used his authority to do whatever he wanted, for his own reasons. And THAT, I believe, was a horrendous abuse of power.
I've got a hunch trump will be the nominee. As crazy and ridiculous as it would seem.
So it will be trump vs evil witch
JW -- it depends on your view of what prosecuting these folks cost us taxpayers versus what we economically gained by Obama's EO. But yes, we could have continued wasting the same amount of money deporting them.
Politically there is no doubt it was a boost for voting support of American Latino's but I think the Republicans have trumped that at this point :>)
If it comes down to Trump vs Clinton, I won't be voting. Won't be the first time. : (
I wish someone would take a poll on that issue to see how many would not be voting who normally do. Might be a lot from both sides.
I really think there should be an equivalent to a "None of the Above" vote. As it is, everyone who votes ends up picking either Clown A or Clown B--whichever they perceive as the lesser of two evils. Somebody needs to start an alternative, for those voters. Like, if you don't want to vote for any of the candidates, in any particular election, you just write in "Bugs Bunny." That way, at the end of the election, they can always count up the votes for Bugs and determine how many people really so despised all of the other candidates that they would rather vote for a cartoon.
Oh, sure--it sounds silly. But it would actually serve a practical purpose. For example, if Clinton won 30% of the vote, and the Republican candidate got 20%, and Trump got 20% as an Independent, and Bugs got 30%, then obviously, Clinton would be elected President. But every voter, and Congress, and the Senate, and the whole world, and even Clinton, herself, would know that the American people really don't support her and would rather have a different President. And maybe, next time, the whole election would go a bit differently.
JerseyWolf,
I wouldn't vote for thet lagomorph. He is too outspoken and irreverent ...... well, kinda like the Donald Duck Trump, don't you think?
My vote goes to Minnie Mouse. She is respectful and I like her shoes.
JW, the theoretical solution to the problem you present is a run-off election, where 50% +1 would be needed for election.
Under our Constitution it can get really messy, unfortunately, with the electoral college, the House of Representatives, and all that, possibly involved. Lots of room for improvement there.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/16/jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-immigration-policy-is-exactly-the-plan-america-needs/
This is big news everybody!! >If you don''t pay attention to politics and who this man is ** He is a true statesman** ! He is the intellectual leader of the conservative movement and chairman of the senate judiciary committee’s subcommittee on immigration and the national interest who issued a statement on sunday afternoon praising 2016 republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s immigration policy plan for america. It means that Trump is a serious contender and knows very well how to choose highly competent people to run the different departments composing the executive branch !! Watch the media keep trying to discredit him like they have never done before because he threathens their very existence!!
"intellectual leader of the conservative movement "
Talk about a contradiction in terms (-;
Great logic. Because Jeff Sessions agrees with Donald Trump's immigration plan that Sessions consulted heavily on, Donald Trump knows very well how to choose highly competent people to run the executive branch.
What was that plan anyhows? Won't be released to next month. If it's the Session's plan, I could use the laugh. Sessions basically wants to close down immigration: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/opinion/senator-sessions-straight-up.html?_r=0
He favors deportation without amnesty but has no clue as to covering the cost or economic loss.
Sessions competent? Not IMHO. Policy wise, as the favored son of the George Wallace state, this man would take us back in time.....to the dark ages.
Economic loss?charity care at all of the hospitals and health care would go down.Having 6 kids in the school system because of birthright citizenship?fraud in our welfare programs would go down 50%.I am sorry but get in the USA like everybody else,not just swimming a river.I am in total agreement with him.
"intellectual leader of the conservative movement "
Now there's an oxymoronic term for you.
Birthright citizenship???? Aren't we citizens because we were born here?
By all means, feel free to amend the Constitution so as not to grant citizenship to people born here. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately whatsup, most economists disagree with you, based on the facts. Illegal immigrants post a net gain to the economy, not a negative as you suggest: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/
Immigration that Sessions, and since he is writing the Trump plan, you can assume that Trump too, wants to stop is a net benefit to the nation as well. Even conservative Forbes agrees stating "The economic advantages are significant. " http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2013/09/16/immigration-benefits-the-u-s-so-lets-legalize-all-work/
Many who propose limiting immigration, deporting all illegals, etc. don't have factual support nor, more importantly, any notion of a plan to replace the loss to the economy.
Of course the economic loss would affect Session's Alabama very little given the extremely low number of illegals, the 3rd lowest in the nation, that affect his constituency's incredibly poor economy. I guess he's just in it to protect the rest of us at our own economic loss. Unlike Sessions, illegal's have the brains to avoid Alabama's weak economy and state government economic mismanagement. If state's were countries, based on economy, NJ would be Sweden, Alabama - Kazakhstan. NJ has the 4th largest percentage of illegals in the country. Or if per capita GDP in NJ is $56.5K coming in at 3r place, Alabama ranks 44th in the nation at $33.6K.
So in Session's world of no immigrants, NJ loses economically speaking and I guess Session's Alabama gains if the rest of the nation suffers.
Before we let our generalized fear of foreigners cost us tax dollars and economic benefits, we need a plan that optimizes the current situation and creates a mutually beneficial immigration path for the future. Session's/Trump's just-say-no approach cuts your nose to spite your face by hyping bad deeds by immigrants to create bogeymen that are easy to identify and hate. The truth is that a large number of illegals are not evil, they are economically beneficial to all of us and immigration has been the backbone of our nation's success.
My parents came here from Eastern Europe, fleeing Soviet oppression.
I passed thru Ellis Island in my mom's womb.
I'm glad my mom and dad got in. I'm not in any position to be opposed to immigration.
Every Caucasian reading this is the descendant of an immigrant, I would assume.
Descendant from immigrants that entered legally, contributed by working and owning businesses, educated themselves and served in the armed forces. I have no issues with those immigrants.
My parents are immigrants. They had to have a citizen sponsor and a job before the government let them in. I currently know kind, well educated, law abiding people who can not get in to the US to live. When so many want to be here, they all should have to go through a legal process/review. The economic gain, if that's what anyone wants to look at, would be much improved
Just the term " illegals" should be enough to send them back. If you want to become a citizen then do it the legal way. I get so annoyed with the statements that this country was built by immigrants and we are decendants of immigrants etc. Sure our ancestors came here, through the proper channels, and became legal citizens. My ancestors needed sponsors to accept responsibility for them, for housing, employment and didn't go into the system for medical needs, food, school for their kids etc. The only person talking about this is Donald Trump and he has struck a nerve with many people. The one we have in the White House has his head in the sand about many issues, as though he is just counting his days till it is over. We have laws for a reason and the term illegal says it all.
I think this is pretty easy, your either here legally or your not, and if your not then you should have to leave, and I agree with Trump we should stop illegals from coming over. What is so hard about this, it makes sense?
We all have many paths and most of us are good and not animals :>) We are of course a nation of immigrants. Even the natives are not really native.
The point is what do we do now. Sessions, Trump and company make bogeymen fanning the flames of hatred to feed our frustration with our slow economy. They gives us the easy answer to kick out all who have come without papers, close down the borders and just say no. At least Sessions, we'll see about the Trumpster.
That's easy to understand, makes good sound bytes and gives us a symbol for our frustration but is shortsighted.
Sure, it's the law that you can't cross the border without papers. Didn't used to be, doesn't have to be, and there's Lord above saying we can't wave a magic wand and let the productive, nice ones that we like, stay. Don't think the Constitution says we have to kick em all out. Think the Bill of Rights would like it but certainly does not say we have to kick em out. It's our choice.
Going forward, sure, it would be nice not to have to wrestle with illegals gallivanting across the river whenever our economy picks up. Let's secure it better. But close down immigrations like Sessions wants? That's just crazy to turn down top notch talent if they have, we need it, and they are willing to make the journey. Again, check that Constitution etc ---- I think it's OK.
But it does not provide the best answer for those here illegally but are valuable members of our country. Nor does it provide the best answer for what to do going forward. It is short-sighted, economically stunted, hatred fueled rhetoric that's easy to dance to.
JerryG, do you think that the Constitution should not be changed? All developed countries except for Canada have made those changes, not granting citizenship to babies born to Illegal foreigners. The American Progress piece is not fact but based on assumptions and done by three Hispanic professors. The Forbes piece talks about granting work visas among other things to Illegals or undocumented workers, the term many like to use. It also mentions that after the 1986 Immigration Reform Act 2/3 of the 5.4 million eligible have not filed for legal status. Neither piece addresses the cost side, the cost of education, etc. The policy is broken and needs to be fixed fast. I believe that a pathway to citizenship is the best option at the moment.
HPD I saw on FOX News today (I do watch it now and then) that Trump is saying Mexico is sending us their criminals.
Hold on there, a minute. I've read that so many have come fleeing the terrorism and cruel tactics of the drug cartel...especially large numbers of children ... there is a humanitarian crisis that the Donald does not wish to consider.
What has Marco Rubio had to say about this? He's the son of Cuban immigrants, just like Alex Ochoa and many other past and present MLB players.
Ha-ha ........ Josh Groban on Jimmy Kimmel tonite ---(singing the Donald songs ) quite funny !!
SANCTUARY CITIES
Sanctuary is a term for cities, counties, or states that are defying a federal law relative to the various government agencies being required to assist the federal government with their illegal immigrants. In 1996 a federal law was passed called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIR) that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Contrary to this law, many of these governments are officially or unofficially defying the law and have passed various local policies to ignore the federal law and not question the status of suspected illegal immigrants. Those in defiance of the law prefer to call them undocumented workers and help protect the illegal immigrants from being deported.
"The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive."
– Ronald Reagan
We are NOT going to survive!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/08/mexico-murders-america-on-any-day-there.html
Map of sanctuary cities
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2567880
(How many Cities and TOWNS are not even on the RADAR?)
Relavent excerpts from comments:
"I am certain there are law enforcement in these sanctuary cities, counties, and states that would like to protect Americans from illegals. But the corruption of greed is more powerful than our laws. As police have to cover up crimes by illegals to protect those who profit from them police sink deeper and deeper into the corruption. At some point they have to coverup the crimes of illegals to cover up their coverups. They could be considred collaborators with the invaders, much like French collaborators with Nazi invaders in WW II."
These 'cities' ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administratively deport illegal aliens without seeking criminal warrants or convictions from federal, state, or local courts.""
"Please dont try to sell that lie... the fed is actively supporting an illegal foreign invasion of this country, through our bus, rail, and airlines, they keep the borders wide open for any illegal, even ISIS to pour on through."
"You wanna shoot someone over all the lawlessness, SHOOT THE FED."
Cut off federal funding for "sanctuary cities" who are willfully and deliberately ignoring federal immigration laws.
http://www.sanctuarycities.info/
Like • Reply • Jul 11, 2015 6:48pm
http://www.sanctuarycities.info/sanctuary_state_new_jersey.htm
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/07/mexican-criminals-swarm-americas-open.html
Everyone of us is a HUMANE person...I see 'families' around me everyday who are 'happy to be here' and I am TORN because I AM a MORAL PERSON! BUT....it is really SCARY the AGENDA that is going on~!!
@ Andy Read this about RUBIO
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/17/donald-trump-rips-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-immigration/
http://patriotupdate.com/you-wont-believe-who-mark-cuban-just-endorsed-for-2016/
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/249163-dennis-rodman-endorses-donald-trump-we-dont-need-another-politician
This reminds me of the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated that all state and local authorities help masters recapture escaped slaves. Some local jurisdictions resisted or refused to do this. Here is Wikipedia's take on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
Ummm slaves did not do anything illegal to get here. Something illegal was done to THEM!
TM
""The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive."
– Ronald Reagan
We are NOT going to survive!"
Reagan said this in 1984 so in 2015 over 30 years later can we finally say he was wrong on that one too? sha44ss who goes where angels fear to tred even grabs blog quotes for gospel including ones recommended gun play. Amazing. Then hypes Donald Trump endorsement by Dennis Rodman who I heard only did it because he likes the hair.
"Cut off federal funding for "sanctuary cities" who are willfully and deliberately ignoring federal immigration laws." This is a lie, sanctuary cities come in many flavors, there is no single sanctuary city model, and most do not limit ICE officials from doing their job nor do they ignore federal laws, they just are not doing federal police work. Most just have different levels and approaches on how much additional support they provide to enforce federal border laws while doing their real job of enforcing state and local laws. They are, after all, local and state police.
TM,
You point out the obvious big difference. Okay.
But the similarities are somewhat uncanny as well. The federal government saying, help us catch people who are not where they are supposed to be. Some places resisting that. And overall, a mindset of intolerance by some people toward other people who want to live a normal life.
We have so many law's that most are unenforceable in practicality.When they are enforced there is unequal justice. So we live with no borders and are invaded because big money likes it that way. Like always, follow the money as we become the haves, and have not nation..
Slaves did something illegal to get wherever they were; they unlawfully escaped from their owners. Slavery wasn't illegal at that time; what was done to them illegally?
Right, ianimal! I overlooked that in my response to TM.
Escaped slaves were "illegals" under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act.
I love it. Not only does he have liberals in hysterics he has the old establishment conservatives in a tizzy. He might just make America great again. This post started two months ago and he's still going strong. Like what he has to say or not at least he stands by it.
He is a cartoon and seeks to be paid to drop out - same as al sharpton and rand Paul
Seeks to be paid to drop out? Really? Hadn't heard that conspiracy before. I'm not sure how you think Trump and Rand are like Sharpton. Sharpton is tax cheating race baiter. Last I looked I didn't see either one of them Ferguson or Baltimore( or any other place where Sharpton jumps in, causes chaos and then leaves) and haven't read that they owe thousands in taxes.
"Seeks to be paid to drop out? Really?"
Trumps net worth is anchored in his brand, his name. There's an old ad-age about no such thing as bad press, which is oft attributed to P.T. Barnum (how appropriate). I think Oscar Wilde said it best: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Trump's run for President helps him build notoriety, notoriety builds his brand, building his brand lets him rent out his name for more money, allowing him to shill everything from golf to bottled water: http://www.trump.com/Merchandise/merchandise.asp
So far in his life Trump has rarely, if ever, done anything that does not financially benefit Donald Trump.
"Like what he has to say or not at least he stands by it."
Even when he has conflicting opinions, he stands by all of them. We could do policy, of which he has little good, but we'll go with earlier this year when Trump called Chuck Todd, moderator of Meet The Press, "moron" and "sleepy eyes" lambasting him for low ratings with his job at risk. His actual twits:
"Word is that @NBCNews is firing sleepy eyes Chuck Todd in that his ratings on Meet the Press are setting record lows. He's a real loser!"
"So many people have told me that I should host Meet the Press and replace the moron who is on now. Just too busy, especially next 10 years!"
On Sunday, the Trumpster had the time to be on Meet The Press for meeting with a sleepy-eyed loser moron with record low ratings. That he was not to busy to do since it was time to call Chuck out for the loser Trump knows him to be. At the end of the Chuck Todd interview, Trump concluded: "It was a great honor."
Yeah, he means what he says and he stands by it.
Wonder what world stage loser morons Trump will be honored by as President if they offer him something?
@ stranger dnger "Reagan said this in 1984 so in 2015 over 30 years later can we finally say he was wrong on that one too?"
http://www.vdare.com/posts/ed-meese-says-reagan-regretted-1986-amnesty
strangerdanger..in1984 there were up to 3 million illegals Reagan had to contend with...and it was a deal struck with Congress that went wrong for Reagan because as we know Congress doesn't keep its deals...they cater to their special interests who have been letting them in for decades now....there are 42 million illegals NOT 11 million like we are being LIED to for the coverup again!!
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/new-study-shows-immigrant-population-reached-record-high-421-million
Do you ever THINK for yourself?
If we don't stop the influx of illegals that are being 'legitimized' by usurping our Laws and our Constitution, Obama WILL have succesfully transformed our NATION into a Third World Country....maybe not in our lifetime but it is coming. I dont know about you but I can see it for myself having lived here in Hackettstown since 1960's..you have to speak two languages to walk down Main Street!. Our LEGAL immigration laws meant for Immigrants to assimilate and learn OUR language and to have allegiance to our Country. The La Raza movement is dangerous as they are 'taking over' our Country! ...
As I referenced in my last post "I am certain there are law enforcement in these sanctuary cities, counties, and states that would like to protect Americans from illegals. But the corruption of greed is more powerful than our laws. As police have to cover up crimes by illegals to protect those who profit from them police sink deeper and deeper into the corruption. At some point they have to coverup the crimes of illegals to cover up their coverups"
It is happening in our OWN town...coverups and downplaying of crimes and incidents with 'illegals'. It IS a fact. It is only a matter of time before it becomes very apparent to all of you who have your 'social justice ideals' shattered for you and will be the first ones to
'move ( or hide behind your gated walls) ' to get away from your new 'Utopia!'
We can only HOPE that Trump gets in and is serious about stopping the flow!
sha44ss,
The article cites 42M immigrants, not 42M illegal immigrants. And here's a direct quote from the article:
"The immigrant population in the United States has reached record levels but the majority of these immigrants, including those from Latin America, are here legally. Unless there is a change in immigration policy these numbers will continue to grow."
MB "Do you ever THINK for yourself?"
That's just rude. But on that note.....
If Reagan was wrong at 3M, 30 years later is wrong at 11M and in your mind, he's also wrong at 42M ------ when is he right?
42.1M illegals (the .1 shows they worked the number....)
321M is US population
that's 13% of our nation being illegal. So stack up your friends and good chance 1 or 2 out of every 10.... Does this pass the sniff test or does it just stink by a lobbyist group looking to lower overall US population, legal and illegal alike.
"you have to speak two languages to walk down Main Street" proving that speaking a foreign language makes you illegal. Another conclusion that fails the sniff test.
"As police have to cover up crimes by illegals..." Got proof?
"It is happening in our OWN town...coverups and downplaying of crimes and incidents with 'illegals'" Got proof. Or even got proof that Hackettstown is a sanctuary city? A spurious charge at best.
"Our LEGAL immigration laws meant for Immigrants to assimilate and learn OUR language" Really? Or is that just in the law you would like to see?
Are you thinking for yourself or just making it up as you go along because I see a lot of stuff you say that you can not support.
I am enjoying the show in Caesars world. Donald fits in with this group monetarily, but not with the one world order group. Thats is the only difference. IMO
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/08/19/3768288/legacy-bush-donors-account-for.html
mb...you're quote is corrtect.... but that is because of their interpretation of 'here legally'. There is a debate going on about that and what the 14th amendment says about birthright citizenship!
http://www.marklevinshow.com/2015/08/18/august-18-2015/
On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane. People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens? The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide.
THIS IS FROM:
Heritage Foundation
Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/12/birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitution
Conservative Review
Fixing the Birthright Citizenship Loophole: Myth vs Fact
https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/08/fixing-the-birthright-citizenship-loophole-myth-vs-fact
14th Amendment.com
Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims (June 25, 1997)
http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscellaneous/Articles/Teastimony_on_H.R.%207_(June_25,_1997)/Rep._Edward_J._%20Erler_Statement.pdf
sha44ss,
That may be so, but your 42M figure is still grossly overstated even after you take all of that into account. I get your point, but presenting numbers to the extreme like that doesn't help your case.
If Donald Trump gets the nomination, I'm going to vote for him. I can't vote for Hillary because her presidency will be 4 years of scandals/investigations. Nothing will get done.also she's just more same old thing. Can't vote for Bernie Sanders because he's a socialist and that's really not the direction this country needs. Also his initials are B.S. and that's a sign. Most of the republicans just seem to be sappy and more concerned about not offending anyone. I want a president that can open his mouth and have a difficult conversation. This country needs to have some difficult conversations. We need some leadership and its pretty sad that it may come to Trump. But if that's what it is, I'll take it.
I think Ravi sums it up well, The Donald is resonating because his billionaire Joe six pack conversation hits home and everyone else is more of the same. But I think this is a case of "be careful what you ask for." Expecting The Donald to be scandal free? So far in his life and campaign not true. Expect The Donald to make America Great Again? We have just as much chance of declaring bankruptcy while watching The Donald walk away with a profit while blaming someone else.
But the man has no plan.
Of course we don’t really have a clue of Donald Trump’s plan above the bombastic barking. The only position on his web site is for immigration, but we can glean some ideas and apply some costs wondering: who’s gonna pay for The Donald’s America? No tax cut with these plans.
I will update and feel free to throw numbers out. Certainly The Donald isn’t talking about this.
Build a Wall: good thing Mexico is paying for this since the price tag is around: $3B to $5B for 700 miles of fence under the current costs for the 700 miles we have. Do the whole boarder and it’s $6B to $10B. But The Donald does not want the current fence, he wants what he calls The Trump Wall so now we have 2,000 miles. You do the math but over $100B would not be out of line.
Remove the illegals: at 11m illegals, $100 a greyhound ride, that’s $1.1B. At the current deportation cost of $12.5K per deportee, it’s $138B. If you start deporting H1Bs, kids born to illegals, the numbers go up more.
Increase ICE agents to 15,000. That's three times the current number: Current ICE budget is $6B, so add maybe $12B more. HOWEVER, to remove 11M illegals is a 3000% increase in deportations against a 300% increase in agents so one might question whether we are doing this in one year or over a decade. To do it in one year, add over $120B in ICE budget
Take the oil in Syria and Iraq: This means boots on the ground in that The Donald wants to surround the oil fields. Need I say Iraq war with 4,000 dead and $800B spent? However, when you look at full stream costs including post war costs like veteran benefits, try $2 Trillion.
End ObamaCare and give everyone healthcare: Current Medicare covers 16% of us at a cost of $500B a year. Have not seen The Donald’s Plan but to cover the uninsured add $500B; to cover everyone add $2.5 Trillion.
Rebuild the nation’s infrastructure: really need a plan on this one since the price tag could be anywhere depending on your infrastructure definition. But roads, bridges, and railways only: $2.2 Trillion over five years from The American Society of Civil Engineers. Now add the power grid, airports, etc. etc.
Other Trumpisms that are hard to count:
Stop sending debt payments to China and tax them instead. I can’t count this lunacy especially given the loans we’re gonna need to pay for the rest of this crap.
Stop American car manufacturers from using off-shore plants: can’t count it, but you gonna need a bigger check for your next car.
Without cuts, save Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Current Social Security yearly deficit is $80B with huge increases in the out years. Medicare is $500B and growing. Medicaid another $500B and growing. No cuts?
If this guy is conservative, so am I. So be careful what you ask for since there appears to be a whole lot o spending to Make America Great Again.
... some times, when I hear "reasoning" for voting choices, whatever their choices are, I shudder for the future of democracy..... If ever there were an argument for the importance of educational reform, that certainly would be a point.
I agree. Unfortunately, until we get someone who actually cares about America and it's citizens and not being PC we are left with cynicism and voting for the lesser of two evils. Not a pretty picture and I fear for my children and grandchildren. This is not the country I was raised in.
Trump may be attractive to the frustrated populous, but I just can't imagine he would really do anything other that what's good for him personally. He's on quite a name recognition ride right now, and I have no doubt he's scheming ways to take full advantage of that.
I really wish there were another candidate that was able to focus on the really big issue our country has - an economy based on debt that can't possibly be sustained in the long run (I know, beating a dead horse here). Fix the underlying problem and the symptoms take care of themselves, yet all these candidates talk about are their plans to deal with the symptoms. So completely frustrating...
#1 thing should be that the next president is not already bought and sold by special interest groups before he/she enters the White House. Only Trump and maybe Paul fit this...
"So completely frustrating... JIT". Thats why Trump, and Sander are doing so well. Both sides are frustrated. I agree with iJay. They are the only ones that would make a change on the right. All the others are bought and owned. I notice that Bernie has a younger crowed, They are more socialist. and Trumps are older.
I said it awhile back in this thread even before trumps crazy proposal, its the way he carries himself. There is no way Bush will beat him. He will be the nominee. And a very very good chance to be known as presidential trump. The guy that builds trump wall dividing us frpm mexico.
JIT and I agree that we are running our economy based on debt although I would gather we vehemently disagree as to the "cure" and that none of these candidates see the problem much less the solution.
Trump, the man without a plan, may be the worst given his expensive plans to restore America.
Take immigration. Cost $230B to find and remove 11 million people. Sure, it's fine and good to obey the law and punish the lawbreakers. But to expend an Iraq-war sized yearly budget to remove and stop folks from coming does little to help the economy. Can we afford it, can we even physically do it and does it make economic sense. Quite the opposite.
- illegals put $10 - $20B in social security each year which they never take out
- illegals pay about $100B in taxes each year
- all in all, illegals estimated to add about $10B NET to the economy each year.
When they leave, even if we fill their jobs, and we can't, our bill for social security goes up by $10B per year and our tax revenues will be reduced up to $100B per year.
While some of today's immigrants are illegal, the percentage of total immigrants is equal to many other times in our history when foreigners spoke differently, lived together, and were discriminated against by "true" Americans. No one can definitively say illegals are increasing unemployment or whether illegals are taking jobs Americans won't take. If they are taking jobs away, they are taking the jobs of our least skilled, least educated workers, and least motivated workers. If all illegals work, they represent about 10% of the workforce. Given an unemployment level of 5%; we gonna need a bigger boat to be able to fill all those jobs!!!
Including bus, rail, and ferries, we do about 55M passenger miles per year on these conveyances. At 11 million illegals, that means we can transport them 5 miles each in a year given our current abilities. Given no extra buses or the expense of airfare, we're gonna need a bigger bus.
Personally, I think the cost versus benefit of removing all illegals from America should cause one to consider whether there may be a better choice for America given this problem. Trump's plan is a lose-lose with the only benefit being that we have removed these lawbreakers from America, To do that we will be economically cutting our nose to spite our face spending money we just don't have in order to negatively impact our GDP.
And then there's still the wall.
"Including bus, rail, and ferries, we do about 55M passenger miles per year on these conveyances."
I think you're way underestimating something...
One commuter bus, carrying 50 people, into NYC each day (say 50 miles) is 625,000 passenger miles annually. I think there are more than 88 buses running similar routes across the USA.
Here's a chart: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html
Note, that these values are in Millions... so buses alone in 2013 had 18,786 Million passenger miles. That's 18.7 Billion passenger miles... now add rail, etc...
So, perhaps some of your other numbers may not be right, as well...
SD, in isolation it seems like our country does well with illegals, and this may be true in the short run. In the long run, they will not all return to where they came from. They will bring their non-working parents/grandparents/etc. and be a drain on pubic services as these people in general are not planning for their retirement. They are having anchor-babies that attend local schools, using emergency room medical, and getting charity care.
In the long run it is a net cost, but in the short run, especially or bleeding SS system it is a very positive aspect...
You people see whats going on in Europe thanks to the first President Bush suturing up the pot in the east.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/402693/As-Sweden-burns-is-it-time-to-rethink-our-immigration-policy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dresden-riots-protesters-in-germany-attack-refugee-buses-shouting-foreigners-out-10467287.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286
Old Gent - Those refugees are an influx of the last year. Assad is the cause of one group, ISIS another, and the Albanians is just about money and has been going on for 75 years. None of those are related to any of the Bush's or any American policy. As for agreeing with iJay, be careful and see what you're getting into. I thought I saw him in one of those Dresden protests. That has also been happening for the past 82 years and has only has to do with where the refugees are from.
I just mean, yes all this was going on historically but.Bush opened the door for them to hate us to. It inspired the Muslims to take us on. The first World Trade center bombing flopped and we did nothing so the second one worked and changed our country and theirs, causing their refuges to migrate to Europe in mass. Even the nomads are on the move. They all had there little kingdoms and fought each other before. Now the socialist country's can not handle the the uncontrolled in flux.
Wow! Trump became a media-abetted public distraction many years ago, likely due to his superhuman marketing skills.
This grand distraction which benefits both political parties (and it is nothing more, in my opinion) is his Magnum Opus.
Gotta give credit where credit is due, but I don't believe that any "leader" operating within the current system can make a substantive difference.
The amount of mental energy many are expending on this topic is distressing...unless, like a video game, it is for entertainment purposes only.
OK, done entertaining myself. Thanks for reading.... if you got this far.
Now on to a bigger question that will most certainly affect my life more than Trump will - what to make for dinner??
Leftovers for me and the wife....
BTW, wife got "Blue Apron" for a few weeks.....and took a couple of weeks off because I was experimenting with some of their techniques (still bought too much- thus the leftovers.) It is essentially raw ingredients, but portioned (you provide salt, pepper and olive oil and do most of the cleaning and chopping,) but I found that the recipes and having the portioned raw ingredients in front of you give you a really great sense of just what it takes to cook for two.
I can cook pretty well, but keeping it simple with salt, pepper garlic....and small amounts of tomato paste (or some seemingly exotic ingredient which isn't too hard to find if you look) makes for some pretty decent eating. Heck, a little heavy cream with perhaps a little "monter au beurre" can make some pretty decent stuff with a lot less effort and expense than you might think.
Knowing stuff like this will certainly have a greater impact on your life than whatever the Donald blathers, in my opinion.
"So, perhaps some of your other numbers may not be right, as well..."
Cute little zinger there. The ole "since you didn't know about the bridge, what other crimes don't you know about Mr. Christie? " logic. Cute. Guess that makes us all suspect all the time.
All of my Trump numbers are suspect, I said as much in the previous tome. Hard to pinpoint numbers for a hot bag of wind without any specifics in terms of plans, policies, and price tags. Even when he spews a plan it’s ambiguous. “I’m gonna build a wall. It will keep them all out. It will be better than that current fence (that means add another 700 miles to replace the current fence). It will be higher, stronger, and prettier. Even if you climb it with a ladder, you will hurt yourself jumping to the other side. It will be the Trump of walls.” Psst, Donald, can you spell tunnel. Have you ever climbed a wall and then pulled the ladder to the other side so you don’t have to jump? Idiot.
I used the 2013 APTA verbatim so best I can figure it that these are vehicle miles though it's labeled Miles, Passenger (Millions). http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx Put a few passengers in those apparently single-buses I was counting and you get an approximate 300 Billion passenger miles which is about your number. Interstate train traffic pretty small against that number.
So at 100 miles per trip, 11 million riders, illegal exportation is a blip; I misinterpreted the strangely labeled data. Total bus traffic is now around 320 billion passenger miles per year. If you take the illegals by state and bunch em up to regional trips, you get to 10% of the total traffic pretty quick. It's a long way from Hackettstown to Tijuana and the preponderance of illegals are where the metro's and hand-picked crops are: CA, TX, OR/WA, North East, IL, FL, and Eastern Seaboard.
While 10% of the total traffic sounds light, against 320B miles that's a huge number. Take out the city short haul buses, a lot of which probably couldn't make the run anyway, and you still gonna need a whole lot of new buses to carry an extra 11 million people in a year. The interstate carriers are a pretty small percentage of the total miles travelled and then the 10% is magnified greatly even if you add the interstate trains back in. With the average bus trip being around 5 miles in length, asking them to head to Mexico from anywhere except San Diego and Dallas is going to be a much longer trip than our mainly commuter bus inventory currently supports.
My number was wrong but I still say to carry an extra 11 million passengers in a year or two, you gonna need a bigger bus, a lot of them. Matter of fact, at 50 immigrants per bus, you will need 220,000 bus trips from somewhere to Mexico; that’s a lot of bus trips. I am pretty sure that this huge an exportation requiring a 3,000% increase to ICE agents, 220,000 bus trips (or equivalent), etc. can’t even be done in a single year and will be a multi-year project increasing the costs even more.
Point is don’t use my numbers, run your own Trump budget and see if the results are worth the price tag. In the case of forced deportation of 11 million illegal aliens that, as a group, contribute a net profit of $10B to the economy each year, and whose work cannot be covered by unemployed Americans, even all of them, seems to not be the best alternative. Worse yet, the expense to remove them is huge.
"They will bring their non-working parents/grandparents/etc. and be a drain on pubic services as these people in general are not planning for their retirement." Oh come on iJay, once again you don't have a fact to stand on as you spew.
Illegals pay 10-20 Billion a year into Social Security. Where's the proof? Illegals pay 100 billion a year in taxes, where's the proof?. These are all estimates or guesstimates. Is Joe the landscaper from Hackettstown or wherever withholding ss taxes from Juan and Carlos? I think not. The unemployment rate now is at 5.3% another bogus number. The Labor Participation Rate is at 62.6 the lowest since 1977. Things are not as rosey as many people would like you to believe.
I said it a long time ago. Blame your local redneck with a pickup truck paying these illegals cash and then charging you and me face value for landscaping and construction services. These local rednecks are netting a nice profit. When the illegal gets hurt he just (sometimes) goes to the ER and the bill is passed to this who pay. Again, nothing against the illegals as any of us may do the same if we were born poor in Honduras (an absolute shi!hole) but maybe these folks need to stay in their home country to make things better?
The responsibility falls on our federal government's leadership. Interesting, how Trump calls a spade a spade (my mantra most of the time, when possible)...
Local rednecks with pickup trucks? The only local "rednecks with pickup trucks" I know are ANTI-hiring-illegal-labor.
Now, the local, NJ, NON-rednecks-with-pickup-trucks, that's another story.
If I'm going to blame illegal labor on someone, the first people I'm going to blame are the ones who are HERE ILLEGALLY, AND WORKING ILLEGALLY. I know, I know- makes too much damned sense, right?
Rednecks with pickup trucks?!?!
I know more than a few "rednecks" and they are TOTALLY ANTI ILLEGALS AND ANTI EVEN WORKING WITH ILLEGALS!
Most of the gun-totin, truck drivin, beer-drinkin, all American rednecks hate illegals and call them names and refuse to even WORK WITH THEM, must less HIRE THEM.
You got that one completely wrong iJay.
It's the rednecks that work in construction, roofing, trucking, cut down your trees, etc and the ILLEGALS are taking their jobs away because they will work for $7.00 per hour cash. Plus, I know a bunch of guys who refuse to work on construction sites with ILLEGALS because it pisses them off so much.
No JR... just like people committing other crimes, they are the *victims* here. They only blatantly broke the law to turn their life around... its whitey's fault... all they need is another government handout...
I did have a zinger, you missed it.
You folks might be missing my point: The Donald wants you to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to remove an economic profit and workers than you just can't replace with Americans just so you can say the law against immigration has been obeyed in the land consisting totally of immigrants. Is this the best alternative and use of your tax dollar?
Is building a wall to keep illegal workers out the best use of hundreds of billions of your tax dollars?
Hint: wouldn't a secure employment verification system be cheaper and more effective at solving the illegal worker problem than a stupid wall costing hundreds of billions of dollars? Secure employment verification system = illegal alien problem solved. Or use the wall: ask the Chinese how the great wall of China worked.......
Is finding and deporting 11 million workers sound use of hundreds of billions of your tax dollar? Will it build a stronger economy?
Unless you can prove you have 11 million workers ready to fill the current jobs at the current costs then either you will have jobs open or higher wages and costs meaning production disruptions and instant price inflation on top of the cost of deportation just to say "now, we're following the law." You can't fill the jobs. You can't stand the increased prices. It's a stupid plan.
Hint: wouldn't some form of amnesty or non-citizenship worker status combined with a rational H1B program that does not reduce US wages be superior to spending hundreds of billions of dollars to deport 11 million humans?
Or you can be like kb2725 and pretend there is no proof.
How about a right-wing illegal immigration hate group that agrees? Does that cut it?
First the problem. Or look, it's illegal aliens paying taxes and social security as seen by conservative research. Go figure.....
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/28/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem-part-i-how-illegals-gain-employment/
Second the solution: Note points 1, 3, and 4. While I disagree with point 2, the wall's effectiveness, or the need for a 4-year implementation, note that these ultra conservatives feel the best solution is stopping illegal workers it at the point of employment. Take away the crumbs and the ants won't come. Note also that if you stop illegal employment then the fence becomes of far less value to stop illegal workers from entering the US.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/17/inside-trumps-illegal-immigration-proposals-how-to-stop-illegal-immigration-part-ii/
Bottom line is even conservatives see these illegal aliens paying taxes, paying social security and they don't even get into the sales tax that they can not avoid. They see illegals as taking all sorts of jobs, not just in the fields. And while they still support the wall, they see secure employment verification as the major control factor to stop illegal workers.
My point with Trump is question whether his plans reach appropriate goals in a cost effective manner. In the case of immigration, IMHO his goals are wrong and the "fixes" a waste of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. To remove all 11 million illegal workers is just stupid to begin with and the combined immigrant removal and development of The Trump Wall is a costly ineffective solution.
Just deploy a secure employment system and problem solved. Then consider how to retain valuable workers who are illegal while deporting criminals and those illegals who exist by living off the system. Much better bottom line.
And can we not start another costly Iraq War by The Donald's plan to "surround all the oil wells and take back the oil."
Take from it what you will, if anything: Thomas Jefferson once described moving to another country if things are bad for you where you are, as a "natural right".
"Natural rights" trump "legal" rights.
The construction workers who hate illegals the most are union guys, who typically vote Democrat.
The people hiring day laborers (who may or may not be "illegal") are typically private contractors (who may or may not be "rednecks") and they are definitely voting Republican for the most part.
And you aren't getting day laborers for $7 an hour... it's probably closer to $100 a day plus lunch.
SD "My point with Trump is question whether his plans reach appropriate goals in a cost effective manner. " Not much of a serious concern in Washington. Keep the press going. IMO
Thomas Jefferson once described moving to another country if things are bad for you where you are, as a "natural right".
Yes- LEAVING the country is a "natural right"... being let into another country is NOT.
JR, for your reading pleasure:
"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124
Ah, well... there's you're problem. Jefferson invoked God, which is a violation of the "separation of church and state", therefore rendering his entire point invalid.
Now, if you'd like to start discussing the existence of God and his/her relationship to the government the founders created, then we can have a discussion. (not really- illegal is illegal, period.)
Whether Jefferson was a proponent of the freedom of men to go wherever they want, including Mexicans or just a man of his times, Jefferson indeed had little issue with allowing criminals to go where they were sent downplaying any shenanigans by the English: "The Malefactors sent to America were not sufficient in number to merit enumeration as one class out of three which peopled America." Actually England was sending criminals to America in the thousands most of which ended up in Jefferson's Virginia. It just was not an issue to him.
But all that is moot against the question of given 11 million undocumented workers, do we export them all out, build a wall to keep them out, or perhaps spend our money a different way to achieve better results.
I say a better result is to skip the wall, build a secure employment verification system, enforce it with fines and imprisonment for violations, and keep the valuable undocumented workers working for America. Sounds like a cheaper cost with a more profitable return.....to America. For both the very tan and those less tan of either party.
Now how about those oil wells. You ready to surround em, grab em, take em back, hold em, and put some feets on the ground to do it? You ready to play in the sand for Trump the man this time in both Syria and Iraq? Remember, this will make Israel and Saudi Arabia very, very happy so let's not wait, don't hesitate, let's strap on our gun and go have some fun in the sun!!! Cost: $2 Trillion over a decade or so.
For a man with no plan, the little he shows really........makes the wind move.
Either...what? Please elaborate, if you care to...
We're a nation of laws. Regardless if one believes in God or not, or in the separation or not, laws are laws. You break them, it is an ILLEGAL act. There's really no possible debate here. Illegal is illegal. Enter illegally, you are AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. Period. The end.
JR - "Jefferson" or "Republican"/"Republic". You now don't really seem to believe in either of those two things.
OH... you're saying I don't believe in Jefferson and/or the Republic? Still not sure where you're going with this. I'd intelligently discuss the issue, but you haven't given me anything intelligent to discuss.
"Enter illegally, you are AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. Period. The end." Really. No way around it. Impossible to thwart?
Apparently illegal has become legal at least seven times since 1980, the largest under Ronald Reagan. But both Clinton and Bush the smarter also made illegal legal during their reign.
Apparently not necessarily the end. Period.
The real question is does it make economic or even moral sense to export every undocumented worker we have in America. We don't have the unemployed Americans to fill the jobs. We don't have Americans willing to work for such low pay. Lack of labor supply and increased labor costs just has to result in higher prices. I just can't imagine anyone besides apparently JR saying yes, they all must go. I prefer to have my tax dollar spent more wisely than that.
Still fightin' amongst yourselves, are you?
Elimination of all public benefits (including subsidized medical care, except to the point where the patient can be stabilized pending repatriation) for illegals would go a long way towards refining the immigrant stream to the brightest and most productive.
The illegals that currently live here are an agglomeration of peaceful productives, peaceful leeches, and the other 10 percent (scum.) There is no politically acceptable solution that could just send them all back.
Your Republican saviors will talk a good streak, but will ultimately propose reforms that will assimilate them into their appropriate class (upper, middle, lower, welfare.) They probably won't do a whole lot to eliminate benefits that both parties force us Americans to pay for.
Those baby carriages you saw, and still see, on Main Street have kids in them that the Hackettstown area school tax payers are forced to foot the bill for.
Check out http://www.nj.com/education/2015/07/freehold_school_overcrowding.html for a possible taste of your future.
BTW, you can hate them for what they do....but they are taking advantage of a system put in place by the political charlatans you continually attack or defend. They are merely escaping a crappy place and improving their family's position in life, and your leaders are forcing you to pay for it.
The real crooks and leeches are the people in the suits with the title "The Honorable."
mistergoogle, (sorry just can't fathom you as a stranger or a danger), illegal is illegal. IF you want to give them all amnesty, then they would be legal. But RIGHT NOW, AS WE SPEAK, there are millions of ILLEGAL aliens here. Period. There are ILLEGAL. And until they are legal, they should not be eligible for anything American TAXPAYERS have to offer- education, healthcare, nothing. Period. If they are discovered, especially if discovered committing a crime, they should be deported. Family is here? Tough. Come here legally, don't be a criminal. You reap what you sow.
Want to share in the "greatness" that is America? Come here LEGALLY.
"They are merely escaping a crappy place and improving their family's position in life, and your leaders are forcing you to pay for it." Yes JJ that is what it is, like it or not. These folks cut in line for their own selfish reasons. And you know what, any hardworking ethic of the first generation turns into a typical lazy second generation. Only Trump addresses a problem which is a clear...
Good for Trump having the disruptive Ramos removed from the room. And then brought back to address his questions .
"Or you can be like kb2755 and pretend there is no proof". I asked for proof of the numbers you posted that Illegals pay 10-20 Billion (that's a wide gap) into Social Security and pay 100 billion in taxes. As you can read from the article you posted (Part 1) that not only do they enter the country illegally they also commit a crime by using fake social security cards to gain employment. They then claim 10-15 dependents thus avoiding paying no or minimal taxes. I agree with you that Trumps plan to deport all illegals is costly and will never happen. Just an opening salvo to get the discussion going and lead to something finally getting done. I also agree with the Card Check Verification System but the liberals and progressives want no part of it as it would disenfranchise the Hispanic voting block they so covet. The article also points out how screwed up our government is with no one on the same page, the EEOC, Department of Labor and INS. There is a quick fix as the article noted but sadly each of the past administration's have done nothing to solve it. Anyone that believes that Illegals put more into the system than the costs associated with them being here is foolish in my opinion. Sadly to say a year from now we will likely be in the same boat.
" Anyone that believes that Illegals put more into the system than the costs associated with them being here is foolish in my opinion."
More like ignorant, or in denial.
"More like ignorant, or in denial."
By their logic, shoplifting is good for business. It keeps the manufacturers and delivery services busy to replenish the stolen goods... the store can probably afford it...
Deporting the illegals doesn't actually have to be as costly as many claim. Many of the numbers you hear are based on the current, inefficient deportation system, which allows people to fight deportation for months. Streamline the system, so the illegals are simply identified and sent home, and it won't be nearly as expensive.
But the best, most cost-effective solution is for them to deport themselves. House illegals (even in an apartment), and your land is confiscated. Employ illegals, and your business is confiscated. Cut off all government benefits for illegals. They will have no safe place to live, no easy way to earn money, and few other benefits to staying here.
As soon as the first news reports air about large-scale deportations, and people losing their businesses for employing illegals, many of them will simply walk across the border.
" Anyone that believes that Illegals put more into the system than the costs associated with them being here is foolish in my opinion." Obviously not an economics major.......
"More like ignorant, or in denial." Wow, there's a conclusion based on facts.
Again, I am just looking at the Trump plans, the cost, and the expected results. In the case of undocumented workers, Trump wants to spend BIG tax money to remove a net positive to the economy, to leave job vacancies that we just don't have enough unemployed bodies to fill, for wages they won't accept, and then somehow we expect a positive effect on prices when labor costs go up.
I have suggested you run your own numbers mostly because if you're like kb and jr concluding there is no proof, what's the point of posting just to be dismissed because you don't like most source(s).
Others have suggested that Trump's plan will never happen, but it's a great first salvo. They are basically guessing what the final solution will be. Trump's immigration plan is only one of his very expensive placations to those frustrated with the system. Look to the entire partial package of plans to conclude that they are not only expensive and wasteful, but in a number of cases downright socialist in nature.
What about taking the oil wells in Iraq and Syria? Ready for a little gun play?
What about providing health care for everybody? Just like Canada?
But in the spirit of disclosure, we will jump to the bottom line: are undocumented workers beneficial to the economy? Is the economic net sum of undocumented workers positive?
One of the so-called bad effects is the wage pressure undocumented workers put on our least talented workforce. Here's a twist on that where the undocumented may increase US worker wages: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0
And then we'll just do a round table of pro's and con's. (You are pro, I am con) http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788
Note some interesting points. In the PRO section, the household taxes paid in 2010 were $10,330, At 11 million illegals, in 2015 dollars, that's a huge tax payment as reported by the PROs. Also, while the PRO section is written by a handful of economists, note that the CON section lists the ivory tower bottom line: around 90% of all economists conclude that undocumented workers are a net benefit to the economy. The other 10% make a living working for PRO anti-immigration organizations.
Bottom line is most economists say illegal alien undocumented workers are a net gain to the economy. Fears of job stealing are mostly only for our most untalented workforce. Fears of massive drains to welfare and education are somewhat to totally unfounded depending on your view of the US-born kids citizenship. I will note that a huge swing number in all of this are kids born in the U.S. to the undocumented and are those kids American citizens or not. This certainly changes education dollar expenditures, welfare, etc. I take it the PROS amongst HL want to ship those Americans across the boarder too, right?
That said, is it the best use of our tax dollar to ship 11 million beneficial workers away. While some say, "we can be more efficient," when have you seen a program that ramps at a rate of 20 times the current program in a single year save money? Even if you stretch it to 4 years, that's a 5 times ramp. But the true bottom line is that even if you save money in deportation costs, you still lose big bucks to the bottom line since you are starting from a net positive.
And then there's the Trump Wall.......
IMHO, the alternative of a secure employment verification system is a more cost effective solution than a stupid wall. And sure, take JW's idea and add a secure housing verification system too for home rentals and sales. Why not. That keeps the undocumented from coming.
But to deport every one that's here seems to be a money loser at least according to 9 out of 10 economic professionals.
"not only do they enter the country illegally they also commit a crime by using fake social security cards to gain employment. They then claim 10-15 dependents thus avoiding paying no or minimal taxes."
yep, very true,
why follow the law once you are here if you are ok breaking the law to get here??
MisterGoogle, I don't care about your plethora of numbers, because they are IRRELEVANT when we are discussing matters of LAW. They are HERE ILLEGALLY, PERIOD.
If a criminal thief was also someone who gave some of his ill-gotten gain to charity, that makes him NO LESS A CRIMINAL. PERIOD.
Apples and Oranges. = Money and civil Law's. It seems to me SD uses that phrase a lot.?
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Who's Missedyourgoogle and where is my plethora, I misplaced it. Where's John Galt.
Remember kids, numbers are irrelevant when discussing law.
When you break the law kids, you must be hunted down, captured and punished. Just ask Cliven Bundy, anyone with a warning ticket, or all those merry fireworks users on the 4th.
Why Ronald Reagan himself would never break the law and grant 2,700,000 undocumented workers and illegal aliens LEGAL status. Never. That's just irrelevant.
And George Bush wouldn't grant the remaining kids of these illegal-turned-legal legal status. Never. That's just irrelevant.
Apples and Oranges. Legal and illegal. Does it make dollars and sense to build a HUGE wall versus a secure employment verification system and a secure home rental/ownership verification system to keep illegals from living and working in America? Does it make dollar and sense to transport 11 million workers to Mexico or beyond when you can't fill the jobs anyway?
JR's solution is a cut and dry full blinders on solution. They are illegal; solve that and be damned the consequences. I say perhaps we should look at the upside and downside, calculate the costs and the benefits, and make the right choice for America. Just like Reagan and Bush-the-smarter did. The Trump Immigration Plan is a bad economic choice, it is very costly with huge negative economic effects, but makes JR very happy to remove undocumented workers. Apples and oranges.
So how about surrounding those oil wells? Let's talk about WAR ugh, what is it good for, getting Donald elected ------- say it again.......
Or health care for everyone yiiiipppppeeeee. Can you say GIANT TAX, eh?
strangerdanger, I believe that your view is overly simplistic, because even if everything you claim is 100% true, it's still only a basic analysis of some economic factors.
It doesn't take into account the deterrent factor. Allow 11 million illegals to stay, and you'll be drastically increasing the flood of new illegals. Deport them all, and it send a clear message to the entire world--don't come t the US illegally, because you WILL be sent home, and it will not benefit you. And in the long term, that will save the US money.
It doesn't take into account that they are all basically criminals. As a society, you want citizens to respect the laws that you, society, have chosen to enact. The illegals have all chosen to blatantly ignore those laws.
It doesn't take into account anything besides the most rudimentary economics. It doesn't account for the effects of increased population on the environment, on scarce resources, on land use. California is desperate to save water, yet they have as many as 2 million people living there illegally and consuming water every day. People are struggling to afford a home, because 11 million+ beds are taken by illegals immigrants. The issue involves far more than a simple +/- in the accounting books.
It doesn't take into account the morale of the American people. The lawful citizens who have lost jobs, who obey the laws as other flaunt them, who pay a lot of taxes yet see others just walking across the border and benefitting from those tax dollars.
Yes, there are some benefits to allowing the illegal immigrants to stay. But overall, the majority of the American people realize that the detriments far outweigh any benefits. And THAT, despite his many other flaws, is why Trump's message has become so popular.
JW, Good post, thoughtful. Not following immigration rules breeds resentment and hate; not good.
Still....from my perspective the word "criminal" should be reserved for bad people, murderers and the like. If everyone who breaks a law is a "criminal", then no doubt we are criminals all.
Gee JW, last time I agree with you :>) OK, here we go......
I agree, simplistic. Yet if I am overly simplistic, how about Trump's plan that you are eating up with fork n spoon? Simplistic at best.
"It doesn't take into account the deterrent factor." Kind of like just say no worked. Fact is if the US economy is bustling and employers can hire then it's only a short interval until the wall is breached. For those here, you still have to find and deport them first and then stop them in the future which will require a secure employment verification system anyway. The wall and deportation will do little by themselves to thwart people from entering and working under the current system. The Trump Immigration plan is simplistic and a waste of money.
"It doesn't take into account that they are all basically criminals." Except for the undocumented status, this is not true and you can not prove it. I doubt any of us have not broken a law or two and being undocumented, finding a job, supporting your family is not a violent crime.
"It doesn't take into account anything besides the most rudimentary economics. It doesn't account for the effects of increased population on the environment, on scarce resources, on land use." Oh you can't prove this versus the net value of said people. Do you think if you remove undocumented workers from CA, they don't need to be replaced? That's just silly. IMHO it is a simple accounting so just prove there is harm since you're example is ridiculous and your ascertain spanks of a zero-population-growth mantra, not just a fear of undocumented.
"It doesn't take into account the morale of the American people." So again, prove to us that America's morale is threatened. Or is it just a bunch of Latino-hating, ZPG loving, fear mongering frustrated loud mouths that feel bad. (I don't believe either is true but hey, if you're speaking for America, why can't I fine tune your assumption a bit). PS: undocumented tax dollars are a net gain too not a drain.
"And THAT, despite his many other flaws, is why Trump's message has become so popular." So popular as defined at 30% of the Republican party which nets you less than 15% of American voters so there's a ways to go yet. But I agree let's not talk about his divisive, arrogant, name-calling, unapologetic, racist, lying, misogynist personal flaws. Or the fact that business-wise, the $10B man has restructured $4.4B in debt and now plans to pick our pockets too. Or the fact that his main goal is to fire people. Let's stick to the plans.
I think I have covered not only why his immigration plan is a waste of our money and does not work but also provided a viable alternative, with JW's help, that would be more successful.
So let's move on to those oil fields. Are all you Trumpettes gung-ho to once again take our stand in the sand? How do you feel about that well-thought out military adventure?
Or health care for everybody? Want to discuss the benefits of this plan?
JD, many of us ARE criminals. How many people do you know who have never exceeded the speed limit, never drank a beer under 21, never smoked a joint, never failed to report some income, never jaywalked on a city street?
Much of what keeps us from falling into anarchy is the belief in a system of laws. The reason more people don't drive over the speed limit isn't because they believe it is morally wrong--it's because they don't want to get a speeding ticket. And yet, as citizens, they understand the NEED for traffic laws, because they know that, overall, society is safer, because of them.
One of the big problems with illegal immigrants is that they are willing to ignore the laws, in a self-centered effort to benefit themselves. They ignore the immigration laws, and many ignore employment and other laws, use false false identification, etc. And because they weren't raised in this country, many don't even know the basic laws of society that Americans are raised to understand--like the fact that bicyclists must obey certain traffic laws on public roads.
Personally, as a citizen, I want other citizens to respect and obey society's laws, not people who are willing to ignore those laws, simply because they feel it benefits them or because they are ignorant of those laws. And it's not only because of their actions, but because of the effect they have on other citizens--why should you obey the laws, when so many other people are simply ignoring them and getting away with it?
While I disagree heartily with your broad generalizations castigating undocumented workers as somehow more self-centered than the rest of us and basically evil, immoral and ignorant which is proven false not only by legal immigration results but also the results of Reagan/Bush amnesty programs. These are mostly just folk looking for a better life just like the rest of us.
Personally I would like to see the most cost conscious and effective program to benefit America and the American economy. The Trump Wall and mass deportation do not do this. Removing 11 million workers that you can't replace is stupid. Building a Trump Wall, the Cadillac of Walls alone will not stop much, it's a waste of money.
Rather I would see nothing immoral with legitimizing the valuable undocumented workers we have, ensuring secure employment and housing verification, all of which can be done without building this travesty or deporting 11 million people just to have job vacancies we can't fill. That does not mean citizenship; it does not mean amnesty. It means taking advantage of productive workers that benefit our economy and our nation.
Take CA for example: if there are no workers to pick the harvest, I guess we can save a lot of water by reverting to desert. Everyone will be legal but is that the best result. 7% of CA population is undocumented; 10% of the workforce is undocumented. Unemployment is 6.%. So CA will need to import almost a million workers to pick fruit. Good luck. Texas is similar.
NJ has a 6% undocumented population which is 9% of the labor force and an unemployment level of 6.5% so we would need to only import 100,000 out of states to come to NJ to work minimum wage jobs. Better numbers but I still say impossible to achieve.
(PEW Hispanic Center)
The Trump plan might make it all legal but at what cost? Why would one vote for a man with such a simplistic shortsighted plan. And this is one of his best plans, the others are far worse.
"Clearly not an economics major". Yeah continue with your snide remarks with pele that disagree with you. I asked for proof on the numbers you posted not on the Trumps immigration plan. Read the comments on the NY Times article you posted which was written by someone from NPR (gee what a surprise he comes to his conclusion after following Pedro around Brooklyn). 90% of Economists conclude undocumented (illegal) workers are a benefit to the economy. Is that 90% of Economists that wrote on the subject or 90% of all Economists. I agree with the Card Check Verification System but your buddies up on the Hill want no part of it for the reason I pointed out earlier.
An important thing to consider, too, is exactly what it means to "benefit the economy."
Let's say that there are 10 million illegal immigrants, and 1/4 of them occasionally drink a can of Coke--and average of 1 can per week. That's 2.5 million cans of Coke per week. That's 130 million cans of Coke per year. If the Coca-Cola Company made an average of 10 cents per can, that's 13 million dollars a year in profit.
And so, the illegal immigrants benefit the Coca-Cola Company, so the company's stock increases, as does the GDP. And the same goes for every other company that benefits from illegal immigrants. And those companies hire more people, to supply additional products and services to illegal aliens. So, from an economist's point of view, those illegal immigrants benefit the economy.
But it's also a narrow, simplistic view of the effect of illegal aliens on the economy, as a whole, particularly in the long term. Some jobs are gained, and yet other jobs are lost. More housing is needed, so housing prices go up--but that really benefits the wealthy, at the long-term cost to the children of the middle class, who will be less able to afford housing. More products are made and sold, but more resources are consumed. With more cheap labor and more people using welfare-type benefits, average wages decrease, while taxes (or the national debt) have to increase. With the children of illegal immigrants filling the school systems, property taxes increase and school services decrease. The long-term economic effects of 11 million+ (and increasing) illegal immigrants are incredibly complex, and they can and will affect various aspects of the economy in different ways.
So, if an economists tells you that illegal immigrants "benefit" the economy, ask them to explain and justify every aspect of their conclusions, before just accepting them.
A little sidebar: Germany is saying they are expecting 800,000 (!) new migrants this year. Since Germany has less than one-fifth the population of the U.S., it is a little like 4,000,000 would be for us.
Germany has right around 1/4 the population of the U.S., not less than a fifth. But 800,000 is still a 1% increase, which is pretty significant
I see Trump is saying he is in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy, or some of them anyway.
Trump offers something for both sides. Thats why he scares the pro's. and beats the others down. It's a funny show when money don't count.
Years ago, I think in one of his books, Trump proposed paying off the national debt with a one-time 15% net-worth tax on the super-wealthy. I'm somewhat surprised he hasn't brought that up again.
He seems to be saying that the source of our problems is not the wealthy investor class, rather, it is the dark-skinned guy, working under sweatshop conditions for lousy pay, who he wants us to turn our anger toward. The old divide and conquer strategy, get the poor people hating and blaming each other while the rich get richer.
Oh, he'd never tell us the source of our problems is the banks, who create their own money and lend it to us at high interest and play games that crash the economy ... or the war machine that keeps inciting wars so they can keep selling gadzillions of dollars "worth" of overpriced weapons to the government so the war machine guys can line their own pockets.
No, it is never the rich guys, it is the poor people of some other color than ours, that the Trumps of this world want us to blame and hate.
The Democrats are the ones that understand how to improve and protect the economy. Just compare Republican governor Walker in Wisconsin to Democrat governor Dayton in Minnesota. Minnesota is thriving while Wisconsin has went backwards due to Republican policies. Its an interesting study of states that sit side by side and are similar but because of differing ideas are like night and day. I am grateful we had President Obama, a democrat that brought us out of the financial crisis. If we would have had a Republican President we would still be in Hooverville and a century away from recovery. Even most Republicans know this to be true! The recovery was painful, but it could have been so much worse!!!!.
I think it obvious that he cant deport 11million illegals out of know where... its gonna take a long time. He plans to "expedite the process" . To be honest i dont think it will effect the economy much. Maybe they can be legalized as quickly as there found. You have to wonder, why in the hell would you not want to be a legal citizen of the US? These people he speaks about are illegal which pretty much says it all. And he wants to make it right where everyone is legal. I think its a great thing. There will still be the exact same jobs for them to fullfill, But they will be legal doing them. Im all for the law being obeyed.
"The Democrats are the ones that understand how to improve and protect the economy. "
lol, thanks for the laugh. Our economy is run by debt, debt which both R's and D's generate. The D's are a bunch of morons, just like the R's. In fact, IMO our country is very moronic thinking that we can "grow" (ahem - debt) forever without consequence. Not gonna happen, but if I were one to go with the crowd I'd answer myself by saying I don't care as long as it lasts during my lifetime - to hell with my kids and grandkids.
Well, I went to the West End Fair (Gilbert, PA) with my wife, and the Republicans and Democrats both had a booth.
One of the Republican booth guys stood around with a bowl of popcorn and there was a whole bunch of jars with the names and pictures of their presidential candidates. The idea was to "vote" for "your" candidate by putting a kernel of corn in that person's jar.
I didn't vote, but my wife did. She put one in the jar with the fewest kernels, which I didn't pay attention to at the time but later went back and found out it was Rick Perry (pity vote.)
No, I didn't even look at the relative amount of kernels in the other jars... because I don't care.
I did spend some time talking to the Republican activist pamphlet guy (a.k.a. useful idiot), who tried to get me to support the PA version of "school tax relief"....which is so full of holes and new (shifted) taxes that you'd really have to be a bit challenged, or blissfully ignorant...or partisan...to support it. He bragged about how he talked to the state and local politicians every two weeks or so, worked the polling places .. then he related that not much was done to change anything in the years when the Republicans were in control.
He also said that he intended to move out of PA when he retired.
But they were still "his" team, and he knows he can "help make a difference."
He was at least happy that I voted in the last election, until I told him that I wrote-in my cat for all state and federal positions. He became less happy, but seemed satisfied that I was still partially brain-dead enough to participate in the rigged game that he fervently believed in.
BTW, the Democrat stand lady just sat there and looked bored.
America is *SO* in play . . . . . . . .
"“He’s the man,” Cesar said of Mr. Trump. This week I went by and Cesar told me that after Mr. Trump threw Univision’s well-known anchor and immigration activist, Jorge Ramos, out of an Iowa news conference on Tuesday evening, the “El Vacilón” hosts again threw open the phone lines the following morning and were again surprised that the majority of callers backed not Mr. Ramos but Mr. Trump.
I said: Cesar, you’re supposed to be offended by Trump, he said Mexico is sending over criminals, he has been unfriendly, you’re an immigrant. Cesar shook his head: No, you have it wrong. Immigrants, he said, don’t like illegal immigration, and they’re with Mr. Trump on anchor babies. “They are coming in from other countries to give birth to take advantage of the system."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-so-in-play-1440715262
All illegal immigrants should be arrested and deported. This includes their children. They are overwhelming our schools, medical facilities and other social programs. Trump in 2016!
""Clearly not an economics major". Yeah continue with your snide remarks with pele that disagree with you. I asked for proof on the numbers you posted not on the Trumps immigration plan."
"Pele who need pele, are the luckiest pele in the world"
Previous to your lament, I posted "I have suggested you run your own numbers mostly because if you're like kb and jr concluding there is no proof, what's the point of posting just to be dismissed because you don't like most source(s)."
If you can't find a particular fact, feel free to ask I guess.
The NYT piece was just "a twist." It's just one guy, not exactly a statistic. Call it a human interest piece.
For proof, I opted to jump to the source of the bottom line of net benefit or not for undocumented workers where around 90% of economists say net benefit. This basically rolls all the other numbers up to a bottom line. One source, as listed, was WSJ with a sample of 46 economists with 96% voting positive. The other was a libertarian CATO institute ran a survey of "eminent" economists in the 80's, updated in the 90's found 86% positive.
Here's another general summary: http://openborders.info/economist-consensus/
Jersey Wolf responded that he could see a world where undocumented workers make things that we buy, they get jobs and buy things too, and ultimately increase the GDP "from an economist's point of view."
But he says the economists view is simplistic and leaves out the lost jobs, the need for more housing, rising housing prices. Then the rising housing prices benefit the wealthy while middle class children will be less able to afford housing.
Now more stuff is made and sold and more resources are used. With more cheap labor there's more welfare benefits, wages decrease, taxes increase including property taxes for immigrant kids.
He concludes "The long-term economic effects of 11 million+ (and increasing) illegal immigrants are incredibly complex, and they can and will affect various aspects of the economy in different ways."
OK, I give. Jersey Wolf feels the economists are simplistic and Jersey Wolf has schooled them on long term economic effects they may have overlooked when they simplistically looked at undocumented worker effect on GDP.
"Clearly not an economics major". Jersey Wolf, the economists were looking at immigrant net benefit to the economy, not just GDP.
Further JW's weird chain of events really starts to kick in with increased housing needs. This has not been the case for a decade or more with the housing boom followed by the 2008 crash when millions of houses came on the market. This would make the rest of his logic fall like a pack of cards.
I agree that folks should question all the numbers from these economists as I have been questioning how the most expensive, Cadillac Trump Wall and mass deportation of 11,000,000 workers when we don't have that many unemployed in the entire U.S. will magically benefit our economy. I question why Jersey Wolf has avoided any numbers or sources in his not simplistic economic scenario.
I showed how after the mass Trump deportations that a million workers will have to be imported to CA and TX after these states make 100% of their unemployed take the low wage vacant jobs. A million per state. Even in NJ, above 100% of our unemployed, we will need 100,000 low wage people to enter the state for a better life? Would you come to NJ for minimum wage?
But to ignore leading economists by saying they didn't account for things you didn't count or know whether they did or not, and conclude this immigration plan is a great plan seems less than due diligence.
Trump the master businessman worth $10B has reorganized around $4B in corporate and personal debt after filing for bankruptcy four times to reorganize and fend off hungry creditors. One can only wonder what's in store for worker's if we allow him to manage the largest debt in the world.
It starts with the Trump Taj Mahal in 1991 and the Trump Plaza in 1992, both defaulting on deep debt, resulting in reorganizing into Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts in 1995 adding in the Trump Marina to the new corporation. These bankruptcies probably left Trump himself personally operating in the red for a bit yet only the first one could have really sunk him since he had unwisely tied his personal fortune to some of the debt, some of which was backed by junk bonds. But selling a few yachts, planes, and stakes in other companies and he remained afloat learning to never tie himself to his financial messes ever again. As the master negotiator he also gave up 50% of his ownership on the first deal. On the second deal he gave up his salary and management of day-to-day operations.
Trump Hotels et al filed for bankruptcy in 2004– the first as a collective company which he reorganized this time as Trump Entertainment. The master negotiator gave up all control this time around dropping to about 25% ownership. And then this new corporation went belly up in 2009 with Carl Icahn removing Trump and taking over. Trump basically moves out of development and starts leveraging his only asset of value left --- his own name.
In 2014, it’s Trump Entertainment’s turn at the bankruptcy bat for missing an interest payment; something he has alluded that he would do with the Chinese as the master negotiator. This time Trump also sued to remove his name from the buildings. He couldn’t afford to have his name associated with bad debt, it’s his biggest asset. Totally on the run. In the end, only the Taj survived. It is still the Trump Taj Mahal even with the lawsuit. Trump Marina went to the Golden Nugget. Trump Plaza closed without a buyer. No value left. And Trump ownership down to less that 1% of his net worth, according to Trump.
Since 2014 Trump mostly sells his name for a price and will manage Trump-branded properties for fee. He creates few jobs, develops few properties and manages a few things he does not own. Basically he puts his name on other people’s efforts like painting a building red. A number of these properties have declared bankruptcy, there are numerous back and forth lawsuits pending, as Trump oils his way across the Universe of potential places to plaster his brand which he currently values at $3.3B. He boldly goes where most barkers would not and says his name alone is worth over a third of his net assets of $9B.
But others say when it comes to money, Trump lies: big time. Forbes has him at $4.1B in total assets versus his recently stated 9 or 10B which in Trump lingo --- is lawsuit clobbering time. We’ll see. Forbes knows that, has seen Trump do it to others “lowballing” his “highball” net worth. And yet Forbes printed it calling Trump a liar.
.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2015/06/16/trump-exaggerating-his-net-worth-by-100-in-presidential-bid/
Next Trump seeks to paste his name on the White House as "the greatest jobs President God has ever seen." His track record says otherwise. One can only wonder how soon he will declare bankruptcy for the U.S., blame all the other idiots, and skate off to his next killing. The $10B, no $9B, no $4B man constantly applauds himself being so smart to pull out of Atlantic City ahead of the pack. No, Donald, you were thrown out of town taking thousands of NJ jobs with you.
Just because a man is rich does not mean the man has done good works.
Andy - It's even worse than that. He's set to raise the income tax on all of the middle class because income tax is a hot button word when in reality it's FICA that's killing us. But he doesn't care about that because it's capped for him at a level that's peanuts to his mind. Then while we get our taxes hiked he's going to gut capital gains which is where all of his $ is, and eliminate inheritance so he doesn't worry about losing it for his kids either. Trump is controlled by the worst special interest of them all - himself.
Informative post by strangerdanger.
The historical figure Trump most resembles may be P.T. Barnum.
"You take away their (ISIS's) wealth, that you go and knock the hell out of the oil, take back the oil," Trump told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. In saying this he referred to Iraqi oil forgetting that ISIS is mostly getting its oil from Syria. Plus if you knock the oil out to take back the oil he neglected to mention you have to un-knock the oil first. Even so, Trump states “I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need ’em by the time I’m done.”
The worse part of this simplistic plan is that Trump the smart guy financial genius forgot to took where ISIS now gets its money. Around 10% from oil, the rest from operation that bombing the oil does not affect. Nice try wise guy.
"Analysts at the nonprofit RAND Corporation estimated that in 2014, ISIS raked in $600 million from extortion and taxation, $500 million in money stolen from Iraqi banks, and $100 million from oil." (see link below.)
As of January the US has dropped 5,000 bombs against ISIS and destroyed 3,000 targets. As of May perhaps 12,500 ISIS dead, 8,000 things blown up, but maybe over 15,000 sorties have flown meaning we go out and come back without firing more often than not. And the number of ISIS in region remains at 20K to 30K, they are replacing as fast as we are destroying.
We are being very careful in our target selection to avoid mixed communities and non ISIS. Fearing boots on the ground and the quality of trusted ally forward observers, we don’t have our own forward air controllers to guide those smart bombs in. So in caution for civilian casualties, our targets are very selective and if something looks wrong, we hold fire. Many of our strikes have been oil facilities and the mobile units ISIS uses to transport the oil. We have not turned off the tap but we are making headway.
It is what it is but to increase effectiveness , we will need boots on the ground at least for forward observation. We will need to take more risks, increase civilian casualties and frankly, go to full onslaught mode. To take the oil we will need a heck of a lot more boots on the ground for a long while.
To hold the oil, we will need lots and lots of boots on the ground from soldiers to engineers to oil workers and then more soldiers to protect the civilians. Once there, we will have this troop and civilian strength there for as long as Exxon is pumping. We will once again be the invader to Iraq perhaps totally unwanted (especially after Trump takes the oil for payment) and embroiled in maintaining our police state and rebuilding the Iraq social and physical infrastructure.
Not to mention ISIS will still be at full boot strength with a full pocketbook in the Syria that Trump forgot to mention. Or add Syria as a second front and now add the current regime as being against our invasion of their country while our boots just keep growing and growing.
You be the judge as to the numbers and the body count. The Iraq war cost $800 billion to conduct and will be close to $2 trillion once we cover all the downstream costs of the vets returning home. That's my starting point.
Trump says he will pay for all this with Iraqi oil. While that might soften our blow, what happens to the Iraqi’s and Syrian's while we are stealing their oil? Think they will take kindly to us blowing up the oil wells and then charging them for us to fix them while taking more oil to cover the costs of the war too.
Once again it’s a simplistic plan that does not currently even kill ISIS since it does not include Syria. Add in Syria and it potentially can equal or exceed Iraq War costs making it a very expensive solution. Most critical, we will lose thousands of American children for what gain?
I do agree that we need to continue to take out any oil facilities and transport that ISIS is using. Not sure I agree to retaking the oil and then stealing it to pay our way. We are doing that now and should continue our efforts hopefully even escalating them so we can say --- the tap is turned off.
Here's what a General who spent four years leading efforts in Iraq says: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-top-us-general-picked-apart-donald-trumps-isis-policy-2015-8
"Make America Great Again"?
The country with the world's biggest economy.
The country with largest military and most advanced weapons systems in the world.
The country with the most billionaires.
The country where every year millions of people of every nationality, race, religion and ethnic group risk their lives illegally entering for a better life.
The only way to make this country better would be to deport Donald Trump to Mexico.This election goes to the future of our democracy. Moreover, it will determine the quality of life for just about everyone who is not the 1%: if we work; if we have healthcare; if seniors have a livable level of social security; if young people just starting out will be able to afford an education that will teach them to think and act critically, as responsible and productive citizens of our human community, and afford to enter relationships and create families that are the future of that community.
citychick "This election goes to the future of our democracy."
This election goes to the future of our cleptocracy, I know. Just who, exactly, is offering to deal with it? I know it's not Trump, of course. Certainly not any R's or D's that I can see.
This is just amazing. and in New jersey no less.
http://www.nj.com/golf/index.ssf/2015/08/donald_trump_comes_to_the_barc.html#incart_river
So the sideshow in the center ring comes to NJ and the magnificent magician of misdirection draws a crowd. Everyone loves the circus OG :>). Both supporters and those just wishing to rubberneak. Like a traffic accident on the Parkway.
Meanwhile, what does The Donald say about Health Care plans. And I warn JIT's followers, this is going to be really rough :>)
First your good news, The Donald gets rid of ObamaCare. Then, according to Trump himself:
"If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over.”
“I believe in universal healthcare," Trump - 1999
"I would put forth a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes," Trump - 2000
"The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America.” Trump – 2000
At the beginning of this year Trump spoke on Letterman “I mean we could have a great system in this country” referring to Scotland’s socialized single payer health care system.
So we get rid of ObamaCare and then we put the Canadian or Scottish socialist plan funded by an HUGE increase in corporate taxes. Think The Duck was talking 45%. Current Medicare covers 15% of us at $500B so the price tag to corporations is over $3 Trillion. No matter how you cut it, the US will have the highest corporate tax rates in the world which should do wonders for bringing factories back to America.
Current Corporate average marginal tax rate is about 35%; effective tax rate is 27%. Current corporate tax revenues at about $320B. Being kind, 45% over 35% is about a third increase and that brings an extra $107B in to cover the $3 Trillion dollar price tag.
This Duck don't float.
Not to mention funding all US healthcare via corporate taxes will be the largest shift from a system with free market elements to a totally publicly sponsored socialized health care system. While I am OK with that, don't think it will fly as a social program and the numbers most certainly don't add up. Not to mention that The Duckster forgot that currently corporations shelter much of the profit that he will now tax via health care deductions on taxable profits making it a double hit of higher tax rates and lower deductions for corporations. Ouch.
Good news is you won’t be paying for health insurance anymore. Bad news is that Big Mac will cost you $1,000.
Last month a Trump spokesperson said Trump’s "never supported socialized medicine" but is for "a universal ‘market-based’ plan that would offer a range of choices." (Forbes).
OK, let's say Trump meant to say he would only cover those who can't afford it. That's about 15% or about $500B. His tax the corporation to pay for it plan still does not add up but only off by a factor of 5 this time. Now we have 15% on Medicare, 15% on socialized medicine and the rest of us on plans as usual. Cool beans.
Although isn't that just ObamaCare with far larger subsidies? And the math still does not add up but Big Macs may only cost $200 in Trump's America. That's Great!
Is this who we want in the White House?
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-trump-could-turn-the-presidency-into-a-127901460096.html
No Thank You No Thank You, Yes! Trump has my vote as of today.
He sure beats the current POTUS. Can't be any worse.
I think we should note how Trump benefits from the "liberal-biased" media. Not only does he get to blast them for their stupidity, but to sell media time they are just 90% covering the rhetoric and only 10% examining the plans and numbers.
The Trumpster is having his media cake and eating it too; it's a beautiful thing.
Next we will look at Trump's tax proposals which, like anything Trump, don't add up.
The guy I work for, who owns many properties throughout NJ (both residential apartment complexes and commercial/retail buildings), is a multi-millionaire because of his success real estate "empire."
He was a nobody, going from job to job and put the money into What he calls "Donald Trump's Real Estate Class."
Long before Trump ever ran for Prez, he always talked about how great the seminar was and how much help his Trump mentors were. Two of his former Trump mentors are actually partners with him on some of his larger properties.
The lawsuit is a bunch of crybabies that thought they would go to a seminar and become an instant millionaire. People try to sue Tony Robbins too, because they don't become instantly "rich" or "successful" after they spend $15,000 to walk on hot coals and basically get a 3 day pep-talk.
I saw the books and all the CD's my boss got and there is a TON of info, he had multiple mentors and lifetime advice (even to this day he can call and speak to someone, although he doesn't need it anymore!).
Just another group of whiners trying to take Trump down, that's all.
It is true that some people attending Trump U did well and that student lawsuits may be frivolous. Less frivolous might be the current one underway for fraud by the NY State Attorney General on behalf of 5,000 students. Sure, he's a Democrat, but since Trump U already was found guilty previously and must make restitution to 800 students......
Of course Trump University is now The Trump Initiative since NY Department of Education found calling what Trump does a University to be fraudulent.
Yeah, it all smells like roses.
Keep in mind strangerdanger that if the corporations paid taxes to fund healthcare, they would no longer need to load salaries to cover healthcare. Yes this might not mean much to Walmart or McD's but for companies that provide actual healthcare to their employees, it might actually save them money.
Still not voting for Trump, just pointing out that math cannot be used against him on this one.
Not sure what you mean Agust. Currently companies fund healthcare with pre taxed profits meaning for each health care dollar they spend, they save $.39 on taxes. So you get a $1,000 health care benefit but it costs the corporation around $650 in pre-taxed profits to give it to you. A win-win.
Honestly I don't think Trump will go this route but will opt to subsidize anyone not able to afford insurance ending up looking like ObamaCare on steroids and taxing corporate profits to do so.
Since he also has stated he wants to reduce corporate taxes to ZERO, this is going to take some smoke and mirrors.
The Daily Trump
Now it's a Trump's turn in the grinder as pollsters survey unveils Trump's radical right opinions including Obama's a Muslim born outside the US, etc. etc. etc.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-supporters-obama-muslim-fox-news-2015-9
Before you go totally off the wall, the WP has the rebuttal.
Meanwhile Jeb unveiled a "in my own words" Trump retrospective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgKWPcpwFDs
Trump responds:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jeb-bush-politics-advertisement-george-bush-willie-horton-2015-9
Now that's entertainment!
Yes they are pre tax dollars. But there are usually a lot of them. It's been a while since I had to buy my own care. In 2000 or so it cost me out of pocket over $1000 a month for basic medical and hospital. My current employer pays almost twice that, and I still have to contribute several grand a year. Pre tax or not 20K a year for companies with 20-50,000 employees is a big bucket of cash.
I agree Mr. Trump spouts lots of interesting thoughts, most of them without any real chance of producing the actual intended result. Bombast and big hair do make for good T.V. So he will always be attractive to the folks who like shiny baubles more than dull substance.
Agust - But part of the issue is the amount of buying your own care is literally double what an employer can get through a group plan. That $1000 from the 2000 era would be about $500 for Cadillac level full family coverage. Your contribution is most likely because you've got coverage for more than just yourself. The company might pay for you, but the additional coverage you have to make up. As a small employer myself, I can say the $20k a year is not even close to what we pay and it's coverage that's about as good as it gets. We could be paying much less for basic coverage and it might top out at $5k a year. For good quality employees, that is not a huge burden.
But one of the other points is the number of employees when it gets to that 50,000 level pushes companies to switch to being self-insured. When you start paying bit $, you in essence need a health care division of your company anyway. That's why for the big corporates the point is relatively moot. They're out of the loop anyway.
I think we are kinda saying the same thing but differently. First because they are pre-tax, it costs the company about 12K to give you that 20K benefit since they forgo any tax on that benefit. If Trump goes the universal single payer route, then the same companies will pay the full 20K to cover you by way of a tax. Plus they will be saddled with the subsidy tax for the 15% currently uncovered. It's a much bigger price tag.
If he goes towards the ObamaCare route which is what I would bet on and just covers the uncovered and leaves the rest the same, it's a tax for the 15% only which is a bad deal but a better deal.
It's a costly mess no matter which way he turns once he says "all Americans should have health care." And it should be a social program mess for Trump supporters but, hey what can I say.
I think I agree that Trump has brought one thing to the election process. His hair/makeup crew is so much better than anyone else in the race, ever, that anyone wishing for office in the future is going to have to hire those folks :>)
GC, good point that businesses get "economies of scale" discounts on insurance meaning that forgoing the tax break and the discount in lieu of taxing the business to provide universal coverage could be a higher total cost combined with total disruption of the current insurance / health care market.
While disruption may be good, not sure that socialized medicine funded by business taxes is good disruption. I just can't see Trump following his recommendation for a Scottish or Canadian system. If he does one thing is certain IMHO. As companies end the health care benefit and pay for socialized universal single-payer healthcare for all of us via taxation, our salaries will not go up as we trade our current plans for state-sponsored universal health care.
Universal "market-based" Coverage using " with a "range of choices" that Trump's spokesman recently trumpeted is the lesser evil and will probably just tax businesses to subsidized the 15% or so who can't afford insurance. Like I said, basically ObamaCare on steroids.
"Well here's another nice mess you've gotten me into. Stanley"
I have tried to go through Trump's Mulligan Stew of tax statements but it's literally impossible to put his Humpty Dumpty of a program together in any coherent plan. Here's some of what I have gleaned.
What's most important is that if you look across all the statements, it is clear that Trump favors a flat tax. He also favors a graduated flat tax plan that effectively is a progressive tax. It's an enigma.
By far the most reaching for you and I is Trump’s graduated flat tax where up to $30K net income pay 1%, 30-100K 5%, 100K-1M 10% and above that 15%. This was announced in his 2011 book and expected to be the foundation and most of us should really benefit.
Bottom line is the middle will be taxed less, business will be taxed zero, business will be taxed 10% to 15% to cover health care, Mexico will be taxed for having people leave, US businesses with factories overseas will be punished at 20% tax, autos built outside the US get hit with 35% tax (80% of Ford's assets are in the U.S., 97% of it's R&D) The Chinese will be taxed for lending us money, the rich pay more, lots of other Trump designated bad actors get punished, and the bottom line does not change.
Trump will abolish the death tax, lower capital gains and dividend taxes which will dramatically lower the tax on the rich. The Trump family will personally make billions on the deal given his estate worth of over $5B and current Federal inheritance top tax rate of 40% on amounts over 5.43M. That's over $2B the Trump family saves. For most of us, this means no gain, no gain at all
In this massive disruption, the bottom line does not change.
It's pure freakin magic math and a whole lot of punishment for the rich and people Trump don't like.
Oh yeah. As President he has zero authority to do any of this.
It's on CNN. I believe it's 6:00 for the second-tier candidates and 8:00 for the main event.
Joe M 
Denise "Oh yeah. As President he has zero authority to do any of this"
I don t think Obama got that message.
I'd much rather watch the premiere:
Nova - National Geographic Special "Dawn of Humanity"
at 9pm on PBS.
Donald Trump is the Rex Ryan of presidential candidates.
An analogy relating to personality, but a big difference between the two is ... Ryan actually has some successful coaching experience, and has worked his way up the ranks.
Trump, I believe, has never held an elected office, and he wants to start at the top and be president.
Gee, two weeks with no activity on this thread. Feels like I just opened up Pandora's Box LOL
At this point it would take a miracle for him to not be the nominee. Jeb bush is done for, carly is nasty, and carson to soft.
Based on current polls, if Trump doesn't get the nomination, the fix will be in. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me... the GOP is not nearly nervous enough for me to believe they don't have a plan to insure he is not the nominee, especially after signing that agreement (that he wouldn't run independent if he didn't win the primary)
However- if there's hanky-panky, and Trump uses those grounds to declare that agreement null & void, good for him. Run independent. Fight fire with fire.
It's sure going to be interesting, whatever happens. More interesting than the general election will be!
Not quite sure it's a lock for The Donald. Poll-wise, from June to September he rose and peaked and lately he has been faltering. Seems he has no where to go but down and the more tirades or specifics he provides, the worse it gets. With so many candidates and so much anger at the system, the three outsiders garner around 50% of the voters and the dirty dozen insiders have about 50% of the voters.
So as money dries up and folks start dropping, the tally could change dramatically.
At this point no one though Mitt Romney was even in the race.
stranger,
Interesting, your perspective... I see the opposite. What I'm seeing is, Donald has led the whole way, and DESPITE the presses attempts to torpedo him, and DESPITE some of the comments he's made.... he's still leading. It's like he's bulletproof.
It's been quite interesting, watching Trump and the country's reaction to him this time around.
If Trump gets the nomination I would be shocked. There's no way in our current political system that that happens. Zero chance IMO.
JIT, care to elaborate? What I mean is, it certainly looks like he's going to have the PEOPLE'S votes, so....?
This says it all. Money saw to it that the fix is in. This nomination show means nothing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386913/new-rnc-rules-stymie-conservativesin-primaries-henry-olsen
JR, elections are a series of controlled "choices" that are anything but. The D and R National Committes will change rules and ignore majorities when it suits them. The last presidential election cycle conventions blatantly demonstrated that fact. At the time I had posted two videos, one from each convention, showing how fake the process is. By roll call vote, where an obvious majority was against whatever was being voted on, the cameras recorded the obsurdity. If the rule makers have the balls to do that on national TV then I have no doubt they will do whatever is necessary to maintain control of the political system.
No, I dont see trump getting the nomination at all. Zero chance.
Wow. No surprise the people hate their government. I'm telling you- stuff like this WILL lead to a revolution. Because eventually, as they continue changing the rules to torpedo a democratic vote, they will leave the people no choice but force. You can't make the people's voice irrelevant w/o suffering the consequences. Just ask Britain circa 1776.
And no- I don't want that. No one does. But it will happen. Shades of Britain and the new world here... just a matter of time until we won't take it anymore. Once enough people realize the vote means ZERO, it's a powder keg primed to blow.
Which is why the big push to disarm us in recent years. This thing is gonna' get very ugly. I don't know when, but it's going to happen.
jd2, I think you are. lol The people of OHIO don't even like him anymore! lol
Kasich is very good, but too practical for this year's race. That's what will do Carson in as well.
I do agree that Trump has out-tefloned Bill Clinton, it's a beautiful thing. Bulletproof is an apt description. And the press, enamored with his ability to sell news, continue to give him a pretty easy ride; I kind of disagree with them torpedo-ing him; there's a lot of ammunition that just has not been used yet. But in this year of frustration both Trump and Sanders are symptoms of our lust for anything different from what is busy doing less than nothing. Our lust may not fade, but infatuation does.
JR, Trump has 25% of the Republican vote; that's like 12% of the national vote. He pairs up behind either Clinton or Sanders. There's a long ways to go here and "many a slip twixt cup and lip." Especially with Trump's mouth.
"Which is why the big push to disarm us in recent years" OK, that's just funny. What push are you talking about? Got facts?
And then your oft repeated forecast of inevitable violence: "they will leave the people no choice but force. You can't make the people's voice irrelevant w/o suffering the consequences" with, of course, your escape clause: "And no- I don't want that. No one does." Well thank goodness for that, but wait, there's more: "But it will happen." Darn, I thought we might have a chance. So when do you use the guns, just before it happens or just after? Do you like to yell "fire" in the movie theater followed by "I don't want that" followed by "but it will happen."
stranger.
I've said it before. Mark my words. When the people realize elections are meaningless, all hell WILL break loose. Just a mater of time.
As to Trump, depends on which poll you look at.
"What push are you talking about? Got facts?"
All polls show Trump leveling or faltering over the past 30 days or so.
If elections are meaningless (a big if), it's because unlike in most other countries, under our system we usually don't have a government per se. We usually have two sides both in, where one side can stop a lot of what the other side is doing. This is creating tremendous frustration all around.
Each side blames the other for failures, and it is not really possible to figure out who is at fault. Mostly though, it is the system that is at fault.
In most places a government can actually do a lot, can actually run things. Then after a time people can vote to keep them in or toss them out.
" We usually have two sides both in, where one side can stop a lot of what the other side is doing."
By design... I think it works well. In order to get anything done it needs to have broad support across all walks of life.
"Undoing" something after it's already in place is much harder than preventing something bad legislation from passing up front.
"By design... I think it works well."
I know by design there are checks and balances in the Constitution. However, the Constitution did not contemplate political parties. Sorry, but I don't think what is going on these days is by design!
JR, here's the link to the comment I was referring to:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/452826#t454691
The RNC link is dead, but here's another that is still functional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRpnRsnOhI
About 2:15 is the role call vote where the rule change was pushed through without a majority.
Copied from the link above:
Here's the DNC link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg
Note that Villaraigosa, reading the teleprompter, realized that what he was about to read was completely bogus. See the DNC vote above at around 1:50, then specifically his reaction around the 2:25 mark. Unreal.
JIT,
Uncomprehendable. THAT (and many other actions like it that disregard the rule of law) are revolution-worthy. And I'm not throwing the word around in a macho way, I really mean that when that level of tyranny is reached, there is usually only one way to fix it, history has shown us. With their egomaniacal states and arrogant attitudes, I don't think they truly realize the stew they are cooking.
That is exactly what I mean when i say "elections don't matter". And also why I have been seriously considering not voting any more. If we're going down in flames, all the better the faster it happens, so we can begin rebuilding on the other side.
Stuff like that is truly frightening. Because of where it leads. And anyone who can't see that is a fool. And when it comes, it won't be the revolutionaries' fault- it'll be the government's fault. Actions have consequences.
No, JR does not advocate violence, just revolution. Which Constitution are you protecting with arms this time JR? The GOP?
Need to take a deep breadth.
Just keep your eye on the Pentagon JR. I don't think any thing will ever happen in this country with the citizens. Most don't care one way or the other. I have been watching there actions for a few years. There is a divide in the Government just as there is a divide in the country. Have you noticed how many high ranking officers have left the service and shouting there mouths off on TV. They are the mouth pieces for those still serving. They are VERY well informed as to what is going on through there contacts. I have heard them asked a question they did not know , and they said they will find out, and they do.. You know what they say, once a Marine, always a Marine. That holds true in all services. I Think an over throw is more likely. Just IMO
Overthrow, revolution, whatever.... lol
And MisterGoogle, I have explained this to you umpteen times... I am not "advocating" anything. But actions have consequences. JIT said it pretty well in the "massacre" thread:
"... those who use fear to justify using authority over others need to reflect on the consequences of the forceful actions that stem from those fears. People who feel like they are backed into a corner tend to lash out. Shouldn't be all that surprising."
"Uncomprehendable. THAT (and many other actions like it that disregard the rule of law) are revolution-worthy"
"I am not "advocating" anything"
OKdoky.
You're delusional. But we knew that.
Action -> reaction. It's called reality. Actions have consequences. Call it "predicting the future" if you will... but if the government takes actions that people feel warrant a reaction, that is exactly what's going to happen.
strangerdanger, You may like to expand your circle of friends. I thought I was the only one looking at the over all future all the time.. About 8 years ago my farmer neighbor pass away. I knew them quite well. We were all together with his family at that time. They had 3 sons and one daughter. All educated. One a professor and one made it three days on Jeopardy. They all live in different states. The present conditions came up. Every single one has thought seriously about where we would move to in the world. I was shocked that these people thought like me. Even the farmers wife, and she was a school teacher. Indecently they are all Christians. Many others think, this country is not really worth fighting for. I know my family don't think so. Every single one of their Uncles and Grand Parents have served. You see Trump getting 26% of the vote. It tells me they are ready to give up also.
The rule of law has become so corrupt. The Drug dealer goes to jail.The Wall Street and Banking crooks just pay a fine.
strangerdanger, May I suggest you listen to Greta Van Susteren,tonight concerning the Legal system. A man is selling a book with information after the 7 years of limitations ran out. Interesting.
by all means we need Trump. What the hell, it can't be any worse that what we have now. The only other change would be if Biden goes in, then he should be president
edward 
trump2016 We need someone who is lookin out for this country! GO USA. TRUMP Is the Deal Maker Who Will Get Things Done!
Scott Simmons " For most of us, this means no gain, no gain at all"
That sums up most people's view on the role of government, and certainly validates yours....
STOP ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO GET YOU STUFF BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN HAPPEN IS BY FIRST STEALING IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE!
Talk about moral hazard. And yet you still wonder why society is so screwed up? It's not hard to figure out when on one hand YOU want the government to get something for you and on the other PREVENT others from getting what they want. The answer is for everyone to KNOCK IT OFF. All these arguments sound so effing selfish.
Trump is the perfect example of "money can't buy class". He is crude, rude and completely obnoxious..not even sure if he's educated.
Forgive me, but I don't keep up with politics, but I'm curious if anyone has information about his education (not that it has anything to do with class). Although it does speak volumes concerning his ignorant responses.
Positive. Enlighten us please, what exactly do you mean by "class"? That he speaks his mind?, that he does not suffer fools? For your edification, Trump holds an MBA from Wharton. Perhaps you should "keep up" with politics before making comments about such topics.
" For most of us, this means no gain, no gain at all""
Wow JIT, talk about taking things out of context, being totally out of date, and concluding with logic leap of gross proportions. You have outdone yourself in your pointless pursuit of the danger man.
I was talking about Trump's old tax program, as in the one he professed pre-candidacy and the one which is moot now that he announced an entirely different plan and agenda.
And then you stretch the out of context, old news, technical statements about winners and losers in an income tax program change (as in technical description who pays more, who pays less) and turn it into some sort of morality play on government defining it as a validation of my view of the entirety of government which you then rudely conclude is "effing selfish." Yet further adding that comments on Trump's old tax program are somehow my request to ASK(ING) THE GOVERNMENT TO GET YOU STUFF BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN HAPPEN IS BY FIRST STEALING IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE!
Uh JIT ==== I pay and have paid more to the government that I will ever receive. And I cover your butt much more than you will ever cover mine. You are wrong on the math, wrong on the exaggerated leaps of logic, and wrong on the intent. And you are stealing from me.
You just had something to say so you grabbed a tasty sound-bite and flailed away.
And the problem goes well beyond the Presidency. Look at what happened at one of our top allies, one of the most repressive countries on the plant but they are amigos because of petroleum:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/asia/india-saudi-maid-attack/index.html
What does America stand for? Democracy? How when we have allies like Saudi Arabia and of course Israel? Again, what do we stand for other than our own interests? And what are our own interests -- nothing more than the special interest groups running the show...
for a smart guy HH/mg/sd you have an incredibly small perspective on things.
Are you upset that I'm pretty much saying, repeatedly, that YOU are part of the problem, specifically your focus on symptoms rather than on the real problems, as well as your "the only solution is a government solution" philosophy?
Your refusal to acknowledge the big picture of the immorality of government coercion, that for every "winner" there MUST be a loser, and that those losers will not play nicely in your world of forced coercion, all beg the question of what is really your goal? Taking your posting history into account, one can only conclude that you believe what you do, not for reasons of right or wrong or for goodness over evil, but for plain old human selfishness.
I'm not going to ask you to step back and look at the 10,000 ft view. I know you won't- you'd rather just argue why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
On that note, have a great day. Looks to be a nice one.
Yes, I do find subtle personal attacks to be tedious. At least you could try making the digs fun. Calling me a problem, telling me my focus is misplaced, my troubled fixation on government as sole solution, unable to see big picture, and being a selfish person.
There are many times I have not open expressed, ooops I am wrong but agreed with others ideas ---- most recently I liked Skippy's which I think you did too, with a slight slap.
Like I said, I give much more than I take and I give more than you. There is no dole coming my way. Your feeling that all taxation is coercion and theft not only flies in the face of the Constitution but also of Americans pitching in for a better future. And when push, you weasel out and say, well, of course some taxation is necessary.
But to tie my clinical assessment of the prelude to Trump's tax package as some sort of pro taxation platform is just a ridiculous stretch of the imagination and general animosity to fall into some times.
"Yes, I do find subtle personal attacks to be tedious"
I'm not trying to be subtle. I openly find your brand of always using force to accomplish goals immoral and disgusting. However, are you not the same person who's been replying in the gun thread with your non-stop "suble personal attacks" toward JR? You do it it's tedious, right? Whatever.
"Like I said, I give much more than I take and I give more than you. "
I doubt that very much. First, you may think you are taxed more than me, and continue to mistakenly equate taxation with "giving", but how can you be so certain? Seems like you're falling back into old habits and allowing your arrogance to show through. Besides, based on your own admissions of years past, there's not a carrot on a stick that you won't take. In fact, it's such a game to you that you have, on more than one occasion, puffed your chest out and exclaimed how awesome you are that you were able to get this or that perk. Like I said, you can write anything you want but you can't escape your logical fallacies.
Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge reality and once again miss the point completely.
Oprah Winfrey Interviews the Donald in 1988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Whether Donald Trump is 'classless' matters not when you have a"" President whose goal is with the Elites, What better way for globallization than to tear down, borders and identities, love of country and customs and force Global migration on war torn countries and break the backs of the working class of the Host countries, providing for the foreign influx. Divide and Conquor. Take down the stock markets, get rid of Capitalism, tear down religious beliefs, CREATE CRISIS AND DISARM EVERYONE. The Elites will call for Global Martial law for which they have created UN and Shadow troups and Whala ! The New World Order is in Place! People like the Bilderbergs, the Gates, the O. Winfreys, and even our own beloved Mr. Zucherberg and many more get to make the rules because Money makes them so much smarter than the rest of us.We on the other hand get to be the Minions, yep the Minions. Castrated, castigated little workers who exist to please the Masters. Wonder why those little guys are so popular. While the dirty deeds are done we get to watch sports, play mind control games on our phone and I pads and post our every move, every minute of the day. Smile when you take that selfie. The World is in Chaos but you have to look great for face book!""
Donald Trump is the only candidate who said the same thing today that he did 30 years ago>>that he is "Sick and Tired of America getting Ripped off!!"
He is the only one who ISN'T run by the 'special interest groups'....and the only one I think we have a 'remote' chance of turning things around with before our children are living in a third world Country!
" I openly find your brand of always using force to accomplish goals"
First that's just not true. Second taxation as force is your opinion, not necessarily everyone's. Nicely done to avoid the personal attack this time.
There's tax rate and then there's total amount. Yes, my tax rate may be less than yours due to following the tax code and seizing tax opportunities that are applicable and legal.
sha44ss, Much the same as I have been saying for years. "The New World Order is in Place! People like the Bilderbergs ect''. People don't know anything about them or who controls there leadership. Its beyond there comprehension. So it is in Caesars world. Live for today , the hell with tomorrow. I know where my tomorrow is, and it's not in this world.
You are right Old Gent...and my tomorrow isn't in this World much longer either!...but I have Kids and Grandkids who I don't want to be suffering when America is broke and crumbling ..20 Trillion in debt is not sustainable! Bringing in hundreds of thousands of Foreignors who wont 'assimilate' is going to be the end of US! Our broken immigration system is the root of all America's problems right now> Joblessnes/Poverty/Security Threats/ Overburdened Welfare & Foodstamp entitlements = ever growing DEBT!
It is already over for me! I worked all my life to get where I was and to save for retirement and in three short years without my 'good paying' job it is gone! I'm too old to 'start over'! I have to struggle and scrounge till the day I die now!
If we don't get a real LEADER that can FIX it RIGHT NOW our kids face a very bleak future! We are at the edge of the abyss!
We need a man with a Vision and someone that has the determination to do it!
"MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN'" sounds like a GREAT VISION to me!! and he can CUSS and be CRASS all he wants if he CAN really make it happen!
His #1 APPEAL to me is his LOVE for our COUNTRY and especially our VETERANS and his promise to take care of them! I BELIEVE HIM! and I haven't heard any of that in the last SEVEN YEARS! http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/donald-trumps-top-priorities-as-president-military-veterans-jobs/
What do we have to lose? It is only going to get WORSE if we don't TRY!
LISTEN TO THIS MAN FROM 30 YEARS AGO>>>HE LOVES AMERICA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
"Second taxation as force is your opinion"
No, it's not opinion. It couldn't be any more clear - don't pay a tax, then we can talk about whether it's forceful or not. Surely you know what happens to folks who choose to not pay their taxes? Do you think they get a pat on the back or something? What a ridiculous statement on your behalf. One of the most ridiculous comments you've ever made.
My reason for bringing it up over and over again is pretty rudimentary, actually: I'm hoping that most people, when reminded, will show a little bit of restraint and maybe not add to the non-stop insanity of government interventions that everyone, it seems, takes for granted. Consequences are a bitch, especially for those who should be smart enough to understand but choose to close their mind instead.
And one other thing: Why does a smart guy like you think it's perfectly OK to base a tax system on deceit and obfuscation? Pay a whole bunch now just to get a lot of it back later in the form of "seizing tax opportunities"? Clearly, if you are intelligent enough to understand how to work the system then you are smart enough to understand that there are those who don't know any better (ie, you can't "win" unless someone else "loses" - which is their problem and not yours). Who might that be though? Um - the same people that you claim you want to help with all of your other generous government interventions maybe? The poor, the weak, the uneducated. It seems to me that you much prefer taking advantage of those people rather than working to help them. Clearly, you've admitted as such on multiple occasions even if you don't recognize you're doing it. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you do recognize it, but you feel OK about it because you think it's the wealthy that you're stealing from and not the lower classes? If so, sorry to burst your bubble. The tax and income system in this country is clearly set up to provide for the wealthy and not the lower classes, demonstrated clearly by the income divide.
If you truly wanted to help others you would be working tirelessly to fundamentally change the structure and operation of the government and tax system. Yet you're one and only response to any societal problem always comes back to supporting the status quo, providing government interventions, presumably because you enjoy and thrive on how smart you are and how well you can work the system to get what you need. Yay you!!!!!
Getting it yet?
Watch out sha44ss. Trump has branded his slogan, you might be next to be sued.
JIT, I am most certainly on board to "fix" the tax system, most assuredly I will pay a higher rate in the process.
Until then, I will follow the legal tax system to the best of my abilities. Not sure the poor have a tax issue. As for the uneducated, to your way of thinking we are all taking advantage of them. Or perhaps they should help themselves.
As for laws equal coercion, I have said before I can understand your opinion, but since I believe in the Constitution, the fact we are a country based on the rule of law, and IMHO our system of having duly elected representatives creating said laws does not leave me out of the process. I am part of it and I agree with it and therefore do not feel that laws enacted by "we the people" are forced. I am part of the process.
So where does it stop. Governmental Laws. Laws of Nature. Laws of Physics. God's Law.
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
Latest news is now finally saying that TRUMP is pretty much inevitably the GOP nominee. About dang time.
All these democrats wanna get in and give obomacare to the illegals? And then social security? Gotta wonder what in the hell people are thinking to vote for that.
I'm wondering what in the hell you're drinking to be thinking the ACA will apply to illegals much less social security. Who said that?
We'll see Forcefed4door. Having seen so much manipulation of the process over the past couple of elections I don't think the RNC will let that happen without a significant fight.
SD This is the ONLY place to get REAL news anymore.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/13/hillary-i-would-open-obamacare-exchanges-to-immigrants-open-to-giving-subsidies-to-illegal-immigrants/
and here is the DONALDS Tweet of the Night
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/654122760860495872
If anyone depends on a single new source they are short sighted.
Doubtful that Hillary said ObamaCare; that's the first hint of bias. What she did say was basically she would follow the law of the land, state's rights, and the Congressional responsibility to make law. Pretty leftist socialist stuff.
As quoted even in your article she said all immigrants should be allowed to use HealthCare.gov to shop for insurance plans but they would not get subsidies. I can see where Trump would conclude: "Notice that illegal immigrants will be given ObamaCare and free college tuition but nothing has been mentioned about our VETERANS" from that statement given his frame of mind or lack thereof.
In actuality, this is really saying nothing since immigrants with legal residency can use the ACA today. That's the law. Other immigrants can window shop on the ACA and are able to buy insurance in any state in the land. The only thing Hillary added in the debate was she would let them push the buy button on the Exchange versus just calling the insurance company using 1-800 as they can today to buy insurance.
Now she did add that she would support states rights and states, who on a state-level, provide ACA access to undocumented children just like we extend welfare to said children. So if you are against Hillary defending state's rights, well that's special.
As to anything further or different she indicated that would have to be part of the immigration reform to take place in Congress; we all know how that is moving along..... But she supported using Congress to make immigration reform law.
That's what the quote said in your article; as to what the article said all I can say is perhaps multiple new sources might provide a more accurate reading of the quote.
...and they wouldn't put anything on the Internet if it wasn't true, right YF?
http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
Yankeefan, apparently that quote is bogus.
Those of us who don't care for Trump have to remember he's not the worst candidate running.
jd2, probably so, but it was just too good to pass up. Fact is, I could definitely see him saying it.
As for his not being the "worst candidate running", that's a matter of opinion.
I an finding Trump more interesting if you listen to his words only and and not the expanded views of others. Concerning 9/11. I first was aware of the threats in the East back in the Iran Contra hearings as follows,
.From Fact Check.
The facts: Oliver North testified about a home security system during a July 7, 1987 joint Senate-House hearing on the Iran-Contra investigation. The questioner was not a senator, but committee counsel John Nields. Col. North testified the security system was installed because threats were made on his life by terrorist Abu Nidal.
We had many more warnings since, even by the Donald.
Trump wrote about terror threat before 9/11 in his book.
"Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers—more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us"
All he said was we were attacked on Bush's watch, Period.
My impression is that when Jeb Bush makes it a talking point that his brother "kept us safe", it is only fair to mention that 9/11 was on his watch.
I don't think Trump is exactly blaming Bush for 9/11. He is just putting in a valid objection to the "kept us safe" part.
jd2 - I think Trump is *clearly* blaming W. Everyone else in the world is so incompetent that Trump would have prevented it just through immigration policy. There's no denying it was on W's watch, and all things considered his reaction in the aftermath was probably better than most. You can try to second guess how good W was at being proactive (which I don't think was so great), and clearly Cheney had other ideas and twisted it all wrong. But blaming W outright the way Trump is doing is not right.
Old Gent - Only thing is Abu Nidal had nothing to do with it. Iran had nothing to do with it. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Saddam had nothing to do with it, in fact was tirelessly fighting off Al Queda. The fight for control of Saudi Arabia - well that's a different story. The Middle East isn't so simple which has been a mistake of many years. Too bad Trump has no handle on foreign policy let alone 9/11.
- "Only thing is Abu Nidal had nothing to do with it".
What I was pointing out was, at that time is when I first became aware of the troubles ahead. When the first trade center was attacked, and we made light of it. At that time I left living near the city. There were other considerations, but that was one of them. My friend worked in the tower, and he was thinking of changing job's and didn't, and lost his life. The President is only as good as the people he puts around him and trusts. Look at how that worked out with the last two Presidents. Not very good IMO.
I agree, let's talk Trump in his own words.
I think there are two aspects of Trump's latest foray into body slamming Jeb's brother. The first aspect is it falls on Bush's lap for responsibility: "When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time." That's what sparked this one.
OK, that's true. And when immediately asked if Bush was to blame: "He was president, okay? Blame him, or don't blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign."
So the upshot is when you think of all the attacks, whoever was President owns it: Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center - 1993, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, etc. etc. OK, fine.
Responsible as on his watch, sure. To blame --- The Duck weaseled that and let the innuendoes do the rest.
Then this week he amplified and clarified the blame game by name: ""The fact is we had the worst attack in the history of our country during his reign. Jeb (Bush) said we were safe during his reign." Not true Don. Jeb said GW kept us safe after the tragedy.
And then he stuck the blame dagger, which he says he does not hold, in deep: "CIA Director George Tenet knew in advance that there was going to be an attack," "He knew in advance that there was going to be an attack." Again, not true Don. Tenet did not say an attack was imminent not that his info was accurate just that folks are planning attacks.
But the real conclusion Trump is making is that this would not have happened on his watch. And that is at best unknown but probably totally untrue. Again the Don: “If you look at what happened, number one, I would’ve had a stronger immigration policy,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day.” “I’m not saying I would’ve prevented them, but I would’ve had a chance because I’m pretty good at this stuff.”
So he says he's not sure he can prevent them, but he's pretty good at this stuff. Of course there's no resume, no proof, and a lot of impractical ideas to support that.
Sorry, Duck, but deporting 11,000,000 Mexicans wouldn't have stopped it.
Your wall wouldn't have stopped it.
And your newly purported "tougher Visa standards" and "giant whistleblower system" are either unknown or stupid. What tougher Visa standards? Easy to take a broad brush but do you have any real plans. Or like the stupid idea for a whistleblower system would have given you a heads up. Didn't you notice how much we offered for Bin Laden looking for a whistle blower? What were you going to pony up?
Bottom line when you listen to Trump he has zero proof of blame to make those outrageous claims and little in the way of tangible plans that would have thwarted 9/11. Just sounds.
So I say, yes, by all means, listen carefully to the man. So far, not one platform or plan makes financial or productive sense. Not one.
I can not get into the the little nuances at this time like you do. This is Gotcha season. Today, Chris Matthews Joins Trump in Blaming Bush for 9/11. Only about 30 % consider the issues seriously anyway. Sound bites prevail. No matter who wins the Republican nomination makes no difference. It's all in the hands of the Super Delegates by there rules. The big money will bring the hammer down on Trump, if they want to. There are rumblings about such a plan now. After years of being on the loosing end of the issues, and seeing the Constitution shredded, at this time in my life, I just figure out how to survive after seeing the results. My judgement s in Caesars world are made on the bases of common sense. My Grand Children are educated enough to make decisions for their life. I always told them to not be afraid to look at opportunities outside this country. The more Freedom, the better the opportunities. I only have one Boss of life and you cant take it with you but your actions will count.
Hahaha! Diamond and Silk> Stump for Trump! Ya Gotta Love it! The Establishment of Both Parties are scared to Death of Him!
Scared their CASH COW is gonna run dry!!
GO TRUMP!! AMERICA IS GONNA BE GREAT AGAIN!!
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-stump-for-trump-duo-bring-down-the-house-at-candidates-nc-rally/
I really wish everyone would
Think carefully about who we have currently running the country
And how America has Been fundamentally changed and not for the better
Debt
Health insurance
And one bad decision after another
Doesn't want to actually say Islamic terrorists
And has no experience. Except for a community organizer that failed miserably
So yes I and many others are ready for trumph !
At least he is not afraid to say exactly where he stands
Our police are attacked and disrespected
Our veterans are not taken care of
And our economy is in the toilet
We have a food stamp society
That is encouraged by our president
Oh and yes let's just let everyone cross our borders and take refugees
That we can't really check backgrounds on
I hope everyone votes that is the important thing
Our country needs a leader
And we currently don't have one
True Elizabeth! Nobody - not even an Obama lover can dispute anything you said. They will try, but facts are facts. They will come on here and name-call and whine because they can't handle the truth.
Everywhere I go I hear trump. Everyone I have talked to is voting for trump. Everyone in my family on both sides are voting for trump. Work friends and personal friends will be voting trump. There is one exception, my grandmother. There is no changing her mind and man does it cause an explosive argument if anything other than nice things aren't said about Clinton. So there are the very occasional Clinton fans I suppose. But I surely feel trump is gonna own the election. No pun to the haters.
With nearly 20,000 votes in:
Yes. 69.89% (13,968 votes)
No. 27.78% (5,553 votes)
I don't know. 2.33% (466 votes)
Looks like a Trump Landslide.........
JoeBee haha, sha44ss!
He never lost anything?
What about his failed marriages...... or his numerous bankrupt businesses?
Clinton is ahead of Trump!
I agree with You Elizabeth.& Heidi! .this Election is a Very Important one! It is going to make or break us~! Stump for Trump!!
Ff4door> Everyone I know is voting for Trump too and making sure they bring along a few new recruits to the Primaries! The only way the Dems can win this time is if they cheat as bad as they did last time, which is why Obama & Hillary are trying to bring in as many immigrants and refugees in as they can muster!> changes the electoral map!
ok then >Trumps Ego is too BIG to throw in the towel for Hillary! I wish I could say she is going to Jail but the DC Cartel is so entrenched with their corruption with each other on both sides it will never happen! If One goes down they all go down! And the Donald has played their games from both ends so that is why they fear him! He has got a Monopoly going and he wont play their games! He's prob got stuff on ALL of them! But if she did go to jail I could see DT giving her a pardon because he has been friends with & worked with the Clintons! That is why he is polling so high> He is getting support from many different electorates and factions! He IS a True Blue American ! He really does **Love**America and he is a man of the people.....he **won't**let down the people! There is too much at risk ....if you haven't noticed! OBama is the biggest National Security Risk we have ever had and our Military is in a shambles ,our Vets are dying and our Troops are in harms way without any Executive or Congressional support! He wont let them down!
Our Gov't is an embarassment! Trump is at 46% today after the Terrorist attack and their lack of a secure vetting process! Even Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace said the people are fearful now and want a Strong leader and his Fearlessness against the PC Crowd and the Media attacks is only making him Stronger! Even Fox who has been trying to take him down for the Establishment are seeing the light!!
What a relief it will be to have a Leader Again! I just hope and PRAY he has enough Security to protect him!
I love this video of him from 1988 when Oprah Interviewed him! He was a little more
'humble' then and a little more handsome too but he said...."If things get really bad in America I would think about running!'' I saw an interview recently also where he said he Backed McCain and Romney and they both failed........ https://twitter.com/waynedupreeshow/status/657974082735050752 so he decided he has to do it himself now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg >>>THIS IS ONE GOOD CAMPAIGN TOOL!
@okthen> he also says in this video I have 'never' gone into anything to lose in my life!
Another fun fact. If you go on YouTube search hillary Clinton. Check her latest campaign speeches. Her dislikes greatly out way her likes. Then look at trumps speech videos. Most are over 300+ likes vs like 20 dislikes. It's pretty amazing.
I feel that, Trump is too far to the right and Hillary is too far too the left. Happy median and balance would be Cruz or Rubio in my opinion at this time...still too early yet to form a definite decision.
"Clinton is ahead of Trump"
Must've been the poll that included all the dead democrat voters.
@positive There are alot of good R candidates and Cruz is next on my list along with Carson... it's their backers that are the problem ..eg Rubio is Open Borders
advocate
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/10/31/marco-rubios-new-billionaire-backer-top-funder-open-borders/
The Trouble with Donors.
Here is one about Cruz:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/dukefergus/2015/11/16/ted-cruz-threat-open-borders-bushies/
and there is NONE that can get the amount of votes needed to beat the Corruption on the left!
Trump is the silent American Revolution!
This Election IS IT for U.S. if Trump is defeated by this Regime!...last but least will be 2A.
I posted this before but it's getting even more prevalent...its the weird fact that people I know would NEVER agree on political issues are all touting Trump. I have been at parties, dinners, meetings and even at work, people who should be fighting over politics are all voting for Trump.
The other weird thing (to me) is many young people I assume would be for Sanders (free college & healthcare, $15 min wage; stuff you would think the kids would be all for) actually like Trump.
My daughter had a b-day party for her friend last Saturday and there were fourteen 19 - 22 yr olds here. I asked them about the election and to my surprise most of them (except for 2 very liberal, feminist type girls) were considering Trump.
Two guys are accounting majors and they took issue with how Sanders would pay for all that "free" stuff. Maybe I don't give the kids the credit they deserve, but I was shocked that they all seem to be at least thinking about the election and who to vote for.
Not ONE (not even the 2 liberal, feminist girls) like Clinton AT ALL. There was a collective moan every time either Clinton or Bush came up. I think the poles are wrong about Clinton. Other than Forcefed4door's grandmother I (personally) have not met one person who said they are voting for Clinton. Seems to be Trump, Rubio and a very few for outliers for Sanders.
Darrin, you mean the Canada that just elected Justin Trudeau Prime Minister? You know, the leader of Canada's Liberal Party? The leader with this platform on guns?
repeal changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, and we will put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians;
provide $100 million each year to the provinces and territories to support guns and gangs police task forces to take illegal guns off our streets and reduce gang violence;
modify the membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to include knowledgeable law enforcement officers, public health advocates, representatives from women’s groups, and members of the legal community;
require enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm;
require purchasers of firearms to show a license when they buy a gun, and require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the license is valid before completing the sale;
require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes;
immediately implement the imported gun marking regulations that have been repeatedly delayed by Stephen Harper; and
as part of our investment in border infrastructure, invest in technologies to enhance our border guards’ ability to detect and halt illegal guns from the United States entering into Canada.
Too funny...get packing! Good luck in Canada!
Darrin , yankeefan is correct. Check out New Zealand.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jemimaskelley/things-you-did-not-know-about-new-zealand#.cfO01pq4q
You're right yankee.... plenty of brain dead votes in that "Clinton is ahead of Trump" poll
Doesn't have to be Canada, and it was more of a figure of speech then anything.
And who said anything about guns? Clinton will destroy this country guns aside
yep, too little, too late; and he's shot his bolt, he's done, his influence is waning rapidly at this point and no one is really listening to him anymore; President Barrack Hussein Obama and his dreamy eyed acolytes are preaching to an ever smaller crowd.
thank God for that.
"The only way the Dems can win this time is if they cheat as bad as they did last time" Really --- prove that they cheated.
"trying to bring in as many immigrants and refugees in as they can muster!> changes the electoral map!" Really? Immigrants and refugees get to vote?
" OBama is the biggest National Security Risk we have ever had" Again, prove it.
"our Military is in a shambles" Really. So we're only the most powerful now?
"our Vets are dying." This one I agree with as a disaster of the President and of Congress, both sides.
"our Troops are in harms way" More so than under the last conservative President? I think not.
But I will bite even if that means I am a whining, name-calling, cheating, PC-crowd Zombie, at least according some of our conservative posters. OK, the list......
Debt
Here's a nice little history of how we got here: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm. Big ticket items include: War of Terror (Obama/Bush O/B), Iraq/Afghan War, Bush Tax Cuts, Defense Spending and the Stimulus, all of which were under two Presidents in one way or another. Would you have spent differently?
What did the stimulus get us: saved finance and banking industries, saved auto industries, saved millions of jobs, and creating many jobs: http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulus.htm
What did the Debt cost us: nothing so far except money.
That said, I feel the debt is the greatest threat to our security we have today because it might cause economic collapse without remedy. Since the recession, our deficit spending under Obama is down year over year, but that is not good enough. This is a combined Presidential and Congressional problem. Both are equally responsible. Under Obama, the yearly deficit has been moving in the right direction since 2011 yet we need more. Get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, continue to streamline waste in defense spending primarily but other programs as well, tighten the belt. Boots on the ground will not help the debt, it is a major cause for the debt.
Health insurance
Uh, more Americans protected by insurance than ever before with prices at the lowest rate of increase in decades for the last two years running. Thank you Obama for having the moral fortitude to pull this one off. And yet the best thing conservatives can offer as an alternative is to kill it.
Doesn't want to actually say Islamic terrorists
I think he has explained this over and over.
Our police are attacked and disrespected
This is Obama's issue? Isn't this a state issue? And I think many might say the opposite is true.
Our veterans are not taken care of
I agree on this one.
And our economy is in the toilet
Well, Bush put us there and Obama has been bailing every since. See Stimulus above. I will say too low, too slow, but Bush left us a hold as deep as The Great Depression so how we crossed the chasm was a lot better than our parents and grandparents journey.
We have a food stamp society
Actually it's falling: http://www.wsj.com/articles/food-stamps-starting-to-fall-1409606700
That is encouraged by our president
And how is that exactly?
Oh and yes let's just let everyone cross our borders and take refugees that we can't really check backgrounds on
Yeah, I can agree on this one except I am sure our solutions are very different.
Hope you enjoy the whining but I find you factually mostly wrong, rarely right.
Hey I just realized it is Pearl Harbor Day!
How about we just stop the war and remember.
https://www.nranews.com/series/frontlines/video/frontlines-from-infamy-to-victory/episode/frontlines-season-4-episode-7-from-infamy-to-victory
Appropriate to remember Pearl Harbor Day, yes.
From another vantage point, I read not long ago a book about the Japan home front during WW2, which made the following statement few of us have probably thought about:
"The attack on Pearl Harbor came as just as big a shock to the Japanese people as it did to the American people."
And of course, it turned out to be a worse event for them than for us.
"And of course, it turned out to be a worse event for them than for us."
No it didn't. I get what you're trying to say- *WWII* turned out to be a worse event for them than for us. But Pearl Harbor itself certainly didn't. That was one of the most successful first strikes in military history.
While I have sympathy for the Japanese people during that time, I have a really hard time with the rulers and military... Japanese treatment of POWs was only rivaled by Germany and Vietnam. Most people don't know how brutal and gruesome the Japanese were to the POWs.
Oh heck JR, jd2 is all wet on this one. We were attacked, we had to go to a long war loosing thousands of kids and jd2's ascertain is judging the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
It was bad enough to be terrible, tragic, and totally not our fault what the Japanese did to us and to themselves.
and yet the 9/11 attack on the world trade center had more dead and wounded than pearl harbor day making 9/11 the worst attack on US soil in American history
starting the war with the pearl harbor attack the Japanese ended it by suffering horrific casualties in nuclear explosions. so from that perspective they got the worse end of the deal
so jd2 ; i get your point, in the long run of time, looking back on it now, the dec 7th Pearl harbor attack did not bode well for the Japanese.
and Jr i also get your point ; the japs were inhumanly cruel to those who were conquered; captured, enslaved, tortured and killed in genocidal actions. whole cites and towns were summarily executed by them, those that lived wised they hadn't.
Agree JR and BD, and am puzzled by what SD is trying to say. Maybe the first time I am in the opposite corner.
I just think it is food for thought that when some of the more sophisticated Japanese civilians heard about their military's attack on the U.S., they were horrified because they kind of knew this was a war Japan would lose in the end.
Going to war can end badly, for anyone. Weigh the risk/reward; be careful!
It was the worse event portion I think you're all wet on. Somehow counting bodies as a metric on who got it worse seems to diminish our tragic loses during this war.
I STILL don't get what you're trying to say SD. Both sides lost a ton of people. I think I can speak for everyone here in saying that in no way are we attempting to diminish American losses during that war... my dad FOUGHT in that war...in the Pacific....against the Japanese.
And, Pearl Harbor was not entirely unprovoked, (it WAS entirely MILITARILY unprovoked), but that's a discussion for another thread. It was a sucker punch, for sure.
SD, no diminishment of our losses during the war against Japan was intended, nor, I believe, shown. It's much more than a body count; it's complete victory versus complete defeat.
Not to mention the use of an incredibly immoral weapon, the use of which was justified based on mounting casualty counts I presume. IMO there was no other civilized reason that I can think of to use it, and even that one is stretching it....
Oh, and I don't think I ever answered the OP's question: Nope. Not in a million years.
So what are you saying JIT, that the use of the atomic bomb was not justified? I believe the decision was made to avoid losing potentially 50,000 troops attacking the Japanese mainland. The Japanese wouldn't even surrender after the first bomb was dropped. I understand the decision must have weighed heavily on Truman and those in his inner circle but I believe it was the right choice to save our boys and end the war. At the end of the day the Japanese should be putting the blame on Hirohito for not surrending when they were beaten way before the first bomb was dropped.
"immoral" weapon.
The A-bomb was no more immoral than the Rape of Nanking. Actually, it was probably LESS immoral than the Rape of Nanking. The A-bomb was so exponentially bigger than anything on earth at that time, people give it silly tags, such as "immoral". You think for one second if Japan or Germany had developed it first they wouldn't have used it? It was simply the "biggest club" of it's time.
Now, as far as the hurt it caused, the A-bomb isn't alone in that supposed "immorality"... as I've already stated, the Rape of Nanking, we can talk about the Japanese treatment of POWs, or the Nazi concentration camps.... a weapon doesn't have to be a bomb to be immoral.
We developed the bigger club, we used it, the war ended. If you want to start talking about the immoralities of war, specifically WWII, America does not corner the market on that with their use of the A-bomb I'm afraid.
Regarding use of the atomic bombs, I'm not aware that there was any controversy at the time about using it.
In contrast, I have read that there was significant controversy at the time about whether the fire-bombing of German civilian city areas was proper. This was a form of terror intended to demoralize. Mostly this was done and argued about by the British; the Americans bombed mostly military targets in Germany, as I understand it (three weeks over Berlin being an exception).
Sorry we are now so far off topic, but it is interesting.
Yes, the fire bombing of Dresden was horrific; as was the US raid on tokyo- fire bombing- those people lived in wood and straw houses at the time. The Doolittle Raiders reported being able to smell burning flesh from their low altitude. I can't imagine, war or no.
Anyone who is interested in the Pacific Theatre WWII, should read Flyboys: A True Story of Courage by James Bradley. Be warned: it's very gruesome at times. But it does a very good job at explaining the "whys" from before Pearl Harbor to after the A-bombs. It's not a "story" book, it's more like a documentary of WWII in the Pacific in book form.
Talking about Immoral wars. I don't think dropping the big one was considered very immoral at the time in every day discussions. It caused a big wow but we all were involved in our everyday lives. We all knew friends and relatives in other country's that were killed over 4 years living in that environment and doing with out for the war effort.. There were a few pacifist's, but in the minority. The general view was to look at how many lives may have been saved and "Johnny Was Coming Home Again.Ha Ra, Ha Ra".This is in my view of living through the war years.
Today we have volunteers serving.and it's not affecting every day life much at all. ln fact, in many cases war is not even declared.The Korean War was called a Police Action. We are not very personally involved or united in these battles today, in fact maybe making money on them (Cheney) We now have time to discuss morality, hence this shows weakness. Do you thing our enemies are having these discussions? I never knew that war was a civil action. IMHO
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-nh-backer-defends-muslim-ban-no-different-from-when-we-put-the-japanese-in-camps/
So trumps backers compare his Muslim ban plan by comparing it to it one of the lowest moments in our country's history and means it as a compliment. We're screwed
I think what trump was saying is until we find out a way to know who is a enemy trying to invade our soil and who is good to put a stop to immigration.
I will agree, far out there, but does anyone have a better plan?
Darwin,. I believe PC will get you dead in Caesars world.
President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy: "speak softly, and carry a big stick.
jd2: IMHO, I still think a "who lost worse" metric diminishes the supreme sacrifice the "winners" made. While I get the point, just seems like an inappropriate comparison.
But back to Trump. Darrin asks about a better plan. Since most acts of terrorism on American soil have been by Americans, I am not quite sure what this plan to exclude foreigners will accomplish besides a loss to our economy as international Muslims can not do face-to-face business in America for awhile (Darrin is a strong proponent of face-to-face for better trust and understanding), a rise in enemy recruitment as we make it clear this is a war on the Muslim religion and a distrust by American Muslims who have been responsible for thwarting many if not most US radicalized Muslim plots.
Also, what is the religion test since it's not on the passport? First we ask nicely, then what? Detain them to see if they face East five times a day? I mean if criminals have absolutely zero issue with getting arms what will be their problem with getting religion? The Don can vet people for religion on the spot but can't vet Syrian refugees over a 2-year plus period because he says it's impossible?
And we're willing to let Muslim no-fly listers to buy guns without tracking them as a Constitutional right but unlisted Muslims can't enter the country?
Today Trump doubled down on his ban by talking about all the Muslim areas in London and Paris where the police can not even enter. Sorry, wrong again Don: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
Before you say "wait, I saw the no-go zones on FOX" here's the FOX apology that the Don missed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/18/fox-news-corrects-apologizes-for-no-go-zone-remarks/
So what's next for the Don?
Perhaps to gain a huge decrease in crime, drugs, and welfare he will deport all Blacks?
To fix Social Security and Medicare the Don can send old folks for long walks in cold woods?
To remove political dissention, the Don can move all liberals to CA to fill the job vacancies left by the deported rapists and then build the Trump CA wall as an extension to his Mexican wall?
What's the next demographic that the Don will target?
so just so we are clear on the irony.... Mass shooting by whites = conservatives saying lets not overreact and ban guns.... Mass shooting by 2 Muslims = lets overreact and ban all Muslims.
Trump is the #1 recruiter for ISIS right now. His videos are being used as propaganda by ISIS to recruit Muslims. See America hates ALL of you, join us.
"put a stop to immigration"
No Darrin, read up on his proposal. If he wanted to just stop bad guys, you can't tell non-Muslim bad guys all the time either. But he's proposing absolutely nothing concerning them. And it's not immigration he's wants to ban with his new expanded no-entry list. All entry of any kind. Muslims would not even be allowed to board a plane to the US even if they just had business here, or were tourists, or were visiting family, etc. The proposal is no-entry, not no-immigration.
Am I wrong in thinking a border based on religion is unconstitutional? It's not the first time Trump has made unconstitutional proposals, so it's not a complete surprise.
"Am I wrong in thinking a border based on religion is unconstitutional? "
I agree- we should stop ALL immigration for awhile.
"It's not the first time Trump has made unconstitutional proposals, so it's not a complete surprise."
Unconstitutionality is no stranger to Obama either. So there's no "high horse" to climb up on that one.
"Am I wrong in thinking a border based on religion is unconstitutional?
No! you are quite correct, this tears at the very foundation and reason why we have a country in the first place, the freedom to practice your own religion. (or not practice it if that's who you happen to be)
banning immigrants based on a religious affiliation is not only immoral; it's wrong; it's unconstitutional; and for very good reasons which (i think) most of us on here actually agree with.
you're spot on GC, trump said too much, too quickly and he's wrong,
Got to love The Onion:
Recent polls indicate that, despite public outcry against his incendiary comments on women and minorities, Donald Trump is still the leading Republican candidate. Here are some reasons Trump stays so popular with his supporters:
•Highly relatable lack of qualifications for holding government office
•Americans’ appreciation for classic underdog story of man who started with only several hundred million dollars and went on to make several billion dollars
•Only candidate to publicly state willingness to make America great again
•Exploits other Republican candidates’ weaknesses by allowing them to open their mouths and speak on issues
•Very, very handsome
•Voters eager to see presidential library with three infinity pools and rooftop driving range
•Bolstered by impassioned endorsement from Donald Trump
•Eccentric, megalomaniac billionaire still more relatable to average American than anyone willing to dedicate life to politics
•Appeals to widespread desire to see nation implode sooner rather than later
+1 yankeefan - that's all I can begin to say here - except that I fear for us all - and not from outsiders -
The "funny" thing is, it is absolutely true that despite what many liberals and news outlets think of as "goofs" that will "sink trump", his numbers do not waiver. He's been bulletproof.
The media didn't make Trump, the media can't break Trump. Lord knows they've tried. As has the GOP itself.
And we've got Cruz on deck now just in case something "happens" with Trump.
And no, Trump is not "my guy"- but I would have no problem voting for him to ensure Hillary loses. Hillary would be the final blow to America as we have known her (which is exactly what some of you want of course). Trump is far from perfect, but he's also far better than the GOP "evils" they continually try to shove down our throats. Voting for Trump is a s much a vote against the GOP elite as it is the democrats. The conservative republicans have had enough of Carl Rove's GOP. That's why Trump, Cruz, and Carson sit above, with Rubio the only current viable GOP elite candidate.
Trumpism's
I am self funding: note the DONATE button on any of his websites. If paranoid about web donations, simply: "If you prefer to send a check please make payable to: Donald J. Trump......." Muslims need not apply.
"How would you stop Muslims from entering the country?"
"I would ask them if they're Muslim"
I would make exceptions for things like sporting events. (yeah because athletes are not radical in thought and speech).
Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations are funding ISIS with large amounts of money transfers. (Not since ISIS expanded mission beyond deposing Assad).
My plan is like President Roosevelt’s proclamations marking Germans, Italians and Japanese “enemy aliens” who could be detained. (But we are not waging War on Muslims......)
We could continue to call him silly but isn't that what happened with Mussolini?
Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio are all sitting in a restaurant discussing their plans for defeating world terrorism.
The waitress approaches the table and listens to their talk. Trump opens by saying:
"Okay guys, I've got a great idea. I already talked to Carson about it, but I figure I should get your input. He didn't believe me."
Cruz responds "believe you about what?"
"Okay the plan is to deport 11 million Mexicans and then stop ten million Muslims and one Jew from entering the country."
The waitress at this point is intrigued and confused, decides to chime in. "One Jew? Why do you want to stop the Jew?"
Trump turns to Carson and says "HA! I told you nobody would care about the Mexicans and Muslims!"
Has Trump suggested making all Muslims wear "Crescent Moons" on their clothing yet?
Trump most likely suffers from a neurological disorder. Once he drops out, he will be a good subject for a PHD thesis.
Still has my vote too. I say if we have to stop all immigration temporarily, so be it. We are at war and are being attacked.
It's so funny how all the libs who trash the Constitution, want to remove the 2nd Amendment, constantly say how the Constitution is not relevant anymore, etc, etc. All of a sudden are SCREAMING "Stopping immigration is against the Constitution!!!" Lol! All of a sudden they are all over the Constitution and it's meaning and value.
Gotta love those liberals.
It's already happening for a certain sector Iman.....
Amazingly 100% of Americans are in favor of immediate deportation to the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton owes Donald Trump big time. By him taking up all the air time and press time there is no time left to ask her about all the scandals that she has been involved in, which in my opinion should preclude her from being President. He has completely sucked all the oxygen out of of the political contest. He may get the republican nomination, but I can not vote for him. I like some of his messages, but can't stand the messenger.
sam Read what Trump had to say...he doesn't want to stop Muslims from immigrating.
He wants to stop EVERYONE who is Muslim from even visiting the country for pleasure or business.
Next thing he'll be posturing for US citizens to declare their religion on their passports.
He's a bigot and a racist...first the Mexicans, now the Muslims...what next, Catholics? Jews? The Philadelphia Daily News got it right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/philadelphia-daily-news-cover-donald-trump-hitler-2015-12
"American Muslims who have been responsible for thwarting many if not most US radicalized Muslim plots".
Really, wheres the proof?
If I was to vote, I would vote for Donald Trump. He's a pompous bellowing ass, but I prefer that to any career politician (aka career liar).
Furthermore, if he is put into power maybe - JUST maybe - everyone in the country can finally reflect upon the current state of affairs and see what it was supposed to be vs what it is today. I support a reset of the current political system and for that to happen rock bottom must be approached rapidly. Maybe Trump will take us close enough to that bottom fast enough to catalyze a reaction. Hillary is just more status quo and the slow erosion of freedom in the name of "security," "equality," and empty promises.
Common Sense "I support a reset of the current political system and for that to happen rock bottom must be approached rapidly. "
That's been happening for the last 7 years, rapidly, and for the previous 20 years, more slowly.
I argue Hillary would get us there MUCH faster than Trump... I honestly don't know what a Trump presidency would be like, even if it was good would it be too little too late, I just don't know. The only thing I know is he is much preferred to Hillary. He might suck, IDK. But if he does only two of the things he says he's going to do: ACTUALLY CONTROL IMMIGRATION, and RE-STRENGTHEN THE MILITARY, his first year will better than Obama's first 7.
In all honesty, what I LOVE more than anything about the Trump candidacy is, the liberal mainstream media can't convince America anymore. The propaganda isn't playing anymore. The people will not accept a candidate rammed down their throats. The people could very likely put Trump in the white house, despite the efforts of the mainstream media, and BOTH political parties. I find that HILARIOUS. I also find it very....American.
just because he is leading in the polls now doesn't mean people will actually pull the trigger come election time. 2012 the leaders in the polls were al over the place. Especially in late 2011 when Cain, Newt, Santorum and Perry all had leads at one point. Heck Santorum won Iowa Caucus.. how did that work out for him? thinking in Dec 2015 that Trump will win the Republican Nomination based on current poll results is silly. Still a lot of time to go and more foolish things to say
Right on, JeffersonRepub. The media is a big problem, and if it takes a nut-job like Trump to voice alternatives, even temporarily, it is worth it. We have lots of time to find an electable candidate to defeat Hillary et al. Today's politics are HILARIOUS. Looking forward to that flag being turned over in a victory for sanity.
DannyC It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world! That fact that "we the people" are even remotely considering this ass-hat for President of the United States of America speaks volumes about our nation and our character. We used to stand for something in this country. We were a nation that led by example and didn't cower in the corner afraid of our own shadow. We were an inclusive nation, founded on the basic principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What happened to the "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," attitude? Now, out of fear, we are willing to trample the very tenents upon which our country was founded. We are looking to a blow hard bully to solve our problems and "make us safe"? I'm afraid we are heading down a very slippery slope from which their is no easy return. The rabid fear that has taken hold in this nation is frightening. Stop immigration? Judge people based on religion? The mere thought of this sends chills down my spine.
taxedtodeath If Trump doesn't win, there's a large possibility Cruz will. I don't think Carson has the gas in the tank. And believe me- if there's one person the GOP is even more scared of than Trump, it's Cruz- and ditto for all you anti-Trumpers. Again, hilarious. This is the most interesting primary I've ever seen.
As far as people "not pulling the trigger", I think you'll find this time around, things are different. As I have already illustrated. Trump's voters- TWICE as many as any other candidate, DON'T CARE. I don't know what it would take to change a Trump voter's mind, but they seem to be steadfast- no matter what he says, no matter what is said about him, no matter how bad his (media-orchestrated) debate performance is, they have not faltered. He's bulletproof.
Thumbs up, DannyC.
Restrengthen the military? We already spend as much money on our military as the next nine highest-spending countries COMBINED...
I'd be a lot more inclined to vote for someone who promised to restrengthen our ROADS and BRIDGES, you know.. the important things that are being ignored?
Restrengthening the military doesn't necessarily mean more money. It could mean letting them do their job as they see fit. It could mean not hindering them from carrying out their duties. It could mean actually listening to their intelligence instead of ignoring it.
Why can't we do it all? Re-strengthen our military, plus our roads and bridges, which Eisenhower saw in the 1959's as essential for preparedness? But this is a different world now, with imbedded terrorists living and moving in among us. What to do about that?
That's not "restrengthening"; that's a change in tactical objectives. Do their job as they see fit? So, what you're saying is that the military should control our political objectives and foreign policy? You want us to be more like Egypt or Pakistan?
The military is already as strong as it needs to be. Way more so, if we're going to be honest. What are their "duties" if not to follow the orders of the politicians they report to? How many times has their "intelligence" been woefully wrong?
DannyC, why can't we do it all? Have you heard about the $19 trillion debt? That's why..
As for the other question, go to Chuck E. Cheese and play Whack a Mole. It'll take your mind off of things and give you an idea of the concept of dealing with embedded terrorists.
ianimal:
If we can afford to spend most of the $19 trillion on government excesses and entitlements, then we can spend the remainder on rebuilding our military and infrastructure. BTW, you are one obnoxious dude.
I'm obnoxious? You've asked the same ridiculous question 50 times now. Like I said, Whack a Mole. They pop their head out, you smash it. There's your answer.
Or, were you looking for something else? Do you want us to spend money on R&D for an "Embedded Terrorist Detector"? Maybe develop those sunglasses from "They Live" that will make them look like reptiles? Is that the answer you're looking for? Because there isn't an answer like that to be had. Sorry...
"The military is already as strong as it needs to be"
In your HUMBLE opinion
And yes, Danny- Ian makes a hobby out of being obnoxious. Welcome to HL lol
Good comparison darwin, but, two different comparisons, ones pointing to a tool, which left in a room by itself would never do any harm, and the other is pointing to a radical group of people that, left in a room alone, join ISIS and do harm (potentially).
So, yes, surprise, we actually hold people accountable for their actions not the tool used for once.
For the record, I do not agree with the far left field of Trump's statement, but maybe we should put Immigrants through background checks since there is a possibility of them doing harm? Much like we want to do to gun owners since there is a apparent possibility of them doing harm? Apples to apples.
Donald Trump is not a 'nut job'....everything he obnoxiously does is his Brilliant Strategy!
He has Brilliant people in his camp!
It is about time we got 'payback' for the last seven years of Gridlock from the Corrupt Politicians, the Establishment and their Media Minions!!
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/12/08/donald-trump-makes-the-media-come-unhinged-unglued-spasmodic-and-apoplectic/#more-109508
KB - nice catch, was wondering if that chad would remain dangling....
From 9/8/11 Daily Beast: "Interestingly, while compiling his list, Dahl found that “about 75 percent of the plots are associated with radical Islamists and about 25 percent are from right-wing domestic, anti-government militia movements.” But focusing on radical Islamists, "An additional point of consideration is the cooperation that Muslim Americans have given to police that has helped stop many terrorist plots to date." Here's 45 jihadist plots foiled, on Obama's watch, since 9/11: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/08/9-11-anniversary-45-terror-plots-foiled-in-last-10-years.html That's 4.5 per year.
Now this guy is an American Muslim so you can arrest him or just double-check the facts, the summary is "Muslim communities helped U.S. security officials to prevent nearly 2 out of every 5 Al-Qaeda plots threatening the United States since 9/11. Here's the blow by blow report, the stuff is really not to hard to find.
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/cityofbrass/2012/02/muslim-informants-prevent-domestic-terror-the-data.html#ixzz3tlxnzvkW
DannyC: "If we can afford to spend most of the $19 trillion on government excesses and entitlements...." Uh, we don't.
On a yearly budget basis, here's some nice pictures on how we spend our cash. Note that military is HUGE and welfare is small. Also you have to do a bit of mental accounting to better account for Medicare and Social Security which are really insurance payouts of money invested by taxpayers. For SS, the funding is in the black right now so actual losses or real spending amounts are nil. Probably should reduce that slice a lot. Medicare being in the Red would be reduced far less, we spend way too much here (not that I am saying the fix is not to spend it but something has to be done to increase revenues and reduce costs both).
End result is on current spending, Medicare, military and debt maintenance are the huge ones that we should first focus on as the big buckets for improvement. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ Again, I am not suggesting that we slash military and homeland security, I am just say there should be the most scrutiny here since the greatest chance for big savings come from the biggest buckets.
And if we can reduce the spending buckets we can reduce the debt which will reduce the debt maintenance. It's a win-win.
For the debt itself, the top question is how did we get here? Here's a 2011 view but I think you can get the picture: 27% Bush Tax Cuts: 23% interest payments, 22% Afghanistan/Iraq, 13% stimulus package, and 7% more tax cuts from Obama. http://www.mybudget360.com/how-to-spend-9-trillion-in-10-years-government-debt-ceiling-debt-14-trillion-dollars/
There are other views like this more conservative one: http://theweek.com/articles/483063/what-caused-national-debt-6-culprits but wherever you come out the concept of general entitlements pales in size to the tax cuts, the wars, our military spending Medicare, and now --- the debt payments themselves.
While we need to spend less, focusing first on the big buckets, there is no doubt that simultaneously we need to pay more ---- starting with rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts and any remaining Obama Tax Cuts (don't think there are any) ASAP. We have some wars to pay for and we should pony up and do it.
....And no, Trump is not "my guy"- but I would have no problem voting for him to ensure Hillary loses. Hillary would be the final blow to America as we have known her (which is exactly what some of you want of course). Trump is far from perfect, but he's also far better than the GOP "evils" they continually try to shove down our throats. Voting for Trump is a s much a vote against the GOP elite as it is the democrats. The conservative republicans have had enough of Carl Rove's GOP. That's why Trump, Cruz, and Carson sit above, with Rubio the only current viable GOP elite candidate....'..
JeffersonRepub ✉
+1
This really sums up my feelings at this time!
Trump is shakin up the world!
He is doing, saying and not afraid to speak out when most say little or nothing.
He usually follows through on what he says he will do.
Yes anyone who makes thousands of decisions in a lifetime will sometimes be wrong, make mistakes and take a loss.
However we learn by doing, make adjustments and carry on.
Donald Trump is the best man we have right now to defeat Hillary.
I sure hope he is Triumphant...
If being "obnoxious" is my hobby, you've made a career out of being "gullible", lol. JR has never read a hoax on Facebook or in an email that was too outlandish for him to fall for and post on here as fact. You should change your screen name to The Gullible Conservative... it has a nice ring to it.
See? Being -NEVER- wrong, being omniscient, is a tough cross to bear... just ask ianimal, he'll tell you
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trump is not afraid to say all the things most say privately in our homes. If he goes the distance he has my vote.
HLamusesme demagogue:
noun dem·a·gogue \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg\
: a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason
Watching all the events yesterday from my little parochial chair. I wonder if God is using Trump to send a message. Both sides came out swinging and hollering Constitution!!!! Constitution!!! when they all have destroyed it for there own advantage.
He certainly did not need to do this. (Just Saying)
Yankee......you're talking about Obama and his gun control agenda right? After a terrorist attack on our soil left 14 dead, first thing out of his mouth is gun control. We finally agree.
Philliesman, there's a guy on a different thread looking for a place to use his metal detector. I'm thinking there's a large amount of aluminum foil near you.
We have 5,000 Muslim soldiers willing to die for our country.
A large percentage of foiled attacks on American soil are because of Muslims seeing something and saying something.
Most world Muslims live in Indonesia, only 15% of world Muslims are Arab.
The Muslim religion gives more to charity than any other religion.
Founding Fathers Jefferson, Washington and Madison stated that America be open to Muslims even as Presidents.
70% of American Muslims voted for George Bush. It's still a small number, but Muslims overwhelming used to be Republican in voting.
And then we have Trump and his mob.
Trump wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country for any reason except exceptions like sports events.....
Trump probably wants a registry on all Muslims; most certainly for refugees.
Trump wants to have surveillance on Mosques, not people on a watch list, but watch the building.
But Trump's OK with No-Fly-List Muslims buying guns.
Hate speak brings out hate actions, it's a fact of the dark side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLIQYqJxXfI
After Trump yells "get him the hell out of here," a Black Lives Matters protestor is stomped at Trump Alabama rally by people yelling "monkey" and other things while everyone cheers. His crime was yelling "Black lives matter." Trump later said "Maybe it was right...."
In Iowa, a woman grabs a protestor's poster, rips it half, yells "vote for white supremacy," while the crowed yells racist taunts. The offending poster said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”
In VA, Trump protestors were spit on before multiple fights broke out.
In FLA a protestor was kicked and punched as the crowd dragged him from the Trump hall.
There's many, many more of these nice stories about Trump supporter actions. It's not so much the dragging away, it's the beatings and hate speech that shows the hatred of the non-PC crowd collecting for these shin-digs.
You can nominate him. Bring it on please.
Well I certainly agree with you about Trump, it's all very disturbing. The one thing he has said repeatedly, is that he wants to go after the families of the terrorists.
That is savagery and it would make things ten times worse than what it is now.
1. These fanatics don't even care about their own lives, what makes him think they care about their families lives.
2. We would lose all respect and most likely support from our allies.
3. Most importantly it's just plain disgusting.
Can the Waffle House Putsch be far off? I don't think Godwin ever envisioned this situation, people are just eating this stuff up. I guess there's no longer any reason to wonder how NSDAP was able to come to power and garner popular support in Weimar Germany, is there?
It's a sad sad day for this country if 70% of the people polled would vote for this racist bigot.
Hey jerry and the rest of the hypocrite libs on here. I'm going to make your head spin. #whitelivesmatter. And I'm proud to be white. Sign me up for the klan right?
Philliesman is proud of being white. Is that something you developed and worked on? That's like saying I'm proud of breathing. Your being white (whatever that means) is simply genetics. Now, you could say "I'm ignorant and proud of it", because that's something you could actually control.
Philliesman...ALL lives matter...even bigoted racist ones who hide their faces behind white pillow cases...and their real names behind pseudonyms.
ianimal,
You cited Godwin's law, which I agree with, and in a civil way. So many analogies today to the Nazis and the conditions that preceded their rise to power. Godwin's law has been joined by Moore's law and Murphy's law in modern times. All are just theoretical, and some funny. I wish you would try to address some of my admitted fears about the new world war against radical Islamic-inspired killers, sans Trump's lunacy. Thanks.
"I wish you [ianimal] would try to address some of my admitted fears about the new world war against radical Islamic-inspired killers, sans Trump's lunacy."
My own two cents is that it is being worked on, by multiple countries. Strategies will be adjusted over time. Not sure it really rises to the level of a world war - I know that's what ISIS wants it to be. I think this problem will subside in time, but meanwhile, there is this danger we face, of somewhat unforeseeable intensity, which cannot be eliminated quickly, no matter the strategy.
And of course there are, as always, other dangers.
Positive - Of course these fanatics care about their families lives - Why did Farook leave his baby with his parents? To keep her ALIVE. If he didn't care about her, he would have left her in the apartment or even took her with them.
Strangerdanger - you have hit on one of my biggest pet peeves. The argument of the founding fathers (or sometimes Abraham Lincoln). Generally speaking, who cares what the founding fathers would do? The world then was basically opposite of what it is now. When they talked about Muslims immigrating, there was no way for Muslim masses to immigrate. There was no threat. I know they dealt with North African pirates, there was almost or was a war over it. But who cares what the founding fathers would do? When you show me George Washington with an iphone and a Camry, I will think about it - point being the founding fathers couldn't in their WILDEST dreams contemplate technology,society and Mass Casualty threats of 2015.
As to Mr. Trump, I wasn't going to vote for him but I think I changed my mind. I saw an interview between him and Chris Cuomo the other day on CNN. Chris Cuomo just kept saying But 99.9% of Muslims are good people. I agree with him and I actually think Donald Trump agrees with him. The issue between them is the other 0.1% of them. Donald Trump says that for safety, we should stop Muslim immigration (prefer he says immigration from hotspots antagonistic to US but whatever). Chris Cuomo implies that the saving of the 99.9% from war is worth the risk. Nice of him to say that, he is jeopardizing (minute risk but there nonetheless) myself, family and kids with that statement. He could have said that statement to the San Bernadino victims a week ago and look where they are now. I think it is reasonable to protect us, once you let them in, it is impossible to remove them even if you wanted to and they can just get lost or worse yet, do what Farook did.
So, if Chris Cuomo were really honorable, he would say in an interview that he understands that his position involves some risk to the population and if there has to be an attack, it should be on his family instead of someone who disagrees with bringing minute risk of mass casualty attacks to the US through immigration from hotspots.
So, it is hard for me to be on that side. I am sure I will be abused for my position but refugees don't have to come here. They can go to many many other countries, especially if we subsidize those countries.
TM
wasn't there a study on this out recently?
out of the 1.5 billion muslims around the world about 150 million of them are 'radicalized' ?
so the 99.9 % / 0.1 % (which is 1/10th of 1 percent) is not real according to the recent study, it's more like 10 % so chris cuomo is mistaken again, and it's not the first time for the demagogic ideological liberal progressive to spew his personal opinions in a so called 'hard news' interview. he is pathetic as a journalist, he should have his own talk show and stop pretending to be a 'news guy'.
anyone remember this study? or have a source for it?
Some people are welcoming him with open arms:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/09/israel-confirms-donald-trump-meeting-with-benjamin-netanyahu/?_r=0
Is there a way to create a Hackettstownlife poll to see what trumps odds are over here? :-)
I know that Donald Trump comes off as offensive with his comments about muslims. I get that not every single Muslim is a terrorist but at this point you would have to be pretty much stoned out of your mind or just plain stupid to not see that there's a problem here. All of the violence directed at non-muslims for hundreds of years, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see there's a problem here.I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I believe trump is right to want a temporary ban on allowing muslims here. Rand Paul proposed a similar plan and no one said a word. I think about all those people who have been murdered over the years, the pain that their families have been through, enough is enough. The Muslim community does nothing about it, ever. They chant death to America and burn our flag. Good riddance!
TM if they cared about their daughter they wouldn't have went on a killing rampage knowing full well that they would die or be imprisoned for life.. leaving their daughter behind. Many terrorists recruite their own children..knowing that their kids lives will be shortened.
My main point and concern is that Trump wants to go after the families. My take on his repeated idea is that he wants to take out (kill) the wives and children.
I'm having a very hard time swallowing that.
Trump is going to kill their families? Really? Do you actually think that could possibly happen? Ridiculous! I'm more afraid of what our nation will look like after 4 years of Hillary. That woman is incompetent. Do you think she would have been New York's senator if she wasn't bill's wife? Would she have been secretary of state? No way. One more thing. I'm just an average guy that works for a bank, if I conduct business with my personal email, I'm fired. I don't want that judgment running my country. I wouldn't hire her to clean my house.
Watch or read his latest interviews on fox. He said the same thing in two separate interviews, one with O'Reilly and the other with Hannity. He wants to go after the families (said this during the disscussion of war). To me it's obvious. What would be your interpretation?
Not making this stuff up..wish I were.
Yes.Absolutely yes. It would be nice to have an intelligent president for a change!
Funny lady BTW Ravi I don't want Hillary in either, but I find Cruz and Rubio to be the most sensible at this point. Just because I don't agree with Trump does not in anyway shape or form make me a liberal. I'm not left nor right I consider myself ambidexterious. Lol
Cruz is coming up in the polls. I don't think he'll overtake Trump, but in the end, perhaps Trump and Cruz will work together- I'd take either one of them over Carson. And I won't vote for Rubio- he's a GOP ringer, his opinions on amnesty and immigration are simply unacceptable. I'll stay home...mark my words: ALOT of conservatives will. While Cruz is a viable alternative to Trump, Carson isn't. And Rubio DEFINITELY isn't.
It's a shame Rand isn't doing better- but his ideas on foreign policy- which, much like his father, are TOO non-interventionist, isn't what the American people want to hear. The people are scared, and they should be. No terrorist attacks on us soil under Bush, under Obama there was Ft Hood and San Bernardino. There were quite a few more acts/crimes committed by muslims in accordance with Sharia Law, but Ft Hood and San Bern were the 2 big ones. And San Bernardino happening so soon after Paris, people are RIGHTFULLY concerned. Crimes by illegal hispanics has been rising for years. An amnesty/no wall/act-like-the-muslim-threat-doesn't-exist/complete non-interventionist foreign policy will not fly this time around. It doesn't matter what the "correct" answer is (I don't believe there is such a thing- only OPINIONS)- it's not what the people want to hear.
The GOP runs Jeb, or Kasich, or Rubio- they WILL lose. And I honestly think they would would rather lose than have Trump or Cruz win. Because they represent a RETURN to the CONSERVATIVE republican party of the past- especially Cruz.
Good read on the whole "banning people" thing... Jimmy Carter did it first:
http://poorrichardsnews.com/reminder-jimmy-carter-banned-all-iranians-from-entering-us/
Reminder: Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from entering US
This is just a reminder to all the liberal Democrats out there wringing their hands about Donald Trump’s latest comments.
from Front Page:
During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.
"The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."
Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against “our values” after all. It may even be “who we are”. Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.
Meanwhile here’s how the Iranian students in the US were treated.
Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.
In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US.
comment from article author:
I’m not even saying I agree with Trump. Personally, I don’t think Trump actually believes he can “ban all Muslims including American citizens” (as the Democrats are framing it) from entering the US—I think Trump is a marketing genius. You see, he knows that Americans will look at his statements, and then look at all the hand wringing from people like Hillary Clinton and Obama who claim that Islam has nothing to do with terror, and faced with that choice, people will align with him. He understands the politics of dichotomy, and when push comes to shove, people might not agree with Trump 100%, but they’re way closer to him than the delusional excuses from Democrats.
I'm going to highlight the key the point here:
[Trump]knows that Americans will look at his statements, and then look at all the hand wringing from people like Hillary Clinton and Obama who claim that Islam has nothing to do with terror, and faced with that choice, people will align with him. He understands the politics of dichotomy, and when push comes to shove, people might not agree with Trump 100%, but they’re way closer to him than the delusional excuses from Democrats.
and, for those of you who run to Snopes for all of your "truth" (LOL), yes they have a page on this issue. But imo, it doesn't negate anything. The fact that Carter apparently deported Iranians and banned new ones from coming in (with a couple of exceptions) for purposes of "pressuring" Iran (LOL) to release the hostages (and supposedly not for security reasons), in no way makes his moratorium any different than Trump's suggestion (which he DOES make for security reasons). Hell- if anything, Trump's reason is MORE valid than Carter's. You can either ban certain people, or you can't. Carter DID.
...and here's some good reading on FDR's actions regarding aliens:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261060/fdr-halted-german-japanese-naturalization-after-daniel-greenfield
Here's the catch:
FDR's actions were more drastic than Trump's would be or Carter's were.
Much of this proved unnecesary during WW2. But it was a legacy from WW1 in which German agents carried out a variety of terrorist attacks in the United States, including one that seriously damaged the Statue of Liberty.
There were a number of these proclamations during WW2 and even afterward from FDR and even Truman. And while they arguably went too far in addressing a threat that never really materialized because the United States applied the full might of its military capabilities and defeated the enemy, we inarguably have not gone nearly far enough in dealing with an enemy who presents more of a domestic terrorist threat than an international military threat.
JR said "No terrorist attacks on us soil under Bush, under Obama there was Ft Hood and San Bernardino".
So 9/11 doesn't count?
Unbelievable.
Yea I read that too and was dumbfounded. No terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush????? Really. You can't think of 1 single attack???? Wow
yankee,
You're funny. Yes OF COURSE 9-11. That's where this whole thing STARTED. Forgive me for not stating the OBVIOUS for you, I didn't realize it was necessary.
It's amazing the straws you guys try to grasp when you've not nothing. LOL
I would say Trump is the biggest a*hole out there, but a*holes have a purpose. He doesn't.
Oh, and before you chime in again- more OBVIOUS:
No, 9-11 wasn't the first terrorist attack on US soil. But it's the one that woke everyone up to Jihad and made terrorism a common word in American life. I didn't realize I had to give a complete history lesson every time I post.
I would vote for Cruz if it came to that. He actually may do better against Hillary. Rubio just becomes an anti Hillary vote for me. I was going to mention Jimmy Carter but JR beat me to it. Liberals really need to get their head out of the sand. Down the road Sharia Law won't be so kind to the left.
You said it...NO attacks on US soil under Bush. Just like you said you "heard" 10,000 Muslims landed in New Orleans. What's obvious is your casual relationship with the truth.
"45 Jihadi terrorist plots thwarted under Obama's watch", really, the numbers say 27 of the 45 were thwarted under Bush's watch. Another Chad left dangling.
"But it's the one that woke everyone up to Jihad and made terrorism a common word in American life."
So no first bombing of WTC, no Abu Nidal, no TWA 847, no Beirut Marine bombing, no Iranian Hostage Crisis??
That's revisionist at best.
JR, you didn't just decide not to mention 911 because it was so "obvious". You specifically made the statement that there were no terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush. How could you say that when the LARGEST terrorist attack happened on Bushes watch? Simple - you made a mistake. That's not a big deal. But it's interesting how you react when confronted with your mistake. You just deny, deny, deny. As I've said before many times - you are completely unable to admit when you're wrong.
Right...right... as I said, you guys will grasp at anything. I didn't make a mistake: as I said, 9-11 started it all. I wasn't aware you needed remedial history 101, yankee. My apologies.
AFTER 9-11, (which was Bush's fault of course), there were no terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush (which we'll give the credit for to Clinton, of course). Since Obama became president and changed the foreign policy, there have been terrorist attacks on US soil (which of course were Bush's fault), and oh I'm a racist. Better?
What's amusing is all the libs on here running scared, just like during the Bush years, because Trump's overall popularity (and not just among registered republicans) is through the roof. Here's a hint: it's not Trump the people like. It's his IDEAS. Scary for you, huh?
"JR, you didn't just decide not to mention 911 because it was so "obvious". You specifically made the statement that there were no terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush."
Really? Listen, I'm not going to start calling anyone names, but if you believe that you are beyond ignorant. You're so caught up in trying to destroy my character that you will grasp at anything. Grasp away. Your fear and loathing is transparent.
ok, ok, ok, you guys make valid points about JR's recent posts while at the very same time ignoring or refusing to comment on Jimmy Carter's actions during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Carter took unprecedented Islamaphobia steps and you all are ok with it? (seems hypocritical to me)
seems a little one sided to jump all over trump while giving carter a complete pass on the same thing
also giving the new deal guy, FDR a complete pass on imprisoning the Japanese-Americans in interment camps during WW2. how do you feel about that? or is it only wrong when a republican does it?
yf - darwin - GC - what say you guys about that ?
GC...
You need to read my posts. I said 9-11 wasn't the first. And I didn't include attacks overseas because they were overseas. So now you'll try a "gotcha" by saying US military bases are, for all intents and purposes, US soil. And again- you guys will grasp at anything. US soil, to 99% of Americans means, the United States of America in North America.
Wow, I didn't realize you guys were so thick that I needed to take out my map and encyclopedia to write posts that you would fully understand.
I'll Try. To. Speak. Slower. Next. Time.
Oh, and if I ever mention Jihad again, I'll be sure to go all the way back to the Crusades, so as to not leave anything out and be accused of having a "casual relationship with the truth". LOL
"when push comes to shove, people might not agree with Trump 100%, but they’re way closer to him than the delusional excuses from Democrats."
this is a good point, delusional is no way to go through life
time to wake up and smell the coffee
"won't vote for Rubio- he's a GOP ringer, his opinions on amnesty and immigration are simply unacceptable."
this is true, rubio is a sell out to the old republican establishment, i will not vote for him either.
a cruz-fiorina ticket could beat the clinton juggernaut quite easily,
This forum is a great view of America today with out a middle class. Since there has been no two party system for years, there is a political revolution going on. This article is an interesting commentary on what we have left for our children. Pretty depressing for a former freedom and opportunity loving democracy.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-millennials-are-supporting-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-2015-11-09
"No terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush."
If I believe you wrote that, I'm beyond ignorant? It's a direct quote. That's what you wrote!
Someone points out you're wrong and you spin, squirm, deflect, attack. Anything to admit you were wrong. And it happens every time with you. Why is that?
gadfly - how do you feel about jimmy carter's bans during the hostage crisis?? isn't that similar to what is being discussed the last few days???
or do you (as usual) give a complete pass to the democrats while holding the republicans to a different standard?????
the one-sided myopia of you guys is alarming to me personally, i thought you all were more intelligent than that; i think that maybe old gent is onto something.
#christianlivesmatter
Get off the guys back, he simply worded something wrong and you guys want him burned at the cross for it, jeeze!
JR says: "Here's a hint: it's not Trump the people like. It's his IDEAS. Scary for you, huh?"
Ideas? What ideas? Other than his racist pandering I've missed any substantive policy statements. Besides the wall across the Mexican border and closing the country to all members of a specific religion, mocking a handicapped reporter, calling John McCain a war hero only because he was captured, and chronically demeaning women, (I've no doubt missed several), has he said anything at all that includes solutions?
I think get it; a lot of terror acts on American soil have been perpetrated by Muslims. Most of these have been directed against Americans of any religion. A portion of these heinous acts have been conducted by non-Muslims. And most of our mass shootings which occur at a rate of about once a day are overwhelmingly instigated by non-Muslims.
“The Muslim community does nothing about it, ever.” This is just untrue. Many plots have been foiled by Muslims. Many Muslim leaders and followers have spoken out against these thugs.
But one of the best is BrotherDog’s submission of a rumor looking for the truth begging for comfirmation. “wasn't there a study on this out recently? out of the 1.5 billion muslims around the world about 150 million of them are 'radicalized' ?” Now we post recollections of delusion CYA with a request for proof.
Oh wait, the Dog has the proof, it’s a math proof: “so the 99.9 % / 0.1 % …. is not real according to the recent study, it's more like 10 % so chris cuomo is mistaken again” Now that’s reverse illogic proving that numbers don’t lie.
Dog’s punchline: “anyone remember this study? or have a source for it?” I guess if you don’t it must be true.
And mea culpa KB: “really, the numbers say 27 of the 45 were thwarted under Bush's watch. Another Chad left dangling.” Yup, my bad chad and, worse yet, unnecessary to the point I was making about Muslims helping to stop terrorism in the U.S. Constantly reading 9/11 and thinking 9/2011.
So all of this is to say Trumps ban plan is stupid and IMHO does more to make the US less safe than it does to increase our security. Even just saying it as a leading Presidential candidate is detrimental. It reduces our security by providing the number one reason to join the jihad, the West has declared War on Muslims, all Muslims.
First, IMHO, for either Paris or San Bernardino, the first question is where did our intelligence fail and how to remedy that. In both cases, we had multiple failures. That’s the most important thing to focus on to make us more secure. Knee jerk reactions against ¼ of the world’s population is exactly the reaction ISIS is looking for to increase their ranks and effectiveness.
Second, I think if we look at each act of terrorism on American soil we will find its not visitors, tourists, business people, and other short termers but instead folks who have been overseas in terrorist or terrorist sympathetic countries for a period (or were born there and immigrated), have been radicalized and perhaps trained, and returned to the U.S. to become “sleepers.” Might it be better to scrutinize that, ban or vet potential new immigrants for that, than to reject all Muslims? To me that’s the tactical solution.
I think in the long run we know that walls and blockades don’t work. Maybe a short term fix, but in the long run didn’t work for China, for Russia, the English in our Revolution, for the North during our Civil War. We have also proved starting in WWII that tactical strikes are much more effective than other strategies. Might not make us feel better fast like a total ban or a good carpet bombing, but in the long run if we are brave enough to pursue a tactical course, IMHO the results will be better and longer lasting.
BD - why not Gadfly answer the question before assuming his/her answer?
That's what drives me crazy about these conversations - you assume because someone leans towards a particular party that they support EVERYTHING related to that party. And then make comments about said person based on those assumptions.
This is part of the reason we can't have productive conversations. Each side is so focused on winning that the issues get lost in the shuffle.
BTW Gadfly- I did admit I was wrong on the 10,000 muslim immigrants. I can't admit I'm wrong on this one because I'm not. As I said, apparently I need to go all the way back to the Crusades if I ever want to discuss Jihad.
Darrin- like I said, they can't debate the facts so they search for technicalities to try to crucify the messenger.... kill the messenger=kill the message. Liberal tactics 101. "Bush is dumb", "Trump is a buffoon", "Romney hates dogs", "Palin is stupid", etc. Same old song and dance. It's not working this time around, and it's infuriating them. The liberal media for once in a long while cannot sway the people's opinion. Enough of them have finally learned, and know better.
MB - thank you for your excellent post.
Yes, if something needs to be challenged, let's stick to what has actually been said.
yankee:
the 2 you mentioned- a moratorium on muslim immigration and the wall- are all the solutions he needs. He can win with those 2 issues alone. In any event, what solutions has Obama offered the last 7 years besides Obamacare (and it's highly questionable whether that has done more bad than good). Americans feel less safe, terrorism is again on our shores, he seems not only not interested in protecting the people he's sworn to protect, but even goes the opposite direction with his foreign policy. The economy still sucks, and as I said- Obamacare has hurt as many people as it's helped (probably many more).
The disapproval rating of Congress should tell you all you need to know about how America is feeling about the central govt these days. The number one solution trump offers?
HE'S NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN.
JR :"Americans feel less safe, terrorism is again on our shores, he seems not only not interested in protecting the people he's sworn to protect, but even goes the opposite direction with his foreign policy."
Couldn't agree more....Obama has not done one good thing for this country in my opinion.
His response to Americans feeling less safe is to further ban guns, this is sure to make Americans even worse off, how about letting Americans defend themselves since he cannot take car of the issue, so at least we knock off these mass issues?
Obama care is a utter looser, without getting into details, I know of a situation where a Obama care user could not get the help she needed because the insurance sucked so bad, and ended up dying.
Obviously not... he's a career attention seeker. Don't think he's going to win the general election on a Close All Borders one issue platform. Of course, there may just be a few other things THINKING voters may care about. Just a few here-
Infrastructure repair
Global Warming, the Environment and Energy
The vanishing middle class and economic inequity
Education
Health Care
Veterans Benefits
International Trade
The Middle East long term strategies
Tensions with Russia
The failure of the current two-party system in Washington
You and I could spend hours disagreeing on Health Care and the job President Obama has done during his tenure. But we're talking now about who takes over and I for one am looking for the candidate that tries to intelligently communicate a coherent strategy that looks at ALL of the important issues and decisions that need to be made to move America forward.
Yankee -
While I agree that I haven't seen many solutions from Trump, I have seen something much more important as a first step - identification of the PROBLEMS.
No one was talking about illegal immigration until Trump - he identified a problem. And he had a solution.
He wants a temporary halt to "muslim" immigration because there is a PROBLEM that all democrats and some republicans are ignoring because they are afraid to be called racist or it is not PC or whatever. That is lovely, but there is a problem of a percentage of immigrants that could be extremely hostile. If the democrats and some other republicans acknowledged there was a problem instead of being PC about it, I feel they would attract more voters.
TM
JR says: "Darrin- like I said, they can't debate the facts so they search for technicalities to try to crucify the messenger...." and then a litany of supposed liberal name calling although it's JR and he might be recollecting again.
Darrin responds "Obama care is a utter looser."
Think this barn door swings both ways yet, and not Darrin and necessarily even this site, the conservatives are much more venomous.
MB - Jd2 - good point; and generally i agree with you both about it, however Gadfly (and many others) asks me questions like that all the time, with the supposed position in the text of the question and then challenging for response; so i returned the question in like form to him. seems he doesn't like it when his technique gets turned around on him. maybe i'm wrong about this though. anyways i do think you are right, to conduct a proper give and take, the conversation should be more on an even keel. do you think that was what was done to JR this morning? (i sure don't)
and anyhow; maybe gadfly can speak for himself on this issue? was it ok for president jimmy carter to do what he did during the iranian hostage crisis or not?
BD the Carter Trump comparison is similar but with 1 major difference. Carter's sanction was one 1 specific country, where Trump's ban would be on an entire religion regardless of which country they are from. That's the part that makes it unconstitutional
https://www.truthorfiction.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranians-from-entering-the-u-s/
Might it be a bit arrogant to think that this kind of thing (what is currently called "terrorism") never happened prior to our lifetimes? GC started down the road explaining it, but it has been going on forever, all the way back to the beginning of human existence.
And when you look at the statistics of actual harm done versus rhetoric, we are all still more likely to get struck by lightening than get caught up in a "terrorist" attack.
Talk about a perspective problem.
What we have today is sheer, unadulterated emotional blindness. Is there a problem? Absolutely! But does it require the level of crazed emotion that so many of us are exerting? HELL NO.
The better thing to be asking is Who will be stepping in to take advantage of the current mindset, and what controls are they proposing to put in place? That is the question that will be answered in the history books, not which (insert your profiling descriptor here) angry folks got up the nerve to lash out and murder fellow human beings.
Once again, we have met the enemy and it is by all means US!
"and I for one am looking for the candidate that tries to intelligently communicate a coherent strategy that looks at ALL of the important issues and decisions that need to be made to move America forward."
I guess you'll be staying home on election day then. Unless to show up to vote for Cruz.
"BD the Carter Trump comparison is similar but with 1 major difference. Carter's sanction was one 1 specific country, where Trump's ban would be on an entire religion regardless of which country they are from. That's the part that makes it unconstitutional "
That's a good point. Altho I will add that in THIS case, it IS a religion- not a country- that is trying to destroy us. And like all the liberals say all the time, "hey- the constitution needs to be interpreted for current times" LOL
Constitution or not, I think you will find, if Trump/Cruz get elected, the unconstitutionality of a temporary moratorium on muslim immigrants will be given a wide berth, based mostly on the very real issue of national security, and also the will of the people .... I heard a poll today: 46% agree with the ban, 40% don't, and the rest haven't decided or don't know enough about the specifics to have an opinion.
BTW, here are some links for the frenzied among us to ponder:
Estimate is 1 in 20 million. If you disagree with the number then please provide another reference for us to discuss:
http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack-number/
Related to other forms of unintentional death:
http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Images_Corporate/odds-of-dying-graphic.jpg
So much angst for such a minor threat in the bigger picture. Someone is profiting from this emotional frenzy. We need to start asking ourselves who that is and what is their agenda.
Is it actually a religion that is plotting to kill us and our children? If the peaceful Muslim majority would self-police and ferret out extremists, would that aid the war effort? They are best informed to do the job, knowing who and where the killers are. Where are they?
Meanwhile, we may not have the time to wait for the election. I fear that we may get whacked again during Obama's watch.
"If the peaceful Muslim majority would self-police and ferret out extremists"
How exactly do you propose they do that? Talk about easier said than done.
And furthermore, why should they? They live amongst the extremists - going up against them is almost certain death. Are their lives worth less than yours that they should sacrifice themselves for you to feel safe?
As a Christian, I stand no chance, else I would try to do it myself. But looking at the numbers, how is it that 0.1% of the Muslim population can threaten "almost certain death" for the other 99.9%?
"I fear that we may get whacked again during Obama's watch."
I expect it. I would LOVE to be wrong on this one, but.....
JIT,
I wonder what the odds were of dying in a Nazi bombing run? Or a Japanese invasion? I'd guess especially small, especially in the latter case. I wonder what the odds were of dying in a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
Because obviously that 0.1% is willing to kill whoever gets in their way without a second thought.
We have trained professionals to deal with those few who are "willing to kill whoever gets in their way without a second thought". What we need is the intelligence to find out who and where these maniacs are. This is where the peaceful Muslim majority can help. If there ever were a need for negotiations, it is with them.
Troublemaker said: "No one was talking about illegal immigration until Trump - he identified a problem. And he had a solution."
Truly funny- thanks for the chuckle!
I honestly think Rubio will get the nomination - if trump stays as an independent any vote for him will be a vote for Hillary
the study that was in news estimated about 10% were radicalized,
so out of approximately 1.5 Billion; that 150 million were radicalized.
how many Islamists worldwide live under sharia law? that's an issue i think
all we hear out of the white house is about our 'shared values' , that here in america we have 'shared values'.
is it not true that under sharia law the shared values are very different than ours? no equal rights for gays or women, women cannot drive, they can't vote, they cannot go outdoors without a male family escort, and if they do they are subject to public lashings , stoning and death by decapitation. and if you are gay, that's a death sentence right there, and what about 'honor killings' ? is that one of our shared values?
those are not our 'shared values' are they?
what about our PC shared values of tolerance, equal rights for gays, inclusionism? is any of that possible under sharia law?
and there's an estimated 150 million adherents who live that way? and they are bringing those values here to America? is that right?
2 out of 5 terrorist plots foiled are because of Muslim provided intelligence.
They are helping out.
Many terror attacts kill Muslims. They are involved just like the rest of us.
BD - Kind of makes you wonder why liberals are so unconcerned. It will be a real slap in the face if/when it comes to that in the USA.
For all the folks who keep saying that Trump wants to put a halt to all Muslim immigration -- that's NOT what he said.
Trump proposed to put a halt to ALL Muslims entering the country, not just immigrants, but anyone traveling for any reason, be it business, vacation, or seeking permanent residency. .
"I honestly think Rubio will get the nomination - if trump stays as an independent any vote for him will be a vote for Hillary"
That's certainly what the GOP will tell you. BTW- Trump isn't running independent any time soon... he's running republican.
JerryG,
That is correct- but you forgot to complete your comment with "TEMPORARILY". Until a solid, reliable vetting process can be accomplished. Sounds perfectly sensible to me and most of the American people, from the polls I'm seeing.
I'm with you OG
JR - if he doesn't receive the nomination he has promised not to drop out of the race.
JR,
In your last two comments relating to Trump's statement on stopping Muslims at the border you used the terminology "Muslim immigrants."
Call it like Trump said it...a ban on ALL Muslims entering the country. Permanent or temporary is not the issue...your hero is calling for a total ban on ALL people of one particular religion...and yet you (and others) continue to use the term immigrant only.
Whether it's all immigrants or all Muslims, what's the difference? The sad state of affairs here is that many are pushing for 100% exclusion based on *assumption*. Why you ask? Because of the lack of acknowledgement that bad things will ALWAYS happen. The only time that won't be true is when every single one of us is controlled to the point of being drones. So be really careful what you wish for because the trends are screaming that you will be getting everything you want.
When I said "scary stuff" earlier I wasn't talking about the "terrorists"....
150.000,000 radicalized Muslims is another Bdog delusional number as he once again throws crud on the wall in defence of a mryiad of accusations that follow.
He is a very bad fact checker because it feeds his intollerance supporting his ignorance though inuendo and rumor.
Yes, 100% TEMPORARY exclusion on the basis of national security. We aren't putting them in camps, we aren't deporting anybody, we simply aren't letting them in, for awhile, until we have a reliable vetting process that can be trusted.
Sorry if that's too common sense for some of you.
immigrant simply means someone wanting to emigrate here. So I don't understand your point, Jerry. If you're a muslim, and want to be let into the US, you are an immigrant. I'm not trying to play words or anything...
JR,
I don't understand if you simply refuse to read what has been written, or you are ignoring what Trump said in favor of your own delusions.
Immigrants are people seeking to live permanently in this country.
Visitors are people who...visit. They come on vacation...and then leave. They come to do business here...and then leave. Visitors are NOT immigrants.
Trump wants to ban ALL MUSLIMS from entering the US. All...as in every last one. Vacationers, business people, AND immigrants.
I don't know how much clearer to make it. Why do you persist in your continuing to talk about immigrants when that is NOT what Trump has proposed???
Banning a group of people from entering the country FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE solely because of their religious beliefs is morally repugnant and against one of the basic principles the country was founded on, religious freedom.
That makes as much sense as banning all older white men with beards, since the shooter two weeks ago in Colorado Springs was an older white man with beard.
Actually JR, an immigrant is someone who immigrated here. They emigrated from their home country. Just sayin'
And Jerry is correct, the term immigrant refers to people moving here to live. Visitors would not be immigrants, and Trump wants to exclude them too, as I understand it.
People have immediately jumped to the headline "Trump bans Muslims" and not looked into his actual statement.
Trump called for a temporary ban on Mulims immigrating to the country. This is possible because when immigrating the US - individuals declare their religion.
Trump said he would ban access to the U.S. to Muslims "until the lawmakers can figure out how to resolve the problem with vetting".
from his website.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
While his posture is a bit on the edge, it is not without merit. At no point has Trum[ stated that he dislikes Muslims or that he intends to deport them if elected. What he has stated time and again (and this also coming from the illegal immigration topic) is that we must know whom we are admitting into the U.S. - and I agree.
America is a country made largely of immigrants of all colors and creeds, and for the most part everyone that has migrated to the U.S. has done so embracing the American culture, the lifestyle, and freedom - those persons are welcomed.
When there is a group of people who intend to come to the U.S. and not embrace the American culture, but instead try to spread a culture of hate - such as Sharia Law, well, guess what, they should not be welcome. Also, we do not want any individuals who sympathize or are members of extremist groups such as ISIS. These people have no place in this country.
Until ICE can reliably vet out individuals who are in the two last groups, every time a Muslim enters the country there is a risk that many civilian lives may be lost in a terrorist attack.
This isn't hard to understand. But obviously it's not politically correct - Well, guess what, Trump isn't politically correct he is pragmatic.
P.S. - I am a Cruz supporter :)
wow, you libs are fruitcakes.
HERE:
Temporary ban an ALL immigrants/emingrants/visitors/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them... a temporary moratorium on them until proper vetting can be established, which it has NOT been. Yes, Muslims- because it's THEIR religion that is being used (improperly. apparently) as an excuse to destroy us. Jeesh.
And it's all Bush's fault, and I'm a racist.
more than 10% in many countries and it's 8% of muslims right here in the US who believe that violence against civilians is sometimes or often justified. the 99.9% figure has been shown to be wrong, Chris Cumo is wrong, and so are most of the commentators in the MSM (as well as many right here on HL)
from PEW research:
A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.[30][31][32] The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[33] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Also, 36%[34] of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so.[35]
(quote is from Wiki) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
Alright... now here are some muslims I can support....
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=462541897251397&id=462078103964443
Muslim Reform Movement
Dear Friends: The Muslim reformation has begun! Here is our first call to action. Please go to Change(dot)org to sign the Declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement. We welcome all Muslims and our neighbors who believe, like us, in peace, human rights and secular governance.
PREAMBLE
We are Muslims who live in the 21st century. We stand for a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam. We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate.
We seek to reclaim the progressive spirit with which Islam was born in the 7th century to fast forward it into the 21st century. We support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in 1948.
We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three principles: peace, human rights and secular governance. We announce the formation of an international initiative: the Muslim Reform Movement.
We have courageous reformers from around the world who have written our Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living document that we will continue to enhance as our journey continues. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.
DECLARATION
A. Peace: National Security, Counterterrorism and Foreign Policy
1. We stand for universal peace, love and compassion. We reject violent jihad. We believe we must target the ideology of violent Islamist extremism in order to liberate individuals from the scourge of oppression and terrorism both in Muslim-majority societies and the West.
2. We stand for the protection of all people of all faiths and non-faith who seek freedom from dictatorships, theocracies and Islamist extremists.
3. We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language, belief, religion, sexual orientation and gender expression.
B. Human Rights: Women’s Rights and Minority Rights
1. We stand for human rights and justice. We support equal rights and dignity for all people, including minorities. We support the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
2. We reject tribalism, castes, monarchies and patriarchies and consider all people equal with no birth rights other than human rights. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Muslims don’t have an exclusive right to “heaven.”
3. We support equal rights for women, including equal rights to inheritance, witness, work, mobility, personal law, education, and employment. Men and women have equal rights in mosques, boards, leadership and all spheres of society. We reject sexism and misogyny.
C. Secular Governance: Freedom of Speech and Religion
1. We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live. We reject the idea of the Islamic state. There is no need for an Islamic caliphate. We oppose institutionalized sharia. Sharia is manmade.
2. We believe in life, joy, free speech and the beauty all around us. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights. We reject blasphemy laws, which are a cover for the restriction of freedom of speech and religion. We affirm every individual’s right to ijtihad, or critical thinking, and seek a revival of ijtihad.
3. We believe in freedom of religion and the right of all people to express and practice their faith, or non-faith, without threat of intimidation, persecution, discrimination or violence. Apostasy is not a crime. Our ummah--our community--is not just Muslims, but all of humanity.
We stand for peace, human rights and secular governance.
Please stand with us!
Affirmed this Third Day of December, Two-Thousand and Fifteen
#MuslimReform
Twitter: @TheMuslimReform
Instagram: @TheMuslimReform
Facebook: Muslim Reform Movement
Email: MuslimReformMovement@gmail.com
They're fruitcake because you don't know someone coming here to vacation in not a immigrant, they're called tourist?
Wow, BD, you were busy today. First you made up some questions. Then, you made up my responses. Then you criticized me for the response that you made up. You must be exhausted!
I'll try to answer your question though, since you've put so much effort into it. While I'll admit I'm not thoroughly familiar with your Carter analogy, I think it's deeply flawed. As I understand it, Carter revoked visas from the citizens of Iran while we were in a conflict with that country's new regime. Trump is proposing to exclude people based solely on their religion. In the early 1940s, it might be okay to prohibit German citizens from entering the US. It would be inexcusable, on the other hand, to prohibit entry by all Christians.
It's sort of funny, and sort of disgusting, that certain Christians will rant and rave every December about the "war on Christmas" because somebody said "happy holidays" or some company didn't put snowflakes on their coffee cups. And yet those same Christians have no problem with our country engaging in actual religious discrimination.
Lastly, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was a very shameful chapter in US history. Your analogy to Trump's proposals is apt.
Well he has my vote now he is not in fear of bucking the system no matter what toes he must step on that and I hope that we get back to when some one says I AM a AMERICAN they see the don't tread on me flag in there mind drastic measures for desparret times
gadfly thank you for your answer. i asked you in the same way you ask me and many others questions or sometimes you just make statements doing the same thing. you didn't like it when your own technique was visited back on you and objected to the form and technique. pls try and remember how you felt about this the next time you post a response to someone. i do agree with MB and JD2 that there are healthier ways to conduct a conversation, and going forward i will endeavor to do just that. how about you?
and pls be clear, i am not defending trumps statements, as i think he is wrong as i have posted above several days ago
and as i mentioned there were news reports regarding approximately 10% of Islamists worldwide supporting violent Jihad; that's approximately 150 million muslims who think it's ok. in fact PEW research polling says that in the countries surveyed it's 14% of Muslims who feel this way. (link is posted above)
and i agree with this statement "And yet those same Christians have no problem with our country engaging in actual religious discrimination." when i hear fellow Christians speaking this way i am sure to let them know it's not Christian of them. they need to re-check the tenets of their faith. it's just not right, and deep down most of them know it, but sadly some do not. good point.
I think that working with churches and synagogues in the US to unite with mosques in the name of peace to combat the radical killer minority, socially and militarily, is essential at this point. Peaceful, patriotic Muslim groups are now speaking out. Let's reach out to them NOW in this common cause.
BDog's link of the PEW report regarding Muslim views towards violence to civilians is correct; his ascertain that 10% of worldwide Islamists "worldwide support violent Jihad" is blatantly false.
He is also stepping back to "support worldwide violent Jihad" from his earlier statement that "the study that was in news estimated about 10% were radicalized" which is even more false.
There's a huge difference between feelings of violence to civilians and support for Jihad. For example, I would gather England favored violence against civilians during the 1940's based on their war strategy of carpet bombing for complete demoralization. Remember Dresden? Even the U.S. who mostly disdains this has had its moments during the revolution, Indian wars and such. Still a huge difference from Jihad.
According to Pew, most Muslim nations hate ISIS and feelings against Islamic extremism have been shifting against violence to innocents over time. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/
Muslims, and the world, are more concerned about extremism today than yesterday. But here's the crux of the Don's play against worldwide Muslims; politically they don't matter to him but matter greatly to his base. Don is not going to get the Muslim vote nor does it matter. But Don's base is much more concerned about terrorism than his detractors. Much more. So he's gone extreme to cater to his base, perhaps pick up a fringe from Hillary, and suffer little losses by fanning the flames of fear.
Here's the report, read deep to see the U.S. effect: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/16/extremism-concerns-growing-in-west-and-predominantly-muslim-countries/
So in effect, the Don has pandered politically to his base and potentially add some Democratic and Independent fringe fear mongers while slapping all world-wide Muslims in the face as probable jihadists just as they are becoming more concerned about extremism.
So how many Muslims are extremists? Probably less than 1% are AT RISK of becoming extremist. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0113/How-many-Muslim-extremists-are-there-Just-the-facts-please
Another number under 1%: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/
And lastly a more nuanced view of who MIGHT support extremism: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/
The 10% number for Muslims who support violent Jihad is blatantly false.
strangerdanger,
From what I have read from you and reputable sources, the number of radical Jihad supporters is below 1%. The problem is that a few killers can do much damage, and how do we combat them? This is a war of both social and military dimensions, and within US borders. What do you propose to fight this?
muslim support for violent jihad is radicalized. 150 million or more around the globe believe it, support it, are ok with it. that's radicalized,
leave it to the progressive thought process to keep splitting terms/words into meaningless nuances and then taking a hard nosed position. missing the forest for trees , so typical for the verbose spin mister. (puppy like, really? must have forgotten about the new persona, a tiger can't change his stripes no matter the moniker) thanks for confirming what was posted.
BD - I think the point SD was making was that some Muslims have a different definition of Jihad than you're using. One that isn't so violent and doesn't include the terrorist attacks or innocent civilians. Jihad that might include denouncing Muslim persecution and public protest, not bombings or death. Similar to what you said about reminding Christians about religious bigotry - there's a right way and a wrong way, and tearing down someone else's religion in the mean time is not right no matter what religion it is. The problem with any poll is you're never going to know just what people's concept of Jihad is when answering so you have to figure the pure radicalization (for lack of a better term) factor is something less, but no real good idea of how much less.
By the way - Carter and FDR are off topic, no other reason for non-comment than that. Don't need any passive aggressive drawing in of some other narrative to make such comments either. On the one hand that's prolog just like the Bush & Obama comments when it's Trump under discussion. Too many others out there are the thought police so it's no "getting a pass".
FYI if you must know I very much opposed the Iranian asset freeze and other sanctions in 10th Grade Social Studies. We had very long discussion as that point because we had a student of Iranian descent in class who was born here, but parents immigrated. I don't think much more of the FDR era either. Because those were done on a country basis instead of religion, it may have passed Constitutional muster. But it doesn't make it any more right. I agree with how dark the whole Japanese camps were as well as prior efforts against Chinese people.
DannyC - I hope you don't mind be labeled an ignorant lib fruitcake radical with no concept of reality because what you're asking for is "Coexist". The mind control around here takes a dim view of that. ;-)
BDog's new trick is to thank people for confirmation when they don't. He is the one spinning definitions to support his fear mongering.
DannyC: IMHO for terror attacks, the key is defense and the top tool is intelligence. As I said earlier, the first thing to understand in San Bernardino and Paris is where did our intelligence fail and why. For example in San Bernardino why did no one speak up? There were obvious clues. This guy went in full garb to the shooting range and no one said something when they saw something. That's not just a Muslim problem.
To gain better intelligence most certain we can use U.S. Muslim support and must favor and cater to that when possible. In America we have done a pretty good job of Muslim acceptance and Muslims have assimilated better than in other countries. France has done a miserable job and treats Muslims as second class to be sequestered in Muslim "zones." They have a much worse systemic problem to solve.
We also need to continue the trend for more world-wide Muslims to not favor extremism as a solution. Our words and actions matter, we are not in a religious war and we don't want to kill innocents and occupy Muslim lands. That has not worked for us so far and we now have a number of examples spanning decades.
These attackers and the Boston bombers all travelled to terrorist strongholds or lived in strongholds and we did not monitor nor catch the association. Where was the intelligence breakdown that missed that? I think little U.S. terrorism has been caused by travelers, most has been caused by people living in the U.S. for a period of time. 9/11 is the outlier there in that only 6 of the 19 were here for more than a year but under two. The remaining arrived early to mid 2001. Since then most Muslim killers in the U.S have been homegrown or have lived here a good while. So far I think we have fixed the visitor risk. So we should improve intelligence on those two vectors where we are at risk, not all Muslims.
We must favor Muslim support but not at the cost of our values and beliefs: I think for example supporting Sharia law would be a loss of our values. But banning all Muslims in general, beating up Muslims in America, and throwing pig's heads at American Mosques is the wrong way to go. Americans are better, stronger, and more resolute than that.
On the offensive side, once they announce allegiance, yeah kill them all. It's a War, we warned them. Strategic strikes take longer but in the long run are more effective in destroying any organization without undue negative results from killing innocents. There still can be a long term cost, the longer, the higher the cost. For example in the Northern terrorist areas of Pakistan, children don't play outside in nice weather when the drones can fly. This has got to affect future generations beliefs about America even though I think we are doing the right thing with the minimal collateral damage.
In Syria, the key for a potential long term success is removing Assad. Otherwise if you remove ISIS you still have civil war as a terrorism breeding ground. Beyond that, on the ground against ISIS we are hampered by our rules of engagement combined with a lack of trustworthy field spotters needed to guide the almost-smart-bombs. That's why most of our planes come back without striking the target and that's a main reason for the special forces being dropped in with low numbers (how many trusted spotters do we need?) Probably need to and are upping the risk factors to strike more targets but if we are, hey, it really does not pay to advertise that we might be killing more civilians.
So, IMHO find the intelligence improvements needed from recent acts across the world, better intelligence from those improvements, up the risk factor for strategic strikes with better trusted spotters, and continue to attempt to kill only the bad guys to keep the momentum of more and more Muslims turning against extremism as a solution and more Muslims at home and abroad helping us in our efforts to destroy any terrorist organization capabilities.
thanks GC , the pew poll questions actually asked if violence towards civilians was acceptable in the name of Islam, 14% of those polled said it was either 'sometimes' acceptable or that it was 'often' acceptable. i think most folks would agree that 'violent jihad' or 'violence towards civilians in the name of Islam' is the same thing as radicalized or extremist in nature, and yes i get it that most of those saying this would not strap a bomb on themselves and run into a coffee shop. but the support for those who do so is alarming, and if the numbers hold up as PEW indicates, that means over 150 million muslims worldwide are 'sometimes' or 'often' ok with this
and there is an large percentage who want to implement Sharia law in place of secular law in england and here in the US.
GC,
I like fruitcake, especially with cinnamon cheese topping for the holidays, but not ignorant lib radicals, and I don't believe in mind control, nor am affected by labels ;-)
But let's get serious about dealing with the current wartime situation with some constructive realistic solutions, OK?
Peace.
"The problem is that a few killers can do much damage, and how do we combat them?"
Which ones? Those who kill by car, by gun, for religious reasons, for envy, or hate?
This one sentence summarizes much of my views about "terrorism". It's a problem sure, just as the other things I mentioned are problems. But unlike terrorism, the other problems appear much more frequently and, if we truly were concerned about innocent deaths, shouldn't we be focusing much more on them?
If you don't agree and think that "terrorism" is a more pressing, more grave threat, then please ask yourself *why* you think it is, and if your answer has anything to do with "fear" then please understand that you are doing precisely what the "terrorists" want.
Just say no.
oh yes you did, but you don't even know when you are doing it anymore.
14% of those surveyed support radical violent extremism against civilian targets, either some of the time or often in the name of Islam. thanks again for confirming the source.
and the trend is up with the younger generation, seems like things are sliding in the wrong direction; here's more from the PEW research studies:
Pew Research (2007):
26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
Skippy,
Ted Nugent's negative reference to Mr. Rogers, who my daughters revered when they were much younger, was lost for me, but the rest was great.
justintime,
No, now it is both fear and conviction. I believe that we will get whacked again, and very soon, by radical Islamic-inspired extremist killers. "Just say no" to what? Fighting back? Or trying to find peaceful solutions?
"but not ignorant lib radicals" ......."nor am affected by labels." uh, I might say you have been already :>)
"the pew poll questions actually asked if violence towards civilians was acceptable in the name of Islam, 14% of those polled said it was either 'sometimes' acceptable or that it was 'often' acceptable." No BDog, that is not what the poll says no matter how many times you repeat it.
Also, it depends where you are when you answer the question. I would imagine American Muslims has a different vantage point than say Syrian Muslims who may see civilian targets a normal part of their ongoing civil war. If I was up against Asad in that country, I think my PC gloves would be long gone.
But I think the most important part you missed is the first line from the WIKI page you pulled the PEW from. It reads: "This article is outdated." Hey, but don't let that stop you :>) I posted some new links but I understand.
I posted a number of more current links on the topic but from the latest PEW report, the area you are most interested in is summarized as: "When Muslims are asked whether suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies, few in the countries surveyed say that this form of violence is often or sometimes justified, and support has generally diminished in the last decade. Still, significant minorities of Muslims in a few countries do hold the view that it can be justified."
I don't know how to run an average on this but when looking at the data, one might say averages would be misleading given the variance. Also, look at the question as noted at the bottom of the chart. If the wording was changed from Islam to America and given the word was defend as in you are under attack in your own country (as many of these places are), might you pony up for a "sometimes?" Just saying.
There is also a table showing attitudes over time and it too is encouraging in a "wish it could happened sooner" sort of way.
Nonetheless it's a good read and I think you will gain some new insights.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/
The other links I listed above deal more with the topic you are trying to understand; the number of radicalized Muslims. Not those sympathetic or perhaps might lean in that direction someday, but actual radicalized Muslims and the potential numbers in the future. It's not as large you are portraying.
Just say no to falling pray to the desires of "terrorists". IOW, can we please keep the threat in perspective and not allow our emotions to drive policy. Level-headed responses are needed, not the typical "let's assume everyone is guilty" response that is prevalent in our current society.
Justin.....so again I will ask.....when the detonate a nuke or chemical device in nyc, how are you going to react???
the PEW poll was from 2013; not too long ago;
"About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified."
8% of American Muslims in 2013 said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified.
that sure is a lot more than Chris Cumo's 0.01 % ; CNN is wrong, Chris Cumo is wrong and those who believe him are getting wrong information.
No DannyC - he didn't like Ted migrants comments about Fred Rogers but enjoyed the video
A very interesting thread. Trump isn't my first choice but I'm disappointed in so many prominent Republicans bashing him. Even worse, bashing Trump's supporters. I work in the political field and I've learned that his supporters run the gamut of all demographics.
Sunshine 1962 Yes, he is a successful business man, and as such he has the experience that most politicians lack and is better qualified for the office.
Walter
Walter Stuber Trump supporters share one thing: acceptance.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-politifact-truth-lies-217048
Of course, all fans are accepting so in case you're looking for comparison: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/the-king-of-whoppers-donald-trump/
strangerdanger,
OK, now that the holidays are over, the silly season begins. So bring it on, political aficionados. What could be more weird than Hillary vs. Donald? Remember when Louis Armstrong's "wonderful world" meant something? Stranger than the imaginable.
Hillary fears a matchup vs trump. She won't be able to handle it. The media is trying to push/give the impression that other candidates such as cruz would have a better chance to win. It's hilarious. They are all shaking in fear.
What's amusing to watch transpire is the Clintonistas growing horror that their expectation of the sycophantic media eating Trump alive cannot happen because Trump simply does not give a s*** about them.
Yes I would vote for Trump, we need a big change. Our current president is spending his time on a reality show (bear grylls) while our country is going down the tubes. Now that's a guy with an EGO!
Treetops How should Obama be spending his time? He could work with Congress but they don't work and most are running for President and not even in the office.
Our country needs FINANCIAL help, and finances is something that Trump is obviously good at.
We cannot afford our own problems, yet the first thing we do is help others....it makes me shake my head every time. I am all for helping others in need, if you can do it, but to run a country into the ground doing it is just plain ridiculous. We need someone who will focus on our problems at home.
How about the countries "we help" , pass it along , and help the next country that needs assistance...............Imagine that !
It's not like they ever pay us back..
I don't know whether Donald's employees of his four bakruptcies will applauld his financial acumen. Sure, the Don remained afloat, but the common worker went through reorganization hell.
You gotta laugh. Treetops faults Obama's reality show appearances but wants to vote for a realty show entertainer.
When Trump goes bankrupt a bunch of times, "finances" is not something he's good at. More like trying to desperately cover up he's not the financial wizard at all. That's what Congress has been doing all along and no real different.
As for helping others, look at how much that costs. The huge $ is going to social security and military pensions. Focusing on foreign aid is exactly what defines poor management. That's treeing up the wrong bark for an emotional kick.
What I still don't get is I just saw Trump on the news berating Hillary about infidelity. Does no one remember Marla Maples? Trump's glass house is full of shattered holes from throwing boulders. Holes big enough for pink elephants that everyone is in a state of denial about.
PS. As for Hillary, she's begging for Trump. He's got so much baggage, he's the only one with more than her. Cruz may not lose by as much to her, but she still beats him easily. Cruz doesn't have a better chance at all. Her fears are Carson who is a toss up, but even more is Rubio. Rubio easily beats her but it's funny to see how many extreme Republicans squirm at his name.
strangerdanger,
Who cares what Obama does, except to curtail executive orders during his last year?
Strangerdanger. Ronald Reagan was an actor and a wonderful president, but not at the same time. Trumps involvement with reality shows is not the same as a current president being ON a reality show. JMHO.
Trump had 4 bankruptcies. Considering the risk involved in starting a business and considering the wealth he has amassed also while taking into consideration the money that he was given by his father, he has done quite well. Also there don't appear to be any real skeletons in his closet because if there were I'm sure Jeb would have let us all know. I think we need to revisit what we want from our president. What we've had has been a disaster for our country. If our nation was a business. It would have been bankrupt years ago. We really need to consider a new approach. Trump may be brash to some folks but he's the only one that has actually accomplished anything. I'll take a chance with Trump. Maybe he'll change how we view the presidency and in 8 years others who are talented in running large organizations will step up. What we have today isn't working. I have to admit, I voted for Clinton twice and also for Obama twice. Hillary Clinton ain't getting my vote.
SD and GC, maybe that is exactally what our country needs? A complete orginizational change. Some would fall, but the country comes out on top, probally exactally what needs to happen. It cannot continue as is, and it is not going to get fixed by doing the same thing we have been doing.
I'm sorry GC but your part of the gullible that the media feeds its bs to. Trump would absolutely destroy her as far as baggage goes. The Clinton's know it. There are enough people with common sense that know this, just look at the rigged pull numbers says he has 40% when in actuality it's way higher. I have a strong hunch he will give them a nice reality check when he wins every state for the nomination. Including iowa.
I just might be ready to vote for him. I am used to losing anyway. We recently had a war monger, One world order lover, and a successful changemaker and outright liars, all which have made the country divided, and become a rich or poor nation. He just might do what's good for the country,and restore a little freedom, since he has been on both sides of issues in the past and no one owns him. It just might be refreshing to see who he surrounds himself with, for advice. Thats where the rubber hits the road.
Mentioning Reagan and Trump in the same passage is an insult to Reagan.
Reagan was much more than an actor with a lifetime of proven positive public service before entering the Presidency. He first volunteered as a reservist in the Army, saw active duty service stateside because of poor eyesight. During this time, he left the film industry to serve. He served two terms as President of the Screen Actors Guild union. Reagan was a two-term Governor of California where he displayed some good budgeting skills after raising state taxes. He was a man who unites, not divides and certainly not a self-promoting hater like Trump.
As an actor, Reagan's films have one Oscar nomination and he narrated an Oscar winning film short done for the Army during his military service. While not stellar, Reagan's film career is that of a serious actor working with Bogart, Davis, and Flynn.
Trump has numerous cameo's of Trump being Trump and selling Trump. As a reality game show host, The Apprentice had one gangbuster year and within two years seriously flagged by over 50% loss in viewership. The actual "apprentices" served not as brilliant business people but publicity shills in the Trump organization. More smoke and mirrors.
Trump has no public service, no military service, and very few charitable contributions. His marriages have all been to foreign immigrants who did not become citizens to well into the marriage. He is all about Trump. His business acumen includes running up huge debts and then bailing using bankruptcy protections. As President he will have no net when it comes to running up debt and defaulting. Today he profits mostly by leveraging the Trump name pasting his "brand" on any deal that looks profitable to Trump. Beyond his brand, he develops, manufactures, and manages little. Of the scant plans he has unveiled for the country thus far, the implementation costs are staggering. Trump says the costs will be covered magically by an improving economy providing additional tax revenues. So does that mean he will wait until the money hits the bank before he spends? Not likely. His only plan to grow the economy is his reputation as a deal maker which so far profits Trump, and Trump alone. He was even ousted from his own company for bad deal making.
So you may like the talk but there's no walk, just squawk.
And please, no more Reagan comparisons. Even liberals cringe at that.
SD states "Trump has no public service, no military service, and very few charitable contributions."
Is this any different than our current president?
Trump has given more than most common people have, and people judging him by what they feel he "should" give to charity based on his earnings is just ridiculous, it is his money to do with as he chooses.
And how is his marriages worth noting? What does that have to do with anything?
But on a different topic, I feel military service should be a standard requirement for ANY president.
"Mentioning Reagan and Trump in the same passage is an insult to Reagan"
I disagree WHEN you're talking about their wide-ranging popularity across many demographics. In THAT the current Trump popularity is VERY similar to that of Reagan.
"And how is his marriages worth noting? What does that have to do with anything?"
he's been on a bill Clinton attack for a few weeks now.. but he should probably follow the whole "people in glass houses should throw stones" philosophy
Donald's past marriages weren't the most faithful
Yeah, I get that but what is the worthiness of "His marriages have all been to foreign immigrants who did not become citizens to well into the marriage"
Are his marriages less important because they were to immigrants?
I don't understand why SD said that.
We still have a problem with the "cool president", wannabe king, Obama. This week he continues the executive orders, this time on gun control, but you can bet there will be many more before he is finally out of office. Trump says "boom", they can be rescinded the day he takes office. Is this true?
yes,
executive orders are not permanent since another President can always revoke or amend them in the future. Happens quite a few times
"Executive orders are undoubtedly one of many tools available to Presidents to further policy goals during his Administration. By their very nature, however, executive orders lack stability,especially in the face of evolving presidential priorities. The President is free to revoke, modify,or supersede his own orders or those issued by a predecessor.46"
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf
darwin,
Thanks. This restores my trust in the US constitutional system, and allays some fears about the future damage Obama can do in his last year as a lame duck. But we still have a year to endure and tolerate under his reign. I hope that nothing he does now is ever enacted, or at least does not stick for very long.
Trump for President> How it Works for you!
https://www.facebook.com/DMLdaily/videos/1091450770894379/?pnref=story
Yup. That's it, and not even "in a nutshell." That's IT. That guy has it 100% exactly right.
That IS why Trump is unstoppable. The big difference between Reagan of 1980 and Trump of 2016 is, we have SOCIAL MEDIA for the candidates to get THEIR OWN messages out on a daily basis, REGARDLESS of, AND IN DISMAY of, mainstream media. That's why in '80 it was a "silent" majority that landslid for Reagan, the mainstream media would never broadcast his REAL popularity... in '16 is a LOUD majority that in all likelihood will landslide for Trump.
Yes...People are so sick of how this Country has been decimated that we are willing to overlook a little VANITY.... Ok...BIG Vanity.....but then there is something that attracts us to people that are THAT vain.......reminds me of that song by Carly Simon,,,,,"You're so Vain,,,,your Probably think this song is about You"!......great song....and true...because he has had that 'Advantage' to achieve that ' LEAR JET' that has made him soar like a 'rock star'.........and I DO BELIEVE him too ...his EGO won't let him Fail!.....
.....just hope he won't be 'outdone' by the Sly, Sleazy and Cunning......BUBBA ...back on the scene! Making me sick...those two are so CORRUPT...they are Ruthless and will do anything on earth to stay on TOP ....... including 'murder'!
Nobody is unsinkable, of course.... but it's looking pretty good so far. The mainstream media hasn't been able to touch him, Hillary hasn't been able to touch him, who's left?
I would think if there were a bombshell "skeleton in the closet" they would have found it by now.
Doesn't much matter- in any event, if "something happens" to Trump, Cruz goes to #1. Win-win. Rubio has a long row to hoe as a challenger, especially once Cruz gets most of Trump's supporters.
CBS News, 3 hours ago:
JR, correct me if I'm wrong, but those poll numbers are strictly GOP voters, not bipartisan, correct? Considering his extreme polarization, I don't think that those numbers (34% support among all GOP voters) bode very well for his chances in a general election. He's a "love him or hate him" candidate... if 34% love him, that leaves 66% of GOP voters who hate him... and I suspect the percentages of Independents and Democrats are even less in his favor.
Hillary has the exact same problem. Look at her support among Democrats and her numbers look pretty similar. Also, as much as the liberals hate Trump the conservatives equally hate Hillary. Polls show that the independents favor Trump and not Hillary but African Americans favor Hillary.
If it's between Trump and Hillary it's going to come down to the women, blacks and independents. Although, as I have said before NONE of my female friends/acquaintances/co-workers say they are for Hillary and are currently for Trump Maybe the people I know are an anomaly, but I'm not so sure that Hillary really has the women's vote sewn up. Seems to me the media likes to say things like that for effect - "women hate Trump," or "women will vote for Hillary," but the poles and just talking to people everyday don't seem to support either statement.
Just about all the women I know (R, D and I) say she's a liar and have issues with her "foundation" that accepted MILLIONS from Saudi Arabia and other countries where women are abused -- so much for her women's card!
Trump isn't hiding anything in the closet. His racism and bigotry is right out there in the open. His "Ban all Muslims from entering the US" is proof of that.
He wants to build a wall but other than his claim of "getting Mexico to pay for it" he has yet to tell us how he'd build it. He wants to send 11 million illegals "back where they came from," but how? Is he going to rent 220,000 fifty-passenger buses and drive them back? He's like every other politician...will say anything to get elected, and hoping the gullible masses don't actually stop to THINK about whether it's feasible or not.
"He's a "love him or hate him" candidate... if 34% love him, that leaves 66% of GOP voters who hate him... and I suspect the percentages of Independents and Democrats are even less in his favor."
I disagree. I am a perfect example of someone for whom Trump is not a "love or hate" thing... I personally support Cruz, but have zero problem with Trump. I would wholeheartedly take either over Rubio, whom I will NOT vote for. And most (not all) of my like-minded conservative friends/family feel the same.
I think you'll find the silent majority/tea party/whatever-label-you-want voters feel very similarly. Add Trump and Cruz' numbers together (should one of them drop out), and Rubio can't touch them. As for the general, the same rule applies: if Trump or Cruz win the GOP nomination, you can automatically count all of Trumps & Cruz voters to vote for either one, and imo, anyone who would vote for Rubio is prepared to vote party line anyway, so they would most likely throw their support behind Trump/Cruz, simply for the party's sake. It's a perfect storm.
The only way, imo, Hillary wins is if the GOP make some dunderhead move and nominate Rubio despite Trump/Cruz winning the actual vote... not only will conservative not show up for the general, the republican party will be signing it's death warrant.
What we need is a Trump/Cruz ticket. Even running independent, it would be unstoppable.
Just as "feelings" across the country were a "perfect storm" to get an inexperienced, do-nothing senator elected president (his being black certainly helped OMG!!! RACIST!!!!), I think you are going to find with the Islamic terrorisim, especially things like Paris and San Bernardino, Obamacare being a failure, illegal immigration getting a "pass" from BOTH parties for many elections, sweeping attempted gun control, and the realization that we can't afford to pay for all this crap, is creating a perfect storm swinging the other way this time around. I thought 4 years of Obama would do it, but it took 8.
The people are sick & tired of it. Pretty much as simple as that. Just like the people being sick & tired of war helped get a democrat elected after 8 years of W. The pendulum keeps swinging, and it's swinging right. HARD right, if the Trump/Cruz popularity is to be believed.
JR,
There have been many more mass killings perpetuated in this country by white Americans than by Islamic radicals.
Colorado Springs
Columbine
Sandy Hook
Aurora
Trump and the people who drink his brand of KoolAid keep forgetting this.
Besides uncle Joe and the bobble-heads in the background, so typical, what did you think of Obama's pep rally today on gun control?
Didn't watch his propaganda display, but based on other's summaries/analysis, it was a whole bunch of nothing.
Hire more FBI (actually a good thing, faster NICS checks) and ATF thugs, er... agents. But that requires budget approval.
The mental health reporting may hit a HIPAA brick wall.
Who is/isn't a gun dealer has (vaguely) been in the laws since 1968. He basically just "highlighted" that sentence and tried to polish a turd.
So, almost a whole bunch of nothing.
Jerry G...All those White Americans were Sick MENTAL Patients that Obama and his ilk have let out of the Institutions just like he is letting out the Criminals from JAils and letting IN the Criminals from Mexico and Syria>>>That's how much he LOVES US!
There has been Hospitals and Psych Centers closing for years and letting Patients go untreated and left to be homeless and out on the Streets! And now with Obamacare it is even worse!
JR... I think we will see a Trump Cruz Ticket!>> Have you seen Trumps Crowds ? No one is drawing Crowds like Trump, including Cruz. He doesn't have the crossover Electorate> lots of Dems and Blacks voting for Trump!
sha44ss...the de-institutionalizing of the mentally ill began well over twenty-five years ago...while it's obvious you blame everything wrong in this country on President Obama, you'd do well to get your facts correct for a change.
The white American high school students who were behind the shootings at Columbine were never institutionalized, and had no prior history of mental illness.
The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare to the uneducated) has actually increased coverage for mental illness.
That being said, the ACA still has NOT addressed the real problem. Our politicians on both sides of the aisle have turned what has been a crisis in HEALTHCARE into a crisis about INSURANCE.
Even under the ACA I do not have insurance. I am 62; even with a subsidy I would still pay a monthly premium of $300 ($3,600 yearly) for a policy with a $2,400 annual deductible. Only AFTER I would pass the deductible would I then qualify to actually receive benefits...with a 50% copay. For me, spending $6,000 before I can get HALF of my bills paid is just NOT cost-effective.
Some of the problem in NJ can be attributed the fact that Christie would not participate in the Federal insurance exchange, thus forcing NJ to go it alone. Our rates for ACA insurance are higher than the national average since our population is older than the national average. The one thing I would have spent money on - Catastrophic Coverage - is not offered in NJ. Why? Because it is only offered through the Federal exchange...which Christie opted not to participate in because (gasp) the ACA was a product of a Democratic president.
I did watch the President's speech and found it to be fairly common sense laden. Common sense being in short supply, however, I also see Smith and Wesson stock popped ten percent at the same time. I continue to find it hilarious that Obama supports the second amendment, being a scholar of Constitutional law that he is, and in no way wants to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms....but you just can't convince the white people of that. They just keep believing Barack "Hussein" Obama is coming for your guns, so go buy more while you still can!!!!
JerryG,
9/11/2001
And, what makes you believe what happened in Paris could not happen here?
Personally, I would rather take PRE-EMPTIVE steps to insure a Paris tragedy does not happen here, instead of waiting for it to happen and then reacting. But maybe that's just me wanting to save as many innocent American lives as possible. Sorry.
Let's not forget, they are already in the US, waiting to strike, as in Paris and on 9/11.
ianimal "if 34% love him, that leaves 66% of GOP voters who hate him"
so the silent 27% of men, and 44% of women, who did not vote on this automatically hate him?? How can one make that assumption?
I guess being undecided at the current time is not an option?
"I guess being undecided at the current time is not an option?"
There are very few people who are "undecided" on Trump. He definitely evokes very strong opinions on both sides. I'm sure there are many in the GOP who would NEVER vote for him, like JR would never vote for Rubio.
As for the "silent" GOP poll statistics, I presume they are split between Bush, Kasich, Carson, Fiorina., Paul.. even a few for Hillary, lol. It's pretty telling that almost 60% of Republican women don't support Trump OR Cruz...
Only one? Nope. One of the "very few", just like you specifically quoted me as writing (-;
I just don't think it is just to say if they didn't vote for him they hate him ianimal.
Darrin, you are aware of the existence of the figure of speech that is: "you either love him or hate him", correct? It isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally.
I don't have any actual "hate" for Donald Trump; there's just no way that I would ever vote for him.
C'mon, gentlemen and ladies. Stop bickering among yourselves about meaningless personal differences, grammar and quotations. There are serious issues to discuss here: Internal terrorist threats, usurped presidential power and weapon restrictions are just a few issues you should be talking about, instead of bashing each other like little kids.
JR,
Imagine how many lives could have been saved in Colorado Springs, Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Aurora if we could have kept guns out of the hands of those white American citizens.
I'm more scared of the home grown American nut jobs and terrorists (like the so-called Oregon Militia at the wildlife refuge) who are able to obtain guns legally and/or illegally than I am of Islamic radicals.
JerryG, how many lives could be saved in Chicago if there wasn't any gang violence? I'm pretty sure those guns weren't bought legally. I haven't heard the people in Oregon at the wildlife refuge shooting anyone. It's just those bitter clingers clinging to their gun and religion
"C'mon, gentlemen and ladies. Stop bickering among yourselves about meaningless personal differences, grammar and quotations."
You must be new here ;)
JerryG, I believe the Sandy Hook killer had access to his mother's gum in the house that was obtained legally. I also believe that he was diagnosed with a mental condition. I also think the guns used in the other massacres you mentioned were obtained legally and these new measures would not have stopped those "White American Citizens" from obtaining them.
It's those dam "White American Citizens," who are doing all the killing with their legal guns. Really? I haven't been on this board in awhile and now I am reminded why. And you better start being afraid of the Islamic terrorist. More are being let go out of Gitmo.
"Imagine how many lives could have been saved in Colorado Springs, Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Aurora if we could have kept guns out of the hands of those white American citizens."
JerryG,
Imagine how many lives could have been saved had we had in place much more stringent vetting procedures for people who go to flight school- especially those from countries who sponsor terrorism- before letting them into this country.
"I'm more scared of the home grown American nut jobs and terrorists (like the so-called Oregon Militia at the wildlife refuge) who are able to obtain guns legally and/or illegally than I am of Islamic radicals."
And that makes you foolish. But you have every right to be foolish.
The entirety of American society is really starting to scare me these days. Not because of nitpicking issues like whether or not Trump would make a good figure-head for the US (he won't IMO), but because collectively our discourse is presented using heavily biased emotional reasoning. Race and religion, for the moment, are full frontal these days, pushed fervently by demagogues and accepted by people who are desperate to find some sort of means of exerting their own control over society.
Now if the first thing people would say is "you know, there are some folks who are complete nut jobs, and it makes no sense whatsoever that those of us who happen to have similar features (skin color, religious affiliation, political bent, likes and dislikes, etc) should be lumped in with them" I would feel a bit better. But for some strange reason common sense thoughts like that are far and few between. It seems that most of us are programmed to automatically want to *impose* our personal views on others, regardless of right, wrong or reality. R's want to use military force to control others, D's want to use force to steal from those who have and "give" to those who don't. Force is the common denominator.
And that denominator is getting bigger and bigger as time goes by: It's almost palpable.
MSM is the biggest culprit to impose their personal views on us. There's no impartial reporting anymore. Unfortunately the uninformed take their word as gospel.
I'm more scared of the home grown American nut jobs and terrorists (like the so-called Oregon Militia at the wildlife refuge) who are able to obtain guns legally and/or illegally than I am of Islamic radicals."
I'm Scared too! I'm scared that the Divide between the ""Foolish"" Liberals and their Bleeding Heart Social Justice and Open Borders is about to blow wide open in this Country!
I for one am sick of the Lefties and their Corrupt Aggressive Agenda's against the REAL AMERICAN PATRIOTS of this Country!
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/
2016 is coming in with a Real Bang! Hang on to your seats Folks > its going to get good~!
Jerry G...I hope you get to meet your friendly Islamic Jihadist Real soon!
Our own paranoia is going to divide us and in turn relinquish our freedom, liberty and peace. That's exactly what they want.
I've experienced this recently. I brought a large cooler full of soda to WCCC for our pizza party. Well the security guard and many students took alarm and thought that there may be possible explosives in my cooler. I consider myself lucky that the bomb squad wasn't called. Lol.
I understand the caution..but to constantly live in fear is no way to live and it depletes our quality of life.
Well let's see what the politicians say about North Korea's upcoming announcement. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jan/06/north-korea-major-announcement-artificial-earthquake-nuclear-test-site-live
"North Korea is thought to have conducted its fourth nuclear test, after a “man-made” earthquake was detected near the country’s main nuclear testing site on Wednesday morning.
Speculation that the regime in Pyongyang had conducted a surprise nuclear test rose after seismologists from South Korea, China and other countries said they were confident the earthquake, which struck at around 10am local time, had been caused by an explosion.
A fourth nuclear test could bring North Korea a step closer to developing a nuclear warhead small enough to be mounted on a long-range missile, and possibly bringing the US mainland within striking distance."
sha44ss,
I'm not sure what you are saying...do you consider the terrorists (yes, their actions fit the definition of terrorists) illegally occupying a government building in Oregon to be "REAL AMERICAN PATRIOTS?"
The political candidates of both parties are quick to condemn terrorism (as they should be) but why haven't we heard condemnation from Trump and the rest over this illegal act?
Methinks it's because they don't want to alienate any conservative voters.
Illegal is illegal, terrorism is terrorism, no matter who commits the act.
If you step out the door today, you are bound to do something Illegal. Thats the joke of today's laws used to control of the masses, and their thoughts and actions.Just another example of the loss of Freedom.
kb2755,
Your statement about the Sandy Hook killer proves my point, in a way. The killer had easy access to his mother's gun which was obtained legally. The others obtained their guns legally.
Without getting into an argument about whether or not the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is being interpreted correctly or not, I honestly don't know why people NEED to own guns...guns which may eventually be misused by a member of the household, or stolen and end up in the hands of criminals?
Perhaps the killing of students and teachers in Sandy Hook would not have occurred if the killer's mother did not own a legally-acquired gun? Why did she NEED to have a gun in the house? Self-defense? Were there that many armed home invasions in Sandy Hook, CT?
The UK has much more restrictive laws on gun ownership than the US. For 2013 (the last year for which I can find statistics) the firearm death rate per 100,000 population was UK 0.06 and US 3.55 - an almost 60 times greater rate in the US. For suicide rate by firearm (also per 100,000 population) was UK 0.15 and US 6.70 - 44 times greater in the US.
Why do we have such a love affair in this country with guns?
Jerry, NEED isn't your concern in a free society. Everyone has possessions they don't need, yourself included, and you have no right to tell others what they can of cannot possess.
The issue is one of fear-based control: You fear guns, thus you want to control them. I don't fear guns myself, I fear the choices that people will make. Sadly, no matter how much control we exercize over the object the one thing we cannot control is the choice to use said object-or any other object for that matter.
IOW, IMO you are barking up the wrong tree if you think controlling the object will alleviate your fear. Let's say you get your wish and guns are no longer allowed in society: would you be free from fear that your fellow citizens would no longer be able to *choose* to hurt you? I think not.
The only conclusion then is that by exercising control through the use of a government GUN your fear-based desire for control will only lead to MORE actions by others to push back. So thanks a lot for making a human *choice* problem worse!
"I understand the caution..but to constantly live in fear is no way to live and it depletes our quality of life."
Which is why we stake steps so as NOT to "live in fear". When I say steps, I'm not talking about another war. But a temporary moratorium on ALL immigration seems perfectly reasonable to me, until the border can ACTUALLY be secured and reliable vetting procedures can be developed. That's just common sense. No fear involved.
I don't care where you come from or what religion you practice, you have to come here LEGALLY and be properly vetted for national security. If that sounds looney to anyone, THEY are the ones with a screw loose.
"Why do we have such a love affair in this country with guns?"
Maybe it goes back to privately-owned firearms and volunteer armies creating the nation?
Maybe it goes back to the Constitution who's 2nd Amendment was written, in part, to give the people the power to overthrow a tyrannical government? (since that's exactly what they had just finished doing)
The bottom line is this: we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, as INDIVIDUALS. You want to change that, you'll have to amend the Constitution. Go ahead and try- it's been done before. IF you can get the constitution amended, then you've got a case (you'll also have a war). Otherwise, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED- go pound sand.
"Will not comply" is going to become widespread.
Now where's mistegoogle/strangerdanger to chide me for talking about "revolution" and "insurrection".... he loves to give that lesson....
JR He, sd aka the googleman), no doubt has his fingers ready to fly over the keyboard to spout forth with his usual diarrhea of the mouth know-it-all ranting about every subject. Sigh, it must be so tough being sd/gm, has to be such a burden to be so smart when everyone else is just so dumb.
Ah young Padawan, you will never be a Master of the Liberal Force if you embrace the dark side.
In the beginning, those nation builders were terrorists.
The Constitution and the Founders fully embraced the Force, the ability to place limitations on the Constitution. Sometimes we call those laws. Sometimes we call them Supreme Court Rulings, Sometimes we call them Executive Actions. Sometimes we call them the right stuff.
Universal Background Checks are The Right Stuff.
Who is mistegoogle?
But trying to get back on point.....
In 2012, D.J.Trump's position was:
Generally opposes gun control.
Believes every law abiding citizen should have a gun if they want to.
Believes in assault weapon bans. Was quoted as saying, “who needs them except criminals and police?”
Wants longer waiting period for hand guns, rifles and shotguns.
Today from Donald John's website
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period."
"We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals." 5 year minimum period for crimes with gun.
" empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves." Universal Concealed Carry meaning nationwide RIGHT, not privilege.
Fix mental health. Expand programs.
Reject gun and magazine bans
Fix background checks to be faster, reject any expansion
Allow arms at all military sites
So pretty much a complete 180 with extreme prejudice towards unbridled escalation of gun ownership, availability, and access. And of course an extra price tag for taxpayers to expand mental health programs.
“I urge good people to to get together on the discussion. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We do have to feel a sense of urgency because people are dying. Constant excuses for inaction no longer suffice. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners to join us to demand something better. We can reduce gun violence consistent with the 2nd amendment. All of us and the Congress have to be brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby lies.” (President Obama)
Can any rational human being find fault with this statement?
My theory...tiny little penises. Guns make people feel powerful. People won't listen to you? well, they'll sure listen to the barrel end of your peacemaker! On top of that, they are oh-so-cool. Ever seen a movie trailer for a film about anything involving tough guys, crime, druglords, etc....you can easily see 10-30 instances of guns and gunfire within that short little trailer. Plus, how else do you expect to overthrow the tyrannical government when things get tough? Never mind that the military has warships, drones, an air force, missiles and nuclear capabilities. Pistol Pete will save the day!
"My theory...tiny little penises"
Damn... all these new women who own firearms must be getting REALLY big guns..
I think the "tiny penis" syndrome is more aptly applied to men who subcontract out their family's safety to someone else rather than take the responsibility upon themselves.
Yes, the Founding Fathers had "tiny little penises"...indeed.
+1 Mark on the "subcontracting out their family's safety" comment.
I think men who are afraid of guns are the ones with not only the tiny little penises, but also a very limp wrist.
As a female gun owner (first gun a gift from my grandpa at age 9 so we could go bird hunting together), NRA member, range shooter and patriot; I have a feeling, if there were to be an active shooting situation or a government take-over, all those limp wristed scaredy-men who are afraid to pick up a firearm will be hiding under my skirt while I protect them with my giant metal "penis."
Lets see...the Muslims like Nasal Hasan who shot up our Troops at Ft Hood are NOT
Terrorists....but the Patriots that are holed up in a 'remote' Federal Building to gain MEDIA COVERAGE to show the plight of the Ranchers whose land and livelihoods have been stolen by the Feds to sell the mineral rights to CHINA !!(FEDERAL = PUBLIC= OWNED BY WE THE PEOPLE.)
>>>ARE TERRORISTS!
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/blm-burns-ranches-and-destroy-cattle-but-ranchers-get-charged-with-
I KNOW WHY I HATE LIBERALS ANYMORE!!
'The People are NOT acting lawlessly, it is the Federal Government that is acting lawlessly!"
Krisanne Hall is a "Constitutional Attorney"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE
I am always amazed how folks believing in common sense gun laws are taken for folks without guns who offer zero family protection.
Heidi, talk about an easy lay up for jokes and retorts, wow. Yet I shall pass.
You people make me laugh there probably isn't any of you who knows what it feels like to get shot at. You're all pretty tough behind a keyboard. I've seen well-trained man start crying for their mommies after the shooting starts. And I suspect all you Rambo's out there will run the other way
eperot, so cops all have tiny little penises then hu? You are welcome to your opinion, but make sure it is not offered as a double standard.
+1000 Mark!
"And I suspect all you Rambo's out there will run the other way"
If that's a viable escape route, sure.
But what happens when there is no physical "other way"? Fight or flight... that leaves only one option.
Darrin, in some ways, yes. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of great men and women on our police forces nation wide who put their lives on the line. That isn't lost to me. But like the Catholic Church is a haven for pedophiles, I do believe that law enforcement is a haven for certain personalities that reflect a hunger for power, or the illusion of power. People have to listen to you when you are a police officer, and if you don't, they can arrest, tase, or even shoot you. There are some people who get off on that kind of power. I believe guns offer that same level or illusion of power. I recall the film "Grand Canyon", when Kevin Kline is being held up by some hoodlums who want to carjack him. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who tries to reason with the one guy carrying a gun. The hood says "are you talking to me like this because you respect me, or because I got the gun?" Danny Glover responds "you don't have that gun, we're not having this conversation." Apparently not understanding that he'd just been totally bitch slapped, the hood responds "That's what I thought. No gun, no respect. That's why I always got the gun." power, plain and simple.
Mark, you are of course entitled to your opinion. After all, these are all opinions, aren't they?
No Mark you forgot the other option that 99.9% of you will choose. You'll put down your toys and give up
"But like the Catholic Church is a haven for pedophiles"
So you agree then, since you apparently approve of wide-sweeping broad-brush statements, that Islam is a haven for terrorists. Good.
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. But when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night feel free to sing Kumbaya and regale him with your best Jack Handy impression. Heck, that would even give you the chance to verify your tiny penis comparison.
The only thing I will unzip is my gun case. We'll see who has better results.
JR, stating that the Catholic Church is a haven for pedophiles is not a wide sweeping statement. It has long been known. Remember the Boston Globe breaking the Boston diocese scandal, or see the film "Spotlight" (great movie, incidentally, but that's another topic)? It is a worldwide problem. And yes, I do agree that while not all Muslims are terrorists, (just like not all Catholic priests prey on children) Islam is certainly a haven for terrorism.
Mark, I'm sure if that were the case, you'd clearly be the victor. But I just don't worry about these extremely unlikely scenarios. I get in a car with no airbags on a daily basis. That is assuming far more risk than sleeping in my home without a gun under the bed.
And as far as protecting family, i have none.
LOL, oldred: "Heidi I will hide under your skirt."
eperot: Since this thread has degraded to movie quotes, from "Die Hard": "Call me 'Roy'." "Feeling pretty unappreciated now." "Put me down for 20, I'm good for it." I for one am protecting my family while I still can.
eperot,
So, you don't feel that, regarding Islam and terrorism, that "a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch?" You must love Trump's plan for a temporary moratorium on muslim immigration then. good for you!
"But I just don't worry about these extremely unlikely scenarios"
It's only extremely unlikely until it happens to you. Just like an auto accident is (hence the want for auto insurance). Just like developing cancer is (hence the want for health insurance). Just like your house burning down is (hence the want for home owner's insurance.
It happens to SOMEBODY every single day (multiple times, actually)... just because that somebody ISN'T YOU doesn't validate your view on the matter.
"just because that somebody ISN'T YOU doesn't validate your view on the matter."
It validates MY view. Yours may not be the same, and you have the right to arm yourself accordingly. I also have the right to not, because in my view statistically the chance of a violent middle of the night break in is very low.
Incidentally, insurance is usually (at least in this state) compulsory. You must carry homeowner's insurance if you have a mortgage, you must carry liability auto insurance at minimum and comprehensive if you have a loan or lease. There is no choice in the matter. It isn't a "want".
"I for one am protecting my family while I still can."
Danny, while you still can? are you implying that someone is coming to take your guns away? Because that has actually not been on the table.
As far as movie quotes...they are as good as anything at getting points across. In years past people may have quoted a poem or a line from a novel. Just another medium. it doesn't mean that this thread has "devolved" any more than it already has from the original topic.
"Because that has actually not been on the table."
Um... where were you when the NJ legislature tried to ban specific models of firearms a few years ago? Where we're you when the NJ legislature DID ban certain models back in the 2000's (NJAC Title 13 Chapter 54) that are atill banned today?
So while it hasn't been on *your* table, remember that the world is bigger than "me, myself, and I".
eperot: Yes, Obama's crocodile tears yesterday were one of his best performances during his media reign, a prelude for more gun regulations, including trying to take away existing legitimate guns from law-abiding citizens (his ultimate goal, disarming the American people?). Obama can be trusted to push his radical agenda during his last year. What's next? On movies, Hollywood is fantasy land, not worth quoting any more
wow, this thread collected 1200 posts! we're so politicized with shee-tee politicians...
"and you have the right to arm yourself accordingly. I also have the right to not, "
That we can agree on- the RIGHT to arm oneself. That you brought the 8th grade "humor" of "penis size" into the equation only exposes your weak position.
Oh, come on JR. Can't take a joke? It has nothing to do with the strength of the argument.
"including trying to take away existing legitimate guns from law-abiding citizens (his ultimate goal, disarming the American people?). "
This is pure conjecture based on your irrational fears of the President.
Mark, the readoption of title 13 chapter 54 bans fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms, of which you cannot convince me there is any reason for them to be in the hands of ordinary citizens.
2 things I find funny
The fact that just about every post becomes a gun discussion, despite multiple attempts to make a thread for that
and
The people who find it necessary to say highly offencive things about something they do not even fully understand, the post above this one says it all, along with the penis reference of course
eperot - that's a different argument which (as Darrin is alluding to) we've probably covered 6 ways from Sunday on other threads. I was just debunking your "not on the table" statement.
I believe NJ's latest attempt may have included some bolt action .22's... can't recall exactly what was on the list.
If you like your gun you can keep your gun. That's what the president said yesterday. Oh wait, that's what he said about my healthcare plan, and that hasn't work out so well. Still waiting for the lower premium I was promised. I can only base the future on the past and the past has been filled with a bunch of bs
Funny how nothing recent here has anything to do with Trump. Obama's last year deserves our attention. Be afraid, be very afraid. And arm yourself accordingly.
Not so. The only reason so many of these things are being discussed is because of Trump. Whether you agree with him or not he at least has the guts to bring them up. Unlike many of the Republicans for the last 7 years.
You're right of couse. Whenever someone mentions Trump I do feel like bringing things up from my gut.
"Be afraid, be very afraid. And arm yourself accordingly."
Keep living in your bubble, Darrin. And what is so offensive about what I said in the post above yours that I don't understand? I read the entire legislation.
JR, you sure showed me. And Heidi. Hinting that men who don't worship guns must be homosexual...nice. I guess we're even now.
To get back on track, I agree that Trump does have the guts (or lack of filter) to say what is really on his mind. It obviously resonates with a lot of people. But as someone else noted, the pendulum has swung so far right because Obama is a polarizing figure and we end up in these trends of two term presidents. 8 years of Billy, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Obama, and now maybe 8 years of Trump...and nothing changes except which party you happen to follow. Meanwhile, chicken littles go running around saying the sky is falling and exclaiming that there will be nothing left of the country after 8 years of their demon. (see: Darrin)
What's the matter eperot, can't take a joke? I mean, we're REALLY all just joshing each other around here.... right?
BTW, eperot: agree 100% with your last paragraph. The only thing I would say is, imo, Cruz might actually be able to stop the damage done in the last 8 years (depending on the Congress, of course). I might put Trump in there as well, but I'm certainly less enthusiastic about Trump than Cruz.
Maybe if we could actually get an ACTUAL moderate- (not what people THINK is a moderate these days, lol)- like say, a Rand Paul, then maybe the direction could change. But I'm afraid, for now, the pendulum is all we've got. ESPECIALLY when you've got Obama swinging so far left he almost does a loopty-loop. The only recourse, I'm afraid, is far right. That's the only way to keep the country at least kind of in the "middle".
eperot, what have I said that classifies me as living in a bubble? The quote you posted was not even said by me, and what does "(see: Darrin)" even mean. I think you have me confused with someone else buddy.
also the "don't fully understand" reference was based on you saying "of which you cannot convince me there is any reason for them to be in the hands of ordinary citizens."
The offence was based on your stereotypical male genitalia reference.
You do realise what semi-auto is right? you also realise that it is close to impossible to get full auto right, impossible in NJ?
and this is funny "I read the entire legislation"
So now you are fully aware of all laws and restrictions, as well as what these mean? seems not to be the case
After birthing Tom Cruz, the Don finally backs off one lie and says Ted Cruise is all American and will not have to get on the Trump Bus.
Ted says Don John jumped the shark proving once and for all time that he does not understand American culture and must be alien
Meanwhile Congress repealled the ACA for the 100th time. Next the will re-fund the Alaskan bridge to nowhere and repeal Prohibtion.
Strangerdanger: Could you please write intelligible English? I do not understand your slang phrases, metaphors and indirect name references. What are you trying to say?
Meanwhile back on the Ranch, Obama is releasing 17 Gitmo prisoners. Hopefully SD this doesn't cause anything to be brought up from your gut.
Danny,
SD is simply too clever for us, hasn't he convinced you of that yet? ;)
kb2755: Number two of Obama's "I have a pen and a phone" actions. Where will these 17 Gitmo prisoners go, what will they do with their freedom, what is the threat to the US, and what is next on Obama's agenda, freeing the 90 hard-core maniacs who are still at Gitmo?
They're goin where the 500+ that Bush no Cheny already let go with a 33% recidivism rate.
"with a 33% recidivism rate."
In the US? That sounds like a hard number to verify (not that I don't believe it).
But it's hard to justify holding people who were never formally charged with any crime though, even in the name of "terrorism".
"Strangerdanger: Could you please write intelligible English"
Lol DannyC, lol. Writing in ways meant to obfuscate and deflect is the trademark of a good many politicians. I've often thought he is, or would be, a very successful one!
"I've often thought he is, or would be, a very successful one!"
You say that as if it's a compliment...LOL
Here's the question I was trying to ask yesterday, but apparently a lot of people did not get the point. Let me try again.
The defense against calls for more restrictive firearm legislation in the wake of mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Columbine and others has been, at least on this forum, to state over and over that the original firearms were purchased legally.
That being agreed upon, and the fact that apparently the purchasers of these guns (the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter, for one example) were good law-abiding citizens, this is my question:
If at the time these people considered buying firearms AND WERE NOT ABLE TO LEGALLY, would these weapons even have been bought? If not, would these shootings even have occurred?
Justintime, you seem to think that I fear guns -- I never said I feared guns. I've fired handguns (from 22 to 45 cal), rifles (including both M-16 and a 50 cal Barrett sniper rifle) at multiple times over the past 40 years. I enjoy target shooting. I have no opposition to hunting; while I doubt that I ever would hunt, I enjoy venison, elk, and the fruits of someone else's enjoyment. Guns do NOT scare me. But we can agree that the possession of certain items can and should be restricted in the interests of public safety (the common good). For example, I can not legally purchase the materials to make a bomb. But your statement seems to indicate I should be able to buy anything I want, since no one should have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot possess.
sha44ss: A group of armed people taking over a federal building in an attempt to extort something from the government are terrorists, no matter their race, religion, or any other qualifying characteristic. If you can't see that, better pack up your muzzle-loader and go out to Oregon and join in.
"A group of armed people taking over a federal building in an attempt to extort something from the government are terrorists, no matter their race, religion, or any other qualifying characteristic. If you can't see that, better pack up your muzzle-loader and go out to Oregon and join in."
This is where the civil war/insurrection will come in. You say to-MAY-toe, they say to-MAH-toe.
You obviously disagree with the Founders that 2A was built on the people being armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. As I have stated- if you feel that way, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, if you can. Until then- Molon Labe.
JR,
If you believe that we are currently living under a tyrannical government, then act on it. Have the courage of your convictions.
It's only a six-hour flight from Newark to Oregon. Bon voyage!
But first, can you comment on my question? If the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter had not been legally able to purchase firearms, would her son have killed those children?
*I* am not the one thinking that, but obviously the people in Oregon are. And they *DO* have the courage of their convictions.
As to your "question", the only logical end to the debate for you, obviously, would be a complete ban on privately owned firearms. So- change the constitution. Until then- pound sand.
JR
No need to get nasty.
First of all, I have NEVER called for a complete ban on privately owned firearms. I've written that I have enjoyed target shooting and have no problem with hunting.
Why do you avoid answering my question? I've thrown the topic out there for intelligent debate and all I've gotten from you is a nasty comment.
I'm not avoiding anything. She purchased the guns legally. End of that story. He took the guns illegally. End of that story. She was 100% law-abiding. And the only way to have kept her from purchasing the guns is to have a ban on private firearms ownership.
You say that's not what you're after (all gun grabbers do), but there can be no alternate motive. She purchased the guns LEGALLY. The end.
The only law that was BROKEN was by her son when he took the guns. And, as you can see, there's already a law against theft. And murder. They work great, huh?
Ah, a good chance to denigrate strangerdanger always brings them slithering out from their rocks.
"obfuscate and deflect." I am sorry, I don't understand that. Are you running for office or just running your mouth?
DannyC said he did not understand my slang and silly attempts at humor. He did not say obfuscate, he did not say deflection, and he most certainly did not mistake me for a politician.
So DannyC: valid point. JIT: no.
"After birthing Tom Cruz, the Don finally backs off one lie and says Ted Cruise is all American and will not have to get on the Trump Bus."
Donald John Trump (DT) has been a vocal part of the Obama birther movement although he finally backed off. After sinking in Iowa, he outed Ted Cruz for being foreign born, then he admitted he was wrong (a lie) and backed off. The Trump bus alludes to the mass deportation process Trump will enact against 11 million Hispanics. Cruz is Cuban.
"Ted says Don John jumped the shark proving once and for all time that he does not understand American culture and must be alien."
Cruz tweated that DT "jumped the shark." This is a trendy term for when Fonzie jumped a shark on water skies on Happy Days and it means the point at which a tv show (or other thing) has reached it's zenith and is beginning it's descent into obscurity. In other words, grasping at straws to increase flagging viewership. Now, if Cruz thinks this is the case for DT, he is either crazy or does not understand the term. If he does not understand the term, he must not be American. Yeah, that's a really bad attempt at humor. Forgive me.
"Meanwhile Congress repealed the ACA for the 100th time. Next the will re-fund the Alaskan bridge to nowhere and repeal Prohibition."
Congress just repealed the ACA, ObamaCare to you, not for the 100th time, but in the 60's. It will be vetoed and they don't have the votes to override. And they know it so it's a political gesture only using our tax dollars to make a paid political advertisement. Sort of like funding the bridge that led to nowhere, a famous Alaskan boondoggle or repealing Prohibition again after it's already been repealed.
Hope that helps although understanding it better certainly ain't gonna make it any funnier because apparently it was not my best stuff. Once in Japan I was speaking through an interpreter to about 300 folks. Attempting to lighten the moment, I spiced in some very simple world-tested humor. I looked out to see a sea of stone faces, many with closed eyes, heads resting in their hands, a Japanese custom (that at least I knew about). I would say I bombed in Japan but that probably would have made it even worse. Later, folks came up and told me how funny I was. Apparently laughing in public was a no no.
There's always risk when attempting humor. Especially when it's not that funny to begin with. Sorry DannyC.
And no JIT, the Gitmo detainees are not released in the U.S. and they do not return. 33% rejoined the ranks of terrorist groups in other countries. Probably more as PR recruiting tools that anything else. Just like Trump's war on Islam makes good recruitment fodder with the only gain to use our fears to whip up nationalism at home.
Of the around 800 Gitmo-ians, Bush let 532 go, Obama has let 135 go. There's 107 left. 48 more are cleared by the govt. for release and 28 are deemed too scary to release but not enough evidence to convict.
Cost per man per year to house in Gitmo: $3M
Cost per man to house in Federal Prison: $33K
Cost in Supermax facility: $75K.
https://www.aclu.org/infographic/guantanamo-numbers
Problem is if we bring the bad guys here, Constitutionally we feel we have to charge em or release em, a right we have avoided through legal smoke n mirrors by housing them in another country. I think it would be more cost effective and do little more harm to our image after a decade of imprisonment to at least bring the questionable ones here, ensconce them via the Patriot act in a Supermax and save the hundreds of millions we are wasting.
But when we release them, 33% will return to the ranks although the chances of them coming to America is low and has not happened yet in over a decade since Bush let the first 500 go.
Oregon and back to Trump.
Under the Trump regime, these folks would either get shot or five years minimum for perpetrating a crime with a gun. Welcome to the Brave New World. And they are criminals, they are not legal protestors.
Jerry G
That is a hypothetical question and really can't be answered. Would he have taken meds and nothing happens, does he break into a premise to steal them and now you have robbery in play. Does he get a sword and behead people. The bottom line is its not the weapons it's the people. If you misspell a word is it the pencils fault? Should we ban the old #2 pencil ?
"But your statement seems to indicate I should be able to buy anything I want, since no one should have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot possess."
Correct. Making assumptions based on fear of a potential action, then extrapolating those fears to a worst case scenario, is the real issue. Instead of banning or severely limiting our choices our focus should be on looking at, and working to solve, the reasons why some folks would combine materials to make a bomb or destructive device in the first place. But that's hard, so the typical solution is to use force to impose across-the-board limitations on everyone.
Imo those forceful, controlling actions (now fully accepted by our society) and their continual expansion to any and every area of life are the prime driver of our collective angst. What starts out as reasonable ideas grow to nitpicking control of every aspect of our lives, today driven nearly 100% based on fear. The trend and its direction have been clear, wouldn't you agree?
"Ah, a good chance to denigrate strangerdanger always brings them slithering out from their rocks."
Just curious if you have ever gone back and read your "jokes" in context. Don't think so, because if you had you would see that they almost always involve "slyly" denigrating others, albeit in obfuscated ways that you apparently think is an acceptable way of interacting.
So no "slithering" here, just commenting as a I see it dear Padawan ;-)
Like I have said before, sd aka goggleman, thinks he is just so smart when everyone else is just so stupid.
JIT,
So do away with any restrictions on purchasing anything?
Allow people to buy whatever drug they wish without a prescription, so they can take a combination of medications without professional oversight, even though there may be potentially harmful interactions?
Get rid of the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, end meat inspections, and return to the pre-1906 conditions documented by the Neil-Reynolds Report? I (and I'm sure you, too) prefer my food products not to be rancid and potentially harmful.
What restaurants do you patronize? Should we abolish inspections by the Board of Health and just trust that the food is stored and prepared in a sanitary manner, and kept refrigerated until use, and that "critters" like rodents and roaches are controlled?
Are these among the "forceful controlling actions" part of the "nitpicking control of every aspect of our lives" that you decry?
Jerry,
Please tell us, what restrictions would YOU have had in place that would have prevented what happened in Sandy Hook? Since the only law that was broken was theft of legally-purchased guns, from a safe, what laws would you have in place to prevent this?
The only people possibly denigrated the current post you jumped on me for was Don John Trump and Ted Cruz. Two boys known for throwing many a fiery invective of which my lame attempt of humor was clearly not. Confused, unclear, not funny --- yes. All your laments --- not even close.
To which you claimed: "Writing in ways meant to obfuscate and deflect is the trademark of a good many politicians. I've often thought he is, or would be, a very successful one!" Sure sounds like a slimy description to me. Especially when my only fault was being oblique and unfunny.
So now you continue on your slithering journey by venting your spleen based on your view of my entire HL history in writing, unloading your personal baggage and showing us that giant chip you wear on your shoulder rather than focusing on the current case in point. Reminds me of "having lost sights of our objectives, we decided to redouble our efforts."
If you think my calling you on this as "slithering out from their rocks" as sly, obfuscated, denigrating language, well all righty then.
The self-righteous always sound better when they match words with actions.
ABSOLUTELY. If its between him and a Democrat ABSOLUTELY i would.
Would rather CRUZ got the nomination by far, though
LVres JR,
So you're agreeing with me that if the mother hadn't been able to legally purchase a gun/guns, then 20 children and 6 adults might still be alive today?
You're making my argument for me. Thank you.
If humans had not invented aluminum forging, AR-15's wouldn't exist and 20 children and 6 adults would be alive...
Darn industrial revolution... ban bauxite!
JerryG,
Yes I am making your argument for you- that private citizens should not be allowed to own guns. I just don't know why you won't OWN your position.
Yes I do- as I have already said... when an anti-gunner says "I don't want to ban guns"... THEY WANT TO BAN GUNS.
SO- what guns did you "NOT want to ban" again? BB guns?
I am thankful for every day that Obama does not try to impose another meaningless and dangerous program on us. Twelve months to go. Let's hope the radical Islamic terrorists living among us in the US (sic) do not whack us again in the meantime.
"Let's hope the radical Islamic terrorists living among us in the US (sic) do not whack us again in the meantime."
Like the one that just tried killing a Philly cop?
Jerry states "So you're agreeing with me that if the mother hadn't been able to legally purchase a gun/guns, then 20 children and 6 adults might still be alive today?"
Maybe, or maybe the psychopath would of just stolen guns from someone else, or built a bomb, or set the place on fire, or drove his car through a crowd.......................Jerry, that's a ridiculous argument if you are trying to make one.
It is not as simple as you are trying to make it. The saying goes, when there is a will there is a way. With the amount of time people waste pointing fingers at tools, innamenant objects used, that are handled safely by millions every day, we probably could've cured America's mental health issue by now.
JerryG:
"Allow people to buy whatever drug they wish without a prescription, so they can take a combination of medications without professional oversight, even though there may be potentially harmful interactions?"
Do you assume everyone is too stupid to know better? If so, what are those stupid people *allowed* to do, and who get's to make decisions for them? Serious questions because I don't make the same assumptions about the intelligence of my neighbors. In fact, I would address your concerns by stressing the role of education in society - educate not dictate being the rule instead of the other way around. I'd even ask how it is that *you* know the dangers you speak of while apparently no one else does? Did your understanding and knowledge come from laws or education?
"Get rid of the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, end meat inspections, and return to the pre-1906 conditions documented by the Neil-Reynolds Report? I (and I'm sure you, too) prefer my food products not to be rancid and potentially harmful."
Folks who cause harm to their fellow citizens should be penalized, regardless of the activity that caused the harm. There is nothing specific about that, is there? You don't need an FDA to prosecute those who harm others because we have umpteen million other laws that would already apply. Now, if you view the FDA as a "standards" organization, that's great. I'm assuming you know that most professional fields already have their own standards organizations (not run by the government) that perform the same function, but without the threat of force behind them. The driving factor for those fields is customer acceptance. I get the feeling that an agriculture industry that kills and/or poisons their customers probably won't be in business for long, let alone having to deal with the legal consequences of causing harm.
"What restaurants do you patronize? Should we abolish inspections by the Board of Health and just trust that the food is stored and prepared in a sanitary manner, and kept refrigerated until use, and that "critters" like rodents and roaches are controlled?"
By all means abolish the Board of Health, great suggestion! Seriously though, the same thought as above applies. There are benefits to having the government run a watchdog agency, but the same thing could be done privately. Better yet, public education programs would be more beneficial.
"Are these among the "forceful controlling actions" part of the "nitpicking control of every aspect of our lives" that you decry?"
Of course they are. They all *assume* guilt and attempt to prevent something from happening that *might*, someday some where. And since it's run by the government all they can do is use the threat of a government gun.
So which is better: Citizens reacting to forced coercion or educated consumers that would put bozo's out of business without a single threat?
HH/md/SD: Deal with it. You are who you choose to be, right? No one can make you write the way you do. But if you choose to use indirect humor in an attempt to hide your disdain for the views of others then what else would you expect others to think? Oh, that's right, *you* think it's funny - you repeat that often enough. But what bugs me the most about your writing style is that you really do think it is OK to treat others that way, that somehow your superiority of intelligence and wit makes it acceptable to insult, no matter how subtly you try to do it. Others do the same, sure, but for whatever reason it pisses me off when you do it. Suffice it to say that IMO you don't need to stoop because you do quite well at presenting facts to back up your views, so your posting style looks like you're just getting pleasure by slyly insulting others. Not cool for anyone, especially for someone who certainly doesn't need to deflect from his arguments.
But you're right, this is my problem. Ignore my posts, just as I typically do with yours...
Ah, the peanut gallery voices in. Such language.
Imagine being called out for generic and pervasive "indirect humor in an attempt to hide your disdain for the views of others," "(subtle) insult (slyly)", and "stooping" in a Donald Trump thread in a submission specifically targeting Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and no one else. Ironic, ain't it.
Please feel free to continue your typical pattern of continuing to ignore my posts.
HL has gone from an interesting and fun site to one where the old time posters simply argue all the time, and I honestly don't care to be involved in that any longer. So yes, I will likely continue ignoring your posts.
I do enjoy sharing my views, but I can't stand the arrogance of you (and some others) who insist that there is only room for your perspective and that any other must be wrong and therefore belittled (that last bit being key, in case you've missed it). I simply hope that others will do the same and just not participate in conversations where, with certain posters participating, there is a near 100% certainty it will devolve into arrogant pissing matches.
Have a good day sir.
I just don't read MG/SD's posts anymore because I have and have witnessed others trying to have a debate with him and he just gets nasty and belittling. Instead of letting one nasty person get me down, I prefer to scroll right down past his posts (unread) and move on to the next post.
That way I can participate without getting into a pissing match with him, can have a good debate with those who disagree or have an alternate (and possibly swaying) perspective and can agree with those who think like me.
I have been much happier not knowing what/who he is tearing apart in every damn thread.
Hate to tell you all but this iS the new norm....get used to it!.
We ARE in the midst of the 2nd American Revolution! We are a Country Divided n every issue> and it is what MARXISM has meant to accomplish>an ideology that is anti-democracy, anti-God, anti freedom, anti the common people, and pro total power for politicians and government. We are in virtual reality here >>online>>>these people.
ARE the true PATRIOTS! The 3% that are FIGHTING for their very existence!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u5qS9yAW0M&feature=share
HAil Out to Kevin Costner> here is your next BIG role> playing the Resistance Leader for the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.....check out the BIG GUN he has in in his pocket!
And to keep this thread from "jumping the shark"...WHERE is Donald Trump in all of this?...Actually where is any Politician in all of this?
I have a friend that is very close to this situation and none of you you have any idea what is playing out right now!!
https://www.facebook.com/blaine.cooper23/videos/930773647018808/?theater
And check out all the stupid /non informed/ 'there can only be one perspective' comments coming from all the leftists!
well Trump got Sarah Palin's endorsement yesterday (on the same day her son was arrested for domestic violence) so that is the final nail in the coffin for me. No way I can vote for Trump knowing he would find a job in his cabinet or worse VP for that wacko
I agree the Palin endorsement will turn away possible democrat voters. But I wonder if it will help to pull in more Cruz voters? IDK either way, but the Palin endorsement certainly isn't a "kiss of death" for the Trump campaign... time will tell if it in fact is a benefit.
I am surprised at her endorsement... seeing as how she helped Cruz get elected.
Pretty sure it was trumps was of taking down cruz for good. Mainly for just winning iowa. He's a smart sob. And smart enough to know not to even think about making her vp.
Yup, the Palins are definitely an interesting family. "Real Americans" if I ever saw them.
Attention grubbing media whores, a daughter who preaches abstinence and yet can't seem to keep her Republican legs shut long enough to keep from getting pregnant twice out of wedlock by two different guys, son with domestic violence charges and possession of a firearm while intoxicated, drunken family barbecue brawls....
I'm utterly astonished a half wit like Sarah Palin would throw her endorsement behind Trump. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)
Iowa doesn't mean crap. Trump should know that. SANTORUM won Iowa last time, for chrissakes...
wow so I know she endorsed him but I didn't bother to see the speech until now. Wow she is has gotten even crazier since we last saw her. full text with video below. I warn you its unwatchable
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/so-uh-heres-the-full-text-of-sarah-palins-bizarre-trump-spee#.jm47GVDQl
Trump is an idiot but it's a completely superficial effort to ban him from the UK. He doesn't pose a physical danger. If he becomes President, they'll have to suck it up and deal with him..unless of course they no longer want stuff from the U.S. like our Apache gunships.
emaxxman I'm sorry, did she just blame Obama for the woman-beater that she raised?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-suggests-arrested-son-track-suffers-ptsd/story?id=36405482
Jeb should send Palin a huge thank you gift, he's the winner after her opening her mouth. I can't imagine how but she made Jeb's father sound coherent and his brother sound intelligent.
I'm not sure how much she'll help even in the primary. It seems like many of the voters she would bring along are the ones already there for Trump. In the election she pushes away many of the moderates.
"I'm sorry, did she just blame Obama for the woman-beater that she raised?"
I find it a legit comment. After all, we can blame the christian right for the lack of birth control and her daughter's illegitimate teenage pregnancy.
Palin blamed not only Obama but basically generalized PTSD Vets as abusers. They are not too happy with her comments.
Then she turned around and used the Trump affiliation as advertisement for donations to Sarah PAC which no doubt will in turn support Donald J. Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/sarah-palin-donald-trump-endorsement-fundraising-218034
After her one appearance she has been disappeared. No doubt to solve family issues.
So far, Donald has been effective in closing down any Trump PACs. He has however raised close to $6M which he has mostly spent. Not exactly self funded.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864
However, even as DJT shuts them down, his "friends" continue to open up PACS to support Donald's cause: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/17/roger-stone-launches-pro-trump-super-pac-defeat-rubio/
As time goes on, the donations that Donald does not accept but has a "please donate" button on his web site, takes donations, and spends them, will also extend to the PACs that Donald does not have but yet exist. Donald actively solicits donations for both the primary and the general election on his web site.
Self-funding is a lie.
There is no doubt that Trump spends less due to his crowd-pleasing notoriety and flamboyant media grabbing sound bytes. There is also no doubt that his "self-funded" campaign is a shame since he "financed" it with a $2M loan he made to himself that he can pay himself back at any time using campaign donations which continue to flow.
Not only that but a good amount of the money Trump lent himself or was spent through donations is used to buy things like space and travel from Trump himself where Trump Company profits. So Trump takes donations, Trump loaned Trump money that can be repaid from donations, and Trump buys a number of things from Trump with these funds where Trump profits from those sales.
Smoke and mirrors to hide Trump's money trail. Must be the "art of the spiel" to market Trump as self financing.
Juxtapose that with Hillary at $90M in contributions and $20M in PAC donations spending about half so far.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
At least you can follow this money trail.
So let's to some math:
Sarah married on 8/29/88
Track born 4/20/89
Looks like that's 8months to me. Hmm
Track married in May 2012
Son born August 2012
That's 3months hmm
Oh and divorced Nov 2013
And of course good old Bristol. 2 kids with 2 guys and no marriages
Yet this wacko had the nerve to talk about family values and being good Christians and preaching absence? Lol what a crack of sh--. Forget Muslims I say we add everyone that donates money to Palin on a watch list,those are the people I'm most scared of.
I'm eager to see how the Palin thing is going to effect Trump's numbers.... because of all the things that the press had tried to nail him on (and failed miserably), THIS might be the one that has some traction.... and he would have done it to himself.
If he thinks he can pull the evangelical vote in Iowa from Cruz by using Palin, imo he's mistaken. But as I said, Iowa doesn't mean anything. And he should know that. I don't think Palin's endorsement will help him get any more of the Tea Party vote, because they are already voting for Trump or Cruz. And it certainly won't help him retain the (reported in some places) 20% of his supporters that are democrat and are willing to vote for Trump before Hilary.
It sure is an interesting primary... but it'll be a 2-man race in the end: Trump vs Cruz. One of them will take on Hillary (unless she's under indictment and therefore ineligible to run LOL) or Bernie.
Palin actually increased McCain's turnout. There were a lot of republicans who would not have voted for moderate McCain- the tea party people before the tea party became. They voted in that election BECAUSE Palin was his VP.
McCain=Jeb=Rubio.... republicans don't want them. Period. (I'm talking the VOTERS, not the PARTY elite) . Trump and Cruz KILLING everyone else proves the VOTERS want the republican party to move back to the right. Trump may not be a true conservative, but he's certainly more conservative than Jeb/Rubio.
Another Trumpism. Lately he's been touting his wall using The Great Wall of China as an example of it can be done. Uh, Donald ---- The Great Wall of China did not work. But don't let an accurate read on history stop you from painting pretty pictures and making fun of others.
First, The Great Wall was built on top of the bodies of over 1 million workers who died during construction.
Second, invaders had little issue with the wall. They either went around or paid traitors to open the gates.
http://gbtimes.com/life/failure-great-wall
It did make a great road for goods to be imported. Sort of like drugs from Mexico.....
Trump would have been better comparing the Trump Wall to Hadrian's Wall but Hadrian's is not very elegant. It just worked against invasion since it was manned with outposts all along it's run. 10 feet wide, 15 feet tall it is certainly not Trumpy but had gates with soldiers every mile, two turrets between each pair of gates, and large forts every seven miles.
It was also built to stop immigration but probably did not stem anyone who really wanted to get in. Just was very effective at stopping raiding bands because it was heavily manned.
Yet that Great Wall looks better even if it didn't work. Maybe Donald's comparison is spot on.....
eh, I dunno, emaxxman... the Taj had its day. It was one of my favorite poker rooms in the late '90s.
It's definitely skeevey as hell these days, though. It makes Harrah's look like the Bellagio, lol.
Lady Jayne That cover is hysterical. But I wonder what all the liberals here would think if it was a cover of Hillary calling her "treasonous" or Bernie calling him "senile" or Bill calling him a "rapist" or Gore calling him a "liar" or Obama calling him a "statist."
"The nut doesn't fall far from the tree"
This is despicable.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/21/1472974/-It-turns-out-Donald-Trump-s-father-was-the-racist-landlord-Woody-Guthrie-hated?detail=facebook
Desperation happiest girl....the People aren't voting for Donald Trumps father......and back in those days alot of people were a little 'prejudice'....it was the times! .Things have evolved megafold over the decades and if you have'nt noticed we have a Black president ...who COULD have been the Greatest President EVER!....I would have voted for him had he been the Great Humanitarian & Orator that Martin Luther King was! Unfortunately the 'stupidest' Americans didn't recognize it was dung spewing from his mouth and they were like flies that feasted on it. His antipathy for America and Americans and his Islamonazi Marxist leadership ushered in the darkest seven years, (for the WORLD)....we have seen in our lifetime.
Donald Trump's RISE is the antithesis to the 'Globalist' Obama!
Looks like he is gonna win iowa no issue. If he runs the table as he states he wants to ,the general election will be even easier for him to win.
"It will be a lot harder if Bloomberg jumps in."
For Hillary and Bernie it will be.
Well, let's see.... first he was a democrat (and at heart that's what he still is), then since he couldn't get the democrat party to nominate him for mayor, he just switched parties to run as a republican. Now he's considering an independent run for president...
He might be able to pull democrat voters, but no republican is going to vote for Bloomberg, and especially those who are already voting for Trump. I don't know who he think he can pull votes away from, but it won't be anyone in the Trump/Cruz camp, therefore he'll be relying on stealing hillary's and bernie's votes. If anything, he'll split the democrat votes, not the republican ones. His stance on gun control alone will insure he gets very little republican votes.
"first he was a democrat (and at heart that's what he still is)"
Exact same as Trump. Trump was the poster boy backer of Hillary's run in 2008.
the difference is.... Trump voters don't care. No one who is voting for Trump, especially the ones who are STILL voting for him after the Sarah endorsement, will be swayed to vote for anyone else. If Bloomberg enters, he won't touch Trump's polls numbers- or Cruz's. He MIGHT touch Rubios (doubtful), and he will DEFINITELY impact Hillary's and Bernie's. Which might or might not be his intent.
He's got ZERO chance of winning as an independent. I don't know if even Trump could have won as an independent, but Trump has a hell of a lot better chance than Bloomberg will ever have.
And, I think I've stated this already but... I'm not defending Trump in any way; I'm just observing what's happening. Trump isn't my guy, I'm not voting for him in the primary.
But it has been an incredible thing to watch- the media, the GOP, the DNC, no one can touch him. No one. I think it's wonderful that the media and 2 party system has been rendered powerless, for a time, irrespective of whether or not Trump will be good for the country or not. I think it's wonderful enough of the American people have finally said "no, Mr Media- No, GOP- No, DNC- we will no longer take your marching orders, we are tired of being TOLD what is good for us, and we will elect whomever we see fit.
It will also be interesting to see where this takes the republican party (if Trump wins)... I'm making no predictions on that one.... (no longer being a republican, I don't care much either)
Yeah, my grandfather was racist too but as a beleaguered Irishman, he had been on the low rung of the prejudice ladder for a few generations at the wrong end of the racist stick so I guess he just was looking to put folks to put on a lower rung. Still no excuse and nothing to judge his son or grandson by.
More important is that Trump's financial legacy is built on this racist foundation and over the years Trump has given precious little back and taken much. Trump is probably one of the stingiest billionaires when it comes to giving back. His own Trump Frowndation only handed out $6.7M over two decades, $3M coming from Trump. Bloomberg, for example, gave $205M to charity in 2008.
Even Leona Helmsley is more generous than tightwad Trump.
Trump famously skewered Cruz on his NY values dig where everyone knew what he meant by making it a 9/11 moment. At to his credit, Trump was on site after the tragedy with his people on site too. We will give him his due but the tape kind of looks like a sales pitch for the Trump World Trade Center. He was there supporting in person though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYXygIcIJ6I
Yet he gave nothing for Katrina and a pittance to 9/11 recovery. A mere $1,000 to a Tom Cruise-like Scientology cleansing program. His is a pitiful example of a philanthropist much less a New Yorker.
His using 9-11 as a shield is shameful considering the source.
http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/
Angling for a devlopment job he was not destined to get, Trump was not exactly a supporter of the Freedom Tower: ""The terrorists win if we build this job the way it is," Trump said of the Freedom Tower plan. "If we rebuild the World Trade Center, but a story taller and stronger, then we win. I mean, I don't want to have the terrorists win ... and that's what's going to happen if we build this pile of junk."
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-911-twin-towers-plan-2015-9
Of course the Don backed another plan, to replace the building exactly, one story higher. And, of course, even though he was not financially involved, I am sure his backed plan would not have included Trump (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Trump has offered no support to first responders, has not even spoken out for first responder's support bills. "Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said Trump “can speak for himself about what he has done since 9/11"
As one of the least charitable billionaires in the U.S., his legacy of service is non existent, and his support of 9-11 recovery is missing in action. He is one cheap self-serving narcissist.
Even in death, Trump does not plan to be charitable. Instead he wants his kids to expand Trump Co because it is such a great viable American institution. Probably wants to give whatever he can take from his Presidency to his kids too.
Think about it when you vote.
"I can stand on 5th Ave and shoot someone and I wouldn't lose voters"
Well I think his ego has finally reached its max. And he basically called all his supporters morons who will follow him no matter what he says/does
So JR while you say it's been incredible to watch I say it's been sad. Sad that people are willing to support him only because of his celebrity. It's like having a Kardashian running for president.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/58895
For those looking for an accurate account of what Trump said..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/23/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-have-support/
"They say I have the most loyal people -- did you ever see that? -- where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters," Trump said, illustrating his point by pulling his fingers into a gun shape. "Okay? It's like incredible."
He's still got my vote!
"So JR while you say it's been incredible to watch I say it's been sad. Sad that people are willing to support him only because of his celebrity. It's like having a Kardashian running for president. "
Sad that much of the populace is no longer buying into the liberal-progressive media propaganda that you guys call "news", I'd say.
You guys can "campaign" against Trump all you want on HL. I'm telling you- his supporters are steadfast, and it won't matter a wit. Trump will win the primary in NJ, and barring some unforeseen catastrophe (or some kind of Cruz surge), the GOP nomination.
At that point, it STILL won't matter if you campaign against him- because THEN he won't be going up against other conservatives or even moderates- he'll be going up against a lunatic socialist who thinks money grows on trees or a treasonous liar who should be indicted for security breeches of classified, top secret, and SAP information. It won't be a difficult choice for the righty and moderate voters; anyone who thinks they are a moderate and votes for Hillary over Trump is lying to themselves almost as bad as Hillary and Obama has lied to the country.
Conservative Right-----------------Moderate---------------Liberal Left-----------Socialist
--------Cruz----------------Trump----------------------------Hillary-----Obama-----Sanders
You guys can "campaign" against Trump all you want on HL. I'm telling you- his supporters are steadfast, and it won't matter a wit.
not sure I would use the term 'steadfast" to describe them
Although i don't think it was right thing to say, it is certainly proof that Trump is not afraid to speak his mind.
"not sure I would use the term 'steadfast" to describe them"
Oh well of course we could do the same talking about Obama supporters.... but we won't.
Not afraid to speak him mind and blurting out every stupid thought that pops into you head are 2 seperate things
Yeah he feels free. If you had $10B in net assets you might choose to speak without regards to civility as well. It's the reward he's reaping that's the interesting part. Somehow verbal abuse has become a badge of honor.
Bloomberg said that he would seriously consider running if Sanders, Cruz or Trump get their Party's nomination. If Hilary or Rubio, Christie, Bush, etc, get it he won't run.
Let him run. All he'll do is split the democrat votes. No one who is voting for Cruz or Trump will vote for Bloomberg. It would be one of the best things Bloomberg's ever done (altho that's a short list)
Saw a good quote from Republican governor of Ohio John Kasich, who is still in this thing...
"When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he's probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor.
You better have a good answer."
Yeah, I'd like to see what happens if Christie tells St. Peter to "sit down and shut up."
As for Trump, still not sure what the real Trump is ... time will tell.
I was fooled by a news channel spoiler that said a former New York mayor would be running. Got my hopes up that it was Rudy Giuliani, but it was Michael Bloomberg.
"Saw a good quote from Republican governor of Ohio John Kasich, who is still in this thing..."
LOL. HE apparently thinks so.
So Trump announced he's is skipping Thursday's debate because Megan Kelly is one of the hosts. Lol this guy wants to be president but he doesn't want to deal with anyone if they are not nice to him. Oh yea he'll get a lot accomplished as president.
I wonder what St. Peter would say about forceful redistribution? Do you think he'd say it's OK to force someone to be "kind" and "generous" through laws backed by folks having guns, ignoring that the mandated "kindness" is done against one's own free will?
Ah, never mind... ;-)
+100000 Darwin. He is ridiculous. Megan Kelly is fantastic in my opinion. He just doesn't like her tough earnest intelligible questions, which is contradicting..since he poses to be mister tough guy that can handle everything and anything. Is he afraid of a pretty blonde with ovaries?
If he can't deal with a commentator that calls him out, how the heck is he going to deal with running an entire country?
A spoiled little child he is.....
A quote from my favorite..Abraham Lincoln.
"Nearly all man can stand adversity (except for Trump), but if you want to test man's character give him power."
He has his name in the news for a few days and then show up. He is making a monkey out of the press. It's show business.
WOW,..Trumps is taking down the MEDIA! Journaiism is Dead, He has exposed the Establishment's hand in EVERYTHING!
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/27/donald-trumps-fox-debate-boycott-and-the-ridiculous-fox-news-response/#more-111541
Even MARK LEVIN has a dog in the game > http://laurenstephens.com/
Very disheartening...there is NO TRUTH in MEDAI anymore...
"A quote from my favorite..Abraham Lincoln. "
"Nearly all man can stand adversity (except for Trump), but if you want to test man's character give him power."
I wasn't aware Trump was 165 years old. Yet he STILL looks younger than Bernie Sanders!
The Donald is a threat to the professional hawkers and scammers. Very few of them have any honor in them. If you study the rules of both the party's, you will find they have planed for such events like Donald. Unless he runs the deck he is toast. Enjoy the show, I am.
Yeah, the press is laughing with Trump all the way to the bank; it's a symbiotic relationship. Getting Trump-slapped is a badge of honor now for these folks and both Trump's ratings and the maligned press ratings go up at the same time. It's a win-win. Now that's entertainment. Only the suckers lose.
Dumping the debate is also a win-win-win for Trump and not bad for FOX either. He shrewdly does not have to face Cruz where he has a 50/50 chance of losing the gunfight; he does not have to face anyone else sniping from the side, and his core constituency will say "he's the man" even though he's actually the man who's scared tot face the woman. She might ask unfair direct questions and treat him badly and he could be hurt by her plain speaking. Well, he'll show her who's richer, more powerful, and able to do whatever he wants. Soon she won't even be able to get a job. Hah, ask a tough question and "you're fired!!!!"
What's next? Like Nixon excluding certain journalists from the Press Room or Bush inserting his own in his. Ask a "unfair" question and be black-listed and banished.
Now FOX will suffer ratings drop from this but right now it's the hottest future show in town without Trump and if they compromise it will be even hotter. Wow, now that would be a clever plan if one was orchestrating how to win an election or get the best ratings for a debate ever. Hmmmmm, the art of the deal indeed. Sucker born every minute more like it.
It was on a completely different topic, but I heard the most interesting term in a conversation yesterday - Rage-a-holic.
(Sucker born every minute more like it.) SD
So it is in Caesars world. We are just pawns trying to survive and killing if we feel it's necessary.
GC Its just another disorder among all our other disorders.16 million people can do a lot of damage.
https://www.recoveryranch.com/articles/mental-health-articles/intermittent-explosive-disorder/
Trump also blasted Republican candidates for skipping the debate he was moderating in 2011. oh the irony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/09/aehq-trump-blasts-republicans-for-skipping-his-debate.html
"Now that's entertainment."
Finally, drilling down to the real issue! Or should I say problem. That we collectively want, apparently....
Trump is not boycotting the debate because of Megyn Kelly, it's about those sophomoric, ridiculous releases "in response" to Trump complaining about Megyn's second shot at the debates. I don't know how anyone can read those two releases, that sound like a 16 year old mean girl wrote and not see that FOX deserves what they got. Like Trump or hate him; I don't understand why nobody is pointing out the stupid, immature and downright classless releases FOX sent out to "stick up" for Megyn.
Megyn's "question" to Trump was really a long "statement" followed by a question. Megyn desperately wanted to get out to her fans that Trump is a misogynistic pig. That's NOT the role of a debate moderator.
Plus, why is she getting to moderate another debate? FOX has so many intelligent, well-spoken women who could do a great job. Why Megyn again, especially after the hubbub she created at the last one? It seems odd that that they would choose her again; she's not that great.
I'm not one to defend FOX News, but I was disappointed that Trump "opted out" of the appearance. Makes me wonder about how he will handle press conferences when/if he's president.
Hey, when the buck stops with you, you've got to be willing to face the tough questions. This is nothing compared to what he would face in the White House.
When you're in office, sorry, Donald, you can't say "You're Fired," to a reporter you don't like.
Because Fox "News" doesn't care about fair and impartial news. Murdoch cares about ratings and magazine/newspaper sales. It sure wasn't a problem when Fox wasn't fair and balanced against any Democrats. Now because they aren't fair and balanced against your bigoted messiah, you suddenly have a huge issue with them?
For the record, I'm on Kelly's side...and it has nothing to do with her GQ photo spread. Nope, not at all. No way, no how. And that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
http://www.gq.com/gallery/megan-kelly-fox-news-photos
Whenever FOX says things like "Fair and balanced," ... "we report, you decide" ... "no spin zone" ... it just makes me laugh.
I'm old enough to remember the propaganda that used to come from the Kremlin.
My mom used to correspond with her parents in Estonia back when that country was under Soviet control ... of course, every letter she sent there was opened up by inspectors who examined them for content, before they got to the people it was addressed to.
She'd get letters back, saying, how can you live in that terrible America, with all the rioting, poverty, pollution, police brutality (etc.) ... the Soviets would use every bit of bad news they could get from the USA to make people behind the Iron Curtain believe living in America was living in some kind of hell hole. They'd never let the people behind the Iron Curtain know any of the good.
That's what propaganda does.
I am a conservative and I have NEVER liked Megyn Kelly. I always found her to be condescending and fake. Also, she is not at all conservative and never has been. Not everyone on FOX is. I don't like Hannity either, never did.
Just because someone likes FOX does not mean they like all the shows, just like if someone likes to watch the Food Network does not mean they like all the chefs or if they like to watch the cartoon channel does not mean they love every cartoon!
You got to admit: Trump vs. FOX is just delicious. First we have the liberal, leftist press..... Then we have a network famous for lackluster fact checking and over the top bullying being bullied by the biggest bully on the block who, in turn is afraid of a young woman's questions.
So what is the issue in attempting to draw out a person accused of being a misogynistic pig as a misogynistic pig? And long questions are nice, gives you more time to calculate your response.
Personally I think the Ailes' statement was indeed a childish taunt in what's become a personal grudge match but one that's well deserved given the target. He needed to take a high road, perhaps nuance the Don's obvious weakness in dealing with controversy and direct firing line questions, while positioning the network's decision to back it's professionals. And now Trump won't even speak to Ailes, only to his boss so one has to wonder who the dealmaker will ask to speak with when Putin pisses him off?
And then the O'Reilly Trump interview last night was like a soap opera of the surreal. O'Reilly defied Ailes by airing Trump. Kelly has higher ratings so you be the judge of what O'Reilly thinks of her. Ailes peers are starting to dump on him. I mean it's a network Peyton Place of personal vendettas and petty politics. And the interview was a conjoined trip to Neverland by Bill and Don: a most excellent adventure. The milkshake scene is priceless. One of the classic Trump quotes: “Who would ever say something so nasty and dumb?” Uh, that would be Don, Don...... Then Don tweeted: "I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!" Well, I am so glad he didn't use the b-word except to use the b-word. Clever misogynistic pig.
Well, I refuse to call Donald Trump a misogynistic pig, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only say he has many problems with women.
Well if this is the Don on home turf, can't wait to see him in a real battle zone. Probably will be offed by friendly fire.
"I'm old enough to remember the propaganda that used to come from the Kremlin."
Yeah... these days, it comes from CNN, and the White House itself.
Trump will be on CNN from 9-11pm tonight in direct competition with the Republican debate on Fox. LOL, this would be sad if it wasn't so friggin' funny. Start practicing the words "Madam President"....
I'm old enough to remember sitting in the Philly Spectrum hearing the Flyers' fans chant .... Bernie, Bernie, Bernie ....
Fast forward 40 years ... there's another Bernie.
'
According to ALL the polls, you guys are misunderestimating Trump. We'll see....
[yes, grammar police: I use W's word on purpose]
Both Trump and the Fox author of "the response" have set the bar even lower, if that is even possible. They both showed complete lack of self control and maturity, basically that of Jr. high adolesents...sad, really disappointing behaviors during something as crucial as an American Presidential Election.
All which polls? These show Clinton mostly ahead of Trump...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
If you're going to call out a liberal news media channel for propaganda, at least go with MSNBC. Looks like CNN is the only one that's trying to be truthful.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/
So who moves up from the kiddie klown table or do they leave an empty podium?
And are you watching debate or Trump? I'm going debate since the Trumpisms will be creative whereas Trump will just be same old rant: bimbo/idiot/loser/polls/canada/bush and no plans except I will do a really swell job.
From what I watched today, I agree, emaxxman, that CNN seems to be trying to be somewhat objective and I don't even care for CNN most of the time. Crazy turn of events going on...
Suddenly CNN has been "fair and balanced" and also has been reporting everything left, right and center. They seem to be the only one's with their big girl/boy pants on for a change.
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-winner-november-trump-presidency-inspires-anxiety-poll/story?id=36555715
"While Trump leads the top GOP candidates in expectations, he inspires significant concerns among Americans as they contemplate him as president. Seven in 10 say they’re “anxious” about the idea as Trump as president, including 51 percent who feel that way strongly. In contrast, a bare majority says a Clinton presidency would make them anxious.
Of the candidates tested, only Sanders comes out ahead in terms of comfort vs. anxiety: Fifty percent of Americans are comfortable with the idea of a Sanders presidency vs. 43 percent who are anxious about it. Americans are more nervous than calm about Cruz (-8 points), and slightly more concerned about Rubio and Clinton (both -5).
The differences across candidates largely reflect partisanship, with the exception of Trump; he generates anxiety even among 44 percent of leaned Republicans and 50 percent of conservatives (including 60 percent of “somewhat” conservatives vs. 38 percent of those who describe themselves as very conservative). Anxiety about Clinton in her own party is far lower.
Trump inspires particular anxiety among nonwhites and women:
• Nine in 10 blacks and eight in 10 Hispanics are nervous about the thought of him as president vs. 62 percent of whites. Anxiety among nonwhites drops substantially for Rubio and Cruz.
• Women are 17 points more likely than men to be anxious about a Trump presidency, while the gender gap is smaller for Rubio and Cruz. Men are cooler than women to the idea of a Clinton presidency, though no different than women in their reaction to Sanders as president.
Among other groups, Americans living in rural areas are much warmer to the idea of Trump as president. Half would be comfortable with it, compared with just 30 percent of suburbanites and 20 percent of city-dwellers. "
So... according to this poll (for whatever it's worth-being a supposedly random poll consisting of 1,001 adults nationwide), 77% of women, 90% of black people and 80% of Hispanics feel "anxiety" when contemplating a Trump presidency. Even among those who identify as "conservative"... fully HALF of them stated that they felt anxiety about a Trump presidency.
I'm just not seeing the overwhelming populist support for this guy that others claim to see.
Read between the lines people, the truth will come out what's going on with Fox and Trump. It's going to be interesting. Could we see Trump at both events tonight??
Commenting is no longer available.